United States v. Daniels, No. 13-50331 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence after revocation of supervised release. The court concluded that the district court committed plain error when it violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(E) when it did not affirmatively offer defendant an opportunity to speak before imposing its sentence. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Court Description: Criminal Law. Vacating a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release and remanding for resentencing, the panel held that Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(E) requires a court to address a supervised releasee personally to ask if he wants to speak before the court imposes a post-revocation sentence, and that a district court that does not offer a supervised releasee the chance to exercise that right commits plain error.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.