United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ralph Anthony Upshaw, Defendant-appellant, 15 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1993)

The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. The memorandum disposition filed July 13, 1993, is withdrawn.

MEMORANDUM^* 

Ralph Anthony Upshaw appeals from his 203-month sentence for manufacturing methamphetamine.¹  We previously considered and upheld Upshaw's sentence, but we vacated and remanded for an explanation of why the trial court sentenced in the middle of the applicable guidelines range. United States v. Upshaw, 918 F.2d 789 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1335 (1991).

Upshaw now urges that on remand the sentencing judge failed to apply a new case, United States v. Gonzalez-Sanchez, 953 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1992), which he claims undermines the trial judge's original calculation of the amount of drugs. We disagree with Upshaw's contention that our earlier decision created a clean slate for resentencing. We stated in our prior opinion that we upheld the sentence in all respects except for the aforementioned explanation required under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Upshaw, 918 F.2d at 793. Our mandate merely required a clarification and did not call for the trial judge to begin the sentencing process de novo. Upshaw also argues the trial court still should have applied Gonzalez-Sanchez upon resentencing. Because Gonzalez-Sanchez does not alter the law as it pertains to Upshaw, we find that it was not error for the trial judge to refuse to consider the new decision.

Upshaw also argues that he should have been able to address the court on the subject of new evidence. All of Upshaw's new evidence is in the form of statements he would like to make to the court. None of it is new evidence in that it was all available to Upshaw prior to conviction and initial sentencing.

In addition, Upshaw contends that he should have been permitted to address the court as provided for under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(a) (1) (C). The plain language of Rule 32(a) (1) (C) gives a defendant a right of allocution only when a trial court is imposing sentence. See United States v. Barnes, 948 F.2d 325, 329 (7th Cir. 1991). The trial judge invited Upshaw to speak when he imposed the sentence; on remand, the trial judge merely clarified his reasons for that sentence. The rule, therefore, did not provide Upshaw a right to speak.² 

Finally, Upshaw argues that the trial court did not satisfactorily state a reason for choosing a sentence in the middle of the guidelines range. The trial judge explained that he considered Upshaw's individual characteristics, but did not explain whether he took into account certain systemic goals of deterrence and rehabilitation, which we also required him to consider. Upshaw, 918 F.2d at 792; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude, however, that the trial judge's statement provides adequate explanation to enable a reviewing court to perform its duties. We will not assume that by failing to mention each factor listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that the trial court failed to give each some consideration. In our earlier decision we mandated an explanation, not a checklist. Upshaw's sentence is therefore

AFFIRMED.