v. Commonwealth, 49 Va.App. 17, 21, 635 S.E.2d 688, 689-90 (2006) (quoting Molina v. Commonwealth, 47 Va.App. 338, 368, 624 S.E.2d 83, 97 (2006)). “We can perform this examination only when the proponent proffers ‘the testimony he expected to elicit,’ rather than merely his theory of the case.” Id. at 21, 635 S.E.2d at 690. Powell v. Warden, No. 042716, 2005 WL 2980756 (Va. Nov. 8, 2005), a habeas corpus case, addresses this very issue and supports our view. The Court, in considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, held that the petitioner had not alleged what he would have said if he had been given the opportunity to address the court or how such a statement would have impacted the sentence he received. See also United States v. Magwood, 445 F.3d 826, 830 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); State v. Bowen, 259 Kan. 798, 915 P.2d 120,
holding that a letter utilized by the appellant in his argument would not be considered on appeal because it was not properly before the trial court holding an allocution error would not be reversed on appeal because the appellant did not furnish any information about what he would have allocuted to that might have mitigated his sentence holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his sentence because he did not object at trial holding that because the appellant could not have known what his sentence would be at the time he entered his plea monreal and blanco are not controlling holding forfeited theories will be reversed on appeal only if the appellant can satisfy the plain error standard