when he increased her sentence. Rule 35(c)(3)(C) requires a judge to always consider a defendant’s allocution when imposing sentence, even if the judge had previously announced a tentative sentence before the exercise of defendant’s right of allocution. See United States v. Mata-Grullon, 887 F.2d 23 (1st Cir.1989) (per curiam); see also United States v. Margiotti, 85 F.3d 100 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Wolfe, 71 F.3d 611, 614-15 (6th Cir.1995); United States v. Laverne, 963 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1992). When a judge announces a sentence before hearing an allocution, it is fair to assume that such a sentence is tentative and that the judge will consider the defendant’s statements before imposing a final sentence. See Mata-Grullon, 887 F.2d at 25; see, e.g., Margiotti, 85 F.3d at 104 (<HOLDING>); Laverne, 963 F.2d 235 (holding the right to
holding that where original sentencing judge imposed a guidelines sentence defendant could not be sentenced as a habitual offender upon violation of probation holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed holding that in case where the sentencing judge forgot to give defendant opportunity to speak before announcing a sentence but then promptly rectified the error by allowing defendant to speak the sentence was not imposed until after defendant allocuted holding that a judge who imposes a more severe sentence after the original sentence is successfully attacked must affirmatively state objective reasons for the harsher sentence to ensure that vindictiveness against the defendant plays no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant