district court failed to address Moreira personally before it sentenced her. Thus, there was error, and it was plain. Prouty, 303 F.3d at 1252. Although the district court plainly erred by not addressing Moreira personally, regardless of whether its warning deprived her of the right to allocute, Moreira still has the burden of demonstrating that the error affected her substantial rights. See id. She cannot meet this burden because the district court sentenced her at the bottom of the sentencing guideline range. “We have held that the denial of the right of allocution presumptively affects a defendant’s substantial rights only where the possibility of a lower guidelines sentence exists.” United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 568, 583 (11th Cir.2011); see also Quintana, 300 F.3d at 1231-32 (<HOLDING>). Moreira’s guideline sentencing range was 235
holding that denial of right to allocute was not prejudicial because district court sentenced defendant to low end of guideline range holding that consideration by a sentencing court of acquitted conduct was appropriate in establishing the applicable guideline range or in determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range holding in circumstances similar to those here that the defendant had a right to allocute at resentencing holding in booker error case where defendant was sentenced at lowend of guideline range that defendant did not establish a reasonable probability of a different result where court expressed no desire to impose a lower sentence holding that a defendant met the third prong of plain error analysis demonstrating prejudice resulting from a booker error where the sentencing judge made several statements indicating the mandatory guideline sentence was very very severe and sentenced the defendant at the low end of the guideline range