Id. In this case, the district court recognized that it may have neglected to ask Resendiz if he wished to allocute prior to imposing his sentence and eventually asked Resendiz if he wished to allocute. Resendiz nonetheless responded that he did not, since the issues he would have addressed with the district court were already addressed by his attorney. Moreover, Resendiz does not assert that he may have received a lesser sentence had he been allowed to allocute sooner. Thus, because Resendiz has not established that had he been allowed to allocute, his sentence may have been lower, he has not established that his substantial rights were violated and, accordingly, the district court’s error did not amount to plain error. Cf United States v. Cole, 27 F.3d 996, 999 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). We also discern no reversible error in the
recognizing plain error as a result of district courts failure to allow defendant to allocute where after issue was raised by defendant on appeal this court identified reasons why the district court may have imposed a lesser sentence had defendant been allowed to address the court holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal holding that this court reviews a booker issue de novo where the defendant objected in the district court to sentence enhancements based on facts not found by a jury nor admitted by the defendant holding that plain error review applies where the defendant fails to object to the lack of an opportunity to allocute holding that where an issue is raised in the district court but raised late and the district court declines to deem the issue waived the issue may be raised on appeal