here that the sentencing judge complied with the requirements of Rule 32(c)(3)(C). Appellant made an allocution before the judge began announcing the sentence. The issue before us, however, is how to consider appellant’s second statement to the court. On the facts before us, in which the sentencing judge indicated, prior to the imposition of sentence, that appellant would be given an opportunity to respond, we hold that it was a continuation of the allocution. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not accord a defendant the right to a second allocution. In fact, the rules do not even require a sentencing court to remind a defendant of the right to allocute so long as the court clearly notifies the defendant once. See United States v. Franklin, 902 F.2d 501, 506-07 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). However, the fact that there is no right to a
holding that defense counsel opened the door to the prosecutions questioning of the defendant about prior convictions when defense counsel asked a prosecution witness whether he was aware that the defendant was  a convicted felon holding right to allocution not denied when judge addressed defendant by name and asked him if he had anything to say but did not renew that invitation after defense counsel finished speaking holding that the trial court violated the defendants allocution rights when the court in the defendants absence did not afford  defense counsel an opportunity to present information in mitigation of punishment holding that the trial court violated the defendants allocution rights when the court sentenced him without allowing him to offer mitigating remarks holding the defendant was not under arrest when police asked him to go to the station and then offered him a ride because he did not have transportation