has shown no reversible error in that discussion, especially given that the district court upwardly departed because of Coleman’s under-represented criminal history. AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 1 . See United States v. Coleman, 212 Fed.Appx. 297 (5th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (unpublished opinion). 2 . Id. at 298. 3 . Id. 4 . Id. at 299. 5 . Id. at 300. 6 . Gall v. United States, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). 7 . Id. at 597. 8 . Id. 9 . United States v. Griffith, 522 F.3d 607, 611-12 (5th Cir.2008). 10 . Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. 11 . See United States v. Moree, 928 F.2d 654 (5th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 12 . See United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344
holding that privilege applies in similar factual circumstances holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances holding in circumstances similar to those here that the defendant had a right to allocute at resentencing holding so under circumstances similar to the present ones holding that denial of right to allocute was not prejudicial because district court sentenced defendant to low end of guideline range