We conclude that Hulse-Ebanks was not denied his right
of allocution. Rather, while the district court announced a
tentative sentence, it did not impose that sentence until after
hearing Hulse-Ebanks’ allocution. There was no violation of
Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). See United States v. Boose, 403 F.3d
1016, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Lopez-Lopez, 295
F.3d 165, 171 (1st Cir. 2002); United States v. Leasure, 122
F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 1997).
unreasonable because it is longer than necessary to achieve the
statutory goals of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.
Ct. 586, 597 (2007). In conducting our review, we first examine
the sentence for “significant procedural error,” including
“failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.” Id. The district court must provide an
“individualized assessment” based upon the specific facts before
it. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009)