              IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                      _____________________

                           No. 99-41033
                         Summary Calendar
                      _____________________


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Plaintiff-Appellee,

                               versus

GABRIEL ESCALERA-DIAZ, also
known as Rene Delgado-Diaz,

                                              Defendant-Appellant.

******************************************************************

                        Consolidated with

                      _____________________

                           No. 99-41091
                      _____________________


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Plaintiff-Appellee,

                               versus

GABRIEL ESCALERA,

                                             Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. B-99-CR-202-0
                      USDC No. B-96-CR-145-1
_________________________________________________________________

                            July 11, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Gabriel Escalera-Diaz asserts only that the district court did

not afford him the right of allocution before imposing sentence on

his conviction for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b) and before

imposing sentence on the revocation of supervised release.                The

government agrees that the sentences should be vacated and the

cases remanded so that Escalera-Diaz may be afforded the right of

allocution.

     The district court shall, before imposing sentence, “address

the defendant personally and determine whether the defendant wishes

to make a statement and to present any information in mitigation of

the sentence.”        Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(C) (West 2000).            In

sentencing upon revocation of supervised release, the defendant is

entitled   to   the    right   of   allocution.   See   United   States    v.

Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 919, 921 (5th Cir. 1994).

     The issue of the denial of the right to allocution is not

subject to harmless or plain error analysis.        See United States v.

Echegollen-Barrueta, 195 F.3d 786, 789 (5th Cir. 1999).          We review

the record de novo to determine whether the district court afforded

a defendant the right to allocution. Id.

     *
      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.




                                       2
     The record demonstrates that the district court did not comply

with Rule 32(c)(3)(C).   Accordingly, Escalera-Diaz’s sentences are

VACATED and the cases are REMANDED for resentencing.

                                             VACATED and REMANDED.




                                 3
