Case: 12-16165 Date Filed: 08/14/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-16165
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20469-MGC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CELSO LOPEZ-CARRANZA,
a.k.a. Gerardo Carranza,
a.k.a. Gerrardo Gomez,
a.k.a. Cesar Lopez,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 14, 2013)
Before CARNES, Chief Judge, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-16165 Date Filed: 08/14/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Celso Lopez-Carranza appeals his 70-month sentence imposed after
pleading guilty to illegal re-entry into the United States after deportation
subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)
and (b)(2). On appeal, Lopez-Carranza argues that his sentence was unreasonable
because the district court considered his need for substance abuse treatment when
it imposed his sentence.
Under the doctrine of invited error, this court will not review an error that is
invited or induced by a party. United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1327 (11th
Cir. 2005). “Where invited error exists, it precludes a court from invoking the
plain error rule and reversing.” Id.
Here, Lopez-Carranza invited any purported error at sentencing. The record
demonstrates that he specifically requested the 70-month low-end guideline
sentence which he received, and that he did not object to the sentence when given
an opportunity to do so at the sentencing hearing. Hence, because Lopez-Carranza
received the sentence he requested, we conclude that he is now precluded from
challenging the reasonableness of that sentence. See United States v. Love, 449
F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that invited-error doctrine precludes
defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant
2
Case: 12-16165 Date Filed: 08/14/2013 Page: 3 of 3
requested sentence of supervised release). Accordingly, we affirm Lopez-
Carranza’s sentence. 1
AFFIRMED.
1
Even if Lopez-Carranza had not invited the sentencing error, we conclude that his
sentence was reasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors. Although the district
court discussed recuperation as a collateral benefit of incarceration for Lopez-Carranza, the court
did so after finding that “the 3553 factors are reflected in the guideline range sentence.” Because
we conclude that the district court did not impose the sentence to promote rehabilitation, we hold
that there was no clear error.
3