Case: 14-10412 Date Filed: 04/03/2015 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10412
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:99-cr-00030-JES-DNF-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NATHANIEL WILLIS PITTS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 3, 2015)
Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Willis Pitts, Jr. appeals his sentence of 24 months of imprisonment
Case: 14-10412 Date Filed: 04/03/2015 Page: 2 of 2
following the second revocation of his supervised release. Pitts argues that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
Pitts is barred from challenging the reasonableness of his sentence. Under
the doctrine of invited error, when a defendant invites or induces the district court
to impose a particular sentence, the defendant cannot complain about that sentence
on appeal. United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009). After
the district court revoked Pitts’s supervised release and ordered him to serve 9
months of imprisonment and 24 months of supervised release, Pitts interjected that
“if [he was] going to go to prison, [he] might as well get it over with” and he
wanted to “serve the 24 months straight.” When questioned by the district court,
Pitts confirmed that he wanted a sentence of 24 months of imprisonment. Pitts
cannot contest the substantive reasonableness of a sentence that he requested. And
even if the doctrine of invited error did not apply, we would affirm Pitts’s sentence
within the guideline range as substantively reasonable.
We AFFIRM Pitts’s sentence.
2