[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
No. 08-16707 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-20319-CR-DLG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM ORTEGA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 10, 2009)
Before BLACK, WILSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William Ortega appeals his convictions for possession of and conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, 851. He argues the district court erred in failing to grant
a mistrial or inquire into the jury’s deliberations when comments made during
polling of the verdict suggested one of the jurors had difficulty understanding
English.
“It is well established in this Circuit that to invite error is to preclude review
of that error on appeal.” United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980, 1000 (11th Cir.
2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2790 (2009). “[A] criminal defendant may not
make an affirmative, apparently strategic decision at trial and then complain on
appeal that the result of that decision constitutes reversible error.” United States v.
Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1290 (11th Cir. 2003).
Ortega successfully objected to the government’s attempt to strike the juror
in question for cause due to its concerns about her English-language
comprehension. When confusion arose during polling, the district court spoke with
the juror individually and she satisfied him that the verdict was her true verdict.
Ortega suggested that the court also ask other jurors about her understanding of the
deliberations, but when the court offered instead to ask the juror herself whether
she had understood the trial testimony, Ortega said he “like[d] that better” and that
2
her understanding of the testimony was “the ultimate issue.” He did not raise any
further objections or move for a mistrial. Because Ortega affirmatively sought or
expressly consented to each of the district court’s decisions, he invited any error
the court might have made and thereby waived appellate review. See id. at 1290;
Campa, 529 F.3d at 1000.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Ortega’s convictions.
AFFIRMED.
3