Case: 12-10360 Date Filed: 10/04/2012 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10360
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cr-00309-SCB-TGW-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL ANTONIO TORRES,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(October 4, 2012)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-10360 Date Filed: 10/04/2012 Page: 2 of 5
Miguel Torres appeals his sentence of 384 months of imprisonment
following his pleas of guilty to brandishing a firearm during a robbery, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A), and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a carjacking, id.
Torres argues, for the first time on appeal, that his sentences to statutory minimum
terms of imprisonment are contrary to the goals of the Sentencing Commission and
fail to account for the statutory sentencing factors. Torres also argues, for the first
time, that his cumulative sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. The government argues that Torres waived
his right to appeal his sentence and invited the errors about which he complains.
We affirm.
Torres entered a plea agreement with the government where, in exchange
for his two pleas of guilty, the government agreed to dismiss one count of
brandishing a firearm, two counts of robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act, and
two counts of carjacking. The plea agreement stated that Torres faced a
mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years for brandishing a firearm during a
robbery to run consecutive to a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for
brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a carjacking. The plea agreement provided
that Torres waived his right to appeal or challenge collaterally his sentence subject
to three exceptions: the sentence exceeded the “applicable guidelines range as
2
Case: 12-10360 Date Filed: 10/04/2012 Page: 3 of 5
determined by the Court”; the sentence exceeded the maximum statutory penalty;
or the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.
At a change of plea hearing before a magistrate judge, Torres verified that
he had read and understood each page of the plea agreement. Torres
acknowledged that he faced a minimum sentence of 32 years of imprisonment and
that he had agreed, subject to the three exceptions, to waive the right to appeal his
sentence. The district court later accepted Torres’s guilty pleas.
In a sentencing memorandum, Torres requested a sentence of 32 years of
imprisonment. Torres stated that “32 years . . . is a just punishment that takes into
consideration the nature and circumstances of [his] offense, [his] history and
characteristics . . . , the seriousness of [his] offense, the notion of promoting
respect for the rule of law” and would “provide just punishment for the offense, . .
. afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and . . . protect the public from
future crimes . . . .” Torres acknowledged that the “statutory scheme . . . d[id] not
allow [him] to argue for anything less than 32 years.”
During the sentencing hearing, defense counsel stated that Torres “rest[ed]
on what [he] put in the Sentencing Memorandum” and “accept[ed] his
punishment.” The district court sentenced Torres to 384 months of imprisonment.
The district court reminded Torres that he “had waived his right to appeal by
3
Case: 12-10360 Date Filed: 10/04/2012 Page: 4 of 5
entering into the plea agreement,” and Torres acknowledged the remarks made by
the district court that it had not committed an error that fell within any of the three
exceptions to the waiver.
Torres argues that the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences is
contrary to the goals of the Sentencing Commission and fails to account for the
statutory sentencing factors, but these arguments are barred by the appeal waiver
in Torres’s guilty plea. The magistrate judge explained the waiver to Torres
during his change of plea hearing, and Torres acknowledged that he had agreed to
waive his right to appeal his sentence. See United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399
F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005). Torres knowingly and voluntarily waived the
right to appeal these two aspects of his sentence.
Torres’s appeal waiver does not bar his argument that his sentence violates
the Eighth Amendment, but that argument is barred under the doctrine of invited
error. Torres invited the district court to sentence him to 32 years of
imprisonment. See United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006).
Because Torres received the sentence that he requested, he “cannot now, on
appeal, complain that the [sentence] was erroneous.” United States v. Chandler,
996 F.2d 1073, 1084 (11th Cir. 1993).
Even if Torres had not invited a sentence of 32 years, his argument about a
4
Case: 12-10360 Date Filed: 10/04/2012 Page: 5 of 5
violation of the Eighth Amendment would fail. Torres’s sentences of 84 months
and 300 months for his firearms crimes were mandatory. See United States v.
Castaing-Sosa, 530 F.3d 1358, 1361–62 (11th Cir. 2008). Torres agreed to a
sentence of 32 years of imprisonment, and he acknowledged in his sentencing
memorandum and at the sentencing hearing that the sentence was just and
reasonable. “In general, a sentence within the limits imposed by statute is neither
excessive nor cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment,” United States v.
Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks
omitted), and Torres fails to explain how his sentence is grossly disproportionate
to his crimes.
We AFFIRM Torres’s sentence.
5