Case: 11-14220 Date Filed: 02/08/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-14220
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20821-PAS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSE LORENZO,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 8, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-14220 Date Filed: 02/08/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Jose Lorenzo, proceeding pro se, appeals his sentences based on his
convictions for three counts of attempting to bring an alien into the United States
for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). On appeal, Lorenzo argues that the district court erred
when it ordered his sentences to run partially concurrent with a term of
imprisonment he was serving for a previous offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 5G1.3(c). After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
Ordinarily, we review a district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing
Guidelines and application of the Guidelines to the facts de novo, and review the
court’s factual findings for clear error. United States v. Register, 678 F.3d 1262,
1266 (11th Cir. 2012). We review a district court’s application of U.S.S.G.
§ 5G1.3 de novo. United States v. Bidwell, 393 F.3d 1206, 1208–09 (11th Cir.
2004). However, “the doctrine of invited error is implicated when a party induces
or invites the district court into making an error. Where a party invites error, [this]
Court is precluded from reviewing that error on appeal.” United States v. Brannan,
562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotations, alteration, and citation omitted);
see United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that the
defendant was precluded from claiming that the district court erred in sentencing
him to a five-year term of supervised release because he “induced or invited the
district court to impose a sentence that included a term of supervised release”).
2
Case: 11-14220 Date Filed: 02/08/2013 Page: 3 of 3
Here, Lorenzo specifically requested the district court order his five-year
mandatory minimum sentence for alien smuggling to run concurrently with his
undischarged cocaine conspiracy conviction. Over the government’s objections,
the district court imposed the sentence Lorenzo requested. Consequently,
Lorenzo’s argument that the court erred in running his sentences partially
concurrent is foreclosed by the doctrine of invited error.
AFFIRMED.
3