Case ID: f-appx_279/html/0924-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark BELIDOR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-14719
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    May 30, 2008.
    Richard C. Klugh, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Kathleen M. Salyer, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant Mark Belidor (“Belidor”) appeals his sentence of 226 months imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). On appeal, Belidor argues that the district court erred by sentencing him as an armed career criminal under § 924(e) because: (a) his prior convictions for resisting arrest with violence did not meet the statutory definition of “crimes of violence,” as required by the statute, and (b) the government did not plead and prove to a jury the specific circumstances of his prior convictions.

We are precluded from reviewing an alleged defect, even for plain error, when a party has invited the error. United States v. Harris, 443 F.3d 822, 823-24 (11th Cir.2006). “The doctrine of invited error is implicated when a party induces or invites the district court into making an error.” Id.

Because Belidor stated at his sentencing hearing that he agreed with his classification as an armed career criminal, he invited the error of which he now complains, and, thus, we are precluded from reviewing the alleged error. Therefore, we conclude Belidor is entitled to no relief and we affirm his sentence.

AFFIRMED.