Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): invites an error may not later challenge that error on appeal. Id. As a result, “[wjhere invited error exists, it precludes a court from invoking the plain error rule and reversing.” Id. (quotation omitted). In this case, not only did appellant fail to object to the district court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence, but his attorney agreed with the court that U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) directed the court to impose a consecutive sentence. In short, the invited error doctrine precludes our consideration of the first issue appellant raises. II. A district court commits Booker error if it applies the Guidelines in a mandatory fashion. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330-31 (11th Cir.2005); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (<HOLDING>). While U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) states that any 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district courts use of the sentencing guidelines as a mandatory regime was harmless error because appellant could not receive a lesser sentence than the mandatory minimum required by  2251d (B) holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines  the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence  constitutes error (C) holding that a district courts treatment of the guidelines as mandatory renders a sentence procedurally unreasonable (D) recognizing that if a guidelines error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed the sentence should be affirmed (E) holding that a sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court committed no significant procedural error such as failing to calculate or improperly calculating the guidelines range treating the guidelines as mandatory failing to consider the  3553a factors selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence emphasis added
Output (English): holding that the district courts use of the sentencing guidelines as a mandatory regime was harmless error because appellant could not receive a lesser sentence than the mandatory minimum required by  2251d