FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 8, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 75 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cr-0 00 20 -J A-DAB-7 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us YAW MARFO, a.k .a. Yaw Dani el Marf

o, a.k .a. Dani el Add o, a.k .a. Dan, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 8, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARTIN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Pu rs uantto a pl ea ag reem en t, Yaw Ma rfo pl edgu il ty to t wo co un ts of asi xco un t i nd ic tm en t: Co un t On e, co ns pi racy to c omm itba nkfrau d a ndto ut te r a fo rg edsec ur ity , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 71 , andCo un t Si x, co ns pi racy to co m m ittax frau d, i n v io la ti on of 8 U.S.C. § 2 86 . The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edhi m atth e lo w-en d o f th e ap pl ic ab le Sen te nc in g Gu id el in e to co nc urren t p ris on term s of 41 m on th s. He ap pe al s h is sen te nc es , con te nd in g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby in cl ud in g t he to ta l am ou ntof $ 51 0,5 23 .32 of i nt en de d l os s i n c al cu la ti ng th e of fen se lev el , rathe r th anin cl ud in g o nl y th e $ 90 ,00 0 o f actua l l os s fo r whi ch he was res po ns ib le . I. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s l os s d et erm in at io n fo r cl ear e rro r. Uni te d St at es v. W

oo da rd , 45 9 F .3d10 78 , 10 87 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A defe nd an t’s fa il ur e to ob ject t o a ll eg at io ns of f

actin a pr es en te nc e rep ort ad m it s t ho se fact s fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es . Uni te d Sta tes v. Wad e , 45 8 F .3d12 73 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Furth er, “ a p art y

m ay no t ch al le ng e as erro r a ru li ng or o th er tria l pr oc eed in g i nv it edby tha t p art y .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo ve , 44 9 F .3d11 54 , 11 57 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (ci ta ti onom it te d) . “ The do ctrin e o f in vi te d e rro r is im pl ic at ed whe n apa rty induc es or i nv it es th e d is tri ctco urt i nt o m ak in g a n e rro r.” Id
. (quo ta ti onom it te d) . “ The do ctrin e st em s fr om th e co m m on sen se vi ew th atwher e 2a p art y

in vi te s t he tri al co urt t o c omm iterro r, he can no t l at er cry fou l o n app eal .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Br an na n , 56 2 F .3d13 00 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ).

“ [A] part y

see ki ng to rai se a cl ai m

or i ss ue on ap pe al m

us t p la in ly and pr om in en tl y

so in di cat e. Oth erwi se , th e is su e—e ve n i f pr op erl y pre se rv edat tri al —wi ll be co ns id eredab an do ne d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. J erni ga n , 34 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 83 n.8 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Bec au se Marf

o a dm it te d a t s en te nc in g t ha t t he pre se nt en ce re po rt’s l os s an d of fen se lev el cal cu la ti on s wer e co rrec t, h e h as in vi te d h is all eg ederro r. In ad di ti on , he a ls o h as no t s uf fic ie nt ly rais eda reas on ab le ne ss is su e o n app eal , so he ha s ab an do ne d t ha t i ss ue . AFFIR MED,

3