[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

________________________

No. 11-15230 

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________ 

D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00102-TJC-JRK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FILIBERTO MARTINEZ, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Florida 

________________________

(July 5, 2012)

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Filiberto Martinez appeals his 41-month sentence, imposed below the 

FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 5, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK
2

applicable guideline range, after pleading guilty to one count of reentry of a deported 

alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. ' 1326. On appeal, Martinez argues that his sentence 

was substantively unreasonable because the district court should have gone further 

in reviewing the factors in 18 U.S.C. ' 3553(a) and considered additional facts 

regarding his history and characteristics. In particular, Martinez contends that the 

court should have considered that he has a minor child who he supports in Mexico, 

that he has only three felony convictions, that he was already punished for his prior 

criminal offenses, and that he will be deported upon his release from prison.

This Court may “set aside a sentence only if we determine, after giving a full 

measure of deference to the sentencing judge, that the sentence imposed truly is 

unreasonable.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1191 (11th Cir. 2010) (en 

banc), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 1813 (2011). The party challenging the sentence 

bears the burden of establishing that it is substantively unreasonable in light of the 

record and the ' 3553(a) factors. 

Ordinarily, this Court expects a sentence within the guideline range to be 

reasonable. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008). A sentence 

imposed well below the statutory maximum penalty is another indicator of 

substantive reasonableness. See United States v. Gonzales, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 

(11th Cir. 2008) (holding that the sentence was reasonable in part because it was 
3

well below the statutory maximum). 

As a preliminary matter, because Martinez requested a sentence at the bottom 

of the guideline range at sentencing, he impliedly invited any sentence at or below 

the bottom of the range. Under the invited-error doctrine, this Court has previously 

held that “a party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited 

by that party.” United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1327 (11th Cir. 2005) 

(quotation omitted), and where the invited-error doctrine applies, “it precludes [this 

Court] from invoking the plain error rule and reversing.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

See also United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that 

invited-error doctrine precludes defendant from arguing that district court erred in 

imposing term of supervised release because defendant requested the district court to 

impose a term of supervised release).

Even if we do not apply the invited-error doctrine, however, Martinez’s 

sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the record and the ' 3553(a) 

factors. The district court discussed the ' 3553(a) factors at length, and held two 

separate hearings on the matter of the appropriate sentence in this case. While 

Martinez argues that the court should have considered other facts and disputes the 

weight accorded to his criminal history, the weight to be given any particular factor 

is left to the sound discretion of the district court absent a clear error of judgment. 
4

See Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190. Here, there was no clear error of judgment.

AFFIRMED.