UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4909

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TREMAYNE S. GOSS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:12-cr-00157-BO-1)

Submitted: June 6, 2013 Decided: June 13, 2013

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tremayne Goss pled guilty to possession with intent to 

distribute a quantity of cocaine and possession with intent to 

distribute a quantity of cocaine and a quantity of cocaine base, 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006). After sustaining 

Goss’ objection to the drug weight attributed to him in the 

presentence report, the district court imposed a 

within-Guidelines sentence of eighty-four months’ imprisonment. 

Goss appeals. On appeal, he argues only that his sentence was 

not substantively reasonable because it was based on a 

Guidelines range driven in large measure by a confidential 

informant’s uncorroborated statement. In opposition, the 

Government asserts that Goss invited the error of which he now 

complains. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

As a general rule, “‘a court can not be asked by 

counsel to take a step in a case and later be convicted of 

error, because it has complied with such a request.’” United 

States v. Herrera, 23 F.3d 74, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting 

Shields v. United States, 273 U.S. 583, 586 (1927)). Thus, we 

“will not consider alleged errors that were invited by the 

appellant,” absent a showing of such “extraordinary 

circumstances” as “an apparent miscarriage of justice or doubt 

as to the integrity of the judicial process.” United States v. 
3

Hickman, 626 F.3d 756, 772 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

At sentencing, Goss objected to the informant’s 

statement, asserting that it was vague and resulted in a 

substantially higher drug quantity than that involved in his 

offenses. As a remedy for these objections, defense counsel 

requested only that the district court remove one ounce of 

cocaine from the informant’s drug weight estimate to qualify 

Goss for the lower base offense level of twenty-six. The court 

did just this, adopting the lower drug weight as requested by 

Goss and imposing a sentence within the Guidelines range 

established by the resulting base offense level. Goss made no 

further objection to this Guidelines range and did not request a 

different sentence. Goss does not demonstrate that a 

miscarriage of justice will result from, or that the judicial 

process will be compromised by, the alleged error. Because the 

sentence Goss now identifies as unreasonable resulted from a 

remedy his counsel specifically requested, we conclude that 

Goss’ argument is invited error not subject to review by this 

court.*

 * In any event, were we to consider the issue on its merits, 

we would conclude without difficulty that Goss has not met his 

burden to rebut the presumption of substantive reasonableness 

accorded his within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. 

Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).
4

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED