[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15568

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:89-cr-01008-MP-GRJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 versus

THEODORE DWAYNE WHITFIELD, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(June 4, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-15568 Date Filed: 06/04/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

In 1989, Theodore Dwayne Whitfield pleaded guilty to conspiring to 

distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. The 

District Court sentenced him to a prison term of 327 months to be followed by a 

five-year term of supervised release. The latter term began on April 12, 2013, 

following his release from prison. 

On August 14, 2014, Whitfield was caught producing marijuana and 

possessing a controlled substance; two weeks later, his probation officer petitioned 

the District Court to revoke Whitfield’s supervised release for violating the 

mandatory conditions of the release—that he refrain from violating federal or state 

law. On December 4, 2014, the District Court held a hearing on the petition. 

Whitfield admitted the violation.1

 The following colloquy between the court, 

defense counsel, and Whitfield then took place: 

THE COURT: Let me find the guidelines.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, I don’t believe there are any

guidelines based upon the age of the conviction

and the year in which it was imposed. I have had

discussions with probation on this issue.

THE COURT: The report doesn’t show any, either, but your 

sentence could be revoked and you could be 

sentenced up to five years. Do you understand 

that, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

 1

 Whitfield pleaded nolo contendere, and the court accepted the plea because a state 

prosecution was pending against Whitfield. 

Case: 14-15568 Date Filed: 06/04/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

Doc. 209, at 3. Defense counsel urged the court to impose a short sentence of 

incarceration—no more than three to six months. The court imposed a thirty-six

month sentence of confinement, stating: “In imposing [the] sentence, I have 

considered the guidelines, policy statements, and other matters required by this 

Court.” Id. at 11.2

 The court then asked defense counsel whether the defendant 

had any objections to “any matters that have transpired here today or [any] motions 

and objections outstanding as to which I have not addressed myself.” Id. at 12. 

Counsel replied: “Just as to our request for self-surrender.” Id. 

Whitfield appeals the sentence the District Court imposed, claiming the 

following procedural irregularities. He argues that the court erred by failing to 

calculate and consider the grade of his violation and resulting guideline sentence

range before imposing sentence; that the guideline sentence range, had it been 

calculated, would have called for a sentence of less than thirty-six months; and that 

the court erred in failing to state a reason for the “upward variance.” 

When, as here, the defendant has not presented to the sentencing court 

objections he raises on appeal, we review his objections for plain error. United 

States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). Under plain error 

review, the defendant must show: error, that is plain, and that affects substantial 

rights. Id. We may then exercise our discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only 

 2

 The court expressly declined to impose a term of supervised release. 

Case: 14-15568 Date Filed: 06/04/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings. Id. 

Procedural error can include errors such as failing to calculate, or improperly 

calculating, the guidelines sentence range; treating the guidelines as mandatory;

failing to consider the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); selecting a 

sentence based on clearly erroneous facts; or failing to adequately explain the 

chosen sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 

L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007). 

The doctrine of invited error is implicated when a party induces or invites 

the district court into making an error. United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 

(11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Where invited error exists, we are precluded from 

invoking the plain-error rule. Id. 

Invited error occurred here. Whitfield’s counsel informed the court that 

there were no applicable sentencing guidelines and used the lack of guidelines to 

recommend a short sentence. Hence, Whitfield cannot argue that the error he now 

asserts requires our review. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-15568 Date Filed: 06/04/2015 Page: 4 of 4