FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 5, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 64 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 7- cr-2 05 49 -MGC- 1
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ANTIOWAN W IWO , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 64 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 09 -cv -2 07 85 -MGC ; 1: 07 -cr- 20 54 9- MGC-1 ANTIOWAN W IWO , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs usUNITED 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 Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 5 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: The di stric t co urt g ran te d An ti owan Wiwo ’s m ot io n t o v acat e u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. §§ 22 41 & 2 25 5, re se nt en cedW iwo to a sh orte r te rm of i m pr is on m en t, an d en te redanam en de d ju dg m en t. The Gov ern m en t ap pe al s, cl ai m in g t ha t Wiwo pr oc edur al ly defau lt edhi s cl ai m . W e ag ree. We vac at e b ot h o rd ers an d re m an d t o th e d is tri ctco urt wi th in st ru ct io ns to rei ns ta te W iwo ’s ori gi na l s en te nc e. I. In20 07 , W iwo pl ead edgu il ty to b ei ng a fel on in po ss es si onof afir earm . The di st ric t co urt s en te nc edhi m to serve 84 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, fo ll owe d b y

2 y ears of s up erv is edrel eas e. W iwo di d n otap pe al . In 2 00 9, Wiwo f il eda § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e h is sen te nc e, rel y in g o n b ot hBega y v. Uni te d Sta te s , 55 3 U.S. 13 7 (2 00 8) , and Uni te d Sta tes v. Ar ch er , 53 1 F .3d13 47 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) to arg ue 2th athi s s en te nc e was il le ga l. The di st ric t co urt, ci ti ng W of fo rd v. Sc ot t , 17 7 F .3d 12 36 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ), gr an te d re li ef an d re se nt en cedW iwo to a te rm of 5 8 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t an d 2 y ears of s up erv is edrel eas e. The pa rti es ag ree o n app eal th atth e d is tri ctco urt erro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d W of fo rd , se e Gil be rt

v. Uni te d Sta te s , 64 0 F .3d12 93 , 13 19 -2 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) , th atW iwo pro cedur al ly defau lt edhi s cl ai m by fail in g t o fi le a di rectap pe al , and th atou r pr eced en t p recl ud es W iwo fro m ov erco m in g t hi s p ro cedur al de fau lt . Se e McKa y v. Uni te d Sta tes , 65 7 F .3d11 90 , 11 96 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ), pe t. f or cer t. f il ed (Ap r 23 , 20 12 ) (U.S. No. 1 1- 99 85 ). Neve rth el es s, Wiwo u rg es us to affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s erro ne ou s o rd er. II. Gen eral ly, we rev ie w a § 2 25 5 p ro ceed in g u nd er a m ix edst an da rd , rev ie win g fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r an d l eg al is su es de no vo . Lyn n v . Uni te d St at es , 36 5 F .3d12 25 , 12 32 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Howev er, Wiwo cl ai m s we are en ti rel y pre cl ud edfro m

rev ie win g t he di st ric t co urt’s erro r be cau se th e Gov ern m en t i nv it edth aterro r. Alt ern at iv el y , W iwo cla im s a p la in erro r st an da rd sh ou ldap pl y

be cau se th e Gov ern m en t wai ve d t he pro cedur al de fau ltcla im by fai li ng to “ ob

ject” th atW iwo was n otactua ll y in no cen t.

3A party m ay no t ch al le ng e as erro r a ru li ng in vi te d b y th atpa rty. Uni te d St at es v. Lo ve , 44 9 F .3d11 54 , 11 57 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “ The do ctrin e o f in vi te d erro r is im

pl ic at edwhen a pa rty induc es or i nv it es th e d is tri ctco urt i nt o m ak in g a n erro r.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Sto ne , 13 9 F .3d82 2, 8 38 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Inv it ederro r m os t fr eque nt ly occu rs when a pa rty int ro du ces ot he rwis e in ad m is si bl e ev id en ce attri al or s ub m it s i nc orrectjury in st ru ct io ns with wh ic h t he co urt ch arg es th e jury. Id
. Whe n apa rty’ s wo rd s o r act io ns ex pr es sl y acce ptth e po si ti onch al le ng edon ap pe al , th atpa rty inv it edth e err or . Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Si lv es tr i , 40 9 F .3d13 11 , 13 37 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). The Gov ern m en t n ev er ac cep te d t he di st ric t co urt’s erro ne ou s l eg al po si ti on . In fa ct , th e Gov ern m en t co ns is te nt ly clai m edW iwo pro cedur al ly de fau lt edhi s cl ai m . The Go ve rn m en t d idno t p ro po se , acce pt , or a do ptth e erro ne ou s l eg al co nc lu si on reac he d b y th e d is tri ctco urt. The in vi te d e rro r do ctrin e is in ap po si te to th is cas e. W iwo de sc rib es th e Gov ern m en t’s ar gu m en t i n fa vo r of pro cedur al de fau lt as a ne w “ ob

jecti on ” th atsh ou ldha ve be enrai se d b efo re the di st ric t co urt, an d in si st s p la in -err orrev ie w is ap pr op ria te . Alth ou gh a pa rty m ay waiv e an ob

jecti on in di st ric t co urt b y

no t cl earl y

art ic ul at in g i t, se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Zi nn , 32 1 F .3d 10 84 , 10 87 -8 8 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 3) , on ce a c la im ha s b een pro pe rly rais ed , any 4arg um en t m ay be adva nc edin supp ort o f th atcla im on ap pe al . Pug li es e v. Puk ka Dev., In c. , 55 0 F .3d12 99 , 13 04 n.3 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The Go ve rn m en t h as co ns is te nt ly clai m edpro cedur al de fau ltpre cl ud es W iwo ’s reque st edrel ie f. W e th eref or e rejectW iwo ’s pro po se d p la in -err orst an da rd , andrev ie w th e d is tri ct co urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s d e n ov o. W iwo co nf

es se s t he di st ric t co urt co m m it te d l eg al erro r, an d c on ced es hi s cl ai m is pro cedur al ly defau lt ed . Our p rece de ntdi ct at es th e sa m e res ul t. Se e McKa y , 65 7 F .3dat 1 99 6; Gil be rt , 64 0 F .3dat 1 31 9- 23 . W e v acat e th e d is tri ct co urt’s o rd er an d i ts am en de d ju dg m en t, an d re m an d t o t he di st ric t co urt wi th in st ru ct io ns to rei ns ta te th e o rig in al sen te nc e. VACATED AND REMANDED.

5