FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 2, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11578 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C
. Do c k e tNo
. 0 4
- 0 0 0 6 3
- C R
- F T M- 2 9 DN F U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s H U B E R T B . F A R Q U H A R S O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 2, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: H u b e r t F a r q u h a r s o n ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n , a f te ra g u ilty p le a to k n o w in g ly
a nd w i l f ul l y pos s essi n g w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e 1, 000 ki l ogr a m s orm or e of2

m a r iju a n a , a v io la t io n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v ii) . O n ap p e a l, F a r q u h a r so n rai ses tw o cl ai m s: (1 ) th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred b y d en yi n g h is
m ot i on t o sup pres s, and (2) thatthe di strict co u rt erre d b y a cc ept i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea
u n d e ra th e o ry o f

d e l i b e r a t e i g n o r a n c e . W e a f f i r m. A s f or F ar qu hars on ’ s f

i rs tar gu m ent , because he e nt er ed an un cond i t i on al g u ilty p le a , th u s w a iv in g a ll n o n ju r is d ic tio n a l d e f

e c ts , in c lu d in g a n y c h a lle n g e to th e d i s tr i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s , w e w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r th e c l a i m. U n ite d S ta te s v . P a tti, 3 3 7 F .3 d 1 3 1 7 , 1 3 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “G e n e r a lly , a vol unt a ry , unco n d i t i ona l gui l ty pl e a w a i ve s a l l nonj ur i s di c t i ona l de f e c t s i n the pr oc e e di n g s. ”); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W a i
- K e ung, 115 F
. 3d 874, 877 ( 11th C i r . 1997) (h o ld in g th at w e w il l n o t co n sid era d ef en d an t’ s c h alle n g e to th e d istrict co u rt’s deni al of a m ot i on t o sup p re ss i f thati ss ue i s notpres erved i n a cond i t i on al pl ea ent er ed un der F ed. R
. C ri m . P
. 11 ). A n d w e w ill n o t c o n s id e rh is s e c o n d a r g u m e n t, b a s e d o n h is f a ilu r e to pr e s e r ve i tbe l ow . “ [ I ] ti s a c a r di na l rul e of ap p el l at e r e vi e w tha ta pa r ty m a y not
c ha l l e nge a s e rr ora rul i ng orothe rtr i a l pr oc e e di ng i nvi t e d by t h atpa r ty . T he do ctri ne of i nv i t ed error i s i m pl i ca t ed w hen a party i n d u ce s o r i nv i t es the di stri ct
c our ti nt o m a ki ng a n e rr or . W he r e i nvi t e d err ore xi s t s , i tpr e c l ude s a c our tf r om i n v o k i n g th e p l a i n e rr o r ru l e a n d r e v e r s i n g . ” U n i t e d St a t e s v . Si l v e s tr i , 409 F
. 3d3

1 3 1 1 , 1 3 2 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . W ith r e s p e c t to F ar qu har s on ’ s c ha l l e ng e t o the di s tr i c tc ou r t ’ s us e of the de l i be r a t e i gn or a nce the ory , F a r quha r s on r e pe a t e dl y i nvi t e d the di s tr i c tc our tt o accep t h i s pl e a ba s e d on th a t v e ry th e o ry . T h u s , u n d e rth e in v ite d e rr o rd o c tr in e , w e d o n o t c o n s id e rth is is s u e . AF F I RME D.