[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-11617

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20383-UU-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAMIAN MAYOL, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(October 16, 2017)

Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-11617 Date Filed: 10/16/2017 Page: 1 of 3 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Damian Mayol, proceeding pro se,

* appeals his conviction for conspiracy to 

pay healthcare kickbacks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and 42 U.S.C. § 1320a7b(b)(2)(A). No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

Mayol says he provided his trial lawyer with business records from his 

company, Transportation Services Providers (“TSP”). Mayol intended to use the 

TSP business records, or portions thereof, in his defense at trial. Mayol’s lawyer, 

however, permitted the government to view the business records -- without 

Mayol’s consent. The government then put into evidence a composite of 

documents from the TSP business records. 

On appeal, Mayol contends that his lawyer violated attorney-client privilege 

and Mayol’s Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by providing the 

government pre-trial access to the TSP business records. Mayol also contends that 

the district court abused its discretion and violated his due process rights by 

admitting into evidence the TSP business records. He says, because the TSP 

business records were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, the records 

should have been excluded -- pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403 -- as unduly 

prejudicial. Mayol also asserts that the admission of the TSP business records --

 * We earlier granted Mayol’s motion to proceed pro se on appeal. We construe liberally pro se

pleadings. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 

Case: 16-11617 Date Filed: 10/16/2017 Page: 2 of 3 
3

which included lists of names, check stubs, and van itineraries and routes -- was so 

cumulative that its effect was more prejudicial than probative. 

First, to the extent Mayol contends his trial lawyer rendered ineffective 

assistance of counsel, we decline to address that claim on this appeal. We will not 

consider ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims raised on direct appeal where --

as here -- “the district court did not entertain the claim nor develop a factual 

record.” See United States v. Bender, 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002). 

Instead, the preferred method of raising ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims is 

in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 

500, 504-05 (2003). 

We reject Mayol’s challenge to the admissibility of the TSP business 

records; the challenge is barred by the doctrine of invited error. At trial, discussion 

took place between the district court and the parties about the admissibility of the 

TSP business records. But in the end, Mayol’s lawyer stipulated that the records 

were in fact admissible. When a defendant stipulates to the admissibility of 

evidence at trial -- and, thus, “invites” the alleged error -- the defendant is 

precluded from later challenging the admissibility of that evidence on appeal. See 

United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 2003). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 16-11617 Date Filed: 10/16/2017 Page: 3 of 3