FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L 9, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT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- 13 12 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 08 06 -J LK-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MIC HAEL CANAD A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 9, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: On J un e 2 9, 2 01 1, the di st ric t co urt s en te nc edMi ch ael Can ad a o n apl ea o fgu il ty to a p ris on term of 7 0 m on th s fo r co ns pi rin g, i n v io la ti on of 2 1 U.S.C. § 96 3, t o i m

po rt o ne or m or e k il og ram s o f he ro in , fiv e o r m or e k il og ram s o f co cai ne , an d fi fty kil og ram s o f m ari juan a, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. 95 2( a). He n ow ap pe al s h is sen te nc e, co nt en di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d apro cedur al ly un reas on ab le sen te nc e b ecau se iterre d (1 ) in cal cu la ti ng hi s t ot al off en se lev el an d (2 ) by fail in g t o c on si de r th e two -y ear s en te nc in g d is pa rit y be twee n h im

an d co de fen dantTerrel l Pr at t. A sen te nc e m ay

be pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le if the di stric t co urt

“ im pr op erl y cal cu la te s the Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat s the Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry rathe r th anadvi so ry , fai ls to co ns id er the ap pr op ria te st atut ory fact or s, s el ect s a se nt en ce b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai ls to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os en se nt en ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The pr ob le m Can ad a fac es is th athe in vi te d any errorth e d is tri ctco urt m ay ha ve co m m it te d i n c al cu la ti ng hi s t ot al off en se lev el . “ [A] party

m ay no t ch al le ng e as erro r a ru li ng or o th er tria l p ro ceed in g i nv it edby tha t p arty .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo ve , 44 9 F .3d11 54 , 11 57 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ap pl y in g i nv it ederro r to a se nt en ci ng is su e). “ The do ctrin e o f in vi te d e rro 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 e rro r.” Id. “ The do ctrin e st em s fr om th e co m m on se ns e v ie w th atwher e a p arty in vi te s the tri al co urt t o c omm iterro r, he can no t

2la te r cry fou l o n app eal .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Br an na n , 56 2 F .3d13 00 , 13 06 (11 th

Ci r. 20 09 ). Can ad a in vi te d a ny error

th e d is tri ctco urt m ay

have m ad e in cal cu la ti ng hi s to ta l o ffen se lev el an d Gu id el in e se nt en ce ra ng e b ecau se , inhi s o bjec ti on s t o t he pr es en te nc e rep ort, h e ex pl ic it ly tol d t he di st ric t co urt tha t (1 ) th e p ro pe r ba se of fen se lev el was 3 2, (2 ) he sh ou ldrece iv e a thr ee-l ev el reduc ti onforacce pt an ce of res po ns ib il ity , (3) he sh ou ldrece iv e a two- le ve l s afet y va lv e reduc ti on , (4) th e to ta l o ffen se lev el was 2 7, an d (5 ) th e advi so ry Gui de li ne s s en te nc e ran ge was 7 0 to 87 m on th s. Ad di ti on al ly, atsen te nc in g, h e ag reedth at , eve n o nc e th e 6 .51 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne were n otatt rib ut edto hi m , th e se nt en ce ra ng e cal cu la ti on di d no t ch an ge . Accor di ng ly, he can no t n ow cl ai m th atth e d is tri ctco urt m is cal cu la te d hi s t ot al off

en se lev el an d re su lt in g s en te nc e ran ge . Se e Bra nn on , 56 2 F .3dat 13 06 . As fo r th e al le ge d s en te nc in g d is pa rit y , Can ad a d idno t o bjec t t o t he pu rp orte d d is pa rit y

at s en te nc in g; he nc e, we co ns id er the all eg eddi sp ari ty for pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Pa tt er so n , 59 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 26 (11 thCir . 20 10 ). Thi s s tand ardrequi res th e d efen da ntto sh ow “ (1 ) anerro r; ( 2) th atis pl ai n; (3) th ataffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s; an d (4 ) th atser io us ly affect s the fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , orpubl ic rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id. 3W e fi ndno pl ai n e rro r he re. Bo th Can ad a an d P rat t wer e se nt en cedto th e

lo w endof t he Gui de li ne s s en te nc e ran ge cal cu la te d fo r th em . They ha d d iff eren t ba se off en se lev el s, t ot al off

en se lev el s, an d s en te nc e ran ge s. Giv enth e di ffer en ce i n t ot al off

en se lev el s, Ca na daan d P ratt wer e n otsi m il arl y si tu at ed , and th e d is pa rit y

be twee n t he ir s en te nc es is no t p la in erro r, m uc h l es s erro r. AFFIRMED.

4