Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathaniel Willis PITTS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-03
Citations: 599 F. App'x 374
Docket Number: No. 14-10412
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathaniel Willis PITTS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 374–374

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathaniel Willis PITTS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10412
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 3, 2015.
Yvette Rhodes, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, David Lazarus, Yolande G. Viaeava, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Myers, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roy William Foxall, Roy W. Foxall, PA, Fort Myers, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Willis Pitts, Jr. appeals his sentence of 24 months of imprisonment following the second revocation of his supervised release. Pitts argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
Pitts is barred from challenging the reasonableness of his sentence. Under the doctrine of invited error, when a defendant invites or induces the district court to impose a particular sentence, the defendant cannot complain about that sentence on appeal. United States v. Braman, 562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir.2009). After the district court revoked Pitts's supervised release and ordered him to serve 9 months of imprisonment and 24 months of supervised release, Pitts interjected that "if [he was] going to go to prison, [he] might as well get it over with" and he wanted to "serve the 24 months straight." When questioned by the district court, Pitts confirmed that he wanted a sentence of 24 months of imprisonment. Pitts cannot contest the substantive reasonableness of a sentence that he requested. And even if the doctrine of invited error did not apply, we would affirm Pitts's sentence within the guideline range as substantively reasonable.
We AFFIRM Pitts's sentence.