Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark BELIDOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-30
Citations: 279 F. App'x 924
Docket Number: No. 07-14719
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark BELIDOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 279
Pages: 924–925

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark BELIDOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-14719
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 30, 2008.
Richard C. Klugh, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Kathleen M. Salyer, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Mark Belidor ("Belidor") appeals his sentence of 226 months imprisonment for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1) and 924(e). On appeal, Belidor argues that the district court erred by sentencing him as an armed career criminal under § 924(e) because: (a) his prior convictions for resisting arrest with violence did not meet the statutory definition of "crimes of violence," as required by the statute, and (b) the government did not plead and prove to a jury the specific circumstances of his prior convictions.
We are precluded from reviewing an alleged defect, even for plain error, when a party has invited the error. United States v. Harris, 443 F.3d 822, 823-24 (11th Cir.2006). "The doctrine of invited error is implicated when a party induces or invites the district court into making an error." Id.
Because Belidor stated at his sentencing hearing that he agreed with his classification as an armed career criminal, he invited the error of which he now complains, and, thus, we are precluded from reviewing the alleged error. Therefore, we conclude Belidor is entitled to no relief and we affirm his sentence.
AFFIRMED.