Court Opinion

ID: 9411263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 15:01:13.049262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.757303
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3196
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                               Tayrel Lamar Rulford

                                     Defendant - Appellant
                                   ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                          for the District of Minnesota
                                 ____________

                             Submitted: June 13, 2023
                               Filed: July 26, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Tayrel Rulford pled guilty to an information charging him with possession of
a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2). He appeals his
120-month sentence, asserting the district court 1 sentenced him based on an incorrect

      1
        The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
belief that a mandatory minimum sentence applied. Because any initial
misunderstanding by the district court was immediately corrected and the district
court relied on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as well as the parties’ joint
sentencing recommendation, we affirm.

       Rulford’s original charge—being an armed career criminal in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1)—carries a 15-year
mandatory minimum sentence. During plea negotiations, Rulford agreed to plead
guilty to possession of a stolen firearm, which carries a maximum imprisonment
term of 120 months and no mandatory minimum. The parties’ agreement
contemplated a joint recommendation for a sentence of 120 months.

       Consistent with their agreement, the parties requested at sentencing that the
district court impose a 120-month sentence. After noting Rulford’s rehabilitative
efforts, the court announced it was imposing a mandatory minimum sentence of 120
months. After both parties immediately informed the court that the charge Rulford
pled guilty to did not have a mandatory minimum, the court promptly reconsidered
and found the joint recommendation was appropriate under the factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553. In its written statement of reasons, the court indicated the sentence
was based on the § 3553(a) factors.

       Rulford contends the district court committed significant procedural error
because it initially stated his offense was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence.
The government seeks to enforce the plea agreement’s appeal waiver provision.
Even assuming Rulford convinced us that the plea agreement did not bar his appeal,
his claim is foreclosed by the invited error doctrine. A party “who invites the district
court to make a particular ruling waives his right to claim on appeal that the ruling
was erroneous.” United States v. Corn, 47 F.4th 892, 895 (8th Cir. 2022), cert.
denied, 143 S. Ct. 1093, 1093 (2023). Rulford specifically requested the sentence
the district court imposed. The invited error doctrine precludes him from
challenging his sentence on appeal. See id.

                                           -2-
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
                ______________________________

                            -3-