Court Opinion

ID: 9377787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 19:00:47.225133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:16.531943
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12775    Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 03/08/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12775
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       RASHADI ANDRE WEARING,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-00039-MHC-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12775     Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 03/08/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12775

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges
       PER CURIAM:
              Rashad Andre Wearing (whose first name is misspelled as
       Rashadi in some of the pleadings) appeals the district court’s
       18-month imprisonment sentence imposed upon revocation of his
       supervised release. He contends that the sentence was procedur-
       ally unreasonable because the district court incorrectly determined
       his advisory guideline range as 7-13 months of imprisonment based
       on the improperly calculated criminal history category (Category
       V) from his original sentence.
              When reviewing for procedural reasonableness, we ordinar-
       ily consider legal issues de novo and review factual findings for
       clear error. See United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624
       (11th Cir. 2010). We review the district court’s interpretation and
       application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. See United
       States v. Tejas, 868 F.3d 1242, 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2017).
              In reviewing a sentence for procedural reasonableness, we
       must ensure that the district court did not make significant proce-
       dural error, such as failing to calculate or improperly calculating
       the Guidelines range. See United States v. Grushko, 50 F.4th 1, 17
       (11th Cir. 2022). When calculating the guideline imprisonment
       range that applies at revocation, “[t]he criminal history category is
       the category applicable at the time the defendant was originally
       sentenced to a term of supervision.” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The
USCA11 Case: 22-12775      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 03/08/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-12775               Opinion of the Court                         3

       applicable commentary explains that the criminal history category
       is not to be recalculated except in the rare case in which no criminal
       history category was determined when the defendant originally
       was sentenced. See § 7B1.4, comment. (n.1).
               In the district court, Mr. Wearing asserted that his advisory
       guideline range was 6-12 months of imprisonment—rather than 7-
       13 months of imprisonment—because his correct criminal history
       category was IV, and not V as initially determined at his original
       sentencing. The district court ruled that Mr. Wearing’s criminal
       history category from the initial sentencing controlled, and also ex-
       plained that the dispute about the appropriate advisory guideline
       range was moot because the parties had jointly recommended a
       sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment with no supervised release
       to follow. Mr. Wearing agreed that this latter point was likely cor-
       rect. The district court then sentenced Mr. Wearing to 18 months
       of imprisonment as jointly recommended by the parties.
               We do not consider Mr. Wearing’s challenge to his criminal
       history category. Under the doctrine of invited error, we will not
       address—not even for plain error—the merits of an error that the
       appellant induced the district court to make. See United States v.
       Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006). A defendant invites the
       district court to err when he “expressly acknowledge[s]” that the
       court may take the action of which he complains on appeal or
       when he “expressly requested” that action. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-12775     Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 03/08/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-12775

              Here Mr. Wearing is mounting a procedural reasonableness
       challenge to his 18-month sentence. But he and the government
       jointly asked the district court to impose a custodial sentence of 18
       months. That recommended sentence was above both of the pos-
       sible advisory guideline ranges available (6-12 months if Mr. Wear-
       ing’s criminal history category was IV and 7-13 months if Mr.
       Wearing’s criminal history category was V). Because Mr. Wearing
       is now complaining about a sentence that he expressly requested,
       the doctrine of invited error applies. See Love, 454 F.3d at 1157
       (holding that because the defendant “induced or invited the district
       court to impose a sentence that included a term of supervised re-
       lease” the doctrine of invited error prevented him from challenging
       the term of supervised release on appeal).
             AFFIRMED.