United States v. Yaw Marfo , 433 F. App'x 806 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14750 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JULY 8, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cr-00020-JA-DAB-7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
YAW MARFO,
a.k.a. Yaw Daniel Marfo,
a.k.a. Daniel Addo,
a.k.a. Dan,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 8, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Yaw Marfo pled guilty to two counts of a six-
count indictment: Count One, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and to utter a
forged security, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and Count Six, conspiracy to
commit tax fraud, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 286. The district court sentenced him
at the low-end of the applicable Sentencing Guideline to concurrent prison terms
of 41 months. He appeals his sentences, contending that the district court erred by
including the total amount of $510,523.32 of intended loss in calculating the
offense level, rather than including only the $90,000 of actual loss for which he
was responsible.
I.
We review the district court’s loss determination for clear error. United
States v. Woodard, 459 F.3d 1078, 1087 (11th Cir. 2006). A defendant’s failure to
object to allegations of fact in a presentence report admits those facts for
sentencing purposes. United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir.
2006). Further, “a party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial
proceeding invited by that party.” United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157
(11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). “The doctrine of invited error is implicated
when a party induces or invites the district court into making an error.” Id.(quotation omitted). “The doctrine stems from the common sense view that where
2
a party invites the trial court to commit error, he cannot later cry foul on appeal.”
United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009).
“[A] party seeking to raise a claim or issue on appeal must plainly and
prominently so indicate. Otherwise, the issue—even if properly preserved at
trial—will be considered abandoned.” United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273,
1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003).
Because Marfo admitted at sentencing that the presentence report’s loss and
offense level calculations were correct, he has invited his alleged error. In
addition, he also has not sufficiently raised a reasonableness issue on appeal, so he
has abandoned that issue.
AFFIRMED,
3