Case: 19-13205 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-13205
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20784-CMA-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JORGE GARRIDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 7, 2020)
Before MARTIN, LAGOA and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-13205 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 2 of 3
Appellant Jorge Garrido (“Garrido”) appeals the district court’s restitution
award, included as part of his sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He
argues on appeal that the district court erred by imposing restitution at sentencing
without holding a restitution hearing.
I.
We normally review the legality of a restitution order de novo. United States
v. Robertson,
493 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2007). However, when a defendant
raises a challenge to a restitution order for the first time on appeal, as Garrido does
here, we review the district court’s order for plain error. United States v. Jones,
289
F.3d 1260, 1265 (11th Cir. 2002). When a defendant expressly consents to or
affirmatively seeks a district court’s decision, he is deemed to have invited any error
the court may have made and waives appellate review. See United States v. Brannan,
562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009). When a defendant withdraws his objection
and “fully comprehends the error the court is going to commit and nonetheless agrees
[to it],” he has invited the error. United States v. Masters,
118 F.3d 1524, 1526 (11th
Cir. 1997).
II.
Here, we decline to review Garrido’s restitution order because he invited the
district court to enter the restitution amount at sentencing, which precludes review
by this court of any plain error in the district court’s conduct. Garrido entered into
2
Case: 19-13205 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 3 of 3
a joint sentencing recommendation with the government that included a restitution
provision for the amount ordered. Hence, in effect, Garrido asked the district court
to order the restitution amount he received. Moreover, a review of the record
demonstrates that the district court did not plainly err in awarding the restitution
amount because no one disputed the amount at sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm
Garrido’s sentence, including the restitution award.
AFFIRMED.
3
