United States v. Jose Murphy

Case: 12-13541 Date Filed: 03/06/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13541
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20652-PAS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE MURPHY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 6, 2013)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Jose Murphy appeals his 110-month sentence, imposed after
pleading guilty to one count of carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1). On
Case: 12-13541 Date Filed: 03/06/2013 Page: 2 of 3
appeal, Murphy argues that the district court plainly erred by applying to his
sentence a six-level enhancement for use of a firearm, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
2B3.1(b)(2(B), because the BB gun he contended that he used during the
commission of the carjacking does not meet the Guidelines definition of a firearm.
At sentencing, Murphy admitted that he used a BB gun during the carjacking
offense, and expressly withdrew his original objection to the enhancement.
We typically review de novo the district court’s application and
interpretation of the sentencing guidelines and reviews its factual findings for clear
error. United States v. Wilks, 464 F.3d 1240, 1242 (11th Cir. 2006). “Facts
contained in a PSI are undisputed and deemed to have been admitted unless a party
objects to them before the sentencing court with specificity and clarity.” United
States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 844 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The invited-error doctrine “is implicated when a party induces or invites
the district court into making an error,” and “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) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the
invited-error doctrine applies, “it precludes a court from invoking the plain error
rule and reversing.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because our review of the record persuades us that Murphy invited the error
of which he complains by withdrawing his original objection to the firearm
2
Case: 12-13541 Date Filed: 03/06/2013 Page: 3 of 3
enhancement and stating that he was not objecting to the enhancement because he
had a firearm during the carjacking, we affirm his sentence.1
AFFIRMED.
1
Even if we concluded that the invited error doctrine did not apply, we would still hold that the
district court did not plainly err in applying the enhancement.
3