United States v. Hubert B. Farquharson , 252 F. App'x 982 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-11578 NOVEMBER 2, 2007
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-00063-CR-FTM-29DNF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HUBERT B. FARQUHARSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(November 2, 2007)
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Hubert Farquharson appeals his conviction, after a guilty plea to knowingly
and wilfully possessing with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of
marijuana, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vii). On appeal,
Farquharson raises two claims: (1) that the district court erred by denying his
motion to suppress, and (2) that the district court erred by accepting his guilty plea
under a theory of deliberate ignorance. We affirm.
As for Farquharson’s first argument, because he entered an unconditional
guilty plea, thus waiving all nonjurisdictional defects, including any challenge to
the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, we will not consider the claim.
United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Generally, a
voluntary, unconditional guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the
proceedings.”); United States v. Wai-Keung, 115 F.3d 874, 877 (11th Cir. 1997)
(holding that we will not consider a defendant’s challenge to the district court’s
denial of a motion to suppress if that issue is not preserved in a conditional plea
entered under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11).
And we will not consider his second argument, based on his failure to
preserve it below. “[I]t is a cardinal rule of appellate review that a party may not
challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party. The
doctrine of invited error is implicated when a party induces or invites the district
court into making an error. Where invited error exists, it precludes a court from
invoking the plain error rule and reversing.” United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d
2
1311, 1327 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotations and citations omitted). With respect to
Farquharson’s challenge to the district court’s use of the deliberate ignorance
theory, Farquharson repeatedly invited the district court to accept his plea based on
that very theory. Thus, under the invited error doctrine, we do not consider this
issue.
AFFIRMED.
3