USA v. Vincente Sanciveri Cervantes, No. 13-10001 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-10001 Date Filed: 06/14/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-10001 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00225-WS-C-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus VINCENTE SANCIVERI CERVANTES, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ________________________ (June 14, 2013) Before HULL, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 13-10001 Date Filed: 06/14/2013 Page: 2 of 2 Vincente Sanciveri Cervantes appeals his 110-month sentence for various money-laundering offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. 1 We affirm. 2 Cervantes contends the district court miscalculated his guidelines range. He argues his adjusted offense level should have been 23, with a corresponding guideline range of 46 to 57 months, rather than an offense level of 32 and guideline range of 121 to 151 months, as calculated by the district court. The problem for Cervantes is that he asked the district court to assign an offense level of 32 and withdrew any remaining objections to the guideline applications. Under the doctrine of invited error, an appellate court will not vacate a sentence based on errors the appealing party affirmatively invited the sentencing court to make. See United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Cervantes s challenge to his below-the-guidelines sentence fails. 3 AFFIRMED. 1 Specifically, Cervantes pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and twenty-two counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). 2 We review a district court s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual determinations for clear error. United States v. Rhind, 289 F.3d 690, 693 (11th Cir. 2002). 3 For similar reasons, we also reject Cervantes s claim the district court erroneously relied on unreliable hearsay evidence in calculating his base offense level. See United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 844 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that the failure to object to allegations of fact in a PSI admits those facts for sentencing purposes and precludes the argument that there was error in them (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
