USA v. Joshua Lang Whigan, No. 17-15386 (11th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-15386 Date Filed: 10/01/2018 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-15386 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:16-cr-00568-MHT-CSC-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSHUA LANG WHIGAN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ________________________ (October 1, 2018) Before WILSON, BRANCH, and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-15386 Date Filed: 10/01/2018 Page: 2 of 2 Joshua Whigan appeals his 180-month sentence for being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), imposed as the result of his classification as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). On appeal, he argues that his sentence was a violation of the Eighth Amendment and substantively unreasonable. We review for plain error when a defendant fails to object to an alleged error before the district court. See United States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322, 1323 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). 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 thus waives appellate review for plain error. United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009). Whigan waived these challenges to his sentence by requesting the 180month mandatory minimum sentence that the district court imposed. In any event, our circuit and “every circuit to have considered the issue has concluded that the 15-year minimum mandatory sentence under ACCA is neither disproportionate to the offense nor cruel and unusual punishment.” United States v. Reynolds, 215 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 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.
