USA v. Dwayne Leron Taylor, No. 17-15561 (11th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-15561 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-15561 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:17-cr-00064-CEM-GJK-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DWAYNE LERON TAYLOR, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (July 17, 2018) Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-15561 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 2 of 2 Dwayne Taylor appeals his convictions for nine counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. On appeal, Taylor asserts the district court erred by omitting the word “willfully” from its jury instructions. But we do not review invited error. United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006). “It 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.” United States v. Fulford, 267 F.3d 1241, 1247 (11th Cir. 2001) (citation and quotations omitted). We have applied the doctrine of invited error where the party affirmatively requested or specifically agreed with the challenged action of the district court. See, e.g., United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (concluding that the defendant invited error when his counsel stated the jury instructions “covered the bases” and that further elaboration on the elements was unnecessary). Here, Taylor joined with the Government in submitting joint proposed jury instructions to the district court that—consistent with the pattern instruction for wire fraud—did not include the word “willfully.” Accordingly, we decline to review Taylor’s challenge to the jury instructions based on the invited error doctrine. 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.
