United States v. Sherwin D. Knight, 655 F. App'x 752

Sherwin Knight appealed a 21‑month prison sentence imposed after revocation of his supervised release.
The revocation arose from an arrest where officers found significant amounts of marijuana in a vehicle; Knight appeared nervous and fled.
The district court considered both fleeing/eluding and the marijuana possession conduct when revoking supervised release and imposing sentence.
Knight argued on appeal that the court procedurally erred by relying on marijuana allegations not proved by a preponderance and that the petition failed to give adequate notice as to the fleeing/eluding charge; he also argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
At the revocation hearing Knight admitted to fleeing/eluding, asked the court to sentence him on that violation, and did not object to notice; the district court imposed a sentence at the low end of the 21–27 month guideline range.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding the district court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous, that Knight invited any notice error, and that the within‑range 21‑month sentence was substantively reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether marijuana allegations were improperly considered (procedural reasonableness)	Knight: court relied on marijuana conduct not proven by a preponderance	Government: preponderance standard satisfied by testimony (marijuana present, bag smelled, Knight fled) and court may consider totality of conduct	Court: Finding not clearly erroneous; consideration proper under preponderance standard — affirmed
Whether Knight received adequate notice of fleeing/eluding violation	Knight: petition failed to give adequate notice for the fleeing/eluding charge	Government: Knight admitted fleeing/eluding and asked to be sentenced on it	Court: Knight invited any notice error by admitting and requesting sentencing on that violation — issue not reviewable on appeal
Whether failure to object waived plain‑error review	Knight: sought review despite not objecting at sentencing	Government: invited‑error doctrine applies because Knight affirmatively sought the court action	Court: Invited error applies; appellate review barred
Whether the 21‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Knight: sentence was substantively unreasonable given factors under §3553(a)	Government: sentence within guideline range, court considered criminal history and circumstances; 21 months is low end of range	Court: No abuse of discretion; within‑range sentence ordinarily reasonable — affirmed

United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316 (11th Cir. 1993) (clear‑error review of factual findings at supervised release hearings)
United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105 (11th Cir. 2006) (preponderance standard applies at revocation hearings)
United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (plain‑error review for unobjected‑to procedural sentencing issues)
United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2006) (invited‑error doctrine bars review of errors induced by a party)
United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (invited error where defendant affirmatively stipulated)
United States v. Dortch, 696 F.3d 1104 (11th Cir. 2012) (mere failure to object is not invited error)
United States v. Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2008) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reasonableness of revocation sentences)
United States v. Saac, 632 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2011) (substantive reasonableness requires §3553(a) consideration)
United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2010) (burden on challenger to show sentence unreasonable under record and §3553(a))
United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2009) (ordinarily expect reasonableness for within‑guideline sentence)