Kyle McClamma v. USA
Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Kyle E. McClamma. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.
Date Filed: 09/22/2017
Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
D.C. Docket Nos. 5:12-cv-00058-SDM-PRL; 5:05-cr-00046-SDM-TBS-1
KYLE E. MCCLAMMA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
(September 22, 2017)
Before HULL, WILSON, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
Kyle McClamma, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to vacate.
In that motion, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
Date Filed: 09/22/2017
Page: 2 of 2
Mr. McClamma challenged a special condition of supervised release which, as
relevant here, allows him to have visitation with his older daughter only when
monitored by an approved third-party supervisor. 1
We affirm. Assuming that Mr. McClamma’s motion to vacate was timely
filed, and that there are no procedural defaults, we conclude that Mr. McClamma is
not entitled to relief. In 2011, “Mr. McClamma and the government agreed to
modify the terms of supervised release to allow [him] to have contact with his
older daughter when he was supervised by an approved third-party supervisor and
according to a safety plan.” McClamma, 613 F. App’x at 847. Mr. McClamma, in
other words, invited the very error he now seeks to correct, and that means he
cannot prevail. See 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.”) (quoting United States v.
Ross, 131 F.3d 970, 988 (11th Cir. 1997)).2
Mr. McClamma was convicted of possessing child pornography, and sentenced to 36 months’
imprisonment, to be followed by a life-long term of supervised release. In a prior appeal, we
affirmed the substantive reasonableness of the special condition of supervised release and the
district court’s denial of Mr. McClamma’s motion for early termination of supervised release.
See United States v. McClamma, 548 F. App’x 598 (11th Cir. 2013). In another appeal, we
affirmed the district court’s denial of Mr. McClamma’s motion to modify the special condition
of supervised release as to his older daughter. See United States v. McClamma, 613 F. App’x 846
(11th Cir. 2015).
To the extent Mr. McClamma is challenging the district court’s initial imposition of supervised
release with special conditions in 2006, that challenge is untimely. See McClamma, 548 F.
App’x at 600.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?