sentence. Under the doctrine of invited error, this court will not review an error that is invited or induced by a party. United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1327 (11th Cir. 2005). “Where invited error exists, it precludes a court from invoking the plain error rule and reversing.” Id. Here, Lopez-Carranza invited any purported error at sentencing. The record demonstrates that he specifically requested the 70-month low-end guideline sentence which he received, and that he did not object to the sentence when given an opportunity to do so at the sentencing hearing. Hence, because Lopez-Carranza received the sentence he requested, we conclude that he is now precluded from challenging the reasonableness of that sentence. See United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm Lopez-Carranza’s
holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release holding that reasonableness review applies to a sentence imposed upon a revocation of supervised release holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses holding that the failure to notify the defendant of the term of supervised release and its possible effect on his sentence was not harmless error where nothing in the record suggests that the defendant understood that his sentence would include supervised release and there was no written plea agreement by which he might have been warned holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release