complains. See Ford ex rel. Estate of Ford v. Garcia, 289 F.3d 1283, 1294 (11th Cir.2002) (“Where invited error exists, it precludes a court from ‘invoking the plain error rule and reversing.’ ” (quoting United States v. Davis, 443 F.2d 560, 564-65 (5th Cir.1971))), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1147, 123 S.Ct. 868, 154 L.Ed.2d 849 (2003). In the context of a district court’s decision to admit certain evidence, “ ‘[t]he accepted rule is that where the injection of allegedly inadmissible evidence is attributable to the action of the defense, its introduction does not constitute reversible error.’ ” United States v. Martinez, 604 F.2d 361, 366 (5th Cir.1979) (quoting United States v. Doran, 564 F.2d 1176, 1177 (5th Cir.1971)); see also United States v. Parikh, 858 F.2d 688, 695 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. De Parias, 805 F.2d 1447,
holding failure to appoint two experts not preserved for review where defense counsel invited error by requesting only one holding that defense counsel had invited prosecutors comments on parole law holding invited error doctrine bars appellant from appealing the admission of evidence where appellant invited the error by being the first to introduce the evidence thus injecting the issue into tjie case holding that appellate review is precluded when the error is invited holding that the admission of out of court statements by a government witness when responding to an inquiry by defense counsel creates invited error 