Richard Marcel Mazard appeals his sentence of 30 months of imprisonment following his plea of guilty to robbery. See 18 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Mazard argues that his sentence at the low end of the advisory guideline range is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

Mazard invited any error involving the reasonableness of his sentence. “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. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Ross, 131 F.3d 970, 988 (11th Cir. 1997)). At his sentencing hearing, Ma-zard “ask[ed] for, at a maximum, ... [a sentence of] 30 months” and later argued that “30 months ... [was] very significant, a long period of time ... but appropriate in this case.” Mazard is barred from challenging the reasonableness of a sentence at the low end of the guideline range that he requested.

We AFFIRM Mazard’s sentence.