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, 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

*665 We affirm. Assuming that Mr. McClam-ma’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 Fed.Appx. 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

AFFIRMED.