[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-11390

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20584-MGC-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

YOEL DE MOYA LOZADA, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 17, 2018)

Before WILSON, HULL, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-11390 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 1 of 8 
2

Yoel De Moya Lozada appeals his convictions after a jury trial for 

conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count 1), 

and conspiracy to encourage and induce an individual subject to removal to reside 

unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I)

(Count 2). On appeal, Lozada argues that there was insufficient evidence to 

convict him on Counts 1 and 2. He also argues that the district court erred in its 

Count 2 jury instructions. After careful review of the parties’ briefs and the record, 

we affirm. 

I.

A.

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction de novo. United States v. Green, 818 F.3d 1258, 1274 (11th Cir. 2016). 

We draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict and view the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Id. Our inquiry is whether 

a reasonable fact-finder could have determined that the evidence proved the 

defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Calhoon, 97 F.3d 

518, 523 (11th Cir. 1996). 

To obtain a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, the government must prove: “(1) an agreement 

among two or more persons to achieve an unlawful objective; (2) knowing and 

Case: 17-11390 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 2 of 8 
3

voluntary participation in the agreement; and (3) an overt act by a conspirator in 

furtherance of the agreement.” United States v. Gonzalez, 834 F.3d 1206, 1214 

(11th Cir. 2016). Section 371 reaches any conspiracy undertaken for the purpose 

of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of 

government, even if the conspiracy did not cause any monetary loss to the 

government. United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627, 630 (11th Cir. 1984). 

A person commits conspiracy to encourage and induce an individual subject

to removal to reside unlawfully in the United States if he conspires to “encourage[] 

or induce[] an [individual subject to removal] to come to, enter, or reside in the 

United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, 

entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)–

(v)(I). We give a broad interpretation to the phrase “encouraging or inducing” in 

this context, construing it to include the act of “helping” individuals subject to 

removal come to, enter, or reside in the United States. United States v. Lopez, 590 

F.3d 1238, 1249 (11th Cir. 2009).

“The very nature of a conspiracy frequently requires that the existence of an 

agreement be proved by inferences from the conduct of the alleged participants or 

from circumstantial evidence of a scheme.” Gonzalez, 834 F.3d at 1214. The 

government does not have to prove that the defendant knew every detail or 

participated in every aspect of the conspiracy, only that the defendant knew of the 

Case: 17-11390 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 3 of 8 
4

essential nature of the conspiracy. Id. at 1215. The government can use proof of 

surrounding circumstances, such as acts that the defendant engaged in which 

furthered the conspiracy’s purpose, to demonstrate that the defendant joined the 

conspiracy voluntarily. Id.

B.

The evidence presented at trial, considered in the light most favorable to the 

government, supported Lozada’s convictions on both counts. The testimony of 

Lozada’s co-conspirator, Yosandra Piedra Vasquez (Piedra), established that 

Lozada and Piedra knowingly and willfully agreed to arrange fraudulent marriages 

between Piedra and individuals subject to removal in order to obstruct the United 

States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in carrying out the 

immigration laws of the United States. It further established that Piedra and 

Lozada knowingly and willfully agreed to encourage and induce those individuals 

to reside in the United States. 

Specifically, Piedra testified that she accepted Lozada’s offer to help him 

arrange fraudulent marriages when he told her that he had entered into a fraudulent 

marriage with his spouse, an individual subject to removal, to obtain immigration 

papers for her. Lozada helped Piedra arrange four fraudulent marriages to 

individuals subject to removal. Each marriage consisted of an up-front payment 

and an additional payment if the individual subject to removal obtained a grant of 

Case: 17-11390 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 4 of 8 
5

permanent residency. For at least one of the marriages, Piedra’s marriage to 

Gasper Maya Flores, Lozada staged a mock wedding ceremony and took pictures 

that Flores could present to USCIS as evidence that the marriage was legitimate. 

Flores largely corroborated Piedra’s testimony. He testified that he paid 

Lozada and Piedra for the fraudulent marriage because he wanted to stay in the 

United States after Lozada approached him about his immigration status in a 

grocery store. Lozada staged mock wedding celebration photos “to make it look 

very real . . . so that if immigration ever asked for them, [they] could prove that all 

of that had happened.” Lozada also told him that marrying Piedra would solve his 

immigration problems and that the United States would grant him permanent 

residency within three months. Lozada directed Flores to find an attorney to help 

him file an application for residency. Finally, USCIS officer Natalie Diaz testified 

that obtaining a grant of permanent residency based on a fraudulent marriage is

illegal in the United States.

All of this evidence was sufficient to show that Lozada and Piedra 

knowingly and willfully conspired to defraud the United States by arranging 

fraudulent marriages for the purpose of interfering with and obstructing USCIS in 

its administration of the immigration laws of the United States. The evidence was 

also sufficient to demonstrate that Lozada and Piedra knowingly and willfully 

conspired to encourage and induce individuals subject to removal to reside in the 

Case: 17-11390 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 5 of 8 
6

United States. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s guilty 

verdict on Counts 1 and 2. 

II.

A.

We review de novo jury instructions properly challenged in the district court 

“to determine whether the instructions misstated the law or misled the jury to the 

prejudice of the objecting party.” United States v. Felts, 579 F.3d 1341, 1342 

(11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). We review for plain error jury instructions that are 

challenged for the first time on appeal. Id. at 1343. However, where a party 

invites error, we cannot review that error on appeal. United States v. Brannan, 562 

F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Under the plain-error standard, the defendant must demonstrate that (1) an 

error occurred, (2) the error was plain, (3) the error affected substantial rights, and

(4) the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of 

judicial proceedings. United States v. Dortch, 696 F.3d 1104, 1112 (11th Cir. 

2012). It is not reversible error if the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on 

an essential element of the offense was harmless. United States v. Gutierrez, 745 

F.3d 463, 471 (11th Cir. 2014). “The failure to instruct a jury on an essential 

element of an offense is harmless when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a 

rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Id.

Case: 17-11390 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 6 of 8 
7

B.

Lozada invited any error in the jury instructions on Count 2 by adopting the 

government’s proposed instructions, submitting identical copies of those 

instructions and requesting that they be given, and confirming at the jury 

instruction conference that he had no objections to the instructions. Specifically, 

when Lozada filed proposed instructions, he said that he “[did] not object to and 

incorporate[d]” the government’s proposed instructions and that he “request[ed] 

that they be given at trial.” Moreover, he submitted identical copies of the 

instructions he now challenges on appeal. He also could have objected when the 

instructions were given, but he did not do so. 

In any event, the district court did not plainly err because the jury’s guilty 

verdict on Count 1 made clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury believed

there was testimony sufficient to convict Lozada on Count 2. In essence, because 

no other testimony evidenced an agreement that could support a conspiracy 

conviction, to find Lozada guilty of Count 1, the jury must have believed either: 

(1) Piedra’s testimony that she and Lozada agreed to arrange fraudulent marriages 

to help individuals subject to removal obtain a grant of permanent residency and 

that they in fact arranged such marriages; or (2) Flores’s testimony that Lozada and 

Piedra jointly arranged a fraudulent marriage that he could use to obtain a grant of

permanent residency and that they in fact arranged the marriage. Therefore, this 

Case: 17-11390 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 7 of 8 
8

evidence was sufficient to convict Lozada of Count 2—encouraging and inducing 

an individual subject to removal to reside unlawfully in the United States.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-11390 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 8 of 8