Case: 17-11390 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-11390 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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: 2 of 8 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 2 Case: 17-11390 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Page: 3 of 8 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 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals