Case: 12-14468 Date Filed: 07/11/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14468
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20698-RNS-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANK J. BALLESTEROS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 11, 2013)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Frank J. Ballesteros appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit health
care fraud. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347, 1349. Ballesteros argues that the district court
Case: 12-14468 Date Filed: 07/11/2013 Page: 2 of 2
erred by failing sua sponte to instruct the jury about the substantive elements of
health care fraud. We affirm.
During trial, the district court twice discussed jury instructions with
Ballesteros. Before the final day of testimony, the district court asked Ballesteros
if he had reviewed the instructions proposed by the government, and Ballesteros
responded affirmatively and said that he had no objections to them. Later, after the
district court filed a set of instructions that were virtually identical to those
proposed by the government, the court asked Ballesteros if he had “any objections,
additions, deletions, [or] any additional instructions that [he] want[ed].”
Ballesteros responded, “No, Your Honor. The instructions are acceptable.”
Ballesteros invited any error related to the omission of a jury instruction. A
party invites error by inducing or agreeing to a decision that it later claims
constitutes error. See United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006);
see also United States v. Fulford, 267 F.3d 1241, 1246–47 (11th Cir. 2001).
Ballesteros’s negative response to the question if there were “additional
instructions that [he] want[ed]” communicated to the district court that its
instructions were complete. Ballesteros is barred from complaining on appeal that
he is entitled to another instruction.
We AFFIRM Ballesteros’s conviction.
2