Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of 33 crimes stemming from his receipt of federal worker’s compensation from July 2011 through March 2013. The district court calculated defendant's advisory guidelines range as 18–24 months imprisonment but did not sentence him to any incarceration time. Both parties appealed. The court affirmed defendant's convictions on Counts 1 and 9-12 because a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant caused his treating physician to submit materially false information to DOL and the Postal Service; the court affirmed defendant's convictions on Counts 2-4 because a reasonable jury could have found that defendant’s materially false statements were made “in connection with” his receipt of benefits; and the court affirmed defendant's conviction on Count 33 because a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that driving was no longer “bothering” defendant during the offense period, and that, by knowingly concealing this fact from his physician, he obtained worker’s compensation to which he was not entitled. The parties and the court agree that the district court miscalculated the special assessment imposed on defendant. Therefore, the district court will need to correct the error on remand. Further, the district court erred in calculating the total loss amount and, on remand, should use the sentencing guidelines' net loss approach, U.S.S.G. 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(F)(ii), and order defendant to pay restitution in that amount. The district court must resentence defendant without relying on findings that contradict what the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Slaton" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences for three counts of submitting false claims, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 287, and one count of attempting to evade or defeat a tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201. The district court ordered defendant to pay restitution to the IRS in the amount of $296,246. Although defendant still owes the Government money in the amounts of his 2001–2003 deficiencies, the Government conceded at oral argument that such amounts do not constitute actual losses caused by conduct underlying a Title 18 offense and that a remand is in order so that the district court can determine the proper amount of restitution. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's restitution order and remanded for further proceedings as to restitution. The court rejected defendant's remaining contentions and affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Hesser" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions and sentences for charges related to their involvement in one of the most long-lasting mortgage fraud conspiracies in the history of central Florida. The court reversed defendant Streinz's conviction and remanded for a new trial because his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the trial court's refusal to allow him to confer with counsel during the two overnight recesses while he was testifying. The court affirmed defendants Cavallo and Hornberger's convictions and sentences except that the court vacated and remanded that part of the judgment ordering restitution because the restitution amount does not take into account the value of the collateral properties to the victims and therefore does not represent the actual loss to the victims, but instead confers a windfall on them. View "United States v. Cavallo" on Justia Law

Pursuant to written plea agreements, defendants Yolanda Sosa and Adrian Velazquez pled guilty to conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud. For a five month period in 2011, Defendants met with a "cooperating doctor" and paid the doctor for prescriptions that Defendants could use to fraudulently bill Medicare. Specifically, Defendants provided the cooperating doctor with Medicare beneficiary information and paid the doctor thousands of dollars to write prescriptions for expensive medications that were not actually given to any patients. The doctor never saw or evaluated the patients, and instead wrote the prescriptions for whatever medications Defendants requested. Defendants gave the fraudulent prescriptions to various pharmacies, which submitted false claims to Medicare based on the prescriptions. As a result, Medicare paid the pharmacies approximately $753,430 based on the false claims. The pharmacies paid Defendants over $60,000 for obtaining the fraudulent prescriptions. Defendants appealed two forfeiture orders entered by the district court after it imposed joint-and-several restitution against them, specifically challenging the restitution amount and the forfeiture of two cars. After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed the district court. View "United States v. Velazquez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud; eight counts of health care fraud; one count of conspiracy to pay health care kickbacks; and three counts of payment of kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the offenses; defendant failed to show that the district court plainly erred by allowing the government to make the statements he claims amount to improper vouching; defendant failed to show any error with regard to the prosecutor's statements that allegedly amounted to improper expressions of personal opinion; defendant failed to show that the district court plainly erred by allowing the prosecutor to make the statements that he claims improperly exhorted the jury to return a guilty verdict on the basis of inflammatory and improper considerations; and the district court did not err by applying two increases to his base offense level when calculating defendant's advisory guidelines range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Sosa" on Justia Law

During a traffic stop, police saw evidence of possible identity theft in plain view. A vehicle search revealed mail addressed to people unrelated to Earnest or his passenger, 39 debit cards, $4,000 in cash, and documents containing names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, and addresses for 1,000 individuals, plus their online tax return personal information and debit card account numbers. Hundreds of fraudulent tax returns had been filed, seeking $1.8 million in refunds; the IRS paid out $840,000. Many refunds were loaded onto debit cards. Earnest was linked to residences where the returns were filed and was photographed using the unauthorized debit cards. Tax returns were filed from Earl's IP addresses; he also was recorded using thecards. Both were convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud against the government, conspiracy to use unauthorized access devices, use of unauthorized access devices, and aggravated identity theft. Earnest also was convicted of possessing 15 or more unauthorized access devices. Earl was sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment. Earnest was sentenced to 172 months. Belizaire recruited people to provide addresses , exchanged identification information of victims, filed fraudulent returns, and used the debit cards; he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government and aggravated identity theft and was sentenced to 129 months’ imprisonment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed both convictions and all sentences. View "United States v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and forfeiture order for one count of conspiring with his wife to commit health care fraud, eight counts of payroll tax fraud, and two counts of failure to timely file income tax returns. Rejecting defendant's claims to the contrary, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of all the counts. Because the court upheld the conviction for the health care fraud charge, the court upheld the district court's forfeiture order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Houser" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. This case arose out of a complex scheme designed to defraud investors through a group of hedge funds called the Lancer Fund. The court affirmed defendant's conviction; affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for a new trial; but vacated defendant's sentence because the district court erred when it enhanced defendant's sentence and ordered restitution based on the losses from Morgan Stanley's investment. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Isaacson" on Justia Law

Defendants Esquenazi and Rodriquez appealed their convictions and sentences for conspiracy; violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), 15 U.S.C. 78dd-2; and money-laundering. The court concluded that the district court did not err in its jury instructions regarding the definition of "instrumentality" under the FCPA; the evidence was sufficient to show Teleco was controlled by the Haitian government and performed a function Haiti treated as its own, namely, nationalized telecommunication services; the FCPA was not vague as applied to Esquenazi's acts; defendants possessed the requisite knowledge; the district court did not err in refusing to dismiss the money-laundering counts of the indictment or in allowing the jury to decide these counts; and defendants' various sentencing challenges were rejected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Esquenazi" on Justia Law

Defendant, while incarcerated, participated in a fraudulent scheme to obtain tax refunds by using the personal information of other inmates. Defendant pleaded guilty to 41 of the 46 counts with which he was charged. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court should amend its written judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement at sentencing that forfeited funds would be applied toward his restitution obligation. In light of the statutory framework governing restitution and forfeiture, the court held that a district court generally had no authority to offset a defendant's restitution obligation by the value of the forfeited property held by the government which was consistent with the approach taken by the Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. Because the district court had no authority to offset defendant's restitution obligation by the amount of funds forfeited to the government, its oral pronouncement directing such was contrary to law. Therefore, defendant could not avail himself of the general rule that discrepancy between an oral pronouncement at sentencing and a written judgment was to be resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's written judgment. View "United States v. Joseph" on Justia Law