Posts Tagged ‘obstruction of justice’

A person who alters records that have been subpoenaed by a grand jury obstructs an investigation of Medicare fraud.

Friday, July 3rd, 2009

USA v. Hoffman-Vaile, No. 07-12629 (11th Circuit USCA)

The defendant, a dermatologist from Florida, appeals her convictions and sentences on charges of health care fraud, filing false claims, and obstruction of justice. The Defendant was billing Medicare at an aberrant rate under a billing code for an unusual and complicated procedure. It was determined that from 1993 through 1999, the defendant billed under this particular code more often and for greater amounts than under any other billing code. When contacted by the private contractor for Medicare, the defendant was asked to provide photographs that corresponded with the surgeries billed for. The defendant, after many chances, did not comply.
In 2002 the Department of Health and Human Services obtained a federal search warrant for patient files with the suspect billing code and seized over 3,000 files from the defendant’s office. However, the Department was unable to locate about 300 files.
In 2003, a federal grand jury issued a subpoena that directed the defendant to produce the missing files. The defendant produced 185 of the missing files but most of the records lacked the requisite photographs. The defendant’s attorneys later produced a box of loose photographs to the government.
The defendant was indicted in July 2005 on 44 counts of health care fraud, 44 counts of filing false claims, and one count of obstruction of justice-she instructed her employees to remove photographs from the subpoenaed files. The defendant was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment for each fraud count and false claims count, to be served concurrently, and 18 months imprisonment for obstruction.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s convictions and sentences, but vacated and remanded the forfeiture money judgment for further proceedings.

Speedy trial delay warranted a dismissal without prejudice and not with prejudice.

Friday, April 24th, 2009

U.S. v. KNIGHT, 562 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. March 31, 2009)

After the car Mr. Knight was riding in as a passenger was pulled over, a police officer saw him place a gun on the floor boards. He was arrested on state charges. While still state custody he was indicted by a federal grand jury on September 29, 2005, for possession of the firearm by a convicted felon. A federal detainer was lodged against him to hold him in the event he made bond. He was visited by ATF officers in the county jail who advised him of the pending investigation. Knight made some incriminating statements and did not ask for an attorney. He was transferred to federal custody where he pled not guilty. The district court granted a speedy trial claim but dismissed without prejudice. As to the appeal from the district court’s order dismissing “without prejudice” the Court applied the factors and found the district court did not abuse its discretions.

The seizure of evidence was found reasonable based on initial stop of the driver which led to the resulting seizure from the defendant.

The Court upheld the denial of the motion to suppress evidence seized in the stop. It found the initial stop of the car was valid because the driver was seen without a seat belt on. The officer had probable cause to stop the car, and the officer was entitled to ask the driver to step out the car. He had reasonable suspicion to pat down the driver and the officer smelled marijuana and alcohol.

The denial of the motion to suppress statements.

The Court found that the prior invocation of rights in the state case did not apply to the federal case. Statements made to the ATF were admissible.
The district court committed clear error for failing to reduce Knight’s sentence for time spent in state custody for obstruction of justice.

Where a defendant has a prior offense that is relevant to the instant offense and resulted in an increase in the offense level of the instant offense, the sentencing guidelines provide that the sentence include a credit for a period served in state custody for the obstruction case. The government conceded the error because the conduct that was used to enhance his federal sentence was related to the state conviction and the BOP would not give credit for that time.