twelve weeks and i did attempt to address issues in writing and i am adopting everything that i've said previously what really bothered me   something my client allegedly did at teaching w prior employer where she worked at and i argued about this in my brief  testifying about what my client making the same thing happened there and i think that the court was supposed to establish that the court did make a preliminary don't think that there should have been evidence independent not just what tanya odom said but evidence independent that my client was involved in what she was not implicated in any way but what you had was well done parroting you know the government stand as to what she allegedly did with at at haven and i testimony i mean why they didn't have to be independent think it was substantially more proof would have been prejudicial and i think it painted her as a bad but it pointed to a bad character trait on her part i think there was think that's you know but but if if if they were doing it for propensity reasons it would be it would be prejudicial yes if they were doing it for knowledge of what kinds of things go on in these kinds of places that would not be prejudicial because it would show that she knows that these things are going on to contribute to the argument but she knew what she was doing i think temporary and isn't the district judge supposed to balance the ye what would be the basis for our overturning that balance just we disagree you see what i'm asking yeah well what else you want to tell us well what was your client's theory of the defense and what was obviously well that she didn't that she had nothing to do with billing and she had nothing to do she did not control own as the painter did that she ran the business that he even she was just a person receiving a modest salary of eight hundred dollars a month or it hundred dollars bi weekly rather every two weeks was it that she didn't know this stuff was fraudulent his therapy sessions and all that was a i'm trying to understand the theory of your defense to map it on to how this evidence would have before a court the evidence would refute the theory that that would be sort of the balance right  she did not control anything that was happening there she did that the disappeared in well i know they are but they brought in testimony to see that she did know anything she was an employee who and dr v gore when she was the one who was acquitted her testimony went into what actually happened there and i know what this appellate panel doesn't have the same function as a jury  but she's indicating that she was just an employee there she was not a owner she had nothing to do with accounts she had no access deposits would draw anything of that sort she had nothing to do with good morning my name is maria me and a rino and i represent a young woman by the name of tamil alger miles i have the pleasure of an hour of representing her in the trial court i was the trial attorney in this matter and i am after thirty years of practice i am thrilled to be here in the court of appeals for the first time well this is first of all i will of course rely on what i submitted and i will join co counsel in stating that this was a lengthy trial  that was very very difficult very it was a very emotional case also and i appreciate the opportunity now to fowles this through miss elgin mile  convicted two separate counts and is currently serving a forty eight month sentence there were and i have set forth in my brief and in my arguments a number of issues that were so problematic during the trial of this case and i you know i i've said them set forth but my primary issue is is that i don't believe and you know i will not concede the sufficiency of the of the evidence argument i don't believe that there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy there sasha in sharma was the ultimate powerful  said everything that man touched every business he set up every thing he had his fingers in was a scam and a you know an effort and you know and quite frankly a whole different issue but the sentence that man received and his ability to still access the millions of dollars he sent overseas is mind boggling happened to him when he was multiple but there was not one conspiracy that everybody was a part of i never understood why mrs alger miles tried with misspelling car they had nothing to do with each other and what was going on  information she needed to run the business that her father of and at her father's request i provided these documents to her and told her this is how you go set up the company was evidence she directed others to do certain things that she was responsible for creating jackie amends that were relied on to bill medicare and that's just not what was presented at trial there was no evidence a the company was but further his daughter to run no proof of that no evidence of that the fact that her father may have purchased this company from mr sharma and then at some point got one of his three children her just said and he did give it to her to run well no he didn't give it to her to run she worked there as a ministerial clerk well again they had and that's where words are powerful when i'm trying to parse something here yeah when she didn't run the company the evidence from from evidence that she ran the company i think the evidence was contrary no i don't think there was testimony she did there was description of what her role was if there her role was to direct you know to make sure that the lab you know specimens were picked up that the the paperwork was done to make sure that everybody else was but her job was not to do any of those things this was paperwork right she was making here she was making sure the allegation is that everything that was going on was fraudulent it wasn't there were real nurses real doctors real physical therapists real people seeing real patients and also evidence if i remember that some of these people were not qualified some of these people were not spading some was not legit and whether that evidence or not there was that testimony here on appeal we can't second guess the jury if there's evidence that there was fraudulent paperwork right or not they were making sure that it was done when nurses and physical therapists went to visit patients they came back and they would give her files that she missed of the government's brief where they're citing things that are incorrect or not supported in the record i can't right now that wasting too much time but through and pick them out what i will say is that there is a flavor that was set forth that that evidence that was submitted at trial doesn't support she you know miss i don't know that there was any dispute that she was her father's daughter doing ministerial work and was or even is there isn't evidence that the work she did what was that she knew it was wrong and there's not what was going on was fine and that not only did she do it but there's don't evidence that she knew that what she that this was wrong when she's got there's issue the issue is whether the jury could believe that she did things that she knew were fraudulent sharma never said that he told her anything and it would be ridiculous to think that this man gave her this information about what was going on and she willingly joined you know the real question what the prosecutor says is at some point she must have realized this was bogus ok like the prosecutor  well except that what mr mile then did let's look at what her participation was if she is creating these false documents or directing the these false documents were these false documents then used to build medicare and to defraud and that's where we have a total that breakdown of the evidence that was presented not a shred of evidence that any of these documents were used by any bill or to bill medicare that's your primary that's restructured well you're not giving up any of your other i'm not giving up any of my other arguments but that yes that was one of the the government told the jury in their opening you're going to hear from the medicare bill or you're going to hear that this person you know some of the issues in your group yes the falsified therapy notes but in fact defendants stipulated a trial that uses that page seven eight two four of the record that accessible build medicare for payment based upon the information contained in falsified notes there was also ample evidence that ms algy mail did in fact run the day to day operations at accessible granted her father appears to have directed her day to day control of the where i'm sorry pages six eight two four two two six of the records stated that she was hired by ms algy male and at sixty eight for nine to sixty two of the record stated that  algy male taught her the system by which they created the dates for the falsified no it's running the company is sort of a looser general way to say that she did keep things for the company people and teach them how to do the job i think the language we use in our brief which is an accurate description of the testimony at trial was that she ran the day to day operations of the company she may not have been the c e o of the company she may not have had full ownership of the company ms lopez asked the medicare bill or if she believed that everything was legitimate algy mail then came back to ms lopez and said don't talk to anyone except for me or my father that's at pages six eight seven nine and  zero of the record she criticized mr makki for not varying sufficiently the falsified notes that he was using to support the therapy sessions they looked too much alike and of course the jury could infer from that that her concern was that medicare would see these notes and think they must be falsified because they're all identical that's a pages six five eight to four of the record and then finally of course was  mails obstructionist conduct when she learned that her father had been arrested in connection with a b c which was one of his other home health care companies she arranged for an employee of b well which was for destroyed the accessible documents and there was corroborating testimony from i believe an agent and an accessible employee but forgive me i'm i'm not crystal positive on that that those documents  and thinking about this business about whether she owned the company there was challenge to the fact that she was part owner of the company finding it right  was that ms williams she challenges the idea that ms williams benefited from haven's fraud by virtue of her ownership  company and your response to that is what i think that relates to two different issues first is the sufficiency of the evidence argument one as asked of the sufficiency of the evidence argument first the court has to construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and mr sharma did testify that ms williams was a common owner of the company her mother ms wright also testified that the company was set up so that she and mr sharma would own it together now they claim that that ownership stak never took place but she response in your brief wasn't what you just said which is but there's evidence that there was i thought your argument was it didn't matter because of it anyway you're correct your honor it doesn't matter because it doesn't matter  she wasn't convicted because of her ownership in the company she was convicted because of the role that she played in defrauding of medicare from the no she does not have to benefit from the fraud in order to be convicted of the fraud she just has to agree to defraud medicare and she did in fact agree to the fraud in medicare and this is a conspiracy charge and in fact a conspiracy charge can be upheld even if there's no evidence that the scheme was actually commit certainly i'm certainly she had she benefited by virtue of her salary now admittedly her salary he was low and with respect to send saying the court considered ms williams role in the conspiracy and the fact that there was some evidence that she was an owner but there was certainly ample evidence that she that she ran the day to day operations of the fraud at haven i'd also note that while she may not have personally benefit in inform of receiving the profits from haven there was also her personal benefit from the kickback conspiracy which is that she received payments from mr algy mail in return for providing medicare patient information that he could use to fraudulently bill medicare from his home health care companies and i think there was evidence of approximately eighty thousand dollars that went to  oftentimes and perhaps even all of the time i couldn't speak to that but i know the cases that i have worked on there's usually a u s attorney and a representative from the u s attorney's office working on the case with the yes that's correct  situation is unfortunately your honor i don't have an answer to that question i can tell you that i'm all cog in a big machine i am a very small cog in this big machine i can tell you that personally this is i have worked on a three medicare fr