Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-30308/USCOURTS-ca9-13-30308-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtis T. Holden
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CURTIS T. HOLDEN, DBA Advanced

Podiatry Specialists PS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-30308

D.C. No.

2:11-cr-02064-

RHW-1

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

September 1, 2015—Seattle, Washington

Filed December 3, 2015

Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald M. Gould,

and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Gould

 Case: 13-30308, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777965, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 1 of 12
2 UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN

SUMMARY*

Criminal Law

The panel affirmed a conviction for thirty-two counts of

health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347.

The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that revised

Count 41 was barred by the statute of limitations. The panel

held that health care fraud in violation of § 1347 is a

continuing offense, and that so long as the indictment was, as

here, written so as to allege only one execution of an ongoing

scheme, the government may charge a single health care

fraud scheme even when several acts in furtherance of the

scheme fall outside the statute of limitations.

The panel rejected the defendant’s contentions that

revised Count 41 impermissibly broadened the charges

against him, that revised Count 41 did not allege an execution

of a fraudulent scheme, and that the Second Superseding

Indictment improperly expanded the original indictment. 

The panel resolved other issues in a concurrently-filed

memorandum disposition.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 13-30308, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777965, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 2 of 12
UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN 3

COUNSEL

Beth Mary Bollinger (argued), Spokane, Washington, for

Defendant-Appellant.

Mary K. Dimke (argued)and Aine Ahmed, Assistant United

States Attorneys; Michael C. Ormsby, United States

Attorney, Yakima, Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

OPINION

GOULD, Circuit Judge:

Dr. Curtis Holden appeals from his jury conviction for

thirty-two counts of health care fraud in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1347. We focus on Holden’s challenges to the

original and superseding indictments the government brought

against him.1 We must decide: (1) whether revised Count 41

was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) whether revised

Count 41 improperly broadened the charges against Holden;

(3) whether revised Count 41 alleged an execution of a

fraudulent scheme; and (4) whether the inclusion of two

counts in the superseding indictment resulted in a

constructive amendment to the original indictment. We have

jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

I

Defendant-Appellant Dr. Curtis Holden is a podiatrist and

the owner of Advanced PodiatrySpecialists, P.S. (“Advanced

1 We resolve all other issues and affirm the district court in a

memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this opinion.

 Case: 13-30308, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777965, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 3 of 12
4 UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN

Podiatry”) in Yakima, Washington. Holden, along with other

podiatrists employed at Advanced Podiatry, treated patients

covered by Medicare, Medicaid, Washington State

Department of Labor and Industries, and private insurance

programs.

On April 21, 2011, the government brought a 59-count

indictment against Holden, charging fifty-six counts of health

care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and three counts of “false

statements relating to health care matters,” violating

18 U.S.C. § 1035. Holden moved to dismiss Counts 41–56,

seventeen alleged false bills stemming from a single visit to

a nursing home on January 6, 2006, as being outside of the

five-year statute of limitations set by 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). In

response, the government argued that: (1) the limitations

period did not begin to run until Holden received the

payments for his fraudulent claims, some of which were

received after April 6, 2006; and (2) the seventeen counts

were part of a “continuing scheme to defraud,” and as such,

the limitations period ran from the date of the last execution

of the scheme. The district court partially rejected both of the

government’s arguments, ruling that, although healthcare

fraud might be a continuing offense, it could not be when the

government charged each alleged fraudulent act as a separate

count. Further, the district court concluded that even though

the execution of a health care fraud scheme was not complete

until the defendant received the proceeds, the government

could only show a single count—Count 42—where the date

of payment placed the indictment within the statute of

limitations. The district court dismissed Counts 41 and 43–56

without prejudice.

On June 19, 2012, the government filed its Second

Superseding Indictment, in which the sixteen dismissed

 Case: 13-30308, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777965, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 4 of 12
UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN 5

counts were consolidated with the original Count 42 to create

a revised Count 41. The government contended that the new

count alleged a continuing scheme to defraud. Revised Count

41 read:

That on or about the date of service of January

6, 2006 and continuing through the date of the

last payment of claims submitted for that date

of service on February 27, 2007, in the

Eastern District of Washington, CURTIS T.

HOLDEN, dba ADVANCED PODIATRY,

knowingly and willfully executed and

attempted to execute the above-described

scheme and artifice to obtain, by means of

materially false and fraudulent pretenses,

representations and promises, money owned

by and under the custody of Medicare . . . in

connection with the delivery of and payment

for health care benefits, items and services by

submitting or causing to be submitted claims

for payment from Medicare which falsely

represented the service of an “Evaluation and

Management” office visit for patients seen at

Garden Village, a skilled nursing facility,

when, in fact, an Evaluation and Management

visit was not the service provided, all in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347(2).

Holden once again filed a motion to dismiss arguing that

the superseding indictment violated the statute of limitations. 

He contended that revised Count 41 still violated the fiveyear statute of limitations, and also substantially broadened

the language of the original indictment, such that it did not

relate back to the original indictment and the limitations

 Case: 13-30308, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777965, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 5 of 12
6 UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN

period was not tolled. The district court denied the motion,

holding that Holden had adequate notice of all the charges

against him, and that “the Superseding Indictment did not

‘substantially or materially’ broaden the charges against

[Holden],” tolling the statute of limitations.

After a seven-day trial, the jury convicted Holden of

thirty-two counts of health care fraud, acquitting him of

Counts 1–2, 11–13, 19–20, 22–23, and 42–44.

II

On appeal, Holden challenges the Second Superseding

Indictment on several grounds. He contends that revised

Count 41 should have been dismissed because it violated the

statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a), broadened

the charges against him, and failed to allege an execution of

a fraudulent scheme. Further, he argues that Counts 42–44

resulted in an impermissible, constructive amendment to the

original indictment.

We review the sufficiency of an indictment de novo,

United States v. Lazarenko, 564 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir.

2009), and also review a district court’s decision not to

dismiss an indictment on statute of limitations grounds de

novo, United States v. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d 920, 922 (9th

Cir. 2006). A claim of constructive amendment to an

indictment previously raised below is likewise reviewed de

novo. United States v. Ward, 747 F.3d 1184, 1188 (9th Cir.

2014).

 Case: 13-30308, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777965, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 6 of 12
UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN 7

A. Statute of Limitations

We first assess whether the district court erred by

allowing the Second Superseding Indictment, which

consolidated original Counts 41–56 to create revised Count

41. The district court permitted revised Count 41 by

reasoning that health care fraud is a continuing offense.

A continuing offense “involves (1) an ongoing course of

conduct that causes (2) a harm that lasts as long as that course

of conduct persists.” United States v. Morales, 11 F.3d 915,

921 (9th Cir. 1993). Unlike most crimes, it is only after this

ongoing course of conduct is complete that the “crime is

complete” for statute of limitations purposes. Toussie v.

United States, 397 U.S. 112, 115 (1970). Thus, a continuing

offense punishes “each execution of a fraudulent scheme

rather than each act in furtherance of such a scheme . . . .” 

United States v. Molinaro, 11 F.3d 853, 859 (9th Cir. 1993). 

The Supreme Court has held an offense is “continuing” when

either: (1) “the explicit language of the substantive criminal

statute compels such a conclusion”; or (2) “the nature of the

crime involved is such that Congress must assuredly have

intended that it be treated as continuing one.” Toussie,

397 U.S. at 115.

We have not previously considered whether health care

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 is a continuing offense. 

The Fifth Circuit has, however, evaluated this issue in United

States v. Hickman, 331 F.3d 439, 445–46 (5th Cir. 2003). 

The court there held that § 1347 is a continuing offense,

making analogy to 18 U.S.C. § 1344, which criminalizes

bank fraud. Id. Because the Fifth Circuit had already held

that § 1344 was a continuing offense, and because § 1347 was

modeled after § 1344 with nearly identical language and

 Case: 13-30308, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777965, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 7 of 12
8 UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN

structure, the court concluded that § 1347 must also, by

analogy, be a continuing offense. Id.

Like the Fifth Circuit, we have already held that § 1344

is a continuing offense. See United States v. Najjor, 255 F.3d

979, 983–84 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Nash, 115 F.3d

1431, 1441 (9th Cir. 1997). We have also held that § 1344 is

to be used as an interpretive model for § 1347. See United

States v. Awad, 551 F.3d 930, 937–38 (9th Cir. 2009). We

agree with the Fifth Circuit and hold that health care fraud in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 is a continuing offense.

Yet, that does not completely resolve the question before

us. Some of the counts in the original indictment were

dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations period under

18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). Though the government may be

allowed to allege that many fraudulent acts make up a single

scheme, it does not necessarily follow that the government

may combine those acts into a single charge when some acts

fall outside the statute of limitations. Thus, the district court

was only justified in permitting revised Count 41 if the

multiple acts completed in relation to the 2006 nursing home

visit could be charged together as a single scheme to avoid

statute of limitation problems.

In light of Awad, the government could charge Holden’s

fraudulently submitted claims as multiple counts. See Awad,

551 F.3d at 937–38. However, the government was not

precluded from charging all of the claims as a single count. 

In Awad, we held that “each execution of the [health care]

scheme to defraud may be charged as a separate count,” not

that it must be. Id. at 938 (emphasis added). This reasoning

is reinforced by our precedent involving duplicity challenges,

where we previously have held that an act which could

 Case: 13-30308, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777965, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 8 of 12
UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN 9

constitute an independent execution of a bank fraud scheme

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 did not need to be charged as

a separate count. United States v. King, 200 F.3d 1207, 1213

(9th Cir. 1999) (answering in the negative whether “an act

which can be viewed as an independent execution of a

scheme must be charged in a separate count.”). So long as the

“indictment was written so as to allege only one execution of

an ongoing scheme,” id., we hold that the government may

charge a single health care fraud scheme in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1347 even when several acts in furtherance of the

scheme fall outside the statute of limitations.

In the Second Superseding Indictment, the government

was careful to allege only one execution of an ongoing

scheme in relation to the services performed at the nursing

home in 2006. “Holden . . . knowingly and willfully executed

and attempted to execute the above-described scheme and

artifice to obtain, by means of materially false and fraudulent

pretenses, representations and promises, money owned by

and under the custody and control of Medicare . . . .” Though

some acts in furtherance of the alleged scheme may have

been outside the statute of limitations, the scheme, as charged

in revised Count 41, was within the five-year period under

18 U.S.C. § 3282(a).

Though the parties disagree as to what act constitutes the

“execution” of a scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347, we

need not decide that issue. Holden’s final fraudulent claim

was submitted on February 14, 2007, and the payment for that

claim came two days later on February 16, 2007. Regardless

of whether the execution occurs at submission or receipt of

payment, the alleged scheme was executed less than five

years before the original indictment was filed on April 21,

2011.

 Case: 13-30308, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777965, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 9 of 12
10 UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN

We conclude that the district court did not err by allowing

the government to proceed on revised Count 41. Health care

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 is a continuing offense,

which may be properly charged as a single scheme in a single

count.

B. Other Indictment Challenges

We reject Holden’s other challenges to the indictment. 

First, Holden contends that revised Count 41 impermissibly

broadened the charges against him by including facts

substantially different from those alleged in the original

Counts 41–56. If a district court dismisses an indictment, or

a portion of an indictment, the savings clause of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3288 permits the government to return a new indictment

after the statute of limitations has expired, so long as it is

done within six months of the dismissal. United States v.

W.R. Grace, 504 F.3d 745, 753 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting

United States v. Charnay, 537 F.2d 341, 354 (9th Cir. 1976)).

Specifically, Holden argues that the new charge exposed

him to liability for any patient seen at the nursing home for

up to fourteen months, the time period alleged in revised

Count 41. But his claims are based on a misreading of the

superseding indictment. “An indictment must be read in its

entirety and construed in accord with common sense and

practicality.” United States v. Alber, 56 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th

Cir. 1995). In the Second Superseding Indictment, the

government simply included the start and end dates of

Holden’s alleged fraudulent scheme, which began on the date

of service—January 6, 2006—and ended on the final date that

Advanced Podiatry received payment for a fraudulent

claim—February 27, 2007. “The test for sufficiency of the

indictment is ‘not whether it could have been framed in a

 Case: 13-30308, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777965, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 10 of 12
UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN 11

more satisfactorymanner, but whether it conforms to minimal

constitutional standards.’” Awad, 551 F.3d at 935 (quoting

United States v. Hinton, 222 F.3d 664, 672 (9th Cir. 2000)). 

And here, Holden had sufficient notice of the charges brought

against him. The government did exactly what the district

court said would be permissible when the district court

dismissed Counts 41 and 43–56 without prejudice—combine

the seventeen fraudulent billings as a single count. We

conclude that revised Count 41 was based on “the same

factual allegations as the original indictment,” United States

v. Hickey, 580 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir. 2009), and did not

substantially broaden the charges against him.

Second, for the first time on appeal, Holden argues that

revised Count 41 did not allege an execution of a fraudulent

scheme. The indictment must be “liberally construed in favor

of validity,” United States v. James, 980 F.3d 1314, 1316 (9th

Cir. 1992), and “it is only required that ‘the necessary facts

appear in any form or by fair construction can be found

within the terms of the indictment,’” id. at 1317 (quoting

Kaneshiro v. United States, 445 F.2d 1266, 1269 (9th Cir.

1971)). Here, the Second Superseding Indictment alleged an

execution of a scheme, as it stated that Holden “submi[tted]

or caus[ed] to be submitted claims for payment from

Medicare which falsely represented the service of an

‘Evaluation and Management’ office visit for patients seen at

Garden Village, a skilled nursing facility, when, in fact, an

Evaluation and Management visit was not the service

provided.” Moreover, given the context of revised Count 41,

discussed above, Holden also had notice of the charges

against him.

Finally, Holden contends that the Second Superseding

Indictment “improperly expanded” the original indictment by

 Case: 13-30308, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777965, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 11 of 12
12 UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN

including Counts 42–44, which alleged illegal conduct in

2010. However, as the government notes, there is no dispute

that Counts 42–44 were returned by the grand jury, and the

evidence presented in support of those counts does not vary

or expand the indictment in any material way.

III

We affirm the jury conviction finding Holden guilty of

thirty-two counts of health care fraud in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1347.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-30308, 12/03/2015, ID: 9777965, DktEntry: 59-1, Page 12 of 12