Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20763/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20763-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Maria Vasquez
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20763

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIA VASQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-443-2

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Maria Vasquez appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea 

conviction of conspiracy to commit theft of public money. She argues that the 

district court improperly applied a two-level increase to her base offense level 

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) because her offense involved 10 or 

more victims. Specifically, she argues that, although she submitted upcoded 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 27, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20763 Document: 00513812452 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2016
No. 15-20763

2

bills to Medicare and Medicaid, her use of her patients’ means of identification 

was both lawful and with authority, making her patients not victims.

We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the 

sentencing guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United 

States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

Vasquez’s argument is unavailing. Any lawful authority she had to 

submit bills for reimbursement to Medicaid and Medicare did not include the 

authority to submit fraudulent claims. Because Vasquez’s offense involved the 

unlawful use of the means of identification of 10 or more victims, the district 

court properly applied a two-level enhancement pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i). 

See § 2B1.1, comment. (n.4(E)). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 

is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20763 Document: 00513812452 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2016