FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 22, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10874

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 2 0 4 - CR- J - 3 3 - M CR U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s L A U R E T T E C . H U N T E R , R O B E R T C . B R O W N , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 22, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R obe rtC . B r ow n a nd L aur e tt e C . H unt e rappe a l f r om the i rc onvi c t i ons onOf theov er $ 2, 00 0, 00 0 in

falsec laimssu

bmitte d, theinsuranc ec omp anie s p aid RCB 1 $1,688,702. Hunter also asks that if we remand this ca se for a new trial, we also set aside the 2 judgment of forf

eiture ag ainst her. B eca

use wedo not remand, w e nee d not reach this issue. 2 c ha r ge s of

c ons pi r a c y , 18 U . S . C . § 371, he a l th c a r e f r aud, 18 U . S . C . § 1347, m a k in g f a ls e s ta te m e n ts , 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 3 5 , a n d m a il f r au d , 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 1 . B r o w n , p r e v io u s ly alic e n s e d p h y s ic ian , o p e r a te d aw a lk - in m e d ic a l c lin ic c a l l e d R C B i n J a c ks onvi l l e , F l or i da . H unt e rw a s the c l i ni c ’ s of f i c e m a na ge r , a nd she and B row n h andl ed al l of the bi l l i ng . T he G ov ernm ental l eged thatt og ether, B r ow n a nd H unt e rs ubm i tt e d f r audul e ntc l a i m s t ot a l i ng $2, 384, 686 t o va r i ous i nsurance c om pani es i ncl ud i ng A etna, U ni t ed and C IG N A for m edi ca l se rvi ce s w hi ch R C B never provi ded. T he defendant s w er e c on vi ct ed af t eran ei gh t -day 1 j ury tr i a l , a nd the y now a r gue tha ts e ve r a l di s tr i c tc our te rr or s be f or e a nd dur i ng th e irtr ia l v io la te d th e irc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . T h e y a s kth is C o u r t to v a c a te th e ir c o n v ic tio n s a n d to d is m is s th e c a s e w ith p r e ju d ic e o rto r e m a n d f

o ran e w tr ia l. 2 H o w e v e r , f

i n d i n g n o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r , w e a f f i rm. T he or i gi na l c a s e a ga i ns tB r ow n a nd H unt e rw a s di s m i s s e d w i thout prej ud i ce du e t o a vi ol at i on of the S peedy T ri al A ct . T he grand j ury then returned the i ndi c tm e nti n thi s c a s e tha tm i rr or e d tha tof the or i gi na l c a s e . B r ow n a nd H un t er ’ s f

i rs tcl ai m i s thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y f ai l i ng t o d i sm i ss the ori gi nal ca se agai nstthem w i th p re j ud i ce . T here i s no d i sput e thata S peedy T ri al A ct3

v i o l at i o n o ccu rred . T h e o n l y q u est i o n b efo re u s i s w h eth er th e o ri g i n al case shou l d h ave been di sm i ss ed w i th p re j ud i ce , a quest i on w hi ch w e r evi ew for a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . B r o w n , 1 8 3 F .3 d 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 0 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . 18 U . S . C . § 3 16 2(a) (2) provi des that , i n the eventof a S peedy T ri al A ct vi ol at i on , the i nd i ctm entshal l be di sm i ss ed up on m ot i on of the defendant . “ In d e te rm in in g w h e th e rto d is m is s th e c a s e w ith o rw ith o u t p r e ju d ic e , th e c o u r t s h a ll c ons i de r , a m ong othe r s , e a c h of the f ol l ow i ng f

a c t or s : the s e r i ous ne s s of the of f e ns e ; the f

a c t s and c i r c um s t a nc e s of the c a s e w hi c h l e d t o the di s m i s s a l ; a nd the i m pa c tof

ar e pr os e c ut i on on the a dm i ni s tr a t i on of [ the S pe e dy T r i a l A c t ] a nd on th e a d m in is tr a tio n o f

ju s tic e .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 1 6 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) . T h e r e is n o p r e s u m p tio n in fa vo r of e i ther di sm i ss al w i th o r w i tho utprej ud i ce . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. T ay l or, 4 8 7 U .S . 3 2 6 , 3 3 5 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . M ir a n d a , 8 3 5 F .2 d 8 3 0 , 8 3 4 - 3 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1988) ( di s m i s s i ng i ndi c tm e ntw i thoutpr e j udi c e ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P hi l l i ps , 775 F . 2d 14 54 (11th C i r. 19 85 ) ( re vers i ng di sm i ss al w i th p re j ud i ce w here the di stri ct courtevi nced a pref

er ence for thi s r em edy and re m andi ng for e ntryof a di sm i ss al w i tho utprej ud i ce ). If

the di stri ctcourthas properl y c on si dere d al l of the st atut ory f a c t or s a nd s upport i ng f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs a r e notc l e a r l y i n e rr or , i t s j udgm e nt “s h o u ld n o t b e lig h tly d is tu rb e d .” T a y lo r , 4 8 7 U .S . a t 3 3 7 . T h is r e c o r d r e f

le c ts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly d is c u s s e d a n d a d e q u a te ly4

w ei gh ed the re qu i si t e f

ac t ors. F i rs t , the courtfoun d thatthe defendant s w er e

“ char ged w i th n oton e buttw enty f i ve se ri ou s off

ense s” al l egi ng thatthey de f r aude d i ns ur a nc e c om pa ni e s , “ r e s ul t [ i ng] i n the i m pr ope rappr opr i a t i on of approx i m at el y 2. 5 m i l l i on do l l ar s. ” T he defendant s had al so m ov ed for s ever al cont i nu ance s t o p re pare for tri al , w hi l e the G ov ernm enthad o nl y m ov ed for a cont i nu ance on ce (and thatm ot i on w as j oi ned b y the defendant s) . T he di stri ct courtthen w ei gh ed the i m pactof re prosec ut i on on the adm i ni stra t i on of the A ct a nd on the a dm i ni s tr a t i on of j us t i c e , w e i ghi ng the a r gum e nttha tdi s m i s s a l w i thout p rej u d i ce u n d erm i n es th e effect of the S p eed y T ri al A ct , an d th e co n v erse a r g u m e n t th a t “r e p r o s e c u tio n f u rth e r s th e p u b lic in te r e s t in b r in g in g c r im in a ls to tr i a l . ” T he c ourta l s o c ons i de r e d “ the f a c ttha tthe de l ay [ w a s ] note gr e gi ous a nd th ere [w as] n o ap p aren tp rej u d i ce t o th e d efen d an t s. ” H av i n g b al an ced th ese fa ct ors, the di stri ctcourtfoun d d i sm i ss al w i tho utprej ud i ce t o b e app ropri at e. G i ve n the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s c a r e f ul c ons i de r a t i on of

a l l of the s e f a c t or s , w e s e e no abuse of di sc re t i on i n the di sm i ss al of the ori gi nal ca se w i tho utprej ud i ce . W e al so fi n d n o ab u se o f d i scret i o n i n th e l i m i t at i o n s i m p o sed o n th e cro sse x a m i n a t i o n s a ttr i a l o f

two p h y s i c i a n s wh o t e s t i f i e d f o rth e Go v e rn m e n t . B r o wn a r gue s tha the s houl d ha ve be e n pe rm i tt e d t o c r os s - e xa m i ne the s e w i tne s s e s about al l eged cond uctthathad o cc urre d m any y ears earl i er . U nd erthe ci rc um st ance s5

p resen t ed h ere, w e fi n d n o ab u se o f d i scret i o n i n l i m i t i n g th e sco p e o f cro sse x a m in a tio n o n th e b a s is th a t th e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e , e v e n if f o u n d to b e r e le v a n t to the i s s ue s pr e s e nt e d, w oul d be s i gni f i c a nt l y outw e i ghe d by the pr e j udi c i a l e f

f e c tof s uc h que s t i oni ng. S e e F e d. R . E vi d. 403. N or do w e f

i nd an abuse of di sc re t i on i n the di stri ctcourt ’ s r ef usal t o com pel the di s c l os ur e of

w i tne s s P e nny T hom a s ’ s c onf i de nt i a l pr e - s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on re po rt . T ho m as had p l ed gu i l ty t o p erm i tt i ng B row n and H un t ert o b i l l her i n su ran ce co m p an y fo r m ed i cal treatm en t s sh e d i d n o trecei v e. T h ere i s a pres um pt i on agai nstdi sc l osure of c on fi dent i al P S Is t o thi rd part i es , so the bu rden i s on B row n t o sho w a s peci al or com pel l i ng need for the i nform at i on cont ai ned th e r e in . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . G o m e z , 3 2 3 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 0 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . B r o w n f a ile d to m e e t h is b u r d e n , a n d , th u s , w e f in d n o ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . W e a l so fi nd no re vers i bl e e rr or re gardi ng the ar gu m ent s thatthe di stri ct c our te rr e d by pl a c i ng undue e m pha s i s on m a tt e r s j udi c i a l l y not i c e d ori n the i ns truc t i ons gi ve n t o the j ury ortha tthe r e w e r e doubl e j e opa r dy vi ol a t i ons . N ordo w e f in d m e r it in H u n te r ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y f a ilin g to a d m it e vi de nc e of

H unt e r ’ s i nc om e t a xe s , ba nk i nf orm a t i on, a nd l oa n i nf

orm a t i on dur i ng t i m e pe r i ods out s i de of

the t i m e of

the a l l e ge d c ons pi r a c y . F i na l l y , w e f i nd no r e v e r s ib le e rr o rw ith r e f e r e n c e to th e a r g u m e n t th a t th e p r o s e c u to rim p r o p e r ly6

v o u c h e d f

o rw itn e s s T h o m a s d u r in g c lo s in g a r g u m e n ts . AF F I RME D.