IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41172

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FLORENCE B. KROMA, also known as Florence Kamara, also known as 

Florence Koroma, also known as Florence Bangura,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-165-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Florence B. Kroma appeals the sentence imposed after her conviction by 

a jury of nine counts of health care fraud. She challenges the district court’s 

adoption of the uncontroverted $775,099.09 loss amount reflected in her

presentence investigation report (PSR) as the basis for (1) a 14-level 

enhancement to her offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) and 

 

* 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

April 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41172 Document: 00514412886 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2018
No. 16-41172

2

(2) a restitution award in that amount. We review these unpreserved 

arguments for plain error. See United States v. Hearns, 845 F.3d 641, 648 (5th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2143 (2017); United States v. Inman, 411 F.3d 591, 

595 (5th Cir. 2005).

With respect to the § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) offense-level enhancement, the 

district court was entitled to adopt the PSR’s findings, including the calculation 

of the loss amount, “without additional inquiry if those facts have an 

evidentiary basis with sufficient indicia of reliability and the defendant does 

not present rebuttal evidence or otherwise demonstrate that the information 

is materially unreliable.” Hearns, 845 F.3d at 650 (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). Kroma did not present rebuttal evidence or demonstrate 

that the loss amount was materially unreliable, and she fails to demonstrate 

on appeal that the PSR lacked an evidentiary basis with sufficient indicia of 

reliability; accordingly, she fails to establish that the district court erred by 

sentencing her based on the loss amount in the unrebutted PSR. See United 

States v. Ayika, 837 F.3d 460, 467 (5th Cir. 2016).

With respect to the restitution award, Kroma is correct, and the 

Government concedes, that the district court erred by awarding restitution for 

losses outside the specific temporal scope of the fraudulent scheme charged in 

the indictment, and that the error was clear or obvious and affected Kroma’s

substantial rights. See United States v. Lozano, 791 F.3d 535, 537 (5th Cir. 

2015); United States v. Mason, 722 F.3d 691, 695 (5th Cir. 2013); Inman, 

411 F.3d at 595. We have previously held that failing to correct this type of 

error would “constitute manifest injustice in the minds of most jurists,” Mason, 

722 F.3d at 695, and “[i]n every case where a district court plainly erred by 

ordering restitution for losses that occurred outside the proper temporal scope, 

 Case: 16-41172 Document: 00514412886 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2018
No. 16-41172

3

we have exercised our discretion to correct the problem,” Lozano, 791 F.3d at 

539. We exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case as well.

Accordingly, we VACATE the restitution award and REMAND to the 

district court for recalculation of the amount of restitution in accordance with 

this opinion. In all other respects, Kroma’s conviction and sentence are 

AFFIRMED. Kroma’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel is 

DENIED.

 Case: 16-41172 Document: 00514412886 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/03/2018