N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. VLADISLAV TC HER

NIAVSKY, AKA C he rniavsky

C h e rniavsky , AKA Vla disla v C he rniavsky , AKA Vla disla v Tc he rniy vsky , AKA Vla di, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50051

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00668-TJH-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Te rry J. Ha tte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 8, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WARDLAW

and GOULD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd GONZALEZ ROGER S, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JAN 05 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Yvonne Gonz a le z R oge rs, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa t ion.Vla disla v Tc h e rniavsky

a ppe a ls from his c onvic tion of onec ount of
c onspira c y

and five re lat e d c ounts of he a lth c are fra ud on m ultiplegrounds. W e
a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in a dm itting e vide nc e of Tc he rniavsky ’ s ultra sound-re late d a c tivitie s. 1 B e c a use suc h e v i de nc e wa s

“ ine xtric a bly inte rtwine d” with the powe r whe e l c ha ir c onspira c y offe n se , the
e vide nc e wa s prope rly

e xe m pte d from the re quire m e nts of Fe de ra l R ule of Evide n c e 404 a

nd prope rly

a dm itte d. Unite d State

s v . W illiams , 989 F.2d 1061, 1070 (9th C ir. 1993). 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

not e xc luding e xpe rt te stim ony on the m odus ope randi of ty pic a l dura ble m e dic a l e quipm e n t (“ DM E” ) M e d ic are fra

ud sc he m e s. M odus ope randi e vide nc e is a dm issible unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 702 to e duc a te jurors a bout the m e thods a

nd te c hnique s use d in a pa rtic u la r are a of c rim ina l a c t ivity . He re , the te stim ony proffe re d sa

tisfie d the
re quire m e nts of R

ule 702 to e duc a te the jury a bout the m e thods a

nd te c hnique s
use d in M e dic are fra

ud sc he m e s involving DM E. Se e Unite d State s v . Gil , 58 F.3d 1414, 1422 (9th C ir. 1995); Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 735 F.2d 1200, 1202 (9th

1 W e ne e d not a ddre ss the gove rnm e nt’ s a rgum e nt tha

t pla in e rror re vie w a pplie s be c a

use Tc he rniavsky ’ s a

rgum e nt is una

va iling unde r the le ss de fe re ntia l a buse o f disc re tion sta

nda rd. 2C ir. 1984). The te stim ony wa s not unduly

pre judic ia l be c a

use it he lpe d to e xpla in Tc he rniavsky ’ s a c tions a

nd wa s probative of his guilt from pa rtic i pation in the fraudule nt sc h e m e . Fe d . R . Evid. 403. The distric t c ourt’ s fa ilure to providea lim iting instruc tion a

t the tim e the te stim ony

wa s offe re d wa s not pla in e rror be c a use the a b se nc e of a

lim iting instruc tion did not m a te ria l ly a ffe c t the ve rdic t. Se e Unite d State

s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). 3. The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr by not disc ounting its loss a nd
re stitution c a lc u lations ba se d on te stim ony

tha t som e of the patie n ts who re c e ive d powe r whe e lc ha irs we re a c tua lly e ntitle d to the m

unde r M e dic are . 2 The gove rnm e nt pre se nte d suffic ie nt e vide nc e re ga rding Tc he rniav sky ’ s busine ss to pe rm it the distric t c o urt to m ake the infe re nc e tha t m ost, if not al l, of the M e dic are billing wa s ta inte d by

fra ud. Se e Unite d State

s v . W a lte r-Eze , 869 F.3d 891, 912–13 (9th C ir. 2017). Furthe rm ore , Tc he rniav sky fa i le d to m e e t the burde nshifting sta

nda rd in he a lth c are fraud c a se s. Se e Popov , 742 F.3d a t 916; Unite d

2 C ontra ry to the gove rnm e nt’ s a

rgum e nt, Tc h e rniavsky

argue d be l ow tha

t the l oss a m ount wa s ove rstate d a

nd the re by

did not forfe it his loss a

m ount argum e nts. In a

ny e v e nt, his c la im s m

ust be re vie we d for c le ar e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Popov , 742 F.3d 911, 914 (9th C i r. 2014) (“ A distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l de te rm i nations, inc luding the am ount of loss in c a se s of fra ud, a re re vie we d for c le ar e rror.” ). As for the re stitution a m o unt, the a

pplic a ble sta nda rd of re vie w is c le ar e rror, irre spe c t ive of whe the r Tc he rniavsky forfe ite d his re stitution c la im s. Se e Unite d State

s v . Lazare n k

o , 624 F.3d 1247, 1249 (9th C i r. 2010) (“ Fa c tua l findings supporting a

n orde r of re stitution a

re re vie we d for c le ar e rror.” ). 3Stat e s Se nte nc i ng Guide line s M anua l (“ USSG” ) § 2B 1.1, c m t. n.3 (F)(viii). Hedid not pre se nt a

nything to reb ut the gove rnm e nt’ s prim a fa c ie e vide nc e of inte nde d loss a nd e sta b lish how m

uc h of his busine ss wa s le g itim a te . Se e W a lte r-Eze , 869 F.3d at 912–14. 4. The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr a t se nte nc ing in holding tha t Tc he rniavsky

wa s a n orga niz e r or le a de r of the offe nse . The c rim ina l a c tivity involve d at le a st five pa

rtic ipa nts, a n d the re are fa c ts to indic a t e tha t Tc h e rniavsky
c ontrolle d or le d othe rs in the e nte rprise . USSG § 3B 1.1(a ). The fa c t tha t the pa rtic i pa nts m a y hav e be e n inde pe nde nt c ontra c tors, or tha t the re m ay

hav e be e n othe r le a d e rs, doe s not re nde r a pplic a tion of the orga

n iz e r or le a de r e nha

nc e m e nt
e rrone ous. Unite d State

s v . Montano , 250 F.3d 709, 715–16 (9th C ir. 2001); USSG § 3B 1.1, c m

t. n.4. AFFIRM E D
.

4