1

07-3762 -cr US A v . Akpan UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER
R U L I N G S B Y S U M M ARY O R D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R FI L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L R U LE O F A PPELLA TE PR O C EDU R E 32 . 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A P A R T Y M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E RAL A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A P ART Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O RDE R M US T S E RVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for the Second C i r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed S t at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on the 21 dayof J anuary , tw o thous and t en. st PRE SEN T: D EN N I S J A CO BS, C hi ef Judge , ROS EM ARY S. P OOLER, R E E N A R A G G I, C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel l ee , v. N o. 07- 3762- cr GODWI N J
. AKP AN, D e fen da n t-Ap

p e lla n t.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- SUBM I TTI NG FOR APP ELLAN T: M A U R I C E H
. SERCAR Z, Se r c a r z & R i opel l e, L L P, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k. S UB M I T T I NG F OR AP P E L L E E : R I T A M
. G L A V I N , A s s i s t an t U ni t ed St at es A t t orney( J onathan S. K ol odner , A s s i s t antU ni t ed S ta te s A tto rn e y , on the br i ef ) f or M i c hael J. G arc i a, U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyforthe Sout h ern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k.2

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (K im b a M . W o o d , C hi ef Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DE CR E E D th a tth e j u d g me n to f c o n v i c t i o n , e n t e r e d o n Au g u s t2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , i s AF F I RMED
. D efe ndantG odw i n J
. A kpan, w ho w as convi ct ed of c om m i t t i ng heal th- car e fr aud and
su b m itt in g f

a lse sta tem e n ts in c o n n e c tio n th e re w ith , s e e 1 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 4 7 , 1 0 3 5 , ap p e a ls f ro m th a t p o rtio n o f

th e ju d g m e n t se n ten c in g h im to a 3 7 -m o n th ter m o f im p riso n m e n t. I n the af

t erm ath of U ni t ed St at es v . B o o k er, w e r evi ew s ent ence s for “r eas onabl enes s , ” 543 U
. S. 220, 262 ( 2005) , “a de fer ent i al s t andar d l i m i t ed t o i dent i fy i ng abus e of di s cr et i on regar dl es s of w hethera cha l l enged s ent ence i s ‘ i ns i de, j us tout s i de, or
s i gni fi cant l yout s i de the G ui del i nes r ange, ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. J ones , 531 F. 3d 163, 170 ( 2d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (q u o tin g G a ll v . U n ited S tate s, 5 5 2 U .S
. 3 8 , 4 0 (2 0 0 7 )). O u r re v iew p ro c e e d s in tw o s t eps : fi r s t , w e must“as cert ai n w hetherthe s ent ence w as adm i ni s t er ed w i thout pr ocedur al err or , ” U ni t ed S t at es v. W i l l i ams, 524 F. 3d 209, 214 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ; and s econd, if th e s e n te n c e is “ p ro c e d u ra lly s o u n d ,” w e m u s t “ c o n s id e r [ its ] s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s ,” G a ll v . U n ited S tate s, 5 5 2 U .S . a t 5 1 , b y e v a lu a tin g “ w h e th e r th e D istric t Ju d g e a b u se d h is di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng t hat the [1 8 U
. S. C
. ] § 3553( a) fac t or s s uppor t ed” the s ent ence i m po sed, i d. a t 5 6. In apply i ng reas on ableness r eview t o thi s case, w e assum e t he p art i es’ fami l i ar i tyw i th the fa ct s and the r ecor d of pr i orpr ocee di ng s, w h ich w e re fer ence onl yas
nece s s aryt o expl ai n ourdeci s i on.3

A kpan s ubm i t s thatthe di s tr i ctcourtcomm i t t ed pr ocedur al err or i n empl oy i ng a 12- l evel enhanc ementw hen ca l cul at i ng the offens e l evel r el evantt o hi s Sent enci ng G ui del i nes
r a ng e be c a us e the e vi de nc e di d not s up po r t a n i nt e nd e d l os s e xc e e di ng $2 00 , 00 0. Se e U
. S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( 2005)
. W e re v iew the cha l l enged f actual fi ndi ng forcl earerr or , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. K er l ey , 5 4 4 F
. 3d 172, 179 ( 2d C i r . 2008) , and i dent i fynone i n t hi s cas e. A k p a n d o e s n o tc o n t e s tth a t th e g o v e rn m e n t p r o v e d a t tr i a l th a t , th r o u g h h i s c o m p a n y, G oodl i fe M edi cal Suppl i es ( “G M S”) , he caus ed an i nt ended l os s of $107, 000 bys ubm i t t i ng
num er ous fal s e cl ai m s forr ei m bur s ementt o M edi car e. I ndeed, the j uryconvi ct ed A kpan of
s ubm i t t i ng $43, 000 w or th of cha r ged fa l s e cl ai m s , and the di s tr i ct courts peci fi cal l ycr edi t ed tho se w i tnesses w ho t est i fi ed that he subm i t t ed a f urther $64 , 00 0 w orth o f un charged on es. In ste a d , A k p a n a rg u e s tha t th e f in a n c ial re c o rd s a n d f

o rg e d c e rtific a tes o f

m e d ica l n e c e ss ity ( “C M N s ”) s ei zed f

r om G M S di d nots uppor t the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ng that$200, 000 w as a “r eas onabl e es t i m at e” of the t ot al i nt ended l os s . U
. S. Sent enci ng G ui d eli nes M anual § 2B 1. 1 cmt
. n. 3( C )
. W e di s agr ee. T h e $ 1 0 7 , 0 0 0 loss w as reflec ted in o n ly2 8 sp ec ifi c f alse c lai m s. T h e d istri ct co u rt found thatG M S’ s fi nanci al r ecor ds s how ed thatthe companys ubm i t t ed 1 4 9 claims of reim b ur s ementform ot or i zed w heel chai r s w hen, i n fac t , i t s ow n r ecor ds es t abl i s hed that G M S pur chas ed on l y12. B as ed on thatfac t , the di s tr i ctcourtdi d notcl ear l yerrw hen,

r ej ect ing A k pan’ s uns ubs t ant i at ed as s ert i on thathe pur chas ed addi t i onal w heel chai r s and4

s coot er s fr om var i ous di s tr i but or s , i tconcl uded thatG M S acqui r ed l es s than one- thi r d of the

w heel chai r s and ac ces s or i es A kpan cl ai m ed t o have de l i ver ed t o benef i ci ar i es . G i ven A kp an’s pr ov en p ract i ce of subm i t t i ng fal se cl ai m s for i t em s never given t o b enef i ci ari es, i tw as al s o m or e than r eas onabl e forthe di s tr i ctcourtt o i nferthat the fin an cial r ecor ds evi dence d a s i m i l arfr audul entpr act i ce, r atherthan, as A kpan s ubm i t s , a codi ng, bi l l i ng, or
s om e otheri nnocenterr or . See U ni t ed St at es v. U ddi n, 551 F. 3d 176, 180- 81 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ( uphol di ng l os s es t i ma t e whe r e “ ‘ k n o wn’ d a t a ” r e g a r d i n g p r e d i c a t e tr a ns act i ons ’ compar at i ve natur e and c ont exts ugges t ed thattheyw er e fr audul ent ) ; s ee also U n it ed S t at es v. M ac P h erso n , 4 2 4 F
. 3 d 1 8 3 , 1 9 1 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ) (h o lding that p att ern ev iden ce co u ld su p p o rt i nfer ence of i nt ent )
. Fi nal l y , byfi ndi ng that the pr i ce of ea ch w heel chai rw as $5, 100 ( w hi ch M edi car e r ei m bur s ed ata r at e of 80% ) , the di s tr i ctcourtappr opr i at el ydeduce d that the i nt ended l os s “ea s i l yexce ed[e d] ” $200, 000. Sent enci ng T r . at20. Indepe nd ent of G M S ’s fi nan ci a l r e c o rd s, the d i stri ctcou rt ’s l oss fi nd i ng w as al so
s uppor t ed byi nfer ence s dr aw n fr om the for ged C M N s . Speci fi cal l y , the di s tr i ctcourtfound that (1) the re e x ist ed 2 1 fo rge d C M N s tha t w ere n o t i n clud ed as p art of the $ 1 0 7 , 0 0 0 fig u re p r o v e d a ttr i a l , ( 2 ) Ak p a n i n t e n d e d t o u s e th e s e CM Ns t o s u b mi tf a l s e r e i mb u r s e me n tc l a i ms for$90, 000 w or th of m ot or i zed w heel chai r s , and ( 3) A kpan i nt ended to u se otherfor ged C M N s ( thati s , C M N s fori t ems otherthan w heel chai r s ) t o defr aud M edi car e of a fur ther $ 4 , 0 0 0
. C o m b ining thes e f igu res w ith the $ 1 0 7 , 0 0 0 p rov ed at tri a l, th e d istri ct co u rt ap p rop ri atelyco n clud ed that the su m total o f th e inten d ed loss w as o v er $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0
. A k p an ’s5

s ugges t i on thatthe di s tr i ctcourti m pr operl y d o u b l e- count ed thes e C M N s t o r eac h the $200, 000 fi gur e i s fac tual l yi ncorr ect . T he di s tr i ctcourtr el ied on C M N s thatw er e not i ncl uded i n the $107, 000 pr oved at tr i al , and, beca us e the C M N s pr ovi ded an a l t ernat i ve and i n d e p e n d e n tr o u t e t o c a l c u l a t e th e $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 i n t e n d e d
- l o s s f i g u r e , i ti s i rr e l e v a n tth a ts o me
o re v e n al l o f

th e s e CM Ns c o u l d h a v e b e e n u s e d i n c o n n e c t i o n wi th th e 1 4 9 c l a i ms do cum ented i n G M S ’s fi nan ci al recor ds. W e acknow l edge, as does the governm ent , thatthe di s tr i ctcourtappar ent l ym i s s poke

w h e n it in iti a lly c h a ra c ter ize d th e $ 1 0 7 ,0 0 0 lo ss p ro v e d a t trial a s a n a m o u n t “a d d iti o n a l” to

— rathe r th an inclu sive o f — the $ 4 3 , 0 0 0 attri b u table to th e c h arg ed claim s. S en tenc ing T r. 17. B ut gi ven A kpan’ s admi s s i on thatthe governm entpr oved a l os s of $107, 000 attr i al , and the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r ecor d- bas ed fi ndi ng of a $200, 000- pl us i nt ended l os s , i t i s cl earthatany
m i s s t at ementw as a harm l es s “s l i p of the t ongue” notw arr ant i ng r emand. U ni t ed St at es v. G r i m es , 225 F. 3d 254, 260 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ; s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. Sanchez , 517 F. 3d 651, 66 5 ( 2d C i r. 20 08 ) (expl ai ning that rem and t o cl ari fy recor d am bigui ty i s un neces sa ry if it is c le a r t h a t d is tr ic t c o u rt w o u ld h a v e im p o s e d s a m e s e n te n c e in a n ye v e n t)
. T h e j u d g me n ti s AF F I RMED
. F o r th e C o u rt: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt