2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-18-2003 

# U SA v . V eho sk i P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2395

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . V e hoski " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 451. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/451* Honorable Mary A. McLaughli n, Unite d States Distri ct Judge for the East ern District of P enn sylvan ia, sittin g by d esig natio n. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-2395
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. MA RY AL ICE V EH OS KI, Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE MID DL E D ISTR ICT O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

D.C. Crim. No. 00- cr-00292 Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Thomas I. Vanaski e, Chief Judge

Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

June 6, 2003
Be for e: B AR RY , FU EN TE S, Circuit Judges , and Mc LAUGHLIN, * Distri ct Judge (Opinion Fi led: J

une 17, 2003)
OPI NION2

BA RR Y, Circuit

Judge Appellant

Mary Alice Vehoski pled gui lty to one count

of healt h care fra

ud, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1347, based on an indictment charging t

hat a company

she owned, Nurses Per Diem, bill ed Blue Cross for reimburs ement of over $70, 000 in nursing servi ces that

were never provi ded to pat ients between September 1996 and September 1998. After c rediting her ac ceptance of responsibi lit y, the pres entence investi gation report calculated tha t Veho ski had an adjusted offense leve l of 15 an d 0 crimina l history points , for which t

he sentenc ing guidel ines r ecommend a sentence of 18- 24 months. The Distric t Cou rt impo sed th e min imum senten ce of eighte en m onth s, findin g no reaso n to dow nw ardly dep art. Ve hosk i filed a n otice o f app eal pro se , and current counselwas ap po i nt ed
. We d en i edhi s m ot i ont o w i t hdr aw as co un se l , an d t hi s a pp ea l fo l l ow ed
. We hav e j ur is di ct io n purs uan t t o 28 U.S .C. § 12 91 and 1 8 U. S. C. § 374 2( a) , and wi llaff ir m. Vehoski’s couns el fi led an appel late brief r aisi ng only one issue : whether Vehoski’s s entence vi olate s her Eight h Amendment right t o be free fr om cruel and unusual puni shment. Thi s clai m is based on t he all eged cruel ty

of prevent ing Vehoski from cari ng for her t

hree y oung children for ei ghteen months whil e she ser ves her t erm of impris onm ent. “[F ]amily ties an d resp onsib ilities ... are not o rdinar ily relevant in determi ning whether a

sentence should be out side t he appli cable gui deline range.” United Stat

es v. Sweeting , 213 F.3d 95, 99, 102-13 ( 3d Cir. 2000) (quoti ng § 5H1.6) (t he fact t hat defendant

was single parent providing for five chi ldren, one of whom hadToure tte's Syndrome, did no t constitute extraordinary circum stances justifying dow nwa rd

departur e). Moreover, an eight een-month sentence for defr auding a vi ctim of over $70 ,000 is no t “gr oss ly disp rop ortio nate ” to th e crim e. Lockyer v. Andrade , 123 S .Ct. 116 6, 11 73 ( 200 3). T her efo re, th is issu e is p aten tly frivo lou s. Moreover, based upon our independent

review of the record, we conclude that the Dis trict C our t’s se nten ce c om por ts w ith th e ap plica ble la w a nd t he s ente ncin g gu ideli nes . See 18 U .S.C . § 13 47; U.S . S ENTENCI NG G UIDELI

NES §§ 2 B1 .1(b )(1)( E), 3 B1 .3, 3C 1.1. The record r eveals c ompliance wit h Federal Rul es of Crimina l Procedur e 11 and 32 in the conduct of t

he plea hearing and in t he procedure followed at sentencing. We do not have juris dicti on t o re view a rea son able sen tenc e w ithin the a ppl icab le gu ideli nes ran ge. See 18 U .S.C. § 374 2(a); United Stat es v. Denardi , 892 F.2d 269, 271 -72 (3d C ir. 1989). We af fi rm.

/s/ M ar yan ne Tr um p B ar ry Circuit Judge