[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nos . 11 -1 46 99 & 1 2- 12 28 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :1 0- cr-0 02 18 -WT M-GRS -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us NIURKA RASCO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 6, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BARKETT an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pri orto he r tr ia l o n ach arg e o f co ns pi rin g wi th he r hu sb an d t o c omm it Case: 11-14699 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 1 of 5he al th care frau d i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 49 , Niu rk a Ras co pl edgu il ty to an

in fo rm at io n c ha rg in g h er wi th vi ol at in g M ed ic are a ss ig nm en t t erm s u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 32 0a -7 b( 3)
. On Sep te m be r 28 , 20 11 , th e Dis tri ctCo urt s en te nc ed 1 Ras co to th ree- y ears ’ pr ob at io n. Th e co nd it io ns of p ro ba ti on requi redth atRas co

“ sh al l an swe r trut hf

ul ly all i nqui rie s b y

th e p ro ba ti on off

ic er an d fo ll ow t he in st ru ct io ns of t he pro ba ti on off ic er “ an d “ sh al l wo rkreg ul arl y at alawf ul
oc cupa ti on , un le ss ex cu se d b y th e p ro ba ti on off

ic er fo r sc ho ol in g, t rai ni ng , or ot he r acc ep tabl e rea so ns .” In No . 11 -1 46 99 , Ras co ap pe al s t he Dis tri ctCo urt’s jud gm en t, ar gu in g t ha t th e Dis tri ctCo urt erredin requi rin g h er t o wo rkas aco nd it io n o f pr ob at io n a ndin de le ga ti ng to th e p ro ba ti on off ic er the m in is te ria l au th or it y to ex cu se he r fro m

th at work fo r “ sc ho ol in g, t rai ni ng , or o th er ac cep tabl e rea so ns .” Su ch de le ga ti on , sh e co nt en ds , con st itut edanun la wfu l d el eg at io n o f a jud ic ia l fu nc ti on to a pr ob at io n of fic er. Fo ll owi ng th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s i m po si ti on of s en te nc e, Ras co di d n otob ject to th e se nt en ce fo r th e rea so ns sh e n ow p res en ts as arg um en ts forrev ers al . W e

The c harg e wa s that Rasco knowing ly violated the ter

ms of assignment in connec tion 1 with a medica l clinic, United Medica l, by filing doc uments with Medicar e on beha lf of United Medica l in which she fr audulently identified her self as the sole owner of the fir m, where as her husband wa s the true owne r. 2

Case: 11-14699 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 2 of 5th eref

or e co ns id er the m

un de r th e p la in erro r do ctrin e. Ras co po in ts to no cas e whi chwou ldha ve in fo rm edth e Dis tri ctCo urt tha t the co nd it io ns of p ro ba ti on sh e no w cha ll en ge s co ul d n otlawf ul ly be im

po se d. Ra sc o h as th eref

or e fai le d t o es tabl is h p la in erro r an d t hu s a b as is forrev ers in g the Dis tri ctCo urt’s jud gm en t. InMarc h 2 01 2, t he Pro ba ti on Offic er n ot ifi edth e Dis tri ctCo urt tha t Ra sc o ha d v io la te d t he co nd it io ns of h er p ro ba ti on . On Apr il 11 , 20 12 , th e co urt h el d a
rev oc at io n h eari ng an d c on cl ud edth atRas co vi ol at edth e te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f pr ob at io n b y rep eat ed ly fail in g t o fo ll ow i ns tru ct io ns of t he pro ba ti on off ic ers , by fai li ng to ga inan y ga in fu l em

pl oym en t an d b y

fai li ng to work , by fai li ng to tak e th e res po ns ib il it y

on he rs el f to ha ve th e m en ta l h eal th ev al ua ti on th atth e Co urt o rd eredin th is cas e, an d b y fai li ng to ge ne ral ly resp ectth e or de r of th is Co urt p la ci ng he r on pro ba ti on an d t he co nd it io ns of t ha t or de r; andals o, as a res ul t o f he r co nt in ue d i ns is te nc e o f in no cen ce i n th is cas e, by gen eral ly fail in g i n e ve ry res pe ctto co op erat e wit h t he Uni te d S ta te s Pr ob at io n Off ic e . . ., andm ai nt ai ni ng a co ns tant di sr es pe ct fu l at ti tu de to wardth e who le pro ces s. The co urt the refo re re vo ke d R as co ’s pro ba ti on an d s en te nc edhe r to pri so n fo r th ree m on th s. In No. 1 2- 12 28 5, s he ap pe al s the rev oc at io n a ndsen te nc e sh e rece iv ed
. W e fi ndno m eri t i n t he ap pe al
.

2 Ras co pre se nt s t hr ee ar gu m en ts forrev ers al : (1 ) th e Dis tri ctCo urt erredin adm it ti ng anab se ntwitne ss ’s hea rs ay st at em en ts m ad e dur in g the rev oc at io n
Rasco wa s admitted to bail pendingthe re solution of these consolidated a ppeals. 2 3 Case: 11-14699 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 3 of 5he ari ng witho utco nduc ti ng th e co nf ro nt at io n b al an ci ng tes t re qu ire d b y Uni te d St at es v. Frazi er , 26 F.3d11 0 (1 1 Cir . 19 94 ); ( 2) th e co urt erred , andth us de ni ed th Ras co du e p ro ces s o f la w, inrel y in g o n fa ct s co nc ed edby her at to rn ey at t he
rev oc at io n h eari ng reg ard in g h er i nv ol ve m en t i n t he un de rlyin g h eal th care frau d;
an d a nd(3) th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o re vo ke he r pr ob at io n. Ra sc o d idno t rai se arg um en ts (1) an d (2 ) in th e Dis tri ctCo urt; th us , we con si de r th em forpl ai n erro r. Ras co ’s firs t p oi ntis ba se d o n t es ti m on y Pro ba ti on Offic er Br own st ei n g av e atth e rev oc at io n h eari ng . Office r W eb er s up erv is edRas co , bu t d idno t at te ndth e he ari ng . Bro wns te in , W eb er’s s up erv is or , in fo rm edth e co urt, o ve r Ras co ’s

3 he ars ay ob jecti on , whatW eb er h adto ldhi m ab ou t h er s up erv is io n o f Ras co . Bro wns te in , as p artof h is supe rv is io n o f W eb er, d is cu ss edRas co ’ be ha vi orwith W eb er o n n um ero us oc cas io ns . Tho se di sc us si on s fo cu se d o n Webe r’s di ffi cu lt ie s in ge tt in g R as co to co m

pl y with t he co nd it io ns of h er p ro ba ti on . Bro wns te in ’s te st im on y was c on si st en t wi th th e Pro ba ti on Offic e’s in it ia l re po rt t o t he co urt. Ras co ha s n ev er co nt en de d t ha t the he ars ay st at em en ts were fa ls e o r un rel iabl e; we th eref or e co nc lu de th atth e co urt’s Fra zi er erro r was ha rm le ss .

Weber ha d been in a

n auto ac cident and w as unable to attend the hea ring
. 3 4 Case: 11-14699 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 4 of 5Ras co ’s sec on d p oi ntis m eri tl es s. Ra sc o c it es no cas e th atwou ldha ve

in fo rm edth e co urt tha t i t co ul d n otrel y on co un se l’s re pr es en ta ti on s. Ra sc o’s th irdpo in t al so lac ks m eri t. The ev id en ce es tabl is he d t ha t, fro m th e st artof h er supe rv is on , Ras co rep eat ed ly refus edto fol lo w th e in st ru ct io ns of h er p ro ba ti on of fic er— sh e ref

us edto ob ta ina m en ta l h eal th ev al ua ti on , m ad e li tt le or n o e ffo rt to fin d ajob , dec li ne d t o g iv e acc ou ntof h er fi na nc es , andot he rwis e fai le d t o l iv e up to th e o bl ig at io ns th e co nd it io ns of p ro ba ti on im po se d. The jud gm en ts in App eal s No s. 1 1- 14 69 9 a nd12 -1 22 85 are AFFIR MED.

5 Case: 11-14699 Date Filed: 10/16/2012 Page: 5 of 5