## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2194 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . R ONA LD E . W AY LA ND , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 07 CR 40039

—J. Phil Gilbert, Judge
. A RGUED O CTOBER16, 2008

— D ECIDED D ECE MBE R 3, 2008

Befo re R IPPLE, E VANSa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, C ircu it Judge. A j ur y f o und Ro na l d E. W ay l an d gu il ty of m aking false statem en ts relating to health care m att er s, i n vi ol ati on o f 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § § 1 0 3 5 ( a ) ( 2 ) , 2 4 ( b )
. At sen te n c ing, th e d istri ct cou rt conc lud ed that M r. W ay l an d us ed “s o phi st icated m ea ns ” to pe r pet r at e th e fraud and , accord ingly, ap p li ed a tw o-le v el up w ard ad j u st m en t t o h is offe n se lev el, seeU
. S. S. G
. § 2B 1
. 1(b)(9)
. The dis tr i c t c ou rtse ntenced M r. W ayl and to 41 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent; M r. W ayl and fi led a ti m el y no ti ce o f2 N o. 08

- 2194 ap p ea l. B ec au se th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otc l ea rly err in det er m i ni ngtha t M r . W ay l an d us ed so phi st i ca ted m ea ns to c o m m i t th i s fr au d, we affi r m the j udg m en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourt .
I

B AC KGR OUND A . Facts The I l l i no i s Depa r tmento fRe habi l i ta ti o n S er vi ce s ( “the D ep ar tm en t” ) ov er se es a p ro gr am th ro u gh w h ich Il lin ois re si dents with disabi l i ti es can use M edi cai d fu n ds to pay f o rthe s er vices o fi n- ho m e per so na la ss i st an ts a nd th er eb y a vo i d t r an sf ert o nur singho m es . Do r o thy W ay lan d , a p ro gr am p ar tic ip an t, w as es se n tia lly in c ap ac itat ed. Conseq u en tly, herso n Ronal d W ayl and, acte d on her behal funder a p ow ero fat torney. In that ro l e, R ona ld W ayland de fraud ed the D ep artm en t of m ore th an $1 08 ,00 0 b y c laim in g t h at a m an n a m ed C yr il Sturm was ser vi ng as hi s m othe r’ s per sonalas si sta nt. S tu r m , i n f ac t, ha d di ed i n 19 83 , but M r . W ayland persuaded t h e Dep ar tm ent that S turm was car i ng f or Doro thy W ayl and. M r. W ayl and som ehow obta i ned S tu r m ’ s so ci als ec ur i tynumbe ra nd sub m i tt ed i t, a l o ng w i th i denti fi c atio n car ds that he cr eat ed by usi ng a re l ati ve’ s photo gr aph, t o the Depart m ent. M r. W ayl and al so re gi ste re d a post offi ce b ox in both hi s nam e a nd S turm ’ s, to w hi ch the Dep ar tm ent sen t c or re spondence addr es se d t o S tu r m . M r . W ay l an d a lso ope ne d a j o i nt checking ac count into w hi ch he, and l ate r the Depart m ent,N o. 08

- 2194 3 d ep osited che cks p ayab le t o S t u rm . Th e ban k l et M r. W a y l a nd e s t ab l i s h the a c c o un tb e c a us e h e r e pr e s ented th atS tu r m was hom eb o und. Be ca us e th e Depa r tment woul d pa y S tu r m t o a ss i stDo r o thy W ay l an d o nl y dur i ng thos e ho urs i n w hi ch M r. W ayl and coul d not be athom e, M r. W ayl and al so subm i tte d fr audu l ent doc u m ents sh ow in g t h at h e w as em p loy ed atloc al h os p i t a l s . A d d iti onal l y, M r. W ayl and fi l ed tax re turns f orS turm bec ause, th e Gov ernm en t as se r ts , M r . W ay l an d knew th atthe D ep artm en t w a s w ithh olding tax es on Stu rm ’s beha lf, and he did notwant t h e sc hem e t o att ra ct the I RS’ at
te nt i o n. Aft ernine y ea r s, the s ch em e b egan t o unr av el
. The Depa r tments en t l etters t o S tu r m a nd t o M r . W ay l an d r e qu e s ti nga me e t i ngwi th S t ur m; h e n e v e rs ho we d u p. The De par tmentpr es se d M r . W ayl an d t o do cument Sturm ’ s exi ste nce and e m plo ym ent. I n thre e w rit ten r es po ns es , M r . W ay l an d i ns i st ed th atS tu r m e xi st ed an d dil i gently w as l oo ki ng afterDoro thy W ayl and and that al lo fthe i denti fi cati on s ubm i tte d to t he Departm ent was g e n u i n e . T h e s e l e t t e r s f o r me d th e b a s i s o fh i s i n d i ct m en t o n thr ee c o unt s o fmakingfalse s ta te m en ts r eg ar di ng he alth care m atters. 18 U
. S. C
. §§ 1035(a)(2), 24(b). A j ury f ound M r. W ayl and gui l ty on e ach co unt.
B . S e nt e nc i ng T he prob ation officer recom m en d ed a tw o-l evel up w ard ad j us tm en t u n d e r U
. S. S. G
. § 2B 1.1(b)(9)( C ) for M r. W ayl an d ’ s us e o fs o phi st i ca te d m ea ns t o pe r pet r at e th e fra u d . M r. W ay lan d d isp u te d th at h is c on d u c t m etth is4 N o. 08

- 2194 sta nd a r d, b ut the di s t r i c t c o ur t s t a t e d: “ I f thi s wa sn’ t a sophi sti cate d m eans ofper petra ti ng a fra ud , Idon’ t know w hat i s. ” R. 95 at 71. M r. W ayl and’s tot alo ffense l eve lo f 20 and c r i mi na l hi s t o r y c a t e g o r y o f I y i e l de d a n adv i so r y g ui del i ne s r an g e o f3 1 to 4 1 m o nths ’ i m pri so nm ent. A fter co nsi deri ng the se ntenci ng f acto rs se t for th in 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553(a), the cou rt i m p osed three con cu rre nt pri son ter m s o f41 m onths.

II DI S C US S I ON W e r ev i ew f o rc l ea re r r o ra di stric t co ur t’ s fi ndi ng that the defend ant e m plo yed so phist i cate d m eans. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob i ns on , 538 F.3d 605 , 607 (7th C ir. 2008). T he sent en cing g u idelines call for a tw o-l evel up w ard adj us tmenti fa n indi vi dualha s per pet r at ed a fr au d t h ro u gh so p h ist ica te d m ea n s. See U
. S. S. G
. § 2B 1.1( 9)(C). A pp l i cati on not e 8 t o U. S
. S
. G. § 2 B1. 1 s tat es:
“ ‘ [ S] ophis ti cate d m eans’ m eans especi al l y c om ple x or es pec i al l y i nt r i ca te o ffen se cond uctpe r ta i ni ngt o the exec ut i o n o rc o nc e a l men to fa n o ffe ns e . ” T he n o t e go es o n t o pr o vi de se ve r ale xa m pl es o fs uchc o nduc t, i ncl ud i ng the use offi cti ti ous enti ti es orco rpor ate shel l s; butthis listi s no t ex ha us ti ve a nd mer ely s ug g es ts the w i de var i etyo fcr i m i nal b eh avio r cove re d by the gui delin e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Al l an , 513 F.3d 712, 715 (7th Cir. 2008). M r . W ay l an d co nt en ds th at fr au dul en tly reg i st er i ng both a pos t o ffi ce b ox a nd check i ng ac count, as wellas fi l i ng f al se tax r etur ns, ar e no t co m ple x ori ntri cate act i ons,N o. 08

- 2194 5

a n d th e r e f o r e , a r e n o ts o p h i s t i c a t e d
. He r e l i e s o n t wo ca se s fr o m o th erc i r cui ts ho l di ngtha t so phi st i ca te d c o ndu ct di d not e x te nd to fra ud ule ntl y r egi ste ring a post offic e b ox , U nite d States v. Hance, 5 01 F .3d 90 0, 91 1 ( 8th C i r . 2 00 7), or to filing fals e t ax ret u rn s, Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Lew is, 93 F. 3d 1075, 1083 (2d Cir. 1996). Offense conduct i s sophi sti cate d i f i t displ ays “a gr eat er l eve lo fpl anni ng o r concea l m ent” th an a typi calfra ud o f th at kin d
. Se eRob i ns on , 5 38 F
. 3d at 607

- 08 ( fi ndi ngde fen d an t’s use of f alse cont act inform ation for chec k cou n t erfeit in g m ad e t h e s c h em e s op h ist ica te d ); U nited St at e s v. Fife, 4 71 F
. 3d 750, 75 3- 54 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( hol ding that th e defen dan ts ’ u se o fde ta i l ed pl anni nga nd mor e co ncealm en t tha n typ ical m ad e the tax frau d sop histicate d ); Hance, 50 1 F
. 3d at 909 ( “[ T]he gov er nm ent m ust s how that H ance’ s m ai lfra ud , wh en vi ew ed a s a whole, was notab l y m or e intri cate than that ofthe gar den-v ari ety m ai l fra ud schem e. ”). W e m u st d ec id e w h ether M r . W ay l an d’ s c ri m e i nv o l ve d a g r ea te rl ev elo fpl anni ng orco nceal m ent than the typi calheal th ca re fra ud cas e. M r. W ayl and’s conduct w as f arm or e intri cate than that i n a typi calheal th car e fra ud sche m e. A c c or d in g t o an ag en t w h o in ve st iga t ed th e c as e, a t yp ica l frau d of th is ki nd i nvol ves i nfl ate d cl ai m s ofhour s a ctual l y work ed b y a p e r s o n al a ss ist an t. H er e, th e p er so n al a ss ist an t d id no t ex i st . M r. W ay l an d s ubmi tt ed f al se do cument s so the Dep ar tm ent woul d bel i eve that Doro thy W ayl and had a p e r s o na la s s i s t a nt . He a l s o fr a ud ul e nt l y r e g i s t e r e d a j o i ntb ank a cc o unta nd po sto ffi ce b o x t o f ac i l i ta te the Gover nm ent’ s paym ents and fi l ed fra u d ule nt ta x re -6 N o. 08

- 2194 turns so that the I RS w ou ld n ot al er t the Departm ent. Thi s sc he m e r equi r ed a g r ea te r l ev el o f pl anni ng o rco ncealm en t tha n th e t y p ical he alth care frau d case. I t certa i nl y was no t cl ea re r r o rf o rthe di st r i ctc o ur t to fi nd tha tMr
. Way l a nd ’ s c o nd uc twa s s o ph i s t i c a t e d. M r. W ay lan d als o s u b m its t h a t, bec au se h e e rre d in the desi gn and execu tio n of hi s fra ud , i t co uld nothave been sophi sti cate d. H e s ugges ts that hi s a dm i ssion that he s ha red a n ac co untwi thS tu r m was f o o l i sha nd that hi s for ger i es m ust hav e be en am ate u rish beca use i nv e s t i g a t o r s qui c k l y we r e ab l e t o u nc ove rthe fr a ud
. H ow ev er , a so p h ist ica te d sc h em e n ee d n otex h ibitint ellige n c e o r ex p er tis e. SeeFif e, 4 71 F. 3d at 754. I t doe s no t m att erthatM r. W ayl and m i ght ha ve d one a be tte r j ob p er p et ra tin g a n d co n c ea lin g t h e fra u d
. See U nit e d S t a tes v. M ado ch , 10 8 F.3 d 7 61, 76 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ( noting tha t, ev entho ug h “ m o r e el ab orate m ec ha ni sms” o fc o nc ea l i ng fra ud were possibl e, the defe nd ant ne ver thel ess used so p h ist ica te d m e an s t o p er p et ra te frau d ). N or d oe s it m att erthatM r. W ayl and’s own sl oppiness o r er ro rs o f j u d gm en t m ay h a v e c on tr ibu te d to th e u n ra ve lin g of h is sc h em e. See U nited Sta tes v . R e ttenberg er, 34 4 F
. 3d 702, 70 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 )
. Mr
. Way l a nd ’ s s c he me di spl a y e d a g r eater l ev elo fpl anni nga nd c o nc ea l m en t th anthe typi c al h eal th car e fra ud and i ts f ai l i ngs do not sugge st tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur tc l e a r l y e r r e d. Even i fM r. W ayl an d ’ s ind i vi du alact i ons coul d be ch ar ac te r i ze d a s uns o phi st i ca te d, we woul d f o l l o w the ap p r o ach of ou r si ster circuits an d affirm M r. W ayland ’s sente nce o n the gr ound that hi s o ver al lsche m e, wh i chN o. 08

- 2194 7 l ast ed ni ne ye ar s a nd i nv olv ed a ser i es ofco or dinat ed fr a ud ul e ntt r a ns a c t i o ns , wa s c o mpl e x a nd s o ph i s t i c a t e d. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 34 6 F
. 3d 22, 25 ( 2d Cir
. 20 03) (holdin g tha t even if each step i n th e ap p ell an t’s s c h e me w a s n o te l ab o r a t e , a n e n h a n c e me n tf o re mplo yi ng “s ophis ti cate d m eans” was n ev er thel ess approp ria te w h er e “ th e t ot al s c h em e w as s op h ist ica te d in th e w ay all th e s te p s w er e l i n k e d to ge th er ”); U nited Sta tes v. Hal l oran , 41 5 F
. 3d 940, 94 5 ( 8th Ci r. 20 05) ( hol ding that an enhancem ent was appro pri ate wh er e ce rt ain as p ects ofthe appell ant’ s s chem e were not el abor ate , but the t ota l sc h em e w as so p h ist ica te d ); see also R ettenberg er, 34 4 F
. 3d at 709 (affi rm ing a fin d ing of sop histicate d m ean s w he re th e a p p ella n t e n ga ge d in “ [c ]ar efu l ex ec u tio n an d co or d ina tion over an exte nd ed period
. . . . ”).
Conclusi on F o rthe f o r eg o i ngr ea so ns ,w e a ffi r m th e s e nt e n c e i mposed by the di str i ct c ourt . A FFI RMED

12- 3- 08