FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAR 12, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

05- 1549 9
D. C. Docket N o. 04-00051 CR-01-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us ROB IN L. W IL LI AMS , JOHN D UN CANFO RDH AM, FORDHAM, INC., d. b. a. D unc anD ru gs, RICK LA MAR CA MP, D ef en da nts -Appe llants . Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia (M ar ch 12, 200 7) Before DU BIN A and COX , C ircuit Judg es, and SCHL ES IN GE R,* D istrict Judg e.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ *Honora ble Har vey E. Schlesing er, U nited States District J udg e for the Middle District of Florida , sitti ng by

desig nation.2

PE R CU RIA M: On May 26, 2004, a fe deral grand j ury in the Southern District of G eorgia,
re tur ne d athi rty -c ount

ind ic tm en t a ga ins t R obi n W ill ia m s, Ch ar le s B ro ckm an , Duncan Fordham , F ordham , I nc. d/b/a D uncan Drugs, M atthew L ong, and Rick Cam p (collectively

“ the defendants”). Count on e of the indictm ent charged that be tw ee n D ec em

be r 1999 a nd M ar ch 200 3, e ac h of the de fe nda nts w er e inv olv ed in
a co nspi ra cy

tha t ha d tw o pr inc ipa l ob j ec tiv es : ( 1) to de fr au d he al th c ar e be ne fi t pr ogr am s; and ( 2) to ste al f ro m a nd e nga ge in br ibe ry

in a pr ogr am

inv olv ing federa l funds. T he nature of the health car e fr aud consp iracy and operation was
com plex and inv olved, am ong o thers, the E ast Central G eorgia Com m unityMental He alth Center ( “ CMH C”), which re ceived feder al and state funds, and w as adm inistered by

the Com m unitySer vice Board ( “ CSB” ). A fter an eight-day j ury tr ia l, the j ur

y f ound W ill ia m s gu ilty

on a ll co unt s, f

ound Br oc km angui lty

on a ll counts except for an 18 U. S. C. § 666 bribery charge, found the Fordham de fe nda nts gui lty

on the sin gle 18 U
. S. C. § 13 47 h ea lthc ar e ch ar ge , f ound L ong guilt y on the consp iracy

charge and on a § 1347 health care char ge, and conv icted Ca m p onthe c onsp ir ac y

c ha rg e, a§ 13 47 h ea lthc ar e fr au d c ha rg e, a nd tw o 18 U
. S. C. § 19 56 m one y

launde ri ng c ha rg es . T he j ur y a cquit te d C am

p onthe 18 U. S. C. § 100 1 false statem ent charge. A dditi onally , a t trial, the district court3

gr an te d th e Fo rdha m

de fe nda nts ’ m oti on f

or j udgm en t of

a cquit ta l onthe
co nspi ra cy

c ha rg e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt e lim ina te d se ve n othe r co unt s, e ith er on the gove rn m en t’ s m oti on t o di sm iss or on j udgm en ts o f ac qui tta l. Ba se d onthe j ur y ’ s f ind ing of gui lty , the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed W ill ia m s to 120 m onths im pr iso nm en t, F or dha m

to 52 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t, L ong to 3 3 m onths im prisonm ent, and Cam

p to 37 m onth s im

prisonm ent. T he defendants then pe rfec te d t hi s ap pe al
. The de fen da nt s p res en t t he fol lo win g i ss ue s fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w: 1. Whe the r the e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al w as suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the
co nvi ct ion s of

W ill ia m s, the F or dha m

de fe nda nts , a nd C am

p. 2. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing the F or dha m

de fe nda nts a nd Cam p’ s m otion for sever ance. 3. Whether the district court err ed in perm itting Angela Moy e to testify ab out a$5, 000 ch ec k pay ab le to he r fr om Ca pit ol H ea lthS y ste m s. 4 . Wh et h ert h e d i s t ri ct co u rt cl ea rl y er re dwh en i ten h an ce dWil l i ams’s
se nte nc e fo r obstru ct ionof j ust ic e an d r ef

use d to r ed

uc e his se nte nc e fo r
a c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y.4

5. Whether the district court properly increased W illiam s’ s crim inal histo ry
sc or e by tw o po int s be ca

use W ill ia m s w as on p ro ba tio n onaD U I co nvi ct ion during th e tim e som e of the ac ts wer e com m itted in th is case. 6. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly inc lud ed in W ill ia m s’ s lo ss am ount of $25 0, 000, the a m ount

tha t W ill ia m s r ep ai d to the vic tim a ft er it dis co ve re d th e crim e. 7. Whet he r W il li am s’s s en te nc e was reas on ab le
. A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , a nd h av ing the be ne fi t of or al a rg um en t, w e co nc lud e tha t the re is no m er it to any of the
ar gum en ts d ef

en da nts pr es en t i n th is a

ppe al
. A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the defendants’ conviction s and W illiam s’ s sentence. AFFIRMED.5