N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. GODW IN ONYEAB O R , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50431

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00905-R -2
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DR . SR I J. W IJEGUNAR ATNE, AKA Dr. J., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50436

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00905-R -3

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , No. 13-50483 D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00905-R -4



# FIL ED
APR 27 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.v.

HEIDI M OR ISHITA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt.
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. HEIDI M OR ISHITA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50081

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00905-R -4

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. GODW IN ONYEAB O R , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50082

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00905-R -2

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 3, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, WARDLAW , an d HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s.Following a se ve n-da y tria l, a jury found Godwin Ony e a

bor, Sri W ije guna ra tne , a nd He idi M orishita

(c olle c t ive ly , “ Appe lla

nts” ) guilty

of fe de ra l
c rim e s involving M e dic are fra ud a nd kic kba c ks. On a

ppe a l, Appe lla

n ts c o nte nd that the distric t c ourt unduly

an d e xc e ssive ly

inte rve n e d in theproc e e dings, so a s to re nde r the tria l funda

m e nta lly unfa i r, and should ha

ve grante d Appe lla

nts’
num e rous m otions for mi stria l or se ve ran c e . 1 Appe lla nts ha ve be e n re le a se d

on bond pe nding a

ppe a l. 2 W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we
re ve rse . From 2006 through 2012, Fe

ndih M e dic a l Supply

Inc . (“ Fe ndih” ) supplie d powe r whe e lc ha irs to M e dic are be ne fic ia rie s a nd re c e i ve d re im

b urse m e nt from

the C e nte r for M e dic are & M e d ic a id Se rvic e s (“ C M S” ). Fe ndih’ s c h ie f e xe c utive offic e r wa s Vic toria

Ony e a bor (“ Vic toria ” ), Ony e a

bor’ s spouse . Ony e a

bor wa s
a lso e m ploy e d by the c om pa ny , though the

nature of his rolewa s in dispute
. Fe de ra l inve stiga

tors c onc lude d tha

t Fe ndih wa s de frauding C M S by supply ing powe r whe e lc ha irs to pe o ple who did not ne e d the m , and tha t Fe n dih ille ga l ly

gave

1 Appe lla

nts a lso c ha lle nge d the ir c onvic tions a nd se nte nc e s on a

host of othe r grounds, whic h we ne e d not re a c h.

2 The distric t c ourt orde re d M orishita ’ s re le a se on bond pe nding a ppe a l. Although the

distric t c ourt de nie d Ony e a bor’ s a nd W ije guna

ra tne ’ s re que sts for sim ila r re lie f, two diffe re nt two-judgepa ne ls of our c ourt orde re d

the ir re le a se on bond pe nding a

ppe a l. 3doc tors, inc luding W ije guna ra tne , a nd prom ote rs, inc l uding M orishita , c a sh kic k ba c ks in e xc ha

nge for pre sc riptions. Inve stiga tors a l so c o nc lude d tha

t W ije guna ra tne knowingly

wrote m e dic a lly unne c e ssa ry powe r whe e lc ha ir pre s c riptions. Afte r a ge n ts e xe c ute d a

se arc h wa

rrant on Fe ndih’ s busine s s, a gran d jury indic te d Appe l la

nts a nd Vic toria . Vic toria

ple a de d guilty , a

n d the gove rnm e nt proc e e de d to tria l a g a inst Appe lla nts. Ony e a

bor a nd W ije guna

ra t ne we re
c onvic te d of c onspira c y

to c om m it he a lth c are fra

u d in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 1349, a nd se v e ra l substa

ntive c ounts of he a lth c are fra ud in viola

t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 1347. All thre e de fe nda nts we re c onvic te d of c onspira c y to pa y and
re c e ive kic k

ba c ks in viola

t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 371 a

nd 42 U.S.C . § 1320a -7b(1)(A) & (2)(A). 1. Appe lla

nts c onte nd tha

t the distric t c ourt judgeso e xc e ssive ly inte rve ne d in the t ria l a s to re nde r fa i r judgm e nt im p ossible . Afte r a

thorough re vie w of the
re c o rd, we a gre e . W e w i ll re ve rse a tria l c ourt for its undue pa rtic ipation in the proc e e dings only

“ if the re c o rd . . . le ave s [us] with a n a biding im pre ssion tha

t the judge ’ s re m arks a

n d que s tioning of witne s se s proje c te d to the jury an a

ppe a ranc e of a dvoc a c y

or pa rtia lity .” Unite d State

s v . Moste lla , 802 F.2d 358, 361 (9th C ir. 1986) (quoting Shad v

. De an W itte r Re y nolds, Inc

. , 799 F.2d 525, 531 (9th C ir.
41986)) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d). The m o ving pa rty m ust show tha

t “ the
c onduc t m e a sure d by

the fa c ts of the c a se pre se nte d toge the r with there sult of the tria l [] w a s c le arly pre

judic ia l to therights of thepa rty , ” whic h is a sse sse d “ in light of the e vide nc e of guilt.” Unite d State s v . Sc o tt , 642 F.3d 791, 799 (9th C i r. 2011) (pe r c uriam ) (c ita

t ion om i tte d). W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion a

distric t
c ourt’ s de nia l of a

m otion for mistria l brought on the ba sis of e xc e ssive judic ia l inte rve ntion. Shad, 799 F.2d a t 531. C onside re d c olle c tive ly , a num be r of the c ourt’ s re m arks de va sta t e d the de fe nse , proje c te d a

n a ppe aranc e of hostility

to the de fe nse , a

nd we nt fa

r be y ond the c ourt’ s supe rvisory

role
. 3 M ost of the se we re a d dre sse d to W ije guna

ra tne ’ s
c ounse l, Vic t or She rm an. The c ourt a dm onishe d She rm an 39 tim e s in thepre se nc e of the jury , ofte n at c ruc ia l m o m e nts a nd for innoc u ous c o n duc t . The c o urt
a dm onishe d the gove rnm e nt only 4 tim e s . The following re m arks a re illustra tive , though by no m e ans e xha

ustive :

3 W e re

je c t the gove rnm e nt’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt judge m e re ly e nga ge d in “ ordina

ry e fforts at c ourtroom

a dm i nistra

tion,” whic h, e ve n if “ ste rn and short-te m

pe re d,” are “ im

m une ” to a pa rtia lity c ha lle nge unde r Lite k

y v . Unite d State s , 510 U.S. 540, 556 (1994). Assum ing tha t Lite k y , a sta tutory disqua lific ation c a se arising unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 455(a ), ha s a ny be aring on the showing ne c e ssa

ry to re quire a m istria l, its sta nda rd is sa tisfie d. The judge ’ s re m arks “ re ve a l[e d] suc h

a h i gh de gre e of . . . a

nta gonism

a s to m ake fa ir judgm e n t im possible .” 510 U.S. a

t 555. 5M R
. SHERM AN: She te stifie d a bout the visit. I’ m g oing to a sk h e r a bout the c l ie nt [sic ] with m y c lie nt. THE C OUR T: Ple a se . C om e upon [sic ] , M r. She rm an, y ou k now be tte r tha n tha t . You know ve ry

m uc h be tte r tha

n tha t. M R . SHER

M AN: I c an’ t

a sk he r – THE C OUR T: Don’ t try to poison this j u ry. And that ’ s what y ou’ re try ing to do. M R . SHER

M AN: No. I’ m

try ing to do m

y job. THE C OUR T: No. No, y ou’ re not. You [sic ] c o n duc t is not doing y our job.
THE C LER

K: All rise
. [THE C O UR T:] M r. She rm an, y ou’ ve gotte n a lot of he arsay

e v ide nc e that is not a dm i s sible
. (R e c e ss ta

ke n) THE C OUR T: W e ll, just a m om e nt. B e fore

— I wan t to c le ar the re c ord, M r. She rm an. I wa s n ot doing anything for the G ove rnm e n t. What I wa s d oing is I wa s try i ng to te a c h m y la w c le rks a bout t ria l and e vide nc e . All right.
M R . SHER

M AN: La st que stion, Your Honor. THE C OUR T : Tha

nk God. [Followe d by an a dm onition.] Our c om ple te re v i e w of the re c ord le ave s us with a n a biding im pre ssion tha

t the
c ourt proje c te d a

n a p pe ara nc e of bia s a ga inst Appe lla nts a nd in fa vor of the gove rnm e nt. Moste lla , 802 F.2d a t 361.

62. Furthe r, throughout tria l, the distric t c ourt m a de num e rous e rrone ous rulings, whic h one -side dly

a c c rue d to thebe ne fit of the gove rnm e nt a nd the de trim e nt of Appe l la n ts. 4 W e provide two illustra tive e xam ple s rathe r tha

n a n e xha u stive list. First, the c ourt pre ve nte d She rm an from e ffe c tive ly

c ross-e xam ining M arga re t Pe re z , a ke y

gove rnm e nt witne s s, a

nd fore c l ose d le gitim ate ave nue s of im pe a c h m e nt without e xpla

nation. Se e Unite d State

s v . Hible r , 463 F.2d 455, 462 (9th C ir. 1972). Se c ond, the c ourt pre ve nte d W ije guna ra tne from

pre se nting
m e dic a l re c ords or te stim ony in support of a

de fe nse tha

t he pre sc ribe d powe r whe e lc ha irs only

whe n the y

we re m e dic a lly

ne c e ssa ry . The gove rnm e n t c onc e de d that the re c ords showe d m e dic a l ne c e ssity on the i r fa c e , a

nd inform e d the judge that it did not obje c t to thede fe nse arguing to the jury tha t the patie n t file s on the ir fa c e supporte d a finding of m e dic a l ne c e s sity , but thedistric t c ourt ne ve rthe le ss pre c lude d the de fe nse from doing so. Thus, the jury

wa s ne v e r m a de aware of this
e vide nc e . 5 The se rulings we re a buse s of the c ourt’ s disc re tion. Although the s e and othe r e rrone ous rulings m ight not by

the m se l ve s provide suffic i e nt ba se s on whic h to re ve rse , whe n c onside re d c um ulative ly with the

4 W e note too tha

t the c ourt susta i ne d

a lm ost a ll of the gove rnm e nt’ s e vide ntia ry obje c tions, ve rsus a

bout one third of Appe lla nts’ obje c t ions. 5 In its c l osing a

rgum e nt, whic h wa s not e vide nc e , the gove rnm e nt did c onc e de tha

t W ije g una

ratne ’ s pre sc riptions “ [o] f c ourse ” looke d le gitim ate , though it a rgue d tha t fa c ia l le gitim a c y wa s ne c e ssa ry to pe rpe tuat e the fra

ud. 7distric t c o urt’ s e x c e ssive inte rve ntion, the y he ighte n e d the pre

judic ia l e ffe c t on the jury
. Se e Unite d State

s v . Fre de ric k, 78 F.3d 1370, 1381 (9th C ir. 1996). 3. The gove rnm e n t c onc e de s tha t the distric t c ourt judgem a de “ oc c a siona lly inte m pe ra te c om

m e nts dire c te d towa

rd W ije guna

ra tne ’ s c ounse l,” but it a

rgue s tha t the s e did not rise

to the le ve l of re ve rsible e rror. The gove rnm e nt re lie s princ ipa lly upon Unite d State

s v . Sc o tt , in whic h the sam e distric t judge m a de c e rta in

“ c o m m e nts a n d inte rve ntions [tha

t] we re inc o nsiste nt with sta nda rds of judic ia l de c orum ,” but whe re our c ourt de c line d to ove rturn a c onvic tion on this ba sis. Sc ott , 642 F.3d a

t 799. Sc ott is ina

p p osite . In tha

t c a se , m ost of thec ourt’ s injudic ious c o m m e nts
we re pursua

nt to its supe

rvisory role , a nd the e v ide nc e a ga inst thede fe nda nt wa s
ove rwhe lm ing. 642 F.3d a t 799. He re , by

c ontra st, the c ourt fa

r e x c e e d e d the
a ppropria te bounds of its role , a

nd the e v ide nc e a ga inst Appe lla nts, though le ga l ly suffic i e nt to c onvic t, wa s not ove rwhe l m ing. M ore ove r, e a c h of the de fe nda nts
a lle ge dly pla y e d a m inor role in the c onspira c y ; Vic toria , who m a ste rm inde d a nd
m ost profite d from

the c onspira c y , ha d ple a de d guilty . The jury fa irly c ould ha ve
c onc lude d tha

t Ony e a bor did not oc c upy

a position within Fe

ndih in whic h he pa rtic i pate d in or kne w of its misde e ds; tha t W ije g una

ratne , a m e dic a l doc tor, be lie ve d tha

t the powe r whe e lc ha irs we re m e dic a lly ne c e ssa ry for the patie nts for
8whom

he pre sc ribe d the m ; a

nd tha t W ije g una

ratne an d M o rishita

la c ke d the
ne c e ssa ry inte nt to pa

rtic ipate in a

n ille ga l kic kba c k sc he m e . The re fore , the pre j udic i a l e ffe c t of the c ourt’ s im prope r c om

m e n ts a n d the othe r tria l e rrors m ay
we ll ha ve influe nc e d the ve rdic t. Although Sc ott a ssigne d gre at we ight to the
c urative i nstruc tions given by the distric t c ourt, 642 F.3d a t 800, we have long
re c o gniz e d tha

t suc h instruc tions c annot a m e liora te pe rva sive and pre

judic ia l judic ia l inte rve ntions of the kind tha t oc c urre d he re . Se e

, e . g. , Unite d State

s v . Morgan , 376 F.3d 1002, 1008 n.5 (9th C ir. 2004). 4. W e like wise find unpe rsua sive the gove rnm e nt’ s a rgum e nt tha

t a ny
a ppe aranc e of pa

rtia lity b o re only

on the jury ’ s pe rc e ption of W ije guna ra tne ’ s
c ounse l, a nd not on a

ny Appe lla nt. The distric t c ourt’ s c o nduc t wa s “ s o virule nt he re a s to re sult in m ate ria l ha rm to [Appe lla

nts’ ] de fe nse .” U

nite d State

s v . Burt , 765 F.2d 1364, 1368 (9th C ir. 1985). Give n the m anne r in whic h the joint trial of Appe l la n ts proc e e de d, this ha

rm wa s not lim

i te d to W ije guna

ra tne , a nd ne c e ssa

rily
c arrie d ove r to his c o-de fe n da

nts. S e e Moste lla , 802 F.2d a

t 361. 5. The re a ssignm e nt of a c a se to a diffe re n t distric t c ourt judge following
re m and is re s e rve d for “ rare and e xtra ordina ry c irc um sta

nc e s.” Unite d State

s v . K ow alc zyk, 805 F.3d 847, 861 (9th C ir. 2015) (c ita tion omitte d). W e c onside r:

9(1) w he t h e r the original j u d ge w ould re a sona bly be e xpe c te d upon re m and to have substa

n t ia l d iffic u l t y i n pu t ting out of his or h e r m i nd pre viously -e xpre sse d vie ws or findings d ete rm ine d to be e rrone o u s or ba se d on e vide nc e that m ust be re je c te d, ( 2 ) whe the r re a ssignm e nt is a dvisa ble to pre se rve the a

ppe aranc e o f j u s tic e , and (3) w he the r re a ssignm e n t would e nta i l wa ste a n d d uplic ation out of p roportion to any ga in in pre se rving the a

ppe ara nc e of fa irne s s. Id. (c ita tion omitte d). “ T he first two of the se fa c tors a re of e qua l im

porta nc e , a nd
a finding of oneof the m

would support a

re m a nd to a diffe re nt judge .” Unite d State s v . Se ars, Roe buc k

& C o. , 785 F.2d 777, 780 (9th C i r. 1986). R e a s signm e nt is ne c e ssa ry to pre se rve the a

p p e aranc e of justic e . W e instruc t the C le rk of C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a l ifornia to re a ssign this c a se to a

diffe re nt distric t c ourt judge upon re m and. RE V E RSE D; RE M A N DE D W IT H INST RUCT I O NS.

10