## 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. 09
- 1262 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. T HERE SAP HI LL I PS, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:03- cr-01063- 1

—Blan ch e M. Mannin g, Judge .
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 8, 2010

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 25, 2010

Befo re B AUER, E VANSa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Ther esa Phi l l i ps appeal s her c on vic tio n for d efr au d in g t h e M ed ica re p ro gr am , in vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. §§ 2 a nd 13 47. S h e cl ai m s that t h e d i st ric t c ou rterr ed by ad m itt in g a red ac te d au d io re c or d in g of h er co n ve r s a tio n w ith u n d er c ov er inv es tigat or s a fterthe go vernm ent f ai l ed to pro vi de heran unredacte d ver si on. S he furthercl ai m s that the distr i ct c ou rterr ed by a d m itt in g e vid en c e re lat ed to ce rt ain2 N o. 09
- 1262 docum ents produced so cl os e to tr i althatherat torney h a d n o me a n i n g fu l o pp o r t u n i t y t o e x a mi n e th e m. We have re vi ew ed the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s e vi denti ar y rulings. F i n d i n gn o e r r o r, w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND The re sa P hi l l i ps and her com pany, H eal th Care Creati ons, defra ud ed the M ed ica re pro gr am bybi l l i ng i t for ser vi ces that w er e no t a ctual l y perfo rm ed, were not m edi cal l y nec ess ar y, and were provi ded by an unl i censed the r a pi s tins t e a d o fb y a do c t o ra s c l a i med
. One piec e o fev i dence adm i tte d a ga inst Phil l i ps at tr i al w as a red acte d au d io rec ord ing an d trans cript of un d erc ov er inv es tig at or s a sk in g P h illip s w h et h er “y ou ” p ar tic ipate in var i ous a spects o f M edi car e bi l l i ng. Supp. R. at 11- 14 . Ph illip s c on te n d s t h at sh e re sp on d ed affirm at ive ly to these questi ons ad d resse d to “yo u” on behal fo fher co m pan y
— n oth er se lf p e r so n ally

— an d tha t th i s m i g ht ha v e b e e n e v i d e n t h a d th e j u r y h e a r d p o r t i o n s o ft he au d io re c or d in g t h at w er e r e d ac te d , alth ou gh sh e is unsure b ecause s h e nev err ecei ved an unre dacted ver si on, o r so she c l ai m s. The go ver nm ent has al w ays c on te n d ed th at th e re d ac te d p or tio n s c on sis te d so lely ofi rrele va n ci es, such a s s i l ent a i rt i m e, and i t a rgues on a pp ealthati t pr ovi ded P h ill i ps w i th the co m ple te, u n re d ac te d ve rs ion w ell b efo re tria l. The dis tr i ct c ourtadm i tte d a m ountai n of othe r ev i den ce a g ains t Phi l l i ps, a s m al lfr ac ti o n o fwhi chi nclud ed both certain d ocu m en ts p rod uc ed so o n beforeN o. 09
- 1262 3 tr i aland tes ti m ony from w i tness es described i n thos e d ocum ents. These l ate r- produced docum ents consi ste d o ft r i a le x h ib i t s , p r o p o s e d j u r y i n s tr uct i o n s , a n i n t e r v i e w, a t ra n sc rip t o f te st im on y a t t h e p re -in d ict m en t fo rfe itu r e he ar i ng, l et te r s to c o uns elr eg ar di nge vi den ce a nd a wi tn es s, a nd fi na l l y “ se ar chwar r an t stuff”

— a n a mbi guous phrase w hi ch nei therparty h as atte m pted to de c i p h e rf o ru s . R
. 1 8 1 ¶ 1 2
. P h i l l i p s mo v e d t o e x c l ud e these docum ents, and tes ti m ony fro m any “w i tness es w ith r esp ect ther eto . ” Id. a t¶ 1 3
. T he di s t r i c tc o ur tr es p o n d ed by as kin g P h illip s’ a tt or n ey if h e w an te d ad d iti o na lt i m e to r ev i ew the mate r i al s. He r epl i ed th ato ne w eekwould be suffi ci ent “ to re vi ew and p ro perl y di ges t every t h in g. . . . J us t one w eek, i f at allpos sible. W e d on’t want a l o n g p e r i o d o f t i me . ” T r . o f Ap r i l 2 , 2 0 0 7
. The dist ri ct c ourtgr anted the r equeste d conti nuance. A ju r y f o und P hi l l i ps g ui l tya nd the di st r i ctc o urt s e nt e nc e d he r t o fi ft y - o ne mon ths i n pr i s on. P hi l l i ps lim its her appeal to the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a dm i ssi on into evi den ce o fthe r eda ct ed au di o r ec o r di nga nd the evi dence r el ate d to the l ate r- produced docum ents.

I I . DI S C US S I ON A. Re da c t e d Au di o Re c o r di ng W e b e g i n b y de c i di ngthe p r o pe rs t a nd a r ds f o ra ddress i ng Phi l l i ps’ cl ai m s o fer ro r re gar ding the r edacted a u d io rec ord ing. W e review a district cou rt’s eviden tiary rulings for an abu se of d is c r etion w he n th e ap p ell an t’s c laim of er ro r is p re se rv ed , see G e n . E lec. C o . v. Join er,4 N o. 09
- 1262 522 U
. S. 136, 141 (1997 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v . Gajo , 3 90 F. 3d 92 2, 92 6 ( 7th Cir
. 2002 ) , and for pla i n er ro r w hen i t is for feit ed
. SeeFed
. R. Evid
. 103(d ); Fed . R
. Crim
. P. 52(b); U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l ano , 507 U
. S. 725, 733-36 (1993 ). Phil l i ps f or fei ted hercl ai m thatthe dist ri c t c ou rt er re d i n denyi ng herpre tr i alm ot ion to excl ud e the r edacted re cor ding w i thout havin g re viewed the co m ple te ve rs ion firs t, a n d th u s w e re vie w th is c laim for p lain er r o r . Ph i l l i ps m o ve d t o e xc l ude the r eda ct ed r ec o r di ng o n g r o unds tha t i t wa s re d acte d, R. 1 68 a t 9, b uts he provi ded n o ar gum ent a sking the di str i ct c ourtto re vi ew the com ple te ver si on be f or e m aking i ts rul i ng. O nly on ap p eal d o e s Ph il li p s argu e tha t a district cou rt m ust r evi ew a com ple te re cor ding bef or e a dm i tting a re dacted ver si on into evid en c e. A pp el l ant’ s Br. at16
- 17. N orcan w e s ay that Phil l i ps’ speci fi c g ro und o fo bj ecti on, r equi ring the di str i ct c ourtto r evi ew the com ple te r ec o r d ing i n i ts e nt i r ety, was “ appa r en t fr o m the c o nte x t” of h er ob j ec tio n, F e d . R. E vid . 103 (a)( 1), es p ec ially si nce she poi nts to no prece dent re quirin g a di str i ct cour t t o perf orm the sua s ponte l abor

- i ntensi ve re vi ew s he n o w r e qu e s t s . S o me t r i a lc o ur t s h a v e i nd eed r e vi ew e d c o mpl e t e r e c o r di ng s o rt r a ns c r i pt s b e f o r e a dm itt in g t h em int o e vid en c e. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sc ar b orough , 43 F
. 3 d 1 0 2 1 , 1 0 2 4 ( 6 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 )
. Bu tn o thingr e qu i re s a t ri alco urt to do so , unl ess a partyo bj ect s to a probl em wi ththe r ec o r di ngo rt r an sc r i pt, s ucha s i t be i ng in au d ible , id. at 10 24 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bryant, 48 0 F
. 2d 78 5, 78 9 (2 d C ir. 19 73 ), or in ac c u ra te , U ni t e d S t at e s v. C hiarizio , 525 F.2d 28 9, 29 3 (2 d C ir. 19 75 ); Brya nt, 48 0 F. 2d at 789.N o. 09
- 1262 5 So we re vi ew the dist rict cour t’ s deni alo fPhi l l i ps’ m o tion to exc lud e the reda cted record ing for p lai n error. Und e rthi s s t a ndar d, we wi l lr e v e r s e o nly i fP hi l l i ps sh o ws tha t ( 1) the di st r i ctc o ur t plainly e r r ed i n de ny i ng her m oti on t o excl ud e the ev i dence; and ( 2) the er ro r like l y c h a n ge d th e t ria l’s ou tc om e. O l ano , 50 7 U.S
. at73 5; U nite d State s v. C urt is , 280 F.3d 798 , 801 (7th C ir. 2002). W e fi nd tha t Phi l l i ps ha s m etne i th erb ur den
. Fir st, Ph illip s c an n otsh ow th at th e e vid en c e p la in ly sh o ul d ha ve b ee n ex cl ude d. As we ha ve s ai d, no th i ng r equi r es a di st r i ctc o ur t to r ev i ew a co m pl et e r ec o r di ng befo re adm i tting a re dacted ver si on into evi dence, unl es s a pa r tyo bj ec ts t o a pr o bl em wi ththe r ec o r di ng that req u ire s the di str i ct c ourtto r evi ew i t in or der t o re fer ee the di spute. M or eov er, ev en i fa re dacted r e c o r d i n gt e l l s a n i n c o mpl e t e s t o r y, th i s r e n d e r s t he re c or d in g in c om p let e, n otina d m iss ible

— the p r oper re m edy wou ld be to supp l em ent the i ncom ple te re c or d in g, see Fed. R. Evi d. 106, notexcl ud e i t. A nd i n any eve nt, the re dacted recor ding i s co m ple te on i ts f ace. Phillip s a rgues that the r eco rdi ng i s incom ple te b e c a us e i ts he ds n o l i g hto n whe the rP hi l l i ps i nc ulpat ed hers el fpers on ally, o r her com pany, i n re sponse to questi ons ask i ng wh ether “ yo u” perfor m bi l l i ng o perat i ons. Bu t the r eco rd in g i s cl earthatPhi l l i ps inculpate d hers el fper sonal l y, as the f ol l owing excer pt r eve al s: O’Dea: Okay, and th en yo u m enti oned abo ut fi ve

years ago you l earn ed h o w to perform b illing
. . . Phil l i ps: Right.6 N o. 09
- 1262 O ’ De a : . . . s o y o u ’ v e b e e nd o i n gtha t o n y o u ro wn

eve r si nce? Phi l l i ps: Ye ah
. O ’De a: O kay. Th at’s a l ot of w ork b ecau se you ’re

m an ag in g t h e t h er ap istan d
. . . Phi l l i ps: Ye ah
. O’Dea:
. . . subm i tting the bi l l s. Phil l i ps: A w ye ah, and I ’ m a w or kaho l i c. Supp. R. at13
- 14. I t s tr etche s cr eduli ty to t h ink that Phil lip s’ com pany, nother sel fper sonal l y, had “l earned how to per f or m bi l l i ng” o r w as a “ w or ka h ol i c. ” Id.; see also i d. a t 11 ( Phi l l i ps ex pl aini ngho w she t au g ht hers el f w hi ch bi l l i ng codes to sel ect)
. So i t i s no w on der tha tP hi l l i ps

— w ho par ti ci pated i n the conve rs ati on i ncl ud i ng anypor ti ons that m ay have been red acte d

— fi nd s the exi ste nce o fr edacted e xculpato ryst ate m en ts “specul ati ve. ” Ap pel l ant’ s Br. at18
. I n sum , the evi dence w as hi ghl y r el evant, com ple te on i ts f a c e , a nd no t e xc l ud ab l e s i mpl y b e c a us e Ph i l l i ps now w i shes the di str i ct c ou rtwould have perf or m ed a r ev i e wi ngfun c t i o n i th a d n o i mpe t us to p e r f o r m. S o P hi l l i ps can sho w no pla i n er ro r i n denyi ng herm oti on t o excl ud e. N orcan Phil l i ps show that the r eco rdi ng’s adm i ssi on l i k ely c ha ng ed th e tr i al ’ s o ut co m e. Ev enwi th o utthe re cor ding, the j ury sti l lwould have hear d otherev i dence th e g ov er n m en t p ro d u c ed es ta b lish in g P h illip s’ k n ow ledg e an d a ctive i nv o l ve m en t i n the fr au d, i nc l udi ng evi dence showingthatPhi l l i ps owned H ealth Care Cre-N o. 09
- 1262 7 ati ons, hi re d and assi gn ed i ts doctorand ther api sts , d ire c te d a ther api st to fi l e f al se re port s about pati ents not see n, r an o p er ati ons, and benefi tte d fr om the m oni es ac qui r ed bythe fr au d. And the i nv es ti g at o r s o n the re cor ding sti l lco uld have te sti fi ed to thei r conve rs atio ns. I n any eve nt, Phi l l i ps m ad e no eff or t in herappel l ate bri ef s t o show that the reco rdi ng’ s a dm i ssi on prej ud i ced h er , an d w e d e c l i n e t o m ak e h er arg u m en ts for h er . See Vaughn v. Ki ng, 167F.3d 34 7, 35 4 (7 th C ir. 19 99 ) (“It is not t h e r esponsibi l i ty ofthi s co urt to m ake ar gum ents for th e pa rties. ”). So m uch f orthe dist ri ct cour t’ s deni alo fPhi l l i ps’ pretr i al m oti on t o excl ud e. Phi l l i ps al so ap p eals the dist ri ct c ou rt ’ s s ubsequent a dm i ssi on o fthe re dacted r eco rdi ng, “w hen the gover nm ent di d not e ven pro du ce o r bring a ful lc o py o fthe c o nv er sa ti o n t o t r i al, a s i t pr o m i se d the D ist ric t C ou rtitw ou ld .” A p p ella n t’s B r. at2. See a lso R. 17 8 at 2 ( dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fPhill i ps’ m oti on t o ex cl ude , a ss um i ngthe gov ernm en t woul d “ ha ve the co m pl et e r ec o r di ng s an d t r an sc r i pts avai l ab l e to the d efe n se attria l”). B ut see, e .g., A pp el l ee’ s Br. at20 n. 12 ( as se r tingtha t Phi l l i ps’ “ tr i alc o un sel h ad a co py o fthe unred acte d und er cove r re cor ding” )
. Phi l l i ps f or fei ted thi s cl ai m , thatthe dist ri ct c ourte rroneo usl y a dm i tte d the re dacted re cor ding at tr i al w hen the com ple te re co r di ngwas ne ve rmade av ai l abl e to he r, b ec au se s he ne ve ro bj ec te d a t tr i alt o i ts a dm i ss i o n. Phil l i ps cannot avo i d fo rfei ture byr el yi n g on h erpri or m oti on t o excl ud e the r edacted ve rs i on. Ordi nari l y, “a p ar ty n ee d n otren ew a n ob j ec tio n . . . to p re se rv e a cla im8 N o. 09
- 1262 ofer ro r f orappeal
. ” Wipf v. Kowals ki, 51 9 F. 3d 380, 38 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( q u o t i n g F e d
. R
. E v i d
. 1 0 3 ( a ) )
. Butwe m us t co nduc t o ur revi ew o fe vi den ti ary r ul i ng s “in l i g ht ofthe f acts and ci rcum sta nces b efo re the tr i alco urt at th e t i m e o f th e r u l i n g . I f th e r e l e v a n t f a c t s a n d c i r c u msta nces change m ate ri al l y a fteran ad vance rul i ng has been m ad e, tho se f acts and ci rcum sta nces cannot be re l i ed upon on appealunl ess theyhave bee n br ought to t he at t e n t i o n o fth e t r i a lc o u r tb y w a y o fa r e n e we d, an d tim ely, objec t io n.” Fed
. R. Evid
. 103, A d visory Com m . N ote s, 20 00 A m endm ent. Phi l l i ps was r equi r ed to a l er t th e tr i alc o ur t th atthe gov er nm ent had notpro vid ed herthe com ple te r ecordings, i n o r dert o pr es er ve he ro bj ec ti o n t o the adm i ssi on o fthe re dacted v er sion on the gr ounds that the c om ple te ve rs ion was unavai l abl e. H avi ng f ai l ed to do so , t h e ci rcum sta nce o fthe gov er nm ent f ai l i ng to provi de an unre dacted ver si on “ cannot be r el i ed up on o n appeal
. ” Id. ; s e ea l s o Wi l s o n v . Wi l l i a ms , 18 2 F
. 3d 562, 56 7 (7th C ir. 1999) (en ban c) ( “O nly argum en ts th at w ere actua l l y pr es en te d t o the di st r i ctc o ur t be f o r e tr i alare prese rv ed f orappeal
. ”)
. To ho l d ot h er w ise w oul d be t o “i nd ulg e in re vie w byhi nd si ght”

— cl ouded as t o w hetherPhi l l i ps actual l y had acc ess to the com ple te r ec o r di ng s pr ec i se l y b ec au se s he ne ve rr ai se d the i ss ue at tr i al

— ra therthan to evaluate the t ria lco urt’ s deci si on to adm i t the ev i de n c e fro m i ts own per specti ve. O ld C hief v . U nited Sta tes , 519 U
. S. 172, 182 n
. 6 (1997). So we are le ft t o ass ess the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a dm i ssi on o fthe r eda ct ed record i nga t tr i alf o rpl ain e r r o r . Aga i n,N o. 09
- 1262 9 we wi l lr ev er se o nl y i fPh il l i ps sh o ws tha t ( 1) the dist ri ct c ourtpl ai nl y e rr ed i n adm i tting the ev i dence; an d (2 ) t h e er ro r like ly c h an ge d th e t ria l’s ou tc om e. O l ano , 50 7 U .S. at 7 35 ; C urt is , 2 8 0 F
. 3 d a t 801
. Ag a i n, P hi l l i ps ha s m etne i th erb ur den
. P h illip s c an n otsh ow th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtp l ain ly er re d i n adm i tting t h e evi dence attr i al
. S he ar gues that i fthe unpr o duce d r eda ct ed po r ti o ns c o nt aine d e xcul pator y s tat em ents, “thi s would am ount t o a vi ol ation u n d er Brady v . M aryl and, 373 U .S. 83 (19 63 ).” A p p ell an t’ s Br
. a t 17
- 18
. Bute ve n tho ug h pr o ducingthe com ple te re cor ding w oul d have s ubver ted a Br adyvi ol ati on byal er ti ng P hi l l i ps to any excul pator y s tat em ents, Phi l l ips canno t r ely o n the no n- pr o duct i o n o fthe c o mpl e t e r e c o r di ng, a s w e have s a i d. Ev e n i fs he c o ul d, ther e was no Bradyvi ol ati on bec au se Phil l i ps w as a part y t o the r eco rded conve rs ati on a nd would have b ee n aw ar e o f an y e x c u lp at or y s ta te m en ts m ad e. See, e.g., U nite d States v. M aha li ck, 498 F.3d 4 7 5, 478-79 (7th Cir. 20 07 )
. In s um , the r e was no e r r o rwhena dm i tt i ng the r edacted r eco rdi ng in fa i l i ng to co nsi der r edacted exc ul pa t o r y s t a t e men t s , b e c a us e P hi l l i ps h a d the b ur den ofpoi nti ng the m o ut and she sti l lhasn’ t done so. Phil l i ps al so ar gues that adm i tting the r edacted r ecor ding b urdened her w i th te sti fyi ng to any re dacted e xc ul pa t o r yst ate men t s i n v i o l a t i o n o fh e rF i fth Am e nd

m ent r i ght t o avo i d sel f

- i ncri m i na tio n. But Phil l i ps need n o t h a ve taken the sta nd to provid e any exc ulp atory sta tem en ts. A l lshe had to do w as i denti fy them fro m the c om ple te re cor ding and have those por ti ons i ntro
-10 N o. 09
- 1262 du ced vi a F edera lRule o f Evi dence 106

— as unli kel y a s thi s m i ght have been, f or as w e re veal ed, the redact ed port i on inculpate d her perso nal l y. A n d ag ain , eve n w ith ou t t h e re c or d in g , i t is u n like ly that the t ri al ’ s o utcom e would h ave been differ ent, gi ven the pl etho ra o fo therev i dence ag ai nst Phi l l i ps.
B. Later-Prod u ced D ocu m en ts At l as t we c o m e to Ph i l l i ps’ fi na la r g um en t th atthe go ve rn m en t s an d b ag ge d h er in t h e p ro d u c tio n of ce rt ain ev id en c e, an d th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtth er efo re err ed in admi tt i ngi t. Ph i l l i ps i nt en ti o na ll y r el i nqui sh ed he rr i g ht to c ha l l en g e i nunda ti o n wi thunt i m ely pr o duce d do cum en ts whens he i ns truct ed th e di st r i ctc o ur t tha t o ne we e kwo u l d b e t i me e n o u g h t o r e v i e w th e m, a n d s o we d o not review the cou rt’s dec isi on to ad m it t h ese laterp ro d uc ed doc um en ts for p lai n or an y othe r type of error. O l ano , 507U .S. at 7 33 ; Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ha m i l t on , 49 9 F.3d 734 , 7 3 5 ( 7th Cir. 2007). G iven P hill ips’ w aiver, we ne ed no t addr es s th e g o ve r nm ent ’ s al te r na ti ve a r g ume n t s th a tth e l a t e r - p r o d u c e d d o c u me n t s we r e fe w, provi ded l i ttl e t o no n ew infor m ati on, were produced late r f or l egi ti m ate re aso ns, and were eas y to dig es t in the a ddi t i o na lwe e kP hi l l i ps wa s p r o v i de d.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Phil l i ps ’ c l a i ms o f e r r o r i n the t r i a l r e s ul t i ng i n her co nv i ction f o rhe al th ca r e fr au d wer e ne ve rr ai se d i n theN o. 09
- 1262 11 dist ri ct c ourtand ar e u n p er suasi ve here
. There f or e, w e A FFIRM .

2- 25- 10