Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maria VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-27
Citations: 672 F. App'x 401
Docket Number: No. 15-20763 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maria VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 401–401

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maria VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-20763 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed: 12/27/2016
John A. Reed, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Maria Vasquez, Pro Se
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Maria Vasquez appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to commit theft of public money. She argues that the district court improperly applied a two-level increase to her base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) because her offense involved 10 or more victims. Specifically, she argues that, although she submitted up-coded. bills to Medicare and Medicaid, her use of her patients' means of identification was both lawful and with authority, making her patients not victims.
We review the district court's interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
Vasquez's argument is unavailing. Any lawful authority she had to submit bills for reimbursement to Medicaid and Medicare did not include the authority to submit fraudulent claims. Because Vasquez's offense involved the unlawful use of the means of identification of 10 or more victims, the district court properly applied a two-level enhancement pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i). See § 2B1.1, comment. (n.4(E)). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.