Opinion ID: 4534671
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of evidence as to Isidaehomen

Text: Isidaehomen moved for a judgment of acquittal, causing us to review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. Perez-Ceballos, 907 F.3d at 866–67. We have already articulated the highly deferential review standard to be applied. See Kuhrt, 788 F.3d at 413. Isidaehomen, like Emordi, was charged with healthcare-fraud conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347 and 1349, so the required elements for conviction are the same. Isidaehomen also challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence as to her knowing of and voluntarily joining the conspiracy. She argues that it was her husband Okwilagwe who went to Ogabi to obtain signatures on the company’s founding documents as an owner. Isidaehomen also argues there was no evidence that she was aware of her husband’s or Emordi’s exclusions. She also insists that her being shown as the owner along with her husband does not support a finding that she had knowledge of or joined the conspiracy to conceal Okwilagwe’s and Emordi’s exclusions. 8 Case: 19-10400 Document: 00515416830 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/14/2020 No. 19-10400 We find, though, evidence that supports Isidaehomen’s knowledge and voluntary participation: (1) she was indicted in the same state court case that was the basis of Okwilagwe’s and Emordi’s exclusions; (2) she maintained the relationship with Ogabi and facilitated her husband’s having Ogabi sign the company’s founding documents; (3) she assured Ogabi in 2007 that Ogabi’s name would be removed from those documents; (4) tax records show Isidaehomen had an ownership interest from 2011 to 2014; (5) she became an authorized signer on the bank account to which Medicaid payments were received almost immediately after Okwilagwe’s and Emordi’s exclusions became effective; and (6) for a time after the exclusions became effective, Isidaehomen began writing checks to Emordi’s wife, Mosunmola, and stopped writing checks to Emordi. The question on appeal is whether any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Government had through this and other evidence proven the elements of Isidaehomen’s crime. Kuhrt, 788 F.3d at 413. Jurors were not irrational in finding Isidaehomen knew of and voluntarily joined the conspiracy.