Opinion ID: 2994678
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Freitag’s Challenges to Her Sentence

Text: In fraud cases, the sentence a defendant receives depends upon the amount of loss involved in the defendant’s crime. See U.S.S.G. sec. 2F1.1. In this case, the large number of fraudulent claims (over 8,000) and the extensive period over which the claims were submitted (seven years) made a precise calculation of loss impractical. Accordingly, the government turned to a group of statistical experts to devise a statistical survey that would produce or generate an estimate of loss. The experts selected a sample of 200 claims from a 15- month period and determined how much of the Medicare money Freitag took in with respect to those claims was fraudulently procured. Then, this result was extrapolated to estimate how much of the Medicare money Freitag took in over the 15-month period was fraudulently procured. The final estimate was $506,713. The court accepted this figure as the amount of fraud loss and, under U.S.S.G. sec. 2F1.1, increased Freitag’s offense level by 10 as the loss exceeded $500,000. Freitag contends that admitted errors by the nurse, who evaluated which of the Medicare reimbursement claims were improper, undermine the validity of the loss determination. As this is a challenge to the factual determinations underlying the district court’s loss calculation, we review the district court’s finding of fact for clear error. United States v. Mattison, 153 F.3d 406, 412 (7th Cir. 1998). Here, the amount of loss resulting from Freitag’s fraud was calculated over only a 15-month period even though the fraudulent activity took place over a seven-year period. As the government points out, the loss determination is quite conservative given the scope and duration of Freitag’s fraud scheme. Moreover, Freitag was given the benefit of the doubt with respect to each claim (in the 200 sampled) that for one reason or another could not be evaluated. As the Sentencing Guidelines only require a reasonable estimate of the loss, see U.S.S.G. sec. 2F1.1 cmt. 9, we find nothing unreasonable about the district court’s loss determination based on the record. Moreover, even if the district court had taken into account the two claims on which the evaluating nurse admitted error, the amount of loss would still exceed $500,000./6 Thus, a redetermination of the fraud loss is unjustified.
In sentencing Freitag, the district court adjusted her offense level upward after concluding that Freitag had obstructed justice within the meaning of U.S.S.G. sec. 3C1.1 by committing perjury at trial. The district court found that Freitag had lied in testifying about three matters: (1) calls she made to a doctor’s office; (2) the conduct of a federal agent during the investigation; and (3) whether certain (unspecified) conversations with her employees occurred. Freitag challenges the district court’s obstruction of justice ruling on the grounds that the court did not make the necessary findings on the elements of perjury and that at least the first two instances of alleged perjury do not actually qualify as perjury. This court reviews the adequacy of a district court’s perjury findings de novo and reviews a district court’s factual findings that the defendant committed perjury for clear error./7 United States v. Gage, 183 F.3d 711, 715 (7th Cir. 1999). Under the Sentencing Guidelines, perjury at trial constitutes obstruction of justice and subjects a defendant to an upward adjustment in offense level. U.S.S.G. sec. 3C1.1 cmt. 4; United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993). A defendant commits perjury under this provision if he or she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. at 94. While it is advisable for a district court to make specific and clear findings on each instance of perjury, all that is required to impose the obstruction of justice enhancement on perjury grounds is that the court make a finding that encompasses the factual predicates for a finding of perjury. Id. at 95. Freitag first contends that the district court did not make sufficient findings of specific intent with respect to any of the three alleged instances of perjury. However, this position cannot be maintained in face of the following statement made by the district judge, I didn’t believe Miss Freitag’s testimony was the result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory. I thought it really did function more as a creative revision of what had happened. Similarly, Freitag challenges the sufficiency of the district court’s findings concerning her testimony about whether conversations with certain employees occurred. She claims the district court erred by not specifying which employees or conversations it was referring to. Dunnigan does not require such specificity, however. The district court found that her testimony was intentionally given, false, and material; nothing more is required under Dunnigan in the way of findings. And, as the government has shown, there is more than sufficient factual support in the record for the district court’s finding./8 Freitag further contends that neither of the first two alleged instances of perjury in fact constituted perjury. The government concedes that her testimony about the conduct of the federal agents does not support a perjury finding because it was not material, but the government does insist that her testimony regarding the timing of calls she made to a doctor’s office (in an effort to have a doctor indicate that certain patients qualified for Medicare-funded ambulance service) was perjurious. With respect to that testimony, Freitag claims her testimony was literally true, even if it was misleading. See Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973). However, this cannot be squared with the trial transcript where Freitag’s account of when she asked for the doctor’s letters is in direct conflict with the testimony of the person she claims to have called at the doctor’s office. The district court did not commit clear error in finding that Freitag perjured herself in giving this testimony. As there are sufficient grounds for the district court’s obstruction of justice determination, we affirm that determination.