Opinion ID: 2738168
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Miscellaneous Testimony

Text: The government also presented testimony of police officer Leonard Mitchell, who testified that in August 2006, he drafted a report regarding a residential break-in and a motor vehicle theft in response to a call from Defendant. In the motor vehicle theft report, which was entered into evidence, Defendant was listed as the victim of the theft. In that report, Defendant’s employer was identified as “self,” her occupation was listed as “owner,” and her employment hours were marked as varied. That form was signed by Defendant, indicating that she “verifie[d] that the information of th[e] report [was] accurate and true.” (Id.) 10. Disability Benefits-Related Inquiries Throughout the period during which she received disability benefits, Defendant responded to a number of inquiries regarding her condition and her ability to work. In February 1997, Defendant responded to an inquiry from Ohio Edison indicating that she had not returned to work. She received and responded to similar inquiries in 2000, 2001, and 2003. In 1997, she also responded to BWC’s written correspondence, indicating that she had not returned to work. She again received contact letters in 1999 and 2000 and a questionnaire in 2002 from BWC to which she responded that she hadn’t returned to work and was not volunteering. In 2003 and 2006, she received additional mailed correspondence from the BWC to which she responded that 13 No. 13-3315 she hadn’t been working. In a 2007 interview with two agents, Defendant was asked “[Are you or have you been working in any capacity full-time, part-time, self-employed, in any capacity?” She responded, “No, not at all.” (R.123, 12/10/2012 Trial Tr., at PageID# 1677.) Additionally, from February 1985 through 2000, Defendant reported no change in her condition and maintained that she had limited walking abilities and needed assistance with bathing. She also indicated that her hobbies were watching television, listening to the radio, and oil painting. She also stated that she had social contact with her family and drove occasionally. She agreed to notify the SSA if her condition improved. II. Procedural History On December 7, 2010, Defendant was charged with three crimes: (1) mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, related to benefits she received from the BWC and Ohio Edison between September 1, 1996 and June 7, 2008; (2) theft of social security disability benefits exceeding $1,000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, related to benefits she received from February 2006 through May 2008; and (3) making materially false statements to government officials, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Before Defendant’s trial began, the district court ordered her to undergo a competency evaluation. The court-appointed psychologist found Defendant competent to stand trial, although he also concluded that she “has a deeply engrained pattern of social and occupational instability [and] . . . [has] odd and magical beliefs that influence her behavior and relationships with others.” (R. 70-1, Sealed Letter from Dr. James A. Orlando, at PageID# 593.) The jury trial commenced on December 6, 2012, and on December 13, 2012, the jury returned guilty verdicts on each of the charges. 14 No. 13-3315 At a sentencing hearing before the district court, Defendant objected to the judge’s calculation of the total amount of benefits received during the relevant time period. Based on the loss amount and restitution calculations, the district court found that Defendant’s base offense level was seven, but that the total loss amount of $170,047.47 required a ten-level enhancement pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(f). Additionally, the district court rejected the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice that was requested by the government and included in the presentence report (“PSR”). Ultimately, the district court varied downward and sentenced Defendant to ten months of incarceration on all counts to run concurrently, followed by three years of supervised release on all counts, which would also run concurrently. Additionally, the district court ordered Defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $170,047.47 to the SSA, the BWC, and Ohio Edison. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. She asserts the following claims on appeal: (1) the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the defense of good faith as to her charges of theft of public funds and making a false statement to a government official; (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish that Defendant possessed the requisite intent to defraud the government; and (3) the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence and improperly calculated the loss and restitution amounts owed by Defendant. II.