Opinion ID: 2804139
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Procedural Error19

Text: First, Kolodesh argues that the government did not establish that the health care fraud in this case resulted in a $16.2 million loss, and, therefore, the twenty-level lossenhancement imposed under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines was inappropriate. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K). An agent who worked on the case testified at sentencing that he calculated the loss based on Pugman’s and Ganetsky’s testimony as to the percentage of continuous care claims that were fraudulent, 90-99.5%, and the percentage of patients who did not qualify even for non-continuous hospice care, 30-33%. Using the lower estimates, the agent multiplied those percentages by the respective dollar amounts of claims submitted between 2003 and 2008, $1.7 million for 19 In United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2014) (en banc), we concluded that a defendant must object after a sentence is pronounced to preserve a claim based on “failure to give meaningful consideration” to the defendant’s objections. Id. at 256. That rule, however, does not apply to sentences such as Kolodesh’s that were entered before Flores-Mejia was decided. Id. at 259. Furthermore, Kolodesh does not challenge the adequacy of the District Court’s consideration of the objections he raised. He instead challenges the District Court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, and in particular the Court’s factual findings in support of the Guidelines calculations it made. Therefore, our review is for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207, 217 (3d Cir. 2008). “[A] district court will be held to have abused its discretion if its decision was based on a clearly erroneous factual conclusion or an erroneous legal conclusion.” Id. 26 continuous care and $48.9 million for non-continuous care, resulting in a total loss of $16.2 million. Kolodesh argues that Pugman and Ganetsky were not competent to testify as to the percentage of fraudulent claims and that the government provided no foundation for their testimonies. He says that, based on expert testimony he advanced at the sentencing hearing, statistical sampling was needed to establish an accurate estimate of loss in this case. The District Court did not clearly err in concluding that the government proved a $16.2 million loss. Pugman and Ganetsky each testified extensively at trial regarding their intimate involvement in the management of Home Care Hospice and, together with Kolodesh, their direction of the company’s fraudulent activities. It is difficult to imagine who would have been more competent to testify based on personal knowledge as to the loss involved in this case. Furthermore, “[t]here is no rule that a district court must rely upon statistical analysis in a situation such as this to determine the amount of loss pursuant to section 2B1.1.” United States v. Jones, 641 F.3d 706, 712 (6th Cir. 2011) (making that statement as a general proposition in a health care fraud case, but reversing because the district court relied solely on a flawed statistical analysis). And as the application notes to the Sentencing Guidelines indicate, “[t]he court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 app. n.3(C). We find no error in the District Court’s application of the loss enhancement. Next, Kolodesh argues that the District Court erred in applying a four-level enhancement based on his role as an organizer or leader of the fraudulent activity. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). He points to evidence adduced at trial indicating 27 that he had no control over the fraud and instead was, at most, “a passive, silent partner” in Home Care Hospice. (Opening Br. at 56.) Although he acknowledges the existence of damning testimony by Pugman and Ganetsky, he argues that they were “simply not credible.” (Opening Br. at 57.) We decline Kolodesh’s invitation to reweigh the evidence or reassess the witnesses’ credibility. Pugman and Ganetsky repeatedly testified at trial that Kolodesh was intimately involved in directing the fraudulent scheme. Although the jury could have chosen to reject Pugman’s and Ganetsky’s testimony and believe Kolodesh’s version of events, it did not. The District Court’s finding that Kolodesh was an organizer or leader of the fraudulent activity is in line with the jury’s verdict, and Kolodesh has pointed to nothing in the record that would make the District Court’s finding clearly erroneous. See United States v. Igbonwa, 120 F.3d 437, 44041 (3d Cir. 1997) (stating that under the clearly erroneous standard, the reviewing court does not “conduct a de novo review of the evidence” but considers “whether there is enough evidence in the record to support the factual findings of the district court,” or, in the context of credibility determinations, whether “the district court’s decision is based on testimony that is coherent and plausible, not internally inconsistent and not contradicted by external evidence”). Kolodesh’s final procedural challenge relates to the District Court’s imposition of a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. During trial, Alexy Drobot – a witness for the government who, as noted earlier, had contracted with Home Care Hospice to service its copy machine – testified that Kolodesh came to his office shortly before Drobot was 28 scheduled to testify.20 Drobot was not there, but Kolodesh had Drobot’s secretary call and ask him to meet Kolodesh at Community Home Health. When Drobot refused, Kolodesh proposed a meeting at Starbucks. Drobot agreed and they met over coffee for about fifteen minutes. The only thing they discussed was Drobot’s upcoming testimony. Kolodesh mentioned that Drobot would probably get called as a witness the following week, and Kolodesh said, “don’t bury me.” (App. at 2977.) Drobot responded that he would not perjure himself but would “tell the truth and be done with this.” (App. at 2978.) Drobot acknowledged on cross-examination that Kolodesh did not threaten him or ask him to lie or to change his testimony. Again, Kolodesh is simply rearguing the weight of the evidence, without pointing to anything that shows the District Court clearly erred in finding that he willfully attempted to obstruct or impede the administration of justice. We conclude, therefore, that the District Court did not commit procedural error in applying the challenged enhancements. 20 Drobot testified at trial about the agreement he had with Kolodesh and Pugman to provide them with fake invoices in return for a portion of the funds used to pay those invoices. 29