Opinion ID: 2803231
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rovedo

Text: On appeal, Rovedo challenges (1) the district court’s denial of her motion to dismiss the indictment against her; (2) the procedural and (3) substantive reasonableness of her sentence; and (4) the district court’s forfeiture order against her. 1. The District Court Did Not Err by Denying Rovedo’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Rovedo argues that the district court should have granted her motion to dismiss the indictment against her because the government failed to preserve the electronic medical records of Delta Health’s clients, including medical records and prescription histories, in a readable format. She asserts that the government’s key cooperating witness, Hazelwood, controlled the missing documents and that the government took no affirmative steps to obtain this evidence, which may have proven exculpatory. The government responds that it never controlled the relevant records and that it provided copies of the raw data it was able to recover from a thirdparty server to Rovedo. Neither the government nor Rovedo were able to reconstruct the records. The government argues that, in any event, it is unlikely that any recoverable medical records would be exculpatory for Rovedo. We agree with the government. “In reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss an indictment, this Court reviews the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error or abuse of discretion.” United States v. Rose, 714 F.3d 362, 370 (6th Cir. 2013). Rovedo’s argument, which centers on a factual dispute regarding discovery, is subject to abuse-ofdiscretion review. This requires Rovedo to demonstrate that the district court’s ruling was “based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact,” or otherwise to leave us “with -6- Case Nos. 13-3240/3525, United States v. Darji, et al. the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Kumar, 750 F.3d 563, 566 (6th Cir. 2014). In denying Rovedo’s motion, the district court credited the government’s arguments that much of the raw data it obtained from a third-party subpoena was in an inaccessible format, that it disclosed any information it could glean to Rovedo, and that it did not destroy or fail to preserve any information it had obtained. The record supports the district court’s determination. Because the government did not destroy any of the raw data it obtained from the third-party server, Rovedo cannot meet the standards for demonstrating that the government’s destruction of material exculpatory evidence arose to the level of a due process violation. See California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488-89 (1984) (holding that destruction of evidence violates due process where the evidence “possess[ed] an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed and [was] of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means”); see also United States v. Wright, 260 F.3d 568, 571 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that “destruction of material exculpatory evidence violates due process regardless of whether the government acted in bad faith”). Moreover, because the government did what it could to convert the raw data—which was only potentially useful—into a readable format and provided the raw data to Rovedo, Rovedo cannot show that the government acted in bad faith. See Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57-58 (1988); Wright, 260 F.3d at 571-72 (noting that “where the government is negligent, even grossly negligent, in failing to preserve potential exculpatory evidence, the bad faith requirement is not satisfied”). -7- Case Nos. 13-3240/3525, United States v. Darji, et al. 2. Rovedo’s Sentence Is Procedurally Reasonable Rovedo next argues that the district court made two procedural errors in its Guidelines calculation at sentencing: first, that the district court applied the wrong base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) by erroneously determining that the conspiracy was responsible for the distribution of more than three million1 dosage units of hydrocodone; and second, that the district court erred in assessing Rovedo as an organizer or leader of the conspiracy under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). We review challenges to the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Kamper, 748 F.3d 728, 739 (6th Cir. 2014); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). To determine whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable, we examine, inter alia, “whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range.” United States v. Battaglia, 624 F.3d 348, 350-51 (6th Cir. 2010). “If the district court misinterprets the Guidelines or miscalculates the Guidelines range, then the resulting sentence is procedurally unreasonable.” United States v. Stubblefield, 682 F.3d 502, 510 (6th Cir. 2012). The district court’s “legal interpretation of the Guidelines [is] reviewed de novo, but its factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” Id. (quoting Battaglia, 624 F.3d at 351) (internal quotation marks omitted). Sentencing factors must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Ross, 703 F.3d 856, 884 (6th Cir. 2012). a. The District Court’s Calculation of Rovedo’s Base Offense Level Was Not Erroneous Pursuant to § 2D1.1(c)(10) of the 2008 version of the Sentencing Guidelines, Rovedo’s base offense level was capped at 20 for the distribution of 40,000 or more units of Schedule III 1 Although Rovedo’s brief argues that the district court estimated the conspiracy distributed more than four million dosage units, the court’s actual finding was “that more than 3 million dosage units were involved here.” -8- Case Nos. 13-3240/3525, United States v. Darji, et al. substances.2 Rovedo argues that the district court should only have considered the number of pills distributed to undercover agents in determining her base offense level because that number was readily calculable. She argues that she did not enter the conspiracy until January 2006, when she and her husband purchased Delta Health, meaning that she cannot be held responsible for the full amount of drugs attributable to the conspiracy. She further argues that the government did not prove that every hydrocodone pill distributed in the conspiracy was medically unnecessary, thereby rendering the more-than-three-million figure inflated. The government responds that the district court’s calculation was not erroneous because ample evidence demonstrated that the prescriptions issued by Delta Health doctors were illegitimate. The government’s argument prevails. In reviewing a district court’s drug-quantity determination for purposes of sentencing, “[s]o long as a preponderance of the evidence supports the district court’s finding, an estimate will do.” United States v. Sadler, 750 F.3d 585, 593 (6th Cir. 2014). This Court should not disturb this estimate if competent evidence in the record supports it. United States v. Mahaffey, 53 F.3d 128, 132 (6th Cir. 1995). As a factual finding, we review drug-quantity determinations for clear error. United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562, 570 (6th Cir. 2008). In determining that Rovedo was responsible for the distribution of more than three million hydrocodone pills, the district court considered and accepted Rovedo’s argument that she could not be responsible for the shipment of any hydrocodone before 2006, when she purchased Delta Health. In doing so, the district court rejected the recommendation in the presentence investigation report that the court hold Rovedo responsible for the distribution of more than four 2 Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1), the district court applied the 2008 version of the Guidelines because, beginning in 2009, the maximum base offense level for hydrocodone offenses increased from 20 to 30. Compare U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Guidelines Manual, § 2D1.1(c)(10) (Nov. 1, 2008), with U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Guidelines Manual, § 2D1.1(c)(5) (Nov. 1, 2009). -9- Case Nos. 13-3240/3525, United States v. Darji, et al. million pills. This indicates caution by the district court to ensure that Rovedo “was ‘more likely actually responsible for a quantity greater than or equal to the amount used in calculating the sentence.’” Jeross, 521 F.3d at 571 (quoting Mahaffey, 53 F.3d at 132). Ultimately, this determination rested on evidence in the record that Rovedo, along with others, operated under the following business model, as described by the district court: that scripts were written with persons having asked for hydrocodone initially; that a very small amount of medical evidence was obtained, that very little medical time was spent with them, that this was understood by Ms. Rovedo, and that the scripts were obtained with very little medical rigor or observation. Competent evidence in the record supported a finding that Rovedo was responsible for the distribution of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of hydrocodone pills. Trial testimony indicated that Delta Health doctors did not establish an appropriate doctor-patient relationship prior to dispensing medication; that calls between undercover agents and the Delta Health organization regarding symptoms were superficial and vague; that undercover agents were able to receive medication using obviously falsified medical records; and that the Delta Health organization sent periodic emails urging customers to renew or refill their medications. A trial exhibit indicated that Dr. Fernandez filled over 4,000 prescriptions totaling more than 400,000 hydrocodone pills at one of Darji’s pharmacies from 2006 to 2007. Moreover, an email from Rovedo to Hazelwood expressed “a real problem” with a doctor “insisting that he doesn’t want patients to have Rx for hydro for more than 3-4 months at a time without a 30 day break,” and suggested transferring customers to other doctors as a workaround. At bottom, the district court’s conservative estimate was not clearly erroneous, and was certainly over the 40,000 threshold required to assess Rovedo with a base offense level of 20 under the 2008 Guidelines. - 10 - Case Nos. 13-3240/3525, United States v. Darji, et al. b. The District Court’s Determination That Rovedo Was an Organizer or Leader of Criminal Activity Involving More than Five Participants Was Not Erroneous Rovedo also argues that the district court erred in determining that she was an organizer or leader of the conspiracy for purposes of a four-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Under that section, a four-level enhancement is appropriate if the defendant “was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). According to Rovedo, the record only shows that she purchased an ongoing medical records business that had Hazelwood as a client. She argues that she did not exercise authoritative decisionmaking in the conspiracy, that the doctors involved exercised their own independent medical judgment, and that, while she may have played an essential role, the government failed to prove that she played a managerial role. The government argues that the evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that Rovedo was an equal partner with Hazelwood, responsible for monitoring the performance of participating doctors and adjusting customer loads as necessary. The record supports the government’s argument. A deferential clear-error standard of review applies to a district court’s determination that a person is an organizer or leader under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. United States v. Washington, 715 F.3d 975, 983 (6th Cir. 2013). This is because “a Section 3B1.1 enhancement . . . depends on a number of factual nuances that a district court is better positioned to evaluate.” Id.; see also id. (“The district court is in the best position to know whether [a defendant] was a leader or organizer under Section 3B1.1 given the evidence presented and the nature of the conspiracy.”). To determine whether a defendant should receive an “organizer or leader” enhancement under § 3B1.1(a) rather than a lesser “manager or supervisor” enhancement under § 3B1.1(b), we consider the following non-exhaustive list of factors: - 11 - Case Nos. 13-3240/3525, United States v. Darji, et al. the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others. Id. (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court did not clearly err in determining that Rovedo was an organizer or leader of the conspiracy. The court properly applied the factors for determining management of a criminal organization. Cf. United States v. Lalonde, 509 F.3d 750, 765-66 (6th Cir. 2007). Recognizing that Rovedo did not start out as a leader of the conspiracy, the district court nevertheless focused on Rovedo’s roles in communicating with Hazelwood regarding the logistics of the conspiracy, in recruiting doctors and terminating those who did not cooperate with the plan, and in formulating the “direct script” model. The record supported the district court’s determination. For example, telephone calls between Hazelwood and Rovedo indicated that it was Rovedo’s responsibility to monitor the customer loads of each doctor and to adjust them as necessary. Only Hazelwood and Rovedo had access to the doctor queues to accomplish this task. Emails between Hazelwood and Rovedo further demonstrated that Rovedo was responsible for recruiting doctors willing to participate in the conspiracy. Telephone calls indicated that Rovedo came up with the “direct script” model in order to alleviate problems with pharmacies not filling prescriptions written by the conspiracy’s doctors, and that she pitched the model as “a cleaner business” to participating doctors. Rovedo also suggested using her son to see if a pharmacy in California would fill a prescription written by Dr. Fernandez under the “direct script” model. Hazelwood agreed to split the profits from the “direct script” model down the middle with Rovedo “like a partner,” recognizing that the model would “put a brunt of the burden on [Rovedo].” The fact that Rovedo received a large portion of the fruits of the crime, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4, coupled with the other overwhelming - 12 - Case Nos. 13-3240/3525, United States v. Darji, et al. evidence of Rovedo’s leadership role, suffices to show that the district court’s application of the four-level enhancement was not clearly erroneous. 3. Rovedo’s Sentence Is Substantively Reasonable Rovedo also challenges the substantive reasonableness of her sentence. Rovedo argues that the district court erred by failing to grant downward departures or variances for (1) aberrant behavior under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.20; (2) her medical conditions under § 5H1.4; and (3) the disproportionality of her sentence as compared to the sentences of her co-defendants. We review challenges to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Kamper, 748 F.3d at 739. “[A] sentence may be substantively unreasonable if the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider pertinent [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Robinson, 503 F.3d 522, 528 (6th Cir. 2007). Sentences falling within the advisory Guidelines range are presumptively reasonable. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389-90 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007). a. The District Court Did Not Err by Failing to Grant Rovedo a Downward Departure or Variance for Aberrant Behavior Rovedo first argues that the district court should have granted a downward departure or variance under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.20 because she had not engaged in any other criminal conduct prior to her participation in the conspiracy. A downward departure under § 5K2.20 is appropriate “only if the defendant committed a single criminal occurrence or a single criminal transaction that (1) was committed without significant planning; (2) was of limited duration; and (3) represents a marked deviation by the defendant from an otherwise law-abiding life.” The government responds that Rovedo’s long-lasting participation in this conspiracy—including her - 13 - Case Nos. 13-3240/3525, United States v. Darji, et al. schemes to evade law enforcement and her introduction of the “direct script” model—disqualify her from a § 5K2.20 departure. We reject Rovedo’s argument. “In this circuit, a district court’s decision not to depart downwards is considered unreviewable, except where there is clear evidence that ‘the lower court incorrectly believed that it lacked authority to grant such a departure.’” United States v. Church, 731 F.3d 530, 533-34 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Madden, 515 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 2008)). If the district court recognizes its discretion—as did the district court here—then we will review the court’s decision only if: “(1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the law; (2) it was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines; (3) the sentence represented an upward departure; or (4) the sentence was imposed ‘for an offense for which there is no Sentencing Guideline and is plainly unreasonable.’” United States v. Puckett, 422 F.3d 340, 346 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)). The district court recognized its discretion to grant a downward departure under § 5K2.20 and specifically declined, focusing on Rovedo’s extensive planning in the offense. In view of this, the district court’s decision to deny a departure is unreviewable. See Church, 731 F.3d at 534. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a variance under these circumstances. b. The District Court Did Not Err by Failing to Grant Rovedo a Downward Departure or Variance Based on Her Health Conditions Rovedo next argues that the district court should have granted a downward departure or variance based on her age and poor health conditions, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4. Under that section, “an extraordinary physical impairment may be a reason to depart downward; e.g., in the case of a seriously infirm defendant, home detention may be as efficient as, and less costly than, imprisonment.” Rovedo argues that her myriad health complications—including degenerative joint disease, hypertension, osteoporosis, depression, and anxiety—warranted a downward - 14 - Case Nos. 13-3240/3525, United States v. Darji, et al. variance. The government responds that evidence from the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) demonstrated that it could adequately care for Rovedo and accommodate her medical conditions, such that the district court’s refusal to grant a departure or variance on this ground was not an abuse of discretion. The latter argument is more persuasive. As with the § 5K2.20 departure, the district court expressly recognized its discretion to grant a departure to Rovedo based on her health conditions under § 5H1.4, but specifically declined to do so based on the circumstances of her case. Under this Circuit’s well-established law, therefore, the district court’s decision is unreviewable. See Church, 731 F.3d at 533-34. Even if it were reviewable as a request for a variance, however, competent evidence supported the district court’s decision, including an assessment from the BOP indicating that it could accommodate Rovedo’s conditions. Rovedo did not establish that her medical conditions were so extraordinary as to warrant a downward variance.3 See United States v. Jones, 445 F.3d 865, 870 n.7 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting that, absent extraordinary circumstances, “[t]he Guidelines discourage courts from considering a defendant’s physical condition in determining whether a departure may be warranted”); United States v. Johnson, 71 F.3d 539, 545 (6th Cir. 1995) (“[A]n aged defendant with a multitude of health problems may qualify for a downward departure under § 5H1.4. However, we note that such downward departures are rare.”). Accordingly, Rovedo has not rebutted the presumed reasonableness of her sentence. See Vonner, 516 F.3d at 389. c. The District Court Did Not Err by Failing to Grant Rovedo a Downward Variance Based on the Disproportionality of Her Sentence as Compared to the Sentences of Her Co-Defendants Rovedo argues that the sentence she received was disproportionately higher than those received by her co-defendants. She argues that her 78-month sentence was unfair in light of the 3 In any event, the district court explicitly sentenced Rovedo at the low end of her advisory Guidelines range based exclusively on her medical conditions. - 15 - Case Nos. 13-3240/3525, United States v. Darji, et al. fact that Dr. Fernandez received a 30-month sentence, and that the ringleader of the conspiracy, Hazelwood, received a 110-month sentence. The government argues that Rovedo was second only to Hazelwood in her culpability and that her case is not comparable to her co-conspirators’ cases because all of them (except Darji and Sasaki) pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility for their crimes. The government has the better argument. As noted above, within-Guidelines sentences are entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. Vonner, 516 F.3d at 389. We recently rejected a similar attempt by a defendant “to rebut this presumption by pointing to ‘disparities’ between his sentence and those of his coconspirators.” United States v. Dimora, 750 F.3d 619, 632 (6th Cir. 2014). In Dimora, we noted that “[t]he guidelines concern ‘national disparities between defendants[,] . . . not disparities between co-conspirators.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Wallace, 597 F.3d 794, 803 (6th Cir. 2010)). We nevertheless rejected the defendant’s argument on its merits, noting that, unlike several of his co-conspirators, the defendant had not cooperated with the government or pleaded guilty. Id. Rovedo’s case is indistinguishable from Dimora. Hazelwood and Dr. Fernandez pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government; Rovedo did not. Moreover, Rovedo’s argument fails on its own terms: the district court explicitly considered the reasonableness of Rovedo’s sentence relative to her co-conspirators, noting that her sentence was “substantially” below Hazelwood’s, but higher than Darji’s. Accordingly, Rovedo has failed to rebut the presumption that her within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. 4. The District Court’s Order of Forfeiture Was Not Erroneous Finally, Rovedo challenges the district court’s order finding her jointly and severally liable, along with her co-conspirators, for $3,589,890 in forfeitable proceeds. She argues that the forfeiture order was improper because she is indigent and suffers from medical impairments that - 16 - Case Nos. 13-3240/3525, United States v. Darji, et al. diminish her ability to pay. She also argues that she did not receive the amount listed in the forfeiture order as ill-gotten gains, but rather received only a reasonable salary. The government responds—correctly—that a defendant’s ability to pay is not relevant in the forfeiture analysis. The criminal-forfeiture statute provides that an individual convicted of a drug offense “punishable by imprisonment for more than one year shall forfeit to the United States . . . any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation.” 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1). We must construe § 853 liberally in order to effectuate its remedial purpose. Id. § 853(o). In the context of criminal-forfeiture determinations, we review “[f]indings of fact . . . for clear error, and the question whether those facts are sufficient to constitute a proper criminal forfeiture . . . de novo.” United States v. Evers, 669 F.3d 645, 660 (6th Cir. 2012). In United States v. Hampton, 732 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2013), we foreclosed Rovedo’s argument that a forfeiture order is improper based on her lack of assets. There, we joined the Second, Third, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in holding that “the amount of the forfeiture is measured by the amount of the proceeds received by a defendant—not the amount of assets a defendant retains at the time of sentencing.” Id. at 692; see also id. at 691 (noting that criminal-forfeiture orders are mandatory). Moreover, sufficient evidence demonstrated that the “total proceeds” of this conspiracy, see United States v. Blackman, 746 F.3d 137, 144 (4th Cir. 2014), eclipsed $3.5 million. The district court’s forfeiture determination was not clearly erroneous.