Opinion ID: 2779689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: multiplicitous counts in indictment

Text: Defendant Huarte argues, for the first time on appeal, that her two conspiracy convictions, in count 1 and count 15, are multiplicitous. Huarte contends that the kickback conspiracy count (count 15) is a lesser-included offense of the health care fraud conspiracy count (count 1) and thus violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Huarte’s argument fails. A defendant must object before trial to defects in the indictment, and the failure to do so waives appellate review. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B) and (e). See United States v. Pacchioli, 718 F.3d 1294, 1307-08 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 804 (2013) (refusing to consider same argument 33 Case: 12-16056 Date Filed: 02/17/2015 Page: 34 of 85 because appellant did not raise it before trial). Thus, defendant Huarte waived this argument as a challenge to the indictment by failing to make it before trial. Of course, defendant Huarte still challenges on appeal her sentences on counts 1 and 15. To the extent this multiplicity argument could be construed as a challenge to the sentences as being the result of multiplicitous convictions, see Pacchioli, 718 F.3d at 1308, we briefly address this argument and find it wholly wanting. As to her multiplicity claims, Huarte has not demonstrated any error, much less plain error. Huarte’s convictions on counts 1 and 15 are not multiplicitous because they involve two conspiracies with different objects and thus different elements. More specifically, count 1, a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and § 2, contains a different set of elements from count 15, a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to violate 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(1) and (2). As charged in count 1 in this case, the § 1349 conspiracy to commit health care fraud under § 1347 required that fraud be the object of the conspiracy. The main unlawful purpose of the conspiracy charged in count 1 was the false and fraudulent claims and representations made to Medicare. As to count 15, however, § 371 prohibits two or more persons from conspiring to commit any offense against the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 371. Further, § 371 requires proof of an overt act, while §1349 does not. Moreover, the 34 Case: 12-16056 Date Filed: 02/17/2015 Page: 35 of 85 unlawful purpose of the conspiracy in count 15 was the payment and receipt of kickbacks for patient referrals. Unlike in count 1, the conduct (and even the submitted claims to Medicare) did not need to be fraudulent. Even if a patient was eligible for PHP treatment and actually received covered medical treatment, it was still illegal for the co-conspirator owners and operators of Biscayne Milieu, including defendant Huarte, to conspire to pay recruiters for patient referrals and for those recruiters to receive payments. See United States v. Njoku, 737 F.3d 55, 68 (5th Cir. 2013) (holding that a conviction for § 1349 conspiracy to commit a conviction for § 1347 health care fraud and § 371 conspiracy to pay health care kickbacks in violation of 42 U.S.C 1320a-7b(b) are not multiplicitous convictions), cert. denied, 2014 WL 1458281 (2014). There is no multiplicity error in this case. Alternatively, even if defendant Haurte were somehow correct, this would not impair her substantial rights. Huarte’s 22-month sentences as to counts 1 and 15 are to be served concurrently. “Thus, any claimed multiplicity in the indictment would have been harmless error anyway.” Pacchioli, 718 F.3d at 1308 (holding any multiplicity error in the indictment was “obviously harmless because the arguably multiplicitous counts resulted in concurrent sentences”).