Court Opinion

ID: 9896369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-10 01:00:40.711014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:47.396149
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50423        Document: 00516963075             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/09/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-50423
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               November 9, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Ricky J. Daniels, Jr.,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:20-CV-986
                     ______________________________

   Before Clement, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         The United States sued Ricky Daniels, Jr. under the False Claims Act
   for defrauding the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The district court
   granted the government’s motion for summary judgment, awarding it more
   than $9 million in damages and civil penalties, and denied Daniels’s cross
   motion for summary judgment. We AFFIRM.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50423      Document: 00516963075          Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/09/2023

                                    No. 23-50423

                                          I.
                                         A.
          The Post-9/11 GI Bill, 38 U.S.C. §§ 3301–27, provides financial
   assistance to members of the military, veterans, and eligible dependents who
   enroll in certain education programs. See also 38 U.S.C. §§ 3601–99B
   (administration of veteran education benefits). Before an educational
   institution can enroll students receiving such benefits, the institution must
   apply to the relevant state agency that oversees compliance with federal
   requirements. See 38 U.S.C. § 3676; 38 C.F.R. § 21.4254. In Texas, that state
   agency is the Texas Veterans Commission. The state agency may only
   approve courses offered at nonaccredited institutions if the institution and its
   courses meet certain criteria. 38 U.S.C. § 3676(c).
          For “a course not leading to a standard college degree” to qualify
   under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, the statute requires that, among other things, the
   institution offering the course has been operating for at least two years. 38
   U.S.C. § 3680A(e)(1); see also 38 C.F.R. § 21.4251(b). Congress enacted this
   requirement to, “prevent charlatans from grabbing [] veteran[s’] education
   money.” Cleland v. Nat’l Coll. of Bus., 435 U.S. 213, 219 (1978).
          These institutions must submit certifications of enrollment for eligible
   veterans, which act as requests for payment of tuition and fees. In so doing,
   the institutions must certify that they “ha[ve] exercised reasonable diligence
   in meeting all applicable requirements of [the Post-9/11 GI Bill].” The VA
   processes these certifications automatically.
                                         B.
          In 2012, Daniels began teaching a small business management class
   for veterans at Cutt Master, a barber school in El Paso, Texas. He helped the

                                          2
Case: 23-50423        Document: 00516963075              Page: 3      Date Filed: 11/09/2023

                                         No. 23-50423

   school’s owner obtain approval to receive benefits under the Post-9/11 GI
   Bill for this class. 1 For his services, Cutt Master paid one-third of the tuition
   received from this class to Daniels’s unincorporated business that operated
   under the name “El Paso Summer Slam.” Daniels continued to teach this
   business management course at Cutt Master until 2014, when he decided to
   open his own school.
           On July 11, 2014, Daniels prepared and filed a certificate of formation
   for the ELPSS Career Institute LLC with the Secretary of State of Texas.
   The certificate lists Daniels’s mother, Carla Daniels, as the entity’s
   managing member. In August 2014, Daniels applied to the Texas Workforce
   Commission for approval to operate ELPSS Career Institute as a licensed
   career school. Daniels leased a building in Killeen, Texas in October 2014,
   which the school began occupying the following month. The Texas
   Workforce Commission issued the ELPSS Career Institute a certificate to
   operate in December 2014.
           In June 2015, Daniels applied to the Texas Veteran Commission to
   approve ELPSS Career Institute under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. At the top of
   the first page of the application, Daniels checked a box certifying that his
   school “HAS operated as an educational institution for the last two years.”
   The application clearly stated that the Texas agency would not process a
   request for approval for any school that had not been operational for two
   years. Daniels also signed a statement certifying that the statements

           _____________________
           1
             In 2021, the owner of Cutt Master agreed to pay $900,000 to settle allegations
   that he violated the False Claims Act by falsely submitting claims to the VA. See Press
   Release: Cutt Master Barber School Settles Allegations of False Claims Act Violations, U.S.
   Dep’t of Just. (Aug. 2, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdtx/pr/cutt-master-barber-
   school-settles-allegations-false-claims-act-violations.

                                               3
Case: 23-50423       Document: 00516963075         Page: 4   Date Filed: 11/09/2023

                                    No. 23-50423

   contained in the application were “true and correct to the best of [his]
   knowledge and belief.”
            Before the Texas Veterans Commission approved Daniels’s
   application, it verified the school’s compliance with the two-year rule by
   reviewing student records that Daniels provided. The agency then approved
   Daniels’s application in August 2015. Daniels subsequently submitted 169
   claims for repayment to the VA totaling over $2.4 million.
                                        C.
            In September 2017, the VA Office of Inspector General informed the
   Texas Veterans Commission that the ELPSS Career Institute was under
   investigation for obtaining approval to train veterans under false pretenses,
   as the school had not been operational for the statutory two-year minimum.
   This investigation revealed that the student records Daniels had provided to
   substantiate the school’s compliance with the two-year rule were for students
   who were enrolled at Cutt Master and who had never attended the ELPSS
   Career Institute. On September 12, 2017, the Texas Veterans Commission
   withdrew the school’s approval and the school ceased operations two months
   later.
            The government filed suit against Daniels and the ELPSS Career
   Institute under the False Claims Act in October 2020. At the close of
   discovery, the government and Daniels (proceeding pro se) filed cross
   motions for summary judgment. After excluding evidence that Daniels failed
   to produce during discovery, a magistrate judge recommended granting the
   government’s motion and denying Daniels’s motion. The district court
   adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations over Daniels’s objection,
   granting the government’s motion for summary judgment on its False Claims

                                         4
Case: 23-50423        Document: 00516963075             Page: 5      Date Filed: 11/09/2023

                                        No. 23-50423

   Act claims and awarding the government $9,024,886.99 in damages. 2 The
   district court denied Daniels’s motion for summary judgment, as well as
   several other motions. Daniels appeals, pro se.
                                             II.
           “The standard of review on summary judgment is de novo.” Davidson
   v. Fairchild Controls Corp., 882 F.3d 180, 184 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation
   omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there
   is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
   judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual dispute is
   “genuine” if a reasonable fact finder could review the evidence and find for
   the nonmoving party and “material” if it could “affect the outcome of the
   suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
   248 (1986).
           We liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent
   standards than those applied to parties represented by counsel. Grant v.
   Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). But pro se parties must still brief
   issues to preserve them. Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008).
                                             III.
           We construe Daniels’s appeal as challenging both the district court’s
   denial of his own summary judgment motion and grant of the government’s.3

           _____________________
           2
             In accordance with the False Claims Act, this damages award equaled the
   statutory minimum civil penalty for each violation plus three times the amount of damages
   sustained by the government. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1).
           3
            In addition, Daniels appears to argue that several government employees violated
   his constitutional rights and certain ethical-conduct standards. But the government
   employees are not parties to this case, nor did Daniels properly bring these affirmative
   claims below. Accordingly, these constitutional claims are not properly before us.

                                              5
Case: 23-50423         Document: 00516963075                Page: 6        Date Filed: 11/09/2023

                                            No. 23-50423

           As an initial matter, the government argues that Daniels implicitly
   challenges the district court’s evidentiary ruling by relying on evidence that
   the district court excluded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1);
   evidence not produced or disclosed during discovery. Indeed, Daniels’s
   opening brief cites evidence that the district court excluded. We agree with
   the government that Daniels has forfeited any argument that the evidence
   should not have been excluded and therefore decline to consider it. See
   Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021) (“A party forfeits
   an argument . . . by failing to adequately brief the argument on appeal.”);
   Mapes, 541 F.3d at 584. 4
           On to the merits. A person is liable under the False Claims Act if he
   or she: “(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or
   fraudulent claim for payment or approval; [or] (B) knowingly makes, uses, or
   causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or
   fraudulent claim.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1). To determine liability, we ask “(1)
   whether there was a false statement or fraudulent course of conduct; (2)
   made or carried out with the requisite scienter; (3) that was material; and (4)
   that caused the government to pay out money or to forfeit moneys due (i.e.,
   that involved a claim).” United States ex rel. Harman v. Trinity Indus. Inc., 872
   F.3d 645, 653–54 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
           First, we ask if the government has shown that Daniels submitted a
   false claim. We agree with the district court that it has. In his application for
   approval to train veterans, Daniels falsely certified that the ELPSS Career
   Institute had “operated as an educational institution for the last two years.”

           _____________________
           4
             In his reply, Daniels contends that the evidence was elsewhere in the record and
   therefore he can properly rely on it. If nothing else, this argument, too, is forfeited. See Sec.
   & Exch. Comm’n v. Hallam, 42 F.4th 316, 327 (5th Cir. 2022) (“Any issue not raised in an
   appellant’s opening brief is forfeited.”) (citation omitted) (alteration adopted).

                                                  6
Case: 23-50423         Document: 00516963075              Page: 7       Date Filed: 11/09/2023

                                          No. 23-50423

   Daniels submitted ELPSS Career Institute’s application to the Texas
   Veterans Commission in June 2015, but the public records from the Texas
   Secretary of State and Texas Workforce Commission show that the ELPSS
   Career Institute was not formed until July 2014 and was not authorized to
   operate until December 2014.
           Daniels argues, essentially, that there was no false claim because
   ELPSS Career Institute is one and the same as the other entities he used to
   conduct his teaching activities since 2013, including El Paso Summer Slam.
   But the record shows otherwise. ELPSS Career Institute is a limited liability
   company owned and managed, not by Ricky Daniels, but by his mother, Carla
   Daniels. It was this LLC that sought and obtained approval to operate as a
   career school in 2014. And it was this LLC that sought VA and Texas
   Veterans Commission approval to train veterans in 2015. Accordingly,
   Daniels’s argument that there was no false claim fails. 5
           Second, we consider scienter. To prove scienter, the government
   must show that “the defendant[] had (1) actual knowledge of falsity, (2) acted
   with deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information provided,
   or (3) acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information
   provided.” United States v. Hodge, 933 F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 2019)
   (alteration adopted) (citation omitted); see also 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1)(A).
   The government is not required to show intent to defraud. 31 U.S.C. §
   3729(b)(1)(B). “[T]he term ‘reckless disregard’ [] captures defendants who
   are conscious of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their claims are false,

           _____________________
           5
             And even if Daniels were correct (which he is not) that ELPSS Career Institute
   had operated for two years by way of Daniels’s work in El Paso, the Killeen location had not
   operated for a least two years prior to its application and was therefore still ineligible to
   receive funds. 38 U.S.C. § 3680A(e)(2); see also 38 C.F.R. § 21.4251(b)(2).

                                                7
Case: 23-50423        Document: 00516963075          Page: 8   Date Filed: 11/09/2023

                                      No. 23-50423

   but submit the claims anyway.” United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc.,
   598 U.S. 739, 751 (2023) (citations omitted).
          Here, Daniels knew (or at least recklessly disregarded) that the ELPSS
   Career Institute had not been operating for two years when he submitted the
   June 2015 application. Daniels prepared and filed the ELPSS Career
   Institute’s certificate of formation in July 2014, sought approval from the
   Texas Workforce Commission for ELPSS Career Institute to operate as a
   career school in August 2014, and leased a building in Killeen to house the
   ELPSS Career Institute in October 2014. Moreover, Daniels knew that the
   ELPSS Career Institute would not have been approved if he accurately
   identified the school’s start date, as the two-year requirement is the very first
   requirement listed on the Texas Veterans Commission application, and the
   form explicitly states that a request for approval cannot be processed if the
   rule is not met.
          Daniels, in essence, doubles down on his argument that the ELPSS
   Career Institute had been operating for two years in an effort to show that he
   lacked knowledge of any false claims. We interpret this as an assertion that
   Daniels himself thought that the school had been operational for two years
   when he made the requisite certification and submitted records of students
   enrolled in Cutt Master in support thereof. But it defies credulity for Daniels
   to claim that he legitimately believed he could use records concerning
   students who took classes at an entirely different school to satisfy the two-
   year requirement at his new institution. See United States ex rel. Longhi v.
   Lithium Power Techs., Inc., 575 F.3d 458, 471 (5th Cir. 2009) (rejecting as
   “patently absurd” a False Claims Act defendant’s argument that it lacked
   scienter when it certified that it had a formal partnership with a university for
   purposes of receiving a research grant when, in fact, the university’s labs
   were simply open to the public).

                                           8
Case: 23-50423      Document: 00516963075          Page: 9   Date Filed: 11/09/2023

                                    No. 23-50423

          Third, we ask if the false claim was material. The term “material”
   “means having a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing,
   the payment or receipt of money or property.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(4). The
   two-year rule is an express requirement mandated by the statute. 38 U.S.C.
   § 3680A(e)(1). If a school has not been operational for two years, it is
   ineligible to receive VA funds. As such, Daniels’s false statement is material.
   See United States v. Davis, 53 F.4th 833, 841 (5th Cir. 2022) (affirming wire
   fraud conviction where defendant falsely certified that his school had been in
   operation for two years).
          Finally, we agree that the false claim caused the United States to pay
   out money. Daniels does not dispute this element nor the district court’s
   calculation of damages. Daniels’s false statement induced the VA to allow
   the ELPSS Career Institute to enroll veterans who received Post-9/11 GI Bill
   benefits, and his subsequent certifications of enrollment caused the VA to
   pay those benefits.
                                        IV.
          No reasonable fact finder could find in favor of Daniels on any element
   of the government’s False Claims Act claim. We AFFIRM.

                                         9