Court Opinion

ID: 9891589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 00:00:33.770577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:43:27.601486
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20192         Document: 00516935738             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/18/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                  October 18, 2023
                                       No. 23-20192                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                      Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Audra Jones,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:18-CR-344-11
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Audra Jones pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health care fraud,
   in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347 and 1349. She was sentenced to 30 months
   of imprisonment. On appeal, Jones contends that the factual basis was
   insufficient to support her guilty plea. Jones has also filed a motion for release
   pending appeal.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20192      Document: 00516935738           Page: 2     Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                     No. 23-20192

          Contrary to Jones’s assertion otherwise, her initial statements during
   the rearraignment hearing regarding her concern over whether she
   committed the offense knowingly and willingly were not sufficient to “raise
   a claim of error with the district court in such a manner so that the district
   court may correct itself and thus obviate the need for appellate court review.”
   United States v. Rodriguez, 15 F.3d 408, 414 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, her challenge to the sufficiency of
   the factual basis is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Ortiz, 927
   F.3d 868, 872 (5th Cir. 2019).
          To show plain error, the appellant must show a forfeited error that is
   clear or obvious and that affects her substantial rights. Puckett v. United
   States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If the appellant makes such a showing, this
   court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the
   fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
          Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court “must determine that
   there is a factual basis for the plea.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). Contrary
   to Jones’s assertions otherwise, in reviewing whether the evidence is
   factually sufficient to support the guilty plea conviction, this court “may look
   beyond those facts admitted by the defendant during the plea colloquy and
   scan the entire record for facts supporting [her] conviction.” United States
   v. Ortiz, 927 F.3d 868, 873 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted). “This includes the facts gleaned from the plea agreement
   and plea colloquy, the factual findings relied upon in the presentence report
   (“PSR”), as well as fairly drawn inferences from the evidence presented both
   post-plea and at the sentencing hearing.” United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d
   308, 317 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Conspiracy to commit health care fraud requires evidence “that (1)
   two or more persons made an agreement to commit health care fraud; (2)

                                           2
Case: 23-20192      Document: 00516935738          Page: 3    Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                    No. 23-20192

   that the defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the agreement; and (3) that
   the defendant joined in the agreement willfully, that is, with the intent to
   further the unlawful purpose.” United States v. Martinez, 921 F.3d 452, 467
   (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To be guilty
   of health care fraud, a defendant must have “knowingly and willfully
   execute[d], or attempt[ed] to execute, a scheme or artifice—(1) to defraud
   any health care benefit program; or (2) to obtain, by means of false or
   fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or
   property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any health care benefit
   program, in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care
   benefits, items, or services.” United States v. Moparty, 11 F.4th 280, 297 (5th
   Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To establish a
   willful violation of the health care fraud statute, “the Government must
   prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that [her] conduct was
   unlawful.” United States v. Nora, 988 F.3d 823, 830 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).          “Conspiracy has two intent
   elements—intent to further the unlawful purpose and the level of intent
   required for proving the underlying substantive offense.” Id. (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).
          In the instant case, the record in its entirety, including the PSR, the
   factual basis as set forth in the plea agreement, the rearraignment transcript,
   Jones’s statements at sentencing, and “fairly drawn inferences from the
   evidence” show that Jones acted with knowledge that her conduct was
   unlawful. See Trejo, 610 F.3d at 317. Additionally, despite Jones’s assertions
   otherwise, her attorney did not stipulate to facts amounting to the functional
   equivalent of a guilty plea. Instead, the factual basis in the plea agreement to
   which she admitted explicitly provided that the federal agencies that
   administered the health care programs in question affected interstate
   commerce.     While Jones also asserts that we cannot rely on the plea

                                          3
Case: 23-20192      Document: 00516935738            Page: 4    Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                      No. 23-20192

   agreement to evaluate her claim because the district court coerced her to sign
   the agreement and plead guilty, her claim is unsupported by the record.
   Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in finding a sufficient factual
   basis in support of Jones’s guilty plea. See Trejo, 610 F.3d at 313.
           Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED, and the motion for release pending appeal is DENIED as
   moot.

                                           4