Court Opinion

ID: 9434882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 00:00:34.557832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:38.839608
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20570        Document: 00516843900             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023

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

                                      No. 22-20570                            FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                     August 2, 2023
                                    ____________                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Francis Ekene,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:19-CR-633-2
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Following a jury trial, Francis Ekene was convicted of conspiracy to
   commit health care fraud and health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
   §§ 1347 and 1349. He was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment and
   ordered to pay $1,255,079.71 in restitution to Medicare.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20570      Document: 00516843900           Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                     No. 22-20570

          For the first time on appeal, Ekene challenges guidelines calculations
   on which his sentence was based and the order of restitution. Because he did
   not preserve his appellate arguments by raising them in the district court,
   review is limited to plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
   (2009). To establish plain error, Ekene must show a forfeited error that is
   clear or obvious and affected his substantial rights. Id. If he makes such
   a showing, this court may exercise its discretion to correct the error if the
   error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
   proceedings. Id.
          Ekene argues that the district court erred in assessing a 16-level
   increase to his base offense level for fraud involving a loss of more than
   $1,500,000 under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I) and § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A), more
   specifically, in using the intended rather than actual loss amount as directed
   by guidelines commentary. He contends that the Supreme Court’s ruling in
   Kisor v. Wilke, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), has altered the deference courts afford
   the guidelines commentary and that the loss amount, and resulting offense
   level, should instead be calculated using the actual rather than intended loss.
   Ekene urges that this is so because the text of the Guideline is unambiguous,
   the dictionary definition of “loss” encompasses only actual losses, and
   § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(A), which directs courts to use the greater of actual or
   intended loss in calculating the loss amount, impermissibly expands the
   unambiguous text. Cf. Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993).
   Because there is no caselaw from the Supreme Court addressing the effect of
   Kisor on the Sentencing Guidelines in general or on Application Note 3 of §
   2B1.1 in particular (or from this court altering the effect of Stinson), Ekene
   fails to demonstrate that the district court clearly or obviously erred in

                                          2
Case: 22-20570         Document: 00516843900              Page: 3       Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                          No. 22-20570

   assessing the 16-level increase under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I). See United States
   v. Ceron, 775 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir. 2014).1
           Next, Ekene argues that the district court plainly erred in assessing
   a two-level enhancement, pursuant to § 2B.1(b)(2)(A)(i), because his offense
   involved 10 or more victims. He asserts that Medicare beneficiaries should
   not be considered victims because Medicare, not the beneficiaries, paid the
   claims. The argument is meritless. See United States v. Ainabe, 938 F.3d 685,
   689 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 259 (2020); United States v. Barson,
   845 F.3d 159, 167 (5th Cir. 2016); § 2B1.1, comment. (n.4(E)).
           Finally, Ekene contends that the district court’s restitution order is
   erroneous because Medicare cannot be a “victim” for purposes of the
   Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). He argues that the term
   “victim” under the MVRA is confined to natural persons and that because
   Medicare is a governmental entity rather than a person, it cannot be a victim
   and may not be awarded restitution. In support, he relies on the Supreme
   Court’s decision in Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018), urging that,
   following Lagos, the MVRA, including its definition of victims, must be read
   narrowly.
           Ekene similarly fails to show any clear or obvious error in the
   restitution award to Medicare. See United States v. Richardson, 67 F.4th 268,
   270-71 (5th Cir. 2023) (rejecting a virtually identical Lagos-based argument,
   urging that corporations and other entities were not “victims” within the
           _____________________
           1
             At the time Ekene filed his brief, he correctly observed that Kisor’s effect on our
   post-Stinson decisions was pending in an en banc proceeding before our court. United
   States v. Vargas, 35 F.4th 936, 938 (5th Cir. 2022) aff’d en banc, No. 21-20140, 2023 WL
   4702277 at *1 (5th Cir. July 24, 2023). However, the ruling in that case, does not impact
   this one. If the increase should have been a 14 rather than 16-level increase, without any
   other errors, the Guidelines level would still have been 120 months due to the statutory
   maximum (criminal history of 1 and offense level of 32 is 121-151 months).

                                                3
Case: 22-20570     Document: 00516843900          Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                   No. 22-20570

   meaning of the MVRA because they were not natural persons); United States
   v. Mathew, 916 F.3d 510, 516-22 (5th Cir. 2019) (concluding that, although
   the district court erred in awarding restitution to Medicare for losses that
   preceded the temporal scope of the offense, restitution to Medicare as to the
   loss amount caused by the conduct underlying the offense of conviction was
   lawful).
          In light of the foregoing, the district court’s judgment is
   AFFIRMED.

                                        4