Court Opinion

ID: 9960720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 21:00:45.70328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:47.275321
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4267      Doc: 40         Filed: 04/15/2024     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4267

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        FURMAN ALEXANDER FORD,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00448-D-1)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                         Decided: April 15, 2024

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: William S. Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
        PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United
        States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4267      Doc: 40         Filed: 04/15/2024     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Furman Alexander Ford appeals the criminal judgment and 204-month sentence

        imposed after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, in violation

        of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347, 1349; health care fraud and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18

        U.S.C. §§ 2, 1347; wire fraud and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1343;

        and aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,

        1028A(a)(1). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

        (1967), asserting that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support Ford’s

        convictions. Ford has filed a pro se supplemental brief, asserting that his convictions

        should be vacated under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), because multiple

        Government witnesses testified falsely and the Government either knowingly presented the

        false trial testimony or, at best, failed to correct it. * The Government has not filed a

        response brief. After reviewing the district court record, we affirm.

               We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction. United

        States v. Ath, 951 F.3d 179, 185 (4th Cir. 2020). In assessing evidentiary sufficiency, we

        must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

        Government and accepting the factfinder’s credibility determinations, there is substantial

        evidence supporting the verdict—that is, “evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could

        accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a

               *
                Upon review, we find that the issues raised in Ford’s pro se supplemental brief
        lack merit.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4267      Doc: 40         Filed: 04/15/2024     Pg: 3 of 4

        reasonable doubt.” United States v. Robertson, 68 F.4th 855, 862 (4th Cir.) (internal

        quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 301 (2023).

               Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, we conclude that substantial

        evidence supports the jury’s guilty verdict in this case. Through multiple witnesses, the

        Government established that Ford participated in a health care fraud scheme during which

        Medicare was billed for medical services that were never rendered. Considered as a whole,

        we conclude that the trial evidence was sufficient to support Ford’s convictions. See United

        States v. Simpson, 741 F.3d 539, 547 (5th Cir. 2014) (discussing elements of conspiracy to

        commit fraud); United States v. McLean, 715 F.3d 129, 137-38 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating

        elements of substantive health care fraud offense); United States v. Wynn, 684 F.3d 473,

        477-78 (4th Cir. 2012) (setting forth elements of wire fraud offense); United States v.

        Abdelshafi, 592 F.3d 602, 607 (4th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements required to prove

        aggravated identity theft under § 1028A(a)(1)).

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found

        no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s criminal

        judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Ford, in writing, of the right to petition

        the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Ford requests that a petition

        be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

        move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state

        that a copy thereof was served on Ford. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4267     Doc: 40         Filed: 04/15/2024   Pg: 4 of 4

        and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                 AFFIRMED

                                                   4