Court Opinion

ID: 9965648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 00:00:46.170499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:22.120313
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20511            Document: 54-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/02/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-20511
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                     May 2, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Patrick Osemwengie,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:22-CR-332-1
                   ______________________________

Before Duncan, Wilson, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       A jury convicted Patrick Osemwengie of conspiring to defraud the
United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371. During sentencing, the district court imposed a six-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), which was applicable pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 2B4.1(b)(1), based on its estimate of a total loss to Medicare of

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20511       Document: 54-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                 No. 23-20511

$68,019.87. The district court then varied downwards from the guidelines
range of 15 to 21 months, imposing a 12-month sentence in which
Osemwengie would serve the first six months in prison and the other six
months in home detention. Osemwengie challenges his sentence on appeal.
       First, Osemwengie argues that the Government did not satisfy its
burden of proof as to the loss amount under § 2B1.1(b)(1) because it did not
correlate each kickback paid to Osemwengie with a specific beneficiary. As
Osemwengie preserved this claim, we review the district court’s
interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear
error. See United States v. Shah, 95 F.4th 328, 382 (5th Cir. 2024).
       “Generally, the government must show by preponderance of the
evidence the amount of loss attributable to fraudulent conduct.” United
States v. King, 93 F.4th 845, 852 (5th Cir. 2024). “A district court may rely
upon information in the PSR [presentence report] in making its loss-amount
estimate, so long as that information bears some indicia of reliability.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If a defendant challenges the
PSR, the defendant “bears the burden of presenting rebuttal evidence to
demonstrate that the information in the PSR is inaccurate or materially
untrue.” United States v. Danhach, 815 F.3d 228, 238 (5th Cir. 2016)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
       “[T]he amount fraudulently billed to Medicare . . . is prima facie
evidence of the amount of loss the defendant intended to cause.” United
States v. St. Junius, 739 F.3d 193, 214 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Here, the district court’s loss estimate of
$68,019.87 was based on the amount that two home health care companies
billed Medicare for beneficiaries referred to them by Osemwengie, as set
forth in the final PSR. An investigator with the Texas Attorney General’s
Medicare and Medicaid Fraud Control Unit testified that these figures in the

                                      2
Case: 23-20511        Document: 54-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                  No. 23-20511

final PSR’s loss table were derived from Medicare claims data and based on
interviews with beneficiaries conducted during the investigation into
Osemwengie. As these loss figures in the PSR arose out of a law enforcement
investigation, they bore indicia of reliability. See United States v. Dickerson,
909 F.3d 118, 128 (5th Cir. 2018).
       Although Osemwengie asks for further backup information for the loss
figures, the loss amount “need only be a reasonable estimate . . . based on
available information.” Shah, 95 F.4th at 382 (internal quotation marks,
brackets, and citation omitted).       Furthermore, Osemwengie has not
presented evidence that rebuts the PSR as to these loss amounts. Without
such evidence, Osemwengie’s “mere speculation is insufficient to show”
that the district court erred in adopting the loss figures. United States v. De
Nieto, 922 F.3d 669, 676 (5th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, his challenge on this
issue fails. See Danhach, 815 F.3d at 238.
       Second, Osemwengie contends that the district court erred by relying
on § 2B1.1 commentary to calculate the total loss amount based on intended
loss rather than actual loss. Osemwengie’s argument hinges on Kisor v.
Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), which addresses the deference framework
applicable to an agency’s interpretations of its own regulations. See Kisor,
139 S. Ct. at 2408.
       This court need not decide whether Osemwengie preserved his Kisor-
based claim because his challenge “fails under any standard of review.” See
United States v. Sepulveda, 64 F.4th 700, 709 (5th Cir. 2023). We have held
that Kisor does not govern the guidelines and its commentary. United States
v. Vargas, 74 F.4th 673, 677-78 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc), cert. denied, 144
S. Ct. 828 (2024). Accordingly, Vargas forecloses the Kisor-based challenge
to the § 2B1.1 commentary that Osemwengie raises here.

                                       3
Case: 23-20511         Document: 54-1        Page: 4   Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                    No. 23-20511

       Third, Osemwengie argues that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because it is greater than necessary in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). In support, he argues that the sentence overstates the seriousness
of his offense, fails to account for his exceptionally low risk of recidivism, and
limits his ability to pay restitution.
       Because Osemwengie preserved his challenge, our review is for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Willis, 76 F.4th 467, 477 (5th Cir. 2023). As
his sentence is below the guidelines range, it is presumed to be reasonable.
See United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2015). To rebut that
presumption, Osemwengie must demonstrate that the sentence: “(1) does
not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear
error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” Id. at 558 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
       Notably, the district court explicitly determined that the downward
variance it awarded adequately addressed the sentencing factors set forth in
§ 3553(a), which include the nature and seriousness of the offense, the
defendant’s characteristics, and the need for restitution. ROA.766; see also
ROA.757. Moreover, Osemwengie has not shown that the district court gave
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, failed to consider a
relevant factor that should have received significant weight, or committed a
clear error of judgment in balancing the § 3553(a) factors. See Simpson, 796
F.3d at 558-59. Accordingly, Osemwengie has not rebutted the presumption
of reasonableness that applies to his below-guidelines sentence. See id. at 557-
59.
       AFFIRMED.

                                         4