United States v. Abdur-Rahman, 708 F.3d 98

Rahman was arrested for Medicaid fraud, allegedly impersonating beneficiaries to obtain medications through stolen IDs.
After a jury trial, Rahman was convicted of multiple offenses including health care fraud, identity theft, and related counts.
Rahman challenged a jury instruction that health care fraud is a predicate felony under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(c)(5).
The district court rejected Rahman’s reading of § 1028A(c)(5) and instructed the jury that health care fraud could serve as a predicate felony.
The Second Circuit reviews the issue de novo and ultimately affirms the district court, holding health care fraud is cognizable under § 1028A(c)(5).
The court explains that the parenthetical “relating to mail, bank, and wire fraud” is a descriptive shorthand and does not limit predicate felonies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether health care fraud qualifies as a predicate felony under § 1028A(c)(5)	Rahman contends the parenthetical limits to mail/bank/wire fraud.	Rahman maintains the district court’s reading misinterprets the statute.	Health care fraud is cognizable under § 1028A(c)(5).

Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1992) (relating to broad interpretive meaning of 'relating to')
United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012) (statutory interpretation and 'relating to' language)
United States v. Yakobowicz, 427 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2005) (de novo review of jury instructions; statutory interpretation)
United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1985) (explication of 'relating to' phrasing and predicate offenses)
Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (U.S. 2009) (requirement to give effect to all provisions of a statute)
Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88 (U.S. 2004) (statutory interpretation and inclusive language considerations)
United States v. Abdelshafi, 592 F.3d 602 (4th Cir. 2010) (health care fraud as predicate under § 1028A)