United States v. Aileen Njoroge, 25 F.4th 555

The Child Care and Development Fund Program (federal, administered in Nebraska by NHHS) subsidized childcare centers that met eligibility and licensing requirements; centers submit attendance and payroll data to a state billing portal using NHHS-provided logins.
Mock’s Loving Life Learning Center (MLLLC) was audited, found to have overbilled (~$15,000), surrendered its license, and terminated its Program agreement.
Owners opened two successor centers (Little Blessings of Lincoln and Omaha); Kogera (MLLLC director, M.S. in Computer Information Systems) handled billing, subsidy management, purchasing, and payroll submissions for both centers, and admitted to having primary access to the state portal, the centers’ email, and electronic billing/payroll files.
NHHS/HHS later calculated overpayments of $158,099.84 across both Little Blessings locations; investigators executed search warrants and interviewed Kogera, who acknowledged her access and billing role.
A jury convicted Kogera of theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2; the district court sentenced her to five years’ probation and ordered $143,099.84 in restitution. On appeal she challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and raised an ineffective-assistance claim for the first time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict under 18 U.S.C. § 641	Kogera: evidence did not establish she knowingly stole or converted government funds	Government: circumstantial and testimonial evidence showed coordinated inflation of attendance/payroll, and Kogera had exclusive access and made submissions	Affirmed — viewing evidence in government’s favor, a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Ineffective assistance of counsel (raised on appeal)	Kogera: trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation (first raised on appeal)	Government: such claims are typically raised in § 2255 proceedings and are not addressed on direct appeal absent exceptional circumstances	Not considered on direct appeal; claim reserved for habeas (§ 2255); no exceptional-case finding

United States v. Mathews, 761 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard for de novo sufficiency review and viewing evidence in government’s favor)
United States v. Brandon, 521 F.3d 1019 (8th Cir. 2008) (verdict upheld if any interpretation of evidence supports conviction)
United States v. Rehak, 589 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2009) (elements of theft of government property under § 641)
United States v. Jones, 16 F.3d 275 (8th Cir. 1994) (circumstantial evidence may alone support conviction)
United States v. Hodge, 594 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2010) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1 (2011) (standard for overturning jury verdict on insufficiency grounds)
United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2005) (ineffective-assistance claims ordinarily considered on § 2255, not direct appeal)
United States v. Santana, 150 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 1998) (exceptional-case standard for addressing ineffectiveness on direct appeal)