United States v. Angela Armenta
883 F.3d 1005
7th Cir.2018Background
- Angela Armenta was a regional director at Passages Hospice; Passages billed Medicare at higher rates for general inpatient (GIP) care and began paying bonuses tied to GIP census.
- Passages employees, including Armenta, instructed staff to place patients on GIP who did not need that level of care and altered records to support higher billing during a 2009 Medicare audit.
- The government indicted multiple Passages employees for health care fraud; Armenta was the only defendant who proceeded to trial.
- At trial, no government witness made an in-court identification of Armenta, though documents, stipulations (including a résumé Armenta admitted was hers), witness testimony, and defense statements implicated her; the jury convicted her on three counts.
- At sentencing the district court applied a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on (1) altering/creating patient files and (2) allegedly perjurious testimony; the court increased her Guidelines range but imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 20 months and $1.67 million restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Armenta) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identity evidence without in-court identification | Evidence was insufficient because no witness identified Armenta in court | Identity could be inferred from name, stipulations, documentary evidence, witness familiarity, and defense admissions | Affirmed: a rational jury could find identity beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Obstruction-of-justice enhancement (and related constitutional challenge) | Enhancement improperly based on judge-found facts and allegedly perjured testimony; raises Fifth/Sixth Amendment concerns | Judge may make Guidelines factual findings; alteration/creation of audit records independently supports enhancement | Affirmed: judge properly applied enhancement; alteration/creation of records sufficed; no Alleyne/Apprendi/Booker violation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johns, 686 F.3d 438 (7th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Clarke, 801 F.3d 824 (7th Cir.) (sufficiency review framed as whether a rational jury could convict)
- United States v. Thomas, 763 F.3d 689 (7th Cir.) (identity may be inferred from circumstances despite no in-court ID)
- United States v. Weed, 689 F.2d 752 (7th Cir.) (witnesses’ failure to note wrong person can support identity finding)
- United States v. Doherty, 867 F.2d 47 (1st Cir.) (same-name and documentary evidence support identity)
- United States v. Nichols, 847 F.3d 851 (7th Cir.) (standard of review for sentencing factfinding and obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Brown, 843 F.3d 738 (7th Cir.) (elements for perjury-based obstruction enhancement)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (judges retain discretion to impose sentence within statutory range despite judge-found facts)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (mandatory minimums require jury findings)