United States v. Jacqualine Crawley, 463 F. App'x 418

Crawley and co-conspirators engaged in healthcare fraud using entities including Rehabilicare, Mississippi Care Partners, Statewide Physical Medicine, and Progressive Physical Medicine.
Crawley was convicted of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, substantive healthcare fraud, and making false statements related to healthcare.
At sentencing, the district court found the United States Health Care Trust Fund suffered about $32,057,589.38 in losses and ordered restitution jointly and severally.
Written judgments split restitution totals between Mississippi Care Partners (No. 11-60061) and Rehabilicare (No. 11-60065), totaling $32,058,088.71 and exceeding the orally pronounced amount by $499.33 (the Discrepancy).
The judgments also listed Progressive and Statewide as restitution payees, later corrected to Medicaid as a payee in amended Rule 36 judgments without changing total restitution.
Crawley appealed, challenging the inclusion of Progressive/Statewide and the allocation of restitution among payees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discrepancy and substantive rights	Discrepancy harms Crawley’s substantive rights; restitution treated as sentence element.	Discrepancy existed before Crawley I and was not a new substantive change; issues waived.	Waived; no substantive change or proper challenge to the Discrepancy.
Rule 36 applicability to payee substitution	Rule 36 cannot be used to substitute payees and alter substantive rights.	Rule 36 valid for clerical corrections that do not affect the sentence or parties’ intentions.	Rule 36 proper; substitution of Medicaid and reallocation did not change Crawley’s sentence.
Evidentiary basis for Medicaid as a payee	Evidence insufficient to prove Medicaid losses; prevent testing of Medicaid claims.	PSR already identified Medicaid as a victim; no new evidence required; reconciling corrections is permissible.	Claims barred; evidence-based challenges were resolved in Crawley I and are res judicata.

United States v. Griffith, 522 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 2008) (clerical corrections do not warrant collateral attack on substance)
United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised on appeal cannot be reconsidered in district court)
United States v. Spencer, 513 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2008) (Rule 36 corrections are for clerical errors not altering sentence)
United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2004) (Rule 36 corrections do not increase restitution; may correct payees)
United States v. Steen, 55 F.3d 1022 (5th Cir. 1995) (collecting cases on clerical vs judicial corrections under Rule 36)