United States v. Jamella Al-Jumail
662 F. App'x 366
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Multiple defendants (Felicar Williams; Jamella and Abdul Malik Al-Jumail) were tried for participation in interconnected schemes that billed Medicare for worthless or nonexistent services, using fabricated records, fake credentials, and kickbacks. Sachin Sharma was the scheme architect and testified under a plea agreement.
- Williams co-owned Haven Adult Daycare; evidence showed routine group/individual “therapy” by unlicensed staff, fabrication of progress notes, and strategic undating to avoid detection.
- Abdul Malik purchased and operated home-health agencies (including ABC and Accessible); Sharma testified they discussed and continued the fraudulent practices, and Jamella ran day-to-day operations at Accessible using falsified templates.
- After discovery/audit risk, defendants destroyed or incinerated documents (Jamella coordinated burning of records).
- Indictment: Williams and Abdul Malik convicted of conspiracy to commit health-care fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349) and conspiracy to pay/receive kickbacks (18 U.S.C. § 371); Jamella convicted of conspiracy to commit health-care fraud and destruction of records (18 U.S.C. § 1519). All convictions affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit health-care fraud (Williams, Jamella) | Gov’t: testimony and records show agreement, overt acts, fraudulent claims submitted, and defendants’ knowledge/benefit. | Defendants: evidence insufficient; biller who submitted claims was not produced; relied on plea‑agreement witnesses. | Affirmed: viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, a rational juror could find agreement, knowledge, and overt acts; credibility issues for cooperating witnesses are for jury. |
| Admission of prior-bad-act evidence (Williams) | Gov’t: evidence of similar conduct at TGW probative of intent/knowledge (Rule 404(b)). | Williams: evidence was impermissible character evidence and lacked factual basis. | Affirmed: district court’s factual finding of prior fraud not clearly erroneous; evidence admissible to show intent/knowledge; probative > prejudicial. |
| Confrontation Clause challenge to Medicare-claims chart (Williams) | Williams: underlying claims/testimony were testimonial; absence of biller prevented confrontation. | Gov’t: claims are business records made for payment, not testimonial; preparer of summary was available for cross. | Affirmed: business-records submitted for payment are not testimonial; Confrontation Clause not implicated. |
| Prosecutorial remarks about defendants not calling a witness (Jamella) | Jamella: rebuttal comment that defendants "could have called" the biller shifted burden of proof and warrants new trial. | Gov’t: comment responded to defense suggestion that government withheld a witness; prosecutor reaffirmed burden remains with government. | Affirmed: remarks made in rebuttal to defense implication and explicitly stated gov’t bore burden; not flagrant burden-shifting. |
| Sentencing downward variance / consideration of §3553 factors (Williams) | Williams: district court abused discretion by denying aberrant-behavior departure and not adequately weighing age/recidivism. | Gov’t: court considered factors and imposed a substantial below‑Guidelines sentence consistent with discretion. | Affirmed: court knew it had discretion and gave thoughtful §3553(a) analysis; sentence reasonable. |
| Loss attribution and individualized finding for sentencing (Jamella) | Jamella: district court failed to make an individualized finding (join date) for loss amount, inflating offense level. | Gov’t: judge reasonably attributed Accessible losses to Jamella given evidence of inception‑level involvement. | Affirmed: calculation reasonable; any error not plain. |
| Apprendi challenge to restitution (Jamella) | Jamella: jury did not determine loss amount so restitution violates Apprendi. | Gov’t: restitution not subject to Apprendi under circuit precedent. | Affirmed: restitution statutes not subject to Apprendi; no plain error. |
| Motion to sever (Abdul Malik) | Abdul Malik: joint trial with daughter created risk jurors would infer guilt by association (familial relationship). | Gov’t: joint trial efficient; familial tie alone insufficient; no specific compelling prejudice shown. | Affirmed: no plain error; generalized spillover prejudice insufficient to require severance. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Medlock, 792 F.3d 700 (6th Cir.) (agreement and proof of fraud support health-care fraud conspiracy)
- United States v. Maliszewski, 161 F.3d 992 (6th Cir. 1998) (standard for sufficiency challenges)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause testimonial‑statement framework)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (business/government records generally non‑testimonial)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (discussing testimonial nature of certain forensic reports)
- United States v. Clark, 982 F.2d 965 (6th Cir. 1993) (prosecutor may respond when defense implies government withheld a witness)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (standard for severance under Rule 14)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- United States v. Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451 (6th Cir.) (restitution awards not subject to Apprendi)