94 F.4th 434
5th Cir.2024Background
- Marty Johnson owned, and Keesha Dinkins managed, a mental health clinic that fraudulently billed Medicaid for services not performed from 2014 to January 2018.
- Both defendants pled guilty on the day their jury trial was scheduled to begin: Johnson to conspiracy to commit healthcare and wire fraud; Dinkins to misprision of a felony.
- Their plea agreements stipulated and recommended $3.5 million as both the loss amount and restitution, with all charges except those pled to dismissed by the government.
- The district court accepted the pleas, adopted the loss/restition amount, and sentenced Johnson to 60 months and Dinkins to 24 months in prison, ordering joint and several restitution of $3.5 million.
- On appeal, both challenged the restitution order despite previously agreeing to it; Dinkins also argued the full loss should not be attributed to her.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding defendants to their plea agreements and finding the restitution amount supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Johnson & Dinkins' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of $3.5M restitution order | Amount not sufficiently substantiated; calculation flawed | Defendants stipulated to $3.5M loss/restitution | Restitution appropriate; affirm |
| Attribution of $3.5M loss to Dinkins individually | Dinkins had limited role, shouldn't be responsible for all | Dinkins agreed to $3.5M in her plea and admitted facts | Full amount properly attributed |
| Sufficiency of underlying evidentiary support | Spreadsheet and calculation questionable; due process issue | PSR, interviews, OIG investigation support calculation | Evidence sufficient for loss finding |
| Effect of plea agreements after evidence review | Restitution not binding; court should reduce amount | Plea agreements are binding, supported by record | Defendants bound by plea agreements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kim, 988 F.3d 803 (5th Cir. 2021) (MVRA restitution limited to actual loss, not punitive)
- United States v. Ricard, 922 F.3d 639 (5th Cir. 2019) (defendant bears burden for legitimate service offsets to restitution in healthcare fraud)
- United States v. Read, 710 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2012) (restitution orders reviewed for clear error/abuse of discretion on appeal)
- United States v. De Leon, 728 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2013) (error to rely on unsupported PSR figures for restitution)