United States v. Jones
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7541
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Jones, a Cleveland podiatrist, was indicted on 27 counts of mail and healthcare fraud and 4 counts of aggravated identity theft; the district court dismissed some counts and the jury convicted on 2 mail fraud counts and 1 healthcare fraud count, acquitting the rest.
- He allegedly billed Medicare for toenail debridement and other services not performed, including a 2004 Carter claim and a 2005 Tubbs claim billed under another's ID.
- After acquittals, the district court used acquitted-conduct losses to set a substantial restitution and sentencing enhancement ($224,133) under 2B1.1, and imposed 1.5 years' imprisonment.
- The district court relied on statistical extrapolation to attribute loss from acquitted conduct, with limited documentation of methods or full file availability.
- The court ordered restitution for the acquitted conduct and calculated a total offense level of 21 based on over $200,000 in loss and a trust-abuse enhancement, yielding a guideline range that informed the sentence.
- The Sixth Circuit affirms the convictions, vacates the sentence, and remands for resentencing due to defects in the loss calculation and evidentiary support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for healthcare and mail fraud | Jones, acquitted on many counts, argues insufficient evidence | Jones contends no proof of a scheme to defraud via those acts | Sufficient evidence supported convictions |
| Reasonableness of prison sentence | Government-supported loss ($200k+) justifies longer term | Enhancement based on acquitted conduct flawed; reliance on extrapolation invalid | Remand for proper loss calculation; procedural unreasonable, substantive unresolved |
| Acquitted-conduct sentencing and due process | Use of acquitted conduct violates due process and jury rights | White allows acquitted conduct consideration if within maximum penalty | Remand; potential issues preserved for appeal if findings fail under preponderance standard |
| Restitution for acquitted conduct | Restitution may cover all victims of the scheme, including acquitted acts | Scope and amount relying on faulty extrapolation; acquitted acts problematic | Remand to recalculate loss; restitution scope subject to remand with proper loss |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ross, 502 F.3d 521 (6th Cir.2007) (sufficiency review standard for convictions; light on rational inferences)
- United States v. Martinez, 588 F.3d 301 (6th Cir.2009) (healthcare fraud elements and intent to defraud)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (preponderance standard for conduct underlying acquitted counts; permissible under Watts/White)
- United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381 (6th Cir.2008) (en banc: acquitted conduct may be considered if within maximum penalty; set framework for remand)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir.2010) (loss calculation review; remand when error in amount of loss detected)
- United States v. Kohlbach, 38 F.3d 832 (6th Cir.1994) (statistical estimation acceptable to determine loss; must be reliable)
- United States v. Zimmer, 14 F.3d 286 (6th Cir.1994) (preponderance standard applicable to loss calculations; reliability of method)
- United States v. Elson, 577 F.3d 713 (6th Cir.2009) (scope of restitution for victims of a defendant's scheme in jury conviction context)