United States v. Juan De Leon, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18108
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- De Leon owned United DME, which billed Medicare and Medicaid for powered wheelchairs (PWCs), scooters, and diabetic/incontinence supplies. He was charged in a five-count indictment for health-care fraud and aggravated identity theft related to billing fraud.
- Count One alleged a conspiracy from ~July 2008 to April 2010; other counts charged specific false claims and identity theft. Co-defendant Villanueva (employee) testified he falsified delivery dates/signatures and delivered scooters instead of PWCs at De Leon’s direction.
- The government introduced substantial evidence including employee testimony, beneficiary testimony, and a signed statement by De Leon admitting fraudulent billing and over-billing of supplies. De Leon did not testify.
- At trial the district court curtailed defense character evidence (questions about being a “law-abiding citizen”), citing Fed. R. Evid. 608(a); the defense rested after limited character testimony from De Leon’s mother. Jury convicted on all counts.
- At sentencing the PSR reported Medicare/Medicaid payments to De Leon from 2005–2011 totaling ~$2.945M. The district court estimated actual loss as $750,000 and ordered restitution of $375,000 to each victim, then sentenced De Leon to 120 months’ imprisonment. De Leon appealed convictions and restitution amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of character evidence | Govt: defense failed to preserve objection; court properly limited testimony under Rule 608 | De Leon: district court erred excluding law-abiding character evidence under Rule 404(a); exclusion deprived him of defense on mens rea | Court: exclusion was legal error (Rule 608 misapplied) but harmless given overwhelming evidence (including De Leon’s admissions); convictions affirmed |
| Temporal scope of restitution | Govt: PSR and spreadsheets show total payments and court may use them as a ceiling | De Leon: restitution must be limited to losses caused by conduct within indictment’s temporal scope (mid‑2008–April 2010) | Court: restitution cannot include payments outside the charged time frame; PSR’s inclusion of 2005–2007 and 2011 payments overstated ceiling; restitution vacated and remanded for recalculation |
| Methodology/estimation of loss | Govt: district court may estimate loss where precise calculation is difficult and used PSR as basis | De Leon: district court made unreasonable estimate/guess and failed to articulate methodology | Court: district court relied on an overinclusive PSR ceiling, committed plain error by awarding restitution for out‑of‑scope claims; remand required for reasoned recalculation |
| Burden to calculate restitution credits | Govt: bears burden to prove loss; court may shift certain burdens | De Leon: should not bear burden to prove credits beyond PSR | Held: government bears burden to prove victim loss, but court may require parties (including defendant) to assist in establishing credits as justice requires on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hewitt, 634 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1981) (good-character evidence can in some circumstances create reasonable doubt)
- United States v. John, 309 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2002) (character evidence and credibility central where case hinges on uncorroborated accusations)
- United States v. Yarbrough, 527 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2008) (exclusion of law-abiding character testimony can be prejudicial where mens rea is contested)
- United States v. Inman, 411 F.3d 591 (5th Cir. 2005) (restitution limited to losses within temporal scope of indictment)
- United States v. Sharma, 703 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2012) (government bears burden to prove victim loss; court may shift burden to defendant for credits)
- United States v. Arledge, 553 F.3d 881 (5th Cir. 2008) (MVRA requires restitution to those directly and proximately harmed)