United States v. King Arthur
432 F. App'x 414
5th Cir.2011Background
- King Arthur, Bose Ebhamen, and Rhonda Fleming were convicted of health care fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy; Fleming and Ebhamen were additionally convicted of money laundering.
- The scheme billed Medicare/Medicaid for far more DME than delivered, with over $34 million billed and about $5.8 million paid to accounts controlled by defendants.
- Fleming formed AMBS to submit fraudulent claims; she backdated claims using hand-written delivery tickets and obtained supplier numbers from Arthur (Hi-Tech) and Ebhamen (FAN).
- Arthur and Ebhamen remained signatories on related bank accounts and did not notify Medicare of supplier-number sales, while continuing to derive financial benefits from the scheme.
- Fleming, Arthur, and Ebhamen challenged the convictions on multiple grounds; Ebhamen also challenged sentencing on several grounds, and Fleming challenged aspects of the trial and sentencing.
- The district court sentenced Fleming, Arthur, and Ebhamen to 360, 95, and 135 months respectively; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for fraud and conspiracy | Arthur/Ebhamen/Fleming argue insufficiency | Arthur/Ebhamen/Fleming urge lack of knowledge/intent | Sufficient evidence supports the convictions |
| Money laundering sufficiency and multiplicity | Is the money laundering theory properly proven and not duplicative | Ebhamen challenges double jeopardy and multiplicity between §§1956 and 1957 | Convictions sustained; no plain error in dual statutes |
| Limiting instruction on regulatory violations | Regulatory-violation evidence was probative of intent | Should have given a limiting instruction per Christo | No plain error; no reversible failure to instruct |
| Deliberate ignorance instruction | Deliberate ignorance appropriate to prove knowledge | Instruction overstated knowledge requirement | Instruction sustained as harmless given evidence of actual knowledge |
| Sentencing issues (minor participant, obstruction, and related rulings) | Ebhamen deserving minor-participant reduction; challenged obstruction enhancement | No error in application of §3B1.2 or §3C1.1; no merit in objections | Court affirmed sentencing conclusions; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Valuck, 286 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2002) (basis for money-laundering promotion analysis)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court 1993) (perjury and obstruction findings for sentencing)
- United States v. Saks, 964 F.2d 1514 (5th Cir. 1992) (adjusting evidentiary limits for regulatory-violation context)
- Christo, 614 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1980) (limits on use of regulatory-violation evidence to prove intent)
- Fleming v. United States, 635 F.3d 196 (5th Cir. 2011) (Isiwele-like discussion on intended loss and evidence limits)