United States v. Lisa Coffman, 969 F.3d 186

Lisa Y. Coffman, a USPS mail carrier, submitted travel-reimbursement claims from Nov. 2011–May 2016 totaling over 95,000 miles and received >$48,000; over $46,000 was later determined to be overpayment.
She claimed mileage for nonexistent or unrelated appointments (e.g., claimed 190 visits to Dr. Tri Le when records showed 31; claimed multiple visits the same day; weekend visits; nearly 400 miles in one day).
Coffman conceded submitting improper claims but argued she lacked criminal intent because heavy prescription medication impaired memory and perception.
Indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1920 (false statements to obtain federal workers’ compensation benefits) and 18 U.S.C. § 641 (theft of public money), she was convicted on both counts, sentenced to five years probation, and ordered to pay $46,310.77 restitution.
On appeal she challenged (1) admission of a treating physician’s remark that workers’ compensation patients “aren’t the most honest people,” and (2) the § 641 jury instruction for failing to require juror unanimity as to whether she “embezzled” or “stole.”

Issue	Government's Argument	Coffman's Argument	Held
Admissibility of doctor’s remark that WC patients are dishonest	Remark was marginally relevant and did not prejudicially affect outcome; any error was harmless.	Testimony was irrelevant, prejudicial guilt-by-association, improper profile evidence, and an opinion on ultimate issue (intent).	Plain-error review: assumed error but found it harmless given isolated single remark, overlapping testimony, and no use in closing; no reversal.
Jury unanimity for § 641 (whether embezzle/steal are distinct elements)	The verbs in § 641 ¶1 are alternative means (not separate elements); instruction treating them together is proper.	Embezzlement and stealing are distinct crimes; jury must unanimously agree which offense occurred.	The court held the § 641 ¶1 verbs are alternative means, not separate elements; no unanimity error.

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain-error test for unpreserved errors)
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (unanimity requirement; element v. means distinction)
United States v. Fairley, 880 F.3d 198 (5th Cir. 2018) (§ 641 ¶1 and ¶2 cover distinct crimes)
Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (treatment of larceny-type offenses and intent requirement)
United States v. Talbert, 501 F.3d 449 (analysis of element vs means)
United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360 (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (standard for showing a plain error affected substantial rights)