United States v. Lundahl
21-8061
| 10th Cir. | May 4, 2022Background
- Defendant-appellant Holli Lundahl was convicted after a six-day jury trial of three counts of healthcare fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1347) and two counts of aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A) for submitting false timesheets and collecting Medicaid payments for services not performed.
- Scheme facts: Lundahl enrolled her niece and another woman as Marti’s direct service workers without their knowledge or consent, submitted timesheets in their names, and kept the Medicaid wage payments; she later enrolled herself but falsely denied holding Marti’s power of attorney to qualify for payment.
- Lundahl proceeded pro se with standby counsel at trial and filed a notice of appeal; the court notified her of the requirement to file an opening brief within 40 days and provided a pro se brief form option.
- Lundahl failed to file a timely opening brief; the court treated a previously filed motion to dismiss as her opening brief. That filing did not comply with Fed. R. App. P. 28 or Tenth Circuit briefing rules and lacked record citations and pinpoint references.
- The appellate court declined to review eight issues not raised in district court (forfeited and not shown to meet plain-error) and found the remaining three issues inadequately briefed for lack of record support; the court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation / forfeiture of issues raised only on appeal | Government: Eight issues were not raised in district court and thus forfeited; review would require plain-error showing | Lundahl: Contends multiple trial and jurisdictional errors (filed in opening brief only) | Court: Issues I-VI, VIII, IX forfeited; Lundahl failed to cite record or argue plain error, so appellate review declined |
| Adequacy of pro se brief under Fed. R. App. P. 28 and 10th Cir. R. 28 | Government: Briefing requirements not met; issues inadequately briefed and thus waived | Lundahl: Relied on motion-to-dismiss filing as opening brief | Court: Pro se status does not excuse compliance; deficiencies preclude appellate review and result in waiver |
| Alleged government misconduct / grand jury record alteration (issue VII) | Lundahl: Asserts government doctored grand jury record and other misconduct | Government: Contends no preserved or supported claim; trial record and standby counsel did not corroborate misconduct | Court: Assertion lacked record citations and factual support in brief; inadequately briefed and not reviewed |
| Criminal estoppel and injury to Medicaid corpus delicti (issues X & XI) | Lundahl: Argues criminal estoppel and no purchasing injury because services exceeded reimbursements | Government: Argues no record support and issues unpreserved/inadequately briefed | Court: Lundahl provided no record citations or legal development; issues inadequately briefed and disentitled to review |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se filings must follow procedural rules; issues waived if not adequately briefed)
- United States v. Leffler, 942 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2019) (preservation requirement and plain-error framework for unraised issues)
- United States v. Zander, 794 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2015) (noting possibility of considering plain-error arguments raised first in reply briefs)
- United States v. Courtney, 816 F.3d 681 (10th Cir. 2016) (consideration of plain-error arguments raised in reply brief)
- Phillips v. James, 422 F.3d 1075 (10th Cir. 2005) (court will not sift the record for appellant; record citations required in brief)
- Lewis v. New Mexico Dep't of Health, 261 F.3d 970 (10th Cir. 2001) (background on Medicaid HCBS waiver programs)