United States v. Ngari
828 F. Supp. 2d 825
M.D. La.2011Background
- Indictment on two conspiracy counts under 18 U.S.C. §§1349, 371 on April 28, 2010; trial in Aug. 2011 resulting in guilty verdicts to both counts.
- Unique Medical Solution, Inc. supplied durable medical equipment (power wheelchairs) in Baton Rouge; Ngari owned/operated Unique.
- Lamid was a physician who performed cursory exams and wrote prescriptions for medically unnecessary wheelchairs; Jones recruited beneficiaries.
- Recipients and recruiters paid physicians; beneficiaries’ data were sold to Unique for fraudulent Medicare claims.
- Unique submitted about $4.7 million in fraudulent Medicare claims; Medicare paid about $2.5 million.
- Post-trial, Lamid, Ngari, and Jones moved for acquittal under Rule 29 and for a new trial under Rule 33; court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lamid and Ngari had sufficient evidence for conspiracy conviction | Lamid/Ngari: evidence showed agreement | Insufficient evidence of agreement | Sufficient evidence; conspiracy established |
| Whether Lamid’s acts within five-year limitations period affected admissibility | Evidence within period supports conspiracy | Acts outside period should be excluded | No merit; timely acts exist and evidence admissible |
| Whether Jones’s second conspiracy count duplicative of the first | Duplication violates Blockburger/Albernaz | Counts duplicitous | Meritless; two statutes 371 and 1349 satisfy Blockburger |
| Whether grand jury transcripts of Payne and Jones were admissible | transcripts admissible as admissions; sanitized | Potential 404(b) issues | Admissible; sanitized and properly limited |
| Whether wiretapped conversation between Jones and Walker-Simmons was admissible | Conspirator exception supports admission | Violates Confrontation Clause; 404(b) concerns | Admissible under coconspirator exception; no constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (1981) (Blockburger test governs whether multiple statutes overlap in conspiracy)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (Double jeopardy; test whether each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not)
- Pena-Rodriguez v. United States, 110 F.3d 1120 (5th Cir. 1997) (jury may rely on coconspirator testimony unless incredible or insubstantial)
- Torres v. United States, 114 F.3d 520 (5th Cir. 1997) (withdrawal from conspiracy generally does not occur automatically; continued involvement presumed)
- Ashdown v. United States, 509 F.2d 793 (5th Cir. 1975) (statute of limitations defense does not bar admissibility of pre-limitations-era evidence)
- Cornett v. United States, 195 F.3d 776 (5th Cir. 1999) (co-conspirator statements can be admitted if in furtherance of conspiracy; intertwining evidence allowed)
- Arce v. United States, 997 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir. 1993) (co-conspirator statements admissible if conspiratorial context established)
- United States v. Ivey, 949 F.2d 759 (5th Cir. 1991) (jury credibility assessments reserved for jury)
- United States v. Scroggins, 485 F.3d 824 (5th Cir. 2007) (new-trial standard requires exceptional circumstances)
- United States v. Block, 635 F.3d 721 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard for acquittal post-verdict; substantial evidence)