United States v. Queen Anieze-Smith, 923 F.3d 565

Background

Defendant Queen Anieze‑Smith co‑owned ITC, a Medicare‑registered DME supplier that billed Medicare for power wheelchairs from 2006–2009; Medicare paid $897,726.91 on ITC claims.
A jury convicted Anieze‑Smith on five counts of health care fraud (charges concerned executions in 2008); district court dismissed two other counts before trial.
PSR calculated intended loss using the full scheme billing ($1,890,433.82) and recommended restitution for Medicare’s payments; district court adjusted intended loss and adopted the PSR’s findings.
District court sentenced Anieze‑Smith to five years’ probation and ordered restitution of $814,445.95, representing Medicare’s losses from the entire fraudulent scheme.
On appeal, Anieze‑Smith argued (1) insufficient evidence that all billed wheelchairs were fraudulent or that she was culpable for all losses, (2) restitution must be limited to counts charged/charged conduct, and (3) restitution cannot include losses from conduct outside the 5‑year statute of limitations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Anieze‑Smith)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for restitution amount	Trial and investigatory evidence show scheme‑wide fraud; victims’ losses equal Medicare payments	Evidence insufficient to prove every billed wheelchair was unnecessary; she lacked knowledge of most fraud	Court held evidence supported scheme‑wide fraud and her active role; no clear error; restitution proper
Whether restitution can include losses beyond specific counts of conviction	MVRA permits restitution for losses from entire scheme where scheme is element of offense	Restitution should be limited to harms traceable to the particular counts of conviction	Court held MVRA allows restitution for victims’ losses from the whole scheme, not limited to particular counts
Whether restitution may include conduct outside statute of limitations	MVRA’s definition of "victim" and scheme‑based restitution reach scheme losses regardless of chargeability	Statute of limitations precludes restitution for time‑barred conduct; restitution must be limited to losses within limitations period	Court held (issue of first impression in 9th Cir.) MVRA authorizes restitution for losses caused by scheme even if some conduct occurred outside statute of limitations; affirmed
Whether imposing full restitution violated MVRA’s "directly harmed" requirement	Victims were directly harmed by defendant’s scheme; defendant’s role made her liable for scheme losses	Her minor role and lack of knowledge break direct‑harm nexus	Court held defendant was active participant; victims were directly harmed by her conduct; restitution appropriate

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Phillips, 367 F.3d 846 (9th Cir.) (standard for reviewing restitution legality and amount)
United States v. Stoddard, 110 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir.) (factual findings for restitution reviewed for clear error)
United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546 (9th Cir.) (scheme evidence may support inference that broad billing was fraudulent)
United States v. Lawrence, 189 F.3d 838 (9th Cir.) (MVRA permits restitution for related but uncharged scheme conduct)
United States v. Grice, 319 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir.) (affirming restitution for full fraud scheme though defendant convicted for part)
United States v. Brock‑Davis, 504 F.3d 991 (9th Cir.) (victims not named in indictment may receive restitution if directly harmed by scheme)
United States v. Dickerson, 370 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir.) (district court may award restitution for scheme losses caused by conduct outside statute of limitations)
United States v. Williams, 217 F.3d 751 (9th Cir.) (relevant conduct for sentencing can include time‑barred acts)
Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (U.S.) (discussed and distinguished regarding VWPA prior to MVRA amendments)