United States v. Ramanathan Prakash
669 F. App'x 877
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ramanathan Prakash was convicted of health-care fraud and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347 and 1349 for conduct in 2006–2008 and sentenced to 120 months.
- On prior appeal the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing to allow Prakash to present evidence that the intended loss was less than the amount billed to Medicare. United States v. Popov, 742 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2014).
- On remand the district court again sentenced Prakash to 120 months.
- Prakash argued the Popov instructions relied on 2011 Sentencing Guidelines amendments and thus violated the Ex Post Facto Clause because his offenses predated those amendments.
- He also contended Popov changed the burden of proof as to intended loss and that his counsel was ineffective for not seeking rehearing in Popov.
- The panel considered these claims and affirmed the resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Popov’s reliance on 2011 Guidelines amendments violated the Ex Post Facto Clause | Popov relied on 2011 amendments not in effect at the time of the offense, so applying its rule is ex post facto | Popov also relied on pre-2011 circuit authority and prior Guideline commentary; it did not introduce a new rule | Court held no Ex Post Facto violation because Popov relied on precedent and pre-2011 commentary consistent with its approach |
| Whether Popov changed the burden of proof on intended loss | Popov effectively shifted burden to defendant to disprove billed amount as intended loss | Government retains burden to prove intended loss; Popov only permits defendants to rebut prima facie inference from billed amounts | Court held Popov did not alter burden of proof; billed amount is prima facie evidence and defendant may rebut |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to seek rehearing in Popov | Prakash contended counsel’s failure to seek rehearing was deficient and prejudicial | Even assuming reviewable on direct appeal, no prejudice because resentencing under Popov was constitutional | Court rejected ineffective-assistance claim under Strickland because no reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Popov, 742 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2014) (held amount billed to Medicare is prima facie evidence of intended loss but defendants may rebut)
- United States v. Howard, 894 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1990) (placing burden of proof for fraud loss on the government)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance requires prejudice showing)
- United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (limits on reviewing ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
- United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (related discussion on procedural limits for ineffective-assistance review)