United States v. Raymond Shoemaker
746 F.3d 614
5th Cir.2014Background
- Garner and Shoemaker were indicted for a bribe/kickback scheme involving Tri-Lakes Medical Center (TLMC) and officials; Chandler chaired TLMC’s board and facilitated payments to Garner in exchange for nursing-hours referrals.
- Garner operated Guardian Angel Nursing/On-Call Staffing; TLMC paid Garner’s company about $2.3 million for staffing while Garner paid Chandler about $268,000.
- Chandler authorized payments and contracts (e.g., to PSHG) that enabled TLMC’s sale and funded kickbacks; Chandler later testified about the pay-for-hours arrangement.
- Shoemaker, TLMC’s COO/CEO, sought and received payments influenced by Chandler to maintain nursing-hours flow; at Como Steakhouse, Chandler allegedly discussed a $25,000 payment to Shoemaker.
- After investigation, Garner and Shoemaker were charged with multiple counts including conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, bribery under § 666, healthcare kickbacks under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a–7b, and related false statements, embezzlement, and civil-eligibility-related offenses.
- The district court granted Garner/Shoemaker judgments of acquittal and, alternatively, new trials on various counts; the Government appealed, and Shoemaker challenged remaining convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Count One conspiracy to violate § 666 | Government argues Chandler was an "agent" with authority over TLMC funds per Phillips. | Garner/Shoemaker contend Chandler lacked proper agency/authority. | Yes; Chandler is an "agent" under § 666; sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy. |
| Whether Counts Two and One sufficiently showed bribery/intent | Evidence showed fraudulent intent via $5/hour scheme and accounting memos. | District court erred in discounting the scheme’s intent or Chandler’s influence. | Yes; evidence supported bribery and conspiratorial intent beyond acquittal standard. |
| Whether Count Four (kickbacks under § 1320a–7b) was proven as to Chandler’s role | Payments to Chandler induced TLMC to refer or arrange nursing services with Garner. | Miles narrowed scope; Chandler not a necessary “relevant decisionmaker.” | No; sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to provide kickbacks; Miles does not require Chandler to be a formal decisionmaker. |
| Whether Count Five (healthcare fraud) was proven with proper intent | Payments to Chandler induced recommendations under § 1320a–7b(b)(2)(B). | Miles misapplied; Chandler’s status not required as a formal decisionmaker. | Yes; sufficient evidence Garner acted with intent to induce a recommendation. |
| Whether district court erred in granting new trials/judgments of acquittal on appeal | District court misapplied Miles and improperly weighed evidence. | New-trial grounds lacked proper basis and incorrect readings of law. | Yes; vacate district court’s acquittals/new-trials; reinstate verdicts and remand for sentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Phillips, 219 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2000) (defines agent as one authorized to act with respect to funds of a funded entity)
- United States v. Sabri, 541 U.S. 600 (S. Ct. 2004) (upholds § 666 authority to protect funds even absent direct linkage to funds)
- United States v. Miles, 360 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes referrals vs. advertising; narrow Miles proposition about ‘any person’)
- United States v. Westbrook, 119 F.3d 1176 (5th Cir. 1997) (tacit agreement suffices for conspiracy; concert of action)
- United States v. Osum, 943 F.2d 1394 (5th Cir. 1991) (credibility issues are for the jury; not per se invalidating testimony)
- United States v. Brown, 727 F.3d 329 (5th Cir. 2013) (agency over funds supports § 666 liability; broader agency understandings affirmed)
- United States v. Hanson, 161 F.3d 896 (5th Cir. 1998) (de novo review for sufficiency of acquittal standards)
- United States v. Polin, 194 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 1999) (comparator on agency/intent approach in § 1320a–7b)