633 F. App'x 851
5th Cir.2015Background
- Reginald Guy and Abbas Zahedi were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit health-care fraud, multiple counts of health-care fraud, and aggravated identity theft; Guy received 156 months, Zahedi 145 months, and both were ordered to pay ~$2.4 million restitution.
- Zahedi, a chiropractor, allowed Metroplex and later DFW Rehab to submit false claims using other providers’ IDs and received a percentage of insurance payments; he allegedly coordinated billing and avoided double billing.
- Guy acted as a recruiter and facilitator: using his union ties to recruit patients, delivering payments, working at Metroplex, submitting bills, and helping create false patient files.
- At sentencing, the district court attributed multi-million-dollar losses to both defendants based on fee schedules and applied enhancements: Zahedi for relevant-conduct loss and Guy for obstruction and as a manager/supervisor.
- Both defendants raised multiple challenges on appeal (sufficiency of conspiracy, variance/duplicity, loss attribution, sentencing enhancements, substantive reasonableness, and due process/jury-trial penalty); the Fifth Circuit reviewed preserved claims de novo and unpreserved claims for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | Government's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of single-conspiracy verdict (Zahedi) | Evidence established two separate conspiracies, not one overall scheme | Evidence showed single overall conspiracy spanning Metroplex and DFW | Affirmed: reasonable juror could find a single conspiracy (Grant; Morrow) |
| Indictment variance/duplicity (Zahedi) | Trial evidence materially varied from indictment and count was duplicitous | Indictment alleged scheme spanning both clinics; evidence matched that theory | No material variance; duplicitous claim waived; plain-error review fails |
| Loss attribution after alleged withdrawal (Zahedi) | Court wrongly held him responsible for Metroplex losses after withdrawal | He did not withdraw; responsible for coconspirators’ foreseeable conduct | No plain error; district court’s loss finding stands (Torres; Scurlock) |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence / jury-trial penalty (Zahedi) | 145-month within-guidelines sentence unreasonable and punished trial | Sentence presumptively reasonable; co-defendants’ leniency due to cooperation | Sentence reasonable; no due-process violation (Mondragon-Santiago; Devine) |
| Obstruction-of-justice enhancement (Guy) | Enhancement lacked specific findings; PSR didn’t identify his false testimony | Court adopted PSR documenting testimonial conflicts with evidence/jury verdict | No plain error; court properly applied obstruction enhancement (Juarez-Duarte; Perez-Solis) |
| Role enhancement as manager/supervisor (Guy) | Not a manager/supervisor | He recruited patients, organized payments, worked at Metroplex and influenced operations | §3B1.1(b) enhancement justified; not clearly erroneous (Rodriguez-Lopez) |
| Loss amount calculation (~$3M) (Guy) | Using allowed-amount fee schedule was improper / unreliable | Using fee schedules yields reasonable loss estimate; no contrary evidence offered | Loss calculation reasonable; no clear or plain error (Umawa Oke Imo; Harris) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grant, 683 F.3d 639 (5th Cir.) (sufficiency review for conspiracy)
- United States v. Morrow, 177 F.3d 272 (5th Cir.) (single-conspiracy analysis)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing/indictment objections)
- United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762 (5th Cir.) (variance and substantial-rights analysis)
- United States v. Claiborne, 676 F.3d 434 (5th Cir.) (failure to object to factual findings forecloses plain-error reversal)
- United States v. Torres, 114 F.3d 520 (5th Cir.) (responsibility for foreseeable coconspirator conduct)
- United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204 (5th Cir.) (obstruction finding as factual determination)
- United States v. Perez-Solis, 709 F.3d 453 (5th Cir.) (obstruction enhancement supported by conflicting testimony)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 756 F.3d 422 (5th Cir.) (manager/supervisor role enhancement guidance)
- United States v. Umawa Oke Imo, 739 F.3d 240 (5th Cir.) (use of fee schedules to estimate loss in health-care fraud)
- United States v. Harris, 597 F.3d 242 (5th Cir.) (clear-error standard for loss findings)
AFFIRMED.