United States v. Roy Hebron
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12199
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Hebron pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States in connection with major disaster benefits (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1040).
- Ball, Louisiana, sought FEMA Public Assistance funds after Hurricanes Rita and Gustav; initial requests totaled roughly $462,000 across events.
- FBI investigation uncovered extensive falsifications in time sheets, equipment usage, and mileage, with numerous employees and documents manipulated.
- Hebron and Kimball prepared and submitted FEMA documents and internal Ball records; Hebron openly discussed “fudging” time to maximize FEMA reimbursements.
- Plea agreement provided, among other things, that the applicable loss amount would be under $200,000, with the government and defense disagreeing on a precise figure; PSR later calculated loss over $320,000.
- At sentencing, the court adopted the PSR’s loss figure, increased for loss over $200,000, and imposed 48 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, a $25,000 fine, and $105,556.10 in restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there breach of the plea agreement? | Hebron: government advocated for higher loss vs. agreed under $200,000. | Hebron: breach evident; government cannot oppose or argue for higher loss. | Yes, breach occurred |
| Did the breach affect substantial rights? | Hebron: breach impacted sentence; government positions at sentencing harmed him. | Hebron: no; sentencing record shows no effect on outcome. | No, substantial rights not affected |
| Was it reasonable to include all FEMA reimbursements after Gustav as intended loss? | Hebron: legitimate reimbursements cannot be counted as loss; only fraudulent portions should be used. | Hebron: given pervasive fraud, cannot separate legitimate from fraudulent; entire claim is intended loss. | Yes, reasonable estimate to include entire Gustav amount |
| What governs the burden when fraud is pervasive and separation is impracticable? | Government burden to prove loss; cannot shift to defendant without evidence of legitimate portions. | When fraud so extensive, burden shifts to defendant to show legitimacy; otherwise whole claim counts as loss. | Burden-shifting approach endorsed; district court may treat entire claim as intended loss when separation is not practicable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Elashyi, 554 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2008) (construe plea terms against government in breach analysis)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (S. Ct. 2009) (plain-error standard for breach of plea agreement)
- United States v. Munoz, 408 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 2005) (government may not strategically advocate in opposition to promises in a plea)
- United States v. Roberts, 624 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 2010) (limits on government advocacy conflicting with plea terms)
- United States v. Harris, 597 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 2010) (loss calculation methods; deference to the district court)
- United States v. Fisk, 233 F. App’x 371 (5th Cir. 2007) (allowing loss to be the total of partially fraudulent insurance claims when separation is impracticable)
- United States v. Miell, 661 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2011) (upholds loss where legitimate vs fraudulent costs cannot be separated)
- United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010) (aggregating credit limits as a reasonable loss when multiple accounts tainted)