United States v. Wilfred Griffith
663 F. App'x 446
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Griffith, an unlicensed medical school attendee, worked as a "marketer" referring Medicare beneficiaries to home-health companies (Rahman and rival Cherish) and received kickbacks for referrals.
- He used pre-signed referral forms from licensed physicians (Dr. Smith and later Dr. Benito) and prescribed narcotics and home-health services often unnecessary or not provided; investigators recovered documentary evidence and Griffith confessed to key acts.
- Griffith asserted an advice-of-counsel defense and sought to admit a Michigan statute (M.C.L. § 333.16215(1)) allegedly permitting an unlicensed individual to perform delegated medical tasks under supervision; the district court excluded the statute but allowed testimony about legal advice.
- A jury convicted Griffith of health-care fraud conspiracy and conspiracy to receive kickbacks; he was sentenced to 60 months based on a Guidelines calculation (offense level 24, criminal history II).
- At sentencing the court applied a $680,922.78 loss amount (14-level increase), a 2-level sophisticated-means enhancement, and denied a mitigating-role reduction; Griffith appealed evidentiary exclusion and Guidelines rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Griffith's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Michigan statute as exhibit | Statute was material to his advice-of-counsel defense and relevant to his intent | Statute irrelevant and would confuse jury; testimony about counsel permitted | Exclusion affirmed; no reversible error and any error harmless because testimony allowed and overwhelming evidence against Griffith |
| Loss amount for Guidelines | Loss should be limited to referrals made under Dr. Benito (lower amount) | Griffith was responsible for referrals under both Drs. Smith and Benito; PSR calculations supported | District court’s $680,922.78 loss finding upheld (no clear error) |
| Sophisticated-means enhancement | Scheme not especially complex—only fabricated paperwork | Recruiting beneficiaries, fabricating referrals, posing as physician constituted sophisticated means | 2-level enhancement affirmed (reasonable, not clearly erroneous) |
| Role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 | Entitled to minimal or minor participant reduction; he was a marginal middleman | Griffith played an indispensable, substantial role enabling billing for fraudulent services | Denial of mitigating-role adjustment affirmed (not reversible; defendant not substantially less culpable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (defendant has right to present complete defense but not unlimitedly overrules evidentiary rules)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (right to present a defense protects meaningful opportunity to present evidence)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (limits on right to present relevant evidence upheld)
- Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996) (Supreme Court endorses familiar evidentiary rules that may exclude evidence)
- United States v. Peppel, 707 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2013) (loss amount reviewed for clear error; reasonable estimate standard)
- United States v. Dimora, 750 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2014) (harmless error review for excluded evidence affecting right to present defense)
- United States v. Mahmud, [citation="541 F. App'x 630"] (6th Cir. 2013) (sophisticated-means enhancement can be based on totality of conduct)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion)