United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688

Yielding was convicted of aiding and abetting an anti‑kickback violation and aiding and abetting falsification of a document in a healthcare fraud scheme tied to Baptist Health, ANI, and Wall.
Kelley Yielding, through ANI, paid Wall and Wall then ordered Osteotech and Orthofix products; Kelley received substantial commissions from Osteotech/Orthofix.
Evidence showed walling off payments as loans and cashing checks, with FBI investigation beginning in 2005, and Yielding altering records to conceal kickbacks.
At sentencing, the district court calculated a loss/benefit for guideline purposes and imposed concurrent sentences along with restitution of about $945,000.
The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, vacated the sentence for procedural error, and remanded for resentencing and potential restitution adjustment.
Kelley Yielding died in 2006; subsequent proceedings addressed admissibility of statements, privilege issues, and sentencing corrections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Kelley’s FBI interview statements	Yielding: statements are hearsay and violate the Confrontation Clause.	Yielding argues Confrontation Clause error and hearsay concerns require reversal.	Harmless error; testimony not used for truth of the matter and otherwise proven by other evidence.
Admission of prior 404(b) acts to show knowledge/intent	Yielding claims prejudicial, improper propensity inference.	Court properly admitted evidence to show knowledge/intent under Rule 404(b).	Not an abuse of discretion; probative of knowledge/intent and properly limited.
Duplicitous count and statute of limitations relating to Count One	Count 1 duplicitous and time‑barred for some payments.	Limiting instruction cures duplicity; relates back under 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a).	Count one related back; timely and properly instructed to require unanimity on a payment.
§ 1519 obstruction/nexus requirement	§ 1519 requires nexus to a pending or contemplated federal matter.	No nexus requirement under Aguilar/Andersen; § 1519 broad and covers contemplation of a matter.	No nexus requirement; statute prohibits knowingly falsifying documents in contemplation of a federal matter.
Restitution under MVRA	Restitution mandatory under MVRA as related to the offense.	Aiding/abetting a non‑Title 18/21 offense cannot trigger MVRA restitution; issue to be resolved on remand.	Remanded to determine proper restitution basis; original order vacated.

Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211 (Supreme Court 1974) (to analyze when prior statements are not hearsay and foundation for later proof)
Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (Supreme Court 2011) (confrontation clause and testimonial statements considerations)
United States v. Jain, 93 F.3d 436 (8th Cir. 1996) (willfulness defined as knowledge of wrongfulness, not legal duty)
Nattier, 127 F.3d 655 (8th Cir. 1997) (limiting instruction to cure duplicity concerns in multi‑payment counts)
Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (Supreme Court 1995) (nexus requirement; broadened obstruction doctrine in other contexts)
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (Supreme Court 2005) (nexus concept applied to obstruction statutes in some contexts)
Hunt, 526 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2008) (Three‑part approach to intent in obstruction cases; relevance of nexus)
United States v. Rehak, 589 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional elements and evidentiary considerations in obstruction cases)
McMillan, 600 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2010) (relation back principle for superseding indictments)
United States v. Stands, 105 F.3d 1565 (8th Cir. 1997) (aiding and abetting principles and related liability notions)