United States v. Yolanda Sosa, 782 F.3d 630

Yolanda Sosa and Adrian Velazquez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud under written plea agreements that included a $753,430 personal money judgment and voluntary forfeiture of two Miami houses as substitute assets.
The fraud involved paying a cooperating doctor to issue prescriptions used to generate false Medicare claims; Medicare paid about $753,430 to pharmacies based on those claims.
PSIs showed additional assets (six cars, two houses, multiple bank accounts) and large post-fraud purchases (houses paid or bought during/after the scheme and a 2013 BMW bought just before arrest).
At plea and sentencing hearings defendants acknowledged the money judgment and forfeiture terms; neither moved to withdraw pleas or objected below to the cars’ forfeiture prior to appeal.
District court entered a preliminary forfeiture order for the two houses, then amended it under 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) to add three cars; defendants appealed both forfeiture orders.
On appeal defendants argued (1) their pleas were not knowing/voluntary because government withheld details about the cooperating doctor’s role, and (2) the government breached the plea agreements by seeking forfeiture beyond the two houses (cars). Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pleas were knowing and voluntary given delayed disclosure of government cooperator’s role	Gov: Pleas were knowing and voluntary; defendants signed proffers and plea agreements acknowledging the scheme	Defs: They would have contested forfeiture amount if they had known government allowed the fraud to continue via cooperator	No plain error; record shows defendants knew consequences and no misrepresentation rendered pleas involuntary
Whether government breached plea agreements by seeking forfeiture of cars in addition to the two houses	Gov: Plea agreements did not limit forfeiture to the two houses and reserved government’s ability to seek substitute assets to satisfy money judgment	Defs: Forfeiture of the two houses was intended to satisfy and extinguish the $753,430 money judgment; additional forfeiture breached the agreement	No plain error; agreements’ language and plea colloquy did not clearly limit forfeiture, and correcting any error would not be warranted under Olano fourth-prong analysis

United States v. Chubbuck, 252 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001) (plain-error review where defendant did not move to withdraw plea before sentencing)
United States v. French, 719 F.2d 387 (11th Cir. 1983) (guilty plea must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (four-prong plain-error test)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (clarifying plain-error standard and breach analysis nuance)
United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2004) (ask whether government actions were inconsistent with defendant’s reasonable understanding of plea)
United States v. Horsfall, 552 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2008) (government bound by material promises in plea agreement)
United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003) (no plain error when no controlling precedent directly resolves issue)