United States v. Zehrung
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7781
1st Cir.2013Background
- Zehrung pled guilty to healthcare fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and challenged an enhanced sentence under § 3B1.3 for abuse of a position of trust.
- The First Circuit vacated and remanded for supplemental fact finding on the trust-position enhancement.
- Zehrung worked in a Maine doctor's office as billing clerk then billing manager with unsupervised control over the practice's finances.
- She allegedly upcoded codes to inflate payments, billed for services not rendered, destroyed original documents, and received bonuses tied to increased revenues.
- The district judge relied on limited evidence to conclude a trust-position, but the record left open questions about discretion and control; the court used the 2010 guidelines version for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3B1.3 applies for abuse of trust | Zehrung argues no clear discretionary authority. | Court relied on substantial discretion and control. | Remand required; record insufficient for trust-enhancement decision. |
| Whether remand for supplemental fact finding is needed | Record insufficient to resolve trust findings. | Judicial discretion supported by some findings. | Sentence vacated; remanded for further factual development. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sicher, 576 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2009) (guidelines deference and burden of proof in abuse-of-trust context)
- United States v. Morgan, 384 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (preponderance standard for guideline enhancement)
- United States v. Parrilla Román, 485 F.3d 185 (1st Cir. 2007) (two-step process for trust-position analysis)
- United States v. Van, 87 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) (requires explicit or implicit factual basis for sentencing findings)
- United States v. Stella, 591 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2009) (requires explanation of reasoning in sentencing when possible)