United States v. Jonathan Wade Dunning ( 2018 )

Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 1 of 19
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
______________________
No. 16-16843
______________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-00382-BJR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JONATHAN WADE DUNNING,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_______________________________
(July 10, 2018)
Before WILSON and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY, ∗ District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
∗
Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 2 of 19
Defendant Jonathan Wade Dunning was charged in a 112-count 1 indictment
related to a fraudulent scheme to divert funds from two federally-funded
community healthcare centers he had managed as chief executive officer. The
indictment charged him with substantive and conspiracy counts to commit wire
fraud, bank fraud, federal program fraud, and money laundering in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 666, 1343, 1344, 1349, 1956, and 1957. Dunning pleaded not
guilty and his trial began on May 24, 2016.
At the close of the Government’s case, and again at the close of all the
evidence, Dunning unsuccessfully moved for judgments of acquittal. Following
seventeen days of testimony, on June 17, 2016, the jury convicted Dunning on 98
of the 112 charged counts and he was sentenced to 216 months’ imprisonment.
Dunning appeals the convictions, arguing there was insufficient evidence presented
at trial to support the jury’s verdict. After review of the record and with the benefit
of oral argument, we AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
Dunning began his employment at Birmingham Health Center (BHC) in
1995 as clinical director, and became the chief executive officer in 1998. During
1
Specifically, Counts 1-3 and 5-69 charged wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343,
1349 and 2; Count 4 charged conspiracy to defraud an agency of the United States via wire
fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and federal program
fraud (18 U.S.C. § 666); Counts 70-72 charged bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and
2; Counts 73-78 charged money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i),
1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and 2; and Counts 79-112 charged money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1957 and 2.
2
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 3 of 19
his tenure, BHC expanded the number of clinic locations, patients served, and
revenue. Dunning additionally became the chief executive officer of Central
Alabama Comprehensive Health (CACH) in 2005. Both community healthcare
centers were non-profit organizations funded in part through federal grants from
the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources &
Services Administration (“HRSA”), to provide healthcare at no-cost or low-cost to
homeless and economically disadvantaged populations.
After years of managing the centers, Dunning told others that he knew he
was more “valuable” than the $290,000 annual salary he was being paid by the
non-profits, and he had “found a way to make money off the government.”
Beginning in 2006, Dunning formed the first of several of his for-profit
companies—each containing “Synergy” in the business name (collectively “the
Synergy Entities”)—which would subsequently take over the management duties
of BHC and CACH as well as ownership of certain real estate used by BHC.
Throughout the ensuing seven years, Dunning and the Synergy Entities had no
other source of income, no other paying clients, and no other significant
commercial real estate tenants other than BHC and CACH.
On October 31, 2008, Dunning left his employment with the community
healthcare centers to focus on the operation of his for-profit Synergy Entities.
However, Dunning retained management control over BHC and CACH through his
3
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 4 of 19
manipulation of the individuals he handpicked to succeed him as chief executive
officer at the centers. Jimmy Lacey, who succeeded Dunning at BHC, lacked the
appropriate experience in healthcare and was unemployed at the time he was
selected; Lacey was an unindicted coconspirator who died six months before trial.2
The chief financial officer, Terri Mollica, and the lead grant-writer, Sharon
Waltz, both left BHC with Dunning to work at the Synergy Entities although they
continued to perform the same duties and continued to direct employees at BHC.3
Despite leaving BHC, Mollica maintained her access to both centers’ federal grant
funding accounts. Mollica was indicted separately and entered into a plea
agreement in her case in April 2015; however, she refused to testify at Dunning’s
trial.
Dunning also continued his influence over the BHC controller, Sheila
Parker, who remained employed at BHC, and managed (with Lacey) the affiliated
Birmingham Financial Federal Credit Union (the “Credit Union”), which primarily
served employees of BHC. Parker subsequently pleaded guilty to embezzling
money from CACH’s bank account, and testified at Dunning’s trial.
2
Dunning’s successor at CACH, Alan Yoe, testified that he did not feel capable of doing
the job and he had previously received a “very poor” performance review; Dunning remarked
that he believed Yoe “could not get the job done.” No criminal charges were filed against Yoe.
3
Sharon Waltz was Dunning’s romantic partner and had two children with him. Waltz
was an unindicted coconspirator.
4
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 5 of 19
Over the course of several years, Dunning used his control over BHC and
CACH to divert $13.5 million to his for-profit Synergy Entities through consulting
contracts, real estate leases, and transfers from BHC’s revenue account containing
federal grant funds. The Synergy Entities’ main source of rental income of
approximately $4 million was primarily from leases negotiated with Lacey on
behalf of BHC. Through Dunning’s fraudulent activities, he engineered the transfer
of ownership to his Synergy Entities of two buildings housing BHC clinics, paying
half of its appraised value for one building’s purchase from BHC, and using BHC
funds to pay the full purchase price from a third-party for the other building.
Dunning used BHC funds to pay three-years worth of the debt service on a third
building to be renovated for a BHC clinic; however, Dunning never renovated the
property as promised, diverting the renovation loan funds to a separate property he
owned, and keeping all of the profits from its eventual sale when BHC could not
open a clinic. Because Dunning remained in control of the management of BHC
and CACH, he diverted funds from the centers’ federal grants and BHC’s clinic
operating account into his personal account, and used BHC funds to make
payments on the loan for a new $85,000 Jaguar. Dunning also defrauded a business
partner out of the proceeds in a joint venture performing work for BHC by
diverting the full payments to his Synergy Entities and denying BHC had paid.
5
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 6 of 19
To disguise his fraudulent activities from an investigator at HRSA, Dunning
directed Lacey and others to provide false information about payments from BHC
to the Synergy Entities. Through the course of their multi-year relationship with
Dunning’s Synergy Entities, the community healthcare centers suffered significant
financial problems which eventually forced BHC to the brink of bankruptcy and
CACH to close its doors for good.
II. DISCUSSION
A.
Dunning challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his
convictions. We review the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction de
novo while viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and
resolving all credibility evaluations in favor of the jury’s verdict. United States v.
Hernandez, 743 F.3d 812, 814 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). A jury’s verdict must
stand “if any reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury
to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 1299, 1303 (11th Cir. 2013). It is unnecessary for the
government “to disprove every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as the jury is
free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence.” United States v.
Mieres–Borges, 919 F.2d 652, 656 (11th Cir. 1990).
6
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 7 of 19
“The test for sufficiency of evidence is identical regardless of whether the
evidence is direct or circumstantial, and no distinction is to be made between the
weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Doe, 661
F.3d 550, 560 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). However, “[w]here the
government relies on circumstantial evidence, reasonable inferences, and not mere
speculation, must support the jury’s verdict.” Id. (quotations omitted). “To the
extent that [the defendant’s] argument depends upon challenges to the credibility
of witnesses, the jury has exclusive province over that determination and the court
of appeals may not revisit this question.” United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338,
1351 (11th Cir. 1999).
B.
Dunning was convicted of multiple counts of substantive and conspiratorial
criminal conduct to defraud a federal agency, 18 U.S.C. § 371, based on wire
fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, and federal program fraud. “A conspiracy is
an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful plan.”
United States v. Chandler, 388 F.3d 796, 805 (11th Cir. 2004). To sustain a
conspiracy conviction based on fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, the
Government was required to prove (1) an agreement between Dunning and at least
one other person to commit an offense against or defraud the United States; (2)
Dunning’s knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement; and (3) the
7
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 8 of 19
commission of an act in furtherance of the agreement. See United States v.
Tampas, 493 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2007); United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d
1264, 1270 (11th Cir. 2003); 18 U.S.C. § 371. “The knowledge requirement is
satisfied when the [g]overnment shows a defendant’s awareness of the essential
nature of the conspiracy.” United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, 1294 (11th Cir.
2006). “[T]he defendant’s assent can be inferred from acts which furthered the
conspiracy’s purpose.” United States v. Miller, 693 F.2d 1051, 1053 (11th Cir.
1982) (quotation omitted).
In order to convict someone of fraudulently obtaining or misapplying funds
from an organization receiving federal assistance, the Government must prove: (1)
the defendant converted property owned by, or under the care, custody, or control
of an organization receiving federal assistance; (2) the defendant was an agent of
such an organization; (3) that property was valued at $5,000 or more; and (4) the
organization received in excess of $10,000 in federal funds during the one-year
period in which the defendant converted the property. 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)-(b); see
Tampas, 493 F.3d at 1298. The statute defines an “agent” as one who is
“authorized to act on behalf of another” and, “in the case of an organization or
government, includes a servant or employee, and a partner, director, officer,
manager, and representative.” 18 U.S.C. § 666(d)(1); United States v. Langston,
590 F.3d 1226, 1233–34 (11th Cir. 2009).
8
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 9 of 19
To sustain Dunning’s convictions for wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the
Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally
participated in an unlawful “scheme to defraud” and used the interstate wires to
carry out that scheme. United States v. Langford, 647 F.3d 1309, 1320 (11th Cir.
2011) (describing the elements of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343). To
prove bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, the Government must show beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally engaged in a scheme or artifice to
defraud, or made materially false statements or representations to obtain moneys,
funds or credit from a federally insured financial institution. United States v. De La
Mata, 266 F.3d 1275, 1298 (11th Cir. 2001) (setting forth the elements for bank
fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344). Proof of fraud also is necessary to sustain Dunning’s
convictions for money laundering. 4 See United States v. Naranjo, 634 F.3d 1198,
1207 (11th Cir. 2011).
“A scheme to defraud requires proof of a material misrepresentation, or the
omission or concealment of a material fact calculated to deceive another out of
money or property.” United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282, 1299 (11th Cir.
2009) (citation omitted). “A misrepresentation is material if it has ‘a natural
4
The indictment charged violations of the money laundering statutes which prohibit use
of illegal proceeds from the other crimes alleged in the indictment. See Naranjo, 634 F.3d at1207 (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) (promotional money laundering); id. § 1956(a)(1)
(B)(i) (concealment money laundering); id. § 1957 (engaging in monetary transactions in
property derived from specified unlawful activity)). As Dunning concedes, the money laundering
convictions are derivative of the wire fraud and bank fraud counts in this case.
9
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 10 of 19
tendency to influence, or [is] capable of influencing, the decision maker to whom it
is addressed.’” Id. (quoting Hasson, 333 F.3d at 1271). We frequently have noted
that “direct evidence of an agreement is unnecessary; the existence of the
agreement and a defendant’s participation in the conspiracy may be proven entirely
from circumstantial evidence.” United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152, 1195
(11th Cir. 2010). “Because conspiracies are secretive by nature, the jury must often
rely on ‘inferences from the conduct of the alleged participants or from
circumstantial evidence of a scheme.’” United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581, 588
(11th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Vernon, 723 F.3d 1234, 1273 (11th Cir.
2013)).
C.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the government and the jury’s verdict,
the evidence sufficiently established that Dunning knew of and voluntarily joined a
long-running conspiracy and actively participated in siphoning millions of dollars
out of BHC and CACH consisting of the federal grant funds provided by HRSA;
by manipulating BHC’s account at the Credit Union; and by making material
misrepresentations to his business partner in a billing service for BHC. A
reasonable jury could find that while still chief executive officer of BHC, Dunning
and Lacey misrepresented the value of the BHC headquarters building in
convincing the BHC board to sell it to a Synergy Entity. Dunning and Mollica
10
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 11 of 19
diverted grant funds from BHC’s federal grant funds to purchase a second building
held in the name of a Synergy Entity, and Dunning used BHC funds to pay the debt
service on a third building which he failed to renovate and eventually sold, keeping
the entire profit. Dunning directed Parker to move BHC’s revenue account to the
affiliated Credit Union in order to manipulate and conceal transfers into his
personal account and transfers to pay for his new Jaguar.
The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Dunning misrepresented
to HRSA in grant applications prepared by Waltz that BHC and CACH would
provide thousands of expensive chip-enabled “smart cards” to clients in emergency
preparedness kits, instead supplying inexpensive paper business cards that cost
pennies. The centers’ contracts with Synergy Entities were intentionally concealed
from HRSA. Dunning misled his business partner, telling him BHC was not paying
for the billing work provided by their joint business, when in reality Dunning had
directed others to send BHC’s payments to a Synergy Entity so he could pocket the
full amount. Dunning directed others in misrepresenting and omitting information
from BHC’s response to an investigation by the HRSA Financial Integrity Division
in order to conceal their conspiracy. The jury was entitled to draw the reasonable
inference that Dunning knew of and voluntarily participated in the fraudulent
scheme to “make money off the government” by diverting federal grant funds from
the non-profit healthcare centers.
11
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 12 of 19
In February 2008, six months before Dunning left BHC, he orchestrated the
sale of BHC’s headquarters, the Plaza Building, for $2.8 million to a Synergy
Entity, who leased it back to BHC following the sale. Although serving as BHC’s
chief executive officer at the time, Dunning did not apprize BHC’s board of
directors that an earlier appraisal from September 26, 2007 had valued the Plaza
Building at $6 million. 5 Within two days of the $6 million appraisal’s completion,
on September 28, 2007, Dunning paid $25,000 to Lacey, chairman of the BHC
board at that time. Less than a month later, and just two days before incorporating
a Synergy Entity as a real estate holding company, on October 23, 2007, Lacey
sent an email to Dunning entitled “For the Record” which read: “Just a reminder,
‘Our collaboration is a conspiracy that is essential to our success!’” 6 (Three years
5
The September 26, 2007 appraisal was performed for a potential bank loan to finance
the transfer of ownership from BHC to a Synergy Entity and the $6 million value was built on
the income approach with a “triple net” lease. A January 2008 appraisal valued the Plaza
Building at $3.2 million based on the income approach where expenses were paid by the
landlord. The difference in the appraised values was attributable to the difference in costs
expected to paid by the tenant; the evidence established that, if the January 2008 appraisal had
been conducted under an assumption that the tenant would pay those costs, the value for the
Plaza Building would have been approximately $5.5 million.
6
Dunning argues the district court erred in admitting the email because it was not
properly authenticated. However, Dunning stipulated to the authenticity of Lacey’s emails at the
pretrial conference; therefore, he cannot appeal the issue of authenticity. Ponderosa Sys., Inc. v.
Brandt, 767 F.2d 668, 670 (10th Cir. 1985) (holding where plaintiff had stipulated to authenticity
of records at trial, defendant was not required to introduce evidence authenticating the records).
The district court admitted Lacey’s email as a statement in furtherance of the conspiracy and,
therefore, outside the hearsay exclusion. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) (statements made by a co-
conspirator “during and in furtherance of the conspiracy” are not hearsay). Once the email was
admitted, “the ultimate question of authenticity [was] then decided by the jury.” United States v.
Lebowitz, 676 F.3d 1000, 1009 (11th Cir. 2012). To the extent Dunning argues the district court
erred in excluding evidence of an industry magazine called “For The Record” on grounds of
relevance, we find the error to be harmless given the “overwhelming evidence” of Dunning’s
12
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 13 of 19
later, Dunning subsequently obtained a new bank loan based in substantial part on
$1.3 million in the equity from the Plaza Building.)
Members of the BHC board had expressed a willingness to sell the Plaza
Building to Dunning in order to reduce BHC’s monthly operating expenses and
increase its cash flow. However, Lacey committed BHC to a triple-net lease
obligating it to pay for all taxes, insurance, and maintenance fees for the entire
property, which amounted to more than BHC’s previous mortgage payment. In
addition, by foregoing ownership of the Plaza Building, BHC lost any equity it had
accumulated in the property and any rental income from the other tenants.
Dunning also diverted BHC’s grant funds to the purchase of a second
building, the Norwood Building, for his own benefit. In late 2009, after Dunning
had already contracted for a Synergy Entity to buy the Norwood Building from a
third party, Dunning found out he would not receive the bank financing in time to
close the deal before the purchase contract expired. Dunning then directed Terri
Mollica, the Synergy employee who continued to have access to BHC’s financial
accounts, to make three transfers totaling $1.1 million from BHC’s accounts to the
third-party seller’s closing agent in Texas to complete the purchase on time.
Ownership of the Norwood Building was nonetheless conveyed to Dunning’s
Synergy Entity who was listed as the purchaser. BHC Board members testified
guilt as set forth in the text. See United States v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099, 1109 (11th Cir.
2010).
13
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 14 of 19
they had no knowledge of the transfers to purchase the Norwood Building.7 Once
the purchase closed, Lacey signed a ten-year lease for BHC to pay rent of $18,750
per month for the Norwood Building even though BHC’s own funds had been used
to purchase the property.
Although BHC had paid $1.1 million to purchase the Norwood Building, in
March 2010, Dunning represented the Synergy Entity as the building owner to a
new lender and subsequently refinanced the property, borrowing $850,000 against
the equity in the Norwood Building. Three months later he used the Norwood
Building as collateral for a $300,000 line-of-credit. Dunning did not return to BHC
the $1.1 million transferred for the purchase; instead, he deposited the money from
the re-finance into his Credit Union account, labeling it as his money.
In January 2010, another Synergy Entity purchased a third property, the
2030 Building, which Dunning intended to renovate and lease to BHC to operate a
new clinic location. Despite BHC paying the full $353,000 to service the debt on
the mortgage for three years, BHC was never able to move into the building
because it was not sufficiently renovated by Dunning, who was supposed to fund
7
We find no error in the district court’s admission of the grand jury testimony of the
BHC auditor regarding the five-year delay in determining that a BHC receivable (for $652,000)
was connected to the Norwood Building purchase and not a “normal trade account.” The
Government introduced the auditor’s prior inconsistent statement on cross-examination when he
testified at trial “he could not conclude” BHC’s grant funds had been misused. Fed. R. Evid.
801(d)(1)(A) (hearsay excludes a testifying declarant’s prior statement if it was inconsistent with
the current testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other
proceeding).
14
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 15 of 19
the renovation. When Dunning sold the 2030 Building in September 2013 without
finishing the restorations, he kept all of the profit from the sale for himself even
though BHC had paid the debt service for three years.
D.
Dunning was also able to divert funds from the centers’ federal grants
because Sharon Waltz, who had moved to the Synergy Entities, remained the lead
grant-writer for the centers. In September 2009, BHC and CACH each received a
$331,000 federal grant from the HRSA for 3,000 emergency preparedness kits to
be provided free to patients. Although the grant applications prepared by Waltz
represented that there would be no contractual expenses, in October 2009,
Dunning’s Synergy Entities subcontracted with the centers to produce the kits. A
significant portion of the cost of each kit was for a “smart card” which would look
like a credit card with an electronic chip containing the patient’s medical
information, valued at $50 each, along with technical support. Synergy never
provided the chip-enabled smart cards or system support, substituting instead paper
cards worth 18 cents a piece, and HRSA was never informed of the change. Instead
of giving the kits away for free to patients as represented in the centers’ HRSA
grants, Dunning directed that they should be sold for $79.95 each, and thousands
of undistributed kits remained at the centers years later.
15
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 16 of 19
Dunning was able to divert funds from BHC’s financial accounts in his role
as president of the Credit Union, which was primarily for the benefit of BHC
employees. It was such a small operation, however, that the Credit Union kept its
deposits in a single account at a commercial bank, and tracked deposits through an
internal accounting system. In September 2010, Dunning directed the BHC
controller, Sheila Parker, who co-managed the Credit Union with Lacey, to stop
depositing BHC’s clinic revenue at the commercial bank, and begin depositing
BHC’s revenue into an operational account at the Credit Union. Soon after creating
the BHC revenue account at the Credit Union, Dunning directed Parker to transfer
substantial amounts out of the BHC revenue account into Dunning’s personal
Credit Union account. A year later, Dunning had the name on his personal Credit
Union account changed to “BHC Revolving Credit Line,” although no “credit line”
appeared on BHC’s financial records. When BHC staff or external accountants
tried to make sense of the credit union transfers between BHC’s revenue account
and Dunning’s personal account, Dunning always insisted BHC owed him more or
directed them to “zero out” the excess amount BHC had overpaid him. Dunning
also made sure the accountants were not given access to checks BHC made
payable to Dunning and the Synergy Entities, preventing a full and accurate
accounting.
16
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 17 of 19
When Dunning purchased an $85,000 Jaguar in July 2010, he used his
influence over the Credit Union management to obtain a loan for 100% of the
purchase price without a loan application, credit check, or approval from the Credit
Union board. Although national examiners flagged the loan as an “exception,”
Dunning, Lacey, and Parker created loan application documents after-the-fact in an
attempt to avoid further scrutiny. Dunning subsequently directed Parker to take the
payments for the Jaguar loan from BHC’s account. Eventually, in late 2011,
national examiners determined the Credit Union was insolvent and closed it.
Dunning also diverted funds from his partner, Jayson Meyer, in a joint
venture Dunning formed in late 2008 with Meyer’s company, WorkSmart MD,
which had been providing billing services to BHC since 2006. Dunning instructed
BHC to start sending the payment checks for the billing services to the Synergy
Entity, and no longer directly to Meyer. Once Dunning took over this arrangement,
the payments to Meyer—whose employees were the ones actually performing the
work—became sporadic and delayed. Meyer learned belatedly in 2013 that
Dunning had signed contracts on behalf of the joint venture to provide additional
services—which Meyer’s company had been providing to BHC all along.
However, payments from BHC for the original and additional services were going
to Dunning, who had been keeping Meyer’s portion of the payments while blaming
BHC for the “delays.”
17
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 18 of 19
At some point in late 2010, an accountant in the Financial Integrity Division
of HRSA, Valerie Holm, received a citizen complaint about BHC’s expenditures
and began investigating payments made by BHC to a Synergy Entity. Ms. Holm
emailed Terri Mollica, Sharon Waltz, and Jimmy Lacey to request information
about BHC’s relationship with the Synergy Entities. Dunning directed Lacey to
respond to HRSA with false and misleading information, including redacted
contracts with the Synergy Entities and altered board meeting minutes from
February 2008 which concealed Dunning’s purchase of the Plaza Building from
BHC while he was still chief executive officer. Dunning also told Lacey to
misrepresent the status of the chief financial officer (Mollica), who had become a
Synergy employee in late 2008 but had retained her control over BHC’s federal
grant accounts. Dunning directed Lacey to withhold the check registers HRSA had
expressly requested as part of the investigation into BHC’s expenditures of grant
funds. Eventually, as the financial problems at the centers continued to mount, they
were forced to lay off employees and delay payments for medicine, equipment,
supplies, all the while following Dunning’s demand to “pay Synergy first.”
III. CONCLUSION
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and
drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict, the evidence
established that Dunning knew of and voluntarily joined the conspiracy and that
18
Case: 16-16843 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 Page: 19 of 19
Dunning actively participated in the fraud related to purchases of the Norwood,
Plaza, and 2030 Buildings; siphoning of BHC funds at the Credit Union; lying to
Meyer about BHC’s payments for billing work; and misrepresentations and
omissions made to HRSA regarding federal grant fund expenditures. Thus, based
upon the totality of the evidence presented, we conclude that the district court did
not err in denying Dunning’s motion for judgments of acquittal: sufficient evidence
allowed a reasonable jury to conclude that Dunning was guilty of the charged
conspiracy and wire fraud, bank fraud, federal program fraud, and money
laundering offenses, beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm
Dunning’s convictions.
AFFIRMED.
19