Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 1 of 14
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14378
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20508-CMA-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
OSCAR GUARDARRAMA-SUAREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 19, 2019)
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 2 of 14
Oscar Guardarrama-Suarez appeals his sentence of 92 months’
imprisonment, which was imposed after he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy
to commit health care and wire fraud. Guardarrama-Suarez argues that the district
court erred in calculating his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines by
applying a two-level enhancement for using sophisticated means and a four-level
enhancement for playing an aggravating role. We conclude that the district court
did not err in applying either enhancement and affirm Guardarrama-Suarez’s
sentence.
I. BACKGROUND
Guardarrama-Suarez pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
one count of conspiracy to commit health care and wire fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1349. As the owner and operator of Antares Pharmacy (“Antares”),
Guardarrama-Suarez paid patient recruiters—including Noemi Delgado, Daris
Hernandez, and someone known only as “J.M.”—to refer fraudulent prescriptions
to Antares.1 Guardarrama-Suarez and others then submitted, or caused the
submission of, claims to the Medicare Part D prescription program for drugs that
were never dispensed to the Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, Antares never
purchased many of the drugs to begin with and therefore never had the drugs to
dispense. As a result of the scheme, the Part D program paid Antares $1,722,080
1
These facts are based on the parties’ proffer agreement.
2
Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 3 of 14
for drugs that were never dispensed. From these proceeds, Guardarrama-Suarez
paid himself $315,000, a company his wife owned approximately $200,000, and a
company his brother owned approximately $600,000.
A grand jury indicted Guardarrama-Suarez for several crimes, including one
count of conspiracy to commit health care and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1349. Guardarrama-Suarez agreed to plead guilty to the conspiracy charge. In
the plea agreement, the parties agreed that for purposes of sentencing,
Guardarrama-Suarez’s base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines was
seven and that a sixteen-level enhancement applied based on an actual loss to
Medicare exceeding $1,500,000 but not exceeding $3,500,000. The plea
agreement also stated that the parties remained free to argue for or against any
other enhancement or adjustment at sentencing.
Before sentencing, the probation office prepared a pre-sentence investigation
report (“PSI”). Consistent with the plea agreement, the PSI assigned a base
offense level of seven and a sixteen-level enhancement based on the loss amount.
In addition, the PSI applied a two-level enhancement because the offense involved
a government health program and the loss amount was more than $1,000,000 but
not more than $7,000,000, see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(7)(A), (B)(i); a two-level
enhancement because the offense involved sophisticated means, see
id.
§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(C); and a four-level aggravating role enhancement because
3
Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 4 of 14
Guardarrama-Suarez was an organizer or leader of criminal activity that involved
five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, see
id. § 3B1.1(a). After
applying a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the PSI calculated
the total offense level as 28.
Guardarrama-Suarez objected to the enhancement for sophisticated means,
arguing that his case was a garden-variety fraud cause. He also objected to the
enhancement for being an organizer or leader because he did not manage or
supervise the patient recruiters and the government failed to identify the requisite
number of participants in the scheme.
In response, the government argued that the sophisticated means
enhancement was appropriate because Guardarrama-Suarez used cash kickbacks to
conceal the fraudulent scheme and because his brother’s company was in fact a
shell company through which he laundered illegal proceeds. The government also
argued that the enhancement for organizing or leading the scheme was appropriate
because Guardarrama-Suarez incorporated, owned, and opened Antares; created
and submitted claims for fraudulent prescriptions without even ordering many of
the drugs; was a signatory for and controlled Antares’ bank accounts; paid the
patient recruiters; and received the largest share of the proceeds of the fraud. The
scheme involved five or more participants—Guardarrama-Suarez, Delgado,
Hernandez, and two employees. Even if five participants were not involved, the
4
Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 5 of 14
scheme was “otherwise extensive,” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), because it lasted for over
four years, involved at least $1.7 million in actual losses, and was concealed
through cash kickbacks and a shell company.
At the sentencing hearing, Guardarrama-Suarez objected to both
enhancements. He objected for the first time to the statement in the PSI that his
brother’s company was a shell company. He argued that he laundered no money
through his brother’s company and that he was repaying his brother for a loan to
buy the pharmacy. The district court overruled Guardarrama-Suarez’s objections
and applied a two-level sophisticated means enhancement and a four-level
aggravating role enhancement based on the PSI, the government’s responses to
Guardarrama-Suarez’s objections to the PSI, and the government’s arguments in
court. Based on a total offense level of 28 and criminal history category of I, the
district court calculated Guardarrama-Suarez’s guidelines range at 78 to 97
months’ imprisonment. The district court imposed a sentence of 92 months’
imprisonment. This appeal followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
With respect to the Sentencing Guidelines, we review “purely legal
questions de novo, a district court’s factual findings for clear error, and, in most
cases, a district court’s application of the guidelines to the facts with due
deference.” United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez,
363 F.3d 1134, 1136-37 (11th Cir.
5
Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 6 of 14
2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Review for clear error is deferential
and we will not disturb a district court’s findings unless we are left with a definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Id. at 1167 (alterations
adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). A district court’s
choice between two permissible views of the evidence cannot be clear error.
United States v. Ndiaye,
434 F.3d 1270, 1305 (11th Cir. 2006).
III. DISCUSSION
The issues on appeal are whether the district court erred in applying the
sophisticated means enhancement and the aggravating role enhancement. After
careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in applying either
enhancement.
A. The District Court Did Not Err in Enhancing Guardarrama-Suarez’s
Sentence for Intentionally Engaging in or Causing Conduct
Constituting Sophisticated Means.
In calculating Guardarrama-Suarez’s offense level, the district court applied
a two-level enhancement for using sophisticated means to accomplish his crime
under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b). On appeal, Guardarrama-Suarez challenges the
application of the enhancement, arguing that the government failed to present
evidence other than its own assertions at the sentencing hearing that he
6
Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 7 of 14
intentionally engaged in conduct constituting sophisticated means.2 The
government argued that it need not present any additional evidence during the
sentencing hearing because the facts supporting the enhancement were either
admitted in the factual proffer or undisputed in the PSI. We affirm the district
court’s application of the two-level sophisticated means enhancement.
The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level enhancement if the
offense “involved sophisticated means and the defendant intentionally engaged in
or caused the conduct constituting sophisticated means.” U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(c). “Sophisticated means” refers to “especially complex or
especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of
an offense.”
Id. cmt. n.9(B). “[H]iding assets or transactions, or both, through the
use of fictitious entities, corporate shells, or offshore financial accounts” ordinarily
constitutes sophisticated means.
Id. When evaluating whether a defendant
qualifies for the enhancement, the district court must focus on the offense conduct
as a whole because “[t]here is no requirement that each of a defendant’s individual
actions be sophisticated in order to impose the enhancement. Rather, it is
sufficient if the totality of the scheme was sophisticated.” United States v.
2
The plea agreement included a sentence appeal waiver. Guardarrama-Suarez argues
that the waiver was not knowing and voluntary and that enforcement of the waiver would result
in a miscarriage of justice. The government has chosen not to rely on the appeal waiver,
however, because there is an inconsistency between the language of the appeal waiver and the
district court’s explanation of the appeal waiver during the plea colloquy.
7
Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 8 of 14
Ghertler,
605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010).
Guardarrama-Suarez does not dispute that, over the course of more than four
years, he created and billed Medicare for fraudulent prescriptions, paid proceeds to
patient recruiters in cash, and diverted proceeds to his wife’s and brother’s
companies. He contests on appeal, however, the district court’s factual finding that
his brother’s company, MIG-3, was a shell company through which he laundered
proceeds of the fraud scheme. But the district court “may accept any undisputed
portion of the presentence report as a finding of fact.” DE 98 at 7-8; Fed. R. Crim.
P. 32(i)(3)(A).3 And Guardarrama-Suarez failed to timely object to the statement
in the PSI that MIG-3 was a shell company through which he laundered the
proceeds of the fraud scheme.
At sentencing, Guardarrama-Suarez raised for the first time an argument that
payments to his brother were legitimate because he was repaying money his
brother had loaned him for the pharmacy. Although a district court has discretion
to allow a party to make a new objection to the PSI any time before the sentence is
imposed if good cause is shown, Guardarrama-Suarez did not attempt to show
good cause at sentencing for his new objection to the PSI’s characterization of
MIG-3 as a shell company. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(1)(D). Thus, the district court
did not clearly err in finding that Guardarrama-Suarez diverted proceeds through
3
All citations in the form “DE __” refer to the district court’s docket entries.
8
Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 9 of 14
MIG-3.
We affirm the district court’s application of the sophisticated means
enhancement because Guardarrama-Suarez’s scheme—which involved the creation
of false prescriptions for drugs never purchased or dispensed and billing Medicare
for them—lasted for an extended period of time, and he used cash kickbacks and a
shell company to conceal it. This Court has “repeatedly endorsed” the
consideration of length of a scheme in determining whether the sophisticated
means enhancement applies. United States v. Feaster,
798 F.3d 1374, 1380 (11th
Cir. 2015) (holding that fraudulent activity carried out over a two-year period
supported application of the enhancement).4 Guardarrama-Suarez argues that the
payment of patient recruiters and patients with cash kickbacks is not sophisticated
because healthcare fraud cases often involve cash kickbacks. This Court has
recognized, however, that cash kickbacks can constitute a form of concealment that
reflect the sophistication of a scheme, and we conclude that they do so here. See,
e.g., United States v. Elbeblawy,
899 F.3d 925, 939 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming the
application of the sophistication enhancement where the defendant admitted to
using cash to pay doctors to conceal healthcare fraud and other factors supported
the enhancement). Furthermore, the commentary to § 2B1.1(b)(10)(c) explicitly
4
Guardarrama-Suarez argues that the length of a scheme alone does not warrant applying
the sophisticated means enhancement. We need not address this argument because the
enhancement here was applied based on other factors, including the use of cash kickbacks and a
shell company.
9
Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 10 of 14
identifies the use of a shell company to hide assets or transactions as conduct that
warrants the application of the enhancement. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(c) cmt. n.9(B).
B. The District Court Did Not Err In Enhancing Guardarrama-Suarez’s
Sentence For Organizing or Leading the Conspiracy.
The district court applied a four-level enhancement because Guardarrama-
Suarez was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more
participants or was otherwise extensive. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Guardarrama-
Suarez challenges the district court’s finding that he was the leader or organizer of
the scheme and argues that there is no evidence that he exerted control over
another participant in the scheme.5 We conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in applying this enhancement.
A court may apply a four-level enhancement if the defendant (1) was an
organizer or leader of a criminal activity that (2) involved five or more participants
or was otherwise extensive. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). “The government bears the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had an
aggravating role in the offense.” United States v. Yeager,
331 F.3d 1216, 1226
(11th Cir. 2003).
In distinguishing a leadership and organizational role from one of mere
management or supervision, the court considers factors such as: (1) exercise of
5
Guardarrama-Suarez does not argue on appeal, as he did in district court, that the
scheme did not include five or more participants or was otherwise not extensive.
10
Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 11 of 14
decision-making authority, (2) nature of participation in the commission of the
offense, (3) recruitment of accomplices, (4) claimed right to a larger share of the
fruits of the crime, (5) degree of participation in planning or organizing the
offense, (6) nature and scope of the illegal activity, and (7) degree of control and
authority exercised over others. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4. “Because the district
court must interpret the factors stated in the commentary, and must exercise its best
judgment as to the application of the facts to these standards, its decision is entitled
to one of deference on appeal.” United States v. Vallejo,
297 F.3d 1154, 1169
(11th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Although the enhancement does not require evidence of all the factors,
United States v. Dixon,
901 F.3d 1322, 1348 (11th Cir. 2018), “there must be
evidence that the defendant exerted some control, influence or decision-making
authority over another participant in the criminal activity.” United States v.
Martinez,
584 F.3d 1022, 1026 (11th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added); see U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.1 cmt. n.2 (requiring that the defendant have been the organizer or leader “of
one or more other participants”). “[A] section 3B1.1 enhancement cannot be based
solely on a finding that a defendant managed the assets of a conspiracy.” United
States v. Glover,
179 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added) (holding
that control over cocaine, an asset of the conspiracy, did not show that the
defendant exercised control over another participant); cf.
Vallejo, 297 F.3d at 1169
11
Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 12 of 14
(concluding that evidence that the defendant gave orders to co-conspirators
supported the district court’s application of the § 3B1.1 enhancement). Control
over assets is not the same as control over people. The commentary notes to the
enhancement clarify that for a defendant who “did not organize, lead, manage, or
supervise another participant, but who nevertheless exercise[d] management
responsibility over the property, assets, or activities of a criminal organization,” an
upward departure may be warranted, but this enhancement would not be
appropriate. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2.
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Guardarrama-Suarez led
or organized the scheme. First, he exercised decision-making authority and played
a significant role in planning and organizing the offense. See United States v.
Shabazz,
887 F.3d 1204, 1222 (11th Cir. 2018). The parties do not dispute that
Guardarrama-Suarez was the owner, officer, incorporator, registered agent, and
operator of Antares; he enrolled Antares in the Medicare Part D drug program; he
was the signatory and exercised control over the pharmacy’s bank accounts; and he
recruited and paid patient recruiters who were co-conspirators.
Second, Guardarrama-Suarez profited most from the scheme.
Shabazz, 887
F.3d at 1222. He received not only the $315,000 he paid himself, but also the
$600,000 he laundered through his brother’s company. Thus, Guardarrama-Suarez
gained $915,000, a majority of the fruits of the crime, which totaled $1.7 million in
12
Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 13 of 14
actual losses. 6
Third, Guardarrama-Suarez exerted control over other participants in the
crime. He recruited and paid patient recruiters who he admitted were co-
conspirators. See
Ndiaye, 434 F.3d at 1304 (concluding that the district court did
not clearly err by finding that the defendant was an organizer or leader in part
because the defendant recruited co-conspirators). Additionally, he exerted control
over patient recruiter Hernandez by negotiating the percentage of the kickbacks
Hernandez would be paid. The PSI states that Hernandez referred Medicare
beneficiaries to multiple pharmacies that defrauded Medicare Part D.
Guardarrama-Suarez “reached an agreement with Hernandez [] to be paid 20% to
30% of what was billed to Medicare for bringing beneficiaries to Antares.” PSI at
8. Guardarrama-Suarez did not object to these facts. The fact that Guardarrama-
Suarez negotiated an agreement with Hernandez does not alone indicate that he
exerted control over him. Given that Guardarrama-Suarez also profited most from
the scheme and negotiated what amount of kickbacks Hernandez received,
however, we find it more likely than not that he had the upper hand in these
negotiations. See
Yeager, 331 F.3d at 1226. We cannot say that the district court’s
finding that Guardarrama-Suarez led or organized the scheme was clearly
6
As for the $200,000 Guardarrama-Suarez paid his wife’s company, the government did
not present reliable and specific evidence that this company was a shell company. See
Martinez,
584 F.3d at 1026. Regardless, Guardarrama-Suarez claimed the largest share of the illegal
proceeds.
13
Case: 18-14378 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 Page: 14 of 14
erroneous. Thus, the district court did not err in applying the enhancement.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Guardarrama-Suarez’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
14
