United States v. Brian Conner , 456 F. App'x 300 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7579
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BRIAN CONNER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
    Chief District Judge. (4:04-cr-00027-FL-2; 4:09-cv-00096-FL)
    Argued:   October 25, 2011                 Decided:   December 5, 2011
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit
    Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ARGUED:   Milton Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., RUDOLF, WIDENHOUSE &
    FIALKO, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant.    Edward D.
    Gray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: George E. B. Holding, United
    States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
    Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Brian Conner appeals a district court order denying his
    motion for relief under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     based on his claim that
    he    received    ineffective       assistance       of    counsel      at       sentencing.
    Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
    I.
    In 1990, Conner, a certified emergency medical technician,
    became    the    owner,       operator,      and     president        of        Convalescent
    Transports, Inc. (“CTI”).               The North Carolina corporation was in
    the      business        of      providing         ambulance          and        wheelchair
    transportation         services     for,    among        others,      medical        patients
    covered by Medicare and Medicaid.                    Both Medicare and Medicaid
    have explicit regulations concerning the conditions under which
    they    will    provide       reimbursement      for      ambulance        transportation
    services.        The    regulations        essentially      require         a    showing    of
    medical necessity.
    Sometime after October 1991, Conner began submitting false
    claims    to    Medicare      and   Medicaid       for    ambulance        transportation
    services that CTI rendered.                 Employees were told to transport
    all    dialysis        patients     by      ambulance,          and    employees        were
    instructed      to   falsify      the    ambulance       call    reports        to   make   it
    appear that transportation by ambulance was medically necessary.
    2
    On    the    basis     of    this          conduct,       Conner       was        charged      by
    superseding indictment with 350 counts of health care fraud,
    conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and obstruction of the
    criminal    investigation         of    health         care     fraud.           See    
    18 U.S.C. §§ 371
    , 1347, 1518.          The district court dismissed four counts on
    the government’s motion, and the case proceeded to trial.                                            A
    jury found Conner guilty of all remaining counts.
    After    the      convictions,         a    presentence             report    (“PSR”)          was
    prepared.         It     included       a       recommendation             for     a     two-level
    enhancement      for      abuse    of       a        position       of     trust,       see       U.S.
    Sentencing       Guidelines       Manual             § 3B1.3        (2005),       and        a     loss
    determination       of     more    than         $2,500,000           but     not       more       than
    $7,000,000, which would have resulted in an 18-level enhancement
    to   the      applicable          base          offense         level,           see         U.S.S.G.
    § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J).             Conner             objected           to     both         of       these
    enhancements.
    At    Conner’s       sentencing        hearing,          the    government          presented
    detailed testimony concerning the loss amount.                                   The government
    showed that CTI had received $6,822,690.54 between 1997 and 2002
    in reimbursements on 35,328 claims for non-emergency dialysis
    transports.         The     government           determined          how      much      of       these
    payments     constituted      the       government’s            loss       by     sampling         and
    extrapolation.         In this regard, “RAT-STATS,” a computer program
    developed by the United States Health and Human Services’ Office
    3
    of Inspector General, was used to perform three different steps:
    (1) determining the sample size needed to represent the data;
    (2) randomly generating the list of particular claims to review
    as part of the sample; and (3) extrapolating from the reviewed
    claims.    The first two steps produced a sample of 230 of the
    claims paid to CTI for transportation of patients in connection
    with dialysis.     Government agents then attempted to retrieve the
    records corresponding to these claims but were only able to find
    documentation for 165 of them.            These records were, in turn,
    reviewed by a medical fraud investigator.
    Treating the 65 claims with no documentation (“the missing-
    records claims”) as invalid, the investigator testified that of
    the 230 claims, only 14 were justified by medical necessity, and
    the average overpayment was $188.03 per claim.           Multiplying the
    per-claim average by the total number of claims (35,328) yielded
    a total overpayment of $6,642,582 for the 230 claims.            Based on
    this amount, the government’s statistics expert, Suzanne Moody,
    testified that RAT-STATS indicated that, with a 90% confidence
    interval, the range of overpayment was between $6,330,298 and
    $6,954.866.   Moody also testified alternatively that if the 65
    missing-records claims were treated as fully valid, the lower
    end of the overpayment range would drop to $3,738,866.
    G. Christopher Kelly, who represented Conner at trial and
    at   sentencing,   raised   several   objections   to   the   government’s
    4
    loss    amount,     including     arguments      that    the   calculations     were
    partly based on claims that were not part of the scheme and that
    the loss amount included all payments made for non-medically-
    necessary services rather than only those payments that had been
    procured by fraud.          Kelly also maintained that the government’s
    extrapolation        methodology    was    not    reliable      and    specifically
    focused on the missing-records claims.                   Kelly questioned Moody
    regarding how changing the overpayment amounts of only roughly
    28% of the claims (65 out of 230) could reduce the estimated
    loss amount by about 41%.            Kelly later argued to the district
    court that Moody had not provided a satisfactory explanation.
    Kelly also questioned the government’s witnesses concerning
    the government’s inability to locate the documentation regarding
    the missing-records claims.               Kelly subsequently asserted that
    the    government     had   not   exercised      due    diligence     in   trying   to
    locate    the   65    missing-records         claims    and    that   this   was    an
    additional reason that the government’s methodology was flawed.
    Kelly added that the government had the opportunity to do more
    sampling and make its estimates much more reliable and precise
    but had failed to do so.            Kelly contended that the appropriate
    loss amount would be the amount proven by the evidence presented
    at trial, which he claimed would have been less than $30,000.
    In the end, the district court accepted the reliability of
    the sampling process.           However, the court also accepted Kelly’s
    5
    argument     that    the        government       had    failed    to    show     that    it
    exercised        sufficient         diligence          in      searching       for      the
    documentation       related       to   the       65    missing-records         claims    or
    alternatively in reviewing substitute claims.                          In an effort to
    ensure that Conner was not penalized by the government’s lack of
    diligence, the court calculated the loss based on the assumption
    that the 65 missing-records claims were entirely valid.                                 The
    district court also agreed with Kelly that trips transporting
    patients to and from hospitals were not properly included and
    thus counted such claims as valid as well.                             With those two
    assumptions, the court found a loss amount of $3,613,165.00,
    nearly $3 million less than the government’s proposed amount.
    Unfortunately for Conner, this quite substantial reduction still
    left him the same loss range of more than $2.5 million and not
    more than $7 million.             See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J).                Thus, the
    associated    18-level          enhancement       and    the     two-level      abuse-of-
    position-of-trust enhancement, which the court also applied over
    Kelly’s objection, left Conner with a total offense level of 32.
    This    level,      in    conjunction        with      Conner’s    Criminal       History
    Category of I, yielded a guideline range of 121 to 151 months’
    imprisonment.            The    district     court      sentenced      Conner     at    the
    highest point in that range.
    We affirmed Conner’s sentence on appeal, holding, as is
    relevant    here,        that    the   government’s         extrapolation        provided
    6
    adequate support for the district court’s loss determination.
    See United States v. Conner, 262 F. App’x 515, 518-19 & n.5 (4th
    Cir. 2008).      In so doing, we specifically rejected an argument
    by Conner that the sampling process was not adequately shown to
    be random.    See id. at 519 n.5.
    Conner subsequently filed a motion to vacate his judgment
    or set aside his sentence pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    , alleging
    that Kelly was ineffective at trial and at sentencing.                    As is
    relevant here, Conner alleged that Kelly was constitutionally
    ineffective at sentencing in failing to offer expert testimony
    to   challenge      the   government’s     statistical    evidence   and     in
    failing to argue for a reduction in his loss amount for the
    value    received    by    the   government    from    CTI’s   provision     of
    services.
    In support of his motion, Conner offered evidence from two
    expert    witnesses       who    challenged   the     reliability    of     the
    government’s loss calculation methodology on a number of bases.
    They contended that the sample size was too small, and that
    “deleting” the 65 missing-records claims called into question
    the randomness of the sample.            J.A. 96.     Conner’s experts also
    pointed out additional flaws in planning, sample design, conduct
    of the actual sample, data analysis, and the presentation of the
    final results.
    7
    Conner   also   presented       an       affidavit        and    testimony      from
    Joseph B. Cheshire V, an attorney who represented Conner in his
    direct appeal.       Cheshire opined that Kelly should have hired an
    expert to study the government’s theory of how to calculate the
    loss   and    that   Kelly   should    have       tried     to    minimize       the   loss
    amount by identifying benefits that the government received from
    CTI’s provision of services.
    Additionally, Conner presented an affidavit and testimony
    from   Keith    A.   Williams,    an   attorney        who       represented       one   of
    Conner’s co-defendants.          As is relevant here, Williams opined
    that Kelly was constitutionally deficient in not arguing for a
    reduction in loss amount based on the value to the government of
    services CTI rendered.          He also asserted that an expert “could
    have provided some assistance in preparing for and presenting”
    arguments at sentencing.         J.A. 278.
    The government also presented an affidavit and testimony
    from Kelly.      He noted that he “had had civil cases that dealt
    with [RAT-STATS] and that type of thing so [he] knew some of the
    issues that could occur with those.”                  J.A. 331.             He also stated
    that   he    researched   the    validity        of   the    use       of    RAT-STATS   in
    federal jurisdictions.           He admitted, however, that “it would
    have been helpful to have had an expert at sentencing.”                                J.A.
    332.    He explained that Conner’s inability to pay for an expert
    8
    figured in to his decision not to seek one, but he conceded that
    he did not seek court appointment of an expert.
    After considering the evidence before the court, a federal
    magistrate judge recommended denying each of Conner’s claims.
    Conner subsequently filed objections with the district court,
    but the district court overruled the objections, adopted the
    magistrate’s findings and analysis, and denied the motion to
    vacate.   See     Conner   v.   United    States,   Nos.   4:04-CR-27-FL-2,
    4:09-CV-96-FL, 
    2010 WL 4484397
    , at *8 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2010).
    The court also granted Conner a certificate of appealability.
    See 
    id.
    II.
    Conner first argues that Kelly was ineffective in failing
    to offer expert testimony challenging the statistical and random
    sampling methodology used by the government at sentencing (“the
    expert claim”).    We disagree.
    In considering the denial of a § 2255 motion, we review a
    district court’s factual findings from an evidentiary hearing
    for clear error, and we review de novo mixed issues of law and
    fact, such as whether established facts demonstrate a deficient
    performance by counsel.         See United States v. Roane, 
    378 F.3d 382
    , 395 (4th Cir. 2004).
    9
    Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are reviewed
    under the standards of Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    (1984), and its progeny.           To be entitled to relief, Conner must
    demonstrate “that counsel’s performance was deficient” and that
    “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”                         
    Id. at 687
    .
    To demonstrate inadequate or deficient performance, Conner “must
    show    that    counsel’s       representation        fell    below    an     objective
    standard of reasonableness” measured by “prevailing professional
    norms.”      
    Id. at 688
    .        Our application of this standard “must be
    highly deferential,” and we “must indulge a strong presumption
    that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable
    professional        assistance.”      
    Id. at 689
    .     Moreover,       counsel’s
    performance must not be judged with the benefit of hindsight;
    rather, we consider “counsel’s perspective at the time” of the
    representation in question.              See 
    id.
           To demonstrate prejudice,
    Conner “must show that there is a reasonable probability that,
    but    for    counsel’s    unprofessional           errors,   the     result      of   the
    proceeding would have been different.”                 
    Id. at 694
    .
    While    Strickland      applies    in   both     capital      and    noncapital
    sentencing proceedings, see, e.g., Glover v. United States, 
    531 U.S. 198
    , 202-04 (2001) (applying Strickland test in noncapital
    case),       what    constitutes     deficient         performance          can   differ
    depending on the type of proceeding.                  The ABA’s Criminal Justice
    Standards,      which     can    serve    as    a     tool    for   evaluating         the
    10
    reasonableness         of     counsel’s        representation,           see    Wiggins       v.
    Smith, 
    539 U.S. 510
    , 524 (2003), indicate that defense counsel
    in     a    noncapital      sentencing         proceeding        should        (1)    promptly
    investigate the circumstances and facts relevant to sentencing,
    (2) present the court with any basis that will help achieve an
    outcome       favorable       to     the   defense,        and     (3)     supplement         or
    challenge information provided in any presentence report.                                    See
    ABA Criminal Justice Standards 4-4.1(a) and 4-8.1(b).
    In    this     case,    to    fully     understand        the   district        court’s
    findings, we also must consider the magistrate’s analysis of
    Conner’s      claims.         The    magistrate       rejected      Conner’s         assertion
    that Kelly’s representation at sentencing was constitutionally
    deficient      and     concluded      that,      even     assuming       that        Kelly   was
    deficient in the ways Conner alleged, Conner could not establish
    a reasonable probability he would have received a more lenient
    sentence had Kelly taken the steps Conner now says he should
    have taken.         As relates to the expert claim, Conner objected to
    the magistrate’s conclusions regarding both Strickland prongs.
    Regarding the second prong, Conner maintained that if Kelly had
    been able to convince the district court that the government’s
    extrapolation was invalid, then the extrapolation “would have
    been       required    to     be    re-done”        and   there    was     “more       than    a
    reasonable      likelihood          that   a   different         sentence       would    have”
    resulted.       J.A. 727.
    11
    The    district   court     rejected     both     of    these    arguments.
    Regarding    the   second   prong,   the   court      reasoned      that   even   if
    Kelly’s presentation of expert testimony would have convinced
    the district court to require the government to take another
    sample and redo its extrapolation, Conner made no showing that
    he would have ended up with a smaller loss amount than he did
    having the court assume that the 65 missing-records claims were
    actually completely legitimate.         See Conner, 
    2010 WL 4484397
    , at
    *5.
    In his initial brief to us, Conner challenged the district
    court’s conclusion that Conner failed to establish that Kelly’s
    representation was rendered deficient by his decision not to
    present      expert     testimony      challenging           the      government’s
    extrapolation      methodology.      However,     he    did   not     address     the
    district     court’s    determination      that    he    could      not    show    a
    reasonable    probability    that    redoing    the     government’s       analysis
    would have led to a more lenient sentence.                    Conner addressed
    this issue for the first time in his reply brief, claiming he
    demonstrated prejudice because an expert could have shown that
    the government’s extrapolation was flawed, and thus caused the
    district court to reject it and determine the loss amount by
    considering only the trial evidence, which would have supported
    a loss finding of less than $30,000.
    12
    This prejudice argument is not properly before us for two
    reasons.        First,    inherent   in       Conner’s       new   argument     is    a
    contention that the district court erred in assuming that the
    government would have been allowed to “redo” its statistical
    analysis if the district court agreed with Kelly’s expert.                           Not
    only did Conner not make this argument to the district court,
    he affirmatively argued the opposite — that had Kelly employed
    an expert at sentencing, the government would have been required
    to redo its statistical analysis.              Accordingly, the argument is
    waived.    See First Va. Banks, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Oil,
    Inc., 
    206 F.3d 404
    , 407 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (“Because neither of
    these arguments were raised below, we decline to consider them
    on   appeal.”).          Additionally,    even       had     Conner    raised    this
    argument   in    the   district   court,       he    would    have    waived    it    by
    failing to raise it in his initial brief.                    See Cavallo v. Star
    Enter., 
    100 F.3d 1150
    , 1152 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n issue
    first argued in a reply brief is not properly before a court of
    appeals.”).
    In any event, even assuming arguendo that Conner properly
    preserved a challenge to the district court’s ruling that he
    could not establish prejudice from his asserted deficiency, we
    agree   with    the    district   court       that    Kelly’s      performance       was
    constitutionally adequate.
    13
    As the district court noted, Kelly was quite active during
    sentencing:
    Kelly reviewed the [PSR] with [Conner], going over
    potential objections in great detail and discussing
    the calculation of loss.      Kelly made a number of
    objections to the PSR on [Conner’s] behalf, and . . .
    he zealously and effectively advocated on [Conner’s]
    behalf at sentencing, particularly relating to the
    government’s statistical sampling and its proposal to
    “deny” for loss purposes sixty-five (65) claims for
    which no medical documentation existed.
    Conner, 
    2010 WL 4484397
    , at *4.        As the court explained,
    Kelly argued a number of the same points that
    [Conner’s] experts bring to the court’s attention.
    For example, Kelly argued that the government’s expert
    had not adequately explained “how the relatively minor
    change of 25 to 28% of the claims could result in an
    over 40% difference in the damage calculation.” Kelly
    argued that “[t]hat’s not the kind of precision that
    makes this study reliable.”    He also noted that the
    government “had the opportunity to make [the sampling]
    more reliable by doing a larger scope” and that they
    failed to “explain the differences and irregularities
    . . . in the results.”
    
    Id.
     at *4 n.7 (citations omitted).
    Kelly was well aware that extrapolations similar to the
    government’s in this case had “been upheld numerous times in the
    federal courts.”    J.A. 115.     In light of that fact, it was his
    judgment “that under the facts of this case, and the time and
    financial   limitations   that   the    family   placed   on   [him],   that
    calling an expert at sentencing would [not] have been possible
    or beneficial.”    J.A. 115.
    14
    Based on all of these facts, we simply cannot conclude that
    Conner     has    rebutted      the     “strong        presumption”         that     Kelly’s
    performance       was    constitutionally          reasonable.        Strickland,          
    466 U.S. at 689
    .        By vigorously exploiting the government’s lack of
    diligence in searching for the documentation for the missing-
    records    claims        (and   by    challenging        the    relevance      of     claims
    relating     to     transportation          to     and    from      hospitals),        Kelly
    obtained    a     loss    amount     for    his    client      that   was    millions       of
    dollars less than the government sought.                        Although his efforts
    did not yield a guideline range lower than the government had
    proposed, we conclude that his performance was within prevailing
    professional norms.
    For    similar       reasons,     we    do    not    believe     that    Conner       was
    prejudiced by Kelly’s decision not to call an expert.                              Even had
    Kelly been able to use an expert to persuade the district court
    to reject the government’s methodology, it is sheer speculation
    to conclude that the ultimate result would have been a loss
    determination of less than $2,500,000.
    III.
    Conner       also     argues     that       the     district     court        erred   in
    rejecting his claim that Kelly was constitutionally ineffective
    at sentencing because he did not argue that the loss amount
    should be reduced by the value of benefits that the government
    15
    received    by    virtue     of    the    provision       of    CTI’s     services    (“the
    benefits received claim”).               See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n.3(F)(ii)
    (“In a case involving government benefits (e.g., grants, loans,
    entitlement program payments), loss shall be considered to be
    not less than the value of the benefits obtained by unintended
    recipients       or    diverted    to     unintended       uses,     as    the    case   may
    be.”); United States v. Dawkins, 
    202 F.3d 711
    , 715 (4th Cir.
    2000) (“[W]e advise the district court to consider loss as the
    difference       between     the    amount        of     benefits       [the     defendant]
    actually received and the amount he would have received had he
    truthfully and accurately completed the . . . forms.”).                                  For
    example, he maintains that even with regard to claims in which
    ambulance     transportation         was        not     medically       necessary,       non-
    emergency transport may have been necessary, and Kelly should
    have argued that Conner was entitled to a credit for the value
    of such transport.
    We     cannot       conclude        that     counsel’s       representation         was
    constitutionally         deficient.          As       noted,    Kelly     made    numerous
    arguments disputing the government’s loss calculation, and he
    indeed     achieved      a   significant          victory       in   establishing         the
    government’s lack of diligence in searching for the missing-
    records documentation.              As a result of his challenge to the
    quality of the government’s investigation, and his arguments as
    to   how    the       inclusion    of     those        claims    would     undercut      the
    16
    reliability of the government’s extrapolation, the loss amount
    was based on the assumption that the missing-records claims,
    which made up more than a quarter of the entire sample, were
    100%    valid.      One    need   not   be    an   expert   in   statistics    to
    recognize that that change resulted in a significant reduction
    of Kelly’s loss amount even if it was not enough to reduce his
    guideline range.
    Our review of the record makes clear that even if there
    were good arguments that Kelly did not make, there were many
    good ones that he did make and indeed made effectively.                       See
    Mickens v. Taylor, 
    240 F.3d 348
    , 363 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc)
    (“The Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel does not guarantee an
    ideal    or      perfect    representation.”).          Given     the   “highly
    deferential” standard by which we judge counsel’s performance,
    we cannot conclude that Kelly’s representation at sentencing was
    constitutionally deficient.         Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at 689
    .
    IV.
    In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district
    court’s order denying Conner’s § 2255 motion.
    AFFIRMED
    17