United States v. Veronica Dale Hahn

Case: 17-12153 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 1 of 13
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-12153
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cr-00012-RH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VERONICA DALE HAHN,
a.k.a. Veronica Sims,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 22, 2018)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JULIE CARNES, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-12153 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 2 of 13
Veronica Dale Hahn pleaded guilty mid-trial to one count of theft of public
money, 18 U.S.C. § 641. She appeals her conviction and sentence. Hahn contends
that her guilty plea is invalid because the district court failed to ensure she
understood the nature of the offense charged and because there was an insufficient
factual basis for her plea. She also contends that the district court erred by finding
that the loss amount exceeds $250,000 and enhancing her sentence on that basis.
I.
Hahn is a veteran of the United States Army. She received disability
benefits from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for several
ailments, including a rare autoimmune disease called VKH that can cause loss of
vision. Based on Hahn’s paperwork, medical records, and the results of medical
examinations, the VA rated her impaired vision as 50% disabling in 2001 and
100% disabling in 2003. Hahn’s blindness-related disability rating, coupled with
ratings for her other ailments, yielded a 100% combined disability rating. That
combined rating entitled Hahn to significant disability benefits.
The VA began to question Hahn’s purported vision loss when it learned she
applied for and received driver’s licenses in three states while collecting benefits
for total blindness. Following that lead, Special Agent Eric Lindquist surveilled
Hahn to see if her vision was better than she claimed. And indeed it was.
2
Case: 17-12153 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 3 of 13
On a foggy morning in May 2014, just before sunrise, Agent Lindquist
observed Hahn drive away from her home. He tailed Hahn as she drove for about
20 minutes to the Northwest Florida Reception Center on a route that included a
“fairly windy” road, construction and school zones, changes of speed, stop signs,
and traffic lights. After confirming that Hahn worked at the reception center,
Agent Lindquist set up a pole camera in the parking lot. Over the next 30 days, he
collected video recordings and photographs capturing at least sixteen instances of
Hahn driving with no evidence of impairment.
As a result of that investigation, the VA reduced Hahn’s blindness-related
disability rating from 100% to 0% and deemed that reduction retroactive to 2001.
That blindness-related rating reduction lowered Hahn’s combined disability rating
from 100% to 90%. Hahn challenged the combined disability rating reduction,
claiming new benefits based on other ailments that, if retroactive, would offset her
combined disability rating reduction. The VA rejected Hahn’s claim and she
appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals. That appeal is pending.
3
Case: 17-12153 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 4 of 13
A one-count indictment charged Hahn with knowingly and willfully
embezzling, stealing, and converting to her own use public money in the amount of
$395,596.85. At trial, the government presented the following testimony.
First, Agent Lindquist detailed his investigation, including the pole camera
footage and videos he took when tailing Hahn’s car. The government played three
of those videos for the jury.
Two VA doctors testified next. Dr. Watkins, an ophthalmology expert,
testified that he examined Hahn in 2002 and that she complained of pain in both
eyes and “extremely poor” vision. Dr. Watkins stated that Hahn’s complaints were
inconsistent with the results of several tests he conducted, that her eyes showed no
reason for poor vision, and that he “was very suspicious that most likely [Hahn’s]
vision was much better than what she was telling [him].” Dr. Saxton, an optometry
expert, testified that she examined Hahn in 2003 and that Hahn complained of pain
in both eyes and deteriorating vision. Like Dr. Watkins, Dr. Saxton stated that
Hahn’s complaints were inconsistent with her medical records and that her eyes
showed no reason for poor vision.
Three witnesses — one from each of the New Mexico, Florida, and Alabama
Departments of Motor Vehicles — testified that Hahn applied for and received a
total of four driver’s licenses between 2004 and 2012. Each time, she passed a
vision test with both eyes testing without corrective lenses at 20/20 or 20/40.
4
Case: 17-12153 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 5 of 13
Another witness, the director for personal services at a university Hahn
attended, testified that Hahn did not request or receive any accommodations for
visual impairment. But she did receive a parking permit in 2004.
Four witnesses who knew Hahn from work testified that they had no reason
to believe Hahn was blind. Ms. Key, director of operations for one of Hahn’s
previous employers, stated that Hahn had no noticeable mobility problems, did not
request accommodations, and did not note in her job application any ailment that
would affect her job performance. Ms. Agerton, who worked with Hahn at the
Florida Department of Corrections, stated that visual impairment would have posed
a security and safety risk. Ms. Heaton, who worked with Hahn at the Northwest
Florida Reception Center, stated that Hahn’s job required sight and that Hahn
never complained about her vision. Mr. Knight, who hired Hahn to work with
inmates in a work release program, stated that Hahn’s job required sight and that
shortly before Hahn resigned, she told Knight she would go blind in the future.
Next, the government called to the stand two VA employees, both of whom
testified that Hahn said she was unable to drive due to blindness in 2013. Ms.
Rudykoff, the VA’s Visual Impairment Service Team Coordinator, testified that
during an interview, Hahn stated she could not drive and depended on others for
transportation. Agent Keller of the Office of Inspector General testified that he
5
Case: 17-12153 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 6 of 13
spoke with Hahn by phone and she confirmed that she could “absolutely not” drive
a car, and that her husband was her caregiver and had to be with her at all times.
The government then recalled Agent Lindquist. He testified that, as part of
his investigation, he made a series of recorded calls to Hahn to obtain more
information. Before the government could publish those recordings to the jury, the
court took a recess, after which Hahn told the court she wished to plead guilty.
The district court placed Hahn under oath and advised her of her rights.
Hahn confirmed she understood that, by pleading guilty, she would give up those
rights and any defense to the offense charged. The court stated that Hahn was
charged with “receiving Veterans Administration benefits, payments that you were
not entitled to, and then retaining those benefits.” Hahn affirmed that she spoke
with counsel about what the government must prove to establish that charge. She
admitted that she knew the VA relied on false information when it gave her a
100% blindness-related disability rating; that she took VA benefits despite
knowing the VA relied on false information; that she lied about being able to drive;
and that she was the person driving in the video footage.
When the court asked Hahn if she told the doctors the truth when they
examined her, Hahn said that she did. The court asked why Hahn sought to plead
guilty yet protested her innocence. Hahn replied, “Okay. Just say I’m guilty.”
The court reminded Hahn she was under oath and explained that it would not
6
Case: 17-12153 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 7 of 13
accept a guilty plea unless it was satisfied that she committed the charged crime.
Hahn ultimately pleaded guilty and affirmed that she did so because she was, “in
fact, guilty of this offense.” The court accepted the plea, finding it was supported
by a factual basis and entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
Hahn’s base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines
was six. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(2). She received a 12-level enhancement because
the Presentence Investigation Report determined the amount of loss exceeded
$250,000, id. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G), and a 2-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility, id. § 3E1.1. Based on an offense level of 16 and a criminal history
category of I, Hahn’s guidelines range was 21 to 27 months imprisonment.
Hahn objected to the amount of loss, which the PSR stated was $394,800.85,
and the government responded and attached two exhibits supporting the loss
amount. At the sentence hearing, Agent Lindquist testified that the first exhibit
was an audit conducted by the VA to determine how much it overpaid Hahn. The
first portion of that exhibit showed each payment the VA made to Hahn from
September 2001 to February 2016 based on her 100% combined disability rating,
and the second portion showed the payment that would have been made based on
Hahn’s retroactive 90% combined disability rating. The difference between those
two sums was $394,800.85. The second exhibit showed the amount of funds wired
7
Case: 17-12153 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 8 of 13
to Hahn’s account from the Department of Treasury between September 2001 and
February 2016. It matched the first portion of the first exhibit.
After Agent Lindquist’s testimony, the district court independently
calculated the loss amount. The court asked Agent Lindquist a series of questions
about how the VA determines disability ratings and makes adjustments for changes
in disability. Based on his answers to those questions and the two exhibits, the
district court stated that its loss calculation matched the VA’s.
Hahn did not dispute the government’s math. Instead, she argued that the
government could not prove the loss amount by a preponderance of the evidence
because her pending appeal before the Board of Veterans Appeals might confer
retroactive benefits that offset the loss amount. The district court explained that it
could not wait for the outcome of that appeal (which would likely take two or three
years), noted that Hahn presented no evidence challenging the government’s
calculation, and ruled that the government had proven a loss amount of
$394,800.85 by a preponderance. The district court sentenced Hahn to nine
months imprisonment — well below the bottom end of her guidelines range — and
ordered her to pay $394,800.85 in restitution. This is Hahn’s appeal.
II.
Hahn challenges her conviction, contending that the district court failed to
comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by accepting her guilty plea
8
Case: 17-12153 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 9 of 13
without a sufficient factual basis and without ensuring she understood the nature of
the charged offense. Because Hahn failed to object to the purported Rule 11
violation, we review the issue only for plain error. United States v. Monroe, 353
F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003). Hahn must show that there is (1) error (2) that is
plain and (3) that affects substantial rights. Id. If she does, then we have
discretion to notice that error, but only if “the error seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Id.
There was no error that was plain in the Rule 11 colloquy. Rule 11 required
the district court to determine that there was a factual basis for Hahn’s guilty plea.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). The court heard overwhelming evidence supporting
Hahn’s plea. Experts in ophthalmology and optometry testified that Hahn’s
complaints about vision loss contradicted their objective test results, and one went
so far as to state that he “was very suspicious that most likely [Hahn’s] vision was
much better than what she was telling [him].” Three witnesses testified that Hahn
applied for and received four driver’s licenses, all of which required her to pass a
vision test. One witness testified that Hahn did not request blindness-related
accommodations in graduate school, though she did request a parking permit. Four
witnesses who knew Hahn from work did not believe Hahn was blind and testified
that those jobs required sight. Two witnesses from the VA testified that Hahn
stated she could not drive and required a caretaker at all times. And last but not
9
Case: 17-12153 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 10 of 13
least, Agent Lindquist testified that he observed and recorded Hahn driving at least
sixteen times. That evidence was a sufficient factual basis for Hahn’s plea.
Rule 11 also required the court to ensure that Hahn understood the nature of
the charged offense. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(G). We decide on a case-by-case
basis whether a district court adequately informed a defendant of the nature of the
offense. See United States v. James, 210 F.3d 1342, 1344 (11th Cir. 2000). The
elements comprising the charged offense, theft of government property, are:
(1) the money belonged to the United States or an agency thereof; (2) the
defendant appropriated the money for her own use, and (3) the defendant did so
knowingly with the intent to deprive the government of the money. United States
v. Wilson, 788 F.3d 1298, 1309 (11th Cir. 2015).
During the plea colloquy, Hahn affirmed that she discussed the elements of
the charged offense with her attorney. In addition, Hahn was present when the
court explained the indictment to the jury, during opening statements, and
throughout the presentation of the evidence, such that she knew the nature of the
offense by the time she pleaded guilty. Although the court did not explicitly state
each element, its questions during the plea colloquy apprised Hahn of the nature of
the offense. During that colloquy, Hahn admitted that she lied about not being able
to drive. She affirmed that she knew the VA relied on false information when it
gave her a 100% blindness-related disability rating. And she admitted to taking
10
Case: 17-12153 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 11 of 13
VA benefits despite knowing the VA relied on false information. As a result, the
district court ensured that Hahn understood the nature of the offense, and there was
no plain error in the plea colloquy.
Alternatively, even if there was plain error, that error did not “seriously
affect[ ] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.”
Monroe, 353 F.3d at 1349. In keeping with Supreme Court precedent, we have
declined to notice an error when the evidence against the defendant was
overwhelming. Id. at 1357 (citing United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 632, 122
S. Ct. 1781, 1786 (2002); Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 469, 117 S. Ct.
1544, 1550 (1997)). As detailed above, the amount of evidence incriminating
Hahn was nothing short of overwhelming. As a result, any purported error did not
“seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial
proceedings.” Monroe, 353 F.3d at 1357. On the contrary, “it would be the
reversal of a conviction such as this which would have that effect.” Johnson, 520
U.S. at 469, 117 S. Ct. at 1550. We decline to disturb Hahn’s conviction.
III.
Hahn also contests the validity of her sentence. She contends that the
district court erred by finding that the loss amount exceeded $250,000 and
enhancing her sentence on that basis. Because Hahn objected to the loss amount at
the sentence hearing, the government had the burden to prove the loss amount by a
11
Case: 17-12153 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 12 of 13
preponderance. United States v. Washington, 714 F.3d 1358, 1361 (11th Cir.
2013). Although the district court has “considerable leeway” in calculating the
loss amount, its calculation must be supported by “reliable and specific evidence.”
United States v. Campbell, 765 F.3d 1291, 1302 (11th Cir. 2014). We review the
district court’s finding for clear error and will overturn it only if we are “left with a
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 1301.
The government presented “reliable and specific evidence” that proved the
loss amount of $394,800.85 by a preponderance of the evidence. The government
introduced two exhibits supporting the loss amount: the VA’s audit comparing the
amount it paid Hahn based on a 100% combined disability rating to how much it
would have paid based on a 90% combined disability rating, and a wire transfer
statement confirming the amount the VA paid Hahn. The government also
introduced testimony by Agent Lindquist, who explained those exhibits and the
government’s loss calculation. In an abundance of caution, the district court
corroborated the loss amount with its own independent calculation.
Hahn offered no evidence to rebut the loss amount. Instead, she argued that
depending on the outcome of her administrative appeal, she might be entitled to
additional disability benefits, and if those benefits are retroactive, they might offset
the loss amount. We cannot predict the outcome of that appeal. And the district
court could not forestall sentencing Hahn until the appeal is resolved, which could
12
Case: 17-12153 Date Filed: 01/22/2018 Page: 13 of 13
take years. In light of the evidence supporting the loss amount, Hahn’s speculation
about the outcome of her pending administrative appeal does not leave us “with a
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Campbell, 765
F.3d at 1302. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the loss amount
was $394,800.85 and enhancing Hahn’s sentence on that basis.
AFFIRMED.
13