United States v. Adegboye

732 F.3d 1195, 2013 WL 5615054, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20801
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedOctober 15, 2013
Docket12-6035
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 732 F.3d 1195 (United States v. Adegboye) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Adegboye, 732 F.3d 1195, 2013 WL 5615054, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20801 (10th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Following a joint trial with his Co-Defendant Olalekan Rufai, a jury convicted Defendant-Appellant Adedayo Adegboye of five counts of aiding and abetting health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347 and 2. On appeal, Adegboye argues that the trial evidence was insufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knowingly and willfully participated in the fraud. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the panel majority affirms Adegboye’s convictions. Judge Matheson writes separately to dissent.

I. BACKGROUND

We incorporate the facts, procedural history, and legal background from our opinion in the related appeal of United States v. Rufai, No. 12-6034, 732 F.3d 1175, see §§ I, II.B.

II. THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ADEG-BOYE’S CONVICTIONS

Adegboye argues that the Government faded to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed health care fraud as a principal or as an aider and abettor. Because the Government does not contend that he is guilty as a principal, however, we focus here only on whether there was sufficient evidence to convict him for aiding and abetting health care fraud.

Adegboye acknowledges that his business associate Joshua Ohaka committed health care fraud by submitting false claims to Medicare through Adegboye’s company, First Century Medical Supply (“First Century”). And Adegboye does not dispute that his acts in fact contributed to Ohaka’s health care fraud generally, which would encompass the incidents underlying the five substantive fraud counts charged against Adegboye. On appeal, Adegboye argues that the Government failed to present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knowingly and willfully aided Ohaka’s fraudulent scheme.

A. Relevant legal principles

Our decision to affirm Adegboye’s convictions is grounded on two legal principles. First, we review the sufficiency of the evidence to support Adegboye’s convictions de novo, asking “whether a reasonable jury could find [him] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Anaya, 727 F.3d 1043, 1050 (10th Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations omitted). In making this determination, we must “consider all evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government, and we may not weigh evidence or consider credibility of witnesses.” United States v. Renteria, 720 F.3d 1245, 1253 (10th Cir.2013). “Rather than examining the evidence in bits and pieces, we evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence by considering the collective inferences to be drawn from the evidence as a whole.” United States v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858, 873 (10th Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 355, 184 L.Ed.2d 159 (2012). “[T]he evidence, together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, must be substantial, but it need not conclusively exclude every other reasonable hypothesis and it need not negate all possibilities except guilt.” United States v. MacKay, 715 F.3d 807, 812 (10th Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted), peti *1198 tion for cert. filed, (U.S. Aug. 26, 2013) (No. 13-274).

Second, to obtain a conviction for aiding and abetting, the Government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Adegboye “(1) willfully associated himself with [Ohaka’s] criminal venture and (2) sought to make the venture succeed through some action of his own.” United States v. Rosalez, 711 F.3d 1194, 1205 (10th Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration omitted), petitions for cert. filed, (U.S. June 25, Aug. 9 and 26, 2013) (Nos. 13-5160, 13-5782, 13-6149). “[C]onduct of the defendant or special circumstances may justify the inference that the defendant associated himself with the criminal objective.” United States v. Burks, 678 F.3d 1190, 1198 (10th Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration omitted).

B. There was sufficient evidence to support Adegboye’s convictions for aiding and abetting Ohaka’s health care fraud

1. Joshua Ohaka’s underlying fraud

Because the Government charged Adegboye with aiding and abetting his business associate Joshua Ohaka’s health care fraud, we begin by addressing briefly Ohaka’s fraudulent scheme. Ohaka’s modus operandi was to create a durable medical equipment company; qualify that company as a Medicare provider; submit false claims to Medicare through that company until Medicare became suspicious and began requiring the company to submit proof of its claims; unable to present proof, Ohaka would then create a new company through which to continue his fraud. 1 Ohaka began this scheme by using his own company, Optimed, through which he filed fraudulent Medicare claims from 2005 through approximately October 2006. He continued the scheme with Vitacare, a company Ohaka formed in his wife’s name in 2007, and then he used his second company, Providence, beginning in 2008. Later, Ohaka paid Helen Etinfoh to let him use her name to operate another company, Luant and Odera, in 2008. This was likely due to the fact that, by this time, Medicare had flagged for investigation any company that was related to Ohaka. And Ohaka continued his fraud through First Century, a company that he formed with Defendants Adegboye and Rufai in the fall of 2007.

The false claims Ohaka filed through these companies included billing Medicare for equipment that he never provided Medicare beneficiaries, billing Medicare for more expensive equipment than the equipment he actually provided beneficiaries (i.e., providing power scooters, but billing Medicare for more expensive power wheelchairs), and providing beneficiaries with medical equipment that was medically unnecessary and not prescribed for the beneficiaries by their doctors, as Medicare required. Often Ohaka’s companies would bill Medicare using the code CR (catastrophe-related), which indicated that a Medicare beneficiary had lost previously prescribed medical equipment during a catastrophe, such as a hurricane.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. King
259 F. Supp. 3d 1267 (W.D. Oklahoma, 2014)
United States v. Walter Johnson
706 F.3d 728 (Sixth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
732 F.3d 1195, 2013 WL 5615054, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-adegboye-ca10-2013.