United States v. Charlie William Turner, United States of America v. Otwa Lee Turner

898 F.2d 149, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 3174, 1990 WL 29182
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 6, 1990
Docket88-5617
StatusUnpublished

This text of 898 F.2d 149 (United States v. Charlie William Turner, United States of America v. Otwa Lee Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Charlie William Turner, United States of America v. Otwa Lee Turner, 898 F.2d 149, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 3174, 1990 WL 29182 (4th Cir. 1990).

Opinion

898 F.2d 149
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Charlie William TURNER, Defendant-Appellee.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Otwa Lee TURNER, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 88-5617, 88-5622.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: Dec. 7, 1989.
Decided: March 6, 1990.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, District Judge. (CR-87-103-D)

No. 88-5617: Argued: Jean Martel Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Va., for appellant.

James David Jones, Chatham, Va., for appellee.

On Brief: John P. Alderman, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Va., for appellant.

No. 88-5622: Argued: James Patterson Rogers, III, Danville, Va., for appellant.

Jean Martel Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Va., for appellee.

On Brief: John P. Alderman, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Va., for appellee.

W.D.Va.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

Before MURNAGHAN and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and JAMES H. MICHAEL, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Following a seven-day jury trial, Otwa Lee Turner (O.L. Turner) was found guilty on 12 counts of a 13-count indictment, and his brother Charlie William Turner (C.W. Turner) was found guilty on 10 counts (1, 3-9, 11 and 13) under the same indictment. Thereafter, the trial judge granted a motion of acquittal as to C.W. Turner's convictions and denied a similar motion of O.L. Turner. The government appeals the granting of C.W. Turner's motion of acquittal, and O.L. Turner appeals the denial of his acquittal motion. We find that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions of C.W. Turner on Counts 1, 7 and 11, and we find sufficient evidence to sustain all of the convictions of O.L. Turner. Therefore, we affirm all convictions of O.L. Turner, and we reverse and reinstate the convictions of C.W. Turner as to Counts 1, 7 and 11, and we remand for sentencing.

* O.L. Turner and C.W. Turner were indicted with Linda M. Overton, Mary Jane Anderson and Piedmont Ambulance Service of Danville, Inc. on charges of conspiracy and substantive acts of fraud in connection with the use of ambulances to transport Medicare and Medicaid patients and the billing and collection of charges made therefor. In 1977 O.L. Turner purchased the ambulance contract from the City of Danville, Virginia, and this provided him with an exclusive franchise to operate an ambulance service within the city. At the time, O.L. Turner operated Yellow Cab in the City of Danville. In March 1981, O.L. Turner entered into contracts with Medicaid and Medicare programs to become a provider of ambulance services for both programs. The ambulance business was incorporated under the name of Piedmont Ambulance Service of Danville, Inc. and O.L. Turner was president and his brother C.W. Turner was secretary-treasurer.

The ambulance service operated continuously from 1977 until it went out of business in 1987. From January 1981 through April 1985 the evidence shows that the defendants devised and implemented a scheme of over billing for the ambulance services. Included in this scheme were claims for services that were not provided, double billing Medicare and Medicaid when payment was due under only one of the programs, inflating mileage figures so as to receive larger payments, and unlawfully billing patients for services covered by Medicaid. Mileage figures were inflated by using a billing code of 006 for one way trips and 012 for round trips, instead of using and recording the actual mileage as Medicare requires. The prosecution claimed that over the period of four years Medicare was fraudulently induced to overpay in excess of $21,000 for these ambulance services and that Medicaid overpaid in excess of $3,900 for such services.

Prior to beginning work for Piedmont Ambulance Service of Danville, Inc., C.W. Turner was employed at a supermarket. In October 1981 he became certified as an emergency medical technician and thereafter began part-time employment with Piedmont. He became a full-time employee in July 1984 and was employed by Piedmont until June 1985. He claims that he was simply a medical technician and had nothing to do with the billing or record keeping. In granting his motion for acquittal, the trial court found:

It is clear even from Charlie's own testimony that he was knowledgeable about billing procedures. Apparently, he offered advice to some of the billing clerks on how to handle certain billing problems. But the testimony of the clerks that Charlie showed them how to double bill and use the "codes," is insufficiently corroborated by any other evidence, such as his own use of the codes, his own efforts to double bill, or evidence that he had any particular authority or responsibility in the billing area.

II

On review, both appeals are subject to the same standard, because each requires a review of the sufficiency of the evidence to convict. In No. 88-5617, the government claims that the evidence was sufficient to convict C.W. Turner, and in No. 88-5622, O.L. Turner claims that the evidence was not sufficient to convict him. In United States v. Steed, 674 F.2d 284, 286 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 829 (1982), we stated:

The proper standard of review is enunciated in Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942): "The verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it." This is the familiar standard for review of a defendant's claim that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty. Whether the assessment of the evidence is at the behest of the government or the defendant, the function of the reviewing court is unchanged and consequently the same standard of review is appropriate.

The trial judge granted the motion of acquittal, and found that although C.W. Turner was knowledgeable about billing procedures and offered advice to some billing clerks on how to handle certain billing problems, the testimony of the clerks that he showed them how to double bill and use codes was not sufficiently corroborated by other evidence "such as his own use of the codes, his own efforts to double bill, or other evidence that he had any particular authority or responsibility in the billing area."

In United States v. Arrington, 719 F.2d, 701, 705 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1028 (1984), we stated:

The uncorroborated testimony of one witness may be sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. United States v.

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

Related

Glasser v. United States
315 U.S. 60 (Supreme Court, 1942)
United States v. Henry Thomas Shipp
409 F.2d 33 (Fourth Circuit, 1969)
United States v. Daryls Foster Steed
674 F.2d 284 (Fourth Circuit, 1982)
United States v. James E. Arrington
719 F.2d 701 (Fourth Circuit, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
898 F.2d 149, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 3174, 1990 WL 29182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charlie-william-turner-united-stat-ca4-1990.