U.S. v. García-Pastrana
| Citation | 584 F.3d 351 |
| Decision Date | 20 October 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-1044.,No. 07-1232.,No. 07-1096.,No. 07-1177.,No. 07-1094.,No. 07-1558.,No. 07-1098.,No. 07-1557.,No. 07-1095.,No. 07-1501.,No. 07-1097.,07-1044.,07-1094.,07-1095.,07-1096.,07-1097.,07-1098.,07-1177.,07-1232.,07-1501.,07-1557.,07-1558. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Elba GARCÍA-PASTRANA, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Héctor René Lugo-Ríos, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Juan Ramos-Hernández, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Felipe Román-Lozada, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Juan Roldán-Vega, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Andrés Carrasquillo-Colón, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Enrique Vázquez-Préstamo, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Francisco Martínez-Irizarry, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Jorge L. Urbina-Acevedo, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Jesús Caraballo-Ortiz, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Luis Andino-Delbrey, Defendant, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
Rafael F. Castro-Lang, was on brief for appellants García and Vázquez.
Anita Hill-Adames, for appellant Lugo.
Laura Maldonado-Rodríguez, with whom Lydia Lizarribar and Francisco Dolz-Sánchez, were on joint brief for appellants Urbina, Caraballo, and Andino.
Lydia Lizarribar, with whom Laura Maldonado-Rodríguez and Francisco Dolz-Sánchez, were on joint brief for appellants Urbina, Caraballo, and Andino.
Carlos E. Montñez, for appellant Carrasquillo.
Miguel E. Miranda-Gutiérrez, for appellant Martínez.
Joseph F. Palmer, with whom Stephan E. Oestreicher, Jr., Attorney, Appellate Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Rosa E. Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, District of Puerto Rico, and José A. Ruiz-Santiago, Assistant United States Attorney, District of Puerto Rico, were on brief for appellee.
Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, LEVAL,* Senior Circuit Judge, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.
This consolidated appeal concerns a scheme to embezzle and launder funds for a union health plan. The eleven defendants-appellants were employees of the Puerto Rico Aqueducts and Sewer Authority (the Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados de Puerto Rico, hereinafter the "AAA") and officials of the Unión Independiente Auténtica de Empleados de la AAA (hereinafter the "Union"). Each defendant was convicted after a jury trial of embezzling and laundering funds designated for a health plan administered by the Union. The appeal raises numerous issues concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, trial procedure, and sentencing. After careful consideration, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
The following facts are based on the evidence presented at trial.
There are eleven appellant-defendants in this consolidated appeal (together, the "Defendants"). They are:
(1) Héctor René Lugo-Ríos ("Lugo")
(2) Andrés Carrasquillo-Colón ("Carrasquillo")
(3) Elba García-Pastrana ("García")
(4) Felipe Román-Lozada ("Román")
(5) Jesús Caraballo-Ortiz ("Caraballo")
(6) Luis Andino-Delbrey ("Andino")
(7) Francisco Martínez-Irizarry ("Martínez")
(8) Juan Ramos-Hernández ("Ramos")
(9) Enrique Vázquez-Préstamo ("Vázquez")
(10) Jorge L. Urbina-Acevedo ("Urbina")
(11) Juan Roldán-Vega ("Roldán")
The Defendants were non-management, "regular" employees of AAA, a public utility company providing water and sewer services to Puerto Rico's residents. Each defendant was also a member of the Union, which represented AAA's non-management employees. Management employees of AAA were members of a different union, called Hermandad Independiente Empleados Profesionales de la AAA ("HIEPPA").
At all times relevant to this appeal, the Union had approximately 4,500 total members, and each member paid $7 per month in membership dues. The Union had other funds. Apart from the health plan contributions at issue in this appeal, the Union also received (1) monthly contributions to "a temporary disability insurance" program known as the "SINOT and Uniform Benefits program" (hereinafter "SINOT");1 (2) monthly contributions to an employee savings and retirement program; and (3) money received by the Union for renting out a parking lot.
The Union's composition, activities, and finances were governed by two documents: (1) a constitution and (2) a collective bargaining agreement with the AAA.2 The Union's constitution established a Central Executive Committee ("CEC") responsible for the Union's finances and day-to-day administration. The CEC consisted of a president, vice president, executive secretary, and treasurer, as well as a single representative from each of the Union's seven local chapters. At all times relevant to this appeal, Lugo, Carrasquillo, García, and Román served as the president, vice president, executive secretary, and treasurer, respectively, of the CEC (together, the "Top Four Defendants"). At all times relevant to this appeal, Caraballo, Andino, Martínez, Ramos, Vázquez, Urbina, and Roldán were presidents of the Union's seven local chapters (together, the "Chapter Presidents").
The Union did not provide a salary for CEC officers. Instead, the officers were paid under a labor leave with pay provision in the collective bargaining agreement. Under that "labor leave" provision, also referred to as a "labor license," the AAA paid the officers their full salaries, but excused the officers from their AAA jobs to work full time for the Union.3
Under the collective-bargaining agreement, the AAA agreed to contribute a fixed amount per month to a "health insurance plan" for every Union member.4 At all times relevant to this appeal, the monthly contributions ranged from $232 to $355 per member.
Until 1993, the Union used the AAA's contributions to administer a health plan called Plan de Salud UIA (the "Old Health Plan"). The Old Health Plan was not incorporated as a "health service organization" and thus was not subject to the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico's Office of the Insurance Commissioner (the "OIC").
In late 1993, the CEC incorporated the Union-operated plan as a health service organization, Plan de Salud UIA (the "Health Plan" or "Plan"). Defendants Lugo, Carrasquillo, García, and Román filed paperwork certifying that the Union would administer the AAA's medical contributions "in compliance with" and otherwise be subject to "the Puerto Rico Insurance Code." In incorporating the Health Plan, the Union complied with provisions of the collective bargaining agreement that required that "[t]he Union ... contract the services of a medical plan that is authorized by the [OIC]" and that "the medical plan fully compl[y] with all the requirements imposed by the [OIC]."5
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Newell
......We emphasize that the case before us rests on malfeasance involving federal grant money, in which the federal interest is clear. It would be a different case if the counts attempted to ......
-
United States v. Wright
......In his brief to us on appeal, as in his memorandum below, Wright relies on Keith to advance that argument. In particular, Wright stresses that Keith holds that ......
-
United States v. Olive
......He also directs us to the Tennessee statute governing charitable organizations, which provides in part as follows: Any organization which has applied for but not ......
-
United States v. McCurdy, 1:06–cr–00080–JAW.
...... Q. I see. So you didn't look to get anything, but now you're telling us you were .. getting [a] Christmas card for your daughter? A. A Christmas card. I don't understand. Id. at 47:22–48:13. After ......
-
Health care fraud
...a “specific intent to deceive” was not required under the “knowingly and willfully” standard); United States v. Garcia-Pastrana, 584 F.3d 351, 377–79 (1st Cir. 2009) (defining and applying the “knowingly and willfully” element of § 669); see also United States v. Newell 658 F.3d 1, 18 (1s......
-
Health Care Fraud
...that a “specific intent to deceive” was not required under the “knowingly and willfully” standard); United States v. Garcia-Pastrana, 584 F.3d 351, 377–79 (1st Cir. 2009) (defining and applying the “knowingly and willfully” element of § 669); United States v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d 683, 688–90......