[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
Good morning and may it please the court, Tripp Johnston on behalf of Ms.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
Motley, the appellant in this case.

[00:00:15] Speaker 03:
I will do my best to reserve two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:19] Speaker 03:
On the eve of trial in this case, the Supreme Court decided Dubin, a case that is critical to the issue presented here, which is whether Ms.

[00:00:28] Speaker 03:
Motley should do a mandatory additional two years in prison on top of the 13 years she's serving for the underlying healthcare fraud in this case.

[00:00:38] Speaker 03:
And what Dubin said is a defendant uses another person's means of identification in relation to a predicate offense when the use is at the crux of what makes the conduct criminal.

[00:00:50] Speaker 03:
So we have to look carefully at what the predicate offense is to determine whether the use or misappropriation of an identity will add on this mandatory penalty.

[00:01:01] Speaker 03:
And this is not a case where the government has charged the predicate offense of making a false statement and an application to become a Medicare provider.

[00:01:09] Speaker 03:
It's not a case where the government has alleged obstruction into the investigation of health care fraud that has been discovered.

[00:01:17] Speaker 03:
Instead, it's a case, and I ask the court to look carefully at the actual charging document here in ER 1241 through 44, where the scheme is described as

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
submitting claims for medically unnecessary durable medical equipment, and also submitting claims for either unnecessary or undone repairs.

[00:01:40] Speaker 01:
So just to be clear, could the government have charged Ms.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
Motley with making a false application when she established the two companies in the name of her mother and her nephew?

[00:01:51] Speaker 03:
If the quiz is what would that statute be, I don't know.

[00:01:55] Speaker 03:
But the question is can the 1028A attach to the predicate offense here based on the government's theories.

[00:02:04] Speaker 03:
And I want to go through the government's theories they presented to this court because the actual

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
criminal conduct, the crux of what makes the healthcare fraud illegal is claiming that it's medically necessary, is claiming that you made a repair that was necessary or actually did the repair.

[00:02:23] Speaker 03:
What the government has argued is that this is something else.

[00:02:28] Speaker 03:
But we do have the recent decision of Parvis, which I think is actually Ms.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
Motley's case, not the government's.

[00:02:35] Speaker 03:
And let me start there to give a little more meat to the bones of what the important distinction is.

[00:02:40] Speaker 03:
In Parvis, this case said under Dubin, the underlying predicate offense there was passport fraud.

[00:02:51] Speaker 03:
which the relevant statute defines as willfully and knowingly making any false statement in an application for a passport, essentially in order to obtain that passport.

[00:03:01] Speaker 03:
In that case, this court said that goes to the crux of the criminal conduct.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
The actual predicate offense is

[00:03:09] Speaker 03:
false statements in a passport application.

[00:03:12] Speaker 03:
The defendant in that case submitted a letter purportedly from a doctor whose name and identity she misappropriated to say that her daughter had an illness that didn't require her to be there, which is required.

[00:03:26] Speaker 03:
That goes to the heart of it.

[00:03:27] Speaker 03:
That's a false statement in an application for a passport.

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
But what the government's problem here is

[00:03:33] Speaker 03:
The claim that Ms.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
Motley misappropriated other people's names for ownership of action in CAJA has nothing to do with the specific offense here, or at least the crux of it, because the courts have said there could be a but-for causation if Ms.

[00:03:49] Speaker 03:
Motley hadn't put their names in those applications or misappropriated their names.

[00:03:54] Speaker 03:
That's still not enough to get to crux.

[00:03:56] Speaker 03:
So how do we get to crux?

[00:03:57] Speaker 03:
The government says, we'll look at the way they coded their submissions to Medicare.

[00:04:04] Speaker 03:
That was the KX argument, that every provider has to put a KX beside a request for reimbursement.

[00:04:16] Speaker 03:
It's an honor system.

[00:04:18] Speaker 03:
Medicare is very busy, there are many claims, and their suggestion is somehow by using other people's names as the titular heads of these companies

[00:04:27] Speaker 03:
that that makes it the crux of the problem.

[00:04:29] Speaker 03:
But let's actually look at the evidence that they cited, the transcript evidence, because what we hear from their expert is only that KX tells us that the supplier has reviewed the coverage criteria, that the beneficiary for whom they're submitting the claim meets the coverage criteria, or later on that Medicare requires and expects a provider to be responsible.

[00:04:51] Speaker 03:
The provider in this case is Action and Kaja.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
The provider isn't another individual, whether it's Brian Brown or Ms.

[00:05:04] Speaker 03:
Motley's mother.

[00:05:07] Speaker 00:
Given her criminal record, I mean, there was a risk that if she had submitted

[00:05:12] Speaker 00:
these claims under her name that they would have been rejected by the government.

[00:05:15] Speaker 03:
Judge Lee, I am so glad you asked that question because the government does try to slip this into the brief.

[00:05:21] Speaker 03:
It's a footnote, footnote two on page seven to suggest that very theory.

[00:05:26] Speaker 03:
But look carefully at what the citations are.

[00:05:28] Speaker 03:
Nothing in the evidence before the jury.

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
The question is whether there was sufficient evidence before the jury to support this conviction.

[00:05:35] Speaker 03:
Those convictions are only known from the pre-sentence report.

[00:05:39] Speaker 03:
There was nothing offered at trial to suggest that Ms.

[00:05:43] Speaker 03:
Motley would not be eligible for that.

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
And that's what we have to look at.

[00:05:47] Speaker 03:
We have to look within the record of the trial itself.

[00:05:50] Speaker 02:
So how is it the jury came back with its answer?

[00:05:54] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, if I could answer that question in every case I'd be... But that's the problem here because the standard for sufficiency of evidence for a jury verdict is extraordinarily deferential.

[00:06:05] Speaker 03:
It is your honor.

[00:06:06] Speaker 02:
And the question was put to the jury and they answered it.

[00:06:10] Speaker 03:
They did, but we still have to look ourselves, the court, at the district level when a Rule 29 is made, the appellate court, to determine whether the evidence is sufficient.

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
So did the jury not know about Manson Brown?

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
Sorry, Mance and Brown.

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
Mance and Brown.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
Isn't that her mother and nephew?

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
No, I think that that was before the jury.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
The jury was aware of them, and were they aware that these companies had been incorporated in their names?

[00:06:42] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
And that they had not consented to that?

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
They were not a part of this scheme?

[00:06:47] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
They were aware of that.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
Did they know that Ms.

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
Motley could not have filed those applications in her own name?

[00:06:55] Speaker 03:
They do not know that.

[00:06:56] Speaker 03:
Or the government hasn't pointed to anywhere in the record, and if I missed it, I will be happy to hear what it is and respond in rebuttal.

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
But no, and that's why I think Judge Lee's question is so important.

[00:07:06] Speaker 01:
Go ahead.

[00:07:06] Speaker 01:
Was Ms.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
Motley authorized to sign off on these forms and fill out the forms that had the KX designation on them?

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
Well, that goes to the government's other theory, the audit theory, that even though there's an honor system, compliance teams do regular, unannounced visits at these facilities.

[00:07:24] Speaker 03:
And what we have from the compliance officer who visited both Action and Condra is that Ms.

[00:07:32] Speaker 03:
Motley introduced herself as the manager in charge each time that she was there.

[00:07:38] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:07:38] Speaker 03:
Motley signed the compliance forms.

[00:07:42] Speaker 03:
And again, don't take my word or even the compliance officer's word for it.

[00:07:45] Speaker 03:
Look at the government's exhibits in their supplemental excerpts of record that shows the organizational charts of both action and CAJA, where Tamara Motley is identified as the chief compliance officer.

[00:07:59] Speaker 00:
Well, why does she use Munson Brown's name then?

[00:08:04] Speaker 03:
That's a good question, Your Honor.

[00:08:05] Speaker 03:
And again, we're within the actual record of the trial itself.

[00:08:10] Speaker 03:
The government here on appeal has dropped a footnote to propose a solution.

[00:08:14] Speaker 03:
But that cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes was the evidence sufficient that was presented at trial.

[00:08:22] Speaker 03:
And there's a question of whether they could have presented it, but they didn't try to.

[00:08:25] Speaker 03:
Therefore, there was no litigation on the admissibility of her prior record.

[00:08:30] Speaker 03:
And if you look at the CFR, and I'm sorry, I do want to reserve some time for rebuttal.

[00:08:35] Speaker 01:
I'm still puzzled just a little bit.

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
So let's suppose that there was evidence before the jury that came out of the government's footnote that showed that Ms.

[00:08:45] Speaker 01:
Motley was not eligible to establish these companies

[00:08:47] Speaker 01:
and had to use the names of her mother and nephew in order to do it.

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
That still wouldn't disqualify her from signing the compliance forms, right?

[00:08:57] Speaker 01:
Would she have been disqualified from signing that?

[00:09:00] Speaker 03:
I don't know the answer to that, Judge Bybee, but let me back up just to one part of the premise of your question.

[00:09:06] Speaker 03:
That footnote does not say that she would not have been authorized to set up this Medicare provider service.

[00:09:17] Speaker 03:
If you look at the CFR and you look carefully at what the government says, it says that

[00:09:24] Speaker 03:
Medicare will consider certain felonies.

[00:09:26] Speaker 03:
They list some.

[00:09:27] Speaker 03:
It's not an exclusive list, but none of them are the prior drug possession felony that Ms.

[00:09:33] Speaker 03:
Motley had sustained.

[00:09:36] Speaker 03:
The CFR says nothing about the misdemeanor convictions that the government proposes.

[00:09:42] Speaker 03:
So we can't say with certainty that she would not have been able to do that.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
So to go back to Judge Lee's question, would that be enough?

[00:09:50] Speaker 03:
We don't even know that.

[00:09:51] Speaker 03:
That's why you have trials.

[00:09:52] Speaker 03:
That's why you have

[00:09:53] Speaker 03:
You know, arguments about whether that would even be admissible evidence in this trial in 404 and 401 and 2.

[00:10:00] Speaker 03:
But we don't know.

[00:10:02] Speaker 03:
We simply don't know.

[00:10:03] Speaker 03:
But if you even take that footnote at face value, it says the government doesn't know whether Ms.

[00:10:07] Speaker 03:
Motley could have applied or not.

[00:10:09] Speaker 03:
She did not.

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
We know that.

[00:10:11] Speaker 03:
But that doesn't go to the crux.

[00:10:12] Speaker 00:
I think you've exceeded your time.

[00:10:14] Speaker 00:
We'll give you an extra minute.

[00:10:15] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:10:16] Speaker 00:
I appreciate that.

[00:10:27] Speaker 04:
May it please the court, Kristen Williams, United States.

[00:10:31] Speaker 04:
The narrow question here is whether the defendant's use of her relatives' identities was at the crux of her health care fraud.

[00:10:40] Speaker 04:
And because that evidence was more than sufficient, there was no error, much less plain error, particularly in light of what the court has already recognized as extraordinarily deferential standard that should be applied here.

[00:10:54] Speaker 04:
My colleague suggested to the court

[00:10:56] Speaker 04:
that they should look at the predicate offense and I would encourage the court to do the same.

[00:11:01] Speaker 04:
The predicate offense here is health care fraud and health care fraud in this case was a scheme to submit fraudulent claims

[00:11:10] Speaker 04:
with misrepresentations about the service being provided and whether it was necessary.

[00:11:15] Speaker 04:
And unlike the situation in Dubin or even in Hong, this court's prior opinion relating to a patient's name being used, this was not the use of a patient's name in a claim.

[00:11:28] Speaker 04:
This was a misrepresentation as to who was making the assertion that this claim was valid, was in compliance with the Medicare rules.

[00:11:39] Speaker 04:
And so I think my colleague's argument would imply that there can only be an aggravated identity theft charge when there's some sort of false statement, that it's a 1001 charge or something.

[00:11:53] Speaker 04:
That's never been the law.

[00:11:56] Speaker 04:
It clearly applies in instances where you have wire fraud, mail fraud, here healthcare fraud, which is going to these misrepresentations.

[00:12:04] Speaker 04:
And here, the consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in Dubin, and that is a holding, unlike the case in Dubin, obviously, and in Parviz or in Thomas, which the government cited, the jury here was quite aware not only that it needed to be used in relation to, but that it also needed to go to the crux of the fraud.

[00:12:28] Speaker 04:
And so both the evidence was admitted as to that.

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
So what goes to the crux of the fraud here?

[00:12:37] Speaker 04:
Multiple things.

[00:12:38] Speaker 04:
So the use of those names in the applications created basically, opened the door for Action and Kaja to be able to build, right?

[00:12:49] Speaker 04:
It's not just even a name on an incorporation document for Action or Kaja, even though that was also present here.

[00:12:56] Speaker 04:
In the Medicare provider application, as Cindy White testified,

[00:12:59] Speaker 04:
The provider, and it's not a provider in an abstract corporate sense, Action Kaja.

[00:13:04] Speaker 04:
There is an actual authorized official.

[00:13:07] Speaker 04:
And that's what Ms.

[00:13:08] Speaker 04:
Muntz or Mr. Brown were identified as the authorized officials.

[00:13:11] Speaker 04:
What do they have to do in order to get this provider number in order to be able to bill?

[00:13:16] Speaker 04:
They have to promise that they're not going to submit fraudulent claims.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
They're going to know and abide by all the Medicare rules.

[00:13:24] Speaker 04:
And so that's the sort of initial.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
You can't get the provider number in order to be able to bill unless... So if Ms.

[00:13:32] Speaker 01:
Muntz had not had any priors, and if she had filed for Kaja and Action in her own name, then would we be here under any ID fraud?

[00:13:41] Speaker 01:
The fraud really is in the setting up of Kaja and Action, right?

[00:13:45] Speaker 04:
Not entirely, Your Honor, because you have this sort of setup of the initial provider application, which allows you to bill, allows you to get paid.

[00:13:54] Speaker 04:
But then you go beyond that.

[00:13:56] Speaker 04:
You heard there was testimony in the record about supplemental enrollment applications.

[00:14:02] Speaker 04:
Again, the same names persist in those, Muntz and Brown.

[00:14:05] Speaker 04:
You also have each of the claims themselves submitted with that modifier.

[00:14:10] Speaker 04:
So each and every claim in this case, the provider, in this instance, the authorized official, Ms.

[00:14:16] Speaker 04:
Muntz, Mr. Brown, are saying, I certify that this claim follows the Medicare rules, is compliant with... You're talking about every time they've submitted a bill?

[00:14:26] Speaker 04:
Every single time a claim was submitted.

[00:14:28] Speaker 01:
But didn't Ms.

[00:14:29] Speaker 01:
Motley sign those?

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
No, the the claims are submitted electronically your honor.

[00:14:35] Speaker 04:
I believe that's exhibit an exhibit in our ser their name on them There is a provider name on them.

[00:14:40] Speaker 01:
Yes, just a kaja or or Or does it or does it have a person's name on it it has the provider number for action kaja So that but it doesn't have it doesn't have any person's name on it

[00:14:52] Speaker 04:
It does not, the only person's name is the patient name.

[00:14:55] Speaker 04:
But the person or the provider that is supplying that is, again, going back to the authorized official that is Mr. Brown or Ms.

[00:15:05] Speaker 04:
Muntz, depending on the particular case.

[00:15:07] Speaker 04:
And then, in order to be able to continue to submit those claims, most of the claims in this case came after multiple inspections along the way.

[00:15:15] Speaker 04:
Why does Medicare do those inspections?

[00:15:17] Speaker 04:
Through places like the compliance team.

[00:15:19] Speaker 04:
As Ms.

[00:15:19] Speaker 04:
Bodman testified at trial, basically Medicare is looking to determine who is responsible, is there training to make sure that the

[00:15:30] Speaker 04:
The Medicare's rules are going to be followed.

[00:15:33] Speaker 04:
Who's in charge?

[00:15:34] Speaker 04:
And so as a part of that, the inspectors look at training records.

[00:15:40] Speaker 04:
They look at the meeting minutes for corporation meeting minutes.

[00:15:45] Speaker 04:
All of that, again, Ms.

[00:15:46] Speaker 04:
Motley is affirmatively representing either by directing her employees to provide these personnel files that make it seem like it's Mr. Brown,

[00:15:56] Speaker 04:
or Ms.

[00:15:56] Speaker 04:
Muntz, or she's actually saying it herself, I'm just a manager on call, I'm just a consultant, the actual owner is Ms.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
Muntz.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
Let's suppose that her mother had set up the company knowingly.

[00:16:11] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:16:12] Speaker 01:
And then said to Motley, I would like you to manage these operations.

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
I don't want to be here day to day, and I trust you, you know this business better than I do, run the business for me.

[00:16:24] Speaker 01:
Is there a problem?

[00:16:25] Speaker 04:
There is not a problem that is so that is a scenario that happens, but we don't have a 1028 a problem if So but that's not the situation.

[00:16:34] Speaker 01:
I understand.

[00:16:35] Speaker 01:
I'm just trying to get an answer to my question So is there a 1028 problem there there is?

[00:16:41] Speaker 04:
In a scenario in which miss months has Set it up herself knowingly provided that her daughter can do this I think the question there would still be is she providing

[00:16:54] Speaker 04:
Miss Motley with that authority to commit fraud so Why would that matter?

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
Why would that matter what what is she what is she?

[00:17:05] Speaker 01:
You know if frauds going to be done you're going to have fraud but the question here is whether we've got ID fraud not whether we've defrauded the government there's clearly a defrauding of the government going on in the way that we're submitting these bills the question is whether you get an enhancement for ID for the use of an ID

[00:17:22] Speaker 04:
Yes, your honor.

[00:17:22] Speaker 04:
And I think that goes to, again, is Ms.

[00:17:25] Speaker 04:
Motley misrepresenting who is involved in actually certifying these claims?

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
Okay, the hypothetical I gave you is her mother says, please set up this company for me.

[00:17:35] Speaker 01:
I'll bankroll it.

[00:17:37] Speaker 01:
You manage it.

[00:17:38] Speaker 01:
I don't want to be there day to day.

[00:17:39] Speaker 01:
Now, is there an ID problem here?

[00:17:44] Speaker 04:
Well, but in that scenario, Your Honor, you haven't gotten to the predicate fraud for the name to be used in connection with that, right?

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
You have a scenario where- Sure, but Kasia and Action will be submitting the bills.

[00:17:56] Speaker 01:
The bills will be fraudulent, just as they were in this case.

[00:17:59] Speaker 01:
They're not medically necessary.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
So there's still Medicare fraud going on, and you can prosecute the fraud.

[00:18:06] Speaker 01:
The question is, do you get an enhancement for the use of the ID?

[00:18:10] Speaker 04:
Well, I think, Your Honor, under Osuna Alvarez, you still potentially would, because it would be without that lawful authorization.

[00:18:16] Speaker 04:
Now, I want to say that that was an argument that was being made.

[00:18:20] Speaker 01:
And you think that's a good argument under Dubin?

[00:18:23] Speaker 04:
I think, Your Honor, that the Dubin court did not want to reach that issue and did not reach that issue of the actual without lawful authorization.

[00:18:30] Speaker 04:
But that's not what's before the court.

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
So what puts us at the crux of the criminal act, in this case, the fraud?

[00:18:36] Speaker 02:
I mean, the hypothetical is clearly distinguished from the facts we have here, but what is it the jury had to conclude that it wasn't just using somebody's name, unless they're allowed to make an inference that using somebody's name must have some motive, but was there any evidence specifically given to the jury to explain why a defendant couldn't or chose not to use her own name?

[00:19:07] Speaker 04:
Well, I think the jury had a couple of things before it.

[00:19:10] Speaker 04:
So first off, there is the simple premise that people who are committing fraud often have somebody else that they want to hold out as the fall guys, the scapegoat.

[00:19:19] Speaker 04:
In this instance also, it would not have been that Ms.

[00:19:22] Speaker 04:
Muntz and Mr. Brown's names were definitely useful to Ms.

[00:19:27] Speaker 04:
Motley because they obscured the common ownership and control of the two companies.

[00:19:32] Speaker 04:
There was information in the record about that.

[00:19:34] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:19:35] Speaker 04:
Bodman said when she showed up at the inspection for CAJA, and Ms.

[00:19:38] Speaker 04:
Motley was there too, had no idea that there was a common control.

[00:19:42] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:19:42] Speaker 04:
White testified that in looking at those enrollment applications with two different people without, for instance,

[00:19:48] Speaker 04:
going to Judge Bybee's earlier point about, I'm giving you, Ms.

[00:19:54] Speaker 04:
Motley, authority.

[00:19:55] Speaker 04:
That authority, again, there would have to be in the Medicare enrollment application, you identify the managers, the other people who have sort of authority in there.

[00:20:05] Speaker 04:
So you still have a scenario in which there is a concealment

[00:20:09] Speaker 04:
there if that person is not identified.

[00:20:11] Speaker 04:
So you both have the knowledge that people are concealing something because they want to not be responsible for the fraud.

[00:20:20] Speaker 04:
You have the separation of the two companies, even though they're commonly controlled.

[00:20:24] Speaker 04:
And as to that footnote, my colleague is absolutely right.

[00:20:28] Speaker 04:
It is not in the record before the jury, but it is in the record.

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
And to the extent we've got plain error here and a manifest injustice, I think you could consider it for that purpose.

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
Wait a minute.

[00:20:40] Speaker 01:
It's not before the jury?

[00:20:41] Speaker 04:
The fact of her prior felonies is not before the jury.

[00:20:47] Speaker 04:
The fact of the application asking for criminal history, yes, the jury did have the application itself in front of it.

[00:20:54] Speaker 01:
So we did know that.

[00:20:56] Speaker 01:
They didn't know that she would have applied through Manson Brown because she had prior felonies.

[00:21:02] Speaker 04:
Right, and I think, Your Honor, that that may have been a part of it.

[00:21:05] Speaker 04:
That part was in front of the jury.

[00:21:07] Speaker 04:
The part that was in front of the jury is that she's not doing it in her own name, and she's not doing it in a way that is going to reveal that she has common control and ownership over both companies.

[00:21:17] Speaker 04:
So that was certainly before the jury.

[00:21:19] Speaker 04:
She's disguising the common control and disguising who is responsible for the fraud by using her relatives' names in the application process.

[00:21:29] Speaker 04:
in submitting the claims and in the inspections that allow the billing to keep going.

[00:21:34] Speaker 04:
And I see I'm well over my time.

[00:21:35] Speaker 04:
So if there are no other questions, I will submit that the court's decision should be affirmed, jury verdict should be affirmed.

[00:21:41] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:21:47] Speaker 03:
Judge Bobby, one of the first questions you asked is if she submitted the false ownership documents and got the Medicare provider number, is that the crux of the fraud?

[00:21:56] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:21:57] Speaker 03:
That's a but for cause.

[00:21:58] Speaker 03:
Had she not done that, she could not do the fraudulent billing.

[00:22:02] Speaker 03:
But the question of fraudulent billing is not Ms.

[00:22:06] Speaker 03:
Motley hiding it from anyone.

[00:22:07] Speaker 03:
I invite the court to read the compliance officer's full testimony at ER 785 through 830 to see that Ms.

[00:22:14] Speaker 03:
Motley at every opportunity holds herself out

[00:22:18] Speaker 03:
to not be the visiting manager, someone overseeing things, I am the manager in charge.

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
I think that's at 800-801.

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
Repeatedly, Ms.

[00:22:27] Speaker 03:
Motley is signing off on the compliance reports.

[00:22:30] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:22:30] Speaker 03:
Motley is signing off on the inspection reports.

[00:22:33] Speaker 03:
She is holding herself out.

[00:22:35] Speaker 03:
And the government says, but she puts these other people forward so that she can hide behind the curtain in case fraud is found.

[00:22:43] Speaker 03:
The fraud is the fraud.

[00:22:45] Speaker 03:
What happens in the investigation of the fraud could be other criminal charges.

[00:22:49] Speaker 03:
But it is important.

[00:22:51] Speaker 01:
If we agreed with you here, what do we do?

[00:22:54] Speaker 01:
You would vacate the 1028A convictions.

[00:22:57] Speaker 01:
She still has the 1347 conviction?

[00:22:59] Speaker 01:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:23:02] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:23:03] Speaker 00:
Great.

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
Thank you both for the helpful argument.

[00:23:06] Speaker 00:
The case has been submitted.