United States v. Rita Hunter, No. 13-2440 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The district court did not plainly err in imposing restitution for the uncontested amount of pecuniary loss to Medicaid, the victim of defendant's fraud. [ December 23, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2440 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Rita Frances Hunter lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin ____________ Submitted: December 23, 2013 Filed: December 26, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After Rita Hunter pleaded guilty to document fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 2, the district court1 imposed a sentence of 12 months and 1 day in 1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. prison and 3 years of supervised release, and ordered Hunter to pay $120,000 in restitution. On appeal, Hunter s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the imposition of restitution. We conclude that the court did not plainly err in imposing restitution for the uncontested amount of pecuniary loss to Medicaid, the victim of Hunter s fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)-(B); United States v. Schmidt, 675 F.3d 1164, 1167-69 (8th Cir. 2012) ( victims owed restitution include governmental agencies); United States v. Louper-Morris, 672 F.3d 539, 566 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
