United States v. Holden, No. 13-30308 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for 32 counts of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1347. Defendant challenged the Second Superseding Indictment on several grounds. The court rejected defendant's statute of limitations claims, concluding that the district court did not err by allowing the government to proceed on revised Count 41 where the alleged scheme was executed less than five years before the original indictment was filed. So long as the “indictment was written so as to allege only one execution of an ongoing scheme,” the court held that the government may charge a single health care fraud scheme in violation of section 1347 even when several acts in furtherance of the scheme fall outside the statute of limitations. The court rejected defendant's other challenges to the indictment, concluding that Count 41 did not improperly broadened the charges against him; Count 41 did not allege an execution of a fraudulent scheme, and the Second Superseding Indictment did not improperly expand the indictment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a conviction for thirty-two counts of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that revised Count 41 was barred by the statute of limitations. The panel held that health care fraud in violation of § 1347 is a continuing offense, and that so long as the indictment was, as here, written so as to allege only one execution of an ongoing scheme, the government may charge a single health care fraud scheme even when several acts in furtherance of the scheme fall outside the statute of limitations. The panel rejected the defendant’s contentions that revised Count 41 impermissibly broadened the charges against him, that revised Count 41 did not allege an execution of a fraudulent scheme, and that the Second Superseding Indictment improperly expanded the original indictment. The panel resolved other issues in a concurrently-filed memorandum disposition. UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN 3
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.