Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Manzano

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

November 17, 2017

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Editha Manzano, Victoria Gallardo-Navarra, M.D., and Juan Yrorita, R.N. Defendants.

          David R. Grand United States Magistrate Judge.

         ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT NAVARRA'S OBJECTION TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER EVIDENCE OF ACTS “INTRINSIC” TO THE CHARGED OFFENSE [88] AND DENYING DEFENDANT NAVARRA AND DEFENDANT YRORITA'S MOTIONS TO ADJOURN THE NOVEMBER 21, 2017 TRIAL DATE [86, 87]

          GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. Introduction

         On September 1, 2016, a grand jury indicted Defendant One Editha Manzano (“Manzano”), Defendant Four Victoria Gallardo-Navarra (“Navarra”), and Defendant Five Juan Yrorita (“Yrorita”). Dkt. No. 1. The Indictment charged all three defendants with engaging in a conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count I). See Id. Additionally, the Indictment charged Manzano with engaging in a conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count II), and health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 (Count V). See id.

         On October 25, 2017, the Government filed a Notice of Intent to Offer Evidence of Acts “Intrinsic” to the Offense Charged as to Defendant Navarra. See Dkt. No. 82. Specifically, evidence that Defendant Navarra allegedly made false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for physician services.[1] See Id. Presently before the Court is Defendant Navarra's November 10, 2017 Objection to the Government's Notice of Intent to Offer Evidence of Acts “Intrinsic” to the Charged Offense. See Dkt. No. 88.

         Also before the Court are Defendant Navarra and Defendant Yrorita's Motions to Adjourn the November 21, 2017 Trial Date, given the offer of “intrinsic” evidence and Rule 404(b) Notice regarding Navarra and the Government's November 2017 productions. See Dkt. Nos. 86, 87.

         The Court held a hearing on these issues on November 15, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. Ruling from the bench, the Court OVERRULED Defendant Navarra's Objection to the Government's Notice of Intent to Offer “Intrinsic” Evidence and Notice of Rule 404(b) Evidence, and DENIED Defendants' Motions to Adjourn the November 21, 2017 Trial Date. The Court's reasoning is detailed herein.

         II. Discussion

         The Court will overrule Defendant Navarra's Objection to the Government's Offer of “Intrinsic” Evidence and Notice of Rule 404(b) Evidence. Second, the Court will deny Defendant Navarra and Defendant Yrorita's Motions to Adjourn the November 21, 2017 Trial Date because most of the material Defendants seek time to review is no longer at issue. Specifically, the Government's recent productions principally relate to a witness, Emma King, whom the Government had originally intended to present at trial. In its response to Defendants' motions to adjourn the trial, however, the Government represented that it has elected to not call that witness.

         The Court will first address the Government's Notice of Intent to Offer Evidence of Acts “Intrinsic” to the Charged Offense, in particular, evidence that Defendant Navarra submitted claims to Medicare that were allegedly false and fraudulent.

         A. The Government's Notice of Intent to Offer Evidence of Acts Intrinsic to the Charged Offense

         The Government contends Navarra submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for physician services that she allegedly provided to beneficiaries- beneficiaries who she also certified for home health care services from Anointed Care Services LLC (“Anointed”). Dkt. No. 82, p. 1 (Pg. ID 346). The Government argues evidence of these claims is admissible because it is intrinsic to, or inextricably intertwined with evidence of, the offense charged in the Indictment. Id. Alternatively, the Government offers this evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” The Court finds persuasive both of the Government's arguments.

         Turning to the first argument, United States v. Barnes, 49 F.3d 1144 (6th 1995), is instructive. There, the Sixth Circuit observed that “extrinsic” crimes or wrongs are those that have “occurred at different times and under different circumstances from the offense charged.” Id. at 1149. Intrinsic crimes or wrongs, however, “are those that are part of a single criminal episode.” Id. Consequently, “Rule 404(b) is not implicated when the other crimes or wrongs evidence is part of a continuing pattern of illegal activity. When that circumstance applies, the government has no duty to disclose the other crimes or wrongs evidence.” Id. In Barnes, testimony of an “earlier ‘short' drug ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.