United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 30, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20749
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANA LILIA GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-01-CR-399-5)
--------------------
Before WIENER, DeMOSS and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Ana Lilia Garcia appeals her conviction
and sentence for eleven counts of aiding and abetting mail fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 2. Her convictions stem from her
work at a clinic that provided physical therapy services to
accident victims but billed for services that were not provided.
These bills were submitted to insurance companies which in turn
issued settlement checks on behalf of the patients. Garcia
contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
show that she participated in or had knowledge of any fraudulent
conduct. She also argues that the government presented
insufficient evidence that the United States mail was used.
Specifically, she asserts that no one with personal knowledge of
the settlement checks testified regarding their mailing and that
none of the claimants testified that they received such checks in
the mail.
The government was required to establish Garcia’s
participation in the fraud, not that she took part in every aspect
of the scheme. See United States v. Floyd, 343 F.3d 363, 371 (5th
Cir. 2003); United States v. Tencer, 107 F.3d 1120, 1127 (5th Cir.
1997). One of the witnesses testified that he was referred to the
clinic by Garcia’s brother and that Garcia had him sign a number of
forms that were not dated or filled out. He testified that he had
signed for more therapy than he received and that he had been paid
based on this documentation. He also stated that Garcia provided
his therapy. Garcia’s brother filed a claim based on the same
accident although the witness did not recall the brother being an
occupant of his vehicle. Garcia provided some of her brother’s
physical therapy treatment. Dr. Sunil Vachhani, a chiropractor who
worked at Medcare, testified that he informed Garcia that he had
observed patient logs with signatures for patients who had not been
seen and that he had spoken with one of Garcia’s co-workers about
therapy notes being filled out for multiple days when the patient
was not present. A co-defendant testified that Garcia wrote
2
patient comments for her because Garcia’s English was better than
her own. Evidence also was presented that Garcia dealt with the
insurance companies. Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could have
found the evidence sufficient to establish Garcia’s knowledge of
and involvement in aiding and abetting the scheme to defraud. See
United States v. Bieganowski, 313 F.3d 264, 275 (5th Cir. 2002);
United States v. Carreon-Palacio, 267 F.3d 381, 389 (5th Cir.
2001).
Copies of the settlement checks, and in one case file copies
of the checks, issued by the insurance companies were admitted into
evidence at trial. Representatives of each of the four insurance
companies involved testified that it was their custom and practice
to mail the settlement checks. Each noted the absence of any
indication in the relevant files that this normal practice was not
followed. The jury was entitled to infer sufficient evidence of
mailing from this evidence. See United States v. Bowman, 783 F.2d
1192, 1197 (5th Cir. 1986). Garcia’s sufficiency argument
regarding use of the mails fails.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain Garcia’s conviction and
sentence. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is, in all
respects,
AFFIRMED.
3
4