United States v. Khan
53 F.3d 507, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 9434, 42 Fed. R. Serv. 201 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(a), a sentencing court abuses its discretion when it orders restitution equal to the full amount of a victim's loss without demonstrating on the record that it has considered the defendant's financial resources, earning ability, and dependents' needs.
Facts:
- From February 1990 to June 1991, Mohammed Sohail Khan led a racketeering enterprise operating through four medical clinics in New York City.
- The enterprise was designed to defraud the New York State Medicaid system of approximately $8 million.
- Khan recruited physicians, including Deborah Williams, Rosaly Saba Khalil, Lancaster Lo, and Gilbert Ross, to act as official Medicaid providers, as only doctors could bill the system.
- Indigent patients were brought to the clinics to undergo medically unnecessary procedures and tests in exchange for prescriptions for drugs they could sell on the street.
- The physicians rarely, if ever, examined patients; the work was performed by physicians' assistants.
- Medicaid was billed under the physicians' provider numbers for the fraudulent services.
- The physicians received the Medicaid payments and then paid a 'kickback' of 30-40% to Khan, often disguised as weekly 'rent' payments of $1500.
- The clinics were unsanitary, lacked proper medical equipment, and had policies designed to maximize billing, such as discouraging less-lucrative follow-up visits.
Procedural Posture:
- Deborah Williams, Rosaly Saba Khalil, Lancaster Lo, and Gilbert Ross were indicted and tried by a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The jury convicted Williams, Khalil, and Lo of conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), mail fraud, and money laundering.
- The jury convicted Ross of all charges except for money laundering.
- Co-conspirator Mohammed Sohail Khan pleaded guilty in the same court.
- The district court sentenced all defendants to prison terms, forfeiture, and restitution. Williams, for example, was ordered to pay $1,814,896 in restitution.
- Williams, Khalil, Lo, Ross, and Khan (as defendants-appellants) appealed their convictions and sentences to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a sentencing court abuse its discretion by ordering a defendant to pay the full amount of loss as restitution without demonstrating on the record that it considered the defendant's financial resources, financial needs, and the needs of the defendant's dependents as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Miner, J.
Yes. A sentencing court abuses its discretion by failing to demonstrate on the record that it considered the mandatory statutory factors before ordering restitution. Section 3664(a) explicitly requires the court to consider not only the victim's loss but also 'the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and the defendant’s dependents.' While the court is not required to make specific findings on each factor, the record must reflect that the consideration took place. Here, the district court simply ordered restitution in an amount equal to the total loss caused by each defendant without any indication that it had considered their ability to pay or other financial circumstances. This failure constitutes an abuse of discretion, requiring remand for proper consideration of the statutory factors. Furthermore, the court also erred by delegating the authority to set restitution payment schedules to the Probation Department, a core judicial function that cannot be delegated.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a crucial procedural safeguard in federal sentencing, ensuring that restitution orders are not merely punitive but are grounded in a realistic assessment of a defendant's ability to pay. It establishes that a silent record on the consideration of statutory financial factors is insufficient and constitutes an abuse of discretion, forcing sentencing judges to be more transparent in their reasoning. The ruling also solidifies the principle that core judicial functions, such as determining the timing and structure of restitution payments, cannot be delegated to non-judicial officers like probation staff. This impacts future sentencing hearings by requiring both defense counsel to present evidence of a client's financial status and judges to explicitly acknowledge this evidence on the record when crafting a restitution order.
