United States v. Lundahl ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Appellate Case: 21-8061     Document: 010110679614      Date Filed: 05/04/2022    Page: 1
    FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           May 4, 2022
    _________________________________
    Christopher M. Wolpert
    Clerk of Court
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.                                                          No. 21-8061
    (D.C. No. 1:20-CR-00048-NDF-1)
    HOLLI TELFORD LUNDAHL, a/k/a                                 (D. Wyo.)
    Holli Lundahl, a/k/a Holli Telford, a/k/a
    Hollie Lundahl, a/k/a Hollie Telford, a/k/a
    Holly Lundell,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    _________________________________
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    _________________________________
    Before MORITZ, KELLY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________
    Defendant-Appellant Holli Lundahl was convicted of three counts of
    healthcare fraud in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1347
     and two counts of aggravated
    identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A and sentenced to thirty-six months in
    prison. She then filed this pro se appeal. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , we affirm.
    *
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
    precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
    estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
    Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    Appellate Case: 21-8061    Document: 010110679614        Date Filed: 05/04/2022    Page: 2
    I. Background
    Ms. Lundahl’s sister, Marti, was a Wyoming Medicaid beneficiary who
    received participant-directed in-home services through the state’s home and
    community-based services (HCBS) waiver program called Community Choices
    Waiver (CCW).1 The participant-directed option allows participants to employ a
    direct service worker (DSW) who Medicaid then pays. At trial, the government
    presented evidence that showed Ms. Lundahl defrauded Wyoming Medicaid by
    submitting false statements about Marti’s CCW services.
    The evidence at trial showed that Ms. Lundahl enrolled her niece, Shyanne, as
    Marti’s DSW without Shyanne’s knowledge or consent. Ms. Lundahl then submitted
    timesheets in Shyanne’s name as if Shyanne had worked for Marti when she had not.
    Ms. Lundahl then took the resulting wage payments for her own use.
    The evidence also showed that Ms. Lundahl later advertised for a caregiver for
    Marti. She then pretended to hire Sara Brown to obtain her identifying information.
    Ms. Lundahl did not have Sara provide any Medicaid-reimbursed DSW services for
    Marti, but Ms. Lundahl still submitted timesheets in Sara’s name as if Sara worked
    1
    “Under the Medicaid Act, a participating state may ask the Secretary of
    Health and Human Services to provide a waiver allowing the state to pay for [HCBS]
    as medical assistance under its approved Medicaid plan.” Lewis v. New Mexico
    Dep’t of Health, 
    261 F.3d 970
    , 974 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks
    omitted). HCBS may be provided to individuals who would otherwise be
    institutionalized in a hospital, nursing facility, or intermediate care facility for the
    intellectually disabled. CCW is Wyoming Medicaid’s approved HCBS waiver
    program, which was developed to allow individuals who require nursing-home-level
    care to remain in the community.
    2
    Appellate Case: 21-8061     Document: 010110679614       Date Filed: 05/04/2022    Page: 3
    for Marti. She did this without Sara’s knowledge or consent. Again, Ms. Lundahl
    took the resulting wage payments for her own use.
    Finally, the evidence showed that Ms. Lundahl later enrolled as Marti’s DSW
    and submitted timesheets using her own name. In doing so, Ms. Lundahl asserted on
    the enrollment form that she did not have a power of attorney for Marti when in fact
    she did. If Ms. Lundahl had truthfully reported the power of attorney, she would not
    have been qualified to receive Medicaid money as a DSW for Marti.
    Ms. Lundahl represented herself at trial with the assistance of stand-by
    counsel. After a six-day jury trial, she was convicted on three counts of healthcare
    fraud and two counts of aggravated identity theft. She then filed a notice of appeal.
    As part of the instructions on how to proceed in her appeal, this court notified
    Ms. Lundahl that she must file an opening brief within forty days from the date of the
    letter. The letter also instructed Ms. Lundahl that she could use the Pro Se Brief
    form or file a separate brief.
    Ms. Lundahl subsequently filed a motion to stay all proceedings and a separate
    document titled “Appellant/Defendant’s Verified Fourth Motion to Dismiss/Acquit
    Multiplicious [sic] Charges Counts 1-3 of the Indictment Charging a Single Scheme
    of Health Care Fraud, Based on Eleven (11) Jurisdictional and/or Acquittal
    Grounds.” This court entered an order construing the motion to stay as a motion to
    abate the appeal and denied it. This court also informed Ms. Lundahl that her motion
    to dismiss was not a proper motion for summary disposition under Tenth Circuit Rule
    3
    Appellate Case: 21-8061    Document: 010110679614        Date Filed: 05/04/2022    Page: 4
    27.3 and that it would be deemed to be her opening brief if she did not file an
    opening brief by the deadline.
    Ms. Lundahl did not file an opening brief by the deadline (or at any time after
    the deadline). As a result, this court construed her motion to dismiss as her opening
    brief and filed it as such. The government filed a response brief. Ms. Lundahl did
    not file a reply brief.
    II. Discussion
    “Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to
    a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, this court has
    repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern
    other litigants.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 
    425 F.3d 836
    , 840
    (10th Cir. 2005) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Ms. Lundahl was
    given the opportunity to file an opening brief, but she instead chose to let her motion
    to dismiss be filed as her opening brief. Her pro se brief fails to comply with
    Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 and Tenth Circuit Rule 28, and the
    deficiencies in her brief preclude appellate review.
    A. Issues Not Raised in District Court
    The government contends that eight of the eleven issues Ms. Lundahl raises in
    her opening brief were not raised in district court and are therefore subject to review
    for plain error (issues I-VI, VIII and IX). “When a party fails to raise an argument
    below, we typically treat the argument as forfeited” and “we will reverse only if the
    appellant can satisfy our rigorous plain-error test.” United States v. Leffler, 
    942 F.3d
                                               4
    Appellate Case: 21-8061     Document: 010110679614        Date Filed: 05/04/2022      Page: 5
    1192, 1196 (10th Cir. 2019). “To avoid us treating a claim as forfeited or waived, an
    appellant’s opening brief must ‘cite the precise references in the record where the
    issue was raised and ruled on’ in the district court.’” 
    Id.
     (quoting 10th Cir.
    R. 28.1(A)). Ms. Lundahl’s brief does not comply with Tenth Circuit Rule 28.1(A)
    because it contains no references to the record where she raised any of the eight
    issues the government identifies, so “we may assume [she] did not preserve the[se]
    issue[s] for appeal,” Leffler, 942 F.3d at 1196.
    Ms. Lundahl’s brief also fails to argue how these eight issues satisfy the
    plain-error standard. “When an appellant fails to preserve an issue and also fails to
    make a plain-error argument on appeal, we ordinarily deem the issue waived (rather
    than merely forfeited) and decline to review the issue at all—for plain error or
    otherwise.” Id.
    Although it remains an open question, we have suggested that we might
    consider an argument for plain error that was not raised in an opening brief but was
    raised in a reply brief. See United States v. Zander, 
    794 F.3d 1220
    , 1232 n.5
    (10th Cir. 2015); see also United States v. Courtney, 
    816 F.3d 681
    , 683-84
    (10th Cir. 2016) (considering a criminal defendant’s argument for plain error that
    was raised for the first time in his reply brief). But that possibility does not help
    Ms. Lundahl. She did not avail herself of the opportunity to file a reply brief to
    respond to the government’s contention that these issues were not preserved or to
    address whether these issues could satisfy the plain-error standard. Accordingly, we
    decline to review the eight issues the government identifies (issues I-VI, VIII, and
    5
    Appellate Case: 21-8061    Document: 010110679614         Date Filed: 05/04/2022    Page: 6
    IX) because they were not raised in district court and Ms. Lundahl has not shown
    how these issues satisfy the plain-error standard.
    B. Inadequate Briefing
    Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an appellant’s
    opening brief to include: “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with
    citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.”
    Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). And we have explained that “[i]ssues will be deemed
    waived if they are not adequately briefed.” Garrett, 
    425 F.3d at 841
     (internal
    quotation marks omitted). Ms. Lundahl has failed to adequately brief her remaining
    three issues.2
    For issue VII, she asserts that the government “altered and doctored the grand
    jury record,” Aplt. Opening Br. at 26, and engaged in other misconduct. In thirteen
    pages of argument, Ms. Lundahl includes only one record citation, see 
    id.
     at 38
    (citing Doc. 201). Document 201 is a motion to dismiss that she filed but she gives
    no pinpoint page citations to evidence in that document; her citation simply states
    “[a]lso see Doc. 201.” 
    Id.
     This lone citation, without more, is wholly inadequate to
    support her assertion of government misconduct.3
    2
    We note that Ms. Lundahl cites documents 342 and 343 in her discussion of
    these three issues, but those documents are not part of the record on appeal. She filed
    those documents in district court after she filed her notice of appeal and the district
    court struck them.
    3
    We also note that, during trial, the district court concluded that
    Ms. Lundahl’s accusations concerning government misconduct and fabrication of
    6
    Appellate Case: 21-8061    Document: 010110679614         Date Filed: 05/04/2022    Page: 7
    For issue X, Ms. Lundahl argues that criminal estoppel bars the prosecution
    and jury verdict because she “was denied the right at trial, to either testify about
    numerous laws she relied upon . . . , or to submit any of these laws to the jury.” Id. at
    46. And for issue XI, she contends that “Wyoming Medicaid suffered no ‘purchasing
    injury’ because [she] performed 4 to 6 times more in daily hourly services than
    reimbursed by Medicaid, thus no corpus delicti injury.” Id. at 47. But she fails to
    cite to any part of the record to support these arguments.
    Absent citations to the record in a party’s brief, the court “will not sift through
    the record to find support for” an argument. Phillips v. James, 
    422 F.3d 1075
    , 1081
    (10th Cir. 2005). Even when affording pro se pleadings a liberal construction, we
    “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing
    arguments and searching the record.” Garrett, 
    425 F.3d at 840
    . We conclude that
    Ms. Lundahl’s pleading deficiencies disentitle her to appellate review of her
    remaining three issues (issues VII, X, and XI).
    III. Conclusion
    We affirm the district court’s judgment.
    Entered for the Court
    Joel M. Carson III
    Circuit Judge
    evidence were “unfounded,” R., Vol. IV at 868, and when asked, standby counsel
    stated that he saw no evidence of government misconduct, 
    id. at 868-69
    .
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-8061

Filed Date: 5/4/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/4/2022