United States v. Mary Lim

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur with the majority’s determination that there was insufficient evidence on Counts 1 through 8. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that there was insufficient evidence as to Counts 9 and 10. Viewing all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the government, a rational juror could have determined that the “S.C.” listed in Counts 9 and 10 of the indictment referred to witness Soon Ok Chu, who testified at trial. Chu testified that she never met with a doctor and never received physical therapy, so a rational juror could have determined that any Medicare claims submitted on her behalf were false, regardless of the date they were submitted. Nonetheless, based on the government’s concession that retrial is required based on the erroneous admission of hearsay testimony, Lim’s convictions on Counts 9 and 10 must be vacated. I would therefore reverse and remand for retrial on Counts 9 and 10.

MEMORANDUM *

Mary Lim appeals a judgment following a jury verdict convicting her of ten counts of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 . Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them except as necessary. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we reverse.

Lim challenges the sufficiency of the evidence the prosecution presented to support her convictions. We review claims of insufficient evidence de novo. United States v. Wright, 625 F.3d 583, 590 (9th Cir.2010). We consider whether “[v]iew-ing all the evidence introduced at trial, including the erroneously admitted [evidence], in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt[.]” United States v. Preston, 751 F.3d 1008, 1029 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 40-41 , 109 S.Ct. 285 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988)).

The government concedes that there was insufficient evidence to support counts one through eight; we agree. We also find that the evidence presented was insufficient to support counts nine and ten. Each submission of…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50520

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 8:11-cr-00181-JLS-

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MARY LIM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 10, 2015 Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN, WATFORD, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Mary Lim appeals a judgment following a jury verdict convicting her of ten

counts of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347. Because the parties

are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them except as necessary. Having

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Lim challenges the sufficiency of the evidence the prosecution presented to

support her convictions. We review claims of insufficient evidence de novo.

United States v.…