United States v. Owusu Firempong

MEMORANDUM

Owusu Ananeh Firempong appeals his conviction for health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. In his opening brief, Firempong argues only that Dr. Owens’ testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2)’s “identity” exception. Thus, to the extent that Owens’ testimony may have been admissible under Rule 404(b)(2)’s “plan” exception, this argument is waived. See United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236,1238 (9th Cir.2005).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Owens’ testimony was character and-propensity evidence, and not evidence of identity — the argument Firempong does advance on appeal. Owens would have testified that HB Financial and Sirin Billing had previously duped her into submitting false bills to Medicare, supporting an impermissible inference that they had a propensity to dupe doctors, and, in conformity with this -character, they also duped Firempong. See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)(1); United States v. McCourt, 925 F.2d 1229, 1235 (9th Cir.1991) (“Evidence of ‘other crimes, wrongs, or acts,’ no matter by whom offered, is not admissible for the…