United States v. Oriakhi

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GODWIN ORIAKHI Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-19-4229

(CRIMINAL NO.) H-15-319-01

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

December 18, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The defendant, Godwin Oriakhi (BOP # 90385-379) ("Defendant"), has filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody ("Amended § 2255 Motion") (Docket Entry No. 274). The government has filed United States' Response in Opposition ("United States' Response") (Docket Entry No. 292), arguing that Defendant's Amended § 2255 Motion is without merit.¹ The court has carefully reviewed all of the parties' arguments. Based on this review, the court's recollection of the relevant proceedings, and the application of governing legal authorities, the Amended § 2255 Motion will be denied, and the corresponding Civil Action No. H-19-4229 will be dismissed for the reasons explained below.

I. Background

Defendant was first charged with violations of federal law by an indictment returned on June 11, 2015.² On June 16, 2016, a federal grand jury returned a second superseding indictment charging Defendant with ten counts: two counts of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Counts 1 and 2);³ three counts of healthcare fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1347 (Counts 3 to 5);⁴ one count of conspiracy to pay and receive healthcare kickbacks, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count 6);⁵ three counts of payment and receipt of healthcare kickbacks, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b (b)(1) and (b)(2) (Counts 7 to 9);⁶ and one count of money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 13).⁷

The second superseding indictment charged that Defendant and three co-defendants including his daughter, Idia Oriakhi, paid kickbacks to refer Medicare beneficiaries to a home healthcare company that they owned and controlled, and then fraudulently billed Medicare and Medicaid for home health services that thebeneficiaries never received, did not need, and did not qualify for.⁸

Defendant was arraigned on the second superseding indictment on June 24, 2016, and entered a plea of not guilty.⁹ Defense counsel Sean Buckley represented Defendant at the arraignment.¹⁰ Buckley had been representing Defendant since November of 2015 following the return of the first superseding indictment.¹¹ The case was set for trial on February 6, 2017.¹²

On January 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge Nancy K. Johnson held a hearing on whether to revoke Defendant's pretrial release based on the allegation that Defendant had maintained contact with his daughter Ikia Oriakhi while on bond and that he had directed her to destroy evidence subpoenaed by the United States.¹³ Testimony adduced at the hearing led Magistrate Judge Johnson to find clear and convincing evidence that Defendant violated the court's OrderSetting Conditions of Release by having contact with his daughter.¹⁴ Judge Johnson also found that there was probable cause to believe that Defendant violated the terms of his release by instructing his daughter to destroy records that had been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury.¹⁵ Accordingly, Judge Johnson ordered that Defendant be held in custody pending trial.¹⁶

On March 30, 2017, Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to two counts of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.¹⁷ As the factual basis for his plea, Defendant agreed that he, his daughter, and other members of his family owned, operated, and controlled five home healthcare agencies in and around Houston, Texas (the "Oriakhi Companies").¹⁸ Defendant admitted under oath that he and his co-defendants had paid illegal kickbacks to patient recruiters to refer patients to the Oriakhi Companies and that he and his co-defendants had then submitted claims to Medicare and Medicaid for providing home healthcare services to these patients.¹⁹ Defendant admitted that by enrolling inMedicare and Medicaid and submitting claims to these programs he was certifying that he was complying with all laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.²⁰ Defendant admitted that by making claims to Medicare and Medicaid for patients procured through an illegal kickback payment, he was submitting fraudulent claims to Medicare and Medicaid.²¹ Defendant used the Medicare and Medicaid payments on the fraudulent claims to pay illegal kickbacks to patient recruiters, employees, physicians, and patients to promote his healthcare fraud conspiracies and ensure their successful continuation.²²

At Defendant's re-arraignment hearing on March 30, 2017, the following colloquy took place:

THE COURT: Mr. Oriakhi, before I can accept your plea, I must ask you a number of questions. It is very important that you listen carefully to all of my questions and that you answer all of my questions truthfully and completely for several reasons.

First, since you are now under oath, you could be charged with the separate crime of perjury.

Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Also, before I can accept your guilty plea, I must make a number of findings. My findings are based on your answers to my questions. In order for my findings to be correct, it is therefore necessary that all of your answers to my questions be truthful and complete.

Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Will you agree with me this morning that if you do not understand anything that I say, you will stop and ask me to repeat or explain whatever you do not understand?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Also, you may stop at any time and speak with your attorney. You do not need anyone's permission to speak with him.

Let me emphasize to you the importance of providing truthful and complete answers this morning. Sometimes after a defendant has been sentenced, he will file a motion or will write the Court a letter stating that the answers he gave at his re-arraignment were not true or were not complete.

I want you to understand that I am going to rely, not only today but at all times in the future, on the answers you give me today. If you should ever in the future say something different from what you have told me today, I will disregard that future statement and rely only on what you have told me today.

Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: How old are you?

DEFENDANT: 61.

THE COURT: Where were you born?

DEFENDANT: In Africa.

THE COURT: What country?

DEFENDANT: In Nigeria, Africa.

THE COURT: Did you graduate from the equivalent of highschool in Africa?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: What language did you use in high school?

DEFENDANT: English.

THE COURT: Did you obtain any other formal education in Nigeria?

DEFENDANT: No. But here in the U.S.

THE COURT: What education have you obtained in the United States?

DEFENDANT: I have a college degree.

THE COURT: From what institution did you receive your degree?

DEFENDANT: From Texas Southern University.

THE COURT: What was your degree in?

DEFENDANT: In architecture and construction.

THE COURT: Was it a bachelor's degree?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any type of mental problem?

DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for addiction to drugs or alcohol?

DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Has anyone ever told you that you should be treated for any type of mental problem or for any type of addiction?

DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: How many times have you discussed this case with your attorney, Mr. Buckley?

DEFENDANT: A few times. I can't remember the exact times.

THE COURT: More than five?

DEFENDANT: I think so.

THE COURT: Has he discussed with you the charges against you and what the government would have to prove to establish your guilt?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Has he reviewed with you the evidence that the government has against you?

DEFENDANT: Some of it, while I was out on bond, yes.

THE COURT: All right. Has he explained to you how the federal advisory sentencing guidelines might apply in this case?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Are you a United States citizen?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Has Mr. Buckley answered all of your questions?

DEFENDANT: Yeah. Most of it, yes.

THE COURT: Well, if there is some questions he has not answered, if you want to take some time now, I'll certainly give you some time.

DEFENDANT: No. Go ahead.

THE COURT: Are you sure?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Has Mr. Buckley done everything that you have asked him to do?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Are you fully satisfied with the advice and counsel he has provided you?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: You do not have to plead guilty. You have a right to go to trial. If you went to trial, you would have the right to the assistance of an attorney at all stages of the trial.

If you could not afford an attorney, the Court could appoint an attorney for you.

You would have the right to see and hear the government's witnesses at trial and have your attorney question them.

You would have the right to compel other people to come into court and provide evidence for you.

You would not be required to testify at a trial.

And you could not be convicted at a trial unless the jury unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt that you were guilty.

If you plead guilty today, however, there will not be a trial; and you will give up the right to a trial and all the protections that are associated with a trial.

Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Have you taken any type of drug or medicine within the last 24 hours?

DEFENDANT: Just aspirin.

THE COURT: Pardon me?

DEFENDANT: Just aspirin.

THE COURT: Aspirin?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Let me now explain to you the possible consequences of pleading guilty.

On Counts 1 and 2, the maximum sentence that you face is ten years in prison and a fine of $250,000 and three years of supervised release and a special assessment of $100 for each count and restitution to the victims and forfeiture.

As to Count 3, the maximum sentence that you face is 20 years in prison and a fine of $500,000 or twice the value of the property

...