United States v. Robinson

99 F.4th 344

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Katrina ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 22-5075

No. 22-5245

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Argued: October 26, 2023

Decided and Filed: April 17, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis. No. 2:20-cr-20148-1—Sheryl H. Lipman, District Judge.

ARGUED: Christopher E. Cotten, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Memphis, Tennessee, for the United States. Mathew Jehl, BURCH, PORTER & JOHNSON, PLLC, Memphis, Tennessee, for Katrina Robinson. ON BRIEF: Christopher E. Cotten, Naya Bedini, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Memphis, Tennessee, for the United States. Mathew Jehl, Larry Laurenzi, BURCH, PORTER & JOHNSON, PLLC, Memphis, Tennessee, for Katrina Robinson.

Before: GIBBONS, BUSH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

DAVIS, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Katrina Robinson, founder and director of The Healthcare Institute ("THI"), of four counts of wire fraud for actions she took in administering a federal grant the organization received from 2015-2019. Robinson filed a post-verdict motion for a judgment of acquittal ("JOA") on all four counts. The district court granted the motion as to two of the counts. In these consolidated appeals, the government challenges the court's grant of JOA on one of those counts, and Robinson appeals the denial of JOA on the remaining two counts. Robinson also appeals the district court's denial of her oral motion for mistrial with prejudice and her motion for a new trial. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

I.

Katrina Robinson founded THI and served as its director during all periods relevant to this appeal. THI is a for-profit, limited liability company in Memphis, Tennessee, that grew from a limited purveyor of CPR training at its inception to establishing a certified nursing assistant ("CNA") program in the summer of 2015. Prior to launching the CNA program, THI applied, in March 2015, for a federal grant from the Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program ("GWEP")—a program administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration ("HRSA"). HRSA operates under the auspices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"). The application was successful; THI received funding from HRSA between 2015 and 2019. Among other things, the GWEP grant provided eligible THI students with $900 scholarships to be applied toward the cost of tuition for the CNA program.

The way the grant worked was that when HRSA approved THI's grant and later renewal applications, it sent THI a Notice of Award ("NOA"). Each NOA contained important information, such as an approved budget and reporting requirements that HRSA used to monitor the grant's progress and spending. The NOAs also listed the amount of money allocated for tuition and fees (i.e., scholarships) for THI students during the year covered by the particular NOA. For the 2017-2018 year and again for the 2018-2019 year, HRSA awarded THI $90,521.00 for tuition and fees to cover 100 scholarships in each year. The grant permitted THI to carry over unused funds from one fiscal year to support additional scholarships the following fiscal year. But THI needed approval from HRSA to do this. Absent HRSA approval, THI was required to "use" or "lose" the funds by the end of the term for which they were originally granted.

A federal investigation raised concerns that Robinson had used HRSA grant funds for personal expenses. The investigation also uncovered multiple discrepancies in Annual Performance Reports ("APRs") that Robinson had submitted on THI's behalf. APRs were required at the end of each fiscal year and contained information that allowed the project officer to determine whether the project director was successful in meeting the project's stated goals. The investigation revealed that THI's APRs contained inaccurate information on the number of students who graduated from the CNA training program, the number of students who received grant-funded scholarships, and the unique numerical identifiers assigned to students. Despite these significant errors, Robinson, who oversaw preparation of, reviewed, signed, and submitted the APRs, certified that the information in the APRs was correct. At trial, the government sought to prove that the APR "errors" were, in truth, Robinson's intentional manipulations of the numbers to ensure THI's continued receipt of grant monies.

The parties dispute the significance of the APRs in the decision-making process for the continuation of THI's funding. Both sides point to the testimony of Dr. Nina Tumosa, HRSA's grant manager for THI, for support. Robinson highlights Dr. Tumosa's testimony that APRs were "primarily used by HRSA to compare the different programs and to combine reports to show to Congress whether or not as a -- in general, education and training of the healthcare workforce is worthwhile and a good thing to do." (R. 233, PageID 3874). The government directs attention to her testimony that the APRs were "really crucial" to HRSA and a tool to "evaluate future funding." (Id. at 3764-65). Dr. Tumosa also declared that a recipient who failed to submit the APR would "not be funded," and that an HRSA project officer who discovered false data on an APR would either give the recipient "an opportunity to correct it" or "say [the award] needs to be closed." (Id. at 3765, 3875). If Dr. Tumosa were to discover misrepresentations in reports provided by the recipient, "it would change the evaluation" of the program. (Id. at 3871). Further underscoring the role APRs played in the context of the grant, a group within HRSA analyzed the data in the APRs and operated as a "backstop" in the funding process. (Id. at 3874).

The second superseding indictment charged Robinson with 4 counts of theft and embezzlement involving a federal program in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A) ("federal program fraud") and 16 counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Specifically, Counts 1-4 charged Robinson with stealing property under the custody and control of THI—a federal program grant recipient that satisfied the requisite statutory financial threshold. Counts 5-17 charged Robinson with wire fraud for individual transactions made from THI's operating account for a variety of alleged personal expenditures. And Counts 18-20 charged Robinson with wire fraud for fraudulent misrepresentations made to HRSA in THI's APRs that were filed for years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019, respectively. The indictment alleged that Robinson's actions were part of an overarching scheme to defraud for the purpose of obtaining money or property belonging to THI. The manner and means of the scheme described in the indictment included Robinson submitting yearly APRs that contained "fraudulent misrepresentations to representatives of HRSA and others concerning THI, its operations and educational programs." (R. 107, PageID 431, 443). The "misrepresentations" took the form of data submissions showing that "certain individuals were students and/or graduates" of the program even though they were not and representations that certain students received scholarships from grant money even though "their education was funded by some other source." (Id. at 431). The indictment further alleged that in these APRs, Robinson represented that "certain student identification numbers were connected to actual students, well knowing that they were not and that no actual students were connected to those numbers." (Id.). Robinson would then use the grant funds she had acquired for personal expenditures—including two expenditures for wedding-related services.

Trial commenced on September 13, 2021. At the end of the government's case-in-chief, Robinson moved for JOA on all counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. The district court granted the motion as to 15 of the 20 counts, including Counts 1-10 and 13-17. The district court thus acquitted Robinson of all the theft or embezzlement charges and all but five of the wire fraud charges; it denied acquittals for the five individual wire fraud charges contained in Counts 11, 12, 18, 19, and 20. The jury later found Robinson guilty on Counts 11, 12, 19, and 20 and not guilty on Count 18. Robinson then filed a post-verdict motion for JOA on the four counts of conviction and for a new trial. The district court denied Robinson's motion for acquittal as to Counts 11 and 12, granted it as to Counts 19 and 20, and denied her motion for a new trial. As a result, Robinson stood convicted of only two of the original twenty counts of the indictment.

Shortly after the district court entered its order resolving Robinson's motion, the government filed a notice of appeal to this court. In the meantime, the court sentenced Robinson to time-served and one year of supervised release. Robinson timely appealed.

II.

"We review 'de novo the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction' " when a defendant raises a challenge under Rule 29. United States v. Emmons, 8 F.4th 454, 477 (6th Cir. 2021) (emphasis omitted) (quoting United States v. Gunter, 551 F.3d 472, 482 (6th Cir. 2009)). Our task is to determine whether, "viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Baggett, 251 F.3d 1087, 1095 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. King, 169 F.3d 1035, 1038-39 (6th Cir. 1999)). In doing so, we do not "weigh the evidence presented, consider the credibility of witnesses, or substitute our judgment for that of the jury." United States v. Jackson, 470 F.3d 299, 309 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Davis, 177 F.3d 552, 558 (6th Cir. 1999)). Rather, we must "draw all available inferences and resolve all issues of...