The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary Allen Feess U. S. District Judge
JUDGMENT AND PROBATION/COMMITMENT ORDER
In the presence of the attorney for the government, the defendant appeared in person on this date. 12 07 2009
X WITH COUNSEL Stephanie Ames, Appointed
X GUILTY, and the court being satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea. NOLO
There being a finding/verdict of X GUILTY, defendant has been convicted as charged of the offense(s) of: Health Care Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1347 as charged in Count 35 of the Indictment.
The Court asked whether there was any reason why judgment should not be pronounced. Because no sufficient cause to the contrary was shown, or appeared to the Court, the Court adjudged the defendant guilty as charged and convicted and ordered that: Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it is the judgment of the Court that the defendant, Rosemarie Guillen, is hereby placed on PROBATION on Count 35 of the Indictment for a term of THREE (3) YEARS.
It is ordered that the defendant shall pay to the United States a special assessment of $100, which is due immediately.
It is ordered that the defendant shall pay restitution in the total amount of $17,736.49 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.
The amount of restitution ordered shall be paid as follows: Defendant shall pay restitution in the total amount of $17,736.49 to victim(s) as set forth in a separate victim list prepared by the Probation Office which this Court adopts and which reflects the Court's determination of the amount of restitution due to each victim. The victim list, which shall be forwarded by the Probation Officer to the fiscal section of the Clerk's Office, shall remain confidential to protect the privacy interests of the victims.
A partial payment of at least $5,000 shall be paid immediately. The balance of the restitution shall be paid in monthly installments of at least $375 during the term of probation. These payments shall begin 30 days after the commencement of supervision.
As discussed in the presentence report, the Probation Officer is aware of the possibility that the defendant's future earning potential may be attenuated by her status as a convicted felon. Should such circumstance make the recommended payment plan unreasonable, the Court retains the authority to modify the payment schedule at such time as the issue may be ripe.
The defendant shall be held jointly and severally liable with co-defendants Evelyn Tisoy and Rosemary Labasan (Docket No. CR-09-00609) for the amount of restitution ordered in this judgment. The victims' recovery is limited to the amount of their loss and the defendant's liability for restitution ceases if and when the victims receive full restitution.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(f)(3)(A), interest on the restitution ordered is waived because the defendant does not have the ability to pay interest. Payments may be subject to penalties for default and delinquency pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(g).
The defendant shall comply with General Order No. 01-05.
All fines are waived as it is found that the defendant does not have the ability to pay a fine in addition to restitution.
Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it is the judgment of the Court that the defendant, Rosemarie Guillen, is hereby placed on probation on Count 35 of the Indictment for a term of three years under the following terms and conditions:
1. The defendant shall comply with the rules and regulations of the U. S. Probation Office and General Order 318;
2. During the period of community supervision the defendant shall pay the special assessment and restitution in accordance with this judgment's orders pertaining to such payment;
3. The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample from the defendant; and
4. The defendant shall apply monies in excess of $500 received from income tax refunds to the outstanding court-ordered financial obligation. In addition, the defendant shall apply all monies received from lottery winnings, inheritance, judgments and any anticipated or unexpected financial gains to the outstanding court-ordered financial obligation.
The drug testing condition mandated by statute is suspended based on the Court's determination that the defendant poses a low risk of future substance abuse.
Defendant informed that she has waived her right to appeal.
On the Government's motion, all remaining count of the underlying ...