United States of America v. Patricia Ashton Derges

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-1462
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Patricia Ashton Derges
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: February 4, 2025
Filed: February 10, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Patricia Derges, who was counseled below but is now proceeding pro se,
appeals after a jury convicted her of wire fraud, unlawfully issuing prescriptions, and

-- 1 of 3 --

making false statements, and the district court1 sentenced her to 75 months in prison
and ordered her to pay $500,600.54 in restitution. On appeal, Derges challenges her
conviction and the restitution amount.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was
sufficient to support Derges’s convictions. See United States v. Timlick, 481 F.3d
1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 2007) (reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to sustain
conviction de novo). The government presented adequate evidence that she
committed wire fraud by deliberately misleading patients into believing that her
amniotic fluid treatments contained stem cells and by providing false information to
secure a CARES Act grant; that she prescribed controlled substances without
examining patients in person and did not qualify for any exception to the in-person
examination requirement; and that she made false statements to the investigating
agents when she told them that the amniotic fluid contained stem cells and that she
had never used amniotic fluid to treat urinary incontinence. See United States v.
Spears, 454 F.3d 830, 832 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that the appellate court does not
weigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses; examining evidence in light
most favorable to the verdict and accepting all reasonable inferences which tend to
support the jury verdict; appellate court will reverse only if no reasonable jury could
have found defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt).
We also conclude that the district court did not plainly err in ordering
restitution of the full amount of loss sustained by Greene County and Derges’s
patients. Although the majority of the CARES Act funds had been forfeited to the
federal government, the forfeiture did not affect Derges’s restitution obligation to
Greene County, and her patients constituted victims because they were misled by her
representations that they were receiving stem cells. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2) (a
1The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

victim is a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of
the offense or the defendant’s criminal conduct in the course of a scheme); United
States v. Louper-Morris, 672 F.3d 539, 566 (8th Cir. 2012) (reviewing unobjected-to
restitution award for plain error; noting that Mandatory Victims Restitution Act
(MVRA) requires individuals convicted of wire fraud to pay restitution to their
victims); United States v. McCracken, 487 F.3d 1125, 1129 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding
that district court has no discretion to adjust the total restitution due to the victim
based on funds held by law enforcement).
Accordingly, we deny Derges’s pending motions and affirm.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --