United States of America v. Theodora Ann Morsette

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THEODORA ANN MORSETTE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-30113
D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00099-BMM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2016
Seattle, Washington
Before: PAEZ, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Theodora Morsette appeals her conviction for theft from an Indian Tribal
Government receiving federal funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A), theft
from an Indian Tribal Government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1163, and theft from
a healthcare facility in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 669, as well as the district court’s
FILED
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 7 --

sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. §
3742, and we affirm.
1. Morsette contends that under our decision in United States v. Wyncoop, 11
F.3d 119 (9th Cir. 1993), in order to trigger the statutory jurisdictional
requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 666, the government must demonstrate that her
employer, the Rocky Boy Health Board Clinic (“RBHB”), directly received federal
funding. Morsette’s argument is not supported by the facts underlying her
conviction or by our case law.
To impose criminal liability under Section 666, the government must
demonstrate that the defrauded agency received “in any one year period, benefits in
excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant . . . or other form of
Federal assistance.” 18 U.S.C. § 666(b). The Supreme Court and our court have
held that Section 666 applies when a defendant embezzles, steals, defrauds, or
converts property belonging to an entity that receives federal funds through an
intermediary local government or its agencies. Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S.
52, 61 (1997) (holding that a county deputy sheriff’s acceptance of a bribe from a
federal prisoner held in county jail satisfied Section 666’s jurisdictional provision);
United States v. Bynum, 327 F.3d 986, 991–92 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the
2

-- 2 of 7 --

improper use of a city councilman’s staff budget, which was allocated from a
general fund containing federal funds, fell within Section 666’s reach).
Conversely, in Wyncoop, the Government attempted to invoke Section 666
by alleging that students who attended a defrauded college received private student
loans that were guaranteed by the federal government. 11 F.3d at 121. We held
that because the defrauded entity received no federal funding, the existence of the
federal guarantor program was too attenuated to satisfy Section 666’s jurisdictional
provision.
Morsette’s case is analogous to Bynum, in which a local government “passed
through” funding to its subdivisions. Witnesses for the government and for
Morsette testified that the RBHB, received millions of dollars in federal funding
for its health programs through pass-through grants from the Reservation’s tribal
government, direct federal grants, and Medicaid reimbursement payments. Thus, a
rational trier of fact reasonably could find that the government’s evidence satisfied
Section 666’s jurisdictional element.
2. At trial, Morsette offered contradictory evidence to rebut the government’s
contention that her receipt of additional wages, severance pay, overtime,
supplemental compensation, and excess retirement benefits was unlawful.
Construing the evidence in favor of the jury’s verdict, a rational trier of fact could
3

-- 3 of 7 --

find that the government proved the elements of the charged crimes beyond a
reasonable doubt. See United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 2010)
(en banc).
3. Morsette contends that Congress limited the definition of a “health care
benefit program” to health insurance and benefit contracts. The statutory text
states that the term “health care benefit program . . . includes any . . . entity who is
providing a medical benefit, item, or service for which payment may be made
under” a health plan or contract. 18 U.S.C. § 24(b); see also United States v. Ruff,
535 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 2008) (imposing Section 669 liability for theft of
medical supplies from a health care clinic); United States v. Tadios, — F.3d —,
2016 WL 2893409, at *1 (9th Cir. May 18, 2016) (affirming a conviction under
Section 669 for misapplication of a health clinic’s funds). The parties do not
contest that the RBHB is a health clinic that provides medical treatment and
receives insurance reimbursements and health plan payments. Under the statute’s
plain text, Section 669 applies to health clinics; thus, Morsette’s argument is
without merit.
4. The district court did not plainly err when it did not exclude sua sponte
evidence regarding the conviction of Morsette’s supervisor, Fawn Tadios, for
similar criminal conduct. Both Morsette and the government relied heavily on
4

-- 4 of 7 --

Tadios’ conviction to establish Morsette’s mens rea, and consequently, the district
court did not commit plain error. Even if the district court had erred, in light of the
record evidence, its error did not affect Morsette’s substantial rights.
5. Generally “we do not review challenges to the effectiveness of defense
counsel on direct appeal.” United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259–60 (9th
Cir. 2011). In rare circumstances, we may consider an ineffective assistance of
counsel (“IAC”) claim “(1) when the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to
permit review . . . or (2) when the legal representation is so inadequate that it
obviously denies a defendant [her] Sixth Amendment right to counsel. United
States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003). Defense counsel is
ineffective if his actions fall outside the objectively wide range of professionally
competent assistance and prejudice the defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687–90 (1984).
Counsel’s decision to argue a “culture of corruption” defense does not
demonstrate that Morsette received objectively ineffective assistance. Trial
counsel attempted to negate Morsette’s intent by shifting blame to third parties,
and although his strategy ultimately was unsuccessful, it did not constitute
objectively deficient performance.
5

-- 5 of 7 --

6. Morsette concedes that she failed to preserve her argument that the
government engaged in duplicitous charging in the indictment. United States v.
Klinger, 128 F.3d 705, 708 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, there is no need to
address that issue.
7. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s formulation of the
jury instructions, and we consider the instructions as a whole to determine whether
they are misleading or inadequate to guide a jury’s deliberations. United States v.
Gonzalez, 786 F.3d 714, 717 (9th Cir. 2015); United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900,
926 (9th Cir. 2009). When a party fails to object to jury instructions, we review for
plain error. Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 388 (1999).
Although Morsette did not request a specific unanimity instruction, she now
contends that the district court should have given such an instruction sua sponte. A
specific unanimity instruction may be required if jury confusion is likely, if the
evidence and circumstances are factually complex, or if a conviction is “the result
of different jurors concluding that the defendant committed different acts.”
Gonzalez, 786 F.3d at 717; United States v. Anguiano, 873 F.2d 1314, 1319–20
(9th Cir. 1989). When the government argues that the defendant employed several
“means” to accomplish a criminal act, however, a general unanimity instruction
may be sufficient. United States v. Ruiz, 710 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2013); see
6

-- 6 of 7 --

also Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 631 (1991) (plurality opinion) (“We have
never suggested that in returning general verdicts . . . jurors should be required to
agree upon a single means of commission.”).
The government alleged that Morsette used several means to embezzle, steal
or convert the RBHB’s funds—it did not charge each improper transaction as a
separate crime. Moreover, neither the indictment nor the facts were particularly
complex or confusing. As a result, the jury charge required jurors to find
unanimously that Morsette knowingly embezzled the RBHB’s funds in order to
convict Morsette; it did not require the jury to achieve unanimity with respect to
each improper transaction. In light of the record evidence, the jury instructions
were adequate, and the district court did not plainly err when it delivered a general
unanimity instruction instead of a specific unanimity instruction.
AFFIRMED.
7

-- 7 of 7 --