United States v. Manamela
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
July 16, 2015, Argued; August 18, 2015, Filed
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Solomon Manamela challenges the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 "to vacate, set aside or correct" his sentence related to his conviction of six counts of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
The City of Philadelphia provided services to needy families through its Department of Human Services ("DHS"). Among the many services offered, the Services to Children [**2] in their Own Homes ("SCOH") program provided in-home social services for children identified as being at risk of neglect, abuse, and delinquency. The City contracted with private companies to provide services to identified families ("SCOH providers"). SCOH providers then had social workers ("SCOH workers") assess, assure, and document the safety of the children during every face-to-face contact with a child. This face-to-face contact provided an opportunity for the SCOH workers to monitor an at-risk child's receipt of medical care and the child's medical condition. The City established different levels of service depending upon the degree of risk at issue in each case. To ensure that these services were being provided, the City required SCOH providers to create a formal alert when a face-to-face visit did not occur, submit a report on families every three months, and maintain a file on each family. The United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") funded the SCOH program through HHS's Temporary Assistance to Needy Families ("TANF") program.
In 2000, Manamela co-founded MultiEthnic Behavioral Health, Inc. ("MEBH"). Manamela served as MEBH's Human Resources and Staff Development [**3] Director. MEBH's contract with the City's DHS required MEBH to provide "comprehensive family based services," including "[s]tructured interventions" that included "[p]reventive health," and "[a]dvocacy for acquiring, coordinating, and monitoring the use of other community resources." J.A. 114. The advocacy component of the contract covered "[h]ealth," "[m]ental health," and "[d]rug and alcohol" family needs. Id. The records and documentation collected as part of the SCOH program provided the City with assurance that they "ha[d] a caregiver that's following through with the medical care of the child and is allowing . . . medical professionals to have access to that child." J.A. 472; J.A. 396 ("The defendants [*153] were paid to make sure these children were seeing a doctor."). The contract also provided for the provision of other services, such as legal, employment, child care, and housing services. MEBH renewed the contract with the City annually until things fell apart in 2006 and 2007.Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
612 Fed. Appx. 151 *; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14465 **; 2015 WL 5145628
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SOLOMON MANAMELA, Appellant
Notice: NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION UNDER THIRD CIRCUIT INTERNAL OPERATING PROCEDURE RULE 5.7. SUCH OPINIONS ARE NOT REGARDED AS PRECEDENTS WHICH BIND THE COURT.
PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
Prior History: [**1] On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. District Court No. 2-09-cr-00294-002. District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell.
United States v. Manamela, 463 Fed. Appx. 127, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2694 (3d Cir. Pa., Feb. 9, 2012)
Dictionary, healthcare benefits, medical care, healthcare, district court, records, discovery, at-risk, evidentiary hearing, ineffective, providers, delivery, sentence
Criminal Law & Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, Clear Error Review, De Novo Review, General Overview, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Criminal Process, Assistance of Counsel, Counsel, Effective Assistance of Counsel, Tests for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Fraud, Insurance Fraud, Elements, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Habeas Corpus, Procedure