Description: Hosuton, Texas criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with
aiding and abetting the receipt of a $7,710 healthcare kickback and one count of money laundering .


Anurag Dass pleaded guilty of aiding and abetting the receipt of a
$7,710 healthcare kickback and one count of money laundering and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment, two years of supervised release, and
restitution of $2,242,89. The district court also ordered her to pay forfeiture
of $500,000 and imposed a money judgment of $928,621.16. In her first direct appeal, this court affirmed the $500,000 forfeiture but vacated and remanded for recalculation of the money judgment and entry of a corrected
order. United States v. Dass, No. 22-20025, 2023 WL 1529713, 1-2 (5th Cir.
Feb. 3, 2023). On remand, the government moved for a corrected order
reflecting the forfeiture of the seized $500,000 and omitting the personal
money judgment. The district court entered a corrected order of forfeiture,
and Dass appealed.
The government filed a motion to dismiss Dass’s appeal as barred by
the appeal waiver in her plea agreement. This court denied the motion in
part as to Dass’s claim that her guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary
and ordered that the motion to dismiss her remaining claims be carried with
the case.
The government asserts that Dass waived the claims she raises in this
appeal by not raising them in her first appeal. Under the mandate rule, which
is a specific application of the law of the case doctrine, the district court may
not revisit “an issue of law or fact previously decided on appeal and not resubmitted to the trial court on remand.” United States v. Pineiro, 470 F.3d
200, 205 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, “as a general rule, only those discrete, particular issues identified by the appeals court for remand are properly before
the resentencing court.” United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir.
2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “All other issues not
arising out of this court’s ruling and not raised in the appeals court, which
could have been brought in the original appeal, are not proper for reconsideration by the district court.” Id. at 323 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The instant appeal after remand is limited to issues arising from the
corrected forfeiture order. See Lee, 358 F.3d at 323. Because this court affirmed the $500,000 forfeiture in the first appeal, Dass may not challenge it
in this appeal. See United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir.
Case: 23-20116 Document: 00517011760 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2023
No. 23-20116
3
2002).

Outcome: Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. The government’s motion to dismiss and its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief
are DENIED

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: