Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict on the substantive counts against Sosa, and whether the district court erred in applying the risk of bodily injury enhancement and the obstruction of justice enhancement

No question identified. : QUESTIONS RPESENTED FOR REVIEW BY THE COURT. I. Did a fatal variance occur when the charge was of one conspiracy but the proofs were of two, one of which there was no evidence of Petitioners’ involvement? I. Was there insufficient evidence of Petitioner Sosa’s guilt on the substantive Mail Fraud and Health Care Fraud counts when there was no evidence he took any action to mail or submit false billings to the insurance companies? III. Was it error to apply the risk of serious bodily injury sentencing guideline enhancement to Petitioners when the whole fraud scheme was designed around fake car accidents where no one got hurt and no one needed medical treatment? IV. Was it error to apply the obstruction of justice sentencing guideline enhancement to Petitioners because they never suggested that the would-be witness should testify, or not testify, about anything and never asked the third party to relay any message? t 2 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTEREST Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 14.1(b) and 29.6, Britt Cobb makes the following disclosure on behalf of the Petitioners: 1. Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation? NO 2. Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the appeal, that has a financial interest in the outcome? NO Dated: May 29, 2020 ritt M. Cobb (P69556) Attorney for Petitioners WILLEY & CHAMBERLAIN LLP 300 Ottawa Avenue, N.W., Suite 810 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 (616) 458-2212 3