In the Matter of the Complaint Against ) March 28, 1995 ) GEORGE LLAMA ) 1370 W. 33rd St. ) Hialeah, FL 33012-4827 ) ) and ) ) LLAMA TRANSPORTATION ) P.O. Box 81565 ) Bakersfield, CA 93309-1565 ) P.S. Docket No. PF 94-119 APPEARANCE FOR GEORGE LLAMA: Robert Switkes, Esq. Rosen and Switkes Penthouse SE 407 Lincoln Road Miami, FL 33139-3008 APPEARANCE FOR LLAMA George Wright Quick, Esq. TRANSPORTATION: 409 17th Street Bakersfield, CA 93301-4917 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT: Nan McKenzie, Esq. United States Postal Service Enforcement-Law Washington, DC 20260-1148
INITIAL DECISION re GEORGE LLAMA
This proceeding arises out of a Complaint issued by the Reviewing Official of the United States Postal Service under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-509, 31 U.S.C. §§3801-3812, and 39 C.F.R. Parts 273 and 962. The Complaint asks that each named Respondent be held jointly and severally liable for the full amount of penalties and assessments sought. The case was docketed on September 9, 1994, when a Petition for Hearing was filed by Glenda A. Llama on behalf of Respondent Llama Transportation. After several attempts to locate Respondent George Llama and serve the Complaint, service was made on Mr. Llama's attorney on February 14, 1995. To date, Respondent George Llama has failed to file a Petition for Hearing as required by 39 C.F.R. §962.3.
On March 21, 1995, the Postal Service filed a Motion for Issuance of an Initial Decision against Respondent George Llama, pursuant to 39 C.F.R. § 962.4(a). That section requires the Presiding Officer to issue an Initial Decision based on the information contained in the Complaint if the Respondent fails to file a request for hearing within thirty (30) days of receiving the Complaint.
In the Complaint, the Reviewing Official alleged that Respondents are jointly and severally liable to the Postal Service, under 31 U.S.C. §3802(a)(1), for an assessment equal to twice the total of amounts falsely claimed ($15,540 x 2 = $31,108), plus a civil penalty of $25,000 ($5000 for each of five false claims).
In accordance with 39 C.F.R. § 962.4(a), this Initial Decision is based on the information contained in the Complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. George Llama, an individual who now resides in Hialeah, Florida, was, at all times relevant to this case, the principal owner and operator of Llama Transportation, a business that operated in Bakersfield, California.
2. The Postal Service awards contracts, through competitive bidding, to private trucking concerns for carriage of mail between cities.
3. Truckers are paid at the bid rate, but rates may be adjusted during the course of a contract if fuel costs rise or fall significantly. To receive an upward adjustment, a trucking contractor must submit a Fuel Use Certification form showing the price paid during a 28-day period, along with supporting invoices, receipts or bills. The certification form states that the information submitted is "accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge, and reflects the actual cost of the fuel used on this route during the certified 28-day period."
4. During the time relevant to the Complaint, George Llama, operating Llama Transportation, had two Highway Contract Routes (HCR) - Numbers 90025 and 91030.
Count 1
5. On or about October 16, 1990, Mr. Llama submitted a Fuel Use Certification claiming fuel costs averaging $1.553 per gallon for HCR 91030, effective September 22, 1990. This claim was false, and Mr. Llama knew or had reason to know it was false because the receipts submitted with the certification had been altered to reflect a higher price than was actually paid.
6. Mr. Llama was paid at the inflated rate for the period from
September 22, 1990 to November 17, 1990, and received $394 to which he
was not entitled.
Count 2
7. On December 1, 1990, Mr. Llama submitted a Fuel Use Certification claiming fuel costs averaging $1.599 per gallon for HCR 91030, effective November 17, 1990. This claim was false, and Mr. Llama knew or had reason to know it was false because the receipts submitted with the certification had been altered to reflect a higher price than was actually paid.
8. Mr. Llama was paid at the inflated rate for the period from November 17, 1990 to April 6, 1991, and received $1,151 to which he was not entitled.
Count 3
9. On May 28, 1991, Mr. Llama submitted a Fuel Use Certification claiming fuel costs averaging $1.559 per gallon for HCR 91030, effective April 6, 1991. This claim was false, and Mr. Llama knew or had reason to know it was false because the receipts submitted with the certification had been altered to reflect a higher price than was actually paid.
10. Mr. Llama was paid the inflated rate for the period from April 6, 1991 to March 7, 1992, and received $2,703 to which he was not entitled.
Count 4
11. On December 8, 1990, Mr. Llama submitted a Fuel Use Certification claiming fuel costs averaging $1.619 per gallon for HCR 90025, effective November 11, 1990. This claim was false, and Mr. Llama knew or had reason to know it was false because the receipts submitted with the certification had been altered to reflect a higher price than was actually paid.
12. Mr. Llama was paid the inflated rate for the period from November 11, 1990 to February 9, 1991, and received $2,631 to which he was not entitled.
Count 5
13. On March 17, 1991, Mr. Llama submitted a Fuel Use Certification claiming fuel costs averaging $1.540 per gallon for HCR 90025, effective February 9, 1991. This claim was false, and Mr. Llama knew or had reason to know it was false because the receipts submitted with the certification had been altered to reflect a higher price than was actually paid.
14. Mr. Llama was paid the inflated rate for the period from February 9, 1991 to March 29, 1992, and received $8,675 to which he was not entitled.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Each of the five Fuel Use Certifications listed above constitutes a false claim in violation of 31 U.S.C. §3802(a)(1).
2. The Statute, 31 U.S.C. §3802(a)(1), calls for a maximum penalty of
$5000 per false claim, and an assessment of up to twice the amount of the claim. In this case the total amount falsely claimed, and paid, was $15,554.
3. The Reviewing Official has requested the maximum penalty for each false claim, and the maximum assessment. Because Respondent George Llama has failed to file a Petition in opposition to the Complaint, the allegations of liability for the penalty and assessment are deemed to be admitted. 39 C.F.R. §962.4(a) and §962.15(a)(2) and (d).
4. On review of all the facts and circumstances, as presented in the
Complaint, I find the requested penalty and assessment to be appropriate.
Specific aggravating factors are the calculated nature of the false claims by
altering documents, the fact that this was done several times over an extended
period of time, and the significant amount of money that was fraudulently
obtained. Respondent George Llama is liable to the Postal Service under 31
U.S.C. §3802(a)(1) for a total amount of $56,108.
Bruce R. Houston Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge