top of page
THE ROBING ROOM
where judges are judged
Hon. Melinda Harmon
District judge
S.D.Tex.
5th Circuit
Average Rating:
4.7
-
25
rating(s)
rating submitted
Please send me alerts on this judge
subscribed
Ratings:
What others have rated
Hon. Melinda Harmon
evaluator
ID
date
Temp* Sch* Indu* Comp* Punct* Ev-Cv* Ev-Cr* Flex Bail Crim Settle Trial Sent Coop Average
Criminal Defense Lawyer
25578
1/2/18
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
10
10
1
10
10
1
1.1
Criminal Defense Lawyer
25584
1/2/18
6
1
1
1
9
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.1
Criminal Defense Lawyer
24785
1/2/17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
13839
1/1/12
7
9
8
10
4
10
0
10
0
0
2
0
0
0
8
Civil Litigation - Govt.
13510
1/2/12
10
10
10
10
9
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.8
Civil Litigation - Private
13466
1/2/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
12192
1/2/11
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Criminal Defense Lawyer
11594
1/2/10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
1
0
5
10
10
Criminal Defense Lawyer
11596
1/2/10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
0
0
0
5
8
10
Civil Litigation - Private
9882
1/1/10
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Civil Litigation - Private
8452
1/2/09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
7971
1/1/09
2
2
2
2
8
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Civil Litigation - Private
7505
1/3/08
1
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
Prosecutor
4816
1/2/07
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
5
10
10
0
10
10
10
1
Prosecutor
3559
1/2/07
7
3
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.5
Criminal Defense Lawyer
1833
1/2/06
0
0
8
6
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
6
Criminal Defense Lawyer
1517
1/2/06
7
5
5
7
7
0
1
9
10
10
0
10
10
5
5.3
Criminal Defense Lawyer
1472
1/2/06
7
6
8
7
8
0
6
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
category average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating
Fam
Par
Qu-Arg
At-Arg
Sch
Cri
Civ
Lab
Imm
How familiar are you with the work of this judge? (1=Not at all familiar,10=Extremely familiar)
Participates in Oral Argument (1=Rarely,10=Always)
Quality of Questions During Oral Argument (1=Poor,10=Extremely insightful)
Attitude during oral argument (1=Consistently inappropriate,10=Consistently respectful)
Scholarship as reflected in Opinions (1=Poor,10=Outstanding)
General Inclination in Criminal Appeals (1=Strongly ProGovernment,10=Strongly ProDefense)
General Inclination in Civil Rights Appeals (1=Strongly Pro-Defendant,10=Strongly ProPlaintiff)
General Inclination in Labor Law Appeals (1=Strongly ProEmployee,10=Strongly ProEmployer)
General Inclination in Immigration Appeals (1=Strongly ProImmigrant,10=Strongly ProGov.)
evaluator
ID
date
Fam Par Qu-Arg At-Arg Sch Cri Civ Lab Imm
Criminal Defense Lawyer
25578
1/2/18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
25584
1/2/18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
24785
1/2/17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
13839
1/1/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Govt.
13510
1/2/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
13466
1/2/12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
12192
1/2/11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
11594
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
11596
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
9882
1/1/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
8452
1/2/09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
7971
1/1/09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
7505
1/3/08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Prosecutor
4816
1/2/07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Prosecutor
3559
1/2/07
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
1833
1/2/06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
1517
1/2/06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
1472
1/2/06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
category average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non-lawyer Rating
(if applicable)
evaluator
ID
date
Rating
Other
24786
1/2/17
1
Other
22979
1/1/15
2
Other
19923
1/1/13
1
Litigant
18082
1/2/12
1
Other
10300
1/1/10
1
Other
4864
1/2/07
1
Other
3738
1/2/07
1
category average
-
Temp*
Sch*
Indu*
Comp*
Punct*
Ev-Cv*
Ev-Cr*
Flex
Bail
Crim
Settle
Trial
Sent
Coop
Temperament (1=Awful 10=Excellent)
Scholarship (1=Awful 10=Excellent)
Industriousness (1=Not at all industrious 10=Highly industrious)
Ability to Handle Complex Litigation (1=Awful 10=Excellent)
Punctuality (1=Chronically Late 10=Always on Time)
Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias 10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias 10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility in Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible 10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pre-Trial (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions (1=Least Involved 10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators (1=10% 10=100%)
comments1
Comments:
What others have said about
Hon. Melinda Harmon
Criminal Defense Lawyer
comment #:
25578
rating:
1.1
Heartless and not bright
1/2/18, 6:27 PM
Criminal Defense Lawyer
comment #:
25584
rating:
3.1
Intense level of stupidity. Extremely vicious.
1/2/18, 1:22 AM
Criminal Defense Lawyer
comment #:
24785
rating:
0
The below is from law.com. I'd like some explanation from practitioners in the district or from litigants in this case to grasp what happened here. I'd bet the 5th circuit reverses if there is an expedited appeal. Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston A federal judge in Texas sentenced a terminally ill woman to 75 years in prison last month for bilking Medicare — an apparent record sentence for the U.S. Department of Justice for health care fraud. Marie Neba, 53, of Sugar Land, Texas, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon of the Southern District of Texas on eight counts stemming from her role in a $13 million Medicare fraud scheme. Neba, the owner and director of nursing at a Houston home health agency, was convicted after a two-week jury trial last November. At the sentencing on Aug. 11, the government recommended a 35-year imprisonment, said Michael Khouri, who started representing Neba as her private attorney shortly after the trial. (A different attorney represented her during the trial. That attorney did not return a phone call seeking comment for this article.) The unusually lengthy sentence for what health care fraud legal experts call a relatively routine case has them scratching their heads, even in this recent era of the federal government’s crackdown on health care fraud. Neba, the mother of 7-year-old twin sons, was diagnosed in May with stage IV metastatic breast cancer that has spread to her lungs and bones, according to Khouri, who has filed an appeal of the conviction and the sentence. She currently is receiving chemotherapy treatments and is in custody in a federal detention center. “Marie Neba is a mother, a wife and a human being who is dying. If there is any defendant that stands before the court that deserves a below-guideline sentence … it’s this woman that stands before you,” Khouri argued before Harmon at the sentencing hearing, according to a transcript recently obtained by ALM. “The court can impose any sentence the court believes is appropriate,” he said. ‘Not a Heartless Person’ Patrick Cotter, a former federal prosecutor who heads the government interaction and white-collar practice group at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale in Chicago, said given the circumstances, he would have expected Neba to receive a sentence of several years in prison. “Nothing is surprising in that she went to jail and not for six months,” he said. “But how you get anything close to 75 years is beyond me and makes no sense at all. In 35 years, I have never heard of the government’s [prison term] recommendation being doubled by the judge, particularly when the government is asking for a tough sentence anyway.” Gejaa Gobena, a litigation partner at Hogan Lovells and former chief of the DOJ Criminal Division’s Health Care Fraud Unit, concurred. “We prosecuted hundreds of cases and never had a sentence approaching anywhere near this,” Gobena said. Legally, the answer to how the long sentence came about is not that difficult: Harmon, applying several enhancements under the federal sentencing guidelines, imposed the statutory maximum prison term on each charge, and then ran them consecutively. “I am not a heartless person. I think I am not. I hope I am not,” Harmon told Neba before announcing the sentence. “It must be a terrible experience that you are going through, Ms. Neba, and I don’t want you to think that by sentencing you to what I am going to sentence you to that I’m trying to heap more difficulties on you because I am not. … It’s just the way the system works, the way the law works. You have been found guilty of a number of counts by a jury, and this is what happens.” Even so, historically, the case is highly unusual, breaking the previous record by 25 years. Since a pair of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in December 2007 that reaffirmed that the federal sentencing guidelines are merely advisory, federal trial judges have much greater latitude to impose what they think are appropriate sentences, even if the guidelines call for higher or lower sentences. The longest health care fraud sentence prior to Neba’s came in 2011, when Lawrence Duran, the owner of a Miami-area mental health care company, was sentenced to 50 years for orchestrating a $205 million Medicare scheme that defrauded vulnerable patients with dementia and substance abuse. The next longest? Forty-five years in 2015 for a Detroit doctor who gave chemotherapy to healthy patients, whom federal prosecutors then called the “most egregious fraudster in the history of this country.” ‘Run-of-the-Mill’ Health Care Fraud Case According to court documents, Neba, from 2006 to 2015, conspired with others to defraud Medicare by submitting more than $10 million in false claims for home health services provided through Fiango Home Healthcare Inc., owned by Neba and her husband and co-defendant, Ebong Tilong. Using that money, Neba paid illegal kickbacks to patient recruiters for referrals and to Medicare beneficiaries who allowed Fiango to use their Medicare information to bill for home health services that were not medically necessary nor provided, and, all told, received $13 million in ill-gotten Medicare payments, the documents said. Neba was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, three counts of health care fraud, one count of conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks, one count of payment and receipt of health care kickbacks, one count of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments and one count of making health care false statements. Four co-defendants, including Tilong, have pleaded guilty in the case. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 13. “This would be considered a run-of-the-mill health care fraud case,” Hogan Lovells’ Gobena said. Harmon, through her case manager, declined to comment on the case. The transcript, however, reveals several factors that influenced her decision to impose the lengthy prison term, including: -- “Most importantly,” Neba’s sentencing guideline range of life imprisonment (though Harmon was proscribed by statutory maximums from imposing a life sentence). -- Neba’s use of “sophisticated means” — going to great lengths to conceal her fraudulent activity, money laundering and kickback schemes, and falsifying medical records, sometimes while Medicare-trained auditors were in the office, to make patients appear sicker on paper than they actually were. -- Neba’s role as “an organizer, leader of a criminal activity” that involved five or more participants: “Ms. Neba intentionally engaged in or caused the conduct that constitutes sophisticated means,” the judge said.• Neba’s attempt to obstruct justice by telling a co-defendant, before arraignment in the federal courthouse, “to keep to her story,” specifically “not to tell anybody that she, [the co-defendant], was paying the patients.” -- “With all of the enhancements [under the federal sentencing guidelines], it quickly accelerates,” Gobena said. Neba’s decision to go to trial on the charges, rather than plead guilty and provide some sort of government assistance, also played a role in her sentence. Had she pleaded guilty to one or more of the charges “at the very beginning without obstruction of justice,” and received the highest credit for cooperation for doing so, Neba’s sentencing guideline range would have been 14.5 years, federal prosecutor William Chang told Harmon during the hearing. “Had the same thing happened and she received no [credit] whatsoever, it would be 21.8 years,” he added. “If she had gone to trial and been convicted, but no obstruction of justice, the sentence would have been 30 years on the calculation of the guidelines. So, we want the court to understand the United States’ principal position for what it seeks.” Looking Forward, ‘More and More’? Khouri, Neba’s attorney, said he plans to challenge on appeal the manner in which the sentencing guideline range was calculated and argue, among other matters, that the sentence is excessive. “She believed the law required it, and she thought that was an appropriate sentence,” Khouri said of his perception of the judge’s rationale. Patrick Souter, of counsel at Gray Reed & McGraw in Dallas and a professor who teaches health care fraud and abuse at Baylor Law School, said the prison term is unusually high even for Texas and its reputation for handing out tough sentences. But such an anomaly may not be one for long, at least in his state, he added. “We’re seeing more health care fraud enforcement out there now than we’ve seen in the past,” Souter said. “With these types of prosecutions and verdicts, we may start seeing more and more sentences closer to the [statutory] maximum, or at least significant sentences, because of the serious nature of the crime.”
1/2/17, 1:16 PM
Other
comment #:
24786
rating:
0
Hon. Melinda Harmon is an unfair judge. Something she said at the sentencing of my son was very degrading and improper to the packed courtroom. He got the maximum sentence allowed by law and said she wished she could have given him more time. Not only that she said that those who supported my son were fools and were being duped by him.
1/2/17, 7:29 PM
Other
comment #:
22979
rating:
0
Her courtroom is unfair and unjust. God forbid any defendant stand in front of her. She is a prosecutor with a gown.
1/1/15, 9:30 PM
Other
comment #:
19923
rating:
0
Doesn't understand the Constitution when she says that parents give up their rights when they drop their children off at public schools. Constitutional rights extend into schools. This is a judge who shouldn't be deciding cases based upon laws she doesn't understand.
1/1/13, 1:06 PM
Litigant
comment #:
18082
rating:
0
She is one of the worst judge. I agree with lot of comments here. She completely falsified and distort evidence to suit her onlawfoll and horrendous judgment. She has no clue of law. Political Affirmative action! How do you look in mirror, So called Judge!
1/2/12, 2:08 AM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
13839
rating:
8
An excellent and brilliant judge. While she can be slow to rule on motions, when she does rule, her decision is well-supported and 'right.'
1/1/12, 2:41 PM
Civil Litigation - Govt.
comment #:
13510
rating:
9.8
I have read the commentary below and feel forced to add some balance. The people below are litigants who have lost and feel badly about it. That is not Judge Harmon's fault. She knows the law, and evenhandly applies it. A great Judge.
1/2/12, 8:28 AM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
13466
rating:
0
Its a farce that this judge is allowed to handle cases of a civil rights nature. She did a poor job of interpreting the facts surrounding my case subsequently dismissing my case because she is obviously a republican and is pro employer.
1/2/12, 6:39 AM