Argued: January 26, 2017
Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. ( S.Ct.
Charles W. Scarborough, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C.; Earl N. Mayfield, III, DAY & JOHNS,
PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants.
Melissa Lee, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Michael S.
Raab, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C.; Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney,
Richard W. Sponseller, Peter S. Hyun, Gerard Mene, Christine
Roushdy, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant
United States of America.
A. Prados, Milt C. Johns, Christopher M. Day, DAY &
JOHNS, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant Omar Badr.
Joseph C. Davis, Reston, Virginia; Paul D. Schmitt, DLA PIPER
LLP (US), Washington, D.C.; Jonathan G. Cooper, QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
remand from the United States Supreme Court, we are asked to
consider whether the Government stated a claim under the
False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) against
Triple Canopy, Inc. Applying Universal Health Services,
Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S.Ct. 1989
(2016), we conclude that the Government properly alleged an
facts and procedural history are recounted in detail in our
earlier opinion. See United States ex rel. Badr v. Triple
Canopy, Inc., 775 F.3d 628, 632-33 (4th Cir. 2015). In
brief, the Government awarded Triple Canopy a one-year
contract to provide security services at Al Asad Airbase in
Iraq. As part of that contract, Triple Canopy was required to
meet certain "responsibilities, " including
"ensur[ing] that all employees have . . . qualified on a
U.S. Army qualification course." (J.A. 99). According to
the relator, Omar Badr, Triple Canopy brought in guards from
Uganda who were unable to meet this marksmanship requirement.
Rather than inform the Government of this deficiency, Triple
Canopy falsified the scorecards on several occasions
throughout the year. Triple Canopy submitted invoices for its
guards on a monthly basis but was not required to certify
that its guard services complied with the contract's
brought an action against Triple Canopy under 31 U.S.C.
§§ 3729 & 3730. The Government intervened and
filed a two-count complaint, alleging, inter alia,
that Triple Canopy knowingly presented false claims, in
violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) because it
"billed the Government for the full price for each and
every one of its unqualified security guards." (J.A.
24). The district court granted Triple Canopy's motion to
dismiss. United States ex rel. Badr v. Triple Canopy,
Inc., 950 F.Supp.2d 888 (E.D. ...