States v. Triple Canopy, Inc., 775 F.3d 628, 634 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A “presentment claim -arises when a claim for payment that is submitted to the government rests on a false representation of compliance with an applicable federal statute, federal regulation, or contractual term.” United States ex rel. Tran v. Computer Scis. Corp., 53 F.Supp.3d 104, 122 (D.D.C. 2014) (internal quotation mark omitted); accord Triple Canopy, Inc., 775 F.3d at 634-35 (adopting implied certification). This is also known as implied false certification. Id. Here, the Government alleges that implied false certification occurred each time Berkeley or HDL submitted’ tainted forms for reimbursement by Medicare and TRICARE because F.3d 364, 386 (4th Cir. 2015) (<HOLDING>); U.S. ex rel. Osheroff v. Tenet Healthcare
holding that the defendants could not be held in contempt for failure to pay more than the fee cap amount because the court cannot order the djefendants to violate an act of congress to pay the total award holding that failure to list a beginning date of a pay period on a pay stub was not a violation of section 226a6 when the employer provided an electronic wage statement that did include the beginning date of the pay period holding defendant was knowingly asking the government to pay an amount that bylaw it could not pay each time it submitted a claim tainted by a violation of the analogous stark law holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to require a defendant to pay all back taxes holding that it is plain error for a trial court to require a defendant to pay courtappointed attorney fees in the absence of legally sufficient evidence that defendant has the ability to pay the amount imposed