Eleventh Circuit

United States v. John Hall (11th Cir. July 2020)

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant's 480-month sentence for receipt of child pornography, holding that the sentencing court properly considered hearsay statements found in case files from a prior sex offense case involving the defendant, including depositions of the victims, since the statements were supported by sufficient indicia of reliability. The Court also held the district court was not required to provide notice prior to varying upwards from the Guidelines since notice is only required prior to upward departures and the court was explicitly varying upwards and relying on the 3553 factors in doing so.

Continue reading

United States v. Steven Deason (11th Cir. July 2020)

The Eleventh Circuit upheld a conviction for attempted online enticement of a minor and attempted transfer of obscene matter to a minor, holding that officers did not err in failing to advise the defendant of his Miranda rights where he was informed that he was not under arrest and could ask the officers to leave and because he his statements were voluntary. The Court also held that testimony describing an allegedly obscene video and corresponding screenshots are a sufficient substitute to introducing the videos in their entirety.

Continue reading

United States v. Xiulu Ruan and John Patrick Couch (11th Cir. July 2020)

The Eleventh Circuit vacated a conviction for conspiracy to receive illegal kickbacks in relation to a federal health care program, holding that the government must prove that a defendant charged under 42 U.S.C. § 1320(a)-7b(b) in conjunction with conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the government must prove that federal funds passed through the conspiracy.

Continue reading

United States v. Stephen Chalker (11th Cir. July 2020)

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant's conviction for healthcare fraud, holding that there was sufficient evidence based on testimony regarding "red flags" at the defendant's pharmacy, including patients from out of state, unrealistically high prices, and discrepancies in billing and inventory. The Court also rejected the defendant's challenges to lay witness testimony from patients stating they received medication that they did not need and held that the Government replacing its expert did not prejudice the defendant where the substance of the testimony stayed the same.

Continue reading

Published by

© 2020 The Federal Docket