651 Fed.Appx. 433 (6th Cir. 2016), 14-3948, United States v. Sadler

Docket Nº:14-3948
Citation:651 Fed.Appx. 433
Opinion Judge:ROTH, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NANCY SADLER, Defendant-Appellant
Attorney:For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Alexis J. Zouhary, Timothy S. Mangan, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Cincinnati, OH. For Nancy Sadler, Defendant - Appellant: Stephen Louis Braga, Jude Halawi, University of Virginia, Appellate Litigation Clinic, Charlottesville, VA.
Judge Panel:Before: KETHLEDGE, DONALD and ROTH, Circuit Judges[*].
Case Date:June 08, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 433

651 Fed.Appx. 433 (6th Cir. 2016)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

NANCY SADLER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 14-3948

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

June 8, 2016

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

Editorial Note:

Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g) limits citation to specific situations. Please see Rule 28(g) before citing in a proceeding in a court in the Sixth Circuit. If cited, a copy must be served on other parties and the Court.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.

For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Alexis J. Zouhary, Timothy S. Mangan, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Cincinnati, OH.

For Nancy Sadler, Defendant - Appellant: Stephen Louis Braga, Jude Halawi, University of Virginia, Appellate Litigation Clinic, Charlottesville, VA.

Before: KETHLEDGE, DONALD and ROTH, Circuit Judges[*].

OPINION

Page 434

ROTH, Circuit Judge.

Nancy Sadler appeals the Southern District of Ohio's imposition of a 156-month sentence after this court vacated one of her convictions on appeal and remanded the remaining convictions for resentencing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

I.

On July 28, 2010, a grand jury indicted Sadler for conduct relating to Sadler's role in managing a pain clinic in southern Ohio. This clinic, operating under the name " Ohio Medical and Pain Management," was alleged to be a scheme on the part of Sadler, her husband, and her brother-in-law to illegally distribute prescription drugs. In exchange for a $150 out-of-pocket " appointment fee," Sadler prescribed pain medication to the clinic's patients, some of whom were fabricated in order to move a greater volume of drugs. In addition to indiscriminately prescribing drugs, Sadler and her co-conspirators sold individual pills to nonpatient customers outside the clinic.

Sadler was eventually convicted on four counts: (1) conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, (2) maintaining a drug-involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856, (3) wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and (4) money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. The district court sentenced Sadler to a term of 210 months on December 24, 2012. This sentence represented the maximum possible sentence the district court could impose based on the calculated Guidelines range for Sadler's offenses. According to the district court, Sadler's high sentence was imposed because of her repeated and unrepentant criminal conduct: while managing Ohio Medical and Pain Management, Sadler was on probation for charges stemming from her involvement in another pain clinic.

In her first appeal to this court, Sadler challenged the sufficiency of the evidence underlying two of her four convictions in addition to challenging the reasonableness of her sentence. The court rejected her sentencing arguments and one of her sufficiency challenges, but held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction of wire fraud, which requires evidence that an individual has used interstate communications to carry out a scheme " intended to deprive [people] of their money or property." United States v. Sadler, 750 F.3d 585, 590 (6th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). The court concluded there was no evidence that Sadler's scheme had deprived anyone of money or property. As a result, the wire fraud conviction was vacated,

Page 435

and Sadler's case was remanded for further proceedings.

Both parties agreed to resentencing following remand. Prior to resentencing, Sadler's probation officer was directed by the district court to supplement the presentence...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP