U.S. v. Davis, 97-60157
Decision Date | 13 January 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 97-60157,97-60157 |
Citation | 132 F.3d 1092 |
Parties | Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 45,987 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Gaines H. Cleveland, Biloxi, MS, Cliff Johnson, Jackson, Ms, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Luke M. Dove, Dove, Chill & Calhoun, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Howard Davis appeals his conviction for conspiracy to offer and pay inducements for Medicare patient referrals, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and two counts of offering and paying such inducements, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(2)(A). Davis alleges that the district court erred in failing to give the jury certain requested instructions regarding the mental state required to violate the relevant statutes and also in admitting evidence of multiple, unrelated conspiracies. We affirm.
We review a district court's refusal to give a requested instruction only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Smithson, 49 F.3d 138, 142 (5th Cir.1995). In order to prevail under this standard, Davis must demonstrate that his requested instructions were (1) correct statements of the law, (2) not substantially covered in the charge as a whole, and (3) of such importance that "the failure to instruct the jury on the issue seriously impaired the defendant's ability to present a given defense." United States v. Upton, 91 F.3d 677, 683 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied sub nom. Barrick v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 1818, 137 L.Ed.2d 1027 (1997).
Davis' first requested instruction asserts that the jury may find Davis guilty of conspiracy only if it finds that Davis' cash payments to a certain doctor were "for no other purpose" than "inducing the referral of Medicare patients." This is an erroneous statement of the law and was therefore correctly denied. See Polk County, Tex. v. Peters, 800 F.Supp. 1451, 1456 (E.D.Tex.1992) ( ). Likewise, the district court correctly refused Davis' second requested instruction dealing with the subject of good faith because those concepts were adequately explained through the district court's definitions of the terms "knowingly" and "willfully." See Upton, 91 F.3d at 683 ( ).
Davis argues, however, that the general definitions of those terms will not suffice here, given that 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(2)(A) contains a "heightened scienter requirement." See Hanlester Network v. Shalala, 51 F.3d 1390, 1400 (9th Cir.1995) ( ). Without deciding whether the statute does contain such a requirement, however, we note that even the Hanlester court requires knowledge only that the conduct in question was unlawful, and not necessarily knowledge of which particular statute makes the conduct unlawful. See id. (defendant's conduct "knowing and willful" even under a heightened standard of mens rea because "[h]er actions reflect both knowledge that her conduct was unlawful, and a specific intent to disobey the law.") one . Viewed in this light, the district court's instructions amply protected Davis' interests by informing the jury that knowingly "means that the act was done voluntarily and intentionally, not because of mistake or accident," and willfully "means that the act was committed voluntarily and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peavy v. Harman
...to describe a requisite mental state requires proof of specific intent. See Screws, 65 S.Ct. at 1037; see also United States v. Davis, 132 F.3d 1092, 1094 (5th Cir.1998) (approving jury instruction defining "willfully" as meaning "that the act was committed voluntarily and purposely with th......
-
Waldmann v. Fulp
...is to induce ... patient referrals." United States v. McClatchey , 217 F.3d 823, 835 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Davis , 132 F.3d 1092, 1094 (5th Cir. 1998) ). It is not necessary to show that inducing referrals was the primary purpose of the remuneration. Id. Here, evidence p......
-
U.S. v. Morrow
...in at least one of them, then clearly there is no variance affecting that defendant's substantial rights." United States v. Davis, 132 F.3d 1092, 1095 (5th Cir.1998) (citing Faulkner, 17 F.3d at 762). Finally, as a safeguard against prejudice, the jurors were cautioned in the instructions f......
-
United States v. Sanjar
...fraud.8 The instruction is an accurate statement of the law as it relates to the scope of the safe harbor defense. United States v. Davis, 132 F.3d 1092, 1094 (5th Cir. 1998) (rejecting argument that government must prove that a payment was for "no other purpose than inducing the referral o......
-
OIG Joint Venture Advisory Opinion Does Not Consider Multiple Court Decisions That Undermine The Conclusions In Its Opinion
...a person must specifically intend to do something the law forbids, purposely intending to violate the law"); United States v. Davis, 132 F.3d 1092, 1094 (5th Cir. 1998) (affirming an AKS jury instruction that willfully "means that the act was committed voluntarily and purposely with the spe......
-
OIG Joint Venture Advisory Opinion Does Not Consider Multiple Court Decisions That Undermine The Conclusions In Its Opinion
...a person must specifically intend to do something the law forbids, purposely intending to violate the law"); United States v. Davis, 132 F.3d 1092, 1094 (5th Cir. 1998) (affirming an AKS jury instruction that willfully "means that the act was committed voluntarily and purposely with the spe......
-
Health care fraud.
...United States v. McClatchey, 217 F.3d 823, 829 (10th Cir. 2000) (requiring specific intent to violate the law), United States v. Davis, 132 F.3d 1092, 1094 (5th Cir. 1998) (upholding jury instruction that defined "willfully" as acting "with the specific intent to do something the law forbid......
-
Health care fraud.
...United States v. McClatchey, 217 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 2000) (requiring specific intent to violate the law), United States v. Davis, 132 F.3d 1092, 1094 (5th Cir. 1998) (upholding jury instruction that defined "willfully" as acting "with the specific intent to do something the law forbids; th......
-
Health care fraud.
...United States v. McClatchey, 217 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 2000) (requiring specific intent to violate the law), United States v. Davis, 132 F.3d 1092, 1094 (5th Cir. 1998) (upholding jury instruction that defined "willfully" as acting "with the specific intent to do something the law forbids; th......
-
Health care fraud.
...United States v. McClatchey, 217 F.3d 823, 829 (10th Cir. 2000) (requiting specific intent to violate the law), United States v. Davis, 132 F.3d 1092, 1094 (5th Cir. 1998) (upholding jury instruction that defined "willfully" as acting "with the specific intent to do something the law forbid......