United States v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 31 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Action No. 16-98 (CKK) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. IVAN L. ROBINSON, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Defendant Ivan Robinson was convicted of forty-two counts of prescribing oxycodone outside the legitimate practice of medicine and two counts of money laundering. Shortly before Defendant Robinson's scheduled sentencing hearing on April 26, 2021, the Clerk of Court received by mail two motions filed by Defendant Robinson, pro se:1 [418] Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Violation of Rights Guaranteed to Defendant Pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution or in the Alternative Motion for Mistrial and [417] Defendant's Motion for Franks Evidentiary Hearing. The Court continued the sentencing hearing to allow time to consider the arguments raised in each of his motions. After reviewing both motions, the Court noted that most of the arguments offered by Defendant Robinson have been addressed by the Court in earlier pleadings, but ordered the Government to respond to a discrete issue that had been discussed only orally during the jury's deliberations.
Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, for the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendant Robinson's motions.
Defendant Robinson was a licensed nurse practitioner who maintained a medical practice in Washington, D.C., with offices in various locations. ECF No. 284, 1. Defendant Robinson's practice eventually comprised thousands of patients and he began to specialize in spinal injuries. Id. Defendant Robinson represents that he treated his patients with a "patented protocol including spinal decompression therapy, medication, exercise, and diet," which involved "oxycodone in a dose of 30 milligrams" as part of the medication protocol. Id.
In February 2013, the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") received reports from "pharmacists who had noticed suspicious patterns regarding oxycodone prescriptions originating from the defendant's practice" and subsequently launched an investigation into Defendant Robinson's medical practice. ECF No. 290, 5. In March 2013, undercover officers went to one of Defendant Robinson's clinics and posed as patients "in an attempt to purchase oxycodone prescriptions." Id. Two of the agents were able to "purchase a prescription for oxycodone from the defendant in exchange for $370 blank money orders," while the third agent "was turned away." Id. at 5 n.5. The two agents who received prescriptions returned in April 2013, and obtained additional prescriptions for oxycodone, again in exchange for $370 in blank money orders and without an adequate physical exam. Id. On June 19, 2013, search warrants were executed and conducted at Defendant Robinson's home and at two of his clinics. Id. at 6. Following the execution of the search warrants, Defendant Robinson withdrew $108,000 from his bank account. ECF No. 284, 2.
On June 7, 2016, Defendant Robinson was indicted with fifty-five counts of prescribing oxycodone "outside the legitimate practice of medicine," as well as forfeiture allegations with respect to the $108,000 bank account withdrawal, cash found on him during the execution of thesearch warrant, and a vehicle. Id. On April 27, 2017, a superseding indictment was returned, charging Defendant Robinson with sixty-one counts of prescribing oxycodone—eighteen of which were eventually dropped2—and two counts of money laundering pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1957. ECF No. 290, 4.
On August 10, 2017, following an approximately 20-day trial, Defendant Robinson was found guilty of forty-two counts of prescribing oxycodone outside the legitimate practice of medicine and two counts of money laundering. Id. Defendant Robinson was found not guilty of one count of prescribing oxycodone. Id. Lastly, the jury arrived at a split verdict on the forfeiture allegations, determining that the $108,000 and the vehicle were "proceeds constituting or derived from [Defendant's] prescription of oxycodone and money laundering," while ten money orders, totaling $3,330 and $997 in cash, did not constitute such proceeds. Id.
This criminal matter has been the subject of extensive post-trial litigation. On October 20, 2017, trial counsel for Defendant Robinson moved for a new trial. ECF No. 284. On December 8, 2017, the United States filed an Opposition to that Motion. ECF No. 290. Prior to the filing of a Reply by Defendant Robinson, the Court received a motion from Defendant Robinson to discharge his trial counsel. ECF No. 303. On February 22, 2018, the Court granted Defendant Robinson's Motion to discharge his trial counsel. ECF No. 306. Defendant Robinson was appointed new counsel. During a March 23, 2018 hearing, the Court allowed Defendant Robinson's new counsel to have extensive time to review the record of the case and to accommodate counsel's schedule. The Court ordered that, following a review of the case, Defendant Robinson would file a Reply to the United States' Opposition to Defendant Robinson'sMotion for a New Trial which would address the arguments in Defendant Robinson's original motion as well as any arguments that the new defense counsel sought to raise. Minute Order (Mar. 23, 2018).
On December 31, 2018, Defendant Robinson filed his Reply to the United States' Opposition. ECF No. 327. He also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Institution of Conditions of Release Pending Sentencing, bringing new arguments relating to two alleged Brady violations and ineffective assistance of counsel. ECF No. 326. On February 14, 2019, the United States filed an omnibus response to both of Defendant Robinson's pending motions. ECF No. 330. The Government argued that Defendant Robinson had received effective assistance of counsel but indicated that if the claim was to be pursued additional discovery would be required. Id. And, on March 8, 2019, Defendant Robinson filed a Reply to the United States' Opposition. ECF No. 332. On April 1, 2019, the Court held a teleconference to discuss Defendants Robinson's pending Motions. During the teleconference, the Court indicated that there was overlap between Defendant Robinson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim and his other claims. As such, in order to resolve the pending Motions, Defendant Robinson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim would need to be more detailed. Defendant Robinson agreed to waive his attorney client privilege with his trial counsel so that the United States could conduct discovery and the Court could address the claim. April 1, 2019 Minute Order. Due to the high volume of material relating to Defendant Robinson's claim, discovery into the materials took some time. Following discovery, the Court set a schedule for supplemental briefing on Defendant Robinson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. On October 24, 2019, the United States filed its supplemental opposition to Defendant Robinson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. ECF No. 351. And, followingmultiple motions for extensions of time, Defendant Robinson filed his Reply to that Opposition on March 13, 2020. ECF No. 364.
In an order dated September 17, 2020, the Court denied Defendant Robinson's Motion for a New Trial and Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 394. The parties subsequently filed a Joint Motion for a Sentencing Date, requesting that the Court set a date for a sentencing hearing. ECF No. 404. The Court scheduled a sentencing hearing for April 26, 2021 at 3:00pm. See Minute Order (Jan. 13, 2021).
On April 19, 2021, the Clerk of Court received by mail two motions filed by Defendant Robinson, pro se, each of which total more than 80 pages: [418] Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Violation of Rights Guaranteed to Defendant Pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution or in the Alternative Motion for Mistrial ("Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss") and [417] Motion for Franks Evidentiary Hearing ("Def.'s Franks Mot."). To allow time to consider the arguments raised in both motions, the Court ordered that the sentencing hearing scheduled for April 26, 2021 be continued. See Minute Orders (Apr. 23 & 27, 2021).
After reviewing Defendant Robinson's latest motions, the Court concluded that "it appears that most of the arguments raised by Defendant have been addressed by the parties and the Court in earlier written pleadings and orders." Minute Order (Apr. 28, 2021). However, the Court noted that in his Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Robinson "raises the issue of an entrapment instruction, which was discussed by the parties and the Court only orally in response to a juror note and not by written pleadings." Id. Accordingly, the Court ordered the United States to respond to the discrete entrapment arguments raised by Defendant Robinson. Id. The Government filed its response on May 5, 2021. See Government's Reply in Opposition to Defendant's Claim that Denial of an Entrapment Jury Instruction was Error ("Gov.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss"), ECF No. 420.The Court was notified by defense counsel that Defendant Robinson intended to file pro se a response to the Government's Opposition. See Minute Order (May 10, 2021). Defendant Robinson filed a reply, comprising a 53-page pleading and more than 200 pages of exhibits, on May 26, 2021. See Defendant's Response to Government's Reply ("Def.'s Reply"), ECF No. 422.
In both of his pro se Motions, Defendant Robinson relies on arguments about the Government's suppression of "material" and "favorable" evidence, which the Court already considered in denying his earlier Motion for a New Trial. Now, he resuscitates many of the same arguments, and re-casts them as allegations of misconduct by both the prosecutors for failing to "correct" allegedly "false" or "misleading" testimony during trial and the law enforcement investigators for falsifying or omitting "ma...
To continue reading
Request your trial