No plain error in conviction where the procedures of the medical practice were the subject of testimony and the link to the individual cases in the indictment was merely the patients' medical files.
Finder of fact might reasonably have found the non-narcotics elements of the medical practice to be cookie-cutter and superficial cover for the actual work of the practice.
Even absent a showing as to the amount of "clean money" in a commingled account, no plain error in the aggregation of all withdrawals in computing the total amount of withdrawals to determine if the amount withdrawn must necessarily have included the criminal proceeds.
No plain error in mail fraud conviction where finder of fact might have found an implied promise in the patient communications of a proper standard of care.
Witness' opinion of illicit nature of practice sufficiently based in commonsensical inference.
Arguendo, if Confrontation Clause was violated by not allowing deft to cross after prosecution assertion in direct that witness (who had been notified that she was a target of an investigation) was not a suspect; testimony was cumulative.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20159-CR0.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.