Admission of expert testimony that did not clearly distinguish civil malpractice from criminal behavior was not an abuse of discretion.
Sufficient evidence where deft expert offers the only clear guidance on threshold of criminality, and court follows indications of another expert.
Indictment alleging dispensing of controlled substances by transaction as opposed to by substance not defective; additionally, would be harmless error as elements of the offense were identical. No error in allowing conviction on theory of multiple dispensation where the crime is single dispensation.
Absent curative instruction, plain error in constructive amendment of indictment when, during testimony at trial, prosecution witness alleged a second false statement.
Given the procedures used, state administrative vacatur did not make a prior suspension of medical license a legal nullity.
Sentence challenge moot, as already served.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-1231.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.