United States v. Starks case brief summary
157 F.3d 833 (1998)
CASE FACTS
Defendants, who were convicted in a federal district court under the anti-kickback provision of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1320a-7b, appealed their convictions, alleging that the district court committed reversible error when it refused to instruct the jury that under § 1320a-7b, they had to have known that their medical referrals arrangement violated § 1320a-7b in order to be convicted. Defendants also alleged that § 1320a-7b was unconstitutionally vague. The government cross-appealed, alleging that one of the defendants was not entitled to the reduced sentence he received.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed defendants' conviction because the jury instructions sufficiently informed the jurors and the anti-kickback statute was not vague in that it defined defendants' offenses with sufficient clarity. The court reversed the sentence of defendant who received a reduced sentence for acceptance of responsibility because the statements of that defendant at trial were inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
157 F.3d 833 (1998)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendants appealed
judgments of the United States Court for the Middle District of
Florida, which convicted them under the anti-kickback provision of
the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1320a-7b. The government
cross-appealed the reduced sentence of one of the defendants,
alleging that he was not entitled to a reduction.CASE FACTS
Defendants, who were convicted in a federal district court under the anti-kickback provision of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1320a-7b, appealed their convictions, alleging that the district court committed reversible error when it refused to instruct the jury that under § 1320a-7b, they had to have known that their medical referrals arrangement violated § 1320a-7b in order to be convicted. Defendants also alleged that § 1320a-7b was unconstitutionally vague. The government cross-appealed, alleging that one of the defendants was not entitled to the reduced sentence he received.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the jury was correctly instructed because § 1320a-7b did not constitute a special exception to the requirement of willfulness, the instructions given the jury were sufficient to inform the jurors so that they understood the issues and were not misled, and that § 1320a-7b was not vague because it defined the offense with sufficient clarity to enable ordinary people to understand what conduct was prohibited.
- The court reversed and remanded defendant's reduced sentence because he did not prove that he clearly accepted responsibility for his offense.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed defendants' conviction because the jury instructions sufficiently informed the jurors and the anti-kickback statute was not vague in that it defined defendants' offenses with sufficient clarity. The court reversed the sentence of defendant who received a reduced sentence for acceptance of responsibility because the statements of that defendant at trial were inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment