United States v. Alan Silber
456 F. App'x 559
6th Cir.2012Background
- Silber supervised at a Detroit-area clinic Dec 2006–Mar 2007, amid a Medicare fraud scheme
- Clinic billed Medicare for expensive, unnecessary drugs Acthar and Cotrosyn, given to homeless patients in exchange for kickbacks
- Indicted on conspiracy and six counts of defrauding a government health program; expert testimony about drug propriety offered by Silber but excluded
- Jury convicted on all counts except conspiracy; district court sentenced Silber to 36 months, below guidelines
- Appeal challenges jury-selection method (Rule 24), exclusion of Silber's proposed expert, exclusion of character evidence, and sentencing enhancement
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 24 jury-alternate selection methods | Silber alleges improper blind-draw alternates | District court and Silber agreed to blind draw | No abuse; waiver valid; district court’s record supplementation proper |
| Exclusion of Vivian as expert | Vivian would aid in drug-use assessment | Vivian not an expert on diseases; limited drug experience | Proper exclusion under Daubert; Vivian lacked specialized knowledge for issues at hand |
| Character evidence exclusion (Rule 404/405) | Evidence shows honesty via lack of overbilling notices | Not capable of showing character via specific acts; improper habit argument | Properly excluded; Rule 405 governs specific instances, not habit recharacterization |
| Sentencing enhancement for risk of death/serious bodily injury | Silber disputes knowledge of risk; argues not reckless | Lack of subjective awareness not required if risk obvious; district court found aware | Affirmed; risk awareness supported; no clear error under Gall |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aparco-Centeno, 280 F.3d 1084 (6th Cir. 2002) (waiver and validation of jury-alternate procedures under Rule 24)
- United States v. Brika, 416 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2005) (evidentiary rulings and review under Rule 10(e)(2)(B))
- United States v. Hernandez, 227 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2000) (record supplementation not requiring evidentiary hearing; conclusive unless false)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 1999) (Daubert framework applied to admissibility of expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (fad test for expert reliability; emphasis on usefulness of testimony)
- Joiner v. General Elec. Co., 522 U.S. 136 (Supreme Court 1997) (Daubert standard applied to admissibility of expert testimony)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (standard of review for sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Serrata, 425 F.3d 886 (10th Cir. 2005) (limits on treating generic character evidence as habit)