United States v. Christopher Elder
682 F.3d 1065
8th Cir.2012Background
- Solomon and Dr. Elder were tried for conspiring to dispense and distribute and aiding and abetting the distribution of hydrocodone, alprazolam, and promethazine from a Missouri pharmacy to Houston.
- Defendants were convicted under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846; Solomon also convicted of money laundering conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).
- District court varied downward and sentenced Solomon to 24 months and Elder to 15 months; both received a joint forfeiture judgment of $991,114 under 21 U.S.C. § 853.
- Forfeiture was based on a government declaration tying proceeds to prescriptions filled at The Medicine Shoppe and other entities, with evidence including hundreds of prescriptions written by Elder and mail-forwarded to Texas, and extensive cross-potentiation among participants.
- Rostie and Martin pleaded guilty; STWC owners were granted immunity; Solomon and Elder were the only named conspirators tried; appellants challenge sufficiency of evidence and forfeiture, and Elder argues for severance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for drug distribution conspiracy | Solomon | Solomon | Substantial evidence supports the conspiracy beyond usual professional practice. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Elder’s substantive counts | Elder | Elder | Evidence showed Elder knowingly issued prescriptions outside the usual course of professional practice. |
| Forfeiture amount and attribution | Solomon | Solomon | The district court rightly used the forfeiture declaration; joint and several liability supported by foreseeability. |
| Motion to sever | Elder | Elder | No abuse of discretion; severance not warranted where evidence relates to the common drug conspiracy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 154 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 1998) (forfeiture liability in conspiracy cases is joint and several, tied to foreseeability)
- United States v. Van Nguyen, 602 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2010) (proceeds may be foreseen as target of forfeit in drug conspiracies)
- United States v. Eastman, 149 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 1998) (proceeds for forfeiture may be based on record evidence and related declarations)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 647 (1946) (co-conspirators liable for foreseeable criminal acts)
- Santos v. United States, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (definition of proceeds under federal forfeiture law)
- United States v. Simmons, 154 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 1998) (foreseeability and joint liability in conspiracy forfeiture)
- Armstrong v. United States, 550 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2008) (lay evidence can support showing prescriptions were outside usual practice)
- United States v. Roberts, 660 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2011) (forfeiture and proceeds analysis in conspiracy cases)