United States v. Daniel Stanford, 883 F.3d 500

Stanford, a former criminal defense lawyer, was convicted after a 10-day jury trial of (1) CSA conspiracy (Count One), (2) conspiracy to introduce misbranded drugs into interstate commerce (Count Two), and (3) money laundering conspiracy (Count Three); the jury found he knew AM-2201 was a CSA.
On appeal (Stanford I), the Fifth Circuit reversed Count One based on McFadden (knowledge that a substance is a CSA is an element) but affirmed the other convictions and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand the district court resentenced Stanford on Counts Two and Three, again applying U.S.S.G. § 2N2.1 (FDCA/misbranding guideline) and its cross-reference to a drug guideline, and denied Stanford’s renewed request for in camera review of DEA co‑conspirator witness reports (Brady material).
Stanford appealed the guideline selection/cross-reference, sought in camera review of the same witness reports previously litigated on appeal, and requested reassignment to a different district judge.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the guideline interpretation de novo (plain‑error where unpreserved) and held: (1) § 2N2.1 was the most appropriate guideline for Count Two; (2) the § 2N2.1(c)(2) cross‑reference permissibly applied using relevant‑conduct principles even though Count One was reversed; (3) Stanford could not relitigate his Brady request on remand under the waiver/law‑of‑the‑case principles; and (4) reassignment was unwarranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate guideline for Count Two	Stanford: the FDCA count alleging intent to defraud fits the fraud guideline (§ 2B1.1)	Government: the gravamen is a misbranding/drug‑trafficking scheme; § 2N2.1 (with cross‑references) is appropriate	Court: § 2N2.1 is the most appropriate guideline
Applicability of § 2N2.1(c)(2) cross‑reference	Stanford: cross‑reference requires another separate offense of conviction (Count One was vacated)	Government: cross‑reference may be applied based on relevant conduct, not necessarily a second conviction	Court: § 2N2.1(c)(2) may be applied based on relevant‑conduct principles; no plain error
Renewed request for in camera Brady review of co‑conspirator reports	Stanford: McFadden made knowledge newly relevant so Brady review should be permitted on remand	Government: Stanford already litigated and failed to show a colorable Brady claim on appeal; waiver/law‑of‑the‑case bars relitigation	Court: Denied—Brady claim forfeited under waiver/law‑of‑the‑case; remand not a second bite at the apple
Reassignment to different judge	Stanford: prior trial/rulings and statements show judge bias or fixed opinion	Government: no extraordinary circumstances; routine case management and adverse rulings don’t require reassignment	Court: Denied—record does not warrant reassignment; relief is extraordinary and not shown

Stanford v. United States, 823 F.3d 814 (5th Cir. 2016) (prior panel decision reversing Count One under McFadden and remanding)
McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015) (knowledge that a substance is a CSA is an element for § 846/§ 841(b)(1)(C))
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of material exculpatory evidence violates due process)
United States v. Grant, 850 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2017) (method for selecting applicable guideline; refer to Statutory Index)
United States v. Principe, 203 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2000) (consider indictment allegations and statute to choose guideline)
United States v. Ihenacho, 716 F.3d 266 (1st Cir. 2013) (illustrative FDCA/C.S.A. guideline selection where fraud guideline applied)
United States v. Hochschild, 442 F.3d 974 (6th Cir. 2006) (analyzing guideline cross‑references in choosing applicable guideline)
United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) (distinguishing conspiracy statutes and overt‑act requirements)