United States v. Devon Golding, 833 F.3d 914

Dr. Devon Northon Golding, an approved Medicare/Medicaid physician, was convicted of three counts of health-care benefits fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1347) and two counts of making false statements about health-care delivery/payment (18 U.S.C. § 1035).
Nurse Marletta Payne saw patients and billed under Golding’s provider number when Golding was absent; Payne used prescription pads pre-signed by Golding and prepared progress notes Golding later signed.
At least three claims were reimbursed for visits Payne performed while Golding was out of town; at least two involved controlled-substance prescriptions written on pre-signed pads.
Pretrial, Golding moved to exclude evidence of a 1998 Board investigation concerning a former physician assistant and a 2011 Board of Pharmacy settlement with Golding’s pharmacy; the district court denied exclusion but gave a limiting instruction that the evidence was for intent/knowledge only.
The government successfully excluded proposed testimony from Golding’s accountant and limited testimony from an office-sharing physician; the court also sustained a relevance objection to Golding’s sister’s testimony about discovered petty cash.
Golding appealed, asserting the district court abused its discretion in admitting prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b) and in excluding proposed defense witnesses; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Golding's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Rule 404(b) of the 1998 Board investigation and 2011 pharmacy settlement	Prior acts were inadmissible character evidence and unfairly prejudicial	Prior acts were admissible to prove intent/knowledge and not overly remote or unduly prejudicial	Admission not an abuse: relevant to intent/knowledge; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice
Remoteness of 1998 investigation	1989–1991 conduct was too remote to be probative	Prior conduct probative of intent/knowledge despite age	Not overly remote; relevance depends on theory (intent/knowledge) and was reasonable to admit
Exclusion of accountant Drysdale’s testimony	Testimony about employee pay/overtime and departures bore on employer practice and bias	Testimony was irrelevant to elements of the charged offenses	Exclusion not an abuse: testimony was irrelevant to proving billing or presigning offenses
Exclusion of testimony from Dr. O’Haver and Olga Golding	O’Haver would vouch for care; Olga would report missing petty cash—both impeach prosecution witnesses/bolster defense	Testimony was marginal or irrelevant to elements (face-to-face billing and presigning)	Exclusion not an abuse: district court properly limited irrelevant evidence and cross-examination scope

Lindsey v. United States, 702 F.3d 1092 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
Shoffner v. United States, 71 F.3d 1429 (8th Cir. 1995) (Rule 404(b) forbids prior-act evidence solely to show criminal disposition)
Tyerman v. United States, 701 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2012) (four-part test for 404(b) admissibility)
Dupont v. United States, 672 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 2012) (health-care fraud requires proof of willfulness)
Franklin v. United States, 250 F.3d 653 (8th Cir. 2001) (reasonableness standard for remoteness of prior acts)
Betterton v. United States, 417 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions reduces unfair prejudice)
Elbert v. United States, 561 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2009) (irrelevant evidence not admitted when it does not address elements of charged offense)
Davis v. United States, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (scope of cross-examination on bias but subject to relevance limits)