United States v. Nancy Sadler
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7661
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Lester and Nancy Sadler operated one or more Ohio pain-management clinics that charged cash and employed rapid five-minute assessments for prescriptions.
- The clinics used phantom patients and fake day sheets to generate large volumes of hydrocodone/oxycodone prescriptions.
- Distributors and doctors were used to procure drugs; the clinics never held a terminal distributor license.
- Nancy and Lester were charged with conspiracy, maintaining a drug premises, and related offenses; Nancy was also charged with wire fraud and money laundering.
- The jury convicted on conspiracy and maintaining premises; Nancy was convicted of wire fraud and money laundering; both were sentenced, with Nancy receiving a longer term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wire fraud sufficiency | Nancy deprived distributors of money/property via deception | No deprivation of money/property; misrepresentation about intent doesn’t fit fraud | Wire fraud reversed; no property deprivation established |
| Maintenance of drug premises sufficiency | Carlos? (Plaintiff) properly showed maintenance for distribution | Evidence shows Nancy/Lester maintained premises to distribute drugs | upheld; the premises were maintained for distribution |
| Conspiracy sufficiency | Ample evidence of agreement and participation | No direct evidence linking to conspiracy | upheld; sufficient evidence of conspiracy |
| Sentencing calculations and enhancements | Drug quantity, leadership role, and probation enhancements properly applied | Challenges to enhancements and quantity | affirmed as to calculations and enhancements; no reversible error |
| Overall sentence reasonableness | Sentence within guideline range is presumptively reasonable | Record suggests improper consideration of unrelated enterprises | substantively reasonable; within guideline range |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (US 2000) (fraud statute's deprivation of property requirement)
- McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (US 1987) (limits fraud statute to property rights)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (US 1999) (intent requirements in fraud/statutory interpretation)
- Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19 (US 1988) (intangible rights otherwise not protected by fraud statutes)
- Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (US 2000) (federal–state balance in prosecution for fraud)
- United States v. Murphy, 836 F.2d 248 (6th Cir. 1988) (control/right to information not property for fraud)