United States Sixth Circuit

In a conviction of an owner of a long-term healthcare facility for Medicaid fraud, district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment for duplicity, refusal to instruct the jury with instructions to cure the duplicity and post-trial motion to dismiss the indictment are affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's post-trial motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense as the indictment satisfied both of Hamling's requirements; 2) defendant's claim that 42 U.S.C. section 1320a-7(b) violates due process by failing to give fair notice of what it prohibits is without merit; and 3) defendant's claim that the indictment is duplicitous is without merit, and thus the district court acted within in discretion in denying the jury instructions requested by defendant to cure the alleged duplicity.

Appellate Information

• Argued 04/29/2010
• Decided 05/19/2010
• Published 05/19/2010

Judges

• Before: MOORE and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; RUSSELL, Chief District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:Dan R. Smith, Law Office, Johnson City, Tennessee, for Appellant. Debra A. Breneman, Assistant United States Attorney, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Dan R. Smith, Law Office, Johnson City, Tennessee, for Appellant. Debra A. Breneman, Assistant United States Attorney, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.