CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HAROLD PERSAUD,
Defendant-Appellant.
   Nos. 16-3105/3427/3578
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:14-cr-00276-1—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.
Argued: May 4, 2017
Decided and Filed: June 13, 2017
Before: BOGGS, McKEAGUE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. On August 20, 2014, defendant-appellant Harold Persaud, M.D. was named in a 16-count federal grand jury indictment in the Northern District of Ohio. He was charged with one count of health-care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347, fourteen counts of making false statements relating to health-care matters, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1035, and one count of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. The grand jury also returned a forfeiture finding, requiring Persaud to forfeit any and all property linked to the charges, including $343,634.67 seized from two bank accounts associated with Persaud and his wife. The thrust of the government’s charges was that Dr. Persaud, a cardiologist working in his own private practice in Westlake, Ohio, ordered unnecessary tests and systematically overestimated the degree of arterial blockage in his patients in order to justify costly interventional procedures such as “stenting.” The government also accused Persaud of “upcoding” certain medical bills—that is, Persaud intentionally overreported the complexity of his patients’ medical issues in order to maximize his reimbursement from Medicare and private insurers.

Persaud pleaded not guilty. In a nearly one-month jury trial, lasting from August 31, 2015, to September 28, 2015, the government presented 34 witnesses, including 11 physicians, eight patients, and four nurses. The defense relied on five witnesses, including an expert cardiologist, two referring physicians, and a coding expert. The jury ultimately convicted Persaud on all charges, except for one of the false-statement counts listed in the indictment. In a subsequent money-judgment hearing, the same jury returned special verdicts concluding that: (1) the $343,634.67 seized from the Persauds’ bank accounts was forfeitable proceeds of Persaud’s health-care fraud scheme; (2) the $250,188.42 seized from Persaud’s wife’s account was related to his money-laundering conviction; and (3) Persaud’s scheme generated gross proceeds in the amount of $2,100,000.

The district court sentenced Persaud to 20 years of imprisonment, a $1,500 special assessment, and restitution. The district court later determined the outstanding restitution amount to be $5,486,857.03, which consists of money damages to be paid to Persaud’s patients, their private insurers, and the United States. Persaud filed separate appeals challenging his conviction and sentence, the forfeiture order, the restitution order, and the district court’s order denying release pending the outcome of this appeal. The first three challenges have been consolidated in this appeal; another panel has already denied Persaud’s request for release. The government has also filed a motion to strike portions of Persaud’s briefs on appeal, arguing that they impermissibly relied upon evidence that was not admitted at trial.

For the following reasons, we affirm Persaud’s convictions on all counts, his sentence, and the district court’s restitution and forfeiture orders, and we dismiss the government’s motion as moot.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al.
Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al.,
Respondents,

UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Intervenors.
   Nos. 08-3023/15-3578
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Federal Communications Commission.
Nos. 07-190; 15-3.
Argued: December 8, 2016
Decided and Filed: July 12, 2017
Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. In this case we have one set of regulators litigating against another. Over the last ten years, the Federal Communications Commission has published three written orders that together establish a series of rules governing how local governments may regulate cable companies and cable services. Several local governments have petitioned our court to review the FCC’s two most recent orders, arguing among other things that the FCC misinterpreted the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., and failed to explain the bases for some of its decisions. We agree with some of those criticisms, and thus grant the petition in part and deny it in part.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DEMOND BAKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-3325
On Joint Motion to Vacate and Remand.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.
No. 5:15-cr-00245-12—James S. Gwin, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: July 12, 2017
Before: KEITH, BATCHELDER, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. In light of the parties’ joint motion to vacate the May 30, 2017, panel decision and remand for de novo resentencing, we hereby VACATE our prior decision and REMAND this matter to the district court for the purpose of vacating Defendant-Appellant’s sentence and for further proceedings consistent with this order.