narcotics something doctors do every day he must have had the intent to act as a quote unquote pusher and not as a medical professional in fact this court said a practitioner becomes a criminal not when he has a bad or negligent the law is clear good faith is something that has been discussed repeatedly in this context by the supreme court in this court in multiple cases and as far as the evidence is concerned there was certainly  sufficient evidence that he in fact was acting as a doctor and not as a pusher when he met with these various undercover officers well those arguments were made and i q to the jury and they inveigle there's no question about that the problem is while that was challenged in fine hold this court said well it's ok because a good faith instruction was given and therefore that th ose instructions were ok because it was in combination with the good faith instructions that were in fact given but they were not given here the jury was not given the opportunity to understand that good faith is in fact a defense that if a doctor acts with acts in good faith to provide medical assistance to a patient even if that includes person writing addictive opioids that that's ok but drugs never taught that and that's the problem that we have here and the fact is in case after case after case in which  arguments have been made that the instructions were insufficient this court has said well no it was ok because there was a good faith instruction the supreme court in moore said no the instructions were given were ok because there was a good faith in the government argues also hear that all right well there was an instruction that was objected to with respect to narcotics withdraw and that narcotic withdraw is so we for the treatment of addiction would not be in good faith now they said that was ok because that comes from hayes of course also in hayes there was an accompanying good faith instruction which is what that language was actually referencing but again one looks at the evidence there was certainly plenty of evidence that supports it that i'll now focus on a little bit more because if you look at the recordings of the various undercovers who met with d you'll see that their son tried to dissuade the patients from obtaining the drugs that they want and dr sun only asked for payment for the actual doctor visits not for any prescriptions  that were were given out he gave specific instructions on drug usage he try to limit the number of pills that were given all of this were part of what would be a good faith the sense and demonstrate that he in fact was not acting as a pusher but in fact was acting as a medical profession if you want to talk about the money laundering i did here with respect to money laundering the key point here is whether or not dr son was concealing the funds he deposited the funds that he received into his personal bank account that was in his actual set up with his actual social security number at his address there was no concealments of any of that money it was easily easily discoverable in facts the iris agent testified yes we didn't have any difficulty finding this money it was in his personal bank account and so it's frankly a pretty simple argument in this court multiple courts have said look if if the money is deposited into an believe that there was here now the government does rightly point out there was no rule twenty nine that was made so the error is here is plain error review but again if the government failed to prove any central is the court and the baron for the united states good morning there's a short answer why defendants good faith argument is wrong there's a long answer i'll start with the short answer the short answer is that fine gold explicitly defined the elements of the offense that's a page one thousand eight it said simply put to convict a practitioner what forty one a and then it went on to list elements one two and three that being the distribution acting outside the course of practice and intending to do so the district court's instructions elements as recited by this court in feingold it is well established that where there is a specific intent element a good faith instruction isn't required because specific intent is good faith defense essentially negating specific intent is the effort presenting good faith and it's well established throughout this court's precedents therefore no abuse of discretion and certainly not plain error it's as simple as that the long answer let me have you stop at the short answer yes or my colleagues any questions on the good faith instruction then that's fine we can explore it further by like you to pivot to the money laundering conviction because i think that's a that's a tougher case for the government even on plain air review what what evidence shows concealment  source location the nature of the funds versus an effort to just conceal the underlying criminal activity is there let me just summarize the facts and then i'll present the arguments about them so the facts and again all this is construed in the government's favor is that the defendant beginning in two thousand and nine two thousand and two thousand and nine the gand dramatically escalating his control drug prescriptions between two thousand and two thousand and ten there is a seven fold increase the timing of that is important because the defender was on probation he waited a certain amount of time to fill he was clear and then begin prescribing again but in any event that massive spike occurred at the same time that that massive spike occurred there was a fortunate massive spike in his cash deposits over the course of the country defense there was a one point one million dollars total amount of cash deposit into his accounts of about a three year period in two thousand and ten is really when that spike escalated exactly when the drugs spiked and that same year when that escalation happened the defendant split virtually fifty fifty the three hundred thousand dollars in cash between the two accounts half going into his personal account have going to his business account the following year tw as that spike in his control drug prescriptions escalated all of a sudden the cash stopped going into his business account altogether and went only into his personal account the defendant's deposits into those accounts are being co mingled with various funds checks  other you know proceeds that he was putting into the accounts and when the defendant was interviewed he admitted that he was in fact running a cash business and that he was in fact trying to conceal the funds now he said that he was trying to conceal two law enforcement and regulators to protect himself but go explain to me again what the significance is of of the fact that there was a spike in prescriptions issued and corresponding spike in that he found that taking cash and putting it into his personal account now the commingling of funds there might be something there with regard to you know serving us evidentiary support for concealment money laundering but  read the government's opening statement closing argument the government's argument was really that he was essentially moving the money into his personal account to prevent an audit which would then lead to the discovery of the crime really the argument conflate it can the attempts to conceal the criminal activity from concealment of the nature and source of the funds it's the way the government argued it's one in the same i disagree or on a but i will point out the what the government argued but what the evidence supported the jury does the jury can make findings based on whatever it wants it doesn't have to accept the arguments but in any event sure but it's helpful to read the closing argument because this is what i have government's theory  in terms of how the evidence tied together to show concealment of the nature and source of the funds themselves i agree your honor so so let me frame the legal issues legal issue is was there a design to conceal and was that designed to conceal a listed action which in this case would be the nature and the source of the funds right and so what the defendant was doing it's common sense a doctor should make one point one million dollars in cash and the defendant didn't want that cash associated with him with his business so where that two thousand and ten distribution of the cash funds comes into play is that there literally was a fifty fifty split in the funds at the same time that that spike a prescription was occurring which is relevant to the fact that there was a design this was methodical and that's corroborated by the following year in two thousand and eleven when the defendant put all the funds in his personal account all of a sudden not just that fifty fifty split but all of it's going in the personal account all relevant to show design and that design was confirmed when the defendant made a confession admitting that he specifically did that with the intent to conceal the funds that supports the jury finding it's a simple is that the government's argument was that the defendant knew a doctor shouldn't make this much cash the defendant knew that he was on probation the defendant knew that this is the type of offense that's being investigated and what would happen if someone looked in his business account and see all this cash there would have been of the medical board which was supervising him found out that this doctor who's been already accused of the was trying to do was didn't want that money associated with his business account he wanted it to be somewhere else so if someone looked into his business accounts they wouldn't see all that money there and again i have to emphasize the defendant admitted that he was trying to hide the money right that alone supports the jury finding but would also support the jury finding even if you put that statement aside is the methodical nature that he was handling his funds the fact that he was putting in his personal business account and look at the circumcision  n let me find the name of the case i believe it was soutar of soteris the term answer tara the defendant was putting the money from one that from his gambling business illegally into his restaurant right and what these circuit h yeah that account is associated with him it might not have been a very good way to hide the funds but still he was taking one source of proceeds and putting him in another account and making them look like they were proceeds from this other separate business right and by analogy with the defense was trying to do w distance himself from these funds put them is personal account and if someone were to ask him what is this money he could provide whatever explanation he wants right the point is he's distancing himself business from these funds i guess i just need to emphasize again the standard is was there designed to conceal and the defendant admitted it and that really ends is that under your argument does that mean that every single defendant who runs an illegal business but funnels the money out of the business instead of putting it in the business would be guilty of concealment money laundering if the defendant funneled money in a way that he intended to conceal the funds then yes right if the defendant specific intent was to conceal the funds then yes that would be money laundering right assuming that he's concealing a listed attribute here the defendant did not want that money associated with his business you could see it in the way he handled his funds why was he trying to keep the funds out of his business account why right the jury was entitled just based on that alone to reach a finding that he was trying to get it away from his business accounts wouldn't be associated with him right why did the definitive myth that he was concealing it because he was so i mean look it's plain air first of all is the standard that appl we're familiar with i'm sure is what's the practical effect of these counts in this case in terms of i mean let's assume that i'm not saying this but i believe them to try think long term here let's say we agree with you on all of the narcotics and drug charges but disagree with the money  basically nine hundred fifty six applies the offense level for the underlying offense and then applies a two level enhanced meant for the one nine hundred fifty six violation itself and then if i recall correctly and again i have prepared this i'm sorry if i'm wrong i believe there's an additional six level enhanced but that applies if the purpose of the funds was to conceal drug trafficking so if i remember correctly there are hands once that apply but ultimately that's neither here nor there because there was sufficient evidence right well how old is the defend now eighty years old your honor and here all defendant prescribing narcotics can kill people just as easily as a twenty year no i'm not i'm not to blame in new york you can say he was old enough to know what he was doing was wrong i mean it's another another kind of canned response you can give but i'm trying to see what the be otherwise you're conflating hiding the underlying criminal activity exactly with hiding the proceeds of this scheme he didn't want those proceeds to be associated with the medical business because he didn't want that money to be associated with the drug proceeds that he was earning therefore he's hiding the source in the nature of the funds it's as simple as that and again you know that the issue look it sounds as though if the if these if your honour's were on the jury might have reached a different conclusion but that's not the standard that applies the standard is  as favorably for the government as possible could a reasonable juror have reached this conclusion and moreover would a jury have plainly erred in doing so and the answer is no the answer when you look at the pattern of deposits but the  is well recognized to be evidence of money laundering you could just look at that was there evidence presented as to commingling oh yes yes your honor the agent testified to that and the bank records that were presented for the specific transactions included the deposit slips and other records showing the commingling of the cash deposit with the other funds that were also deposit into the accounts that wasn't evidence your honor does the court wish to hear anything else on the jury instructions because i can address that i don't nee reverse obviously they'll have to be a reset in saying but it wouldn't impact the drug counts because all of the money evidence would still be admissible relevant evidence of the drug trafficking and i'm not even sure for sentencing it matters i'm just looking at the present report right now if last the question i think the sentencing here was tied to the amount of drugs sold not not to i don't i don't see any hansen's for that may be true you know that's true i should concede that point because i'm not sure the law i'm i'm i'm i'm i'm really i'm i don't see much ado about nothing but i think that maybe where we are in this on these counts a much really really matter but anyway i think we i think we i think we hear where you're coming from and the only last thing i'd say on this and then i'll be done is that in my brief i cited cases that have found that defended putting money in accounts in their own name can still be money laundering right that libby maybe you can briefly touch on my question i'm not saying that commissions of things don't matter but practically speaking why are these counts matter because convictions do matter ok we've got that so getting past that so these counts in fact have the longest at max's of all of the can but we're not going to not that much by we're not close to that true but of course they could have been a part of the court's thinking in terms of what the ultimate sense would be right so three hundred dollars in special assessments but yes he would get that back up and if i could just address respond to some of what opposing counsel just said first there's nothing wrong with an all cash business the government seems to have made a big deal about that the of medical practices that are all cash businesses there's nothing wrong with that choice but when i'm playing air review and counsel in this argument reference the fact that there is evidence below us to commingling of funds which then takes it a little bit beyond the situation where you merely just taking cash out funds in a personal bank account i mean you commingle funds from all sorts of sources into a personal bank account that's not frankly relevant to the issue of whether or conceals the source of those funds that's what's relevant and in fact what case law has talked about is when it comes to commingling is when you commingle funds in business accounts when you put them in accounts with various you know d b a accounts that are not in the descendants name that's where you can in fact can hide money the superior case that counsel pointed out from the circuit that was where the deposits went to a business account not a personal account and that's where you can have concealment is when you put it in a business account here what what what the court is that you know where defend it takes no steps to design or conceal the source of the funds leaving an easy to follow trail in moving money around those transactions conspicuously lacked the