Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03081/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03081-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Drury
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3081

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Richard Drury, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Dick Drury, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 17, 2006

Filed: April 24, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard Drury was the Chief Executive Officer for Easy Returns Worldwide,

Inc. (ERW), a company that returns expired or nearly expired drugs to pharmaceutical

companies for credit on behalf of the pharmacists and wholesalers who purchased

them. After learning Drury had directed others to return drugs with undocumented

sources to the manufacturers with the false assertion that they had been purchased by

certain pharmacies, the Government charged Drury with four counts of mail fraud.

At trial, pharmacists testified Drury had approached them to return undocumented

expired drugs under their pharmacy’s name, charging a fee of 33% rather than the

normal 10%. Some of the drugs were returned to the manufacturers in this way

Appellate Case: 05-3081 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036318
*

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

through interstate commerce, and the manufacturers credited the pharmacies. Because

Drury worked for a percentage of ERW’s profits, he benefitted financially from the

bogus transactions. After the jury convicted Drury on all counts, the district court*

sentenced him to forty-two months in prison and ordered restitution in the amount of

$726,956.50. 

On appeal, Drury challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we conclude a reasonable jury

could have found Drury guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Hively,

437 F.3d 752, 761 (8th Cir. 2006). To prove Drury committed mail fraud, the

Government had to show, among other things, that Drury intended to defraud the

manufacturers, id. at 760, and that he sent material misrepresentations through the

mail, id. at 764. According to Drury, the evidence failed to establish his intent to

defraud and the materiality of his misrepresentations. We disagree. 

The Government proved Drury made material misrepresentations to the

pharmaceutical manufacturers with the intent to defraud them. The evidence showed

Drury knew the manufacturers only accepted expired drugs from pharmacies that had

purchased them directly from the manufacturer or from an authorized wholesaler, and

Drury directed ERW employees to return undocumented expired drugs on behalf of

pharmacies that had not purchased them with the false assertion that the pharmacies

had bought the drugs. The misrepresentation was material because the manufacturers

would not have provided credit for the returns unless they were misled into believing

the drugs had been purchased by the returning pharmacy. The jury could infer Drury

intended to defraud the manufacturers by his intentional acts of concealment. See

United States v. Jorgensen, 144 F.3d 550, 558 (8th Cir. 1998). The district court thus

properly denied Drury’s motion for judgment of acquittal. 

Appellate Case: 05-3081 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036318
-3-

Drury also asserts the restitution order overstated the amount of loss suffered

by the pharmaceutical firms. The district court did not commit clear error in ordering

Drury to pay $726,956.50 because there was substantial, reliable evidence to support

that amount. See United States v. Fogg, 409 F.3d 1022, 1028 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard

of review). Independent evidence showed Drury directed the submission of fraudulent

returns to the pharmaceutical manufacturers in the amount of $906,356.68. Because

ERW usually only obtained about 80% of the creditworthy amount, the district court

reduced the fraudulent returns by 20%. Contrary to Drury’s assertions, the amount

of restitution is not limited to the amount of his personal gain, or the victims’ claims

for compensation. 

We thus affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3081 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036318