Opinion ID: 799257
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevancy of Compounding Law

Text: Next, Mr. Bader challenges Jury Instruction number twelve (Jury Instruction No. 12), pursuant to which the court informed the jury that evidence concerning whether Mr. Bader's actions constituted compounding under various legal authorities [was] not relevant to the issues that the jury was to resolve under [the court's instructions]. Id. at 2164 (Jury Instruction No. 12). Though Mr. Bader represents that he objected at trial to the court's instruction, he did not do so on the grounds that he asserts here. See Aplt. App., Vol. VIII, Tr. at 2699. [7] We therefore review his claim for plain error. See Willis, 476 F.3d at 1127. Mr. Bader argues that the court erroneously told the jury that none of these meticulous and required pharmacy processing standards mattered when, in truth, they controlled the core questions: whether the [HGH] was already finished prior to College's purchase, and whether [Mr.] Bader knew this. Aplt. Opening Br. at 49; see also Aplt. Reply Br. at 12 (noting that [Mr.] Bader's defense that compounding absolutely had to occur before this [HGH] was in finished form safe and ready for patient dispensing was wholly negated by the court's instruction that all evidence about compounding was irrelevant ). His objection to Instruction No. 12, therefore, relates exclusively to his § 545-related charges. As discussed above, however, we must reverse and vacate Mr. Bader's § 545-related convictions on account of the erroneous alternative prong in Instruction No. 20. Consequently, we need not (and do not) consider whether the district court's characterization of compounding law as irrelevant obliges us to reverse Mr. Bader's § 545-related convictions; we have already determined that those convictions cannot stand.