Opinion ID: 799257
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unlawful Distribution or Possession with Intent to Distribute HGH

Text: In order to convict Mr. Bader of unlawful possession with intent to distribute HGH in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 333(e), the government was obligated to prove each of three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that Mr. Bader knowingly distributed HGH or possessed HGH with the intent to distribute it; (2) that Mr. Bader knew that the HGH that he possessed and intended to distribute was for use in humans; and (3) [e]ither [that] Mr. Bader knew that the [HGH] was not being distributed for a[] use authorized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services[,] or that Mr. Bader knew that the [HGH] was not being distributed pursuant to the order of a physician[,] or was not being prescribed for a valid medical purpose. Aplt. Trial Tr. App., Vol. VIII, at 2180-81 (Jury Instruction No. 38). Mr. Bader challenges the third of these three elements on appeal. Mr. Bader principally argues that his conviction cannot stand because the government failed to present proof that he knowingly filled a prescription for an unauthorized use[i]llegal distribution, he contends, requires proof of a prescription sale for an unapproved use and that a pharmacist knowingly filled it. Aplt. Opening Br. at 31. This is simply incorrect. Under 21 U.S.C. § 333(e)(1), whoever knowingly distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute, human growth hormone for any use in humans other than the treatment of a disease or other recognized medical condition, where such use has been authorized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 355 of this title and pursuant to the order of a physician, is guilty of an offense punishable by not more than 5 years in prison, such fines as are authorized by Title 18, or both. 21 U.S.C. § 333(e)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the plain terms of the statute belie Mr. Bader's argumentspecifically, his contention that there is only one means to violate the statute involving knowingly filling a prescription for an unauthorized use. Indeed, Jury Instruction No. 38the instruction that outlined the elements of the unlawful distribution charge and to which Mr. Bader has offered no objectionwas phrased in the disjunctive. According to that instruction, proof of the filling of an improper physician prescription was but one of three ways that the government could satisfy its burden. The government could demonstrate either: (1) that Mr. Bader knew that the [HGH] was not being distributed for a[] use authorized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services;  or [ (2) ] that Mr. Bader knew that the [HGH] was not being distributed pursuant to the order of a physician;  or [ (3) that Mr. Bader knew that the HGH that he possessed] was not being prescribed for a valid medical purpose. Aplt. Trial Tr. App., Vol. VIII, at 2181 (emphases added). [8] Throughout Mr. Bader's trial, the government introduced a series of exhibits consisting of College Pharmacy advertisements that extolled the anti-aging and muscle-building benefits of HGH, as well as related statements from Mr. Blum and various College Pharmacy employees. Several of the witnesses who testified recalled that Mr. Bader had promoted HGH at A4M trade shows as an anti-aging and body-building drug. And their testimony was corroborated by photographs depicting Mr. Bader and his advertisements at one of these trade shows. Mr. Bader apparently argues that this evidence is insufficient because it merely demonstrates promotion, as opposed to actual distribution, of HGH. However, under the plain language of the statuteas well as Mr. Bader's counts of convictionproscribed is not only the actual distribution of HGH but also possession with intent to distribute. 21 U.S.C. § 333(e). As it is undisputed that College Pharmacy possessed HGH at its Colorado Springs facility, any rational trier of fact could have concluded that these advertisements demonstrated Mr. Bader's intent to market and distribute HGH as an anti-aging and body-building drug, which were not authorized uses of HGH. [9] In that regard, the government introduced evidence demonstrating that the FDA had not approved the use of HGH for either anti-aging or body-building purposes through the testimony of Dr. Woo. After establishing that his position as medical director had familiarized him with the process that a pharmaceutical manufacturer must undergo in order to obtain FDA approval for a drug such as HGH, Dr. Woo informed the jury that HGH had yet to be approved for any off-label uses due to congressional safety concerns. [10] Specifically, Dr. Woo also testified that body-building and anti-aging were not FDA-approved uses for HGH. On the basis of this evidence, a reasonable jury could have logically deduced that the College Pharmacy anti-aging and body-building advertisements introduced at trial were aimed at distributing HGH for those usesuses which had yet to be authorized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or recognized as valid medical conditions warranting HGH prescriptions. Accordingly, a reasonable jury could have construed this evidence as satisfying the third element of 21 U.S.C. § 333(e).