Opinion ID: 627222
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pickens: Count 21

Text: Pickens was convicted of Count 21, which charged him with distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). According to Pickens, the uncontroverted evidence showed that he dispensed the drug charged for a legitimate medical purpose and in the usual course of his professional practice. Pickens emphasizes that prior to joining Jive Network, he also used online questionnaires and prescribed medication without having a face-to-face visit with a patient. Pickens suggests that as a result, his conduct as part of Jive Network was consistent with his usual course of professional practice. We are not persuaded. Pickens does not assert that his conduct was consistent with the standards set by the state where he was practicing. Rather, he emphasizes that his conduct prior to and while he was with Jive Network was the same. This is not a reasonable view of the phrase the usual course of his professional practice. 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a). Under Pickens's theory, if a physician was a drug pusher prior to the events for which he was convicted, then he would be absolved of criminal liability for his continued drug pushing. As the Eighth Circuit has stated, [t]his cannot be the law. United States v. Smith, 573 F.3d 639, 649 (8th Cir.2009). If we were to accept Pickens's argument, we would allow an individual doctor to define the parameters of his or her practice and effectively shield the practitioner from criminal liability despite the fact that the practitioner may be acting as nothing more than a large-scale pusher. Id. at 648-49 (quotation marks omitted).