Opinion ID: 4524736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: dr. mbanefo’s challenge to the sufficiency of

Text: THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CONSPIRACY CONVICTION We also reject Dr. Mbanefo’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s finding that he was guilty of conspiracy. Although Dr. Mbanefo’s tenure at the Columbus clinic (where he worked) was only several months, the evidence of his guilt was stronger even than that supporting the conviction of Dr. Bacon. All of the evidence mentioned above with respect to Dr. Bacon—or equivalent evidence—was applicable also to Dr. Mbanefo. If anything, the eight prescription records (of Dr. Mbanefo) reviewed by the two expert witnesses were even more damning than those of Dr. Bacon. And the operation of the two clinics (with respect to the kind of drug prescriptions, the amounts and the combination thereof, and the conditions of the office and nature of the patients) was substantially the same. In short, there was ample evidence on the basis of which the jury could reasonably find Dr. Mbanefo guilty. 4 Case: 18-15145 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 5 of 10 III. DR MBANEFO’S CHALLENGE TO THE JURY INSTRUCTION AS A CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENT With respect to Dr. Mbanefo’s argument that the jury charge amounted to a constructive amendment of Counts Two and Three (his substantive counts of dispensing), we conclude that there has been no such constructive amendment. Dr. Mbanefo argues that the indictment charged that he, aided and abetted by others known and unknown, including named co-defendants, did unlawfully dispense a controlled substance. He argues there was a constructive amendment when the jury instruction did not require the jury to find that the named individuals actually did aid and abet him. Our decision in United States v. Keller, 916 F.2d 628 (11th Cir. 1990), described the distinction between a constructive amendment and a variance: we believe the proper distinction between an amendment and a variance is that an amendment occurs when the essential elements of the offense contained in the indictment are altered to broaden the possible bases for conviction beyond what is contained in the indictment. A variance occurs when the facts proved at trial deviate from the facts contained in the indictment but the essential elements of the offense are the same. Id. at 634. The dispensing offense with which Dr. Mbanefo was charged in this case contains the following elements: (1) the defendant must have dispensed the controlled substance; (2) for other than legitimate medical purposes in the usual course of professional practice; and (3) that he did so knowingly and intentionally. 5 Case: 18-15145 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 6 of 10 No aider or abettor is required for proving the offense of dispensing. Accordingly, Dr. Mbanefo’s argument is without merit. Moreover, we note that Dr. Mbanefo raises this argument for the first time on appeal, and it therefore is subject to plain error analysis. Dr. Mbanefo could not establish any of the requirements for plain error. For example, Dr. Mbanefo was convicted of conspiring with the same persons named as aiders and abettors, and therefore obviously cannot prove that the challenged instruction to the jury adversely affected his substantial rights. There is no error, plain or otherwise.