Court Opinion

ID: 9943667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-24 01:00:45.338389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:42.764774
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20663           Document: 76-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/23/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                 _____________                                         Fifth Circuit

                                                                                     FILED
                                  No. 22-20663                               February 23, 2024
                              consolidated with                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                  No. 22-20664                                         Clerk
                                _____________

United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Charles Wendell Thompson,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                          USDC Nos. 4:17-CR-566-3,
                                4:17-CR-414-3
                  ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      In a consolidated jury trial, Charles Wendell Thompson was convicted
of: two counts of conspiracy to unlawfully distribute and dispense controlled
substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 (prohibiting conspiracy),
841(a)(1) (banning distribution and dispensation of controlled substances),
      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20663        Document: 76-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                 No. 22-20663
                               c/w No. 22-20664

841(b)(1)(C) (outlining penalty); and eight counts of aiding and abetting the
unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (punishing as principals those
who aid and abet crimes). Prosecuted for his work as a physician assistant at
two medical clinics, Thompson contends the court reversibly erred by
admitting improper drug-profiling evidence and failing to instruct the jury on
the required mens rea under Ruan v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2370, 2382
(2022).
       Because Thompson did not preserve these issues in district court (as
he concedes for the first issue), review is only for plain error. E.g., United
States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard,
Thompson must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather
than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights.
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing,
we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally
should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted).
       For Thompson’s assertion that the court admitted improper drug-
profiling evidence, our court, in a recent opinion involving one of
Thompson’s co-defendants, addressed this exact issue. See United States v.
Pierre, 88 F.4th 574, 579–80 (5th Cir. 2023) (rejecting contention under
plain-error review). Our court explained that, because the co-defendant did
not identify a drug-profiling ruling in the context of “pill mills”, his
contention failed on plain-error review. Id. at 580 (“Most profiling cases
concern drug couriers . . . . In effect, [the co-defendant] would have us
declare it ‘obvious’ error not to transplant our profiling cases into a realm
where they fit awkwardly, if at all. That argument fails.”); see, e.g., United
States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 319 (5th Cir. 2010) (“An error is not plain under
current law if a defendant’s theory requires the extension of precedent.”

                                       2
Case: 22-20663        Document: 76-1        Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                  No. 22-20663
                                c/w No. 22-20664

(citation omitted)); United States v. Evans, 892 F.3d 692, 696 (5th Cir. 2018)
(defining “pill mill” as “an operation that prescribes drugs with no
legitimate medical purpose”). Thompson, like his co-defendant, fails to
identify any authority extending the prohibition of drug-profiling testimony
to pill-mill proceedings. He has not shown, therefore, the requisite clear-or-
obvious error. See Pierre, 88 F.4th at 580; see also United States v. Gonzalez,
792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015) (explaining a “lack of binding authority is
often dispositive in the plain-error context”).
       As for Thompson’s other challenge, that the jury instructions failed
to inform the jury of the proper mens rea under Ruan, we need not decide
whether Thompson has shown the requisite clear-or-obvious error because
“he has not shown that [the claimed plain] error affected his substantial
rights”. Pierre, 88 F.4th at 581; see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135 (explaining
error affects substantial rights when it impacts outcome of proceedings). At
trial, the Government presented “overwhelming evidence” that Thompson
understood the “illegitimacy” of his actions. Pierre, 88 F.4th at 581 (citation
omitted); United States v. Ajayi, 64 F.4th 243, 247 (5th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he
defendant must subjectively understand the illegitimate nature of the
distribution they facilitate to commit an offense under § 841(a)”. (emphasis
in original) (citing Ruan, 142 S. Ct. at 2381)).
       AFFIRMED.

                                        3