United States v. Vinod Patwardhan

MEMORANDUM

Vinod C. Patwardhan appeals his conviction following a jury trial for (1) conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371 , (2) introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce with intent to defraud or mislead, 21 U.S.C. §§ 331 (a), 333(a)(2), 352(c), 352(f)(1), (3) smuggling goods into the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 545 , (4) aiding and abetting smuggling, 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a), (b), and (5) criminal forfeiture, 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 (a)(1)(C), 982(a)(2)(B), 21 U.S.C. § 853 (p), 18 U.S.C. §§ 853 (p), 2461(c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I. Conviction of Introducing Misbranded Drugs into Interstate Commerce

Patwardhan was convicted of introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce with intent to defraud or mislead. 21 U.S.C. §§ 331 (a), 333(a)(2), 352(c), 352(f)(1). We reject Patwardharis argument that he cannot be convicted of these charges.

Under the relevant statutory scheme, prescription drugs are per se misbranded. See 21 C.F.R. § 201.5 ; see also United States v. Evers, 643 F.2d 1043, 1051 (5th Cir.1981) (accepting the FDA’s assertion that “since a prescription drug by definition can be used only under a physician’s supervision ... it is…