US v. Dimkpa: Dimkpa was a physician who, in 2019, pleaded guilty to six counts of unauthorized distribution of oxycodone (all counts involving the same patient who was addicted to opioids and was given prescriptions after having tested positive for heroin or cocaine). In doing so, he was informed that the law (at the time) required only proof that his practices were outside of the usual course of professional practice, not that he knew they were. He was sentenced to 46 months in prison.
Years later, following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Ruan, Dimkpa filed a §2255 motion arguing that his plea was invalid because the district court failed to inform him that the Government would have to prove he knew his prescriptions were outside the usual course of professional practice. The Government argued that Dimkpa’s claim was procedurally defaulted and the district court agreed, denying the motion.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Dimkpa’s §2255 motion, agreeing with the district court that Dimkpa could not show cause for his procedural default. Specifically, although Ruan announced a new rule that overruled then-existing Fourth Circuit precedent, it was not the kind of new rule that excused Dimkpa’s earlier failure to object. That is because, while any Ruan-style argument would have been unsuccessful, it was nonetheless “available” to counsel. This was particularly true as the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif, on which Ruan was partly based, had come down month prior to Dimkpa’s sentencing.
No comments:
Post a Comment