Was Petitioner denied his rights under Ruan v. United States

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; Petitioner Doctor Patrick Ifediba was charged and found guilty of, inter alia, one count (Count 13) of conspiracy “to distribute and dispense, and cause to be distributed and dispensed” controlled substances “outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose” as well as 14 substantive counts (Counts 14-27) of distributing and dispensing and causing to be distributed and dispensed controlled substances “outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose”. He was also charged and convicted of one count (Count 33) of maintaining a premises “for the purpose of distributing, and causing to be distributed” the controlled substances in the foregoing counts although this latter * count paraphrased the statute 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) and so did not include the caveat that the controlled substances were distributed “outside the usual course of professional practice and not . for a legitimate medical purpose”. Prior to trial, anticipating that Petitioner’s “intent” would be an issue, the government brought a motion in limine asking that Petitioner NOT be allowed to present any evidence that Petitioner “provided legitimate medical care to patients who are not the basis of any charge in the indictment” and/or “any evidence that some patients—whether legitimately treated or not—had a positive experience” at Petitioner’s clinic. While, as in this Court’s Ruan case, Petitioner argued strenuously for permission to present evidence supporting his lawful “intent”, the lower courts denied and affirmed the denial of his requests. Petitioner argued in the district court and again in the Court of Appeals that this denied him his Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights to present a complete defense. While the district court gave an instruction that lawful intent was “a complete defense” to Petitioner’s fraud counts, no such instruction was given for his above listed controlled substance counts, much less that lawful i yo “subjective intent” was “a complete defense”. Petitioner was found guilty of all counts and sentenced to 360 months incarceration. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 1.) Was Petitioner denied his rights under Ruan v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2370, 213 L. Ed. 2d 706 (6-27-22) which was decided after briefing in Petitioner’s case was completed but before the decision of the Court of Appeals in Petitioner’s case? 2.) Where multiple additional errors affected petitioner’s conviction and/or sentence in the courts below, should this Court exercise it’s supervisory power to vacate his conviction and sentence? ii