No. 23-6116

Cynthia Clemons v. United States

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-11-28
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: controlled-substances criminal-procedure jury-instruction jury-instructions mens-rea plain-error ruan-v-united-states sixth-circuit supreme-court-precedent
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2024-01-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Sixth Circuit's ruling on the plain error standard is contrary to Supreme Court precedents, including Ruan and Henderson

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED On October 17, 2022, this Court vacated the opinion of the Sixth Circuit affirming Petitioner Cynthia Clemons' convictions and remanded for further proceedings in light of Ruan v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2370, 213 L. Ed. 2d 706 (2022). On remand, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the parties that Ruan applies to 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) prosecutions and also agreed that the jury instructions on the mens rea element required for a conviction under § 856 of a nurse practitioner authorized to prescribed controlled substances were error in light of Ruan. However, in conflict with other circuits’ handling of this issue, the Sixth Circuit determined that Mrs. Clemons could not meet the plain error standard. Is the Sixth Circuit's ruling on the plain error standard contrary to this Court's precedents, including Ruan and Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 185 L. Ed. 2d 85 (2013)? After determining that the District Court did not “spell out the ‘knowingly’ standard required under Ruan, 142 S. Ct. at 2375, for the second element” of § 856, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that by the district court’s insertion of the generic term “illegally” in the instruction, the jury instruction “made clear that the jury had to find that Defendants knowingly opened the clinics for the purpose of illegally distributing Schedule II controlled substances.” Did the Sixth Circuit commit error by substituting the generic term “illegally” for the language mandated in Ruan? i RELATED CASES Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14.1(b)(iii), Petitioner submits the following cases which are directly related to this Petition: United States v. Sylvia Hofstetter Sixth Circuit Case No. 20-6245 (decided August 29, 2023) United States v. Courtney Newman Sixth Circuit Case No. 20-6428 (decided August 29, 2023) United States v. Holli Womack Sixth Circuit Case No. 20-6426 (decided August 29, 2023) ii

Docket Entries

2024-01-08
Petition DENIED.
2023-12-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
2023-12-04
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-11-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 28, 2023)

Attorneys

Cynthia Clemons
Randall Eugene ReaganThe Law Office of Randall E. Reagan, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent