Whether the district court's erroneous jury instructions regarding criminal liability under 21 U.S.C. section 841 requires reversal of the defendant's health care fraud conviction due to inextricably intertwined predicate offenses

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES I. Whether the district court's erroneous instructions regarding what constitutes criminal liability under 21 U.S.C. section 841 (illegal distribution of oxycodone) (counts 2-23) requires reversal of the defendant's conviction for Health Care Fraud under 18 U.S.C. section 1347(counts 24-36). Rulings of other US Courts of Appeals of different jurisdictions conflict,where legally-incorrect jury instructions concerning 841 conviction which was inextricably intertwined and interrelated as a predicate to other convictions (i.e.,structural error). Clarity from The United States Supreme Court is essential.because of the public benefits as many doctors are unneccesarily languishing in prison instead of helping ameliorate the nationwide doctors' shortages. Dr. Orusa was charged with 841, maintaining a drug involved premises (i.e..oxycodone) (21 U.S.C. section 856) (count 1),Health Care Fraud (18 U.S.C. section 1347), and money laundering (18 U.S.C. section 1956 & 1957)(counts 37-) The prosecutors' indictment,opening statement,and jury instructions told the jury time and again that all 4 categories, of the crimes are inexcricably intertwined and that if the Oxycodone prescriptions issued by Dr. Orusa were illegal under 841,the submission of these bills for office visits to Medicare is fraud. The jury convicted on all 13 health care fraud charges and other crimes. In June 27,2022, the Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling in Ruan v. US,142 S. ct. 2370 (2022) as regards 21 U.S.C. section 841 required prosecutors to prove that physician-defendant not only objectively but also subjectively knew that he or she was prescribing a controlled substance with no legitimate medical purpose. The 841 convictions were vacated to be retried due to legally-incorrect jury instructions. 856, 1956 & 1957 were also vacated because they were intertwined with 841. Health Care Fraud convictions were not vacated even though the 841 convictions were inextricably intertwined as a predicate to the Health Care Fraud convictions. The Sixth Circuit Court sanctioned such a departure by the district court,the Supreme Court needs to exercise it's supervisory power. Examples of how US Courts of Appeals of different jurisdictions conflict .where legally-incorrect jury 1 instructions concerning 841 conviction which was inextricably intertwined and interrelated as a predicate to other convictions; "10th circuit";-US v. Khan (Khan II) 58 F. 4th 1308, 10th Circuit, 2023. -841,846, aiding and abbetting the distribution of controlled substance,using a communication facility to facilitate an 841 or 846,possessing a fiream in furtherance of 846, continuing criminal enterprise, and money laundering convictions,were all remanded. ;-US v. Henson, No. 19-3062, 2023 U.S. App LEXIS 5075 @ 2,10t5h Circuit March 2,2023 -841 and Money laundering vacated. ”.11th Circuit";-US v. Ignasiak, 667 F. 3d 1217, 1229, (11th Circuit 2012) -841 & Health Care Fraud convictions were remanded. ;-US v. Ruan (Ruan II), 56 F. 4th 1291, (11th Circuit 2023), -conspiracy charges not remanded (instructions already had subjective knowledge requirement). '4th Circuit";-US. -841v. Smithers, 92 F. 43thy @ 251, & 856 convictions remanded(4th Circuit, 2024), '6th Circuit";-US -841v. Anderson, 67, 4th 755 & health care fraud convictions upheld(6th circuit 2023) II. Whether the government presented sufficient evidence of the defendant's guilt under 18 U.S.C. 1347 Other explanations for the across-the-board health care fraud convictions are lacking. III. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial. The district Judge ordered the defense counsel not to interrupt with any objections while the most important witness for the prosecutors testified. On 5 occasions this witness violated the judge's previous order put in place so as not to prejudice the jurors. A mistrial was rejected by both the district court and sixth circuit stating that the defense did no