Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
October 27, 2011, Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a); December 14, 2011, Filed
Nos. 06-1370, 06-2535, 06-2536, 06-3043, 07-1525, 07-1526, 07-4618, 09-1827
[*640] OPINION OF THE COURT
ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.
Akhil Bansal and Frederick Mullinix appeal from their jury convictions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on a 42-count indictment alleging crimes arising from their multi-national, internet-based, controlled-substance-distribution scheme. They have, in our estimation, challenged every decision of the District Court, at almost every moment of the litigation before, during, and after their convictions. Yet in the more than 1,100 pages of briefing submitted to us by both defendants and [**2] the government, we have identified not a single instance of reversible error. That the prior rulings and findings in this case have emerged from such an onslaught wholly intact represents no small achievement by the District Court, whose decisions we will affirm in all respects.1
This case is about two defendants' convictions for illegal drug sales via websites purporting to be online pharmacies. From 2003 to 2005, Appellants Bansal and Mullinix imported controlled and noncontrolled substances from India, which they then advertised on the internet and distributed to customers in the United States via the mail without prescriptions. In 2006 the [*641] Appellants [**3] were charged under a 42-count indictment, tried, and convicted by a jury on all counts. This is their direct appeal.
Bansal, who lived in Philadelphia, supervised the domestic side of the multi-national controlled substance distribution conspiracy at issue in this case. He received bulk shipments of controlled substances from India, which he then stored, repackaged, and shipped directly to customers who ordered and paid for them online. He also oversaw the operation's finances and payment system, which he managed by opening on- and offshore bank accounts, accepting payments from and delivering controlled substances to participating website operators, and transferring money between coconspirators and various banks.
Consumers were invited to purchase controlled substances through several of Mullinix's internet websites, the most important of which was www.mymeds.com. Visitors to his websites simply chose the type, strength, and quantity of the drug they desired, paid with a credit card or online service such as PayPal, and awaited postal delivery to any address they provided. Between 2003 and 2005, approximately $1.3 million in proceeds from controlled substance sales flowed between Mullinix [**4] and Bansal.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
663 F.3d 634 *; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24746 **
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. AKHIL BANSAL, Appellant in Nos. 06-1370, 06-2535, 07-1525, and FREDERICK MULLINIX, Appellant in Nos. 06-2536, 06-3043, 07-1526, 07-4618, 09-1827.
Subsequent History: US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Bansal v. United States, 566 U.S. 1028, 132 S. Ct. 2700, 183 L. Ed. 2d 58, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4002 (May 29, 2012)
Appeal dismissed by United States v. Srivastav, 487 Fed. Appx. 3, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13020 (3d Cir. Pa., June 26, 2012)
US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Mullinix v. United States, 568 U.S. 865, 133 S. Ct. 225, 184 L. Ed. 2d 116, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 7127 (Oct. 1, 2012)
Post-conviction relief denied at, Certificate of appealability denied United States v. Bansal, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192998 (E.D. Pa., June 19, 2015)
Prior History: [**1] On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (D.C. No. 2-05-cr-00193-002/011). District Judge: Hon. Paul S. Diamond.
United States v. Bansal, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91529 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 13, 2007)
indictment, district court, controlled substance, contends, convictions, felony, distribute, proceeds, money laundering, Counts, conspiracy, sentences, internet, sealing, warrants, prescriptions, laundered, records, reasonable mistake, suppress, garage, satisfactory explanation, unlawful activity, plain error, violations, website, sales, reasons, drugs, email
Criminal Law & Procedure, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Conclusions of Law, Racketeering, Money Laundering, General Overview, Plain Error, Governments, Courts, Judicial Precedent, Banking Law, Elements, Definition of Plain Error, Accusatory Instruments, Indictments, Appellate Review, Contents, Sufficiency of Contents, Controlled Substances, Continuing Criminal Enterprises, Delivery, Distribution & Sale, Possession, Criminal Offenses, Search & Seizure, Eavesdropping, Electronic Surveillance & Wiretapping, Sealing Requirements, Clearly Erroneous Review, Motions to Suppress, Preliminary Proceedings, Pretrial Motions & Procedures, Suppression of Evidence, Appeals, De Novo Review, Sentencing, Legality Review, Imposition of Sentence, Statutory Maximums, Manufacture, Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act, Classification of Offenses, Felonies, Misdemeanors, Substance Schedules, Juries & Jurors, Commencement of Criminal Proceedings, Grand Juries, Failure to Object, Challenges, Warrants, Search Warrants, Jurisdiction, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Particularity Requirement, Probable Cause, Probable Cause, Execution of Warrants, Scope of Protection, Expectation of Privacy, Warrantless Searches, Inventory Searches, Substantial Evidence, Sufficiency of Evidence, Evidence, Types of Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Admissibility, Procedural Matters, Rulings on Evidence, Abuse of Discretion, Evidence, Exceptions, Business Records, Criminal Process, Right to Confrontation, Trials, Defendant's Rights, Authentication, Documentary Evidence, Summaries, Inchoate Crimes, Conspiracy, Discovery & Inspection, Brady Materials, New Trial, Findings of Fact, Brady Claims