Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute & to distribute controlled substances & of unlawful distribution of controlled substances; Failure to renew a motion for judgment of acquittal, FedRCrimP 29(a); Jury instruction on “deliberate ignorance”; Exclusion of evidence; Offer of proof; The rule of completeness; FRE 106; Plain error review; Hearsay; Use of Rule 1006 summary charts; Lay witness opinion testimony; FRE 701; Alleged district court bias or hostility; 28 USC §§ 455(a) & (b)(1); Denial of a motion for a new trial

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that the district court did not err by instructing the jury on “deliberate ignorance” where there was adequate evidence that defendant-Sherman (a doctor) “deliberately ignored the fact that there was no legitimate medical purpose for the prescriptions he wrote.” It also held that there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and distributing controlled substances and of unlawful distribution of controlled substances. Further, it rejected his evidentiary challenges and claims of district court bias, and upheld the denial of his motion for a new trial. As to his sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the “jury heard expert testimony that Sherman’s conduct in examining patients, prescribing narcotics, and issuing refills deviated from usual, legitimate medical practice. Jurors saw the transparently fake MRI reports [his] alleged co-conspirators provided him to substantiate his diagnoses. They observed his consistent choice to prescribe the drugs most popular on the street at the highest available strength. Jurors heard that [he] never checked the results of the urine screens he ordered to see if patients were abusing other drugs. And the jury knew that [he] agreed to work in a clinic that would pay him for patient work only if he prescribed a sufficiently strong narcotic. This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, allowed the jury to conclude that Sherman knew that his prescriptions were not authorized.” Next, the court upheld the decision to give the jury a deliberate ignorance instruction. The evidence permitted “the inference that Sherman issued prescriptions with actual knowledge that those prescriptions were unauthorized. And, alternatively, the evidence permits the inference that [he] merely looked the other way[.]” As to the district court’s exclusion of pages of Sherman’s notebook, his offer of proof was not “adequate to allow this court to determine whether the specific evidence being offered was relevant, not duplicative, and whether its exclusion was harmless.” He also failed to show “‘a reasonable probability’ that the failure to admit” a portion of a recording “as substantive evidence ‘affected the outcome of the trial.’” As to his judicial bias claim, the court reviewed five statements or actions that Sherman alleged showed bias or hostility by the district court and held that none of them did. Finally, it found no error in the denial of a new trial where no “‘substantial legal error’” occurred. Affirmed.