CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. JOSEPH IBANEZ and JENNIFER EDWARDS,
Relators-Appellants,
v.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY; OTSUKA AMERICA PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-3154
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:11-cv-00029—William O. Bertelsman, District Judge.
Argued: December 6, 2016
Decided and Filed: October 27, 2017
Before: McKEAGUE, KETHLEDGE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Relators Joseph Ibanez and Jennifer Edwards, former employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS), bring this qui tam action alleging that BMS, together with Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Otsuka), engaged in a complex, nationwide scheme to improperly promote the antipsychotic drug Abilify. Relators assert that this scheme caused claims for reimbursement for the drug to be submitted to the government, in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., and several state-law analogues. The district court dismissed the complaint in part and subsequently denied relators’ motion to amend. Because neither the second amended complaint nor the proposed third amended complaint satisfies Rule 9(b)’s pleading requirements, we affirm the district court’s orders.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BILLY JOE RUCKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-6415
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:00-cr-00065-1—David J. Hale, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: October 27, 2017
Before: COOK, KETHLEDGE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Billy Joe Rucker argues that the district court considered a forbidden factor—ironically, rehabilitation—when the court determined the length of his sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. The record indeed suggests that the district court considered that factor. Hence we vacate Rucker’s sentence and remand for resentencing.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALBERT DAJUAN WHITE,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 15-5793
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:14-cr-20018-1—John Thomas Fowlkes, Jr., District Judge.
Decided and Filed: October 27, 2017
Before: GILMAN, GRIFFIN, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. After a narcotics officer watched defendant Albert White sell marijuana to an undercover informant in the driveway of White’s home, the officer sought a search warrant for the residence. His affidavit recounted the recent drug deal, a confidential tip that White was selling marijuana from the residence, defendant’s previous drug offenses, and the fact that defendant keeps pit bulls “at his residence.” Defendant argues that this information is so lacking in indicia of probable cause that no reasonable officer would believe there was probable cause to search his home. We disagree and affirm his convictions and sentences.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
SCOTT DAVID PERREAULT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
WILLIE SMITH, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 16-1213
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:14-cv-11022—Marianne O. Battani, District Judge.
Argued: October 3, 2017
Decided and Filed: October 27, 2017
Before: CLAY, ROGERS, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. In 2009, a Michigan jury convicted Scott Perreault of murdering his four-month-old daughter. He filed a habeas petition in federal court claiming that police failed to honor his request for counsel and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The district court denied his petition. Because the state courts did not unreasonably apply the Supreme Court’s teachings in either area, we affirm.