Case Explained: 26a0189p.06

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-01 The Sixth Circuit affirmed Bernard Shelton’s conviction on twenty-one counts of unlawfully distributing controlled substances and the associated sentence. The court held that ample evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Shelton knowingly distributed drugs without a legitimate medical purpose or outside the usual course of professional practice, citing his prescription of dangerous drug combinations to patients with “red flags” such as doctor shopping, failed drug screens, and lack of physical examinations. Regarding Shelton’s constitutional challenges, the court ruled that the Controlled Substances Act does not impermissibly delegate authority to the Attorney General under the nondelegation or major questions doctrines, noting that the relevant regulation merely paraphrases statutory language. The court further determined that the district court’s jury instructions were not confusing or misleading because they correctly applied the *Ruan* standard, which permits the use of objective criteria as circumstantial evidence to prove a defendant’s subjective knowledge that their conduct was unauthorized. Finally, the court rejected Shelton’s Confrontation Clause claim regarding the mask mandate for witnesses, finding no plain error; even assuming the district court failed to make case-specific findings of necessity, Shelton failed to demonstrate prejudice by showing a reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed had the masks not been required. Consequently, the judgment of the district court remains in effect and Shelton’s conviction stands. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.