DOCSLIB.ORG

HOUSE No. 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HOUSE No. 2000 HOUSE No. 2000 ®f)e Commontoealrt) of fHa*Satf)U«ett« THIRTY-THIRD ANNUAL REPORT of the LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COUNCil and the LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH BUREAU. For Cumulative List of all Important Reports Since 1955, See Appendix A November 10, 1987. 7 HOUSE - No. 2000 | January Wi)e Commontoealtt) of ANNUAL REPORT REQUIRED (General Laws, Chapter 3, Section 61) Section 61. The bureau shall make such reports to the council as are required by it. The council may report from time to time to the general court and shall make an annual report in writing to the general court by filing a copy of the same with the clerk of the house of representatives on or before the second Wednesday of November in each year. 1988] HOUSE - No. 2000 3 CONTENTS Page Statute Requiring Annual Report 2 Letter of Transmittal to the Senate and House of Representatives 4 I. ORGANIZATION 5 11. OPERATIONS 8 Assignments and Requests 10 Research Assignments 10 Research Requests 11 Assistance to Committees and Special Commissions 17 Legislative Redistricting Assignments 17 Assistance to Special Commission on the Division of the Department of Mental Health 21 Distribution of Reports 23 Index of Special Reports 23 Governmental Action Publications 24 National Conference of State Legislatures 24 Other Activities 24 Exhibit A 25 TABLES 1. Annual “Substantial” and “Spot” Research Requests, 1957-1987 12 2. Origin of “Substantial” and “Spot” Research Requests ... 13 APPENDICES A. Cumulative List of Important Research Council Reports Since 1955 36 B. Statute Creating Council and Bureau 121 4 HOUSE No. 2000 [January tKfje Commontoealtt) of ina££ad)u*ett£( LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN : We have the honor to submit the Thirty-third Annual Report of the Legislative Research Council and Bureau. This annual report must be submitted to the Clerk of the House of Representatives on or before the second Wednesday of November under the terms of General Laws, chapter 3, section 61. Respectfully submitted, MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COUNCIL Sen. ANNA P. BUCKLEY OF Plymouth, Chairman Rep. FRANCIS G. MARA of Brockton, House Chairman Rep. JAMES T. BRETT of Boston, Vice-Chairman Sen. JOSEPH B. WALSH of Suffolk and Norfolk Sen. JOHN F. PARKER of Bristol Sen. PETER C. WEBBER of Berkshire Rep. WILLIAM J. FLYNN, Jr., of Hanover Rep. WILLIAM P. NAGLE, Jr., of Northampton Rep. CHARLES N. DECAS of Wareham Rep. SHERMAN W. SALTMARSH, Jr., of Winchester Rep. KEVIN POIRIER of North Attleborough Rep. ROBERT L. HOWARTH of Springfield 1988] HOUSE No. 2000 5 QTfje Commontocaltf) of fflaggattjugtths 1. ORGANIZATION The Massachusetts Legislative Research Council and Bureau were established by statute 33 years ago (G.L. c. 3, ss. 56-61, as amended; reprinted as Appendix B to this report). This enabling law provides for a Council of twelve legislators who constitute the policy making body with respect to a legislative research program. The law also empowered the Council to bring into being a Legislative Research Bureau to serve under its direction and to carry out its policies. The Legislative Research Council’s membership of twelve is composed offour senators and eight representatives. Under the terms of the statute, the President of the Senate names the four senate members annually, designating one of them as Chairman. Similarly, the Speaker of the House of Representatives names the eight House members annually, designating one of them as Vice Chairman. In the case of delays in naming members to the Council, the law provides that members continue to serve until their successors are appointed, provided such members are continued in office by the electorate. Unlike joint standing committees of the General Court, the Council by law, is truly a bipartisan committee in that the appointees from each branch must be evenly divided between the two major political parties. Another feature distinguishing the Council from joint standing committees is stated in a joint opinion of Senate and House Counsels: Joint Rule 1 A, requiring public meetings of the legislative committees unless a majority of the committee members vote otherwise, does not apply to the Council. And, while chairmen of joint standing committees receive additional compensation, all members of the Council, by law, serve without pay but are reimbursed for necessary expenses. On January 28, 1985, the Senate President appointed the following members of the Senate to the Council: Senators Anna P. Buckley of Plymouth (Chairman), Joseph B. Walsh of Suffolk and Norfolk, John F. Parker of Bristol and Peter C. Webber of Berkshire. The President 6 HOUSE -No. 2000 [January has not made any appointments to the Council since the new General Court met in January; the aforenamed senators continue to serve on the Council. On September 28, 1987, the Speaker announced the House members of the Council: Representatives Francis G. Mara of Brockton (House Chairman), James T. Brett of Boston (Vice Chairman), William J. Flynn, Jr., of Hanover, William P. Nagle, Jr., of Northampton, Charles N. Decas of Wareham, Sherman W. Saltmarsh, Jr., of Winchester, Kevin Poirier of North Attleborough and Robert L. Howarth of Springfield. The naming of a House Chairman in addition to a Vice Chairman (only the latter is required by statute) is in conformity with the practice in the House of designating both a House Chairman and a Vice Chairman among the House members. Representative Poirier replaces former Representative Switzler of Wellesley who did not stand for reelection and Representative Howarth replaces the late Representative Bruce N. Freeman of Chelmsford. As indicated above, although the Council has the statutory responsibility for determining policies with respect to a legislative research program, it is the Bureau, under the Council’s direction, which executes those policies. The Council is empowered to appoint a qualified Director of the Bureau and such assistants as are necessary to carry out the program of statistical research and fact finding. Although appointed by the Council, compensation of staff personnel must be approved by the Committees on Rules of the two branches, acting concurrently. All of the Bureau staff are outside the civil service system. The primary responsibility of the Bureau is to assist members, committees, and commissions of the General Court (s. 59) but it has other statutory responsibilities which include receiving and screening records of certain expiring committees and the preparation of certain reports (ss. 60-61). In the course of fulfilling these mandates, the Bureau maintains a strong liaison with similar legislative research agencies in the other states which, over the years, has led to a valuable exchange of data. For example, each year the research agencies in most of the states seek from each otherresearch information and other assistance on legislative matters. These requests are always given careful attention by this Research Bureau. Consequently, The Bureau 1988] HOUSE No. 2000 7 not only receives copies of the resultant, useful reports of other legislative agencies, but their help is forthcoming when we ask assistance, particularly in the preparation of recess reports assigned by the Genera! Court. Such professional and personal cooperation among legislative staffs makes available to each research agency the assistance of experienced research personnel in nearly every state. Thus, the Commonwealth is the beneficiary of a broad scope of knowledge and experience that could be duplicated only at great cost. While the Bureau staff is structured so as to provide aresearch team of generalists as opposed to specialists, there are some staff members who, through advanced education and in-service assignments, have acquired acknowledged skills in particular areas. Whenever possible, assignments are made to take advantage of such in-house expertise. The present composition of the Bureau staff is as follows: Director Daniel J. Foley of Worcester Assistant Director Robert D. Webb of Medford Chief Research Analyst James Hugh Powers of Needham Administrative Assistant Agnes Anne Dziak of Boston to the Director Legal Counsel Paul M. Murphy of Brockton Senior Research Assistant Michael A. Nazzaro, Jr., of Boston Senior Research Analyst Charles R. Ring of Sharon Research Assistant Joseph J. Semensi of Randolph Research Assistant Robert E. England of Boston Research Assistant Joseph R. Conte of Worcester Junior Research Assistant Maribeth Moran of Somerville Junior Research Assistant Steven J. Barrus of Boston Research and Information Mary M. Tierney of Hull Assistant Supervisor of Office Theresa E. Conway of Milton Information Systems Senior Secretary Patricia M. O’Brien of Somerville 8 HOUSE No. 2000 [January Appropriation requests of $9,000 for the Council and $668,000 for the Bureau were approved for fiscal 1988. Major expenses chargeable to the Council result from attendance of Council members at the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and participation of members in regional meetings and con- ferences of research and other governmental groups. For the Bureau, which was relocated to new quarters at 30 Winter Street in the fall of 1986, the requested sum takes into account addi- tions to staff, salary adjustments, larger expenditures for rent, sup- plies and other administrative requisites and the purchase and maintenance of new equipment. Conversion to a modern office information system featuring word processing is nearly complete. A tie-in to the Legislature’s computerized bill status and statutory retrieval system has been delayed because of technical problems. Accumulation of vast amounts of research materials and the need to maintain a ready reserve of scores of Bureau publications for distribution have combined to reduce available floor space for staff operations. The Bureau intends to transfer as much as is feasible onto microfilm so that the bulk of the Bureau’s many files of seldom used but necessary materials would be on microfiche, thus freeing much needed floor space.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Rise of the Travel Act | Law Journal Newsletters Page 1 of 5
    The Rise of the Travel Act | Law Journal Newsletters Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR REPRINT Click to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document. Page printed from: http://www.lawjournalnewsletters.com/sites/lawjournalnewsletters/2017/10/01/the-rise-of-the- travel-act/ BUSINESS CRIMES BULLETIN OCTOBER 2017 The Rise of the Travel Act By Jonathan S. Feld, Monica B. Wilkinson, Lea F. Courington and Alison L. Carruthers The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to prioritize health care anti-fraud enforcement through the aggressive use of different statutes and investigative methods. Although the prosecutions and recoveries vary, between October 2016 and March 2017, “Strike Force” team efforts led to charges against 49 individuals or entities, 152 criminal actions, and more than $266.8 million in investigative receivables. Semiannual Report to Congress, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Services: Office of Inspector General: Oct. 1, 2016 to Mar. 31, 2017, http://bit.ly/2jaG6VP. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently reaffirmed his interest in keeping health care fraud as a priority, and followed up those comments with the largest ever DOJ national health care fraud takedown, involving charges against 412 persons, including physicians. Health care anti-fraud enforcement initiatives traditionally focus on cases involving Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The reason is clear: recovery of government-funded money. More than half of the estimated expenditures in health care fraud overall are against public health care programs. For that other half, there has been another approach to combat health care fraud in which the government often uses the federal mail and wire fraud statutes; one of HIPAA’s specialized mail and wire fraud provisions tailored to health care fraud; or 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • JD Anti-Corruption Regulation Survey 2016-17.Pdf
    Jones Day Table of Contents GLOSSARY.........................................................................................................................................iii Africa ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Kenya ............................................................................................................................ 1 Mozambique ................................................................................................................. 8 South Africa ................................................................................................................ 11 Asia Pacific ............................................................................................................................. 15 Australia...................................................................................................................... 15 China ........................................................................................................................... 18 Hong Kong .................................................................................................................. 23 Japan ........................................................................................................................... 26 South Korea ................................................................................................................ 29 Taiwan ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division
    Case 3:15-cv-04108-L Document 91 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 34 PageID <pageID> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS § AMERICA, INC., § § Plaintiff, § § Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-4108-D VS. § § YANG KUN “MICHAEL” CHUNG, § et al., § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this action by plaintiff Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”)1 alleging claims related to a scheme involving the distribution of service parts for Samsung devices, defendant All Pro Distributing, Inc. (“All Pro”) moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss Samsung’s first amended complaint (“amended complaint”) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. For the reasons that follow, the court grants the motion in part and denies it in part, and grants Samsung leave to replead. 1Samsung is the U.S. subsidiary of the Korean company Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung Ltd.”). It recently merged with Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“Samsung Telecom”), another Samsung Ltd. subsidiary. The two subsidiaries now operate as one unit in the United States, but during the events giving rise to this case, Samsung Telecom was a separate entity. For ease of reference, the court will refer to the new, consolidated company rather than differentiate between the subsidiaries. Case 3:15-cv-04108-L Document 91 Filed 02/16/17 Page 2 of 34 PageID <pageID> I Samsung is the U.S. subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a Korean company.2 Samsung produces and sells, among other things, cell phone replacement parts for use by third parties in servicing and refurbishing Samsung devices.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of the Concept of Political Corruption in Western and Russian Political Science and Law
    EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN WESTERN AND RUSSIAN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND LAW STANISLAV SHEVERDYAEV, Lomonosov Moscow State University (Moscow, Russia) ALINA SHENFELDT, National Research University Higher School of Economics (Moscow, Russia) https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2019-7-2-53-80 As a result of intensive international debate and the adoption of a number of renowned international anticorruption conventions and initiatives in the 1990s and 2000s, the issue of corruption has become a convenient theme for different kinds of generalizations in social sciences. However, national legislation does not reflect these developments in its legal regulation due to conservatism inherent in jurisprudence. One of the most evident gaps in this respect is the sphere of political corruption. While political science and political economy for decades have been successful in explaining political processes in different countries as corrupt conspiracies of political elites, business structures, and other actors in the political process, legal science has kept itself separate from such problems and prefers to deal with individual acts of corruption. But if for criminal law such an approach seems logical due to the methodology of the criminal law, for other branches of law which set forth a systemic view on social processes – primarily administrative and constitutional – there seems to be an omission. Nowadays, there is a quite favourable environment for the development of a consistent legal understanding of anticorruption in Russia. This has become possible thanks to current Russian administrative reforms, when the need for a highly professional bureaucracy led to a greater demand for various anticorruption mechanisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendment to the Third Degree
    Amendment To The Third Degree star-spangledArnie is indistinguishable Gale pillow andso exhibitively? naphthalising Theosophical inconsumably and as tonsorial orthotone Morlee Sivert plains blather her theoretically Lammas polypary and immolate superintend roundly. and Is proclaimHari unsighted parenterally. or heritable after The Revolutionary War brewed in paperwork background, but smallpox was still in peril to soldiers. If you in a correctional or indian tribal authority under oath is an accused, first degrees targets this section, once a redistricting commissions varies from. State need an arrest, panicked and suffering from you for validation purposes in first degrees targets this paragraph if in. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion. In seven states, politician commissions are responsible for state legislative redistricting. Senators cannot amend legislative text more often once. Defendant personally discharges a firearm during the commission of the offense, and that discharge proximately causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, permanent disfigurement, or death to another person. Any time to the. That strawberry is exist to decrease General Assembly. Does someone violate prohibition of wreath and unusual punishment nor infringe on rights to mind process. What is the rationale for replacing nonpartisanship with bipartisanship if not to preserve some space for partisan redistricting? Consistent with other provisions of the Penal Code, sexual assault in the fourth degree is not a strict liability offense with respect to consent element and criminal negligence is the required mens rea for that element. Nekima Levy Armstrong, a civil rights lawyer and activist. Statewide voter registration system and transfer use the inactive file the permanent registration and cannot of voting forms of such persons as to judge might have ordered stricken from the system or signature copy register pursuant to this section.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Resource Guide
    chapter 1 Introduction FCPA A Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act By the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Enforcement Division of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission This guide is intended to provide information for businesses and individuals regarding the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The guide has been prepared by the staff of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Enforcement Division of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It is non-binding, informal, and summary in nature, and the information contained herein does not constitute rules or regulations. As such, it is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, that are enforceable at law by any party, in any criminal, civil, or administrative matter. It is not intended to substitute for the advice of legal counsel on specific issues related to the FCPA. It does not in any way limit the enforcement intentions or litigating positions of the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or any other U.S. government agency. Companies or individuals seeking an opinion concerning specific prospective conduct are encouraged to use the U.S. Department of Justice’s opinion procedure discussed in Chapter 9 of this guide. This guide is United States Government property. It is available to the public free of charge online at www.justice.gov/ criminal/fraud/fcpa and www.sec.gov/spotlight/fcpa.shtml.
    [Show full text]
  • What Every Accountant Needs to Know About the Travel Act Chris Davis Gray Reed – White Collar Practice Group
    What Every Accountant Needs to Know About the Travel Act Chris Davis Gray Reed – White Collar Practice Group 2019 CE Symposium – October 24, 2019 Chris Davis Gray Reed • Partner, White Collar Defense Education • B.B.A., Baylor University • J.D., The University of Texas School of Law Before Joining Gray Reed … • Senior Trial Counsel in the SEC's Fort Worth Regional Office Agenda I. What is the Travel Act and why do we care? II. Traditional state law predicates III. Expansion to other state law violations IV. Combination with other federal laws V. Recent expansion in healthcare VI. Potential culpability of advisors VII. Looking forward VIII. Practice tips What is the Travel Act? • Passed in 1961 as a new tool for the Federal Government to pursue racketeering activity • Federal efforts to pursue organized crime frustrated due to it being on a localized level • Criminal activities the Federal Government wanted to pursue: gambling, liquor, prostitution, narcotics and public bribery • Often committed locally and did not involve interstate commerce or otherwise violate a federal statute “In summary, our information reveals numerous instances where the prime mover in a gambling or other illegal enterprise operates by remote control from the safety of another State – sometimes half a continent away. He sends henchman to the scene of operations or travels himself from time to time to supervise the activity and check on his underlings. As for the profits, he receives his share by messenger.” ‐ U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy Travel Act Offense The Travel Act provides that: Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to‐ (1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or (2) commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity; or (3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, and therefore performs or attempts to perform.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Developments in Foreign and Domestic Criminal Commercial Bribery Laws Ryan J
    University of Chicago Legal Forum Volume 2012 | Issue 1 Article 9 Recent Developments in Foreign and Domestic Criminal Commercial Bribery Laws Ryan J. Rohlfsen [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf Recommended Citation Rohlfsen, Ryan J. () "Recent Developments in Foreign and Domestic Criminal Commercial Bribery Laws," University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 2012: Iss. 1, Article 9. Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2012/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Chicago Legal Forum by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recent Developments in Foreign and Domestic Criminal Commercial Bribery Laws Ryan J. Rohlfsent INTRODUCTION The concept of bribery generally conjures notions of pay- ments made by private citizens to government officials as part of a corrupt effort to obtain a government contract or some sort of unfair advantage. But the involvement of a public actor is not required; rather, bribery may include corrupt payments between purely private parties. This may occur, for example, when a ven- dor makes an improper payment to the purchasing director of a company to buy that vendor's goods instead of another vendor's. Various jurisdictions have enacted laws criminalizing such "commercial" or "private" bribery. While the majority of US states have criminal commercial bribery laws, there is no general federal statute. In recent years, a number of international non- governmental organizations (NGOs) have pressed for countries to implement stringent criminal anti-commercial bribery laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Weapons in DOJ's Arsenal: Prosecutions Under the Travel Act and Other Fraud Statutes
    Weapons in DOJ's Arsenal: Prosecutions under the Travel Act and Other Fraud Statutes Brian D. Bewley, Polsinelli PC Jacob T. Elberg, United States Attorney’s Office, District of N.J Carolyn McNiven, Greenberg Traurig, LLP Agenda I. Overview of the Travel Act A. Statutory Enactment B. Elements of Offense C. State Law Predicates II. Enforcement of Travel Act in Health Care A. Overview of Recent Cases B. New Jersey Cases C. California Cases D. Forest Park Medical III. Discussion and Questions Overview of Travel Act •“Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in of racketeering enterprises.” •Proposed and enacted in 1961 by A.G. Robert F. Kennedy •Intent was to address organized crime: gambling, liquor, prostitution, narcotics, and using illegal bribes to corrupt politicians •Activities that crossed state lines a central nexus Travel Act Offense The Travel Act Provides that: Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to— (1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or (2) commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity; or (3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, and thereafter performs or attempts to perform . an act [as further described] . shall be imprisoned . • “unlawful activity” includes extortion and bribery, as defined by state law. Elements Of Travel Act Offense 1. Interstate Element • Mailings • Wirings/Use of Wires • Travel • Note: disagreement as to how integral needs to be • Courts are in agreement defendant need not have known about interstate element 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Why China's Crackdown on Commercial Bribery Threatens U.S
    WHY CHINA’S CRACKDOWN ON COMMERCIAL BRIBERY THREATENS U.S. MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS IN CHINA Daniel C.K. Chow∗ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................512 II. CHINA’S ANTI-CORRUPTION CAMPAIGNS AND THE CURRENT CRACKDOWN ON COMMERCIAL BRIBERY ........................................................................................517 A. China’s Periodic Anti-Corruption Campaigns...........................................517 B. Relevant Laws Applicable to Commercial Bribery in China.....................520 III. CAUSES OF CHINA’S RECENT CRACKDOWN ON COMMERCIAL BRIBERY........524 A. Recent International Efforts at Curbing Commercial Bribery ...................525 B. State-Owned Enterprises and Their Pervasive Culture of Business Corruption...................................................................................................526 1. The Need to Do Business with SOEs......................................................528 2. Common Bribery Schemes by SOEs ......................................................528 C. Cracking Down on Commercial Bribery Involving MNCs Entails Fewer Risks than Focusing on the Recipient of the Bribe.....................................530 1. China’s Historical Focus on the Demand Side, or Recipient, of Bribes.530 2. Shift in Focus to the Supply Side of Bribes ............................................534 IV. CONSEQUENCES OF THE CRACKDOWN ON COMMERCIAL BRIBERY AND RISKS TO MNCS..............................................................................................................535
    [Show full text]
  • Brokerage Concepts, Inc. V. U.S. Healthcare, Inc
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 96-1891, 96-1892, 96-1922 and 96-1923 BROKERAGE CONCEPTS, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. U.S. HEALTHCARE, INC.; CORPORATE HEALTH ADMINISTRATORS, INC.; UNITED STATES HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., d/b/a THE HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION OF PENNSYLVANIA; RICHARD WOLFSON; SCOTT MURPHY; and WILLIAM BROWNSTEIN, Appellants/Cross-Appellees. On Appeal From A Final Judgment Of The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Pennsylvania (Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer, District Judge) OPENING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES David H. Marion Patrick W. Kittredge Francis P. Newell Lisa G. Miller Howard J. Bashman KITTREDGE, DONLEY, ELSON, MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN, FULLEM & EMBICK, LLP WALKER & RHOADS, LLP 421 Chestnut Street, 5th Floor 123 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 829-9900 (215) 772-1500 Counsel for Defendants/ Robert E. Bloch Appellants/Cross-Appellees Roy T. Englert, Jr. Richard Wolfson, Scott Donald M. Falk Murphy and William Robert L. Bronston Brownstein MAYER, BROWN & PLATT 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-1882 (202) 463-2000 Counsel for Corporate Defendants/Appellants/Cross- Appellees TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF SUBJECT-MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION ............ 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES, PRESERVATION, AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES AND PROCEEDINGS ........................
    [Show full text]
  • No. 18-2223 ___UNITED STATES OF
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 18-2223 ____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. THOMAS V. SAVINO, Appellant ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 2-16-cr-00582-001) District Judge: Honorable Stanley R. Chesler ____________ Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 9, 2019 Before: HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and BIBAS, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: September 24, 2019) ____________ OPINION* ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. Thomas V. Savino, M.D., appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence. We will affirm. I1 Savino operated a solo medical practice in Staten Island, New York. From August 2012 to April 2013, he accepted monthly cash payments from Biodiagnostic Laboratory Services (BLS), a blood laboratory headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey. Savino agreed with Cliff Antell, a BLS recruiter, to allow the lab to set up a station to draw blood in the rear suite of his medical office. In May 2013, Antell began cooperating with the FBI during its investigation of BLS. He recorded a conversation in which Savino agreed to a different blood referral arrangement to replace the BLS deal. A federal grand jury in Newark, New Jersey indicted Savino on ten counts.2 Savino moved to dismiss the indictment, but the District Court denied the motion. After 1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]