United States of America v. Richard B. White; Michael A. Suhadolnik

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0291n.06
Nos. 08-3942, 08-3987, 09-3205
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RICHARD B. WHITE;
MICHAEL A. SUHADOLNIK,
Defendants-Appellants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
C O U R T F O R T H E
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
O P I N I O N
BEFORE: NORRIS, COLE, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Defendants Richard B. White and Michael A. Suhadolnik appeal from the
denial of their motion for a new trial or, alternatively, for an evidentiary hearing. In 2003, defendants
and three other individuals were charged in a fourteen-count indictment with crimes related to
Medicare fraud. White was found guilty on all counts; Suhadolnik was convicted of a single wire
fraud count. This court affirmed those convictions on direct appeal. United States v. White, 492
F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2007). Although we affirmed the convictions, we vacated an order of the district
court denying defendants’ motion for a new trial and remanded the matter to enable the trial court
to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the government withheld material evidence
favorable to defendants. On remand, the district court conducted a hearing but denied relief.

-- 1 of 2 --

Nos. 08-3942, 08-3987, 09-3205
United States v. White
Our previous opinion contained an extensive discussion of the events that triggered the
underlying prosecution, the evidence produced at trial, and our reasons for affirming the verdicts.
By contrast, this appeal is much narrower in scope and presents a single question: Did the documents
uncovered by defendants after remand, coupled with the testimony presented during the evidentiary
hearing, entitle defendants to a new trial? Having had the benefit of extensive briefing and oral
argument, the panel concludes, as did the district court, that the new evidence does not call the
validity of the verdicts into question. We have independently assessed that evidence and now affirm
the judgment of the district court based upon the reasoning set forth in its opinion filed on July 16,
2008.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
- 2 -

-- 2 of 2 --