USA v. Michael Suhadolnik, No. 08-3942 (6th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 11a0291n.06 Nos. 08-3942, 08-3987, 09-3205 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT May 03, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD B. WHITE; MICHAEL A. SUHADOLNIK, Defendants-Appellants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) LEONARD GREEN, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO OPINION 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. 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-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
