United States v. Birbragher
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
603 F.3d 478 (2010)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Orlando Birbragher (defendant) was an owner and operator of Pharmacom International Corporation (Pharmacom). Pharmacom operated a few websites, such as www.buymeds.com, from which a user could place an order for prescription drugs (Internet pharmacies). On Pharmacom’s websites, users completed a short health-history questionnaire and provided payment information, but Pharmacom did not verify the users’ identities or require submission of any medical records. Pharmacom contracted with doctors, who reviewed the orders and approved them without an in-person examination and, in most cases, without reviewing any medical records. Pharmacom then contracted with pharmacies to fill the purportedly authorized orders. Pharmacom paid millions of dollars to its contracted doctors and pharmacies. Birbragher was charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Birbragher moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the CSA was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him, and the trial court denied his motion to dismiss. Birbragher conditionally pleaded guilty to the charge against him, pending the resolution of his appeal of the trial court’s order.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shepherd, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.



