The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has upheld the healthcare fraud conviction of David Byron Copeland, affirming a jury verdict that found him guilty on five counts related to illegal kickbacks and bribes in the healthcare industry. The three-judge panel issued its decision Jan. 9, 2026, in a case that highlights ongoing federal enforcement efforts against healthcare fraud schemes.

The case, *United States v. David Byron Copeland* (11th Cir. 2026), arose from criminal charges filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. After a trial, a jury convicted Copeland on two substantive counts of soliciting and receiving healthcare kickbacks and bribes, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The jury also found him guilty on three additional substantive counts of offering and paying healthcare kickbacks and bribes, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

The federal anti-kickback statute, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, prohibits the knowing and willful solicitation, receipt, offer, or payment of remuneration in return for referrals of federal healthcare program business. The law is designed to protect federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid from fraudulent schemes that can drive up costs and compromise patient care decisions.

However, the jury acquitted Copeland on one count - conspiracy to defraud the United States and to receive and pay healthcare kickbacks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. This partial acquittal demonstrates that while the jury found evidence sufficient to convict on the substantive kickback charges, it did not find proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a broader conspiracy.

Following his conviction, the district court sentenced Copeland to 51 months of imprisonment, which was below the federal sentencing guidelines range for his offenses. The court also imposed three years of supervised release to follow his prison term. The below-guidelines sentence suggests the district court may have found mitigating factors that warranted a reduced penalty.

Copeland appealed both his convictions and his sentence to the Eleventh Circuit. The appeals court panel consisted of Circuit Judges William Pryor Jr. and Andrew Brasher, along with District Judge Paul C. Huck of the Southern District of Florida, who sat by designation. The court issued a per curiam opinion, meaning the decision was unanimous and no individual judge was identified as the author.

The Eleventh Circuit's decision to mark the opinion "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" indicates that while the ruling affirms Copeland's conviction, the court does not view the case as establishing new legal precedent or addressing novel legal issues that would warrant published precedential status.

The case reflects the federal government's continued focus on prosecuting healthcare fraud, which costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually. The Department of Justice and various federal agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, routinely investigate and prosecute individuals and entities that engage in kickback schemes.

Healthcare kickback schemes typically involve arrangements where healthcare providers receive payments or other benefits in exchange for patient referrals or the purchase of particular medical devices, drugs, or services. These arrangements can lead to unnecessary medical procedures, inflated healthcare costs, and compromised medical decision-making as providers may be influenced by financial incentives rather than patient care needs.

The anti-kickback statute includes safe harbors for certain legitimate business arrangements, but prosecutors must prove that defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" to secure convictions. The statute provides for criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment, as well as potential exclusion from federal healthcare programs.

Copeland's case adds to a growing body of healthcare fraud prosecutions that have resulted in significant penalties for individuals and organizations found guilty of violating federal healthcare laws. The Justice Department has reported recovering billions of dollars in healthcare fraud cases in recent years through both criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement actions.

The timing of the Eleventh Circuit's decision, coming in early 2026, suggests that Copeland's appeal was resolved relatively quickly after his initial conviction and sentencing. The appeals process in federal criminal cases typically involves review of legal issues such as the sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, sentencing calculations, and procedural errors at trial.

With the Eleventh Circuit's affirmance of his conviction, Copeland's options for further appeal are limited. He could potentially seek review by the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari, though the high court accepts only a small percentage of such requests and typically focuses on cases involving significant legal issues or circuit splits.

The case serves as a reminder that healthcare fraud enforcement remains a priority for federal prosecutors and that individuals found guilty of violating anti-kickback laws face substantial penalties including prison time and supervised release.