The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction and 84-month federal prison sentence of Dr. Leovares Mendez, who operated an illegal prescription scheme at his medical clinic in Garland, Texas. The decision, filed Jan. 28, 2026, in *United States v. Mendez*, rejected the physician's appeal challenging multiple aspects of his trial and sentencing.
Mendez was convicted on seven federal charges: one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and six counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance. The charges stemmed from his operation of a medical clinic where he unlawfully prescribed controlled substances to patients in violation of federal drug laws.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where Mendez was initially prosecuted under case number 3:20-CR-75-1. Following his conviction, the district court sentenced him to serve 84 months in federal prison, a sentence that amounts to seven years of incarceration.
According to court documents, Dr. Mendez operated the clinic alongside his former business partner, Dr. Cesar Pena. Both physicians held Drug Enforcement Administration registrations, which legally authorized them to prescribe controlled substances provided they did so for legitimate medical purposes and within the bounds of professional medical practice.
The DEA registration system serves as a critical regulatory framework for controlling access to controlled substances. Physicians who hold these registrations are required to prescribe medications only for legitimate medical purposes and must comply with strict federal guidelines governing the distribution of controlled substances.
On appeal, Mendez mounted a three-pronged challenge to his conviction and sentence. He contested the jury instructions provided by the district court during his trial, arguing that the court's guidance to the jury was flawed or inadequate. Additionally, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him, suggesting that the government had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mendez also contested the application of a sentencing enhancement that may have increased his prison term beyond what would otherwise have been imposed under federal sentencing guidelines. Sentencing enhancements in drug cases often relate to factors such as the quantity of controlled substances involved, the defendant's role in the conspiracy, or prior criminal history.
However, the three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit found no merit in any of Mendez's arguments. The per curiam opinion, authored collectively by Circuit Judges Patrick E. Higginbotham, James C. Ho, and Stuart Kyle Duncan, systematically rejected each of his challenges.
The court's analysis examined whether the district court had provided proper jury instructions that accurately conveyed the relevant law to the jurors. Jury instructions are critical in criminal cases because they guide jurors in applying the law to the facts they determine from the evidence. Incorrect or misleading instructions can constitute reversible error requiring a new trial.
Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the appeals court reviewed whether a reasonable jury could have found Mendez guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented at trial. This standard of review is highly deferential to jury verdicts, requiring appellate courts to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
The court also examined whether the sentencing enhancement was properly applied under federal sentencing guidelines and statutes. Federal drug sentencing often involves complex calculations based on drug quantities, defendant roles, and other factors that can significantly impact final sentences.
The case highlights ongoing federal enforcement efforts against medical professionals who abuse their prescribing authority. The DEA and federal prosecutors have increasingly targeted physicians who operate pill mills or otherwise distribute controlled substances outside the scope of legitimate medical practice.
Such prosecutions typically require the government to prove that defendants knowingly prescribed controlled substances without legitimate medical purpose or outside the usual course of professional practice. These cases often involve extensive investigations including patient interviews, prescription database analysis, and expert medical testimony.
The conviction and affirmed sentence send a message about federal commitment to combating prescription drug abuse and the illegal distribution of controlled substances through medical channels. Healthcare professionals who violate their prescribing authority face serious federal criminal penalties including substantial prison terms.
The Fifth Circuit's decision is designated as unpublished, meaning it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases but reflects the court's application of established legal principles to the specific facts of Mendez's case.
With his appeal unsuccessful, Mendez must serve the 84-month federal prison sentence imposed by the district court. The case underscores the serious consequences facing medical professionals who exploit their prescribing authority to unlawfully distribute controlled substances.