⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Juan Hernandez challenges a restitution order arising from an HIV-medication kickback case. Prosecutors described pharmacies buying medicines back from patients and dispensing diverted drugs while billing government insurance. Hernandez's own charge concerned cash paid to induce patients to fill prescriptions at particular pharmacies. He pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute. His role in the broader operation, and what harm he could foresee, matter in this appeal. The sentencing dispute expanded when Gilead sought restitution of its own and the district court awarded compensation in its favor. Hernandez contends that this went beyond what he understood his plea agreement to involve, and that his former lawyer failed to challenge the request. He now has new counsel and seeks another hearing about restitution. Restitution is part of a criminal sentence that requires payment to compensate legally recognized victims. It is different from a fine paid to the government. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, or MVRA, requires restitution for specified offenses. Here, a central question is whether Gilead was directly and proximately harmed by Hernandez's conspiracy: whether the claimed loss has a sufficiently close causal connection to his offense. The government will defend Gilead as a victim whose legitimate drug sales were displaced by black-market medicines. Hernandez will contest whether that loss was legally attributable to his conduct. There is also a procedural dispute. The Crime Victims' Rights Act lets victims assert certain rights themselves. The judges will examine what that means when prosecutors take no position on a victim's request because of their plea agreement. Finally, the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires both deficient representation and prejudice. Under Strickland, prejudice means a reasonable probability of a different result without the lawyer's errors, not simply that the defendant received a large bill. The court will discuss whether the present record resolves those questions or whether further proceedings are needed. Steve Zissou will argue for Hernandez.

United States v. Aminov (Hernandez) (No. 25-951) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 20, 2026.