D L D

- 2 2 4 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 2 1

- 1 9 7 9

___________

UNITED ST ATES OF AMERICA

v.

R OBERT G. BARD,

Appella nt

_____________________ _______________

On Appeal from the United St ates District Court

for the M i d d l e District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. C r i m i n a l Action No. 1

- 1 2

- c r

- 0 0 1 8 1

- 0 0 1 )

District Judge: Honorable S y l v i a H

. R a m b o

________ ___ _________________________

S ubmitted o n t h e A p p e l l e e ’ s M o t i o n f o r S u m m a r y A f

f i r m a n c e

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

July 15, 2021

Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE and PHIPPS, Circuit Jud ges

(Opinion filed August 10, 2021 )

_________

OPINION *

_________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opin ion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute binding precede nt.2

R o b e r t B a r d appeals from the District Court’s r u l i n g s r e l a t i n g t o h i s m o t i o n f o r

compassion ate release filed pur suant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Government

has filed a motion for summary affirmance. For th e reaso ns that follow, we grant the

Government’s motion a nd will summarily affirm

.

I n 2 0 1 3

, B a r d w a s s e n t e n c e d t o 2 6 2 m o n t h s i n p r i s o n a f t e r b e i n g c o n v i c t e d o f

f r a u d a n d r e l a t e d c h a r g e s

. B a r d

, a n i n v e s t m e n t a d v i s o r

, h a d d e f r a u d e d 6 6 o f h i s c l i e n t s

,

m a n y o f t h e m e l d e r l y

, o u t o f m i l l i o n s o f d o l l a r s

. W e a f f i r m e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d

s e n t e n c e o n a p p e a l

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. B a r d

, 6 2 5 F

. A p p ’ x 5 7

, 6 1 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 1 5 )

.

I n J u n e 2 0 2 0

, B a r d f

i l e d a p r o s e m o t i o n f

o r c o m p a s s i o n a t e r e l e a s e

, arguing that

he suff ere d fro m me di cal condit ions that increased his risk of severe illness from

COVID

- 19

. The District Court a ppoin ted counsel

, who filed a brief in support

. Th e

Govern ment opposed the motion

. Af t e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n i n

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 2 0

, B a r d f

i l e d a p r o s e m o t i o n f

o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n F e b r u a r y 2 0 2 1

. T h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n

, a n d B a r d s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d m o t i o n s t o s u p p l e m e n t h i s

m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

. T r e a t i n g t h e m o t i o n s t o s u p p l e m e n t a s m o t i o n s f o r

r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s o r d e r s

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m

. B a r d t h e n f i l e d a3

p r o s e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. 1 T h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r s u m m a r y a f

f i r m a n c e

.

W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e a p p e a l u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

. 2

M o t i o n f o r c o m p a s s i o n a t e r e l e a s e

W e r e view the Distri ct Court ’ s o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o n f o r c o m p a s s i o n a t e

r e l e a s e for an abu se of discretion and will not distu rb that decisi on unless the District

Court committed a clear error of judgment after wei ghing t he relevant factors

. S e e

United States v. Pawlo wski

, 967 F.3d 327, 3 30 (3d Cir. 2020)

. We may summarily

affirm a district court’s decision “on a n y basis suppor ted by the rec o r d” if the appeal fails

to present a substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe , 650 F.3d 246, 247 ( 3d Cir.

2011) (per curiam)

.

Purs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 3582( c)(1)(A), a Distr ict Court may reduce a sentence if

extraordinary a n d compelling r e asons warran t s uch a reduction. Before granting

compassionate release, h o w e v e r

, a district court must consider “t h e facto rs set fo rth in

1 In his n o tice of appeal, Bard may have specified only the District Court’s l ast order, but

he discussed his motion for compassi onate release and his subsequent motion s and asked

that his “complete file” be forwarded to this Court. ECF #236. He also he suggests i n his

brief that he wishes to appeal all three of the District Court’s orders.

2 Bard’s appeal was timely only as to the District Court ruling on the motio ns to

supplement. However, a s t h e G o v e r n m e n t d o e s n o t r a i s e t h e i s s u e o f t h e t i m e l i n e s s o f t h e

n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e earlier o r d e r s

, in stead addressing the or ig inal decision

in its motion to summarily affirm

, w e w i l l r e v i e w the earlier or de rs a s w e l l

. See Gov ’ t of

the V.I. v. Martinez , 6 20 F.3d 321, 3 28 (3d Cir. 2010) ( ho lding that the failure to file a

timely notice of appeal in a criminal case does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction

, but

, if the G overnmen t invokes the deadline of Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1 ) , the Court must

di s miss the app eal )

.4

[18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” Id. § 3 582(c)(1)(A). I n i t s

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 2 0 o r d e r

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t B a r d h a d a r g u a b l y m a d e a

s h o w i n g o f a c o m p e l l i n g a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e

, b u t h e h a d n o t s h o w n r e m o r s e

f o r h i s c r i m e s a n d p o s e d a significant d a n g e r t o t h e c o m m u n i t y i f r e l e a s e d

. I n p a r t i c u l a r

,

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t n o t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g :

Mr. Bard has repea tedly showed t he court

-- and continues t o do so today

--

that he has shown no remorse for his crimes and will conti nue to pose a

significant danger to the community if he does not serve his full sentence.

M r . Bard is in prison for succes sfully executing a lo ng

- deliberated and

coldly calculated fr audulent scheme targeting vulnerable people that left

many in total finan cial ruin. In multiple previous orders

-- including during

Mr. Bard ’ s original sentencing hea r ing

-- the co urt noted that Mr. Bard

appeared to be f

lagrantly disr egarding any culpability f or this wrongdoing.

In fact, in Mr. Bard ’ s own words before the c ourt t oday, Mr. Bard describes

himself as “ impeccable. ” Mr. Bard has not learned from his time in prison,

and he needs to serve his full sentence to protect the pu blic from him

inflicting f

urther wrongdoing upon them.

D

. C t

. O r d

. a t 4

, E C F # 2 2 9

.

T he Di stric t Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a sentence r eduction

based on i t s w e i g h i n g o f the § 3353 factors. B a r d ’ s o f f e n s e s

— a r i s i n g f

rom d e f r a u d i n g

c l i e n t s o f m i l l i o n s o f d o l l a r s

— a r e serious

, a n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e

n a t u r e o f t h o se o f

f e n s e s a n d B a r d ’ s c h a r a c t e r

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) ( 1 ) & (2)(A) &

(C) ( including the nat u re and circumstances of the of fense

, c haracteristics o f the

defendan t

, a n d protection of the public as sentencing factor s as well as the need for the

sentenc e “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to5

provide just p unishment for the offense”). T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t commit a cl ear

error of judg men t i n i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d we ighing o f t he relevant factors

. 3

M o t i o n s f o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

We review the denial of a moti on for reconsideration for a n abuse of discreti o n.

United States v. Kalb

, 891 F.3d 455, 459 (3d Cir. 2018)

. The District Court did not abuse

its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration

. I n t h a t m o t i o n

, B a r d p r e s e n t e d

n e w i n f o r m a t i o n

, i

. e

. , t h a t h e h a d t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r C O V I D

- 1 9 i n D e c e m b e r 2 0 2 0

. H e

a l s o p r o v i d e d p u r p o r t e d s t a t i s t i c s o n t h e n u m b e r s o f i n m a t e s w h o h a d t e s t e d p o s i t i v e a n d

w h o h a d d i e d

. However, that information did not prov ide a basis for reconsideration

where the District Court had acknowledged the risk to him in deter m ining, in his favor,

that Bard had arguably shown a compelling and extraordinary circumstance.

B a r d a l s o a r g u e d t h a t h e r e g r e t t e d h i s a c t i o n s a n d h a d b e e n s c o r e d b y t h e B u r e a u

o f P r i s o n s a s a l o w r i s k t o t h e community a n d a l o w r i s k f o r r e c i d i v i s m

. 4 N e i t h e r h i s s e l f

s e r v i n g s t a t e m e n t o f r e m o r s e n o r a p r i s o n o f f i c i a l ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t h e i s a t a l o w r i s k o f

r e c i d i v i s m p r o v i d e s g r o u n d s f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s inf ormed and

3 A s p r o o f o f h i s r e m o r s e

, B a r d a s s e r t s t h a t h e g a v e a p r o f f e r t o t h e G o v e r n m e n t f

o u r

y e a r s b e f o r e h e w a s i n d i c t e d

. Bard , however, leaves out the fact that he d id not plead

guilty a nd accept responsi bility for his cr imes

. At sentencing, Bard di scus sed the impact

of the criminal cha rges on his fa m ily without expressing any remorse for the fi n ancial

dev astation his crimes inflicted on his victims. See Tr. 7/ 31 /14 at 42 ( “ So the victims

claim that they are the only one s that are going through somethin g, we are, too

. ” )6

reasoned determination t h a t B a r d h a s n o t s h o w n r e m o r s e a n d p r e s e n t s a r i s k t o t h e

c o m m u n i t y

.

F i n a l l y

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n s t o s u p p l e m e n t

, i n w h i c h

B a r d s o u g h t t o p r e s e n t a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g h i s m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n s

. A s n o t e d

a b o v e

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t B a r d h a d a r g u a b l y s h o w n a c o m p e l l i n g a n d

e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e

. T h u s

, t h e a d d i t i o n a l m e d i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n h e s u b m i t t e d d i d

n o t p r o v i d e a b a s i s f

o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a n i s s u e d e c i d e d i n h i s f a v o r

.

A s the District Court c l e a r l y did not a bu se its discretion in denying B a r d ’ s motion

for a sentence r eduction o r h i s m o t i o n s f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h is appeal does not presen t a

substantial question

. A c c o r d i n g l y , we g r a n t t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n

, a n d w e w i l l

summaril y affirm the Di strict Court’s o r d e r s

.

4 Bard does not explain what f actors were considered in making this determi nation. He

su bmitted a simple form with t he word s “ recidivism risk level ” and the word “ minimum ”

circled

.