Court Opinion

ID: 9368939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 16:00:27.994676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:11.820365
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-6140     Document: 010110809319      Date Filed: 02/07/2023      Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        February 7, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                         Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                             Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                        No. 22-6140
                                                    (D.C. No. 5:07-CR-00154-D-4)
  BARRY DEAN BISCHOF,                                       (W.D. Okla.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MORITZ, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       Barry Bischof, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district

 court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.

 § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

       *
          After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a);
 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
        1
          We construe Bischof’s pro se filings liberally, “but we do not act as his
 advocate.” United States v. Griffith, 928 F.3d 855, 864 n.1 (10th Cir. 2019).
Appellate Case: 22-6140    Document: 010110809319         Date Filed: 02/07/2023      Page: 2

                                       Background

       In 2007, a jury convicted Bischof of conspiring to impede a federal officer, in

 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 372, and mailing threatening communications with the intent

 to extort a release from prison, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(d). In the underlying

 scheme, Bischof and his coconspirators—most of whom were inmates at a federal

 correctional institution in Oklahoma—sent threatening letters to federal officials

 asserting copyrights in their names and demanding exorbitant sums of money based

 on the officials’ use of the inmates’ names.2 In furtherance of this endeavor, the

 conspirators researched assets held by these federal officials, attempted to file liens

 against such assets based on the unpaid copyright invoices, and attempted to seize the

 assets using a collections agency. The conspirators ultimately aimed to use their

 leverage over these assets to negotiate their release from prison.

       For these offenses, the district court sentenced Bischof to 14 years in prison

 and three years of supervised release. Bischof’s attempts to appeal were dismissed as

 untimely, as was his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Bischof, 389 F.

 App’x 864, 866 (10th Cir. 2010).

       In June 2020, Bischof filed a counseled motion for compassionate release

 under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The government opposed Bischof’s motion. The district

 court agreed that Bischof had shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances

 based on the combination of his age (73 years old), his multiple health conditions,

       2
         Bischof was serving a 25-year sentence for a variety of 1993 drug and gun
 convictions.
                                             2
Appellate Case: 22-6140     Document: 010110809319         Date Filed: 02/07/2023     Page: 3

 and the COVID-19 pandemic. But it ultimately denied relief, concluding that the

 sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support reducing Bischof’s

 sentence. In so doing, the district court discounted Bischof’s rehabilitative success

 against the nature and seriousness of Bischof’s convictions, which stemmed from a

 “civil assault against federal officials that involved filing liens on their property in a

 scheme to extract a release from prison.” R. vol. 1, 288. It also noted Bischof’s

 disruptive conduct during the criminal proceedings, including refusing to speak with

 his attorney and filing numerous pro se documents. The district court concluded that

 the nature of Bischof’s convictions and his disruptive conduct demonstrated

 antigovernment views and antisocial characteristics. And importantly, it noted,

 Bischof had served less than six years of his 14-year sentence, less than even the low

 end of his sentencing range. Overall, the district court concluded, “a prison sentence

 longer than [Bischof] has served to date is necessary to reflect the seriousness of his

 crime, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and afford adequate

 deterrence to criminal conduct.” Id. It later denied reconsideration.

        In July 2022, Bischof filed a second motion for compassionate release, this

 time proceeding pro se. The district court acknowledged that in the intervening years,

 Bischof had aged two more years, experienced additional health problems, completed

 additional educational courses, and been assessed as having a low risk of recidivism.

 Bischof had also served two more years of his 14-year sentence, bringing him beyond

 the halfway mark. But the district court concluded that “these changes in

 circumstances do not materially alter the sentencing calculus that resulted in the

                                              3
Appellate Case: 22-6140     Document: 010110809319        Date Filed: 02/07/2023      Page: 4

 denial of [Bischof’s] prior motion.” Id. at 347. Incorporating its prior order, it

 accordingly denied Bischof’s second compassionate-release motion.

       Bischof appeals.3

                                         Analysis

       “We review a district court’s order denying relief on a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion

 for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th

 Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion when it relies on an incorrect

 conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” Id. (quoting United States v.

 Battle, 706 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2013)).

       Bischof argues that the district court abused its discretion by relying on facts

 not appropriately considered under § 3553(a). In particular, he faults the district court

 for relying on his refusal to speak to his attorney and his filing of pro se documents,

 asserting that such conduct stemmed from a conflict with his attorney and was an

 attempt to “[d]efend[] his rights.” Aplt. Br. 3. But as the government points out, the

 record of the underlying proceedings demonstrates that Bischof’s behavior was

 disruptive. For instance, he refused to answer questions from the district court at

 sentencing, and when given the opportunity to address the court about an appropriate

 sentence, he instead provided a confusing and unrelated statement about debts and

 bonds. And when imposing the sentence, the district court commented that Bischof’s

 “demeanor in the courtroom throughout these proceedings . . . suggests an attitude of

       3
        The district court later denied Bischof’s motion for reconsideration, but
 Bischof did not appeal that ruling.
                                             4
Appellate Case: 22-6140     Document: 010110809319        Date Filed: 02/07/2023     Page: 5

 disrespect for the law.” R. vol. 1, 53–54. Thus, regardless of Bischof’s subjective

 characterization of his conduct in the underlying proceedings, the district court did

 not abuse its discretion in relying on that conduct in part when considering “the

 history and characteristics of the defendant” and the need “to promote respect for the

 law.”4 § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A).

       Bischof next contends that “[t]he [d]istrict [c]ourt abused its discretion by

 improperly bolstering the limited factual incidents” underlying the denial of

 compassionate release. Aplt. Br. 3. In support, he notes that his crimes of conviction

 “are relatively less ser[]ious offenses compared to . . . violent, sexually oriented,

 robbery and other offenses.” Id. at 4. He further faults the district court’s

 characterization of his convictions as a “civil assault,” arguing that his conduct was

 “a misguided but illegal attempt . . . to challenge the sentence[] [he] was serving.” Id.

 But again, Bischof’s subjective characterization of the seriousness and nature of his

 offenses does not establish that the district court abused its discretion in viewing

 those matters differently. Indeed, when denying Bischof’s first compassionate-release

 motion, the district court noted that Bischof “largely ignore[d] the nature and

 seriousness of his criminal conduct” and failed to mention “the anti[]government

 views that marked his criminal offense or his past anti[]social behavior.” R. vol. 1,

 288. To be sure, Bischof attached a short apology to his second motion, but the

       4
         Bischof also asserts that the district court erred by relying on Bischof’s
 “mental defect/disability.” Aplt. Br. 3. But nothing in the district court’s order
 references any such defect or disability; the district court merely described Bischof’s
 behavior.
                                             5
Appellate Case: 22-6140    Document: 010110809319         Date Filed: 02/07/2023     Page: 6

 district court did not abuse its discretion in disregarding Bischof’s general apology in

 light of Bischof’s overall conduct.

       At bottom, Bischof essentially picks and chooses purportedly problematic

 features of the district court’s analysis. But a sentencing court “need only set forth

 enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments

 and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decision[-]making authority.”

 United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 948 (10th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v.

 Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1964 (2018)). The order here clears this low bar. And

 to the extent that Bischof asks us to independently reevaluate the § 3553(a) factors in

 a light more favorable to him, doing so “is beyond the ambit of our review.” United

 States v. Lawless, 979 F.3d 849, 856 (10th Cir. 2020); see also United States v.

 Williams, 848 F. App’x 810, 813 (10th Cir. 2021) (“It is not our place to reweigh the

 factors and come to a different conclusion than the district court . . . .”).5 “Because

 the weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is committed to the discretion of the district

 court, we cannot reverse ‘unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the lower

 court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in

 the circumstances.’” Hald, 8 F.4th at 949–50 (quoting United States v. Chavez-Meza,

 854 F.3d 655, 659 (10th Cir. 2017), aff’d, 138 S. Ct. 1959). We have no such

 conviction here. And we see no error of judgment in the district court’s conclusion

 that the just over eight years Bischof has served of his 14-year sentence is not

       5
         We cite unpublished cases for their persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P.
 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
                                             6
Appellate Case: 22-6140    Document: 010110809319         Date Filed: 02/07/2023    Page: 7

 sufficient to reflect the seriousness of his crimes, to promote respect for the law, to

 provide just punishment, and to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.

                                       Conclusion

       Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a)

 sentencing factors, we affirm. Given this outcome, we deny Bischof’s motions

 seeking appointed counsel. See United States v. Olden, 296 F. App’x 671, 674 (10th

 Cir. 2008) (explaining that there is no right to counsel in § 3582(c) proceedings);

 United States v. Campos, 630 F. App’x 813, 816 (10th Cir. 2015) (denying motion to

 appoint counsel in appeal from denial of compassionate release after concluding

 defendant’s arguments lacked merit). We also deny his motion for judgment on the

 pleadings.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Nancy L. Moritz
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             7