Opinion
22-1415
06-09-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWARD BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Submitted June 7, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. No. 3:17-cr-55-RLM Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge.
Before DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge, FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
ORDER
Edward Bishop has filed four motions seeking compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c). All have been denied.
The district court's order denying the latest motion stated that the denial was based on the same reasons as the denial of Bishop's second motion. The judge did not repeat those reasons but simply referred to the prior order. Bishop contends that this practice is automatically reversible error. He relies on United States v. Handlon, 53 F.4th 348 (5th Cir. 2022).
Handlon does not establish such a per se rule. To the contrary, it remarks: "Litigants sometimes pepper a district court with repetitive motions, and orders invoking 'the same reasons stated' in an earlier ruling are an important docketmanagement tool." 53 F.4th at 353. That's a fair description of Bishop's motions.
Handlon held that it is impermissible to rely solely on a prior order when conditions have changed materially. But Bishop's conditions have not changed materially; indeed, his brief does not even try to show that compassionate release is more appropriate today than when the district judge denied his second motion. The brief asserts that he presented new facts but does not say what they are, how they have been established, or why they materially affect the analysis.
AFFIRMED.