United States of America v. Dennis J. Schaumberg

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 11, 2025*
Decided December 18, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1075
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DENNIS J. SCHAUMBERG,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 21-cr-0015-bhl
Brett H. Ludwig,
Judge.
O R D E R
Dennis Schaumberg, a federal inmate, appeals orders denying two motions for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). His appeal of the first ruling is
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 25-1075 Page 2
untimely, however, and he did not show extraordinary and compelling reasons for
release in the second. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
Schaumberg pleaded guilty to a single count of possessing child pornography,
18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2), and in 2022 was sentenced below the guidelines range
to 60 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release.
Schaumberg moved for compassionate release in April 2024 based on medical
conditions that, he asserted, were not being adequately treated by the Bureau of
Prisons. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C). He alleged, first, that the
Bureau failed to treat an abdominal hernia that he developed in 2023. He also alleged
that the Bureau failed to manage his risk for prostate cancer, which had afflicted family
members and had been signaled by bloodwork in August 2023 that revealed elevated
levels of prostate-specific antigen.
The judge denied Schaumberg’s petition, ruling that Schaumberg had not shown
extraordinary and compelling reasons to warrant his release. Schaumberg, the judge
noted, had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer, and the prison appeared to be
adequately managing his risk of prostate cancer and hernia symptoms. The judge
further considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and concluded that Schaumberg’s
60-month sentence reflected the seriousness of his offense and promoted respect for the
law.
Two months later, Schaumberg filed what we will construe as a second motion
for compassionate release.1 Repeating his earlier claims regarding his risk for prostate
cancer, he submitted the results of a June 2024 MRI, which revealed a one-centimeter
lesion on his prostate and indicated the likely presence of clinically significant cancer. In
response, the government submitted medical records showing that Schaumberg visited
a urologist and prison medical staff in October 2024 and had a biopsy scheduled for
November. In his reply brief, Schaumberg asserted that the biopsy led to his diagnosis
1 Schaumberg styled his motion as one for reconsideration, but to function as a
request for reconsideration, a motion in a criminal matter must be filed within the time
for appeal (14 days unless otherwise extended). United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 650
(7th Cir. 2011); FED. R. A PP. P. 4(b). Schaumberg filed the second motion 61 days after
the judge denied the first. His untimely motion thus functions as a new motion for
compassionate release. See Redd, 630 F.3d at 650.

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 25-1075 Page 3
with prostate cancer in late November, but he was unable to offer proof of the biopsy
results because the Bureau had not provided him with a copy of his medical records.
The judge denied the motion in January 2025, concluding that Schaumberg still
had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release. The
judge stated that he had yet to receive evidence that Schaumberg had prostate cancer,
and even if Schaumberg had been or would be diagnosed with it, there was no evidence
that the Bureau would be unable to provide adequate medical care. Regardless, added
the judge, early release could not be “squared” with the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
Schaumberg appealed, challenging both the August 2024 and January 2025
orders. But we may review only the most recent of the two. To ensure appellate review
of the first order, Schaumberg had to file a notice of appeal within 14 days. See FED. R.
A PP. P. 4(b)(1)(A). He took 61. The government asks us to enforce the filing deadline, so
we dismiss Schaumberg’s appeal of the August 2024 order. United States v. Rollins,
607 F.3d 500, 501 (7th Cir. 2010).
Regarding the January 2025 ruling, Schaumberg contends that the judge
overlooked evidence that the Bureau provided inadequate medical care, specifically the
months-long delays between his bloodwork, MRI, and biopsy. In October 2025, after the
parties had submitted their briefs, Schaumberg wrote to us that he had yet to receive
any treatment, a follow-up MRI, or a biopsy, as recommended by his medical team.
The judge properly dismissed Schaumberg’s second motion to the extent that it
repeated the arguments of the first. Litigants may file more than one motion for
compassionate release if circumstances change between the filing of the first and second
motion. United States v. Barbee, 25 F.4th 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2022). But Schaumberg may
not “rejuvenate an extinguished right to appeal” by raising substantively similar claims
in a new motion filed outside the time for appeal. Rollins, 607 F.3d at 502 (citing
United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 77 (1964)). The judge also properly determined that
Schaumberg’s new arguments (concerning the results of the MRI and claims of a
positive biopsy) were insufficient to show that the Bureau was failing to provide
medical care, putting him “at risk of serious deterioration in health or death.” U.S.S.G
§ 1B1.13(b)(1)(C).
Lastly, insofar as Schaumberg asks us to consider events that occurred after the
judge’s second ruling, we decline to do so. As a general matter, we do not consider
evidence on appeal that was not before the judge when he rendered his decision.
See United States v. Howell, 958 F.3d 589, 595 (7th Cir. 2020). Specifically, we do not

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 25-1075 Page 4
address whether Schaumberg’s new contention—that the Bureau did not treat or
monitor his cancer for a year—would support another motion for compassionate
release.
AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part

-- 4 of 4 --