United States v. Siebert

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRAVIS L. SIEBERT,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 19-3267
(D.C. No. 6:11-CR-10098-EFM-1)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*

_________________________________
Before LUCERO, HOLMES, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Travis Siebert was ordered to pay restitution as part of his 2012 criminal
judgment. After making payments for several years, he asked the district court for a
full payoff amount and promptly charged that amount on a credit card. But the
alleged payoff amount was incorrect (it was short some $377 in interest). When
Mr. Siebert was unable to gain any assurance that his restitution obligation would be
considered paid in full, he initiated a dispute with his credit card company.

*
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

October 15, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 19-3267 Document: 010110423364 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 Page: 1

2

The district court held a hearing and determined that Mr. Siebert’s payment
should be considered an accord and satisfaction. It entered an order (Doc. 131)
declaring that the restitution obligation was satisfied in full. But then, notified of the
credit card dispute, the district court issued a second order (Doc. 133) declaring
Doc. 131 to be null and void. Mr. Siebert appeals from Doc. 133.
While this appeal was pending, the credit card company transmitted the funds
to the district court. The government therefore has conceded that Doc. 131 should be
reinstated and has requested this court remand the matter to the district court for such
reinstatement. While Mr. Siebert agrees that Doc. 131 should be reinstated, he also
complains that the district court is biased, and he attempts to challenge the validity of
his underlying 2012 conviction.
Mr. Siebert’s complaints of bias rest on various adverse rulings by the district
court, some dating back to the original criminal case, as well as his own suspicion
and innuendo. But such allegations are insufficient to establish bias or prejudice
warranting recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994);
United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993-94 (10th Cir. 1993). Further, the instant
appeal arises out of post-conviction orders concerning the payment of restitution.
Mr. Siebert’s complaints about his underlying conviction go far beyond the scope of
this appeal, and we decline to consider them.
Appellate Case: 19-3267 Document: 010110423364 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 Page: 2

3

Doc. 133 is vacated, and this matter is remanded to the district court with
instructions to reinstate Doc. 131. The government’s separate motion to remand the
case is denied as moot.
Entered for the Court

Allison H. Eid
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 19-3267 Document: 010110423364 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 Page: 3