United States of America v. Edward Bishop

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 7, 2023
Decided June 9, 2023
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1415
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EDWARD BISHOP,
Defendant-Appellant.
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.
O R D E R
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).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-1415 Page 2
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 docket-
management 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

-- 2 of 2 --