United States v. Schneider
| Decision Date | 21 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 07-10234-01-JWB |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN SCHNEIDER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
This matter comes before the court on Defendant Stephen Schneider's motion for compassionate release and to reduce sentence. (Doc. 851.) Defendant seeks early release due to his underlying health conditions and the current COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant also asserts that he is entitled to release because the government violated his due process rights when the court dismissed his second motion to vacate sentence. The motion has been fully briefed and the court is prepared to rule. (Docs. 854, 858.) For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion for compassionate release is DENIED with respect to his argument relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION with respect to his argument concerning a violation of his due process rights.
Defendant Stephen Schneider was a doctor of osteopathic medicine and his wife, co-defendant Linda Schneider, was a licensed practical nurse. They provided pain management treatment in their clinic, including the prescription of controlled substances. The clinic was open long hours, seven days a week. Defendant was the only full-time doctor on staff.
On March 3, 2010, the grand jury returned a third superseding indictment charging both Defendants as follows: Count 1—conspiracy to unlawfully distribute drugs, commit health care fraud, engage in money laundering, and defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; Counts 2-6—unlawful drug dispensing and distribution and unlawful drug distribution resulting in death in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); Counts 7-17—health care fraud and health care fraud resulting in death in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347; and Counts 18-34—money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. (Doc. 414). The case proceeded to trial.
The evidence at the jury trial was that Defendants' clinic was a regular "pill mill," fraudulently generating significant amounts of money, and both Defendants had little to no concern for the patients. The government's expert on patient care concluded that Defendants "(1) ran a practice that attracted drug addicts; (2) took inadequate medical histories; and (3) indiscriminately prescribed controlled drugs in excessive and escalating amounts." United States v. Schneider, 704 F.3d 1287, 1291 (10th Cir. 2013). Dr. Douglas Jorgensen, the government's expert on pain management and billing practices, opined that Defendants filed fraudulent claims to insurance providers. Id. Dr. Graves Owen, an expert in pain management, testified that Stephen did not prescribe controlled substances for a legitimate medical purpose. Id. From February 2002 to February 2008, sixty-eight patients died of drug overdoses. Defendant called overdosing patients "bad grapes." United States v. Schneider, 112 F. Supp. 3d 1197, 1203 (D. Kan. 2015), on reconsideration, No. CR 07-10234-01, 2015 WL 13679981 (D. Kan. Sept. 15, 2015), and aff'd, 665 F. App'x 668 (10th Cir. 2016). During the same time period, over 100 clinic patients were admitted to local hospitals for overdoses. Id. Defendants received repeated calls from law enforcement, concerned family members about patients' drug addictions, concerned pharmacists,and calls from emergency room physicians about the clinic's prescription practices. Defendants' method of operation continued without change.
The jury found Stephen guilty of Counts 1-17 and two money laundering charges (Counts 26 and 28), and found Linda guilty of all charges save two money laundering charges (Counts 23 and 24). Judge Monti Belot sentenced Stephen to 360 months' imprisonment on counts 1-5 and 7-9, to run concurrently. (Doc. 529.) Linda was sentenced to 396 months' imprisonment on counts 1-5 and 7-9, to run concurrently. Defendant timely appealed and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences. Schneider, 704 F.3d 1287. Based on a change in the law after sentencing, Defendant successfully challenged some of his convictions in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, although that did not result in a different sentence upon resentencing. Schneider, 112 F. Supp. 3d at 1223. Defendant was resentenced to the same 360-month sentence. (Doc. 803.) The controlling sentence was based on Defendant's conviction on count 4, unlawful dispensing and distribution of prescriptions drugs resulting in the death of Robin G. According to the statement of reasons and the presentence report, the guideline range was life. (Docs. 801, 804.) Defendant's judgment was affirmed on appeal. Schneider, 665 F. App'x at 676. Defendant then filed another motion to vacate his sentence on January 4, 2018. (Doc. 837.) This court dismissed the motion as a second or successive 2255 motion. (Doc. 841.)
Defendant is currently incarcerated at FCI Forrest City Low in Forrest City, Arkansas. Based on the information provided by the Bureau of Prisons, FCI Forrest City currently has no active COVID-19 cases among inmates and only 3 cases among staff. Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last accessed July 15, 2021). There have been no deaths among inmates or staff. Id. Defendant's projected release date is September 9, 2035. See FederalBureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/mobile/find_inmate/byname.jsp#inmate_results (Stephen Schneider, last accessed July 14, 2021).
On June 1, 2021, Defendant filed a motion seeking early release due to his health conditions that make him more susceptible to serious health complications should he contract COVID-19. (Doc. 851.) The government opposes Defendant's motion for release on the basis that he has not shown extraordinary circumstances and the sentencing factors do not weigh in favor of a sentence reduction to a time served sentence. (Doc. 854.)
Although there is no right to counsel in the filing of these motions, District of Kansas Standing Order 19-1 allows the appointment of the Federal Public Defender ("FPD") to represent indigent defendants who may qualify to seek compassionate release under § 603 of the First Step Act. Administrative Order 20-8 supplements 19-1 and sets forth procedures to address compassionate release motions brought on grounds related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Under 20-8, the FPD has fifteen days to notify the court whether it intends to enter an appearance on behalf of any pro se individual filing a compassionate release motion based on COVID. Here, the FPD notified the court that it did not intend to enter an appearance to represent Defendant.
The compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), was amended by The First Step Act. Now, a defendant may file his own motion if certain conditions have been met. The Tenth Circuit has recently endorsed a three-step test for district courts to utilize in deciding motions filed under § 3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1042 (10th Cir. 2021) (citing United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1107 (6th Cir. 2020)). Under that test, the court may reduce a sentence if Defendant has administratively exhausted his claim and three other requirements are met: (1) "extraordinary and compelling" reasons warrant a reduction; (2) the "reduction isconsistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission;" and (3) the reduction is consistent with any applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. A court may deny the motion when any requirement is lacking and the court need not address the other requirements. Id. at 1043. But all requirements must be addressed when the court grants a motion for release under the statute. Id. With respect to the second requirement, the applicable policy statements, the Tenth Circuit has held that the current policy statement on extraordinary circumstances is not applicable to motions filed by a defendant. United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821, 837 (10th Cir. 2021). Defendant bears the burden of establishing that compassionate release is warranted under the statute. See, e.g., United States v. Dial, No. 17-20068-JAR, 2020 WL 4933537 (D. Kan. Aug. 24, 2020); United States v. Dixon, No. 18-10027-02-JWB, 2020 WL 6483152, at *2 (D. Kan. Nov. 4, 2020).
Here, the government argues that Defendant has not shown extraordinary circumstances and that the sentencing factors do not support a time served sentence.
The government does not dispute that Defendant has presented his request for release to the warden as required by the statute. But the government asserts that Defendant has not exhausted his claim because he has not presented the court with his request that was submitted to the warden in order to demonstrate that the reasons set forth in his motion were the same reasons presented to the warden. In response, Defendant argues that the government should have access to his request and it should not be his burden to provide the document that he submitted to the warden. (Doc. 858 at 2.) Because it is undisputed that Defendant has presented his request for compassionate release to the warden and that request was denied, the court will proceed to consider Defendant'smotion. (Doc. 851-1.) Based on the court's decision herein, it would be a waste of time and resources to deny the motion without prejudice based on the absence of the actual request.
Defendant argues that the current COVID-19 pandemic, his current age (67), his diminished respiratory status due to his prior positive COVID-19 status, and his incarceration in the penitentiary provide a compelling reason for his immediate release. (Doc. 859 at 10-16.) Defendant also makes several general statements regarding prisons, overcrowding, mistreatment by prison guards, and inadequate medical care. None of these conclusory statements are supported by any particular facts regarding FCI ...
To continue reading
Request your trial