United States of America v. William A. Bischoff

2020 DNH 084

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: December 14, 2021
• Docket: 17-cr-196-JD
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 17-cr-196-JD Opinion No. 2020 DNH 084 William A. Bischoff

O R D E R

William Bischoff moves for compassionate release from

prison under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) due to health concerns

related to the COVID-19 pandemic.1 In support, he provides

evidence of the likelihood of contracting COVID-19 while

incarcerated and the risk he faces, due to his advanced age and

hypertension, if he were to contract COVID-19. The government

objects to his motion on the ground that he is not eligible for

a reduction in his sentence, under the compassionate release

statute.

1 The court previously denied Bischoff’s motions for compassionate release based on the effects of COVID-19, due to a lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court granted Bischoff’s motion for reconsideration, with the government’s assent, to consider his motions on the merits. Therefore, the issue of administrative exhaustion is moot. Background2

On March 9, 2018, Bischoff pleaded guilty to wire fraud in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and willfully failing to file

individual federal income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C.

§ 7203. As part of the plea agreement, Bischoff acknowledged

that from at least 2009 until September of 2017, he defrauded

clients in twenty-six households through his financial advisory

business. His fraudulent scheme involved soliciting clients,

many of whom were family friends, to give him substantial

amounts of money to invest. Instead of investing the money,

Bischoff used significant amounts of the clients’ money to pay

his own personal expenses, make personal financial investments,

and repay other investors.

He was sentenced to a prison term of 48 months. He was

also sentenced to pay restitution in the total amount of

$6,216,291.31. Judgment was entered on June 20, 2018. At the

current time, Bischoff’s early release date is December 14,

2021. In prior filings seeking relief from his sentence,

Bischoff has made misrepresentations to the court about his

sentence, his family responsibilities, and other matters. Those

requests were denied.

2 Additional background information about Bischoff’s criminal and procedural history is provided in the court’s previous orders, document nos. 60, 68, and 70.

2 Bischoff is currently incarcerated at FMC Devens. The

parties have provided supplemental briefing on the conditions at

FMC Devens, Bischoff’s medical condition, and his plan for

release. Jonathan Hurtig, Chief United States Probation

Officer, reviewed the filings and submitted a report.

On May 15, 2020, the court held a telephone conference with

counsel for Bischoff, the AUSA representing the government, and

Officer Hurtig. Counsel for Bischoff represented that eight

inmates and two staff persons at FMC Devens have tested positive

for COVID-19. In response, the government confirmed the new

cases of COVID-19 at FMC Devens but argued that Bischoff is not

at risk because he is housed in a different area of the facility

and the facility is operating in lock down to avoid spreading

the infection.

The government provided information from Bischoff’s victims

that they opposed reduction in his sentence because of the

seriousness of his crimes. The victims have also reported that

Bischoff’s company, Genesis Investment Group, LLC, is still in

existence. They are concerned that if released Bischoff will

again engage in the same fraudulent schemes.

After the telephone conference, the court received notice

that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) had issued a Supervision

Release Plan to put Bischoff in home confinement for the

3 remainder of his sentence. The BOP plan includes fourteen days

of quarantine confinement at FMC Devens before release, with a

tentative release date of June 5, 2020. Counsel for Bischoff

submitted an additional supplement to address the BOP plan.

At the court’s request, Officer Hurtig submitted an

additional report to address proposed conditions for supervised

release, if the court were to grant compassionate release, to

protect the public and to require Bischoff to remain under home

confinement until December 14, 2021, the date on which his

original sentence would be completed. The court held a second

telephone conference on May 18, 2020, to review the status of

the case in light of the BOP’s plan for home confinement and the

conditions for supervised release proposed by Officer Hurtig, if

the court were to grant compassionate release.

Subsequent to the telephone conference, counsel for

Bischoff reviewed the conditions proposed by Officer Hurtig with

Bischoff, and Bischoff has agreed to those conditions. Counsel

has submitted Bischoff’s signed acknowledgement that he

received, reviewed, and understands the conditions of supervised

release. Counsel for Bischoff signed the conditions of

supervised release and filed a certificate that he reviewed the

proposed conditions of release with Bischoff and that Bischoff

had no objections.

4 Standard of Review

The court may reduce a term of imprisonment based on a

finding that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such

a reduction” and “after considering the factors provided in

section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.”

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). The court also considers whether the requested

“reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements

issued by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(1)(A). The

applicable policy statement provides considerations about the

prisoner’s age and health. U.S.S.G. 1B1.13.

A generalized risk of infection with COVID-19, by itself,

is not enough to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for a

reduction in sentence. United States v. Ramirez, 2020 WL

2404858, at *3-*4 (D. Mass. May 12, 2020); United States v.

Mackenzie, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 2104786, at *1-*2 (D.

Mass. May 1, 2020). On the other hand, a combination of health

and age factors that put a prisoner at a substantially higher

risk due to COVID-19 along with a documented risk of the disease

in the facility where the prisoner is incarcerated may

demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce the

prisoner’s sentence. See, e.g., Ramirez, 2020 WL 2404858, at

*9. Advanced age and hypertension are recognized as risk

5 factors for COVID-19. See, e.g., United States v. Bray, 2020 WL

2494898, at *3 (E.D. Mich. May 14, 2020); Refunjol v. Adducci,

2020 WL 2487119, at *1-*2 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2020); United

States v. Zukerman, --- F. Supp. ---, 2020 WL 1659880, at *4

(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2020); United States v. Hull, 2020 WL 2475639,

at *2-*3 (D. Conn. May 13, 2020). Prison is also recognized as

an environment that increases the likelihood of transmission of

diseases including COVID-19. See, e.g., United States v. Lopez,

2020 WL 2489746, at *3 (D.N.M. May 14, 2020); Ruderman v.

Kolitwenzew, 2020 WL 2449758, at *3 (C.D. Ill. May 12, 2020).

Discussion

Bischoff contends that his advanced age, seventy-nine years

old, and hypertension put him at increased risk of contracting

and not surviving COVID-19. Because of the risks related to the

COVID-19 pandemic, the BOP plans to have Bischoff serve the

remainder of his sentence in home confinement, with a

preliminary fourteen-day quarantine period at FMC Devens. The

government supports the BOP’s plan and contends that Bischoff is

not an appropriate candidate for compassionate release because

of the nature of his crimes and the effect on his victims.

Under the BOP’s plan, Bischoff’s sentence remains the same,

but the location where he serves the sentence would change from

6 FMC Devens to home confinement. In his motion pursuant to

§ 3582(c)(1)(A), Bischoff seeks a reduction in his sentence to

time served followed by supervised release. Although based on

different conditions and authority, the BOP plan and a reduction

in sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A), with the court-imposed

conditions of supervised release, would have similar practical

results. See, e.g., United States v. Murphy, 2020 WL 2507619,

at *4 (E.D. Mich. May 15, 2020) (discussing similarity of relief

available through BOP and court).

The significant difference between the two procedures is

timing. The BOP plan is not yet final and includes a fourteen-

day quarantine period. For that reason, Bischoff would spend

several more weeks at FMC Devens. If the court grants relief

under § 3582(c)(1)(A) and reduces Bischoff’s sentence to time

served with supervised release under the conditions imposed by

the court, he would leave FMC Devens as soon as can be arranged

after the order issues. In addition, the conditions of

supervised release imposed by the court are specifically

tailored to protect the public and to require Bischoff to remain

in home confinement until December 14, 2021, the date on which

he would have completed his original sentence. See Appendix A.

Because Bischoff is seventy-nine years old and has

hypertension, he is in a high-risk category with respect to

7 COVID-19. Bischoff’s situation is evidenced by the fact that

the BOP has issued a Supervision Release Plan to put him in home

confinement. Inmates and staff at FMC Devens have contracted

COVID-19. While Bischoff is not in that part of the facility

where persons have tested positive for COVID-19 and the facility

is taking measures including lock down to contain the disease,

this pandemic has proven difficult to contain even with careful

attention to restrictions and public health. As is noted above,

prisons are recognized as environments that are particularly at

risk for spreading COVID-19. Given the combination of

Bischoff’s health risks and the presence of the disease at FMC

Devens, Bischoff has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons

that support a reduction in his sentence to time served to be

followed by supervised release.

The court acknowledges and understands the opinion of the

victims who do not believe that Bischoff should be granted

compassionate relief. He caused considerable hardship and

suffering to them through his fraudulent schemes. A longer time

in custody at the BOP would be preferable both from the victims’

and the court’s perspectives. However, the COVID-19 pandemic

has created exceptional and unusual circumstances.

Rather than outright release, the court is requiring

Bischoff to remain in home confinement for the same amount of

8 time he has remaining on his sentence and has imposed strict

conditions on him during home confinement to protect the public

and to restrict Bischoff’s activities. Bischoff’s crime and the

impact on his victims weigh in favor of careful supervision.

Although Bischoff was not convicted of a violent crime, he did

defraud a large number of vulnerable people. His suggestion in

a prior motion that he should be allowed to return to work

raised a concern that he did not understand the criminal nature

of his activities or the serious impact his crime has had on his

victims.3

Weighing the relevant factors, the risk that Bischoff faces

from COVID-19 combined with his age and health condition tips

the balance toward reducing his sentence to time served, to be

followed by supervised release subject to the conditions set

forth in Appendix A. Bischoff is not a danger to the public

unless he resumes his fraudulent schemes and activities. The

conditions of supervised release are crafted to provide

oversight and deterrents to prevent Bischoff from engaging in

criminal activity and to protect the public.

3 His victims have reported to the government that Bischoff’s company, Genesis Investment Group, LLC, is still in existence, despite Bischoff’s conviction and incarceration.

9 Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motions for

release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) (documents nos. 62, 67, and 73)

are granted as follows:

1) The defendant’s sentence will be reduced to time

served.

2) The defendant will be placed on special supervised

release until December 14, 2021, which is equivalent to what his

discharge date would have been from the BOP, during which time

he will remain in home confinement.

3) Following the term of special supervised release, the

defendant will be placed on supervised release for a term of

three years.

4) During these terms of special supervised release and

supervised release, the defendant shall be subject to the

Supervision Conditions as set forth in Appendix A.

5) The BOP shall release the defendant immediately

following processing.

6) The court recommends that the BOP screen the defendant

for COVID-19 within twelve hours of his release, and if he is

displaying symptoms consistent with COVID-19, test the defendant

10 and share the results with the United States Probation Office in

the District of New Hampshire.

7) The court will issue an amended criminal judgment.

SO ORDERED.

______________________________ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge

May 19, 2020

cc: Counsel of record.

11 APPENDIX A SUPERVISION CONDITIONS: Within seventy-two hours of release from custody of the Bureau of Prisons, the defendant shall report in person to the district to which the defendant is released. While under supervision, the defendant must comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court, and the following mandatory conditions: The defendant must not commit another federal, state, or local crime. The defendant must not unlawfully possess a controlled substance. The drug testing condition required by 18 U.S.C. § 3563(a)(5) is suspended based on the court’s determination that the defendant poses a low risk of future substance abuse. The defendant must cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by the probation officer.

In addition, the defendant must comply with the following special conditions: 1. The defendant must self-quarantine in an approved residence during the first fourteen days of his supervised release. 2. The defendant is restricted to his residence at all times until December 14, 2021, except for employment; education; religious services; medical, substance abuse, or mental health treatment; attorney visits; court appearances; court-ordered obligations; or other activities as pre-approved by the officer. During the first ninety days, the defendant will be monitored by Location Monitoring using Radio Frequency, after which the defendant will continue to be monitored using the location monitoring technology at the discretion of the probation officer. The defendant must follow the rules and regulations of the location monitoring program. The defendant must pay for the cost of the program to the extent he is able, as determined by the probation officer. 3. The defendant must provide the probation officer with access to any requested financial information and authorize the release of any financial information. The probation office may share financial information with the Financial Litigation Unit of the United States Attorney’s Office. 4. The defendant must not incur new credit charges, or open additional lines of credit without the approval of the probation officer. 5. The defendant must apply all monies received from income tax refunds, lottery winnings, judgments, and/or any other anticipated or unexpected financial gains to the outstanding court-ordered financial obligation. 6. If the judgment imposes a financial penalty, the defendant must pay the financial penalty in accordance with the Schedule of Payments sheet of this judgment. The defendant must also notify the court of any changes in economic circumstances that might affect the ability to pay this financial penalty. 7. The defendant must not engage in an occupation, business, profession, or volunteer activity that would require or enable him to act as a fiduciary or in any other capacity as a financial trader or investor through any medium (to include in person, through mail, telephone, or on-line) without the prior approval of the probation officer. 8. The defendant must not work in any type of employment without the prior approval of the probation officer. 9. The defendant must cooperate fully with the probation officer and others in marshaling his assets and disposing of the same in order to make restitution to the victims, and shall appoint such agents as may be necessary to accomplish this and execute such documents.

10. The defendant must not communicate, or otherwise interact, with any victim of his offense of conviction, either directly or through someone else, without first obtaining the permission of the probation officer. 11. The defendant must submit his person, property, house, residence, vehicle, papers, computers (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1)), other electronic communications or data storage devices or media, or office, to a search conducted by a United States Probation Officer. Failure to submit to a search may be grounds for revocation of release. He must warn any other occupants that the premises may be subject to searches pursuant to this condition. The probation officer may conduct a search under this condition only when reasonable suspicion exists that the defendant has violated a condition of supervision and that the areas to be searched contain evidence of this violation. Any search must be conducted at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. 12. The defendant must submit his computers (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1)) or other electronic communications or data storage devices or media, to a search. He must warn any other people who use these computers or devices capable of accessing the Internet that the devices may be subject to searches pursuant to this condition. A probation officer may conduct a search pursuant to this condition only when reasonable suspicion exists that there is a violation of a condition of supervision and that the computer or device contains evidence of this violation. Any search will be conducted at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. 13. The defendant must allow the probation officer to install computer monitoring software on any computer (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1)) the defendant uses. The defendant must pay for the cost of this monitoring software to the extent he is able, as determined by the probation officer. 14. To ensure compliance with the computer monitoring condition, the defendant must allow the probation officer to conduct initial and periodic unannounced searches of any computers (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1)) subject to computer monitoring. These searches shall be conducted for the purposes of determining whether the computer contains any prohibited data prior to installation of the monitoring software; to determine whether the monitoring software is functioning effectively after its installation; and to determine whether there have been attempts to circumvent the monitoring software after its installation. The defendant must warn any other people who use these computers that the computers may be subject to searches pursuant to this condition.