Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Sentencing – Special assessments – payment

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 12, 2011//

Sentencing – Special assessments – payment

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 12, 2011//

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Special assessments; payment

A district court may not order that a prisoner’s trust account be taken to pay a special assessment imposed at sentencing.

“The Attorney General rather than the courts ‘shall be responsible for collection of an unpaid fine or restitution’ imposed by a judgment, 18 U.S.C. § 3612(c), and he has delegated his authority to the Bureau of Prisons, 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(1), which created the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program to facilitate collection. This delegation is proper, United States v. Ellis, 522 F.3d 737, 738-39 (7th Cir. 2008); Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 712 (8th Cir. 2002); Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam), and the ‘courts are not authorized to override the Bureau’s discretion about such matters, any more than a judge could dictate particulars about a prisoner’s meal schedule or recreation (all constitutional problems to the side).’ United States v. Sawyer, 521 F.3d 792, 794 (7th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Lampien, 89 F.3d 1316, 1320 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Boal, 534 F.3d 965, 966 n.1 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Comer, 93 F.3d 1271, 1281- 82 (6th Cir. 1996).”
“Recall that Buddhi’s payment plan required him to pay only $25 a quarter toward his special assessment. The criminal judgment against him had been entered in December 2009 and the district court’s order was issued 14 months later. Fourteen months is 4.67 quarters. So in ordering the warden to deduct $1067.00 from Buddhi’s account, the district court overrode the payment plan, under which he owed only $116.75 (4.67 x $25). By doing this, the district court exceeded its authority. The Bureau of Prisons could have enlarged or accelerated Buddhi’s payment obligation, see McGhee v. Clark, 166 F.3d 884, 887 (7th Cir. 1999), but had not done so, and the court could not do so.”

Petition Denied.

10-3802 In re Buddhi

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Moody, J., Posner, J.

Full Text

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests