U.S. v. FRICK, 3:09-cr-66. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20120305692
Visitors: 21
Filed: Mar. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2012
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court upon motion of the defendant pro se to rescind the portion of the Judgment (Doc. No. 14) relating to the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program ("IFRP"). (Doc. No. 16). The defendant claims the Court exceeded its authority by allegedly ordering his participation in the IFRP. The Judgment reflects that the Court ordered that payment of the defendant's criminal monetary penalties was due immediately and only recomme
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court upon motion of the defendant pro se to rescind the portion of the Judgment (Doc. No. 14) relating to the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program ("IFRP"). (Doc. No. 16). The defendant claims the Court exceeded its authority by allegedly ordering his participation in the IFRP. The Judgment reflects that the Court ordered that payment of the defendant's criminal monetary penalties was due immediately and only recommen..
More
ORDER
ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon motion of the defendant pro se to rescind the portion of the Judgment (Doc. No. 14) relating to the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program ("IFRP"). (Doc. No. 16).
The defendant claims the Court exceeded its authority by allegedly ordering his participation in the IFRP. The Judgment reflects that the Court ordered that payment of the defendant's criminal monetary penalties was due immediately and only recommended participation in the IFRP. (Doc. No. 14: Judgment at 2, 5). Thus, the Judgment is consistent with the voluntary nature of the program. Additionally, the defendant obligated himself to participate in the program through the Plea Agreement. (Doc. No. 2 at ¶ 11).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, that the defendant's motion (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
