U.S. v. BRAME, 5:10-CR-00246-F-1. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20140506999
Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 29, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX, District Judge. This matter is before the court on Defendant's letter motion [DE-80] addressed to the undersigned. In his motion, Defendant is seeking relief from the payments the Bureau of Prisons is asking him to pay each month through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. In the court's February 2, 2011 Judgment, Defendant was ordered to pay a special assessment of $200.00 and a fine of $5,700.00. [DE-29 at 5.] The court further ordered that the special assessmen
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX, District Judge. This matter is before the court on Defendant's letter motion [DE-80] addressed to the undersigned. In his motion, Defendant is seeking relief from the payments the Bureau of Prisons is asking him to pay each month through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. In the court's February 2, 2011 Judgment, Defendant was ordered to pay a special assessment of $200.00 and a fine of $5,700.00. [DE-29 at 5.] The court further ordered that the special assessment..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. FOX, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendant's letter motion [DE-80] addressed to the undersigned. In his motion, Defendant is seeking relief from the payments the Bureau of Prisons is asking him to pay each month through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.
In the court's February 2, 2011 Judgment, Defendant was ordered to pay a special assessment of $200.00 and a fine of $5,700.00. [DE-29 at 5.] The court further ordered that the special assessment and fine were "due in full immediately." ld. at 6.
Defendant is specifically challenging the payments he is being required to make under the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, a program which is administered by the Bureau of Prisons. A defendant making such a challenge must first exhaust his administrative remedies. See Urbina v. Thoms, 270 F.3d 292, 295 n.l (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that "the Bureau of Prisons should be given the opportunity to consider the application of its policy ... before the matter is litigated in the federal courts.") Defendant's motion does not indicate that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. For this reason, Defendant's letter motion [DE-80] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
