U.S. v. McCORMICK, 3:13-CR-386. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20150507d47
Visitors: 15
Filed: May 06, 2015
Latest Update: May 06, 2015
Summary: ORDER JEFFREY J. HELMICK , District Judge . During a hearing held on October 10, 2014, I sentenced Charlene McCormick to a term of imprisonment and ordered her to pay restitution in the amount of $287,431.74. In part, I ordered her to "pay 25% of her gross income per month, through the Federal Bureau of Prisons[']Inmate Financial Responsibility Program ["IFRP"]." (Doc. No. 38 at 4). By letter received on March 20, 2015, the defendant asked me to defer her restitution payment until after she
Summary: ORDER JEFFREY J. HELMICK , District Judge . During a hearing held on October 10, 2014, I sentenced Charlene McCormick to a term of imprisonment and ordered her to pay restitution in the amount of $287,431.74. In part, I ordered her to "pay 25% of her gross income per month, through the Federal Bureau of Prisons[']Inmate Financial Responsibility Program ["IFRP"]." (Doc. No. 38 at 4). By letter received on March 20, 2015, the defendant asked me to defer her restitution payment until after she ..
More
ORDER
JEFFREY J. HELMICK, District Judge.
During a hearing held on October 10, 2014, I sentenced Charlene McCormick to a term of imprisonment and ordered her to pay restitution in the amount of $287,431.74. In part, I ordered her to "pay 25% of her gross income per month, through the Federal Bureau of Prisons[']Inmate Financial Responsibility Program ["IFRP"]." (Doc. No. 38 at 4). By letter received on March 20, 2015, the defendant asked me to defer her restitution payment until after she is released from her incarceration due to a lack of income. She asserts the Bureau of Prisons is requiring her to pay more than 100% of her monthly income into the IFRP.
The Sixth Circuit previously has noted "the complete absence of any constitutional, statutory[,] or decisional authority for the proposition that a federal district court has the subject matter jurisdiction to micromanage the IFRP for the Bureau of Prisons." United States v. Callan, 96 F. App'x 299, 301 (6th Cir. 2004). Thus, it does not appear that I may impose any limitations on the repayment schedule the Bureau of Prisons has set. Moreover, to the extent the defendant's request may be construed as a challenge to the execution of her sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a § 2241 challenge must be brought in the district where the sentence is being carried out. For these reasons, I conclude I lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear the defendant's claims.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
