Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Rumney, 95-1647 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1647 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 13, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Defendant, Appellant.Arthur W. Rumney on brief pro se., ________________, Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, and Peter E. Papps, First, ______________ ______________, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on Motion for Summary Disposition for, appellee.States v. Michaud, 928 F.2d 13, 15-16 (1st Cir.
USCA1 Opinion









June 13, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________


No. 95-1647

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

ARTHUR W. RUMNEY,

Defendant, Appellant.


____________________

[Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Arthur W. Rumney on brief pro se. ________________
Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, and Peter E. Papps, First ______________ ______________
Assistant U.S. Attorney, on Motion for Summary Disposition for
appellee.


____________________


____________________




Per Curiam. Appellant challenges the dismissal of __________













a motion which he styled as a challenge to the legality of

the fine portion of his mixed sentence. The motion was

properly dismissed. To the extent that appellant is

complaining about the Bureau of Prisons' authority to collect

the fine, its method of collection, or his ability to pay it

through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP),

28 C.F.R. 545.10-.11 (1989), appellant must first exhaust

administrative remedies before complaining to a court in the

appropriate district. See Johnpoll v. Thornburgh, 898 F.2d ___ ________ __________

849, 850-51 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 819 (1990); see ____________ ___

also 28 C.F.R. 542.10-.16, 541.19 (providing ____

administrative remedy for complaints relating to any aspect

of imprisonment).

To the extent that appellant challenges the fine on

the grounds that it violated the applicable sentencing

statute by failing to specify a payment date, the argument is

without merit. "A fine is due and payable immediately upon

imposition, unless the court specifies otherwise." United ______

States v. Michaud, 928 F.2d 13, 15-16 (1st Cir. 1991) (per ______ _______

curiam) (interpreting 18 U.S.C. 3565(b)(1)(A), as

applicable to offenses committed before November 1, 1987).

Appellant's contention that the fine portion of his sentence

is "noncommitted" is irrelevant. A "noncommitted" fine means

only that the sentencing court did not direct that the person

subject to the fine remain in prison until the fine is paid.



-3-













It does not affect the fine's due date nor its specificity.

Id. ___

Affirmed. ________















































-4-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer