Filed: Jun. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2001 TENTH CIRCUIT _ PATRICK FISHER Clerk JOHN STANFA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 00-3320 (D. Kan.) J.W. BOOKER, Warden, USP (D.Ct. No. CV-97-3404-RDR) Leavenworth, Respondent-Appellee. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determin
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2001 TENTH CIRCUIT _ PATRICK FISHER Clerk JOHN STANFA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 00-3320 (D. Kan.) J.W. BOOKER, Warden, USP (D.Ct. No. CV-97-3404-RDR) Leavenworth, Respondent-Appellee. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determina..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 5 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________ PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOHN STANFA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 00-3320
(D. Kan.)
J.W. BOOKER, Warden, USP (D.Ct. No. CV-97-3404-RDR)
Leavenworth,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Appellant John Stanfa, a prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the district
court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
We exercise our jurisdiction under 28 U.S. § 2253(a) and affirm.
Mr. Stanfa, an inmate serving a life sentence at the United States
Penitentiary in Leavenworth Kansas, filed a habeas corpus petition under § 2241
with the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. In his petition,
Mr. Stanfa alleged the Bureau of Prisons lacked authority to impose a restitution
and fine repayment schedule, pursuant to the sentencing judgment of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Specifically, Mr.
Stanfa alleged the sentencing court “lacked authority ... to delegate the scheduling
of payment of [his] fine and restitution to the Bureau of Prisons” and that “the
law does not permit courts to delegate the timing and amount of installment
payment[s] for fines and restitution to the Bureau of Prisons.” According to Mr.
Stanfa, this improper delegation to the Bureau of Prisons denied him due process
and equal protection.
The Kansas district court entered a Memorandum and Order holding that, to
the extent Mr. Stanfa was challenging the sentencing court’s order as an improper
delegation, his action must be liberally viewed as a motion filed pursuant to 28
-2-
U.S.C. § 2255 and filed in the sentencing court. In so holding, the district court
recognized a majority of circuit courts, including the Third Circuit, have
determined that setting a restitution or fine payment schedule is a core judicial
function which the district court may not delegate to a probation officer or the
Bureau of Prisons. See United States v. Coates, 178 F.3d 681, 685 (3d Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, the district court granted Mr. Stanfa a sixty-day period, or until
November 20, 2000, to notify the district court as to whether he wanted to request
a transfer of his claim to the sentencing court.
The district court also reviewed Mr. Stanfa’s claim as alleging the Bureau
of Prisons’ collection of payments through a payment schedule under the Inmate
Financial Responsibility Program (“Program”) violated his constitutional rights.
Pursuant to a thorough and lengthy discussion of Mr. Stanfa’s claim and the
applicable law, the district court determined this type of claim was properly
brought under § 2241, but that the Bureau of Prisons’ collection of payments
under a payment schedule was not improper nor did it violate Mr. Stanfa’s
constitutional rights.
Mr. Stanfa did not file a request to transfer his petition to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Before the sixty-day
-3-
period elapsed for filing for such a transfer, Mr. Stanfa filed his notice of appeal.
In his appeal, Mr. Stanfa contends the district court misconstrued his claim
because he is not challenging his sentence, but claiming “an unlawful exercise of
authority by executive officials in executing the sentence as imposed by the
sentencing court.” In an attempt to succeed on appeal, Mr. Stanfa has
restructured his argument and now claims he was not alleging the sentencing
court improperly delegated its authority to the Bureau of Prisons, but that the
Bureau of Prisons cannot impose a payment schedule because it received no
express delegation from the sentencing court. 1
We begin by addressing our jurisdiction in this matter. 2 As stated, Mr.
1
Mr. Stanfa bases his appeal on the judgment itself. A review of the record
shows the sentencing court used a form judgment, which provides four alternative choices
or sections for the “Schedule of Payments.” The sentencing court in this case “checked”
the box which states Mr. Stanfa’s fine and restitution payments “shall be paid ... in
installments which the probation officer shall establish ... provided that the entire
financial penalty is paid no later than 5 years after release from incarceration.” As Mr.
Stanfa points out on appeal, the sentencing court left “blank” the choice or section in
which the sentencing court explicitly designates the amount and timing of monthly
installments for such payments. The record further shows that the payment schedules for
Mr. Stanfa’s fine and restitution payments have been set by the Bureau of Prisons, and
that while Mr. Stafa previously agreed to participate in the Program, he now refuses to
make payments placing him in “refusal status.”
Pursuant to our request, both parties briefed the jurisdictional issue raised in this
2
case. We previously reserved judgement on this issue, which we dispose of here.
-4-
Stanfa filed his notice of appeal before the period elapsed for filing his request
for transfer of his petition with the district court. However, we determine the
district court’s decision became final November 20, 2000, when the sixty-day
period for filing such a request expired. See Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 850
F.2d 641, 642-43 & n.2 (10th Cir. 1988) (en banc) (relying on Schuurman v.
Motor Vessel “Betty K V,”
798 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir. 1986)). Accordingly,
although Mr. Stanfa’s notice of appeal predated a final district court decision, we
determine his premature notice of appeal ripened on November 20, 2000, when
the district court’s decision became final. See
Lewis, 850 F.2d at 645. Moreover,
his brief, filed November 20, 2000, was the functional equivalent of a notice of
appeal required by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and
followed a final decision. See Smith v. Barry,
502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992) (“If a
document filed within the time specified by Rule 4 gives the notice required by
Rule 3, it is effective as a notice of appeal.”); see also Fed. R. App. P. 3(a) &
4(a). Therefore, under either scenario, we have jurisdiction to review Mr.
Stanfa’s appeal.
Having determined our jurisdiction, we review the district court’s denial of
Mr. Stanfa’s habeas corpus petition de novo. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164,
166 (10th Cir. 1996). “A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of
-5-
a sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the
prisoner is confined.... The exclusive remedy for testing the validity of a
judgment and sentence ... is that provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 2255,” and must be
brought in the district court that sentenced the defendant. Id. at 166 (quotation
marks and citations omitted).
Applying these principles and our standard of review, we have reviewed the
record and conclude Mr. Stanfa’s habeas corpus petition clearly implicates the
validity, not the execution, of his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This is
because Mr. Stanfa’s petition plainly challenges the sentencing court’s delegation
of authority to the Bureau of Prisons to determine that portion of his sentence
dealing with his fine and restitution payment schedule. In so concluding, we note
Mr. Stanfa’s attempt to totally restructure his argument as a non-delegation
argument for the purpose of succeeding on appeal is unavailing. We will not
consider a new, secondary, or back-up theory mounted for the first time on
appeal. See Tele-Communications, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 104
F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir. 1997).
Proceeding with Mr. Stanfa’s delegation argument presented in his petition,
we agree with the district court’s conclusion that the Third Circuit, which has
-6-
jurisdiction over § 2255 claims filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, has expressly addressed this issue. The Third
Circuit has determined that the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3663(f)(1) (1982), vests sole authority in the district courts to specify the
manner and schedule of restitution, and that the delegation of this responsibility
to a probation officer or the Bureau of Prisons is inappropriate. See United States
v. Graham, 72 F.3d 352, 357 (3d Cir. 1995), cert. denied,
516 U.S. 1183 (1996).
As a result, we conclude the district court did not err in liberally construing Mr.
Stanfa’s petition as raising a cogent issue reviewable under § 2255 by the
sentencing court, and then providing Mr. Stanfa an opportunity to transfer his
petition to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for its review.
Having determined the issue raised by Mr. Stanfa concerning the
scheduling of his payments is within the ambit of § 2255, we conclude his § 2241
claim that the Bureau of Prisons is improperly imposing a schedule to collect fine
and restitution payments lacks merit. In the absence of a successful challenge to
the validity of the underlying sentencing court’s order delegating such authority,
we cannot say the Bureau of Prison’s use of a collection schedule is improper or
-7-
that Mr. Stanfa’s argument raises a colorable constitutional claim. 3
For these reasons, and substantially the same reasons in the district court’s
Memorandum and Order dated September 20, 2000, we AFFIRM the district
court’s judgment.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
3
Indeed, in his reply brief, Mr. Stanfa states he does not challenge or dispute the
constitutionality of the Program.
-8-
