U.S. v. COURTRIGHT, 07-cr-30179-DRH. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20140929757
Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. Now before the Court is defendant Carl A. Courtright, III's, motion for clarification of sentence (Doc. 189). Defendant requests that the Court draft an order to clarify an alleged discrepancy about the payment of his fine, restitution, and special assessment. However, defendant voluntarily participates in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). 28 C.F.R. 545.11. IFRP is a function of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), an
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. Now before the Court is defendant Carl A. Courtright, III's, motion for clarification of sentence (Doc. 189). Defendant requests that the Court draft an order to clarify an alleged discrepancy about the payment of his fine, restitution, and special assessment. However, defendant voluntarily participates in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). 28 C.F.R. 545.11. IFRP is a function of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge.
Now before the Court is defendant Carl A. Courtright, III's, motion for clarification of sentence (Doc. 189). Defendant requests that the Court draft an order to clarify an alleged discrepancy about the payment of his fine, restitution, and special assessment. However, defendant voluntarily participates in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). 28 C.F.R. § 545.11.
IFRP is a function of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and a district court has no authority to order participation. United States v. Boyd, 608 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2010). Moreover, this Court previously adopted the government's position that it will not intervene in the administration of IFRP procedures regarding the defendant (Doc. 176). The Court reminds defendant that he may appeal a decision concerning the administration of IFRP procedures within BOP. See United States v. Sawyer, 521 F.3d 792, 794 (7th Cir. 2008). Therefore, defendant's motion for clarification of sentence (Doc. 189) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
