U.S. v. PITTMAN, 5:94-CR-00143-F-1. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20151015b07
Visitors: 19
Filed: Oct. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendant's letter motion [DE-94] 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 its Judgment, the court ordered Defendant to pay $100.00 in special assessments and $8,900.00 in restitution. See Judgment [DE-77] at 5. It was ordered that the monetary penalti
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendant's letter motion [DE-94] 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 its Judgment, the court ordered Defendant to pay $100.00 in special assessments and $8,900.00 in restitution. See Judgment [DE-77] at 5. It was ordered that the monetary penaltie..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendant's letter motion [DE-94] 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 its Judgment, the court ordered Defendant to pay $100.00 in special assessments and $8,900.00 in restitution. See Judgment [DE-77] at 5. It was ordered that the monetary penalties were due in full immediately. Id.
Because Defendant's motion challenges the implementation of the restitution portion of his sentence, the undersigned construes the motion as a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See United States v. Gripper, 224 F. App'x. 219, 220 (4th Cir. 2007). A § 2241 petition must be brought in the district in which the petitioner is incarcerated. See In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 332 (4th Cir. 2000). Defendant is confined in Petersburg, Virginia.
In light of the foregoing, Defendant's letter motion [DE-94] is DENIED without prejudice to him to re-file in the district where he is confined.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
