Case ID: f-appx_356/html/0971-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bruce E. DUNBAR, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-30406.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
    
      Carl Homer Blackstone, Assistant U.S., Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Bruce E. Dunbar, Sheridan, OR, pro se.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bruce E. Dunbar appeals pi*o se from the district court’s order denying his “motion for clarification of judgment.” We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Dunbar contends that the district court improperly delegated its authority to schedule restitution payments to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) by failing to specify the precise amount of money the BOP was authorized to collect per month as part of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, thereby allowing BOP to dictate the amount of restitution inmates are required to pay. This argument is foreclosed. See United, States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir.2008).

Dunbar also contends that the government acted vindictively by opposing his motion for clarification of judgment. This argument lacks merit. See United States v. Lopez, 474 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir.2007).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.