Case ID: f-appx_682/html/0548-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joni KLYANA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig APKER, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-15334
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 14, 2017
    Joni Klyana, Pro Se
    Heidi Adams, Attorney, San Francisco, CA, Dale Patrick, Esquire, Taft Correctional Institution, Taft, CA, Michael Gordon Tierney, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Joni Klyana appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Klyana contends that the sentencing court improperly delegated its authority to schedule his restitution payments. This claim is belied by the record, which reflects that the sentencing court properly assessed Klyana’s ability to pay and ordered that he make payments of not less than $25 per quarter during his term of imprisonment as part of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”). See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2); Lemoine, 546 F.3d at 1046 (upholding identical restitution order). We reject Klyana’s contention that he is exempted from the regulations of the IFRP because he is housed at a government-owned, contractor-operated facility. See Lemoine, 546 F.3d at 1046 n.2 (federal inmate remains in federal custody, and thus subject to the Bureau of Prisons’ authority through the IFRP, even where he is housed at an “independently operated” facility).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.