Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-16-05249/USCOURTS-caDC-16-05249-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 16-5249 September Term, 2016

1:13-cv-01926-UNA

Filed On: February 1, 2017

Brian Aldrich Dupree,

Appellant

v.

Attorney General of the United States, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson, Brown, and Pillard, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s August 18, 2016 order be

affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for

relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). See Smalls v. United

States, 471 F.3d 186, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The Eleventh Circuit vacated the Georgia

district court’s adjusted restitution order in appellant’s criminal case because that court

had not specified “the manner in which, and the schedule according to which, the

restitution is to be paid,” as required by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18

U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). See United States v. Dupree, No. 13-12033 (11 Cir. Oct. 24, th

2014), at 7. The district court’s order dismissing appellant’s complaint in this case held

only, as a general matter, that insofar as the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program is

used to implement a court’s restitution order, it does not constitute excessive delegation

of judicial power to the Bureau of Prisons. See 12/4/13 Order in No. 13-cv-1926.

Accordingly, as the district court recognized in the order challenged in this appeal, the

prior order dismissing appellant’s complaint was not “based on an earlier judgment that

USCA Case #16-5249 Document #1658619 Filed: 02/01/2017 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 16-5249 September Term, 2016

has been reversed or vacated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). See 8/18/16 Order in No. 13-

cv-1926.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Page 2

USCA Case #16-5249 Document #1658619 Filed: 02/01/2017 Page 2 of 2