Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00477/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00477-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cornelius Dozier, IV, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

S. Lake, 

Respondent. 

No. 4:15-CV-00477-TUC-JAS 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman that recommends denying the petition on the 

merits. (Doc. 17). Petitioner filed an objection (Doc. 18), and Respondent filed a Reply 

to the Objection (Doc. 19). 

 The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for 

clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. 

Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 

F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

 After reviewing Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation, the 

Court adopts the reasoning and conclusions of that report. In particular, the Court agrees 

with Judge Bowman’s analysis concluding that this case is controlled by United States v. 

Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008). In that case, the Ninth Circuit explained that 

the BOP's operation of the IFRP does not constitute an unlawful delegation 

Case 4:15-cv-00477-JAS Document 20 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

of authority to schedule restitution repayments in violation of the MVRA. 

The MVRA requires the sentencing court to set a restitution repayment 

schedule. The sentencing court did that here. The MVRA does not prohibit 

an inmate from voluntarily making larger or more frequent payments than 

what was set by the sentencing court. Nor does it limit the authority of the 

BOP, through the IFRP, to offer incentives to inmates to pay their 

restitution obligations in larger amounts or at a faster rate than the court has 

required. 

Id. at 1046. The same reasoning applies here. As Judge Bowman explains in her Report 

and Recommendation, the trial court set a restitution amount of $35,317.43 to be paid “at 

the rate of not less than $25 per quarter and payment shall be made through the Bureau of 

Prisons’ Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.” (Doc. 13-3, p.3). After an incident of 

non-payment, the Bureau of Prisons reassessed Petitioner’s financial situation and 

determined that he could increase his payments to $30 per month. Petitioner agreed to 

the new payment schedule. Nothing in the Court’s restitution order prevents the Bureau 

of Prisons and Petitioner from agreeing to a payment plan at a higher rate than that set by 

the trial court. 

 Based on these reasons, IT IS ORDERED THAT 

(1) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 

(2) The Clerk is ordered to close the file in this case. 

Dated this 21st day of September, 2016. 

Honorable James A. Soto 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-00477-JAS Document 20 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 2