Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02655/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02655-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 05-2655 PJH (Habeas Petition)

No. CR 04-0163 PJH (Criminal Case)

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

CORRECTION OF SENTENCE

RAMONT DARRELL JOHNSON,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Before the court is defendant/movant Ramont Johnson’s motion for correction of

sentence pursuant to 28 United States Code § 2255. Johnson was sentenced to 41

months in prison on February 9, 2005, following his conviction pursuant to a plea of guilty to

bank robbery. At the time of sentencing, he was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of

$13,600.80. This court set the schedule for restitution payments during the term of

supervised release which will follow Johnson’s incarceration, but did not set the schedule of

payments to be made during his incarceration, ordering only that payments be made during

incarceration through the Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP”) Inmate Financial responsibility

Program (“IFRP”).

On March 31, 2005, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in United States v. Gunning,

401 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2005), which held that district courts may not delegate to the BOP

their responsibility to fix the terms for restitution payments during incarceration. Following

issuance of this decision, this court revised its practice and its forms to encompass the

fixing of custodial restitution payments. However, as pointed out by Johnson, this court did

not comply with this requirement when imposing his sentence.

Case 4:05-cv-02655-PJH Document 2 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Johnson does not specify his own circumstances, but alleges that inmates who are

permitted to work full time at his facility, earn “maintenance pay” at the rate of $5.25 a

month. He requests that the court issue an order either relieving him of his restitution

obligation during his confinement, or limiting the amount that he must pay to $10% of any

earnings.

Even assuming that the Gunning decision applies to his sentence which was

imposed prior to the date of the decision, Johnson’s request must be denied. As the

government argued in its opposition, a restitution order may not be challenged under 28

United States Code § 2255. See United States v. Kramer, 195 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1999)

and United States v. Thiele, 314 F.3d 399 (9th Cir. 2002). Additionally, although not raised

by either party, it is too late for the court to correct the sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Cr. P.

35(a), as that rule permits the court to act only within seven days following judgment. 

Johnson is simply without a remedy, having failed to raise the issue on a direct appeal of

his sentence.

Moreover, the court would note that even if it had the authority to grant the relief

Johnson seeks, it would not relieve Johnson of his restitution obligation during his

confinement and it would follow its standard practice of setting custodial payments at no

less than $25.00 per quarter. Thus, there would be nothing left of any maintenance pay in

any event.

The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2006

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02655-PJH Document 2 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 2