2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-2-2009 

# U SA v . D a vid Robinson P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4858

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . D a vid Ro b in s on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1245. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1245A L D - 172 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 4858 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . DAVI D R OB I NS ON,

A p p e llan t. O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 04- cr - 00655- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e B er l e M . Schi l l er

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed on a M ot i on forSum m aryA ffi r m ance P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

A pr i l 30, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 2, 2009) OP I NI ON

P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antD avi d R obi ns on, a fe der al pr i s oneri ncar cer at ed att he U ni t ed St at es Peni t ent i aryi n L ew i s bur g, Penns y l vani a, w as convi ct ed of ba nk r obberyi n vi ol at i on ofT hi s “s uppl ement al ” mot i on m akes r efe r ence t o an or i gi nal m ot i on s ubm i t t ed on 1 S e p tem b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 , b u t n o su c h m o tio n a p p e a rs o n th e d o c k e t. 2 18 U . S. C . § 2113( a) , and pos s es s i on of her oi n bya fe der al pr i s oneri n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 7 9 1 (a)(2). H e w as se n tenc ed in U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a t o a t ot al t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 151 m ont hs , t o be fol l ow ed by a t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e of 5 y ear s . H e w as or der ed t o paya s peci al as s es s m entof $400. 00 and t o m ake r es t i tut i on i n t he amountof $5, 886. 00. W e af fi r m ed the j udgm ent o f se n tenc e o n d ir ec t app ea l i n U n it ed S tat es v . R o b inso n , 2 9 3 F ed . A p p x . 9 5 8 (3d C ir . 2008) , on Sept ember26, 2008. R obi ns on di d notchal l enge the or derof r es t i tut i on on d ire c t ap p e a l. O n O ct ober3, 2008, R obi ns on fi l ed an i t em i n t he s ent enci ng cour tt i t l ed “Suppl ement al Fi l i ng t o M ot i on T o W ai ve R es t i tut i on, ” w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tt r eat ed a s a m o tio n to w a iv e re stitu tio n . In th is o n e -p a ra g ra p h m o tio n , R o b in so n sta ted th a t: 1 I pr es entnew evi dence t o t he C our t , ci t i ng a ca s e w hi ch has been a ffi r m ed i n r egar ds t o fi ne & r es t i tut i on cos t s i nvol vi ng i nm at es i n t he B ur eau of Pr i s ons . T hi s cas e i s Sor oka v. D ani el s , 467 F. Supp. 2d 1097- 98 ( D i s t r i ct of O r egon 2006. ) W her e the C our trul ed thatt he B ur eau of Pr i s ons cannot d icta te th a t p riso n e rs p a rticip a te in th e In m a te F e d e ra l R e sp o n sib ili ty P a ym e n t P ro g ra m (IF R P ). N o r sh o u ld th e se p riso n e rs b e p e n a lize d w ith har s e [s i c] r es t r i ct i ons i f theychos e nott o par t i ci pat e i n t hi s paym ent p ro g ra m . ( M ot i on, at1. ) R obi ns on w enton t o as k t hathe notbe r equi r ed t o m ake hi s r es t i tut i on paym ent s unt i l he i s r el eas ed t o s erve hi s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he G overnm ents ubm i t t ed a r es pons e t o t he mot i on, not i ng t hatR obi ns on had notW e not e furt hert hatR obi ns on di d notm ake a n i m pr operdel egat i on ar gum ent . See 2 U ni t ed St at es v. C oat es , 178 F. 3d 681, 684- 85 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( or der i ng s chedul e of resti tuti o n p ay m en ts i s jud ici al fu n cti o n that ca n n o t be d eleg ated in w h o le or in p art). 3 compl ai ned of a pr ocedur al err ori n t he i m pos i t i on of r es t i tut i on, and, i n anyevent , an i nm at e maynotchal l enge the i m pos i t i on of r es t i tut i on i n a mot i on t o vaca t e s ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 2255. T he G overnm entw as of the vi ew t hatfede r al habea s corpus 2 j ur i s di ct i on, 28 U . S. C . § 2241, al s o w oul d notl i e bec aus e R obi ns on’ s cl ai m “thathe no lo n g e r w is h e s to p a y[ re s titu tio n ]” is n o t a c h a lle n g e to th e e x e c u tio n o f h is s e n te n c e . ( R es pons e, at2. ) I n an or derent er ed on D ece m ber2, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the m ot i on t o w ai ve r es t i tut i on w i t houtexpl anat i on, exce ptt hatt he courtr efe r r ed t o t he G o v e rn m e n t’ s re s p o n s e . R obi ns on appea l s . T he G overnm enthas fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r . L A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6, t o w hi ch R obi ns on has notr es ponded. W e w ill g ra n t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n a n d su m m a rilya f f irm u n d e r T h ird C irc u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 , b e c a u se it cle a rlya p p e a rs th a t n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n is pr es ent ed byt hi s appea l . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. A l t hough, as t he G overnm entnot ed, t he exa ctnatur e of Robi ns on’ s chal l enge i s uncl ear , w e ar e s at i s fi ed th a t h e h a s n o t s ta te d a b a s is f o r j u ri s d ic tio n in th e s e n te n c in g c o u rt . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill g ra n t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n a n d su m m a rily a f f ir m th e o rd e r o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n y in g a p p e lla n t’ s m o tio n to w a iv e re s titu tio n .