2005 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 8-22-2005 

# U SA v . W alk e r 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 . 05-1904

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 a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

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 l l a nova 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 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . W al ke r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 668. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/668D PS-252 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 . 05- 1904

________________ 

### UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. KEI TH WALKER, Appe l l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 01- C R - 00146) (C rim in a l trea ted a s c iv il) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

_______________________________________ S u b m itte d F o r P o s s ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 M ay26, 2005 B efor e: R O T H , B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A ugus t22, 2005 )

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM K ei t h W al kerpl ed gui l t yon N ovember16, 2001 t o des t r oy i ng a bus i nes s and adj ace ntapart m entbui l di ng byfi r e. H i s w r i t t en pl ea a gr eementcont ai ned an a gr eement2

t o vol unt ar i l yent ert he U ni t ed St at es B ur eau of Pr i s ons admi ni s t er ed I nm at e Fi nanci al Res po ns i bi l i t yPr og r a m [I FRP] a nd a c kn owl e dg e d tha tt he Bur e a u o f P r i s on s [BO P] w oul d col l ectup t o 50% of hi s pr i s on s al aryt o be appl i ed t o paym entof anyout s t andi ng fi ne and r es t i tut i on or der s . O n M ay13, 2002, W al kerw as s ent ence d t o 120 m ont hs i m pr i s onm entand 3 y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e, and w as or der ed t o payr es t i tut i on i n t he amount of $1, 318, 645. T he j udgm entand comm i t m entor derpr ovi ded thatt he amount w a s d u e in f

u ll i m m e d iate ly , tha t p a ym e n t w a s to b e g in im m e d iate ly , an d w a s p a y a b le dur i ng i ncar cer at i on. T he j udgm ental s o pr ovi ded forpaym entof anyr emai ni ng bal ance dur i ng s upervi s ed r el eas e. W al kerdi d notfi l e anydi r ectappea l orm ot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. I n N ovember2004, W al kerfi l ed a mot i on t i t l ed, “M ot i on forD efi ni t i ve D e ter m in a tio n o f

A m o u n t an d T im in g o f R e stitu tio n P a ym e n ts D u rin g In c a rc e ra tio n ,” in w h ich h e c laim e d th a t th e C o u rt h a d n e g lec ted to se t f o rth th e a m o u n t an d tim in g o f h is r e s t i tu t i o n p a yme n t s d u r i n g h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n , c o n t r a r yt o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f 1 8 U. S . C. §§ 3663 and 3664 of the M andat or yV i ct i m s R es t i tut i on A ct( M V R A ) . W al keral l eged t hat“Fai l ur e byJ udge C al dw el l t o s ett he amountand t i m i ng of r es t i tut i on paym ent s does i m pl i ci t l yand i m perm i s s i bl ydel egat e thatj udi ci al funct i on t o t he B ur eau of Pr i s ons . ” T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatW al ker ’ s cl ai m w as i n fac tan att ack upon the ter m s o f th e se n ten c in g c o u rt’s r e stitu tio n o rd e r in so f a r a s th a t co u rt h a d f

a iled to se t a paym ents chedul e. B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tvi ew ed W al ker ’ s cl ai m as an att ack upon3

t he t erm s of hi s s ent ence , i ti m pl i ed thathi s r emedyl ays ol el yi n a 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on fi l ed i n t he s ent enci ng cour t . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed W al ker ’ s m ot i on for l ack of j ur i s di ct i on, butnot ed thati n anyevent , i t s s ent enci ng or derdi d compl yw i t h t he p r o v i s i o n s o f

t h e M VR A. W e d o n o t agre e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rtlack ed juri sd ict ion to co n side r W alke r’s m ot i on. H i s chal l enge goe s di r ect l yt o exec ut i on of the s ent ence – namel y , w hethert he B O P h a s a u th o ri ty to s e t th e te rm s o f th e re s titu tio n p a ym e n ts w h ile h e is in c a rc e ra te d . A s s uch, t he cl ai m fal l s s quar el yw i t hi n t hos e pr oper l yr ai s ed i n a pet i t i on forhabea s corpus under§ 2241. See C oadyv. V aughn, 251 F. 3d 480, 485 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . See M u jahid v . C rab tr ee , 9 9 9 F . S u p p . 1 3 9 8 , 1 4 0 1 (D . O r. 1 9 9 8 ), af f' d , 1 7 2 F . 3 d 5 7 (9th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). F u rth e rm o re , n u m e ro u s c o u rts h a v e re c o g n ize d th a t “§ 2 2 5 5 ' s la n g u a g e c lea rly an d u n am b igu o u slyli m it s it s ap p li ca b il ityto d ef en d an ts seek ing release fro m cu stod y . It i s notavai l abl e t o t hos e, l i ke the def endant , w ho chal l enge onl yfi nes orr es t i tut i on o rd e rs .” U n ite d S ta te s v . K ra m e r, 1 9 5 F .3 d 1 1 2 9 , 1 1 3 0 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( c itin g c a s e s ). T hus , even i f W al kerw er e cha l l engi ng t he t erm s of the r es t i tut i on or derpers e ( w hi ch he cl ear l yi s notdoi ng) , he coul d notr ai s e thatcl ai m i n t he s ent enci ng cour tby§ 2255 m ot i on. Fort hes e r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have c ons t rued W a lk e r’s m o tio n a s a p e tit io n f iled p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 , an d e rre d in so f a r a s it di s m i s s ed the mot i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. N evert hel es s , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ents houl d be af fi r m ed on the gr ound t hat4

W al kerw as notent i t l ed t o r el i ef unde r§ 2241. I ti s t rue thatt he M V R A r equi r es t hatt he se n ten c in g c o u rt “ sp e c if yin th e re stitu tio n o rd e r th e m a n n e r in w h ich , an d th e sc h e d u le acc or di ng t o w hi ch, t he r es t i tut i on i s t o be pai d. ” 18 U . S. C . § 3664( f) ( 2) . T he s ent enci ng cour tcannotdel egat e the s chedul i ng of r es t i tut i on t o a pr obat i on offi cerort o t he B O P, as w e have hel d t hatt he fi xi ng of r es t i tut i on paym ent s i s an exc l us i vel yj udi ci al act . U ni t ed S tat es v . C o ates, 17 8 F . 3 d 6 8 1 , 6 8 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). H o w ev er, w h il e a sen tenc ing co u rt m aynoti m pos e r es t i tut i on and then del egat e the s chedul i ng of paym entt o t he B O P, t hat i s notw hatoccurr ed her e. T he s ent enci ng cour ther e s t at ed i n i t s r es t i tut i on or dert hat W al ker ’ s paym entof $1, 318, 645 w as “due i n ful l i m m edi at el y . ” The cour tdi d notor der p a ym e n t o f

th e f in e in in sta llm e n ts, a n d it d id n o t d e leg a te its a u th o rityto th e B O P to sch ed u le pa ym en ts. Ind ee d , n o w h ere in the resti tuti o n o rde r did the s en tenc ing co u rt d e leg a te a ju d icia l f

u n c tio n to th e B O P . In ste a d , the c o u rt m e re lye x e rc ise d its a u th o rity to re q u ir e im m e d ia te p a ym e n t. B e c a u se su c h a n o rd e r f o r im m e d iate p a ym e n t d o e s n o t im p e rm iss ib lyd e leg a te j ud i c i a l a utho r i t y , i ti s pe r mi s s i bl e fo rt he BO P t o a dmi ni s t e rc ol l e c t i on t hr ou gh t he I FRP. See M cG hee v. C l ark, 166 F. 3d 884, 886 ( 7t h C i r . 1999) ; U ni t ed St at es v. T r i gg, 119 F .3 d 4 9 3 , 5 0 0 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). A s th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o u n d in M c G h e e , the re is s i mp l yn o c o n f

l i c tb e t we e n a r e s t i tu t i o n o r d e rd i r e c t i n g i mm e d i a t e p a yme n ta n d t h e BO P in iti a tin g a n IF R P p a ym e n t p lan . M c G h e e , 1 6 6 F .3 d a t 8 8 6 . W a lk e r’s a g re e m e n t to par t i ci pat e i n t he I FR P di d nots om ehow t r ans for m hi s r es t i tut i on or deri nt o one that5

p e rm its in s ta llm e n t p a ym e n ts , a n d th u s d id n o t r e q u ir e a c o u rt -o rd e re d p a ym e n t s c h e d u le . In su m , w e h o ld tha t th e D istri ct C o u rth ad au tho ri tyto en tert ain W alke r’s c h a llen g e to th e e x e c u tio n o f h is s e n ten c e u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 . W a lk e r’s p e tit io n , h o w e v e r, is w i t houtm er i tbeca us e the B O P has notexce eded i t s author i t yi n s et t i ng t he t erm s of W alke r’s rest itu ti o n thro u g h the IF R P . A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s j ud gm ent, bu tw e m od i fyt hat j ud gm ent t o refl ectt hat W al ker’ s m oti on i s const rued as a § 2 24 1 p et i t i on and i s denied w i t h p rej ud i ce on t he m eri t s.