2010 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 1-28-2010 

# U SA v . W alt e r Himmelreich 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 . 09-3621

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_2010

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 2010 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 . W alt e r Himmelr eich" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1990. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1990C L D - 080 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 . 09- 3621

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. WALT E R J . HI M M E L RE I CH ,

A ppel 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 ( M . D . Pa. C r i m . N o. 05- cr - 00214- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: Y vet t e K ane

_______________________________________ S u b m itt e d f

o r P o ss ib le S u m m a ryA c tio n P u rsu 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

D ece m ber23, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and V A N A N T W E R PE N C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J anuary28, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM W alt er J. H im m elreich , p roc ee d ing p ro se , ap p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s A ugus t14, 2009 or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on fora t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or derand aT h e ju d g m e n t sh o w s th a t th e re stitu tio n is d u e im m e d iate ly , p a y a b le d u rin g h is 1 i ncar cer at i on, and pr ovi des fora paym ents chedul e foranyr emai ni ng amount due upon comm ence m entof s upervi s ed r el eas e. See J udgm ent , p. 7. pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. B eca us e w e conc l ude thatthi s appea l pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al q u e s tio n , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m . S e e 3 d C ir . L .A .R . 2 7 .4 ; I .O .P . 1 0 .6 . H i m m el r ei ch i s confi ned atthe Feder al C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on–E l kt on aft er p lead ing g u il tyto p rod u cti o n o f c h il d p o rno g rap h y . In D ec em b er 2 0 0 6 , the D istri ct C o u rt sen tenc ed h im to 2 4 0 m o n ths o f in ca rce rati o n , p lus in res ti tuti o n an d o ther p en alt ies. In 1 J ul y2009, H i m m el r ei ch fi l ed a mot i on s eeki ng t o vaca t e hi s convi ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 . O n A u g u st 13 , 2 0 0 9 , H im m elreich fil ed a m o ti o n fo r a tem p o rary r es t r ai ni ng or derand a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on, r eques t i ng thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tcompel t he B ur eau of

Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) t o cea s e i t s col l ect i ons s y s t em underthe I nm at e Fi nanci al R e s p o n s ib ility P ro g ra m (“ IF R P ” ). H im m e lre ich sta tes th a t h e is a m e m b e r o f a c las s o f

in m a tes se n ten c e d a f

ter A p ril 2 4 , 1 9 9 6 , a n d is th e re f

o re s u b je c t to th e M a n d a to ry V ic tim R e s titu tio n A c t ( “ M V R A ” ). H e cl ai m s t hatt he s ent enci ng cour tdi d notes t abl i s h a paym ents chedul e det ai l i ng how he w oul d r epayhi s r es t i tut i on or derand fi ne w hi l e i ncar cer at ed. H e r el i es on U ni t ed St at es v . C o rle y , 5 0 0 F .3 d 2 1 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ), ju d g m e n t v a c a ted , 1 2 9 S .C t. 15 5 8 (2 0 0 9 ), in w hi ch w e hel d t hata r es t i tut i on or derthatdel egat es t o t he B O P how a def endantw i l l pay r e s t i tu t i o n wh i l e i n c a r c e r a t e d c o n s t i tu t e s a n i mp r o p e rd e l e g a t i o n o f j u d i c i a l f

u n c t i o n . He f u rt h e r c la im s th a t th e B O P “ ille g a lly c o e rc e d ” h im in to s ig n in g a p a ym e n t p la n c o n tr a c t. H e ar gues t hatt he B O P l acks t he author i t yt o w i t hhol d hi s pr i s on w ages thr ough t heI FR P, and thatt he pr ogr am as a ppl i ed t o hi m cons t i tut es an uncons t i tut i onal t aki ng. T he

D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on aft erfi ndi ng thatH i m m el r ei ch fa i l ed t o demonstr at e any i m m edi at e i nj ur ys uffi ci entt o qual i fyfora t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or derand fa i l ed t o m eet th e re q u ire m e n ts f

o r a p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n . H im m e lre ich f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. “A s a g en era l pro p o sit ion , o rde rs gra n ti n g o r de n y ing tem p o raryrestrai n ing o rde rs are u n ap p ea lable.” N u tr aS w ee t C o . v . V it -M ar E n ters. , Inc . , 1 1 2 F . 3 d 6 8 9 , 6 9 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). H o w ev er, w e d o h av e a p p ell ate jurisdicti o n o v er the o rde r de n y ing H im m elreich ’s m ot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1292( a) ( 1) . “W e r evi ew the deni al of a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on foran abus e of di s cr et i on, an err orof l aw , ora cl earm i s t ake i n t he cons i der at i on of pr oof. ” K os Phar m s . , I nc. V . A ndr x C orp. , 369 F. 3d 700, 708 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). A p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n is “ a n e x tra o rd in a ryre m e d y ” th a t sh o u ld b e g ra n ted o n ly i f the pl ai nt i ff s how s : “( 1) a l i kel i hood of s ucce s s on t he mer i t s ; ( 2) that[he] w i l l s uffe r i r r epar abl e harm i f the i nj unct i on i s deni ed; ( 3) thatgr ant i ng pr el i m i naryr el i ef w i l l not resu ltin ev en g rea ter ha rm to the n o n m o v ing p arty ; and (4) tha t th e p u b li c intere st fav o rs s uch r el i ef. ” I d. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound i tunl i kel ythatH i m m el r ei ch coul d s how an im p ro p e r d e leg a tio n to th e B O P , g iv e n th a t th e ju d g m e n t p ro v id e s th a t th e re stitu tio n is due i m m edi at el y , and furt herpr ovi des fora fi ftydol l ar s perm ont h paym ents chedul e for anyr emai ni ng unpai d bal ance upon comm ence m entof hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he D istric t C o u rt a lso f

o u n d th a t th e p u b lic in ter e st in c o m p e n sa tin g v ictim s o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h ya n d in e n f o rc in g re s titu tio n o rd e rs w e ig h s a g a in s t g ra n tin g a n in ju n c tio n .A ft err evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatH i m m el r ei ch di d not

s at i s fyt he cr i t er i a fort he gr antof a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthe appe al pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent . See 3d C ir . L .A .R . 2 7 .4 ; 3 d C ir . I.O .P . 1 0 .6 .