UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ ) UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 07-0155 (PL F) ) KEVI N HONE STY, ) ) Def endant. ) ____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON AND ORDER This matter is befor e the Court on the pro se petition of defe ndant, Kevin Honesty , “to vac ate or der of restitution based upon a la ck of suf ficient ba sis to conclude that defe ndant is capa

ble of pa ying the restitution imm ediately .” Pet. at 1, June 13, 2012 [ Dkt. No. 41]. Notwithst andingthe fore g oing title of his petition, Mr. Honesty actua lly argues, as he has done be fore , that the Court improperly deleg ated its authority

to determine his re stitut ion obligations to t he B urea

u of Prisons. See id. at 1-4. The Court previously reje cted the ve ry

same argument on proce dural g rounds. See United States v. H onesty , Criminal No. 07-0155, 2010 WL 348021, at *2 (D.D .C. J an. 29, 2010). U pon consideration of Mr. Honesty ’s petition, the Court will deny it for the re asons set for

th in United States v. Honesty
. 1

The pa pers r eviewe d in connec tion with the pending pe tition i nclude: 1 the def endant’ s motion for clarif ication with memorandum in support [Dkt. No. 29] ; the United States’ opposition to defendant’ s pro se motion for clar ification and me morandum in support there of [Dkt. No. 36] ; the defe ndant’s re sponse to United States’ opposition with memorandum in support [ Dkt. No. 39]; t he def endant’ s petition to vacate or der of restitution based upon a la ck of suffic ient basis to conclude that defe ndant is capa ble of pa y ing the restitution imm ediately (“Pet.” ) [Dkt. No. 41]
.I . BA CKGROUND As the Court previously

has desc ribed, on Septembe r 11, 2007, Mr. Hone sty pled g uilty to one count of a

rmed ba nk robber y and one c ount of possession of a f irea rm duringa crime of violence. United States v. Honesty , 2010 WL 348021, at *1. On September 27, 2007, the Court sentenc ed Mr. Hone sty to 105 months’ imprisonm ent on Count One and 60 months’ imprisonment on Count Two, followed by a five y ear

period of supe rvised re lease . I d. Fur thermore , the Court order ed Mr. Hone sty to pay restitution in the amount of $11,956, id., and provide d that

[d] uringthe def

endant’ s period of inc arc eration, he shall make pay ments throug h the U.S. Bur eau of Prisons’ I nmate F inancial Responsibili ty

Prog ram[ “I FRP”]. The balanc e of a ny amount not immediately

paid, shall be pa id during the term of supe rvised rele ase at a rate of no less than $50.00 pe r month. Restitut ion pay ments shall be made to the Cler k of the Court for

the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, for disbursement to the victim[ .] J udg ment in a Criminal Case at 4, Sept. 27, 2007 [Dkt. No. 25]
.

Mr. Honesty

curr ently is incarc erated in Fe dera l Medical Center Butne r, par

t of the B utner F eder al Corre ctional Complex , in Butner , N.C. See F eder al B urea u of Prisons I nmate L ocator , http:// www.bop.g ov/iloc2/L ocate Inmate.jsp (last visited J une 13, 2012). A ccor ding to the B urea u of Prisons website, Mr. Hone sty ’s ac tual or projec ted re lease date is January 1, 2029. See id.
I I . DI SCUS SI ON

Although Mr . Honesty

reque sts as relief

that the Court vaca

te its order of restitution, see Pet. at 1; see a lso id. at 4, the Court, upon considera tion of the substance of the
2petition, interprets it ag ain as a reque st to chang e the method by which Mr. Hone sty

makes his restitution pay

ments while incar cer ated. See United States v. Honesty , 2010 WL348021, at *2. 2 As the Court previously

conclude d, Mr. Honesty ’s cha lleng e to his enrollment in the I FRP by the Bur eau of Prisons appropriate ly

is a claim he should re solve with prison officia ls or bring as a petition for a wr it of habeas corpus in the district in which he is incar cer ated unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1441. I d. (citingStern v. Fe dera l Bure au of Prisons, 601 F. Supp. 2d 303, 305 (D .D.C. 2009) (collec ting c ases holdingthat a prisoner ’s cha lleng e to enr ollment in I FRP proper ly is broug ht under 28 U .S.C. § 2241)); see also United States v. Rush, Criminal No. 10-0246, -- - F . Supp. 2d.

--- -, 2012 WL1185903, at *3 (D.D .C. Apr. 10, 2012). Inasmuch a s the matter doe s not relate to the sentenc e imposed but rathe r the manne r in which it is implemented by the B urea

u of Prisons, this Court does not have per sonal jurisdiction over Mr. Hone sty ’s habeas claim. United States v. Honesty , 2010 WL348021, at *2 (c iting Stern v. F eder al B urea u of Prisons, 601 F. Supp. 2d at 306). Mr. H onesty

there fore must pursue this claim in the district in which he is incarc erated. I d. (citingStern v. Fe dera l Bure au of Prisons, 601 F. Supp. 2d at 306)
. 3

To the extent that Mr. Honesty does in fac t reque st that the require d restitution be 2 modified or vac ated, the Court r ejec ts that request for the re asons pre viously

stated in United States v. Honesty . See id. at *2.

Be cause the Court has re

jected on pr ocedur al g rounds Mr. Hone sty ’s ar gument 3 reg ardingI FRP enrollment, the Court her ein expresses no opinion on its subst antive mer it, which may raise a question that has split the circuits. See United States v. L emoine, 546 F .3d 1042, 1048 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008); see a lso United States v. Ba ldwin, 563 F.3d 490, 492 (D .C. Cir. 2009). 3Acc ording ly , for the f oreg oing r easons, it is here by ORDERED that the petition of def endant, Ke vin Honesty , to vacate orde r of restitution based upon a la ck of suf ficient ba sis to conclude that def endant is ca

pable of paying the re stitut ion immediately [Dkt. No. 41] is DENI ED. SO ORDERED.

/s/ PAULL . FRI EDMAN DATE: June 15, 2012 United States District J udg e

4