Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20163 Su m m ar y Cal endar U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. G R A T IN IA N O T O VA R
- VA L E N C IA , al so kn ow n as C arl os A lbert o R am i rezH u r ta d o , a ls o k n o w n a s D a n ie l G o n z a le z V e la z q u e z , a ls o k n o w n a s G r a ti, D e fe nda nt- Appe l l ant

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 4 :97 -C R -1 6 8 -1 B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * G r at i ni ano To va r - Val e nc i a, federa lpr i s o ne r# 19 84 4- 03 4, a ppe al s t he di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalw i t h ou tprej u di ce of h i s 18 U . S . C . § 357 2( d)( 3) m ot i on f or m odi f

i cat i on of

f i n e. For t h e fo ll o w ing reason s, w e A F F IR M t h e di st ri ct c o u r t’s d is m is s a l. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 26, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20163 Document: 00511063576 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2010N o. 09- 20163

An ders v. C

al if orn ia , 3 8 6U .S . 7 3 8( 1 9 6 7). 1 S ection3 5 7 2 (d)( 3) providesa s f ollows: 2 A ju dgme ntf

oraf in ewhichp er m it sp aym e nt sinin s t all m e nt ss h all includea requirement th at the defen d an twillnotifythe court of any materi al change in the defen dant’s econo mic circu mstance s that might affect the defen dant’s abilityto paythe fine. Upon receipt of such notice the court may , onit s own motionor themotion of anyparty, adj ust the paym entsc he dul e, orre quir e i m m ediat e p ay m entin f ull, asth e int erests of j usticerequire. 2

F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS I n 1 9 9 8 , T o v a r - Va l e n c i ap l e ad e d g ui l t y t o c o ns pi r ac y t o po s s e s s w i t h i nt e nt t o di st ribu t e coc ai n e an d consp i racy t o com m i tm on ey l au n deri n g. Th e di st ri ct c o ur ts e nt e nc e d hi m t o l i fe i m pr i s o nm e nto n t he dr ug c har ge a nd t o a c o nc ur r e nt 24 0- m o nt h t e r m o n t he m o ne y l aund e r i ng c har ge . The c o ur ta l s o i m po s e d af i ne o f $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 , t o b e p a id“in fu ll im m e d ia te ly .” T o v a r -V a le n c ia b e g a n p a y in gh is f i ne i n i ns t a l l m e nt s u nd e rt he Fe d e r a lBur e a u o f Pr i s o ns ’ s I nm a t e Fi na nc i al R e s p o n s ib ilityP r o g r a m (“I F R P ”). T h i s co u rt di sm i ssed T ovar- V al en ci a’ s di rectapp ealas f rivol ou s af

t er gran t i n g h i s c ou n sel ’ s A n d ers m ot i on . Th e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed T ovar- 1 Val e nc i a’ s f

i r s t2 8 U . S. C. § 2 25 5 m o t i o n f o rl ac k o f

m e r i t ; t hi s c o ur tde ni ed a C O Aa n dla te rd e n ie dle a v e to file a s e c o n do rs u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . T h e insta n t ap p ea li s th e latest i n a se ri es o f ch a l l en ge s T ov a r -V a le n c ia h a s m o u n te da g a in s t h is fin e a n dth e m a n n e rin w h ic h h e is p a y i n gi t . H is m o t i o n a s k e dt h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o r e m i to rmo d i f yt h e f i n e p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. § 357 2( d)( 3) . I n t h e m ot i on , T ovar- V al en ci a contest s t h e B u reau of P ri sons’ s use 2 o f th e IF R P to fa c ilita te th e p a y m e n t o f fin e s th a t a r e d u e “in fu ll im m e d ia te ly .” H e a r gue s t hat , pur s uantt o 1 8 U . S. C. § 36 12 ( e ) , hi s fai l ur e t o pa y t he f i ne i m m edi atel y pu thi m i n defau l t , w h i ch shou l d h ave tr i ggered the col l ect i on Case: 09-20163 Document: 00511063576 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2010N o. 09- 20163

3 p r o c e d u r e s o u t li n e din 1 8 U .S .C . § § 3 6 1 2 , 3 6 1 3 , a n d3 6 1 3 A . T h e g o v e r n m e n t ’s fai l ur e t o ad he r e t o t he s e pr o c e dur e s , he a s s e r t s , v i o l at e s t he Fi f t h Am e ndm e nt an d f orf ei t s i t s abi l i t y t o c o ll e ct t h e bal an ce of t h e f i n e. C l ai m i n g t h at new e c o no m i c c i r c um s t anc e s — i nc l udi ng hi s al l e ge d di s m i s s alf r o m a pr i s o n j o b due t o hi s i m m i grati on st atus— af fecth i s ab i l i t y t o con t i n u e p aying h i s f i n e, T ovarVal e nc i a a s k e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o s e t a n e w p a y m e n t s c h e d u l e o r r e m i t t he r e m a i n d e r o f t h e f

i n e . He a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t h e m a y a t t e m p t t o r e c o v e rt he am o unthe ha s a l r e ad y pa i d t he g o ve r nm e nta s i l l e ga l l y c o l l e c t e d. T h e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed T ovar- V al en ci a’ s m ot i on , w i t h ou tprej u di ce, f or l ack of

j u ri sdi ct i on . I treasone d th a t the m ot i on w as a col l ater alatt ack on t he c r i m i nalj u dgm entand s houl d be t r eat ed as anot hers ucc es sive § 2 255 pe t i t i o n. The c o ur tde ni e d To va r - Val e nc i a’ s R u l e 5 9 m o t i o n t o a l t e ro ra m e nd th e ju d g m e n t, a n dth is a p p e a l fo llo w e d . DI S CU S S I ON T ovar- V al en ci a’ s f

i n e i s not of

t h e t yp e f

or w h i ch § 357 2( d)( 3) au t h ori zes r e lie f. H e d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e a “ju d g m e n t fo ra f in e w h ic h p e r m its p a y m e n ts in i ns t al l m e nt s” a s r e qui r e d un de r§ 3 57 2( d) ( 3)

— t he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no tm ak e T o v a r -V a le n c ia ’ s fin e p a y a b le in in s ta llm e n ts . See , e . g. , Uni t e d St at e s v . W y nn , 328 F . A pp ’ x 826 , 828 ( 3d C i r. 200 9) (u n pu bl i shed ). H i s m ot i on i s m ore ac c ur at e l y c har ac t e r i z e d a s a c hal l e nge t o t he v al i di t y o f hi s I FR P pa ym e nt pl an— i n o t he rw o r ds , a c hal l e nge t o t he m anne ri n w hi c h hi s se nt e nc e i s b e i ng executed, rat h er t h an a “ cl ai m [] rel ati n g t o un l aw f u lcust ody ” cogni zable u n der 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. S egler , 3 7 F .3d 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 3 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). I n S egler , this cou rt exp l a i n ed tha t § 22 5 5 w a s rese rv ed f or claim s r e la tin g to Case: 09-20163 Document: 00511063576 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/26/2010N o. 09- 20163

4 u n l aw f u lcust odyan d could not s erve a s the veh i cl e to ch al l en ge t h e i m posi t i on o f a fin e . I

d. a t 1 1 3 7 -3 8 . Aproperl y st ated cl ai m of t h e sor tT ovar- V al en ci a seeks to m ak e requi res ex h a u sti on of a d m i n i strative re m ed i es a n dm u st t h en be a sse rted , p u rsu a n t t o 28 U . S. C. § 2 24 1, i n t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti n the di s t r i c tw he r e he i s i nc ar c e r at e d. SeeUni t e dS tates v . D iggs , 5 78 F. 3d3 18 , 3 19
- 20 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 9) . I n D iggs , a rest i t u t i on case rai si n g an an al ogou s i ssue, w e st ress ed that “ [ p]r i soners cann ot u se [ 1 8 U . S . C . ] § 3664 (k)”

— t h e equ ivalent of § 3572 ( d)( 3) i n t h e res t i t u t i on context

— “ as a veh i cl e f or a cou rtn oti n t h e di st ri ctof i n carcer ati on t o m odi f y or su sp en dIF R P pa ym en ts. ” I d. a t 3 2 0 . T h is co u r t c a n a ffir m th e j u d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t o n a n yb a s is s u p p o r te db yt h e r e c o r d . Bi c kf o r d v . I nt ’l Spe e dw ayCor

p. , 654 F. 2d 1028, 1031 ( 5t h C i r . 1981) . A l t hough t he di st r i c t c our t i nco r r ec t l y pre m i se d i t s di sm i ss al on t he baragai nsts ec ond ors u cce ss ive § 2 255 pe t i t i ons , t hatdi sm i ss alw as n o n e th e le s s th e p r o p e rre s u lt. CO NC L US I ON T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a lwi t h o u tp r ej u d i c e i s A F F I RMED. Case: 09-20163 Document: 00511063576 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/26/2010