T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe * d o c tr in e s o f

la w o f th e c a s e , re s ju d ica ta and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay31,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

__________________________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. GE RA L D L AM AR BO WEN, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 6325 ( D. Ct . No . 9 9 - CR- 0 0 0 0 8 - C) (W .D . O k la .)

____________________________ ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge, and BARRETT and BROR BY , Seni or C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 .9 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.

D efe ndantG er al d L amarB ow en, a fe der al pr i s onerappea r i ng pr o s e,M r . B ow en br i ngs hi s m ot i ons , i n part , pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3664( k) 1 and (o) , w hich provide the d i stri ctcou rtauthori tyt o d et erm i ne w hethert o adj ust th e fin a l ju d g m e n t o f

re stitu tio n b a se d o n a m a ter ial c h a n g e in e c o n o m ic c i r c u ms t a n c e s a n d a l l o w h i m t o a p p e a l th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s o r d e ru n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 4 2 . -2- a p p e a ls th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n s fo r m o d ifica tio n o f re stitu tio n , to fi l e a r epl y br i ef, and for r econs i der at i on. I n s uppor tof hi s appea l , M r . B ow en 1 pr i m ar i l yas s ert s the di s tr i ctcourti m pr oper l ydel egat ed t o the U ni t ed St at es B u re a u o f

P ri s o n s th e re s p o n s ib ility fo r s e ttin g a s c h e d u le o f re s titu tio n p a ym e n ts . W e e x erc ise j u ri sd ict ion u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 an d 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d affirm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f M r. B o w e n ’s m o tio n s . I . Pr ocedur al B ackgr ound M r . B ow en ent er ed a gui l typl ea t o the cr i m es of bank r obberyand us i ng a firearm d u ri n g the c o m m issi o n o f a crim e. A t sen tenc ing , the d istri ct co u rt i m pos ed a s ent ence t ot al i ng 248 m onths i m pr i s onm entand r es t i tut i on i n the a m o u n t o f

$ 4 ,3 1 0 .0 0 , d u e im m e d iate ly , o r, if n o t p a id in f u ll at th e tim e o f

h is r el eas e fr om confi nement , bym onthl ypaym ent s of notl es s than $100 begi nni ng n o late r th a n th irtyd a y s a f ter h is re lea se . M r. B o w e n d id n o t ap p e a l h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . Seven y ear s l at er , M r . B ow en fi l ed a mot i on form odi fi cat i on of the re stitu tio n se n ten c e o r, alte rn a tiv e ly , a s tay of th e o rd e r o f

re stitu tio n u n til h is-3-

r el eas e fr om pr i s on, cl ai m i ng the B ur eau of Pr i s ons i m pr oper l yi m pounded funds f ro m h is p ri s o n tru s t a c c o u n t fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f s a tis f y in g th e re s titu tio n a m o u n t. T h e g o v e rn m e n t file d a re s p o n s e o p p o s in g th e re q u e s t fo r m o d ific a tio n o r s ta y . T h ere af ter, the d istri ct co u rtd en ied M r. B o w en ’s m o ti o n , ex p lai n ing the c o u rt ’s or derof r es t i tut i on di d notdel egat e anyr es pons i bi l i tyt o the B ur eau of Pr i s ons fo r its c o llec tio n . In ste a d , the d istric t co u rt e x p lain e d , M r. B o w e n ’s o b lig a tio n to m ak e p ay m en ts t o the B u rea u o f P ri so n s aro se so lel yfro m h is vo lun tary part i ci pat i on i n the I nm at e Fi nanci al R es pons i bi l i tyPr ogr am (I FR P) , thr ough w hi ch the B ur eau of

Pr i s ons es t abl i s hed a pa ym ents chedul e t o as s i s tM r . B ow en i n m eet i ng hi s m onet aryobl i gat i ons . T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o expl ai ned part i ci pat i on i n s uch a vol unt arypr ogr am di d notcons t i tut e an i m pr oper d e le g a tio n to th e B u re a u o f P ri s o n s b yth e c o u rt . Subse quent l y , M r . B ow en s oughtperm i s s i on t o fi l e a r epl ybr i ef t o the governm ent ’ s r es pons e, w hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed as m oot . M r . B ow en then file d a re q u e s t fo r r e c o n s id e ra tio n , w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o d e n ie d . I I . D i s cus s i on O n a p p e a l, M r. B o w e n re n e w s h is c laim th e d istric t co u rt im p ro p e rly del egat ed col l ect i on of the r es t i tut i on amount t o the B ur eau of Pr i s ons . Forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al , he al s o compl ai ns the di s tr i ctcourt : 1) abus ed i t s di s cr et i onT o th e e x ten t M r. B o w e n is a ttac k in g th e e x e c u tio n o f h is s e n ten c e w ith 2 r egar d t o the r es t i tut i on paym ent s , the appr opr i at e vehi cl e i s a pet i t i on under28 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 filed w ith th e d istric t co u rt w h e re h e is c o n fin e d ; sim ilarly , if h e is s om ehow chal l engi ng the val i di tyof hi s s ent ence r el at i ng t o hi s r es t i tut i on, the pr opervehi cl e i s a 28 U . S. C . § 2255 pet i t i on fi l ed i n the di s tr i ctcourtthat s e n te n c e d h im . See B radsha w v. Story , 8 6 F .3 d 1 6 4 , 1 6 6 -6 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). R egar dl es s of how hi s m ot i ons ar e cons trued, beca us e he i s br i ngi ng them seve n y ear s aft erhi s i ni t i al s ent ence , i ti s cl earthe one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons im p o s e d b yth e A E D P A w o u ld b a r h is m o tio n s u n d e r e ith e r s ta tu te . See 18 U .S .C . § § 2 2 4 1 , 2 2 4 4 , an d 2 2 5 5 . E x ten d in g e v e ryb e n e fit t o M r. B o w e n , w e w ill addr es s thi s i s s ue as a mot i on foradj us t m entof the i ni t i al r es t i tut i on or der pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3664( k) and ( o) , overw hi ch w e have j ur i s di ct i on under 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 . W e n o te, h o w e v e r, h e h a s n o t sh o w n a n y“ m a ter ial c h a n g e ” in hi s “ec onom i c ci r cumst ance s , ” as r equi r ed bys t atut e. -4- w h e n o rd e rin g h im to p a yth e e n tire r e stitu tio n a m o u n t im m e d iate lyo r, if n o t p a id in f u ll at th e tim e o f

h is re lea se f

ro m c o n fin e m e n t, i n $ 1 0 0 -p e r-m o n th p a ym e n ts begi nni ng no l at er than thi r ty day s fr om hi s r el eas e; and 2) vi ol at ed hi s due 2 pr oces s r i ght s w hen i tdeni ed hi m the opportuni tyt o fi l e a r epl yt o the governm ent ’ s r es pons e t o hi s m ot i on form odi fi cat i on. T he governm entoppos es M r . B ow en’ s appea l on gr ounds : 1) the di s tr i ctcourtdi d notdel egat e t o the B ur eau of

Pr i s ons the r es pons i bi l i tyfors ett i ng a r es t i tut i on paym ents chedul e; and 2) r est i tuti on w as m and at oryun der 18 U . S . C . § 3 66 3A (c) (1) (A )( i ) because M r. B o w e n w a s c o n v ic te d o f c o m m ittin g a c ri m e o f v io le n c e . T u rn in g to M r. B o w e n ’s a p p e a l, w e c o n stru e h is p lea d in g s lib e ra llya s h e is p ro c e e d in g p ro s e . See Hai nes v. Ker ner , 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 (1 9 7 2 ). H o w e v e r, it i s cl earhi s appea l l acks m er i t , and forthe purpos e of j udi ci al economyw e dec l i ne“A n appea l of a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r econs i derr ai s es for 3 r evi ew onl ythe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derof deni al and notthe under l y i ng j udgm ent i t s el f, ” s o that“w e r evi ew a deni al of a mot i on t o r econs i deronl yforan abus e of di s cr et i on. ” Un itedS ta tes v . C a stillo -G a rc ia , 1 1 7 F . 3 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 9 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). “[ T ]he co u rtsh all o rde r resti tuti o n . . . in the fu ll am o u n t of ea ch v ict im ’s 4 lo ss e s a s d e ter m in e d b yth e c o u rt a n d w ith o u t co n sid e ra tio n o f th e e c o n o m ic (c o n tin u e d ...) -5- t o ful l yaddr es s M r . B ow en’ s as s ert i ons i n s uppor tof hi s appea l , otherthan as foll ow s. Fi r s t , w e not e thatonl yhi s cl ai m of i m pr operdel egat i on w as br ought befor e the di s tr i ct court . A s t o the othercl ai m s , w e gene r al l ydo notcons i der 3 cl ai m s r ai sed fo r the fir stt i m e on app eal , excep t , for i nst ance, w hen the is sue i s a ques t i on of l aw , the pr operr es ol ut i on of w hi ch i s bey ond r eas onabl e doubt , and th e fa ilu re to a d d re s s th e is s u e w o u ld re s u lt in a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . See Sh o e ls v . Kleb o ld , 375 F. 3d 1054, 1062 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( r el y i ng on P etr i niv. How ard , 9 1 8 F . 2 d 1 4 8 2 , 1 4 8 3 n . 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 )). N o n e o f th o se c ri teri a a re p re s e n te d h e re . E ven i f w e cons i der ed M r . B ow en’ s cl ai m s , theym us tfai l . Fi r s t , the M andat oryV i ct i m s R es t i tut i on A ctof 1996 ( M V R A ) r equi r es the courtt o or der ful l r es t i tut i on i n anycas e i nvol vi ng a convi ct i on, l i ke her e, fora cr i m e of vi ol ence . See 1 8 U .S .C . § § 3 6 6 3 A (c )(1 )(A )(i) a n d 3 6 6 4 ( f ) ( 1 ) ( A) ; Uni t ed Stat es 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 ci r cumst ance s of the defendant . ” 18 U . S. C . § 3664( f) ( 1) ( A ) . H ow ever , the d e fe n d a n t’ s e c o n o m ic c ir c u m s ta n c e s a re re le v a n t in fix in g a p a ym e n t s c h e d u le . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Wi ls on , 416 F. 3d 1164, 1170 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( r el y i ng on 18 U . S. C . § 3664( f) ( 2) ) . N othi ng i n the r ecor d i ndi cat es the di s tr i ctcourti n anyw ay a b u se d its d isc re tio n in fix in g th e p a ym e n t sc h e d u le o r o th e rw ise fa iled to p ro p e rl yta k e in to a c c o u n t M r. B o w e n ’s e c o n o m ic c ir c u m s ta n c e s . -6- v . Zu n ie , 444 F. 3d 1230, 1238 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . G ener al l y , “[d] i s tr i ctcourt s have s ubs t ant i al di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng how r es t i tut i on i s t o be pai d. ” Wi ls on , 416 F. 3d at1170 ( quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . Pur s uantt o s t atut e, the d is tr ic t c o u rt s e ts th e m a n n e r a n d s c h e d u le fo r r e s titu tio n re p a ym e n t, s ee 18 U . S. C . § 3664( f) ( 2) , and may“‘ di r ectthe defendantt o m ake a s i ngl e, l um p- s um p ay m en t, p arti al pa ym en ts atsp ec ifi ed interva ls, in-k ind p ay m en ts, o r a combi nat i on of paym ent s ats peci fi ed i nt erval s and i n- ki nd paym ent s . ’ ” Wi ls on , 416 F. 3d at1170 ( quot i ng 18 U . S. C . § 3664( f) ( 3) ( A ) ) . H ow ever , as M r . B ow en s ugges t s , the s ent enci ng courti s pr ohi bi t ed fr om del egat i ng t o the B ur eau of Pr i s ons the r es pons i bi l i tyfors ett i ng the paym ents chedul e forcourt - or der ed re s titu tio n . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . O v e rh o lt , 3 0 7 F . 3 d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 5 5 -56 (10 th C ir . 2002) ( gener al l yr el y i ng on 18 U . S. C . § 3664) . N everthel es s , i nm at es p a rticip a tin g in th e IF R P u n d e r 2 8 C .F .R . § § 5 4 5 .1 0 a n d 5 4 5 .1 1 m a yc o m m it a p e rc e n tag e o f

th e ir p riso n e m p lo ym e n t ea rn in g s to w a rd th e p a ym e n t o f c o u rto rd e re d re s titu tio n . S e e Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 9 9 6 F . 2 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( s u p p o rt in g p u rp o s e o f IF R P ).-7-

A p p ly in g th e se leg a l p rin c ip les , the d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n w h e n it o rd e re d M r. B o w e n to p a yth e re stitu tio n a m o u n t in f u ll i m m edi at el yor , i f notpai d i n ful l atthe t i m e of r el eas e fr om confi nement , by m o n thlyp ay m en ts. M o reo v er, a read ing o f th e o rde r estab li sh es th e d istri ct co u rt di d noti m pr oper l ydel egat e t o the B ur eau of Pr i s ons the r es pons i bi l i tyforthe m an n er o f p ay m en t, p aym en t sch ed u le, o r co ll ec ti o n o f re sti tuti o n . T h u s, M r. B ow en’ s ar gum ent s t o the contr aryar e w hol l yw i thoutm er i tand he ha s not otherw i s e s how n a “mat er i al change ” i n hi s “ec onom i c ci r cumst ance s , ” as re q u ir e d b y1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 6 4 (k ) fo r a n a dju s tm e n t in h is re s titu tio n ju d g m e n t. F inally , reg ard ing M r. B o w en ’s req u est t o fil e a rep lyb ri ef to the g o v ern m en t’ s re sp o n se to h is m o tio n fo r m o d ifica tio n o f re stitu tio n , w e n o te s u c h a re p lyw o u ld have be en poi nt l es s , gi ven the or deron r es t i tut i on pat ent l ydi d notdel egat e any re sp o n sib ili tyto th e B u re a u o f P riso n s. T h e re fo re , the d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in d e n y in g h im th e o p p o rt u n ity to file a re p ly b ri e f.-8- I I I . C oncl us i on F o rth e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we gr antM r . B ow en’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d on a p p e a l in fo rm a p a up e ris and AF F I RM the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f M r. B o w en ’s m ot i ons on the i s s ue of r es t i tut i on.

E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: W ADE BRO RBY U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge