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 1-21-2010 

# J o se Gon z ale z -R

i ve r a v . Ronnie H olt 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 . 09-3524

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 authori 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 " J os e Gonzalez -R

ive r a v . Ronnie H o lt " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2030. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2030NOT 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- 3524

___________ J OS E GONZ AL E Z - RI VE RA , A ppel l ant v . RO N N I E H O LT, W a r de n a nd B. O . P.

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from 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 i vi l A ct i on N o. 09- cv- 01341 ( H onor abl e Edw i n M . K os i k)

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary13, 2010 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, JO R D A N and S T A P L E T O N , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed J anuary21, 2010 )

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C U R I A M. J os e G onzal ez- R i ver a, a fe der al pr i s oner , appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s habea s pet i t i on fi l ed p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 1 . W e wi l l a f f i r m.2

Fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al , G onzal ez- R i ver a w as convi ct ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a of c ons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e i n exce s s of fi ve ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne and r el at ed cha r ges . I n A pr i l 1993, he w as s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm entand or der ed t o paya s peci al as s es s m entof $250. See U ni t ed St at es v. Q u intero, 38 F . 3 d 1 3 1 7 , 1 3 2 0 n . 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). W e u p h eld G o n za lez-R ivera ’s convi ct i on, butr emanded forr es ent enci ng. I d. at1335, 1348. O n N ovember7, 2000, t he D i s tr i ctC our tr es ent ence d G onzal ez- R i ver a t o 36 y ear s i m pr i s onm entand i m pos ed fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, a s peci al as s es s m entof $50, and a f i ne of $750. G onzal ezR i ver a appe al ed aga i n and w e af fi r m ed the s ent ence and convi ct i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. G o n z a lez -R iv e ra , 2 9 F e d . A p p x . 8 4 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (n o n p re c e d e n tial). H is e f f o rts to o b tain p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief h a v e b e e n u n su c c e ss f

u l. In Ju ly2 0 0 9 , G o n z a lez -R iv e ra f iled a § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n in th e M id d le D istric t, a lleg in g th a t th e B u re a u o f P riso n s (“ B O P ” ) im p ro p e rlyw ith d re w m o n e yf ro m h is in m a te acc ountt o paythe fi ne thatw as i m pos ed as partof hi s cr i m i nal s ent ence . H e al s o ar gued thatthe s ent enci ng courtfai l ed t o cons i derthe fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) and that the S en tenc ing G u idelines “d o n o t t ak e into ac co u n t al l of the c o n side rati o n s tha t are now r el evantt o t he . . . s ent enci ng deci s i on. ” The D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on, concl udi ng thatthe B O P had author i tyt o s eta paym ents chedul e forcr i m i nal fi nes and that G o n za lez-R ivera co u ld n o t cha ll en g e h is co n v ict ion u n d er § 2 2 4 1 . G o n za lez-R iveraS u b seq u en tl y , a p eti ti o n fo r w ri t of ce rt iorari w as g ran ted a n d the S u p rem e C o u rt 1 vaca t ed the j udgm enton a gr ound unr el at ed t o the i m pr operdel egat i on i s s ue. See C or l ey v . U n it ed S tat es, 12 9 S . C t. 1 5 5 8 (20 0 9 ). 3 fi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. G onzal ez- R i ver a cha l l enges the exe cut i on of hi s s ent ence byas s ert i ng thatthe B O P “exce eded i t s author i ty ” i n es t abl i s hi ng a paym ents chedul e forthe fi ne i m pos ed by the D i s tr i ctC our t . See 18 U . S. C . § 3572( d) . T hi s cl ai m fal l s w i thi n the purvi ew of a § 2241 pet i t i on. See C oadyv. V aughn, 251 F. 3d 480, 485 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ; M athenyv. M orr i s on, 307 F. 3d 709, 712 ( 8th C i r . 2002) ( s t at i ng thati nm at es ’ chal l enges t o paym ent sc h e d u les se t b yB O P “ c o n c e rn th e e x e c u tio n o f se n ten c e , an d a re th e re f o re c o rre c tly fr amed as § 2241 cl ai m s ”) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. I n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m , G onzal ez- R i ver a r el i ed on U ni t ed St at es v. C or l ey , 500 F . 3 d 2 1 0 , 2 2 6 - 2 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , wh e r e we h e l d th a t , u n d e rth e M a n d a t o ryVi c t i ms R es t i tut i on A ct( “M V R A ”) , a s ent enci ng courti m perm i s s i bl ydel egat es i t s author i tyw hen it o rd e rs im m e d iate p a ym e n t o f re stitu tio n w ith k n o w led g e th a t th e d e f e n d a n t is fin an ciall yu n ab le t o m ak e p ay m en t i m m ed iat ely . C o rl eyis dist ing u isha b le, h o w ev er, 1 b ec au se G o n za lez-R ivera is ch all en g ing a f ine, no t a resti tuti o n o rde r. T h e M V R A , w h ich w a s a p p lica b le w h e n G o n z a lez -R iv e ra w a s re se n ten c e d in 2 0 0 0 , p r o v i d e s th a t“ [ a ] p e r s o n s e n t e n c e d t o p a y a f i n e o ro th e rm o n e t a ry p e n a l ty, i ncl udi ng r es t i tut i on, s hal l m ake s uch paym enti m m edi at el y , unl es s . . . the courtpr ovi desW e r ecogni ze thatG onzal ez- R i ver a’ s offe ns es pr e- dat e the M V R A . I n U ni t ed St at es 2 v. E dw ar ds , 162 F. 3d 87, 91 ( 3d C i r . 1998) , w e hel d thatr etr oact i ve i m pos i t i on of re stitu tio n u n d e r th e M V R A v io late d th e E x P o st F a c to C lau se . N o E x P o st F a c to viol at i on occu rr ed h ere, ho w ever, becau se the en act m ent of § 3 57 2(d)( 1) di d n ot i ncrease th e p u n is h m e n t f

o r G o n z a le z -R iv e ra ’s c ri m e . W e a lso a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat G o n za lez-R ivera ’s sen tenc ing claim s are 3 notcogni zabl e i n a § 2241 pet i t i on. See O ker eke v. U ni t ed St at es , 307 F. 3d 117, 120 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); In re D o rsainv il , 1 1 9 F . 3 d 2 4 5 , 2 5 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 4 f o r p a ym e n t o n a d a te c e rta in o r in in sta llm e n ts.” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 7 2 (d )(1 ). W ith 2 r es t i tut i on, the M V R A al s o m andat es thatthe s ent enci ng or deri ncl ude a pa ym ent s c h e d u l e i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s e c o n o mi c c i r c u ms t a n c e s . S e e 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 6 6 4 (f )( 2 ). I m p o rt a n tly, th e re is n o a n a lo g o u s re q u ir e m e n t f o r t h e im p o s itio n o f

f in e s . A ccor di ng t o G onzal ez- R i ver a’ s § 2241 pet i t i on, the courtatr es ent enci ng found that“the defe ndanthas the w her ew i thal t o earn [the $750 fi ne] i n pr i s on w or k pr ogr ams, and that [i t ] i s pay abl e i m m edi at el y . ” The se nt enci ng court ’ s or derfori m m edi at e paym entof the fi ne w as perm i s s i bl e. See U ni t ed St at es v. E l l i s , 522 F. 3d 737, 738- 39 ( 7th C i r . 2008) 3 ( hol di ng thats ent enci ng courtdi d noti m pr oper l ydel egat e i t s author i tyw hen i tor der ed th a t f in e “ [ p ]a ym e n ts a re d u e im m e d iate ly , . . . b u t m a yb e p a id f ro m p riso n e a rn in g s in co m p li an ce w ith the In m ate F inan cial R esp o n sibil ityP rog ram . ”). F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.