2009 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 9-15-2009 

# Angel P inet v

. J. Grondoi sky 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 . 09-1491

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_2009

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 2009 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 " An g e l P ine t v

. J . Gr ondo i sk

y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 659. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/659NOT 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- 1491

___________ AN GEL M . PI NET, A ppel l ant

v. J . G R O N D O L SK Y , W ar den

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- cv- 02908) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an

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

A ugus t25, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H A N D G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember15, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A ngel M . Pi netappea l s fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e yd e n y in g h is h a b e a s p e titio n f ile d p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . W e wi l l a f

f i r m.2

P in e t is c u rre n tlyse rv in g a 3 6 0 -m o n th f e d e ra l im p riso n m e n t term im p o se d in D ece m ber1998. I n addi t i on t o t he i m pr i s onm entt erm , the s ent enci ng courtas s es s ed a $2 , 00 0. 00 fi ne to be p ai d im m ediat el y . In 200 5, P i net ent ered i nto w hat he cal l s a “duress agr eement ” w i t h t he B ur eau of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) underthe I nm at e Fi nanci al R e sp o n sib ili tyP ro g ra m (“ IF R P ” ), w h e re b yh e a g re e d to m a k e q u a rte rlyp a ym e n ts to sa tisf yh is f in e . O n M a y7 , 2 0 0 7 , P in e t re f u se d to m a k e a n yf

u rth e r p a ym e n ts w h ile i ncar cer at ed. C ons equent l y , t he B O P pl ace d hi m on “I FR P R efus e” s t atus . Pi net pr ocee ded t o pur s ue admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es and appe al s , as s ert i ng thatthe s ent enci ng cour ts houl d s ett he paym ents chedul e forthe i m pos ed fi ne, and thatthe B O P l acke d author i t yt o do s o. U l t i m at el y , Pi netw as uns ucce s s ful i n obt ai ni ng admi ni s t r at i ve r el i ef. I n J une 2008, Pi netfi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 2241, m ai nt ai ni ng th a t th e B O P u n law f

u llye sta b lish e d a sc h e d u le f o r p a y in g th e f

in e w h e n th a t d u ty bel onged t o t he s ent enci ng cour t . H e al l eged thatdes pi t e the B O P’ s char act er i zat i on of th e IF R P a s a v o lu n tar yp ro g ra m , h is re f u sa l to p a rticip a te r e su lts in th e lo ss o f c e rta in benef i t s r el at i ng t o, as exampl es , hi s pr i s on empl oym entw ages , comm i s s arys pendi ng l i m i t s , and hous i ng s t atus . U pon cons i der at i on of the part i es ’ s ubm i s s i ons , the D i s t r i ct C our tdeni ed the s ect i on 2241 pet i t i on, concl udi ng thatthe B O P w as notpr ecl uded fr om s e ttin g a p a ym e n t s c h e d u le v ia th e IF R P f o r P in e t to p a yh is c ri m in a l f in e . P in e t a p p e a ls . W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291.Pi netm i s pl ace s hi s r el i ance on cas es s uch as U ni t ed St at es v. Foot e, 413 F. 3d 1240 1 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ; U ni t ed St at es v. W or km an, 110 F. 3d 915 ( 2d C i r . 1997) ; and U ni t ed S tate s v . M ill e r, 7 7 F .3 d 7 1 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). In e a c h o f th e se c a se s, th e se n ten c in g c o u rts 3 A tt he out s et , w e not e thatbeca us e Pi netchal l enges the exe cut i on of hi s s ent ence bycl ai m i ng t hatt he B O P act ed unl aw ful l yi n es t abl i s hi ng a paym ents chedul e r egar di ng th e im p o s e d f

in e , th e c la im f

a lls s q u a re ly w ith in th e p u rv ie w o f a s e c tio n 2 2 4 1 p e titio n . See C oadyv. V aughn, 251 F. 3d 480, 485 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . Pi netfi r s tar gues thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tm i s cons t rued hi s habea s pet i t i on as a cha l l enge t o t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof t he I FRP. W e di s a gr e e . The D i s t r i c tCour tdi d r e a ff i r m t he c on s t i tut i on a l i t yof the I FRP, ci t i ng J ames v. Q ui nl an, 866 F. 2d 627 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . H ow ever , i n deny i ng habea s r el i ef, i tdul ycons i der ed and r ej ect ed Pi net ’ s cl ai m thatthe B O P act ed unl aw ful l yi n s ett i ng a paym ents chedul e t o s at i s fyt he fi ne. P inet’s m ain a rgu m en t i s tha t 18 U . S . C . § 3 5 7 2 (d) p rec lud es th e se n tenc ing co u rt fr om del egat i ng t he t as k of s et t i ng a paym ents chedul e forfi nes . I n s uppor t , Pi netr el i es on t he l anguage of the s t atut e al l ow i ng the s ent enci ng courtt o pr ovi de fori ns t al l m ent paym ent s , and thatt he s ent enci ng court( notthe B O P) i s t o es t abl i s h t he s chedul e and peri od for pay m ent. S ee 18 U . S . C . § 3 57 2(d)( 1), (2) . H ow ever, sect i on 35 72 (d) (1) al so p rov ides that an im p o sed fin e sh all b e p aid “ im m ed iat ely ” u n less the s en tenc ing co u rt di r ect s i ns t al l m entpaym ent s i n t he i nt er es tof j us t i ce. T her e i s no di s put e her e thatthe s ent enci ng cour tor der ed Pi nett o paythe fi ne i m m edi at el y . N o paym ents chedul e w as at i ssue, and no delegat i on of judi ci al fun ct i on occu rr ed. C on t raryt o P i net’ s ass ert i on s, 1or der ed the def endant s t o payfi nes i n i ns t al l m ent s and expr es s l ydel egat ed the t as k of e s ta b lis h in g p a ym e n t s c h e d u le s , u n lik e th e s itu a tio n in P in e t’ s c a s e . not hi ng i n s ect i on 3572( d) ’ s l anguage pr ecl udes the B O P underi t s I FR P r egul at i ons fr om s e t t i n g a p a ym e n ts c h e d u l e t o s a t i s f y a f i n e th a tw a s d u e t o b e p a i d i m m e d i a t e l y. P inet also cit es o u r de cisi o n in U n it ed S tat es v . C o ates, 17 8 F . 3 d 6 8 1 , 6 8 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ), em p h asizing o u r st atem en t th at sec ti o n 3 5 7 2 (d)(1 ) ap p li es to all m o n etary p e n a lti e s, in c lu d in g f

in e s a n d o rd e rs o f

re stitu tio n . H o w e v e r, w e a lso h ig h lig h ted in C oat es t he di s t i nct i on betw een s ect i on 3572( d) ( 1) and the af fi r m at i ve r equi r ementfort he s e n te n c in g c o u rt to s e t a p a ym e n t s c h e d u le u n d e r t h e M a n d a to ry V ic tim s R e s titu tio n A c t. S ince C o ates, w e d ec ided U n it ed S tat es v . C o rl ey , 5 0 0 F . 3 d 2 1 0 , 2 2 6 -27 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), wh e r e we h e l d t h a ta s e n t e n c i n g c o u r ti mp e r mi s s i b l yd e l e g a t e s i t s a u t h o r i t yt o th e BO P w hen, know i ng t hatt he def endantw as fi nanci al l yunabl e t o m ake i m m edi at e r es t i tut i on paym ent , i tor der s paym ent s due i m m edi at el ybutt o be made vi a the I FR P. T he hol di ngs of C oat es and C or l eyar e bas ed on 18 U . S. C . § 3664( f) ( 2) , w hi ch di r ect s the s ent enci ng c o u rt to e sta b lish a re stitu tio n p a ym e n t sc h e d u le ta k in g th e d e f e n d a n t’s f

in a n c e s in to cons i der at i on. I n Pi net ’ s cas e, he i s notchal l engi ng a r es t i tut i on or der . T her e i s no anal ogous s t atut or ypr ovi s i on governi ng the i m pos i t i on of fi nes thatr equi r es the sent encing co urtt o setpay m ent s ched ules w i t h co nsi derat i on of the defe nd ant’ s fi nan ces. W e w i l l aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng Pi net ’ s s ect i on 2241 pet i t i on.

4