P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that th i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e li m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 11169 Su m m ar yC al endar R U S S E L L KA E M M E R L IN G , Pl ai nt if f

- Appe l l ant v. D AV ID B E R K E B IL E , D efen da n t - A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 08- C V - 714 B ef ore R E AV L E Y , JO L LY , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * R uss ellK aem m er l i ng, fede r alpr i so ner#0 4 8 9 9 - 0 1 7 , was c onvi c t ed i n 2000 on 19 c ount s st em m i ng f rom a w i r e f

r aud co nspir ac y. H e w as or der ed t o pay o v e rfiv e m illio n d o lla r s inre s tit u tio n . K aem m er l i ng s oughtr eli ef i n t he di st r i c tc ourt under28 U . S. C . § 2241, ar gui ng t hatt he B ure au of Pri so ns ( B O P ), through t he I nm at e Fi nanci al Res po ns ibil i t y Pr o gr am (I FR P) , v i o l at e s 1 8 U . S. C. § § 357 2 and366 4 byus ur pi ng United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D Janua ry 7, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-11169 Document: 0051998118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2010N o. 08- 11169

2 t h e cor e j u di ci alf

u n ctio n o f s et t i n g t h e am ou n tan d sched u l e of res t i t u t i on p a y m e n ts fo rt h e p e r io do f in c a r c e r a tio n . H e a s k e dt h e d is tr ic t c o u r t t o e njo in th e res p on d en t f

rom san cti on i n g h i m f or n on p a rticip a ti on i n the IF R P an dto i nval i dat e 2 8 C . F. R . §§ 545. 10, 545. 11, a n d B O P P r ogr am St at em ent5308. 08, w h i ch h e argu ed i m perm i ssibl y u surped the st atutor y du t i es of the d i st ri ctcourt un d e rt heM a nd a t o r yVi c t i m s ’Re s t i t ut i o n Ac ti n favo ro f t heBOP. K aem m erli n g repeats h i s argum en t s on ap pea l , contending that onl y t h e di st ri ct c o ur tm aye s t ab l i s h a sc he dul e of pa ym e nt s f

o rr e s t i t ut i o n. H e a r gue s t hatt he di st ri ctcourthere ordered rest i t u t i on i n t h e f orm of m o n th ly install m en t s of $ 1 5 0 th a t w e re n o t to b e g inu n tilth re e m o n th s a fterK a e m m e rlin g ’s c o m m e nc e m e nto f

s upe rvi s e d r e l e as e , a nd thatt he c o ur tdi d no te s t ab l i s h a ny s c he dul e f

o rpa ym e nt s duri ng t he cou rse o f hi s i nc ar c e r at i o n. Kae m m e r l i ng r eas on s t hatt he B O P’ s c oll ec t i on o f f und s f r om hi m t hro ugh t he I FR P i s an im p e r m is s ib le e x e r c is e o f ju d ic ia l a u th o r ity . W e fin dn o m e r it in K a e m m e r lin g ’ s a r g u m e n ts . P a y m e n t o f r e s tit u tio n is ordi n ari ly requ i red t o be m ad e “i m m edi ately” u n l ess t h e di st rictcourtorders o t he r w i s e . 1 8 U . S. C. § 357 2( d) ( 1) . H e r e , t he di s t r i c tc o ur t , a f t e rde t e r m i ni ng t he am ou n tt o b e pa i d a s r e s t i t ut i o n, o r de r e d Kae m m e r l i ng t o m ak e r e s t i t ut i on w h i l e i n carcer ated p u rsuan tt o t h e pri son’ s I F R P . I tt h en ordered, as a condit i on o f s u p e rv is e dre le a s e , th a t K a e m m e r lin gco n tin u e h is re s tit u tio n inas p e c ific a m ounton a m ont hl y bas i s. The di st r i c tc our tdi d notex pre ss ly del eg a te any t hi ng t o t he BO P. I ns t e ad , t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s j u dgm e ntde t e r m i ne d the am ountof

r es t i t uti on an d or der ed i m m edi at e pay m ent ; t hi s ac t i on w as notan u n c o n s tit u tio n a l d e le g a tio n o f ju d ic ia l a u th o r ity . S ee McG h ee v. C lark , 166 F. 3d 8 8 4 , 8 8 6 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); seealso B loc h v. Lake , 1 8 3 F . A p p ’ x4 7 1 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); S ch m id t v . U. S . D ep’ tof Ju st i ce , 34 F . A pp ’ x 151 ( 5th C i r. 200 2) . B ecau se K aem m erli n g fai l s t o show a const i t u t i on aldeprivati on , t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot e r rb y de nyi ng hi s § 2 24 1 pe t i t i o n. AF F I RMED. Case: 08-11169 Document: 0051998118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2010