2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-5-2015

USA v. Jaime Snyder

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This February is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Jaime Snyder" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 136.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/136
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

ALD-073 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 14-2784

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JAIME LYNN SNYDER, 

Appellant

__________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Crim. Nos. 11-cr-00097 & 12-cr-00052)

District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson

__________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

December 30, 2014

Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 5, 2015)

____________

OPINION*

____________

PER CURIAM

 Jaime Lynn Snyder appeals from an order of the District Court denying her 

motion to amend her monthly restitution payments. For the reasons that follow, we will 

summarily affirm.
2

On October 17, 2011, the Government filed an Information in the United States 

District Court for the District of Delaware, see D.C. Crim. No. 11-cr-00097, charging 

Snyder with copyright infringement, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) and 18 

U.S.C. § 2319(b)(1). Snyder waived indictment and pleaded guilty to the Information. 

In the plea agreement, Snyder agreed to restitution in the amount of $971,935.10, and the 

parties agreed to this figure as the total loss amount. On July 31, 2012, the Government 

filed a one-count Information, see D.C. Crim. No. 12-cr-00052, charging Snyder with 

identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(7) and (b)(1)(D). Snyder waived 

indictment and pleaded guilty to this Information as well. In the plea agreement, the 

parties stipulated to an intended loss amount of greater than $30,000 but less than 

$70,000 for purposes of the Guidelines, and Snyder agreed to restitution in the amount of 

$35,373.02. The Government reserved the right to argue for restitution in the amount of 

$41,472.59. The plea agreement also contained a provision stating that 18 U.S.C. § 3147 

applied because Snyder committed identity theft during the time that she was on release 

in the copyright infringement case, and that this statute required a consecutive term of 

imprisonment. 

On January 24, 2013, the District Court sentenced Snyder to a term of 

imprisonment of 46 months on the copyright infringement and identity theft convictions, 

the sentences to be served concurrently, followed by a consecutive sentence of 12 months 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3147. The District Court also imposed three years of supervised 

release in both cases, to be served concurrently, and ordered restitution to be paid in the 

amount of $1,013,407.69, due immediately. The District Court determined that Snyder 
3

did not have the ability to pay interest on the restitution, and ordered “[p]ayment in equal 

monthly ... installments of not less than $50.00 over a period of 35 months... , to 

commence 30 days ... after release from imprisonment to a term of supervision.” See

Docket Entry No. 35, D.C. Crim. No. 11-cr-00097; Docket Entry No. 25, D.C. Crim. No. 

12-cr-00052. Snyder appealed, and her counsel moved to withdraw, see Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that Snyder’s only non-frivolous issue 

concerned whether her sentence was reasonable. We affirmed the criminal judgment on 

December 13, 2013, see United States v. Snyder, 548 F. App’x 775 (3d Cir. 2013), 

holding that the sentence was procedurally reasonable, and that, since the District Court 

appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and the resulting sentence was 

at the bottom end of the Guidelines range, Snyder’s sentence was substantively 

reasonable, see id. at 777-78.

Meanwhile, in November 2013, Snyder, now an inmate at Alderson Federal 

Correctional Institution in West Virginia, moved pro se in the District of Delaware to 

amend her Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”) payments on her restitution 

obligation. Snyder alleged that her Bureau of Prisons case manager was requiring her to 

pay hundreds of dollars in restitution each month even though she was earning virtually 

nothing in her prison job, leaving her family to make her payments. In response, the 

BOP explained that, pursuant to its IFRP guidelines, it analyzes an inmate’s deposits 

made in the last six months, subtracts IFRP payments made in the last six months, and 

then excludes $450 every six months from outside resources and institution pay. After 

the $450 exclusion, the balance is divided by 6, and the resulting amount constitutes the 
4

monthly payment due. A minimum payment of $25 is required every three months. 

Snyder’s commissary account records reflected that, for the six-month period beginning 

in February 2013, there was $2,821.53 deposited into her account. During that same 

period, she paid only $25 in IFRP payments. In August 2013, Snyder’s account activity 

was examined. The BOP deducted the $450 allocation from her balance, and her 

monthly IFRP payment was calculated at $313, through January 2014. Records further 

showed that Snyder’s IFRP payment was scheduled to increase in February 2014 to $361 

per month because deposits into her commissary account (during the six-month period to 

January 31, 2014) totaled $4,004.56. Snyder’s IFRP payments through January 2014 

totaled $844.91. 

In response to the BOP’s explanation/defense of her current $361 monthly IFRP 

payment obligation, Snyder argued that, under Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 

2012), where a defendant has insufficient financial resources to make immediate 

repayment, the district court, not Bureau of Prisons, must set the repayment schedule in 

the judgment of conviction. Snyder urged the District Court to follow Ward and set her 

IFRP payment to $50.00 per month, because her family and friends deposit money into 

her commissary account so that she can stay in touch with her children, not so that she 

can make restitution payments, and that she uses the money for necessary expenses, 

including telephone calls, email, stamps, commissary purchases, doctor co-payments, and 

medicine.

In an order entered on April 29, 2014, the District Court denied Snyder’s request 

to set her IFRP payments. The court explained, in pertinent part, that: 
5

Having had the benefit of presiding over her plea and sentencing hearings, 

the court recalls the circumstances of defendant’s criminal conduct, as well 

as her family background, which includes children and a grandchild. While 

the court recognizes defendant’s efforts to maintain ties with her family, it 

is because of her own criminal conduct that she owes over one million 

dollars in restitution. There is nothing in the record at bar that warrants the 

amendment of defendant’s judgment. Defendant’s monthly [I]FRP 

payments are calculated based on how much money she earns and how 

much money others give to her. Defendant controls how much money is 

used to calculate her monthly [I]FRP payment.

United States v. Snyder, --- F. Supp.2d --- , 2014 WL 1761030, at *2 (D. Del. April 29, 

2014). 

Snyder appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our Clerk advised 

her that the appeal was subject to summary action under Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 

10.6. Snyder was invited to submit argument in writing and she has done so. In her 

summary action response, Snyder acknowledges that she participates in the IFRP, 

although she claims that she was “forced ... by extortion tactics under total duress and 

coercion.” (Response, at 13.) She asserts that she is now in IFRP “refuse” status because 

she cannot make the $361 monthly payment. Her mother is making a $25 monthly 

payment toward her restitution obligation, but the BOP has threatened that she will still 

lose her ability to participate in the prison Residential Drug Treatment Program, which 

provides a sentence reduction gratuity, because she is not making the $361 payment. 

Snyder complains that recalculation of IFRP payments by the BOP is done only every six 

months, and that, because she no longer receives as much financial support, “[i]f her 

counselor recalculated her today for the previous 3 months, instead of 6 (the time frame 

her financial support drastically decreased) her payment would decrease from $361 a 
6

month to $19 a month.” (Response, at 2.) Snyder contends that the District Court’s 

observation that she could obtain relief from her current $361 IFRP monthly payment by 

accepting less support from her family, while true, overlooked the fact that recalculations 

occur only every six months, so that even if the inmate is immediately “due” a reduction, 

she must still wait for the regularly scheduled recalculation.

We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court because no substantial 

question is presented by this appeal, Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. We 

exercise plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and review its 

findings of fact for clear error. See O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 173 n.1 (3d Cir. 

2005) (per curiam). We may affirm a judgment of the District Court on any basis 

supported by the record, see Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per 

curiam). We note that the District Court has limited jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 

3664(k) to adjust a defendant’s restitution payment schedule if there has been any 

material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances, see United States v. Jaffe, 

417 F.3d 259, 267 (2d Cir. 2005), and that Snyder is not challenging the overall validity 

of the District Court’s order that she make restitution to her victims in the amount of 

$1,013,407.69.

Snyder’s argument under the Ward case is unavailing because it is an attack on the 

validity of the restitution order itself, which must be made on direct appeal. In any event, 

it is meritless. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”) requires the District 

Court to specify the manner in which the defendant will pay restitution in light of a 

defendant’s economic circumstances, 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). Like the Ninth Circuit, see
7

Ward, 678 F.3d at 1048-49, we have held that determining the schedule of restitution 

payments pursuant to the MVRA is a “judicial act” that may not be delegated to the BOP, 

United States v. Corley, 500 F.3d 210, 226-27 (3d Cir. 2007) (sentencing court 

impermissibly delegates its authority to BOP when, knowing that the defendant was 

financially unable to make immediate restitution payment, it orders payments due 

immediately but to be made through Inmate Financial Responsibility Program). Here, the 

District Court set a restitution schedule in the criminal judgment, see Docket Entry No. 

35, D.C. Crim. No. 11-cr-00097; Docket Entry No. 25, D.C. Crim. No. 12-cr-00052, and 

did not impermissibly delegate its authority to the Bureau of Prisons. The District Court 

did not order that payments be made through the IFRP, and in fact there is no mention 

whatever in the criminal judgment of the IFRP. Nor did appellate counsel advise us on 

direct appeal that there was a non-frivolous issue pertaining to Snyder’s restitution order.

An inmate may voluntarily enter into the IFRP by signing a contract, and give the 

BOP authority to collect additional monies toward her restitution obligation, 28 C.F.R. § 

545.11(a)-(b). An inmate may wish to contribute additional monies to restitution she 

owes, when doing so confers benefits that would otherwise be lost, see id. at § 545(d). 

“The IFRP can be an important part of a prisoner’s efforts toward rehabilitation, but 

strictly speaking, participation in the program is voluntary[;] ... an inmate in the Bureau 

of Prisons’ custody may lose certain privileges by not participating in the IFRP, but the 

inmate’s participation cannot be compelled.” United States v. Boyd, 608 F.3d 331, 334 

(7th Cir. 2010). Snyder’s participation in the IFRP is voluntary, and her voluntary 

participation is determinative of her claim. We disagree that the program amounts to 
8

“extortion,” as she argues. Prisoners are not entitled, constitutionally or otherwise, “to 

any of the benefits agreeing to participate in the IFRP would provide, such as a work 

detail outside the prison perimeter, a higher commissary spending limit, a release 

gratuity, or pay beyond the maintenance pay level.” United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 

1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, inasmuch as Snyder does not challenge the 

BOP’s records regarding the deposits made to her account, we agree with the District 

Court that changes in Snyder’s circumstances are under her control. They, therefore, do 

not constitute a “material change in [her] economic circumstances” so as to warrant an 

adjustment under § 3664(k).

We would add that we doubt that Snyder’s specific challenge to the BOP’s 

authority to schedule recalculations only every six months even if the inmate is 

immediately “due” a reduction in her voluntary payment falls within the purview of 28 

U.S.C. § 2241, see McGee v. Martinez, 627 F.3d 933, 937 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding that 

claim challenging payment schedule imposed through IFRP concerned execution of

petitioner’s sentence and was correctly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). The petitioner 

in McGee was challenging BOP conduct that conflicted with the terms imposed by the 

sentencing court. The BOP wanted $25 per month, but the District Court specifically 

ordered that the petitioner make a $20 monthly payment from his prison earnings. We 

held that his claim concerned the execution of his sentence, 627 F.3d at 937. In order to 

challenge the execution of her sentence under § 2241, Snyder would thus need to allege 

that the BOP’s $361 monthly payment demand was “somehow inconsistent with a 

command or recommendation in the sentencing judgment,” see Cardona v. Bledsoe, 681 
9

F.3d 533, 537 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 805 (U.S. 2012). The District Court did 

not think that it was, nor do we. In any event, the District Court would lack jurisdiction 

because a § 2241 petition must be filed in the district where the petitioner is confined, 

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004), which in Snyder’s case is not the District 

of Delaware.

For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court 

denying Snyder’s motion to amend her IFRP payments.