A fte r ex am in in g th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d , w e h av e c on c lu d ed th atora l arg u m en t is * unnecessary. Thus, the appeali s s ubm i tte d on the bri ef s a nd the re cor d. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2) . 

# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d M ay 11, 20 09 * Deci ded M ay 18, 20 09 B efo re IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08- 3680 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A , P la intif f-A pp ellee,

v. LEO N LOV E, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe Eastern Dis tr i ct o f W i sc o ns i n. N o. 92
- CR
- 16 Rud ol ph T. Rand a, Chie f Judg e . O R D E R L eon Lov e plead ed guilty in 19 92 to arm ed ban k robbery an d pos session of a fi re ar m wh i l e co m m i tting a cri m e o fvi ol ence. He w as sente nced to a t ota lo f27 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent a nd o rder ed to pay $4, 727. 55 i n re sti tuti on. The wri tte n j ud gm ent di re cts that the r est i tuti on be pai d i n i nstal l m ents “as dir ecte d by the probati on depart m ent. ” NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 3680 Page 2

L ov e a p p ea led , bu t d id n otch alle n ge th e re st itu tio nord er, an d w e a ffirm ed th e jud gm en t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lo ve, 19 93 W L 53182 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) . F orthe fi rs t s i xteen y ear s that he w as i ncarc er ate d, Love m ade r egul arr est i tuti on paym ents thro ugh the I nm ate Financi al Re spo ns ibi l i tyPr o g r am, b utwhenthe Bur ea u o fPr i so ns c ha ng ed hi s r egul arpa y m en t am ount, he pet i ti oned f ora w ri t o fm andam us to hal t furtherco l l ecti ons. Love ar gued that th e jud gm en t d id n otgiv e th e B O P p ow er to se t a p ay m en t s c h ed u le; on ly th e c ou rtits elf coul d do so. The g ove rnm ent b el i eve d Love was co rr ect and tol d the co urt that i t had re m ove d him fro m the I FRP. The g ove rnm ent then ar gued that the m andam us peti ti on w as m oot, an d the d istri ct cou rt agreed
. A t the govern m en t’s sugg estion, the cou rt n ev er th ele ss ord er ed L ov e t o “ m ak e im m ed iat e re st itu tio n ” a n d p ar tic ip at e in th e IFR P . Love a pp eal s. The go vernm ent has r eve rs ed cour se and now co ncedes that the di str i ct c ourtl acke d subj ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on t o or der i m m edi ate paym ent o fr est i tuti on. A res ti tuti on o rder is part of a defen d an t’s sent en ce; i t can be ch all en ged on d irect app eal, bu t not later. Se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sl oan , 505 F.3d 68 5, 69 7 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); B a rnic kel v. U nited Sta tes , 11 3 F . 3d 70 4, 7 05
- 06 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7) . Acc o r di ng l y, the di st r i ctc o ur t l ac k ed j ur i sdi ct i o n t o a m en d the j udg m en t byo r der i ngi m m edi at e pay m en t o fr es ti tu ti o n. Love a gr ees thatthe dist ri ct c ourtl acke d j uri sdic ti on t o or der i m m edi ate paym ent, b u t h e d oe s n otw an t t o re su m e p ar tic ip at in g inth e IFR P on th e B O P ’s t er m s. A s h e d id in the di str i ct c ourt, Love ass er ts that the pr i son cannot “f or ce” hi m to m ake paym ents thro ugh the I FRP w i thout a co urt or der. The g ove rnm ent a nd the dist ri ct c ourtse em to ag re e: th e c ou rtreq u ire d L ov e t o p ar tic ip at e, an d th e g ov er n m en t a rg u es th atw e s h ou ld l eave thatparto fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o rderintact. But the di str i ct c ourt, the gov er nm ent, a n d L o v e a l lmi s u n d e r s t a n d th e I F R P , w h i c hi s a v o l u n t a r y p r o g r a m. S ee 2 8 C. F . R. § 5 45. 10- 11. “ A n inm ate i s fre e t o decl i ne to part i ci pate in the I FRP. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Le m oi ne, 54 6 F . 3d 1042 , 10 47 ( 9th Ci r. 20 08) . Inm ate s a re deni ed pri vi l ege s i ftheyr efuse t o m ake th e nec essary p aym en ts, 28 C . F.R. § 545.11(d ), bu t tha t d oes notm ean thatthey are “f or ced” topart i ci pate. S ee Le m oi ne, 546 F.3d at10 46 ; M cG hee v . Cla rk, 16 6 F . 3d 884, 88 7 ( 7th C ir. 19 99 ); D or m an v. Thor nb ur gh , 955 F.2d 57, 58-5 9 (D .C . C ir. 19 92 ); Johnp ol l v. Thor nb ur gh , 89 8 F . 2d 84 9, 8 51 ( 2d Ci r . 1 99 0) . I fLo ve di sl i k es the pa y m en t sc he dul e se t bythe BOP, he m ay choos e no t t o com plyand f ace the c onse quences, but the di str i ct c ourtcannotco m pel parti ci pati on. F i nal l y, we note that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s e ff or t t o com pelLove’ s par ti ci pati on w as ai m ed at a probl em thatdi d not nee d sol vi ng: ther e i s no er ro r i n j ud i ci alsi l ence as to r es ti tu ti o n pa y m en ts dur i nginc ar ce r at i o n. Se e U nited Sta tes v. Sa w yer, 52 1 F . 3d 792, 79 5 (7th C ir. 2008).N o. 08
- 3680 Page 3

A ccor dingly, we V ACATE the o r de ro fthe di s t r i c tc o ur ta nd R EMA ND with i nstr ucti ons to deny Love’ s peti ti on fora w ri t o fm andam us.