After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is *

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 11, 2009*

Decided May 18, 2009

Before

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 08-3680

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LEON LOVE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of

Wisconsin.

No. 92-CR-16

Rudolph T. Randa,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Leon Love pleaded guilty in 1992 to armed bank robbery and possession of a

firearm while committing a crime of violence. He was sentenced to a total of 270 months’

imprisonment and ordered to pay $4,727.55 in restitution. The written judgment directs

that the restitution be paid in installments “as directed by the probation department.” 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08-3680 Page 2

Love appealed, but did not challenge the restitution order, and we affirmed the judgment. 

United States v. Love, 1993 WL 53182 (7th Cir. 1993). For the first sixteen years that he was

incarcerated, Love made regular restitution payments through the Inmate Financial

Responsibility Program, but when the Bureau of Prisons changed his regular payment

amount, he petitioned for a writ of mandamus to halt further collections. Love argued that

the judgment did not give the BOP power to set a payment schedule; only the court itself

could do so. The government believed Love was correct and told the court that it had

removed him from the IFRP. The government then argued that the mandamus petition

was moot, and the district court agreed. At the government’s suggestion, the court

nevertheless ordered Love to “make immediate restitution” and participate in the IFRP. 

Love appeals.

The government has reversed course and now concedes that the district court lacked

subject-matter jurisdiction to order immediate payment of restitution. A restitution order

is part of a defendant’s sentence; it can be challenged on direct appeal, but not later. See

United States v. Sloan, 505 F.3d 685, 697 (7th Cir. 2007); Barnickel v. United States, 113 F.3d

704, 705-06 (7th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend the

judgment by ordering immediate payment of restitution.

Love agrees that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order immediate payment,

but he does not want to resume participating in the IFRP on the BOP’s terms. As he did in

the district court, Love asserts that the prison cannot “force” him to make payments

through the IFRP without a court order. The government and the district court seem to

agree: the court required Love to participate, and the government argues that we should

leave that part of the district court’s order intact. But the district court, the government,

and Love all misunderstand the IFRP, which is a voluntary program. See 28 C.F.R.

§ 545.10-11. “An inmate is free to decline to participate in the IFRP.” United States v.

Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). Inmates are denied privileges if they refuse to

make the necessary payments, 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(d), but that does not mean that they are

“forced” to participate. See Lemoine, 546 F.3d at 1046; McGhee v. Clark, 166 F.3d 884, 887 (7th

Cir. 1999); Dorman v. Thornburgh, 955 F.2d 57, 58-59 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Johnpoll v. Thornburgh,

898 F.2d 849, 851 (2d Cir. 1990). If Love dislikes the payment schedule set by the BOP, he

may choose not to comply and face the consequences, but the district court cannot compel

participation. Finally, we note that the district court’s effort to compel Love’s participation

was aimed at a problem that did not need solving: there is no error in judicial silence as to

restitution payments during incarceration. See United States v. Sawyer, 521 F.3d 792, 795

(7th Cir. 2008).
No. 08-3680 Page 3

Accordingly, we VACATE the order of the district court and REMAND with

instructions to deny Love’s petition for a writ of mandamus.