UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

____________________________________ ) UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA ) ) v. ) Cr im in al N o. 07 -01 55 (P L F) ) KEVI N HONE STY, ) ) De fe nd ant. ) ____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON AND ORDER This matter is befor e the Court on def endant’ s motion for clarif ication. On September 11, 2007, the defe ndant pled guilty to one count of a

rmed ba nk robber y (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) a

nd (d)) and one c ount of possession of a f irea rm duringa cr ime of violence ( in violation of D.C. Code § 22-4505(b)) . On September 27, 2007, the Court sentenc ed h i mt o 1 0 5 m o n t h s i mp r i s o n m e n to nC o un tO n e an d 6 0 m o n th s o nC o un tT w o , f o l l o w e d b y a five y ear period of supe rvised re lease . He wa s order ed to pay restitution in the amount of $1 1, 95 6. Th e Court

pr ov ide d th a t: Duringthe def

endant’ s period of inc arc eration, he shall make pay ments throug h the U.S. Bur eau of Prisons’ I nmate F inancial Responsibili ty

Prog ram. The balanc e of a ny amount not immediately

paid, shall be pa id during the time of super vised rele ase at a rate of no less than $50.00 pe r month. Restitut ion pa y me nts sh a ll b e ma de to t

he Cle rk of the Court

fo r t he U. S. District Court, District of Columbia, for disbursement to the vic tim
.Def endant pr eviously

was inca rce rate d in the Fe dera l Correc tional I nstitut ion- 1 Medium in Yazoo Cit y , Mississ ippi. I n the most rece nt filing, howe ver, he states that he is at the Fe dera l Correc tional I nstitut ion in Butner, N orth Carolina.

This filing, whic h is not sty led as a motion, is captioned on the docket a s a motion 2 to amend or c orre ct the judg ment. 2 Se e Judg me nt at 4, Dk

t. N o. 25 (S e pt. 28 , 2 00 7) . T he de fe nd ant c ur re ntl y is i nc arc e rate d in Bur eau of Prisons facility

in Butner , North Carolina. 1 The de fenda

nt states that he “is una

ble to proper ly

sign the contra ct/ag ree ment for pa rt ic ipatio n in

the I nmate F ina

nc ia l Re sp on sib ili ty

Pr og ra m ( I F RP) re sti tut ion

pa y me nt s c he du le
un til thi s Co ur

t in fo rm s th is d e fe nd ant t hat th e B ur e a

u o f P ri so ns (B OP) ha s th e a uth or ity to s e t a
s c h e d u l e o f r e s t i tu t i o np aym e n t s w h i l e d e f e n d an ti s i np r i s o n , an d

i f h e f a i l s t o a g r e e v o l un t ar i l y, the B OP can plac e def

endant in ‘I FRP Refuse’ status.” See Motion for Clar ification at 1. Def endant ha s also filed a notification of economic status in which he states that he ha s been pla c e d o n I F RP Re fu sa l Status be c a us e he c ann ot a ff

or d th e monthl y

pa y me nts . 2 As an initial matter, the r elief that defe ndant see ks is somewhat unclea r. B y way of his reque st for cla

rification of the BO P’s authority reg ardingthe Inmate F inancial Re sp on sib ili ty

Pr og ra m, d e fe nd ant a

pp e ars to s ug g e st t

hat th e B OP d oe s n ot h ave the a uth or ity
ov e r t he I F RP th a t it

ha s a sse rt e d. Th e g ov e rnme nt i nte rp re ts d e fe nd ant’ s mo tio n a s a re qu e st that the Court vaca

te or modify

the re stitut ion portion of the sentenc e. In his notification of economic status, the defe ndant g oes fur ther than in his orig inal motion and reque sts that the C o u rt o rd er

t h at h i s re s t i tu t i o np ay

m en t s b e m ad e t h ro u ghth e C l erk o f t h e C o urt an d

n o tth ro u gh the I F RP.3 To the extent that the defe ndant is reque sting a clar ification of his oblig ations under the I FRP, it is s ettled that the promulg ation of the I FRP is within t he B OP’s deleg ated
a uth or ity to p ro vid e fo r t

he re ha bil itatio n a

nd re fo rm a tio n o f f

e de ra l inmate s. Se e Ne a l v. Watts, Civil Action No. 07-0915, 2008 U .S. Dist. L EXI S 20163 at *1-2 (D.D.C. Mar . 17, 2008) (d e sc ri bin g I F RP and

c oll e c tin g c a se s) . T he I F RP is a me ans fo r a

se nte nc e d inmate to m e e t hi s financ ial obligations, including his obligation to pay restitution, while in prison using wa g es
ear ned fr om prison employ

ment. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 545.10, 545.11. B OP staff de termine the amount of an inmate ’s pay ments and monitor his prog ress. See 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(a) , (b). Al tho ug h B OP m e re ly

e nc oura g e s an inmate ’s pa rt ic ipatio n in

the pr og ra

m, s e e 28 C.F .R. § 5 45 .1 0, an inmate wh o r e fu se s to pa rt ic ipate or din ari ly

los e s c e rt a in p ri vil e g e s. Se e 28 C.F .R. § 545.11(d). Th e Court do e s n ot i nte rp re t de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n a s a re qu e st t o mo dif

y or va c a te the re stitut ion portion of his sentence , but, rather , as a r equest to cha ng e the method by

which he
make s h is r e sti tut ion

pa y me nts wh ile inc arc e rate d. To the e xten t th a t th e de fe nd ant d oe s r e qu e st that the re quired re stitut ion be modified or va cate d, howeve r, the Court will deny this mot ion for the re asons stated in the g overnme nt’s opposition. S ee O pposition t o Motion for Clarification at 4- 7. To the e xtent th a t de fe nd ant i s c ha lle ng inghis e nr oll me nt i n th e I F RP by B OP, thi s c la im appropr iately

is one he should re solve with prison officia ls or bring as a pe tition for a writ of ha be as c or

pu s in the district in which he is incar cer ated pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. S ee Ster n v. Fe d. Bur eau of

Prisons, 601 F. Supp. 2d 303, 305 (D.D.C. 2009) (c ollecting case s). Inasmuch as the matter

does not relate to the sentenc e this Court imposed but, rather, the ma nner in whic h it is i mplemented by

the B urea

u of Prisons, this C ourt does not have persona l jurisdiction over4

thi s d e fe nd ant’ s habeas claim. See id. at 306 ( citing Chatman-B ey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 80 9 ( D. C. C ir . 1 98 8) ). Th e de fe nd ant m us t pu rs ue the c la im i n th e dis tr ic t in wh ic h h e is incar cer ated. See id.

F o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d

a b o v e , i ti s h e r e b y ORDE RED that de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n f or c lari fi c a tio n [29 ] is d e nie d; a nd it i s FURTHE R ORDERED that defe ndant’s motion to amend or c orre ct the judg ment [38] is denied. /s/_____________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge DATE: January

29, 2010