FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UL Y 20, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1668 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 00-00070 -CR- 01-W CO- 2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us RICH ARD JUN IO R FRA ZI ER , D ef en da nt- A ppe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( Jul y 20, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Richard Junior Fraz ier, a fe deral prisoner procee ding pro se, ap pe a l s the d i strict
co urt’ s deni al of his Mot ionf or T em por ar y Re str ai nin g O rd er

I nj unc tio n a nd S how Ca use ( “ Mot ion ”) , in w hic h F ra zi er a lle ge d a n im

pr ope r de le ga tio n to the Bu re auofAlthough w e g ener ally lack jurisdiction to revie w the denia l of a tempora ry restra ining 1 o rd er , s ee I n gra mv . Au l t , 5 0 F. 3 d 8 9 8 , 8 9 9 (1 1 t hC i r. 1 9 9 5 ), af t er o u r r ev i ew o f t h e p ro ce ed i n gs and the pa

rties’ supplementa l materials, filed in re sponse to our issuance of a jurisdictional qu e sti on , w e c on c lud e we have jur isd ic tio n o ve r t his a pp e a l be c a

us e , d e sp ite F ra zie r’ s la

be l, h is mot ion re a lly a sk e d f or a pr e lim ina

ry inj un c tio n, the de nia l of

wh ic h w e have jur isd ic tio n to revie w, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1). More over, w e obser ve that the district cour

t’s order denying a preliminary

injunction bears a ll the attributes of a f inal decision “which ends the litigation on the mer its and leave s nothing for the cour t to do but ex ecute the judg ment”, over which we also have jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; P itney Bow es, Inc. v. Mestre , 701 F.2d 1365, 1368 (11th Cir. 1983) (c itation and internal quotation marks omitted). In either c ase, w e have jur isd ic tio n o ve r t

his a pp e a l. 2 Prisons (“ BOP ”) of the district court’ s authorityto collect restitution
. Fraz ier asked the dis tr ic t c ourt t o e nj oin the BO P fr om w ith hol din g his ea rn ing s to pa y r es tit uti on he ha d to pa y

a s part of his c rim in al c onvi ct ionf or kidna ppi ng, in vio la tio n of

18 U
. S. C. §§ 1 201( a) (1 ) an d 3599( c)
. A ft er his co nvi ct ion , pur suant to a ju ry ve rd ic t, 1 the di s t ri ct court sentenced Fra zier to life im prisonm ent and ordered him to pay
re sti tut ionin the a m ount of $3, 880 to the vic tim

a nd r es ti tu ti on in the a m ount of $1, 307. 59 t o th e vic tim ’ s he al th i nsur an ce plan. T he co urt sta te d the fo llo w ing in the Re sti tut ionO rd er : “ T he r es titut io n sha ll be pa id i m m ed ia te ly
. [ T he vic tim ] sha ll
rece iv e res ti tu ti on pa ym en t fi rs t, fol lo wed by [th e vi ct im ’s he al th in su ran ce pla n]. ” O n a ppe al , w e af

fi rm ed F ra zi er ’ s c onvi ct ion
. S ee U nit ed St at es v. Fr az ie r, 387 F. 3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) , c ert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2516 (2005). In the instant proceeding, in support of the requested injunctive relief, Fra zier
as se rt ed in his Mo tio n th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt, in fa ili ng to se t the tim ing a nd a m ount s3

of p a ym e nt

i n t he R e st i tut i onO r de r , i m pr op e r l y d e l e ga t e d i t s autho r i t y

t o c ol l ect
re sti tut ionto the BO P. F ra zi er a rg ue d th at

the BO P’ s w ith hol din g of his e ar nin gs, in
or de r to p ay

the r es tit uti on, vio la te d 18 U
. S. C. § 35 72 (d ). F ra zi er r eque ste d th e d i s trict court to enj oin th e BO P fr om withholdin g his earnings
. Af ter noting th at the re w as no i ndi ca tio n th at F ra zi er s erv ed th e gove rn m en t w iththe m oti on, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e m oti on. A ft er quo tin g th e la ng ua ge f

ro m the Re sti tut ion O rd er tha t w e ha ve quo te d a

bove , the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed : It is cl ear . . . tha t this c ourt di d no t deleg at e to the Bu re auof Prisons the authority to set or d esignate how t he defendant shou ld pay restitution
. The c ourt, m oreover, stated in clear and un certa in term s that the r es tit uti on s ha ll be pa id i m

m ed ia te ly
. T hus, the Bu re auof P ri sons w oul d be j ust if

ie d inc oll ec tin g a ny am ount au tho ri ze d by la w fr om the de fe ndant a t any

ti m e up t o th e tot al a m ount due on the r es tit

uti on, the full am ount having b een due at the tim e of the entry of j udgm ent. U nder t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f

t h e B u r e au o f

P r i s o n s ’ F i n a n c i a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y P o l i c y, the Bu re auof

P ri sons m ay

a nd s houl d c oll ec t the r es tit uti on a s st at ed

by the Co urt. On appeal, Fra zier argues in its Restitution Or der, the district court illegally delegated to the BO P the auth or ity

to co lle ct r es tit uti on, a nd t o se t the ti m ing a nd a m ount of the
re st it ut ionpa ym en ts, in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. § 35 72( d) a nd p re ce de nt f ro m the Fo ur th Cir cu it
. W e re vie w adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of inj unc tiv e re lie f unde r anabuse of dis cr et ion standard
. Se e K idd er , Pe ab ody & C o. , I nc . v. Br an dt, 131 F
. 3d 1 001, 100 34

( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 )
. T h e M a n d a t o ry V i c t i ms R e s t i tu t i o n A c t( “M V RA ” ) p r o v i d e s : “A
re sti tut ionor de r m ay

direc t the de fe ndant t o m ak e a sin gle , lum p- sum pa ym en t, pa rt ia l paym en ts a t sp ec if ie d in te rv al s, in- kin d paym en ts, or a co m binat ionof paym ents at specified intervals and in-kind paym ents.” 18 U. S. C. § 366 4(f)( 3)(A ). T he MV RAa lso sta te s th at “ the c ourt sh al l, pur suant t o sec tio n 3572, spe ci fy in the
re sti tut ionor de r the m an ne r in w hic h, a nd the sc he dul e ac co rd ing to w hich, the
re sti tut ionis to b e pa id. ” 18 U
. S. C. § 36 64( f) (2 ). S ec tio n 35 72( d) , in tur n, pr ovi de s, int e r a l i a , t h a t , i f

t h e r e s t i tu t i o n o r d e r

“ p e rm i t s o t h e r

t h a n i m m e d i a t e p a ym e n t , the le ngth of ti m e ove r w hic h sc he dul ed pa ym en ts w ill be m ad e sha ll be se t by the c ourt, but sha ll be the sho rt es t t im e in w hic h f ull pa ym en t can reason ab ly be m ad e. ” 18 U.S.C. § 3 57 2( d) (2 ) (em

ph as is ad de d)
. W e ha ve he ld tha t, unde r the MV RA , if pa ym en t i s no t i m

m ed ia te ly r equir ed , the c ourt m

ust spe ci fy the le ngth of

ti m e ove r w hic h th e pa ym en ts are to be m ad e, a nd it cannot de le ga te thi s du ty . U nit ed S ta te s v. P ro uty , 303 F
. 3d 1249, 1254 -5 5 ( 11th Ci r. 20 02 ) (h old ing tha t § 3572 (d ) pr ec lud es the dis tr ic t c ourt f ro m de le ga tin g it s
au tho ri ty to es ta bli sh a r es tit uti on r ep ay

m en t sc he dul e w he re it w as unc le ar f ro m the record w hether t h e d i s trict court intended imm ediate re paym ent or repay m ent overThe provision for immediate pay

ment in Fra zier’s ca se distinguishes it from the two 2 Four th Circuit decisions he cites, both of whic h involved provisions for re stitut ion to be paid “at such times and in such amounts as the Bur eau of Prisons and/or the Probation Off ice may direc t.” United States v. Miller, 77 F.3d 71, 74 ( 4th Cir. 1996); United States v. J ohnson, 48 F.3d 806, 807 (4th Cir. 1995). I n light of our

dispositi on, we DENY AS MOOT F razier’ s “Motion to St ay 3 With ho ldi ngof

I nmate ’s F un ds Pe nd ingAc tio n” by thi s Co ur t. 5 tim e)
. H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt or de re d im m ed ia te pa y

m en t of r es tit uti on. S ec tio n

2 3572 (d)(2) r equires the court to establish a pay m ent schedule onl y

if the court pr ovi de d f

or pa ym en ts i n in sta llm en ts. S ee 18 U
. S. C. § 3572( d) (2 ); Pr outy , 303 F
. 3d at 1 2 5 4 -5 5 . On t h i s re co rd , t h er e w as n o ti m p ro p erd el eg at i o n o f t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s authorityto establish a re stitut ion pay m ent schedule. Insum , be ca

use the MV RAr equir es the c ourt t o e sta bli sh a pa ym en t sc he dul e onlyif the court provided for paym ents in ins tal l m ents and the court provi ded that
re sti tut ionw as due im

m ed ia te ly , the co ur

t did not im

pr ope rl y de le ga te it s auth or ity t o es t ab l i s h a r ep aym en ts ch ed u l e t o t h e B OP an dwe af fi rm i t s d en i al o f F ra zi er ’s Mot ion
. 3 AFFIRMED.