# Unit ed Sta tes Cou rt of Appeals For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604 Submi tte d October 25, 2013 * Deci ded October 25, 2013

Before RICHARD A. POS NER, Circ uit Judge DIANE S. S YKES , Circ uit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circ uit Judge No. 13-1165 CARL TIS THAMMER, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. JEFFERY S . WALTON, Responden t-Appellee

. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Court for t he Sout hern Di stric t of Illinoi s. No. 12-cv-1187-D RH Davi d R. Herndon, Chief Ju dge

. O R D E R Carl Ti sthammer, an inmate housed at the federal peni tentiary in Mari on, petiti oned for a wr i t of habeas corpus u nder 28 U.S .C. § 2241, challenging the Bureau of Pri sons’ executi on of hi s sen tence thro ugh the Inmate F i nanci al Responsi bi li ty Pr ogr am (“IFRP”), the Bureau’s voluntar y pro gr am for guiding i nmates in ful fi lli ng their NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be ci ted only i n acc or dance w i th Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

The respondent was n ot ser ved wi th pro cess i n the di stric t court and i s not * partici patin g inthi s appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the recor d, we have concluded that the case i s appropriate for summary di sposi tion. Thus, the appeal i s submi tte d on the appellant’s brief and the recor d. See F E D . R. A P P . P. 34(a) (2)( C).No. 13-1165 Page 2

financi al obli gations. See 28 C.F.R. § 545.10–11. The di stric t courtdi smi ssed the peti tion, and we affi rm. Ti sthammer was convic ted in2010 i n the Centr al Di stric t of Calif or ni a of produci ng, receivi ng, and posses sing chi ld pornog raphy, 18 U.S .C. §§ 2251(a), 2252A(a)(2) (A), 2252A(a)( 5)(B) , 2252A(b)( 1–2), and s entenced to 420 mont hs’ i mpri sonment. The di stric t court or dered himto pay $105,000 i n restituti on (for t he chi ld vic tim ’s benefi t) and a spec i al ass essm ent of $800, but di d not set a par tic ular payment schedu le. Ti sthammer refused to part i ci pate inthe IF RP to make pay ments. Hi s convi cti on and sentence w ere affi rmed on direct appeal. United S tat es v. Tisthammer, 484 F. App’x 198 (9th Ci r. 2012), cert. deni ed, 133 S. Ct . 1286 (2013). Ti sthammer then petiti oned under 28 U.S .C. § 2241, challenging the Bureau’s authority t o r equi re himto adher e to a payment schedu le thro ugh the IF RP. He alleged that whi le hi s di rect appeal was pending, the Bureau im proper ly att empted to compel hi m to pay t he court-or dered r esti tution and as sess ment thro ugh the IF RP and, he s ays, puni shed hi m for re fus ing to partici pate inthe IF RP. The di stric t courtdi smi ssed the petiti on, fi nding no ev i dence to suggest t hat Ti sthammer’s partic i pation in the pro gr am had been ordere d or compelled. Fur ther, t o the ex tent Tis thammer may have v i ewed the unavail abi li ty o f certainprivi leges of part i ci patin g (i .e., jo b-train i ng pro gr ams, hi gher-stat us h ousing) as a “restric tion” or “sancti on” for his refusal to part i ci pate, the unavai labi li ty o f those privi leges was a c onsequenc e of hi s nonpartic i pation. On appeal Ti sthammer generally reiterat es that the Bureau im proper ly atte mpted to compel hi m to par tic i pate—and penali zed hi m for not partici patin g—in the IF RP whi le hi s di rect appeal was pending. He has not i denti fi ed the “sancti ons” he allegedly suffered, but he appears to suggest t hat the Bureau has puni shed hi m and other nonpartici patin g in mates by wi thholdi ng (uns peci fi ed) pri vileges. The di stric t court di d not er r in d i smi ssing Ti sthammer’s peti tion. Inmates w ho elect not t o part i ci pate inthe IF RP may, as a c onsequenc e, be deni ed certain pri vileges, such as as si gnment to work details outsi de the prison f aci li ty and higher-status hous i ng. 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(d). As long as Ti sthammer refused to jo i n the IFR P—even duri ng the pendency of hi s di rect appeal—he was not entitled to tho se pri vileges. See Un ited States v. Boyd, 608 F.3d 331, 335 (7th Cir. 2010); United S tat es v. Lem oine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Ci r. 2008) (explaini ng that inmates “d[ o] not hav e a preex i sti ng right to receive any of the benefi ts condi tioned on [IFRP] partic i pation”) . Mor eov er, by deny i ng privi leges to inmates who opt out o f the IFR P, the Bureau does not im proper ly compel them toNo. 13-1165 Page 3

partici pate. United S tates v. McKnight, 665 F.3d 786, 795 (7th Cir. 2011), cert. deni ed, 132 S. Ct . 2756 (2012); Boyd, 608 F.3d at 334; Lemoin e, 546 F.3d at 1046–47. AFF IRM ED.