Case Name: Michael John VONDETTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack FOX, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-01
Citations: 615 F. App'x 445
Docket Number: No. 14-55531
Parties: Michael John VONDETTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack FOX, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 445–446

Head Matter:
Michael John VONDETTE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack FOX, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-55531.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
Michael John Vondette, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., El-iezer Ben-Shmuel, Special Assistant U.S., Diana L. Pauli, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Michael John Vondette appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's decision to deny a section 2241 habeas petition, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
Vondette contends that the sentencing court was prohibited from delegating to the Bureau of Prisons the task of establishing the time and manner in which he was required to pay his court-imposed fines. Vondette's argument is foreclosed by Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam). The cases upon which Vondette relies, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2) of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act prohibits the delegation of restitution payment schedules, are inapposite. See United States v. Gunning, 401 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir.2005) (distinguishing Montano-Figueroa's analysis of fine payments under 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d) from restitution payments under § 3664(f)(2)). Vondette's reliance on Southern Union Co. v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2344, 183 L.Ed.2d 318 (2012), is also misplaced, as that case does not address a sentencing court's ability to delegate fine payment schedules.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3,