Case Name: William Scott SOURS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ricardo E. CHAVEZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-19
Citations: 466 F. App'x 637
Docket Number: No. 11-15797
Parties: William Scott SOURS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ricardo E. CHAVEZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 637–638

Head Matter:
William Scott SOURS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ricardo E. CHAVEZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-15797.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 19, 2012.
William Scott Sours, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
John Robert Lopez, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
William Scott Sours appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his motion for contempt. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sours contends the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion because the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") violated the district court's August 27, 2009, order to stop collecting restitution payments through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP).
We review the denial of a motion for contempt for abuse of discretion. Balia v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 464 (9th Cir.1989). The record shows that the BOP began collecting restitution payments again after Sours voluntarily entered into a contract and agreed to participate in the IFRP. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for contempt. See United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir.2008) ("[N]othing in the text of the statute or our prior decisions places any limits on the BOP's operation of an independent program, such as the IFRP, that encourages inmates voluntarily to make more generous restitution payments than mandated in their respective judgments.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.