Opinion ID: 703481
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inmate Financial Responsibility Program

Text: 5 As part of the sentence, the district court ordered O'Connor to pay $66,000.00, jointly and severally with codefendant Jeff Waldecker, at such times and in such amounts as directed by the probation officer. The probation office directed O'Connor to participate in the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), see 28 C.F.R. Sec. 545.11, and begin payment of the restitution. O'Connor advised the probation office by letter that he believed that the probation office lacked the authority to direct him to pay restitution. The probation office then asked the district court to order O'Connor to participate in the IFRP. On January 29, 1993, the district court issued such an order. O'Connor timely filed a motion to reconsider that order on February 8, 1993, see Fed.R.App.P. 4(c), and now appeals arguing that the order modified his sentence. 6 When a sentence includes an order for restitution, it is the district court that establishes a method of restitution and payment schedule that the probation office may administer and enforce. United States v. Mohammad, 53 F.3d 1426, 1438 (7th Cir.1995). Because the original sentencing order lacked the specificity required by Mohammad, the district court appropriately corrected the sentence by establishing a method of payment pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a). 7 AFFIRMED.