Court Opinion

ID: 2964190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:53.126591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:51.603163
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 13, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1647

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  ARTHUR W. RUMNEY,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                   [Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                       __________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Arthur W. Rumney on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney,  and Peter E. Papps, First
            ______________                               ______________
        Assistant  U.S.  Attorney,  on  Motion  for  Summary  Disposition  for
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Appellant challenges  the dismissal of
                      __________

            a motion  which he styled  as a challenge to  the legality of

            the   fine portion  of his  mixed sentence.   The motion  was

            properly  dismissed.    To   the  extent  that  appellant  is

            complaining about the Bureau of Prisons' authority to collect

            the fine, its  method of collection, or his ability to pay it

            through the  Inmate Financial Responsibility  Program (IFRP),

            28 C.F.R.    545.10-.11  (1989), appellant must first exhaust

            administrative remedies before complaining  to a court in the

            appropriate district.   See Johnpoll v.  Thornburgh, 898 F.2d
                                    ___ ________     __________

            849, 850-51 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 819 (1990); see
                                   ____________                       ___

            also    28   C.F.R.         542.10-.16,   541.19   (providing
            ____

            administrative remedy for complaints  relating to any  aspect

            of imprisonment).

                      To the extent that appellant challenges the fine on

            the  grounds  that  it  violated  the  applicable  sentencing

            statute by failing to specify a payment date, the argument is

            without merit.  "A  fine is due and payable  immediately upon

            imposition,  unless the  court specifies otherwise."   United
                                                                   ______

            States  v. Michaud, 928 F.2d  13, 15-16 (1st  Cir. 1991) (per
            ______     _______

            curiam)  (interpreting   18   U.S.C.      3565(b)(1)(A),   as

            applicable to  offenses committed  before November  1, 1987).

            Appellant's contention that the  fine portion of his sentence

            is "noncommitted" is irrelevant.  A "noncommitted" fine means

            only that the sentencing court did not direct that the person

            subject to the fine remain in  prison until the fine is paid.

                                         -3-

            It does not affect  the fine's due date nor  its specificity.

            Id.  
            ___

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -4-