Court Opinion

ID: 9352840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 01:00:21.309935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:57.542000
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40557      Document: 00516603274           Page: 1   Date Filed: 01/09/2023

            United States Court of Appeals
                 for the Fifth Circuit                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                             FILED
                                    No. 22-40557                       January 9, 2023
                                  Summary Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________                               Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                              Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

   John Steven Stark,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:12-CR-11-1
                   ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:

          John Stark appeals the denial of adjustment of a restitution order. He
   contends that the $1,400 stimulus payment he received in 2021 under the
   American Rescue Plan Act was exempt from levy to satisfy the restitution
   judgment, that the payments violated the Takings Clause of the United
   States Constitution, and that failing to pay would jeopardize his participation
   in rehabilitative programs and placement in a halfway house. The govern-
   ment has filed an opposed motion for summary affirmance or, in the alterna-
   tive, for an extension of time to file a merits brief.
Case: 22-40557      Document: 00516603274           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                     No. 22-40557

          A district court can adjust a restitution payment schedule where there
   has been “any material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances
   that might affect the defendant’s ability to pay restitution.” 18 U.S.C.
   § 3664(k). If a defendant “receives substantial resources from any source”
   while still imprisoned, he is required to apply the value received to any resti-
   tution. § 3664(n). All non-exempt assets may be pursued for restitution,
   including those in a Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) inmate trust account.
   18 U.S.C. § 3613(a).
          Stark maintains that the stimulus payment was exempt from levy and
   could not be used to satisfy restitution. Section 3613(a) refers to a certain
   portion of the Internal Revenue Code that sets out property that is exempt
   from levy. See 26 U.S.C. § 6334(a)(1)–(8), (10), (12). A stimulus payment
   does not qualify for any of those exemptions.
          Moreover, Stark does not identify any statutory exemption that he
   claims to be applicable. Because the stimulus payment constituted “substan-
   tial resources from any source . . . during a period of incarceration,”
   § 3664(n), Stark was required to apply the entire $1,400, not merely half, to
   restitution, see United States v. Hughes, 914 F.3d 947, 951 (5th Cir. 2019).
          Contrary to Stark’s suggestion, paying court-ordered restitution from
   non-exempt funds would not constitute a taking without compensation under
   the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments. See, e.g., United States Fid. & Guar.
   Co. v. McKeithen, 226 F.3d 412, 416 (5th Cir. 2000) (discussing the types of
   takings claims). And although Stark is correct that failing to pay could jeopar-
   dize his participation in rehabilitative programs and placement in a halfway
   house, see United States v. Diehl, 848 F.3d 629, 633 (5th Cir. 2017), imposition
   of those conditions “does not violate an inmate’s liberty interests under the
   Due Process Clause,” Driggers v. Cruz, 740 F.3d 333, 338–39 (5th Cir. 2014).
          Finally, to the extent that Stark’s briefing can be read as a challenge to

                                          2
Case: 22-40557      Document: 00516603274          Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                    No. 22-40557

   the payment plan created by the BOP under the Inmate Financial Respon-
   sibility Program (“IFRP”), he cannot do so. Modification of the IFRP plan
   requires the prisoner to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, after exhausting
   all administrative remedies, in the district of his incarceration. United States
   v. Diggs, 578 F.3d 318, 319–20 (5th Cir. 2009). Stark did not file a § 2241
   petition; he is incarcerated in the District of Arizona; and he does not state
   that he exhausted administrative remedies.
          The judgment is AFFIRMED. The government’s motion for sum-
   mary affirmance and alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief
   are DENIED as moot.

                                          3