Okeayainneh v. Martinez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-30647
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-30647 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED No. 24-30647 April 21, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Julian Okeayainneh,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Felipe Martinez, Jr., Warden,

Respondent—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:23-CV-854 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Julian Okeayainneh, federal prisoner # 20515-112, appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the restitution payment schedule established by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) pursuant to the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). As he did in the district court, Okeayainneh claims that the sentencing court has vacated the restitution

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-30647 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2025

No. 24-30647

judgment entered against him. Relatedly, Okeayainneh argues that another circuit court of appeals recently decided a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in his favor on the merits and, thus, the mandate rule prevented the district court from ruling against him on his § 2241 petition in this case. Finally, Okeayainneh has filed a motion for leave to file a “joint appendix” to his brief, which is GRANTED. In an amended judgment, the sentencing court imposed restitution in the amount of $4,368,192.01 and ordered Okeayainneh to participate in the IFRP. His arguments on appeal depend on the mistaken premises that (1) his restitution order has been vacated and (2) any proceedings in another circuit court of appeals affect these proceedings pursuant to the mandate rule, see United States v. Pineiro, 470 F.3d 200, 205 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, he has not shown that the district court erred by denying his § 2241 petition or his motion to stay the payment schedule. See Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). AFFIRMED.