United States v. Bruce Dunbar

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Bruce Dunbar

356 F. App'x 971

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 2009

Docket08-30406

StatusUnpublished

This text of 356 F. App'x 971 (United States v. Bruce Dunbar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bruce Dunbar, 356 F. App'x 971 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Bruce E. Dunbar appeals pi*o se from the district court’s order denying his “motion for clarification of judgment.” We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Dunbar contends that the district court improperly delegated its authority to schedule restitution payments to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) by failing to specify the precise amount of money the BOP was authorized to collect per month as part of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, thereby allowing BOP to dictate the amount of restitution inmates are required to pay. This argument is foreclosed. See United, States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir.2008).

Dunbar also contends that the government acted vindictively by opposing his motion for clarification of judgment. This argument lacks merit. See United States v. Lopez, 474 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir.2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI