United States v. Fenton

D. Maine

United States v. Fenton

577 F. Supp. 2d 458, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80006, 2008 WL 4287284

CourtDistrict Court, D. Maine

DecidedSeptember 18, 2008

Docket1:02-cr-00057

StatusPublished

This text of 577 F. Supp. 2d 458 (United States v. Fenton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Fenton, 577 F. Supp. 2d 458, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80006, 2008 WL 4287284 (D. Me. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER ON MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF RESTITUTION

GEORGE Z. SINGAL, Chief Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Restitution (Docket # 117). Having reviewed all submissions in connection with the Motion, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion for Modification.

Having reviewed the Defendant’s written submissions and given the Defendant’s continuing incarceration, the Court does not find any material change in the Defendant’s economic circumstances that affects the Defendant’s ability to pay restitution. Thus, there is no basis for a modification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). To the extent that Defendant’s Motion can be read to argue that the Court’s April 3, 2003 Judgment (or the June 21, 2004 Amended Judgment) improperly delegated the schedule of restitution payments to the Bureau of Prisons, the Court believes that this argument is without merit and untimely. Finally, to the extent that Defendant’s Motion can be read to argue that the Bureau of Prisons is somehow not complying with the regulations that govern the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, such a challenge must be brought as a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district in which the defendant is incarcerated.

SO ORDERED.

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

ORDER ON MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF RESTITUTION

GEORGE Z. SINGAL, Chief Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Restitution (Docket # 117). Having reviewed all submissions in connection with the Motion, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion for Modification.

Having reviewed the Defendant’s written submissions and given the Defendant’s continuing incarceration, the Court does not find any material change in the Defendant’s economic circumstances that affects the Defendant’s ability to pay restitution. Thus, there is no basis for a modification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). To the extent that Defendant’s Motion can be read to argue that the Court’s April 3, 2003 Judgment (or the June 21, 2004 Amended Judgment) improperly delegated the schedule of restitution payments to the Bureau of Prisons, the Court believes that this argument is without merit and untimely. Finally, to the extent that Defendant’s Motion can be read to argue that the Bureau of Prisons is somehow not complying with the regulations that govern the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, such a challenge must be brought as a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district in which the defendant is incarcerated.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

577 F. Supp. 2d 458, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80006, 2008 WL 4287284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-fenton-med-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack