United States v. Watkins

161 F. App'x 337
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 19, 2006
Docket05-6921
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 161 F. App'x 337 (United States v. Watkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Watkins, 161 F. App'x 337 (4th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Dejuan Anderko Watkins appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion to Defer Fine Payments During Term of Supervised Release Instead of During Term of Imprisonment.” Watkins contends the district court impermissibly delegated its authority to establish the payment terms of any unpaid fines as a condition of supervised release in violation of United States v. Miller, 77 F.3d 71, 77-78 (4th Cir.1996) (holding that district court may not delegate its authority to set amount and timing of payments of restitution or fines to Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) or probation officer without retaining ultimate authority over such decisions). We affirm.

Although Watkins’ judgment refers any unpaid amount at the commencement of a term of supervised release to a payment schedule, no such schedule is delineated in the judgment. Instead, it appears that the BOP has drafted a schedule under the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”) for Watkins to follow. Participation in the IFRP does not violate Miller. See Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 712 (8th Cir.2002) (holding that BOP has discretion to place inmate in IFRP when sentencing court has ordered immediate payment of court-imposed fine) (citing McGhee v. Clark, 166 F.3d 884, 886 (7th Cir.1999), and Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548, 549-50 (9th Cir.1998)). But see United States v. McGlothlin, 249 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir.2001) (holding that district court improperly delegated payment schedule to BOP when it ordered restitution to be due immediately but intimated that BOP would collect restitution to maximum degree possible through its IFRP while defendant was incarcerated). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the *338 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

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

Related

Maillet v. United States
W.D. North Carolina, 2021
Summersett v. Baucknecht
496 F. Supp. 2d 636 (D. South Carolina, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 F. App'x 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-watkins-ca4-2006.