Dunlap v. Wilson, 2:16-cv-00349

Petitioner Tracy Calvin Dunlap Jr., a federal inmate, filed a pro se § 2241 habeas petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ collection of funds from his inmate account to satisfy court-ordered restitution.
Respondent (Warden Eric D. Wilson) moved to dismiss; the matter was referred to a magistrate judge who issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal.
Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation; the District Court reviewed de novo the portions objected to.
The District Court found the oral pronouncement of sentence controls in the Fourth Circuit and that the oral sentence clearly imposed a financial obligation under 28 C.F.R. § 545.11.
The Court adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, denied and dismissed the § 2241 petition with prejudice, and entered judgment for Respondent.
The Court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BOP may collect inmate funds to satisfy restitution	Dunlap argued BOP should be stopped from collecting funds from his account to pay restitution	Warden argued BOP lawfully collects funds pursuant to the sentencing court’s financial obligation and governing regulations	Court held BOP collection was permissible because the oral sentence imposed a financial obligation and controls
Whether the Judgment and Commitment Order is ambiguous such that collection is improper	Dunlap implied ambiguity might invalidate collection	Respondent contended no ambiguity; oral pronouncement controls under Fourth Circuit precedent	Court found it unnecessary to find ambiguity; oral sentence is controlling and clear
Whether § 2241 relief is appropriate to challenge BOP collection	Dunlap sought habeas relief under § 2241 to stop collections	Respondent sought dismissal of § 2241 petition	Court denied § 2241 relief and dismissed petition with prejudice
Whether a certificate of appealability should issue	Dunlap likely sought appellate review	Respondent opposed COA	Court declined COA under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1) for failure to show a substantial constitutional claim

Rakes v. United States, 309 F.2d 686 (4th Cir. 1962) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls over written judgment)
United States v. Parris, [citation="639 F. App'x 923"] (4th Cir. 2016) (reaffirming that oral sentence controls)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)