Jeremy Fontanez v. Terry O'Brien
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20879
4th Cir.2015Background
- Jeremy Fontanez pleaded guilty in 2004 to armed robberies and was sentenced to prison with $27,972.61 in restitution; the sentencing order directed restitution “from any wages he may earn in prison in accordance with the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP).”
- The IFRP is a BOP-administered, voluntary program that schedules inmate payments from prison wages; nonparticipants may lose certain privileges.
- At USP Hazelton Fontanez signed an IFRP plan (paying $25 per quarter) but later requested release from the IFRP, arguing the sentencing court failed to set a restitution schedule as required by the MVRA and had unlawfully delegated that scheduling to the BOP.
- The Warden denied the request, noting the sentencing order referenced the IFRP and stating the BOP could not overrule the sentencing court.
- Fontanez filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking relief from the BOP’s enforcement of IFRP participation; the district court dismissed, treating the claim as a challenge to the sentence itself and rejecting § 2241 cognizability.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding challenges to BOP administration of the IFRP are attacks on sentence execution cognizable under § 2241, and remanded for further proceedings on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a challenge to BOP enforcement of IFRP participation attacks the execution of the sentence and is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 | Fontanez: BOP exceeded authority by effectively setting restitution schedule via IFRP; this is an execution issue and § 2241 is proper | Warden: The restitution direction in the sentencing order references the IFRP; claim challenges the sentence as imposed and is not cognizable under § 2241 | The Fourth Circuit held IFRP-administration challenges are attacks on execution and cognizable under § 2241; reversed and remanded |
| Whether § 2255’s savings clause allows § 2241 relief (district court analysis) | Fontanez argued § 2255 is inadequate to challenge BOP’s execution of restitution | Warden argued § 2255 and sentencing-court remedies control; § 2241 is improper | Court did not decide the savings-clause issue on appeal because it resolved cognizability under § 2241; remanded for merits |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boyd, 608 F.3d 331 (7th Cir.) (IFRP is voluntary)
- In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192 (4th Cir. 1997) (distinguishes challenges to execution (§ 2241) from collateral attack on sentence (§ 2255))
- McGee v. Martinez, 627 F.3d 933 (3d Cir.) (challenge to IFRP administration is cognizable under § 2241)
- United States v. Diggs, 578 F.3d 318 (5th Cir.) (same)
- Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709 (8th Cir.) (same)
- United States v. Snow, 748 F.2d 928 (4th Cir.) (execution-of-sentence challenges belong in § 2241)
- United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780 (U.S.) (limits collateral attack where direct remedy exists)
- United States v. Miller, 77 F.3d 71 (4th Cir.) (discusses separation-of-powers and judicial functions in sentencing)