United States v. Kindell
2:01-cr-00449
D. Nev.May 23, 2017Background
- Defendant Robert C. Kindell pled guilty to four counts of bank robbery and was sentenced in 2002 to 240 months imprisonment, five years supervised release, and $28,053.79 restitution plus $400 assessment.
- A federal lien and continuing liability for the criminal monetary penalties were entered under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613 and 3664; interest has accrued and the outstanding balance is higher than the original restitution principal.
- While incarcerated Kindell voluntarily participated in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) and made approximately $327 in program payments.
- In 2017 Kindell moved in the sentencing court to suspend restitution payments so he could save BOP-earnings during his remaining incarceration; he did not exhaust BOP administrative remedies nor offer statutory authority supporting suspension.
- The Government opposed; the court treated the challenge as implicating BOP administration of the IFRP and restitution payment scheduling and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may suspend restitution payments because defendant voluntarily participates in IFRP and wants to save earnings | Government: restitution order remains enforceable; payments are governed by statute and BOP program; defendant must exhaust administrative remedies for IFRP disputes | Kindell: requests suspension of payments to allow saving wages earned through IFRP prior to release | Denied. Court lacks authority to suspend payments on this record; defendant failed to exhaust administrative remedies and offered no legal basis for suspension |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) permits adjusting payments because of increased earnings from IFRP | Government: § 3664(k) allows adjustment only for material change in economic circumstances and does not authorize reevaluation of restitution legality | Kindell: increased ability to earn through IFRP effectively justifies suspending payments to save funds | Denied. Voluntary earnings increase via IFRP is not a "material change" warranting suspension or downward adjustment under § 3664(k) |
| Whether challenges to BOP IFRP administration should be brought in sentencing court | Government: challenges to execution of sentence/IFRP must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in custodial district after exhausting administrative remedies | Kindell: filed motion in sentencing court seeking relief from payment obligations | Court: Motion construed as improper; habeas under § 2241 in custodial district is the proper vehicle and exhaustion is required |
| Whether the sentencing court may revisit the final restitution order absent a change in circumstances | Government: restitution is a final judgment; court’s power to alter is limited to changed economic circumstances | Kindell: asks for suspension despite no qualifying change besides voluntary participation | Court: No jurisdiction to revisit order on these grounds; suspension denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Geiger v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 487 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (describing IFRP purpose and BOP authority)
- Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 1998) (IFRP challenges via habeas and exhaustion principles)
- Ward v. Chaves, 678 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2012) (treating IFRP administration and restitution deductions under § 2241)
- Lemoine v. United States, 546 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) (habeas review of BOP IFRP deductions)
- Cani v. United States, 331 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2003) (defining "material change" in § 3664(k) context)
- United States v. Gross, 307 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (limitations on revisiting restitution orders)