United States v. REEVES
1:05-cr-00047
D. Me.Feb 4, 2015Background
- Defendant Joseph Scott Reeves pleaded guilty (2005) to: felon in possession of a firearm, Hobbs Act robbery, and use of a firearm during a violent federal crime; sentenced in 2006 to concurrent and consecutive terms and ordered to pay $1,633 restitution, $300 special assessment, and $1,000 fine.
- Restitution allocated $1,413 to Dean/Darlene Cray and insurer, and $220 (joint and several) to Francis and Heidi Carlow.
- In December 2014 Reeves wrote the sentencing court asking that restitution payments be postponed until release, complaining the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was requiring IFRP payments (reported as $100/month) and placing restrictions on him for refusing to participate.
- The Government opposed, arguing Reeves failed to show a material change in financial circumstances and that challenges to BOP IFRP procedures must be exhausted administratively and pursued via habeas in the district of incarceration.
- BOP evidence showed Reeves had participated in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), had paid some restitution and assessments, had received family deposits into his inmate account, refused IFRP participation on November 12, 2014, and had not obtained a work assignment at the facility.
- Reeves argued the court unlawfully delegated payment scheduling to the BOP and that the BOP lacks authority to act as a collection agency; he also claimed inability to pay and that IFRP demands were excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court improperly delegated payment-schedule authority to BOP | Government: court ordered restitution due immediately; no improper delegation | Reeves: BOP/IFRP is setting monthly payment requirement; only judge may set schedule | Court: no improper delegation where judgment made restitution "due immediately"; BOP may collect via IFRP |
| Whether BOP may administer collection through IFRP | Government: BOP may administer collection when court orders immediate payment | Reeves: BOP lacks authority to act as collection agency; payment schedule not set by court | Court: BOP may administer collection through IFRP; defendant incorrect |
| Whether Reeves may challenge IFRP actions in this sentencing court | Government: IFRP challenge requires exhaustion and §2241 habeas in district of incarceration | Reeves: sought relief from sentencing court to postpone payments | Court: Reeves must exhaust BOP administrative remedies and, if needed, file §2241 in district of incarceration; sentencing court not proper forum for IFRP challenge |
| Whether restitution payment schedule should be revised for changed circumstances | Reeves: inability to pay while incarcerated justifies postponement | Government: Reeves failed to show material change in economic circumstances | Court: Denied — Reeves did not demonstrate a material change under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Merric, 166 F.3d 406 (1st Cir.) (sentencing court, not probation officer, sets payment schedule)
- United States v. Kassar, 47 F.3d 562 (2d Cir.) (court cannot delegate setting payment schedule)
- Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709 (8th Cir.) (BOP may collect court-ordered payments via IFRP)
- McGhee v. Clark, 166 F.3d 884 (7th Cir.) (BOP authority to collect restitution through IFRP)
- Bramson v. Winn, [citation="136 Fed. App'x 380"] (1st Cir.) (where restitution is ordered due immediately, collection via IFRP does not amount to unlawful delegation)