Wendel Wardell, Jr. v. Archie Longley
532 F. App'x 580
5th Cir.2013Background
- Wendel R. Wardell, Jr. was convicted in two separate federal jury trials (2005): tax-related offenses and, later, conspiracy/retaliation against a witness; he received lengthy prison sentences and restitution orders.
- District court restitution orders required "immediate" payment of restitution and set amounts but did not establish a specific payment schedule.
- The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) enrolled Wardell in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) and deducted 50% of his monthly prison wages toward restitution.
- Wardell filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the BOP’s forced IFRP deductions, arguing only the sentencing court could set a restitution payment schedule and that authority could not be delegated to the BOP.
- The district court denied habeas relief; Wardell appealed, raising the same delegation and payment-schedule arguments and, for the first time on appeal, argued the sentencing court erred by not considering his ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a BOP IFRP payment schedule can be challenged via § 2241 | Wardell: § 2241 is appropriate to challenge BOP administrative placement and deductions | Government: BOP placement under IFRP is an administrative action; challenge fits § 2241 or is meritless | Court: § 2241 was appropriate; review proceeds under habeas standards |
| Whether BOP violated district court restitution orders by placing inmate in IFRP | Wardell: Only district court may set payment schedule; BOP placement contradicts district court control | Government: District court ordered "immediate" payment; that authorizes BOP to facilitate collection via IFRP | Court: BOP did not violate the orders; "immediate" payment authorizes IFRP deductions |
| Whether the restitution orders unconstitutionally delegated judicial power to BOP | Wardell: District court’s orders impermissibly delegated scheduling authority to BOP | Government: Orders set amounts and required immediate payment; administrative implementation is permissible | Court: No unconstitutional delegation; orders valid and BOP action consistent with them |
| Whether petitioner can raise failure to consider ability to pay for the first time on appeal | Wardell: Sentencing court erred by not considering ability to pay | Government: Claim forfeited/not raised below | Court: Court will not consider the new claim on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Diggs, 578 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2009) (§ 2241 proper vehicle for challenging BOP IFRP placement)
- Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 2001) (standard of review: factual findings for clear error, law de novo)
- Hickman v. Keffer, [citation="498 F. App'x 375"] (5th Cir. 2012) ("immediate" restitution orders permit BOP IFRP placement to facilitate collection)
- Kaemmerling v. Berkebile, [citation="359 F. App'x 545"] (5th Cir. 2009) (restitution orders requiring immediate payment do not constitute unconstitutional delegation)
- Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953 (5th Cir. 2000) (habeas relief requires showing deprivation of federal or constitutional right)
- Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2011) (courts may decline to consider issues first raised on appeal)
AFFIRMED.