History
  • No items yet
midpage
Joni Klyana v. Craig Apker
682 F. App'x 548
| 9th Cir. | 2017
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket

*1 Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Joni Klyana appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

*2 Klyana contends that the sentencing court improperly delegated its authority to schedule his restitution payments. This claim is belied by the record, which reflects that the sentencing court properly assessed Klyana’s ability to pay and ordered that he make payments of not less than $25 per quarter during his term of imprisonment as part of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”). See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2); Lemoine , 546 F.3d at 1046 (upholding identical restitution order). We reject Klyana’s contention that he is exempted from the regulations of the IFRP because he is housed at a government-owned, contractor- operated facility. See Lemoine , 546 F.3d at 1046 n.2 (federal inmate remains in federal custody, and thus subject to the Bureau of Prisons’ authority through the IFRP, even where he is housed at an “independently operated” facility).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-15334

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Case Details

Case Name: Joni Klyana v. Craig Apker
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date Published: Mar 14, 2017
Citation: 682 F. App'x 548
Docket Number: 16-15334
Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.