JONI KLYANA V. CRAIG APKER, No. 16-15334 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JONI KLYANA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15334 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01115-LJO v. MEMORANDUM* CRAIG APKER, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** 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. * 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). 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, contractoroperated 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
