Brown v. Thomas, No. 3:2008cv00688 - Document 7 (D. Or. 2009)
Court Description: Opinion & Order: Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 is DENIED as MOOT. Petitioner's request for the appointment of counsel (contained in his petition) is DENIED. Signed on 1/7/09 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (gm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON SHELDON DEOLIS BROWN, CV. 08-688-MA Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. J.E. THOMAS, Warden, FCI Sheridan, Respondent. Sheldon Deolis Brown Federal Register No. 01174-039 FCI Sheridan P.O. Box 5000 Sheridan, Oregon 97378-5000 Petitioner, Pro 5e Karin J. Immergut United States Attorney Suzanne A. Bratis Assistant United States Attorney 1000 S.W. Third Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204-2902 Attorneys for Respondent MARSH, Judge Petitioner, an inmate at FCI Sheridan, corpus proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1 -- OPINION AND ORDER ยง brings this habeas 2241. For the reasons set forth below, petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (#1) is denied, and this proceeding is dismissed. DISCUSSION On or about January 16, 2007, petitioner was sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to a 57-month term of incarceration. The judgment entered by the court provides that petitioner shall pay restitution in the amount of $20,181. The judgment further provides that restitution "shall be due during the period of imprisonment, at the rate of not less than $25 per quarter, and pursuant to the Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program." Petitioner alleges that he "has just been notified by the respondent that increase restitution his the BOP payment intends and has to substantially threatened to place the petitioner into IFRP Refusal Status if he should refuse" to participate in the IFRP. Peti tioner contends that respondent's collection of restitution payments in excess of that provided by his judgment is unlawful under united States v. Gunning, 401 F.3d 1145 (9th cir. 2005). In response, respondent advises the court that "the BOP has limited petitioner's IFRP obligation to $25 per quarter." Based upon this representation, petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED AS MOOT. F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2 -- OPINION AND ORDER 2008) See also United States v. Lemoine, 546 (concluding that BOP may impose a resti tution payment specified in a schedule at a higher or faster rate than judgment if the inmate voluntarily agrees to a different restitution payment schedule under the IFRP). CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, habeas corpus (#1) petitioner's petition for writ of is DENIED as MOOT. Petitioner's request for the appointment of counsel (contained in his petition) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ~ day of January, 2009. /n~d-!lc~ Malcolm F. Marsh united States District Judge 3 -- OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
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.
