MICHAEL VONDETTE V. JACK FOX, No. 14-55531 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 01 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL JOHN VONDETTE, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 14-55531 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-07351-DSF v. MEMORANDUM* JACK FOX, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Michael John Vondette appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). section 2241 habeas petition, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. Vondette contends that the sentencing court was prohibited from delegating to the Bureau of Prisons the task of establishing the time and manner in which he was required to pay his court-imposed fines. Vondette’s argument is foreclosed by Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). The cases upon which Vondette relies, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2) of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act prohibits the delegation of restitution payment schedules, are inapposite. See United States v. Gunning, 401 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing Montano-Figueroa’s analysis of fine payments under 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d) from restitution payments under § 3664(f)(2)). Vondette’s reliance on Southern Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (2012), is also misplaced, as that case does not address a sentencing court’s ability to delegate fine payment schedules. AFFIRMED. 2 14-55531
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.
