United States v. Rumney ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

          June 13, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1647



                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                  ARTHUR W. RUMNEY,



                                Defendant, Appellant.





                                 ____________________



                   [Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Arthur W. Rumney on brief pro se.
________________

            Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney,  and Peter E. Papps, First
______________                               ______________

        Assistant  U.S.  Attorney,  on  Motion  for  Summary  Disposition  for

        appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________









                      Per Curiam.  Appellant challenges  the dismissal of
__________



























            a motion  which he styled  as a challenge to  the legality of



            the   fine portion  of his  mixed sentence.   The motion  was



            properly  dismissed.    To   the  extent  that  appellant  is



            complaining about the Bureau of Prisons' authority to collect



            the fine, its  method of collection, or his ability to pay it



            through the  Inmate Financial Responsibility  Program (IFRP),



            28 C.F.R.    545.10-.11  (1989), appellant must first exhaust



            administrative remedies before complaining  to a court in the



            appropriate district.   See Johnpoll v.  Thornburgh, 898 F.2d
___ ________     __________



            849, 850-51 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 819 (1990); see
____________                       ___



            also    28   C.F.R.         542.10-.16,   541.19   (providing
____



            administrative remedy for complaints  relating to any  aspect



            of imprisonment).



                      To the extent that appellant challenges the fine on



            the  grounds  that  it  violated  the  applicable  sentencing



            statute by failing to specify a payment date, the argument is



            without merit.  "A  fine is due and payable  immediately upon



            imposition,  unless the  court specifies otherwise."   United
______



            States  v. Michaud, 928 F.2d  13, 15-16 (1st  Cir. 1991) (per
______     _______



            curiam)  (interpreting   18   U.S.C.      3565(b)(1)(A),   as



            applicable to  offenses committed  before November  1, 1987).



            Appellant's contention that the  fine portion of his sentence



            is "noncommitted" is irrelevant.  A "noncommitted" fine means



            only that the sentencing court did not direct that the person



            subject to the fine remain in  prison until the fine is paid.







                                         -3-



























            It does not affect  the fine's due date nor  its specificity.



            Id.
___



                      Affirmed.
________































































































                                         -4-