Tong Moua v. B. Trate ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TONG MOUA, No. 23-15160
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00948-JLT-SKO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
B. M. TRATE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Tong Moua appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review 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).
Moua contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) improperly set a higher
payment schedule for his participation in the Inmate Financial Responsibility
Program (“IFRP”) than what the district court ordered in his criminal judgment,
thereby contradicting “the spirit” of this court’s caselaw and the Mandatory
Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”). The district court did not err in dismissing
Moua’s habeas petition. Where, as here, the sentencing court has properly set a
restitution payment schedule, neither this court’s caselaw nor the MVRA “places
any limits on the BOP’s operation of an independent program, such as the IFRP,
that encourages inmates voluntarily to make more generous restitution payments
than mandated in their respective judgments.” Lemoine, 546 F.3d at 1048. The
authority Moua cites does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Ward v. Chavez,
678 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing Lemoine).
AFFIRMED.
2 23-15160