United States v. Honesty ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    ____________________________________
    )
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA            )
    )
    v.                            )                  Criminal No. 07-0155 (PLF)
    )
    KEVIN HONESTY,                      )
    )
    Defendant.                    )
    ____________________________________)
    MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
    This matter is before the Court on the pro se petition of defendant, Kevin
    Honesty, “to vacate order of restitution based upon a lack of sufficient basis to conclude that
    defendant is capable of paying the restitution immediately.” Pet. at 1, June 13, 2012 [Dkt.
    No. 41]. Notwithstanding the foregoing title of his petition, Mr. Honesty actually argues, as he
    has done before, that the Court improperly delegated its authority to determine his restitution
    obligations to the Bureau of Prisons. See id. at 1-4. The Court previously rejected the very same
    argument on procedural grounds. See United States v. Honesty, Criminal No. 07-0155, 
    2010 WL 348021
    , at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2010). Upon consideration of Mr. Honesty’s petition, the Court
    will deny it for the reasons set forth in United States v. Honesty.1
    1
    The papers reviewed in connection with the pending petition include:
    the defendant’s motion for clarification with memorandum in support [Dkt. No. 29]; the United
    States’ opposition to defendant’s pro se motion for clarification and memorandum in support
    thereof [Dkt. No. 36]; the defendant’s response to United States’ opposition with memorandum
    in support [Dkt. No. 39]; the defendant’s petition to vacate order of restitution based upon a lack
    of sufficient basis to conclude that defendant is capable of paying the restitution immediately
    (“Pet.”) [Dkt. No. 41].
    I. BACKGROUND
    As the Court previously has described, on September 11, 2007, Mr. Honesty pled
    guilty to one count of armed bank robbery and one count of possession of a firearm during a
    crime of violence. United States v. Honesty, 
    2010 WL 348021
    , at *1. On September 27, 2007,
    the Court sentenced Mr. Honesty to 105 months’ imprisonment on Count One and 60 months’
    imprisonment on Count Two, followed by a five year period of supervised release. 
    Id.
    Furthermore, the Court ordered Mr. Honesty to pay restitution in the amount of $11,956, 
    id.,
    and provided that
    [d]uring the defendant’s period of incarceration, he shall make
    payments through the U.S. Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate Financial
    Responsibility Program[ “IFRP”]. The balance of any amount not
    immediately paid, shall be paid during the term of supervised
    release at a rate of no less than $50.00 per month. Restitution
    payments shall be made to the Clerk of the Court for the U.S.
    District Court, District of Columbia, for disbursement to the
    victim[.]
    Judgment in a Criminal Case at 4, Sept. 27, 2007 [Dkt. No. 25].
    Mr. Honesty currently is incarcerated in Federal Medical Center Butner, part of
    the Butner Federal Correctional Complex, in Butner, N.C. See Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate
    Locator, http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp (last visited June 13, 2012). According to
    the Bureau of Prisons website, Mr. Honesty’s actual or projected release date is January 1, 2029.
    See 
    id.
    II. DISCUSSION
    Although Mr. Honesty requests as relief that the Court vacate its order of
    restitution, see Pet. at 1; see also id. at 4, the Court, upon consideration of the substance of the
    2
    petition, interprets it again as a request to change the method by which Mr. Honesty makes his
    restitution payments while incarcerated. See United States v. Honesty, 
    2010 WL 348021
    , at *2.2
    As the Court previously concluded, Mr. Honesty’s challenge to his enrollment in the IFRP by the
    Bureau of Prisons appropriately is a claim he should resolve with prison officials or bring as a
    petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district in which he is incarcerated under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1441
    . 
    Id.
     (citing Stern v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 
    601 F. Supp. 2d 303
    , 305 (D.D.C. 2009)
    (collecting cases holding that a prisoner’s challenge to enrollment in IFRP properly is brought
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    )); see also United States v. Rush, Criminal No. 10-0246, --- F. Supp. 2d.
    ----, 
    2012 WL 1185903
    , at *3 (D.D.C. Apr. 10, 2012). Inasmuch as the matter does not relate to
    the sentence imposed but rather the manner in which it is implemented by the Bureau of Prisons,
    this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Mr. Honesty’s habeas claim. United States v.
    Honesty, 
    2010 WL 348021
    , at *2 (citing Stern v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 
    601 F. Supp. 2d at 306
    ). Mr. Honesty therefore must pursue this claim in the district in which he is incarcerated.
    
    Id.
     (citing Stern v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 
    601 F. Supp. 2d at 306
    ).3
    2
    To the extent that Mr. Honesty does in fact request that the required restitution be
    modified or vacated, the Court rejects that request for the reasons previously stated in United
    States v. Honesty. See id. at *2.
    3
    Because the Court has rejected on procedural grounds Mr. Honesty’s argument
    regarding IFRP enrollment, the Court herein expresses no opinion on its substantive merit, which
    may raise a question that has split the circuits. See United States v. Lemoine, 
    546 F.3d 1042
    ,
    1048 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Baldwin, 
    563 F.3d 490
    , 492 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
    3
    Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
    ORDERED that the petition of defendant, Kevin Honesty, to vacate order of
    restitution based upon a lack of sufficient basis to conclude that defendant is capable of paying
    the restitution immediately [Dkt. No. 41] is DENIED.
    SO ORDERED.
    /s/
    PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
    DATE: June 15, 2012                                  United States District Judge
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Criminal No. 2007-0155

Judges: Judge Paul L. Friedman

Filed Date: 6/15/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014