United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. Banning, United States District Judge
Allen Standiford is an inmate at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Manchester, Kentucky. Proceeding without a
lawyer, Standiford filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [R. 1]. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will deny
1997, Standiford pled guilty to multiple counts of bank
robbery in the Northern District of Indiana. The trial court
sentenced Standiford to 151 months in federal prison and
three years of supervised release. The court also ordered
Standiford to pay $13, 191.00 in restitution and said:
restitution shall be paid in equal monthly installments
during the period of incarceration through the Inmate
Financial Responsibility Program [IFRP]. The defendant shall
make equal monthly installments of $25.00, to commence
immediately upon his release from prison and to continue
during the term of supervised release until the total
restitution in the amount of $13, 191.00 is paid in full.
then served his prison term and, during that time, it appears
he was making restitution payments through the IFRP.
was eventually released from prison. However, he violated the
terms of his supervised release by committing another crime
and failing to report to the probation office, as required.
Therefore, in 2011, the trial court sentenced Standiford to
an additional 24 months in prison. Standiford served that
supervised release violation sentence and was released.
years later, Standiford committed another bank robbery.
Standiford pled guilty to that crime in the Western District
of Michigan, and the trial court sentenced him to 140 months
in prison and 3 years of supervised release. The court also
ordered Standiford to pay $2, 735.00 in restitution and
The restitution is to be paid in minimum quarterly
installments of $25.00 based on IFRP participation, or
minimum monthly installments of $20.00 based on UNICOR
earnings, during the period of incarceration, to commence 60
days after the date of this judgment.
began serving his new prison term, and it appears he has made
some restitution payments based on his UNICOR earnings.
Standiford objected to the withdrawals from his inmate
Standiford filed a request for an administrative remedy with
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and asked to be placed in
“temporary exempt status until I get clarification form
the courts.” [R. 1-1 at 1]. In response, the Warden
informed Standiford that, in addition to the $2, 735 in
restitution that he owed in the Western District of Michigan,
he still owed over $8, 000 in restitution from his 1997
criminal case in the Northern District of Indiana.
[Id. at 2]. The Warden then indicated that
Standiford was participating in the IFRP and suggested that
the amount withdrawn from his inmate account was consistent
with that program, as well as both the 1997 and 2015
restitution orders. [Id.]. Finally, the Warden told
Standiford that he did “not meet the criteria to be
placed on Temporary Exempt status.” [Id.].
Standiford appealed the Warden's decision within the BOP,
but his appeal was ultimately denied. [Id. at 4-7].
then filed a § 2241 petition with this Court. [R. 1].
Standiford, however, did not complete much of his § 2241
form. Instead, he simply attached his correspondence with the
BOP [R. 1-1 at 1-7], his underlying criminal judgments [R.
1-1 at 10-22], and a very short document containing a few
arguments that are difficult to follow [R. 1-1 at 8-9]. As
best as the Court can tell, Standiford objects to the fact
that he has to continue paying restitution from his 1997
case; indeed, he describes that case as “closed”
and says that he should be allowed “to fulfill my
obligation set forth” in the 2015 case. Id.
Standiford also suggests that, in fulfilling that obligation
from 2015, he should only be required to pay the minimum
amount-either $20.00 or $25.00 per month.
petition is unavailing. Standiford robbed multiple banks in
the 1990s, and he cites no legal authority that would allow
him to avoid paying restitution for those crimes simply
because he was convicted of yet another bank robbery in 2015
and ordered to pay restitution for that bank robbery.
Standiford also does not explain how the BOP is removing too
much money from his inmate account. If anything,
Standiford's submissions indicate that he is voluntarily
participating in the IFRP and that the BOP is withdrawing an
appropriate amount of funds, given that he has a UNICOR
position at the prison. Finally, to the extent that
Standiford is claiming that a federal district court may not
delegate the setting of restitution payments to the BOP
pursuant to the IFRP, the Sixth Circuit has specifically
rejected that argument. See Weinberger v. United
States, 268 F.3d 346, 361 (6th Cir. 2001) (concluding
that a district court may delegate the schedule of a
defendant's restitution payments while in prison to the
BOP through the IFRP); see also United States v.
Mosher, 493 F. App'x 672, 677 n. 4 (6th Cir. 2012)
(acknowledging this principle).
it is OR ...