×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
District Court Did Not Impermissibly Delegate the Setting of Fine Payments to the BOP
A district court’s failure to set a fine repayment schedule does not impermissibly delegate the task to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held May 12, 2008.
Michael Hatten-Lubick was convicted of various drug offenses and sentenced to ten years in prison. He was also ordered to pay a fine of $5,000. Hatten-Lubick’s sentencing judge did not set a repayment schedule for the fine during Hatten-Lubick’s incarceration. Hatten-Lubick appealed.
On appeal, Hatten-Lubick agrued that the district court’s failure to set a payment schedule for his fine while incarcerated impermissibly delegated the task to BOP. The court disagreed. “[L]eaving payment during imprisonment to the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program is not an error at all,” the court held. See: United States v. Hatten-Lubick, 525 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2008).
Michael Hatten-Lubick was convicted of various drug offenses and sentenced to ten years in prison. He was also ordered to pay a fine of $5,000. Hatten-Lubick’s sentencing judge did not set a repayment schedule for the fine during Hatten-Lubick’s incarceration. Hatten-Lubick appealed.
On appeal, Hatten-Lubick agrued that the district court’s failure to set a payment schedule for his fine while incarcerated impermissibly delegated the task to BOP. The court disagreed. “[L]eaving payment during imprisonment to the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program is not an error at all,” the court held. See: United States v. Hatten-Lubick, 525 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2008).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
United States v. Hatten-Lubick
| Year | 2008 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 525 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2008) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |