Mark Young, a federal prisoner, filed a motion with his sentencing judge asking that a schedule of restitution payments be set. Young complained that he was being forced to pay $50 a month from his prison earnings through the IRFP toward his restitution. Young argued that the BOP’s setting of a payment schedule was improper under Ninth Circuit precedent.
The court denied Young’s motion. The “BOP’s authority to administer the IFRP is independent of the sentencing court’s duty to schedule restitution payments,” the court held. See: United States v. Young, 533 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (D. Nev 2007).
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. Young
|Cite||533 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (D. Nev 2007)|