United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
Cogburn Jr., United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on the defendant's
pro se Motion for Discharge from Further Restitution
Payments. (Doc. No. 73). For the following reasons, the
motion is denied.
Court entered judgment against the defendant on January 17,
2013, for conspiracy to commit robbery and brandishing a
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence,
sentencing him to 235 months' imprisonment and imposing
an assessment of $200 and restitution of $14, 629.62. (Doc.
No. 55). The restitution liability is joint and several with
co-defendants Jasmine Massey, Cameron Hallman, and Shameron
Hallman. (Id.). To date, the defendant has paid his
$200 special assessment and $6, 852.66 toward his
restitution, all through the Inmate Financial Responsibility
Program (“IFRP”). The defendants together have
paid $7, 572.41 toward restitution, and the outstanding
balance is $7, 057.21. The Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) started deducting the defendant's
IFRP payments on or around June 10, 2013, at a rate of $25.00
quarterly. His most recent BOP payment of $226.46 was
deducted on May 9, 2019. The defendant filed the pending
letter motion on June 4, 2019, requesting that the Court
discharge him from any further court-ordered restitution
payments. (Doc. No. 73).
defendant contends that he has satisfied his restitution
obligation, but he has not. Contrary to the defendant's
statement that his judgment imposes restitution “to be
divided among the (3) other co-defendants, ” the
defendant's judgment states that restitution is joint and
several with Massey, Cameron Hallman, and Shameron Hallman.
(Doc. No. 55). Joint and several liability is permissible
under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act
(“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A et seq., which
provides that “where more than 1 defendant has
contributed to the loss of a victim, the court may make each
defendant liable for payment of the full amount of
restitution or may apportion liability among the defendants
to reflect the level of contribution to the victim's
loss.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h); see also United
States v. Dillard, 641 Fed.Appx. 252, 254 (4th Cir.
2016). The defendant argues that he has fulfilled his
obligation because he has paid his portion, “which
comes to $3, 660.37, ” or one-fourth of the restitution
imposed. Because liability is joint and several, however,
each defendant is liable for the full amount of restitution
until it is paid in full.
extent the defendant's motion can be construed as a
motion to modify or amend his criminal judgment to apportion
restitution liability, there are no grounds on which to do
so. The MVRA permits modification of final restitution orders
under four circumstances. An order of restitution may be
corrected within fourteen days after sentencing for
“arithmetical, technical, or other clear errors.”
Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a); § 3664(o)(1)(A). It may be
modified or corrected on appeal under § 3742. §
3664(o)(1)(A). It may be amended under section 3664(d)(5)
because losses were not ascertainable at the time of
sentencing. § 3664(o)(1)(C). The manner in which
restitution must be paid may be adjusted under §
3664(k). § 3664(o)(1)(D). None of these circumstances
are applicable here. The time for challenging the imposition
of joint and several liability has long since passed.
to the extent the defendant challenges his payment under the
IFRP or seeks removal from the IFRP, his motion is
procedurally improper. The BOP has the authority to place a
defendant in the IFRP when the criminal judgment orders
payment due immediately. See United States v.
Caudle, 261 Fed.Appx. 501, 503-04 (4th Cir. 2008).
Before seeking relief from any court regarding obligations
under the IFRP, a defendant must exhaust all administrative
remedies through the Bureau of Prisons. See United States
v. Boulware, No. 1-09-CR-55, 2016 WL 4418239, at *1
(W.D. N.C. Aug. 17, 2016) (citing McGhee v. Clark,
166 F.3d 884, 887 (7th Cir. 1999)). Once all administrative
remedies have been exhausted, a defendant may challenge such
payments only by filing the appropriate pleading in the
district court located in the district of confinement, not
the sentencing court. Id. In any case, the defendant
agreed in his plea agreement to participate in the IFRP and
to pay full restitution, regardless of the loss amount. (Doc.
reasons stated herein, this Court denies the defendant's
motion for discharge from further restitution payments.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the defendant's pro se
Motion for Discharge from Further Restitution Payments, (Doc.
No. 73), is DENIED.
 The Government asserts in its response
that Shameron Hallman is still in prison and made his last
payment through IFRP in March 2019, and that Massey and
Cameron Hallman have been released. The Government asserts in
its response that the Financial Litigation Unit has been
unable to locate assets or income belonging to Massey and