Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-7607
JEREMY FONTANEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TERRY OBRIEN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:14-cv-00077-FPS-JSK)
Argued:
Decided:
December 2, 2015
under
28
U.S.C.
2241
seeking
release
from
the
The district
2241
and
dismissed
the
case.
We
disagree.
I.
A.
In 2004, Jeremy Fontanez pleaded guilty to his involvement
in a series of armed robberies and was sentenced to 420 months
in
prison
sentencing
$27,972.61.
in
the
court
Eastern
imposed
District
of
restitution
Pennsylvania.
in
the
amount
The
of
scheduled
ordered
payments
financial
from
their
inmate
obligations.
See
accounts
28
toward
C.F.R.
court-
545.1011.
Id.
334
(7th
Cir.
2010).
But
inmates
with
financial
eligible
for
many
privileges,
April
2013,
Fontanez
was
including
more
desirable
28 C.F.R. 545.11(d).
moved
to
the
United
States
he
make
IFRP
payments
violated
the
Mandatory
Victims
18 U.S.C. 3664(f)(2).
sentencing
court
had
failed
set
schedule
for
his
J.A. 26.
B.
In
June
2014,
proceeding
pro
se,
Fontanez
filed
an
28 U.S.C. 2255(e).
for
his
claim
because
4
he
was
challenging
the
J.A. 56.
payments
through
the
IFRP
because
the
sentencing
in
violation
of
the
MVRA.
He
to
enjoin
the
BOP
from
also
alluded
to
requiring
him
to
make
further
or,
in
Warden
filed
motion
judge,
governments
denied.
The
who
motion
issued
be
district
granted
court
to
dismiss
the
adopted
recommending
Fontanezs
the
that
petition
magistrate
the
be
judges
imposed,
not
as
executed,
and
so
could
not
J.A. 83.
bring
his
The court
challenge
Finally,
the
solely
court
the
restitution
determined
that
portion
even
of
if
sentence.
2255
were
complete
miscarriage
of
justice
or
proceeding
Accordingly,
the
court
dismissed
Fontanezs
habeas
of
corpus
corpus petition.
This timely appeal followed.
II.
A.
We
review
the
relief de novo.
district
courts
denial
habeas
For
that reason, the court found that his claim was not directly
cognizable under 2241.
clarified
is
on
appeal,
it
now
apparent
that
he
is
indeed
exceeded
its
Reply Br. at 8.
authority
and
usurped
core
judicial
powers.
Opening
Br.
at
910
(quoting
United
States
v.
In re Vial,
115 F.3d at 1194 n.5; see also United States v. Snow, 748 F.2d
928, 93334 (4th Cir. 1984); McGee v. Martinez, 627 F.3d 933,
937 (3d Cir. 2010); United States v. Diggs, 578 F.3d 318, 31920
(5th Cir. 2009); Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 712 (8th
Cir. 2002).
Moreover, other circuit courts have expressly held that an
inmates
challenge
to
the
BOPs
administration
of
the
IFRP
Matheny,
F.3d
at
712.
We
have
reached
the
same
now
hold
that
an
inmates
challenge
to
the
BOPs
sentence
that
is
cognizable
under
28
U.S.C.
2241.
We defer to
III.
We find that Fontanezs claim is cognizable under 28 U.S.C.
2241
because
he
challenges
the
execution
of
his
sentence.