Opinion
CRIMINAL NO. 1:05CR212-1.
April 9, 2007
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's motions for removal of enhancements and sentence reduction and to defer restitution payments. The motions are denied.
Defendant filed a similar motion in November 2006 asking the Court to modify her presentence report by removing the three point enhancement imposed pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) for the use of a firearm in furtherance of the bank robbery charged in the indictment. The Defendant seeks the same relief in this motion and it is denied for the same reasons as previously stated by the Court. See Order, filed November 27, 2006.
In regard to the Defendant's motion to defer restitution payments, the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to place a defendant in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program based on the wording contained in the criminal judgment. United States v. Watkins , 161 F. App'x 337 (4th Cir. 2006); Bramson v. Winn , 136 F. App'x 380 (1st Cir. 2005). Prior to seeking relief from any court concerning obligations under that program, the defendant is required to exhaust all administrative remedies through the Bureau of Prisons. McGhee v. Clark , 166 F.3d 884, 885-87 (7th Cir. 1999). There is no showing by the Defendant here that such remedies have been exhausted. Thereafter, she may challenge such payments but only by filing the appropriate pleading in the district court of confinement, not with the sentencing court. Matheny v. Morrison , 307 F.3d 709, 712 (8th Cir. 2002); Moore v. Olson , 368 F.3d 757, 759 (7th Cir. 2004). IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's motion for removal of enhancements and sentence reduction is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to defer restitution payments is DENIED.