UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6921
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DEJUAN ANDERKO WATKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-02-106)
Submitted: December 28, 2005 Decided: January 19, 2006
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dejuan Anderko Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dejuan Anderko Watkins appeals the district court’s order
denying his “Motion to Defer Fine Payments During Term of
Supervised Release Instead of During Term of Imprisonment.”
Watkins contends the district court impermissibly delegated its
authority to establish the payment terms of any unpaid fines as a
condition of supervised release in violation of United States v.
Miller, 77 F.3d 71, 77-78 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding that district
court may not delegate its authority to set amount and timing of
payments of restitution or fines to Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) or
probation officer without retaining ultimate authority over such
decisions). We affirm.
Although Watkins’ judgment refers any unpaid amount at
the commencement of a term of supervised release to a payment
schedule, no such schedule is delineated in the judgment. Instead,
it appears that the BOP has drafted a schedule under the Inmate
Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”) for Watkins to follow.
Participation in the IFRP does not violate Miller. See Matheny v.
Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 712 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding that BOP has
discretion to place inmate in IFRP when sentencing court has
ordered immediate payment of court-imposed fine) (citing McGhee v.
Clark, 166 F.3d 884, 886 (7th Cir. 1999), and Montano-Figueroa v.
Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548, 549-50 (9th Cir. 1998)). But see United
States v. McGlothlin, 249 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding
- 2 -
that district court improperly delegated payment schedule to BOP
when it ordered restitution to be due immediately but intimated
that BOP would collect restitution to maximum degree possible
through its IFRP while defendant was incarcerated). Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -