FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL JOHN VONDETTE, No. 14-55531
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-07351-DSF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JACK FOX,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Michael John Vondette appeals pro se from the district
court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
section 2241 habeas petition, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir.
2008), and we affirm.
Vondette contends that the sentencing court was prohibited from delegating
to the Bureau of Prisons the task of establishing the time and manner in which he
was required to pay his court-imposed fines. Vondette’s argument is foreclosed by
Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). The
cases upon which Vondette relies, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2) of the
Mandatory Victims Restitution Act prohibits the delegation of restitution payment
schedules, are inapposite. See United States v. Gunning, 401 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th
Cir. 2005) (distinguishing Montano-Figueroa’s analysis of fine payments under 18
U.S.C. § 3572(d) from restitution payments under § 3664(f)(2)). Vondette’s
reliance on Southern Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (2012), is also
misplaced, as that case does not address a sentencing court’s ability to delegate fine
payment schedules.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-55531