USCA1 Opinion
June 13, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1647
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
ARTHUR W. RUMNEY,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
[Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Arthur W. Rumney on brief pro se. ________________
Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, and Peter E. Papps, First ______________ ______________
Assistant U.S. Attorney, on Motion for Summary Disposition for
appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Appellant challenges the dismissal of __________
a motion which he styled as a challenge to the legality of
the fine portion of his mixed sentence. The motion was
properly dismissed. To the extent that appellant is
complaining about the Bureau of Prisons' authority to collect
the fine, its method of collection, or his ability to pay it
through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP),
28 C.F.R. 545.10-.11 (1989), appellant must first exhaust
administrative remedies before complaining to a court in the
appropriate district. See Johnpoll v. Thornburgh, 898 F.2d ___ ________ __________
849, 850-51 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 819 (1990); see ____________ ___
also 28 C.F.R. 542.10-.16, 541.19 (providing ____
administrative remedy for complaints relating to any aspect
of imprisonment).
To the extent that appellant challenges the fine on
the grounds that it violated the applicable sentencing
statute by failing to specify a payment date, the argument is
without merit. "A fine is due and payable immediately upon
imposition, unless the court specifies otherwise." United ______
States v. Michaud, 928 F.2d 13, 15-16 (1st Cir. 1991) (per ______ _______
curiam) (interpreting 18 U.S.C. 3565(b)(1)(A), as
applicable to offenses committed before November 1, 1987).
Appellant's contention that the fine portion of his sentence
is "noncommitted" is irrelevant. A "noncommitted" fine means
only that the sentencing court did not direct that the person
subject to the fine remain in prison until the fine is paid.
-3-
It does not affect the fine's due date nor its specificity.
Id. ___
Affirmed. ________
-4-