United States of America v. Gary Wayne Rodrigues

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).
JC/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARY WAYNE RODRIGUES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-10490
D.C. No. 1:01-cr-00078-DAE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Gary Wayne Rodrigues appeals pro se from the district court’s order
granting the government’s motion to disburse funds. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JC/Research 08-10490 2
Rodrigues contends the district court erred by granting the government’s
motion to disburse funds because, in affirming his sentence after this court
remanded under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc),
the district court stated that any payment plan while in custody was an issue for the
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). The district court’s order on remand did not address
the parties’ stipulation regarding payment and, although the BOP has determined
that Rodrigues would pay $25.00 quarterly to satisfy his remaining obligations, the
BOP’s payment plan did not override the parties’ stipulated agreement or the
judgment’s requirement that he pay the fine and restitution immediately. See, e.g.,
United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that
district court is required to set restitution payment schedule and that inmate may
voluntarily make larger and more frequent payments than what was set by the
district court). Therefore, the district court did not err by granting the
government’s motion to disburse funds.
To the extent Rodrigues raises additional arguments for the first time in this
appeal, those are waived. See Ritchie v. United States, 451 F.3d 1019, 1026 n.12
(9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Schlesinger, 49 F.3d 483, 486 (9th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --