Robert M. Levine v. S. A. HOLENCIK, Warden

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT M. LEVINE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
S. A. HOLENCIK, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-55370
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00262-CAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Robert M. Levine appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and
2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JUL 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-55370 2
Levine contends the district court abused its discretion by disregarding
Seventh Circuit law instructing that only the sentencing court can set the timing
and schedule of restitution payments during an inmate’s incarceration. This
contention is unpersuasive. See Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548,
549-50 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[W]e have previously upheld sentencing
courts’ decisions to delegate the timing and manner of payments of court-ordered
restitution.”); see also Int’l Chem. Workers Union Council v. NLRB, 467 F.3d 742,
748 n.3 (9th Cir. 2006) (out-of-circuit cases are not binding on this court).
Levine further contends that he was deprived of due process because he was
compelled to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”).
This contention is unavailing. See United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1046
(9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting petitioner’s argument that his participation in the IFRP
was involuntary).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --