USA v. POWELL

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	)
)
1:18-cr-00156-JMS-MG
FRANK D. P OWELL , 	) 	-01
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Defendant Frank Powell is currently in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
("BOP") and has filed a Motion to Modify Restitution, [Filing No. 383], which is ripe for the
Court's decision.
I.
BACKGROUND
On July 21, 2020, Mr. Powell was sentenced to 134 months' imprisonment for one count
of Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349; one count of
Attempted Bank Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(1) and (2); and one count of Aggravated
Identity Theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(1). [Filing No. 211 at 1.] He was ordered to pay
a $300 special assessment and $303,505.27 in restitution, with payments to begin immediately.
[Filing No. 211 at 6-8.]
The Government represents that Mr. Powell has paid $2,030.43 toward his restitution, so
still owes $301,474.84. [Filing No. 386 at 2.] It notes that Mr. Powell's last payment was $25.00
in January 2026 and that he only paid a total of $25.00 in 2025. [Filing No. 386 at 2.]
Case 1:18-cr-00156-JMS-MG Document 388 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
II.
DISCUSSION
In his Motion, Mr. Powell requests that his restitution payments be reduced to $25 every
three months because he "simply cannot afford" to make a $500 payment every three months, as
his current schedule requires. [Filing No. 383 at 1.] He states that he does not have a facility job
and has "very limited family support," and is concerned that failing to make his payments could
put him "at risk of being placed on refusal, which could negatively affect [his] programming and
progress." [Filing No. 383 at 1.] Mr. Powell notes that he has "been actively participating in self-
improvement programs and doing everything [he] can to get back on track." [Filing No. 383 at 1.]
The Government argues in its response that Mr. Powell is participating in the Inmate
Financial Responsibility Program ("IFRP"), that implementation of the IFRP is committed to the
BOP's discretion, and that the Court is not statutorily authorized to override that discretion. [Filing
No. 386 at 2-4.] 	It further contends that if Mr. Powell is seeking a change in his repayment
schedule, he has not shown that there has been a material change in his economic circumstances
and even if the Court modified his payment schedule, the Government could execute against Mr.
Powell's non-exempt assets and the BOP could still utilize the IFRP. [Filing No. 386 at 5-7.]
Mr. Powell reiterates his arguments in his reply. [Filing No. 387.]
Mr. Powell is not entitled to a Court order revising his restitution payment schedule. First,
as the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has acknowledged, it is the Attorney General – not the
courts – who has the responsibility of collecting unpaid fines and restitution imposed as part of a
criminal judgment, and that authority has lawfully been delegated to the BOP, which in turn created
the IFRP to facilitate collection. In re Buddhi, 658 F.3d 740, 742 (7th Cir. 2011). "Courts are not
authorized to override the [BOP]'s discretion about such matters, any more than a judge could
dictate particulars about a prisoner's meal schedule or recreation (all constitutional problems to the
Case 1:18-cr-00156-JMS-MG Document 388 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
side)." United States v. Sawyer, 521 F.3d 792, 794 (7th Cir. 2008). In other words, the Court has
no authority to direct the amount or frequency of an inmate's payments under the IFRP.
Second, while an inmate seeking to challenge the BOP's administration of the IFRP may
file a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, exhaustion of administrative
remedies is a perquisite for doing so. United States v. Davis, 612 F. App'x 856, 857 (7th Cir. 2015)
("[A prisoner] may challenge the payment schedule set by the BOP by raising it in a § 2241 petition
in the district of his confinement."); Ihmoud v. Jett, 272 F. App’x 525, 526 (7th Cir. 2008) ("The
IFRP is a means of executing an inmate's sentence, and thus complaints about the BOP's
administration of the program are cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241," and inmate was required
to exhaust administrative remedies before using § 2241 petition to challenge IFRP payments);
Richmond v. Scibana, 387 F.3d 602, 604 (7th Cir. 2004) (explaining that the exhaustion rule applies
to § 2241 petitions). 	Mr. Powell has not shown that he exhausted his administrative remedies
regarding his IFRP payments, so he cannot bring a § 2241 petition in any event.
Third, although it does not appear that Mr. Powell is requesting that the Court modify the
restitution award – rather, he requests that the Court modify his payment schedule – he has not
presented a statutory basis for a restitution modification or reduction in any event. 18 U.S.C. §
3664 sets forth several circumstances in which a court can modify a restitution award – for
example, if the defendant's economic circumstances materially change (18 U.S.C. § 3664(k)) or if
the restitution amount can be corrected, modified, or amended pursuant to various statutes (18
U.S.C. § 3664(o)). 	Mr. Powell has not presented argument or evidence that any of these
circumstances are present in this case. 	Even if Mr. Powell seeks modification of the restitution
amount, he has not presented a statutory basis for the Court to do so.
Case 1:18-cr-00156-JMS-MG Document 388 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
In sum, the Court does not have the authority to direct the amount or frequency of an
inmate's payments under the IFRP, Mr. Powell cannot pursue his Motion as a § 2241 Petition
because he has not shown that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, and Mr. Powell has
not presented a statutory basis to modify his restitution amount in any event. Accordingly, Mr.
Powell's Motion to Modify Restitution, [Filing No. 383], is DENIED.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Powell's Motion to Modify Restitution, [383], is DENIED.
Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record
Distribution via U.S. Mail to:
Frank D. Powell
#16358-028
USP Florence – High
U.S. Penitentiary
P.O. Box 7000
Florence, CO 81226
Date: 3/12/2026
Case 1:18-cr-00156-JMS-MG Document 388 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>