USA v. Washington et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Criminal Case No. 22-cr-187-WJM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
1. 	SHAMBRICA WASHINGTON,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING “PETITION FOR DEFEREMENT [SIC] OF FRP”
Before the Court is Defendant Shambrica Washington’s “Petition for Deferement
[sic] of FRP” (“Petition”). (ECF No. 275.) The Government filed a response. (ECF No.
279.) For the reasons explained below, the Motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
In September 2024, a jury convicted Washington of three counts of wire fraud, 22
counts of money laundering, and four counts of false claims. (ECF No. 226.) In
addition to sentencing her to a term of imprisonment and supervised release, the Court
ordered Washington to pay a $3,100.00 special assessment and $542,924.45 in
restitution. (Id. at 7.) The Court’s judgment specified that the special assessment and
restitution obligations became “due immediately.” (Id. at 8.)
The Government relates, based on information gleaned from Washington’s
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Case Manager, that Washington elected to
participate in the BOP’s Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”) in December
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 283 filed 04/01/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

2
2024. (ECF No. 279 at 3.) The purpose of the IFRP is to “encourage[] each sentenced
inmate to meet his or her legitimate financial obligations,” including special assessments
and court-ordered restitution. 28 C.F.R. § 545.10; id. § 545.11(a). Participants are
required to make payments in accordance with a financial plan developed by the BOP,
in exchange for which they receive certain benefits. Id. § 545.11(b), (d).
Between December 2024 and July 2025, Washington paid $215.01 toward her
special assessment obligation. (ECF No. 279 at 3.) Initially, she paid $25.00 per month
toward her Court-ordered financial obligations, but in May 2025 she agreed to increase
her payment to $150.00 per month. (Id.; ECF No. 279-1.) After making partial
payments in June and July 2025, however, Washington decided to cease making her
monthly payments altogether. (ECF No. 279 at 4.)
Between roughly May and November 2025, Washington had received more than
$1,676.00 in her inmate trust account (“Trust Account”), of which she spent all but $0.66
by the end of the same timeframe. (Id.; ECF No. 279-1 at 3, 5.) Only $65.01 of those
funds were paid toward her special assessment obligation. (ECF No. 279 at 4; ECF No.
279-1 at 6.) The BOP has not collected any money from her since July 2025. (Id.)
II. ANALYSIS
In the Petition, Washington asks the Court to “deferr [sic] my FRP payments
while I am incarcerated until I return home.” (ECF No. 275 at 1.) She states that “do
[sic] to unforeseen circumstances, like my home ‘mysteriously’ catching on fire and a
reduction of my military benefits to 10%,” “[t]he only income I receive is $10 a month
which is hardly enough to cover a FRP payment.” (Id.) If her payments “cannot be
deferred since I only make $10 a month,” Washington asks in the alternative “that the
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 283 filed 04/01/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3
payment be 10% of whatever income I make in prison, not what I receive on my books,
because anything I receive outside of that is a sacrafice [sic] that my family makes . . . .”
(Id.) But Washington has not explained how the Court can grant her the relief she
seeks.
Critically, the “IFRP is a voluntary program in which inmates may choose to
participate.” Shaw v. Daniels, 2010 WL 4628905, at *2 (D. Colo. Nov. 8, 2010) (first
emphasis added); see also United States v. Boyd, 608 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 2010)
(“The IFRP can be an important part of a prisoner’s efforts toward rehabilitation, but
strictly speaking, participation in the program is voluntary.”). True,
[t]he choice is not a neutral one; an inmate who chooses not
to participate in the IFRP loses access to a wide array of
privileges and benefits that participating inmates enjoy. But
the mere fact that the BOP has sweetened [one] choice (or
soured the other) does not alter the fundamental fact that an
inmate may choose not to participate in the IFRP with regard
to restitution obligations that have not otherwise been
specifically scheduled by the sentencing court.
Shaw, 2010 WL 4628905, at *2; see also Davis v. Wiley, 260 F. App’x 66, 69 (10th Cir.
2008) (“the benefits that can be denied” for refusal to participate in the IFRP “are not
constitutionally guaranteed”).
Like the Government, the Court gathers that Washington “is asking the Court to
remove her financial obligations in the hope that she can enjoy the IFRP’s benefits
without the financial responsibility.” (ECF No. 279 at 4.) But Washington has not cited,
and the Court is unaware, of any authority permitting it to order the BOP to extend the
benefits accompanying IFRP participation to her while simultaneously excusing her from
adhering to her financial responsibility plan. To the contrary, “[c]ourts are not authorized
to override the Bureau’s discretion about such matters, any more than a judge could
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 283 filed 04/01/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

4
dictate particulars about a prisoner’s meal schedule or recreation (all constitutional
problems to the side).” United States v. Sawyer, 521 F.3d 792, 794 (7th Cir. 2008).
Lack of legal authority aside, it would also be exceedingly unfair, in the Court’s
view, to grant Washington’s Petition when there are assuredly numerous other people in
prison facing genuine financial hardship that nonetheless endeavor to comply with their
financial obligations under the IFRP. If Washington still wishes to participate in the
IFRP but the house fire and reduction in her military benefits she describes has
lessened the amount of money her family is able to contribute to her Trust Account, the
Court is confident that reduction in income will be taken into account when the BOP
calculates an appropriate monthly payment. See BOP, Program Statement P5380.08,
at § 8 (Aug. 15, 2005).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendant Shambrica Washington’s “Petition for
Deferement [sic] of FRP” (ECF No. 275) is DENIED.
Dated this 1st day of April, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
______________________
William J. Martínez
Senior United States District Judge
Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM Document 283 filed 04/01/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4