USA v. CHANEY

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED S TATES OF A MERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	)
)
1:97-cr-00068-JMS-TAB
C ARLTON LAMONT C HANEY , 	) 	-01
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Defendant Carlton Lamont Chaney is currently incarcerated and has filed a Clerical Error
Motion Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 36 [Filing No. 85], which is ripe
for the Court's decision.
I.
B ACKGROUND
On March 11, 1998, Mr. Chaney was sentenced to 430 months' imprisonment for armed
bank robbery, carrying a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, and taking of a
motor vehicle by force and intimidation. [Filing No. 85-2 at 5-11.] He was also ordered to pay a
$500 special assessment and $40,299.76 in restitution, which was due "in full immediately."
[Filing No. 85-2 at 8-9.]
On July 11, 2002, while Mr. Chaney was serving his 430-month sentence, the Court issued
an Order vacating a two-level sentencing adjustment for "reckless endangerment during flight."
[Filing No. 85-2 at 17; Filing No. 85-2 at 22.] The Court noted: "This correction does not alter the
defendant's sentence under count 1 of the indictment or otherwise, but is issued to inform the
defendant and proper authorities of the court's action." [Filing No. 85-2 at 22.]
Case 1:97-cr-00068-JMS-TAB Document 91 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
The Government represents that Mr. Chaney has paid $4,792.70 toward his restitution
obligation to date, and still owes $36,462.06. 	[Filing No. 90 at 2.] 	Mr. Chaney now seeks the
correction of a "clerical error" in his judgment related to the restitution amount. [Filing No. 85.]
II.
DISCUSSION
In his Motion, Mr. Chaney notes that the Court vacated the sentencing enhancement in
2002 and states that he has been paying $100 per month in restitution "under duress" through the
Inmate Financial Responsibility Program ("IFRP"). 	[Filing No. 85 at 2.] 	He argues that the
"omission of warranted restitution modification in [the] written judgment is…a clerical error
cognizable pursuant to Rule 36." 	[Filing No. 85 at 3-4.] 	He argues further that vacating the
sentencing enhancement also affected the amount of restitution and that the "amount of restitution
under count-1 is incorrect." [Filing No. 85 at 5.]
The Government argues in its response that the Court's July 11, 2002 Order did not modify
Mr. Chaney's restitution. 	[Filing No. 90 at 2.] 	It asserts that there is no statutory basis for a
modification of restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) (for a material change in Mr. Chaney's
economic circumstances), under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(m)(1)(A) (which provides several avenues the
Government may use for collecting restitution), or under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(o) (which allows for
amendments, changes in the determination of a victim's losses, or adjustments to the restitution
amount). 	[Filing No. 90 at 2-5.] 	The Government further argues that the Bureau of Prisons
("BOP") has authority and discretion over the IFRP, which courts may not override. [Filing No.
90 at 5-8.] 	Finally, it contends that Mr. Chaney has not shown that he has exhausted his
administrative remedies regarding his IFRP payment plan, which he must do before filing a petition
with the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Filing No. 90 at 8.]
Mr. Chaney did not file a reply.
Case 1:97-cr-00068-JMS-TAB Document 91 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Mr. Chaney is not entitled to a revision or correction of his restitution amount. First, to the
extent that he complains regarding his payments under the IFRP, 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 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. Chaney has not shown that he exhausted his administrative remedies
regarding his IFRP payments, so he cannot bring a § 2241 petition in any event.
Third, Mr. Chaney has not presented a statutory basis for a restitution modification or
reduction. 	18 U.S.C. § 3664 sets forth several circumstances in which a court can modify a
Case 1:97-cr-00068-JMS-TAB Document 91 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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. Chaney has not presented argument or evidence that
any of these circumstances are present in his case. While he appears to argue that the Court's July
11, 2002 Order modified the restitution amount, that is not the case. 	The July 11, 2002 Order
vacated a two-level sentencing adjustment, but the Court specifically noted that "[t]his correction
does not alter the defendant's sentence under count 1 of the indictment or otherwise, but is issued
to inform the defendant and proper authorities of the court's action." [Filing No. 85-2 at 22.] There
is no statutory basis to modify Mr. Chaney's restitution amount.
Finally, Mr. Chaney's Motion is untimely. 	The Judgment which set forth the restitution
amount is a final judgment, 18 U.S.C. § 3664(o), and Mr. Chaney's avenue to seek modification
was through a direct appeal. Such an appeal must be filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment
or the order being appealed, or the Government's notice of appeal, whichever is later. Fed. R. App.
P. 4(b)(1). While Mr. Chaney appealed his sentence in a timely fashion, he did not raise any issue
with the restitution amount. 	See United States v. Chaney, 1998 WL 789891 (7th Cir. Oct. 23,
1998). And, in any event, he did not file the pending Motion until October 21, 2025 – over 27
years after the entry of Judgment and over 23 years after the July 11, 2002 Order that he claims
modified his restitution amount. Mr. Chaney's Motion can be denied for untimeliness alone.
In sum, the Court does not have the authority to direct the amount or frequency of an
inmate's payments under the IFRP, Mr. Chaney cannot pursue his Motion as a § 2241 Petition
because he has not shown that he has exhausted his administrative remedies, there is no statutory
basis to modify Mr. Chaney's restitution amount, the July 11, 2002 Order did not modify the
restitution amount, and Mr. Chaney's Motion is untimely in any event. Accordingly, the Clerical
Case 1:97-cr-00068-JMS-TAB Document 91 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Error Motion Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 36, [Filing No. 85], is
DENIED.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Chaney's Clerical Error Motion Pursuant to Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure, Rule 36, [85], is DENIED.
Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record
Distribution via U.S. Mail to:
Carlton Lamont Chaney
#04860-028
FCI Thomson
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 1002
Thomson, IL 61285
Date: 1/8/2026
Case 1:97-cr-00068-JMS-TAB Document 91 Filed 01/08/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>