Balentin Martinez Quinonez v. LINDA T. McGREW

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALENTIN MARTINEZ QUINONEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LINDA T. McGREW,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 14-57013
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00515-VBF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Balentin Martinez Quinonez appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We review the dismissal of a section 2241 petition de
novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and we
affirm.
In his petition, Quinonez challenged the BOP’s authority to establish the
time and manner in which he is required to pay his court-imposed fine. The district
court did not err by dismissing Quinonez’s petition for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. See Ward, 678 F.3d at 1045. The record shows that
Quinonez did not complete any level of the BOP’s Administrative Remedy
Program and there is no indication that his pursuit of those remedies would be
futile. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 et seq.
We decline to consider Quinonez’s challenge to the amount of the fine, and
his argument that the district court procedurally erred when imposing the fine,
because those claims were not raised below. See Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478,
481 (9th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
1 Because Quinonez is challenging the execution of his sentence,
federal subject matter jurisdiction exists under section 2241. See Harrison v.
Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d
1042 (9th Cir. 2012) (considering a challenge to the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”)
administration of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program in a section 2241
habeas petition).
14-57013 2

-- 2 of 2 --