Joni Klyana v. Craig Apker

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONI KLYANA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CRAIG APKER,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-15334
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01115-LJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Joni Klyana appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We review the denial of a
section 2241 petition de novo, see United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1046
(9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15334
Klyana contends that the sentencing court improperly delegated its authority
to schedule his restitution payments. This claim is belied by the record, which
reflects that the sentencing court properly assessed Klyana’s ability to pay and
ordered that he make payments of not less than $25 per quarter during his term of
imprisonment as part of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”).
See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2); Lemoine, 546 F.3d at 1046 (upholding identical
restitution order). We reject Klyana’s contention that he is exempted from the
regulations of the IFRP because he is housed at a government-owned, contractor-
operated facility. See Lemoine, 546 F.3d at 1046 n.2 (federal inmate remains in
federal custody, and thus subject to the Bureau of Prisons’ authority through the
IFRP, even where he is housed at an “independently operated” facility).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --