United States of America v. Bruce E. Dunbar

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRUCE E. DUNBAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-30406
D.C. No. 2:00-cr-00045-RSL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Bruce E. Dunbar appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
“motion for clarification of judgment.” We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AK/Research 08-30406 2
Dunbar contends that the district court improperly delegated its authority to
schedule restitution payments to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) by failing to
specify the precise amount of money the BOP was authorized to collect per month
as part of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, thereby allowing BOP to
dictate the amount of restitution inmates are required to pay. This argument is
foreclosed. See United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008).
Dunbar also contends that the government acted vindictively by opposing
his motion for clarification of judgment. This argument lacks merit. See United
States v. Lopez, 474 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --