Alvin Ray Quarles v. A. Kane, Warden J. Woodford, Dir. of Corr. & Rehab., 482 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Alvin Ray Quarles v. A. Kane, Warden J. Woodford, Dir. of Corr. & Rehab., 482 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: (PC) Fayed v. Allison (caed, 2023-01-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) (PC) Fayed v. Allison
E.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
Quarles v. Kane, 482 F.3d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 12 2007) (citing Russell v. Gregoire, 124 F.3d 1079, 1085 (9th Cir. 1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vlasich v. S.D. Superior Ct.
9th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Quarles v. Kane, 482 F.3d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir.2007); see also United States v. Gianelli, 543 F.3d 1178, 1183-84 (9th Cir.2008).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vlasich v. S.D. Superior Ct.
9th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Quarles v. Kane, 482 F.3d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir.2007); see also United States v. Gianelli, 543 F.3d 1178, 1183-84 (9th Cir.2008).
cited Cited "see" Jeffrey Olson v. James Schwochert
7th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Quarles v. Kane, 482 F.3d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 2007); cf. In re Buddhi, 658 F.3d 740, 742 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that Federal Bureau of Prisons can modify terms of payment plan).
cited Cited "see" Jeffrey Olson v. James Schwochert
7th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Quarles v. Kane, 482 F.3d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 2007); cf. In re Buddhi, 658 F.3d 740, 742 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that Federal Bureau of Prisons can modify terms of payment plan).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Chong Lee v. Kevin Carr
7th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See United States v. Newman, 144 F.3d 531 , 538–39 (7th Cir. 1998); see also Quarles v. Kane, 482 F.3d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 2007).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Gianelli
9th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
California Dep’t of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 , 506 n. 3, 115 S.Ct. 1597 , 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995); see also Quarles v. Kane, 482 F.3d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir.2007) (amendment to California statute which increased the rate at which restitution payments could be collected was not an Ex Post Facto Clause violation because it did not impose additional punishment); United States v. Baggett, 125 F.3d 1319, 1323 (9th Cir.1997) (procedural changes which made it less onerous for an United States Attorney to substantiate requested restitution amounts was not an Ex Post Facto Clause violation be…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Gianelli
9th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Califor- nia Dep’t of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 , 506 n.3 (1995); see also Quarles v. Kane, 482 F.3d 1154, 1155 (9th 13018 UNITED STATES v. GIANELLI Cir. 2007) (amendment to California statute which increased the rate at which restitution payments could be collected was not an Ex Post Facto Clause violation because it did not impose additional punishment); United States v. Baggett, 125 F.3d 1319, 1323 (9th Cir. 1997) (procedural changes which made it less onerous for an United States Attorney to substan- tiate requested restitution amounts was not an Ex Post Facto Clause violation…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alvin Ray QUARLES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
A. KANE, Warden; J. Woodford, Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendants-Appellees
06-16308.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 6, 2007.
482 F.3d 1154
Alvin Ray Quarles, pro se, Soledad, CA, for the appellant.
Kozinski, Leavy, Bybee.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Alvin Ray Quarles, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, of his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims that his plea agreement and his constitutional rights were violated when, pursuant to a post-conviction amendment to CaLPenal Code § 2085.5, the amount of restitution payments deductible from his prison wages was increased to a maximum of 50% of the wages, and restitution payments were made deductible from trust accounts as well as from wages. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Quarles alleges that he was convicted in 1989. He alleges that in his plea agreement he agreed to pay restitution of $10,000, which was to be collected pursuant to section 2085.5. At that time section 2085.5 provided that “the Director of Corrections may deduct a reasonable amount not to exceed 20 percent from the wages of a prisoner.” In 1992 section 2085.5 was amended to authorize deduction of a minimum of 20% to a maximum of 50% of an inmate’s wages and deposits. Quarles alleges that in October 2003 he received a trust account statement indicating that 33% of his wages had been taken for restitution.

The amendment to section 2085.5 did not increase the amount of restitution, but rather increased the permissible rate at which restitution payments may be collected. This amendment did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it did not impose additional punishment on Quarles. See Russell v. Gregoire, 124 F.3d 1079, 1085 (9th Cir.1997).

Quarles also contends that, because his plea agreement stipulated that he would pay restitution pursuant to section 2085.5, and that at the time he entered into the agreement section 2085.5 allowed for a maximum of 20% deduction of wages, the 1992 amendment to that section which increased the permissible wage to 50% violated his plea agreement. However, Quarles does not allege that his plea agreement specified an exact percentage to be deducted from his wages. Having agreed to have the restitution payments governed by statute, he assumed the risk that the statute might be amended. The amendment to section 2085.5 therefore does not violate Quarles’ plea agreement. See United States v. Cardenas, 405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.