C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER V—BUREAU OF PRISONS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT › PART 545—WORK AND COMPENSATION › Subpart B—Inmate Financial Responsibility Program

28 C.F.R. § 545.11

Procedures

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

When an inmate has a financial obligation, unit staff shall help that inmate develop a financial plan and shall monitor the inmate's progress in meeting that obligation.

(a) Developing a financial plan. At initial classification, the unit team shall review an inmate's financial obligations, using all available documentation, including, but not limited to, the Presentence Investigation and the Judgment and Commitment Order(s). The financial plan developed shall be documented and will include the following obligations, ordinarily to be paid in the priority order as listed:

(1) Special Assessments imposed under 18 U.S.C. 3013;

(2) Court-ordered restitution;

(3) Fines and court costs;

(4) State or local court obligations; and

(5) Other federal government obligations.

(b) Payment. The inmate is responsible for making satisfactory progress in meeting his/her financial responsibility plan and for providing documentation of these payments to unit staff. Payments may be made from institution resources or non-institution (community) resources. In developing an inmate's financial plan, the unit team shall first subtract from the trust fund account the inmate's minimum payment schedule for UNICOR or non-UNICOR work assignments, set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. The unit team shall then exclude from its assessment $75.00 a month deposited into the inmate's trust fund account. This $75.00 is excluded to allow the inmate the opportunity to better maintain telephone communication under the Inmate Telephone System (ITS).

(1) Ordinarily, the minimum payment for non-UNICOR and UNICOR grade 5 inmates will be $25.00 per quarter. This minimum payment may exceed $25.00, taking into consideration the inmate's specific obligations, institution resources, and community resources.

(2) Inmates assigned grades 1 through 4 in UNICOR ordinarily will be expected to allot not less than 50% of their monthly pay to the payment process. Any allotment which is less than the 50% minimum must be approved by the Unit Manager. Allotments may also exceed the 50% minimum after considering the individual's specific obligations and resources.

(c) Monitoring. Participation and/or progress in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program will be reviewed each time staff assess an inmate's demonstrated level of responsible behavior.

(d) Effects of non-participation. Refusal by an inmate to participate in the financial responsibility program or to comply with the provisions of his financial plan ordinarily shall result in the following:

(1) Where applicable, the Parole Commission will be notified of the inmate's failure to participate;

(2) The inmate will not receive any furlough (other than possibly an emergency or medical furlough);

(3) The inmate will not receive performance pay above the maintenance pay level, or bonus pay, or vacation pay;

(4) The inmate will not be assigned to any work detail outside the secure perimeter of the facility;

(5) The inmate will not be placed in UNICOR. Any inmate assigned to UNICOR who fails to make adequate progress on his/her financial plan will be removed from UNICOR, and once removed, may not be placed on a UNICOR waiting list for six months. Any exceptions to this require approval of the Warden;

(6) The inmate shall be subject to a monthly commissary spending limitation more stringent than the monthly commissary spending limitation set for all inmates. This more stringent commissary spending limitation for IFRP refusees shall be at least $25 per month, excluding purchases of stamps, telephone credits, and, if the inmate is a common fare participant, Kosher/Halal certified shelf-stable entrees to the extent that such purchases are allowable under pertinent Bureau regulations;

(7) The inmate will be quartered in the lowest housing status (dormitory, double bunking, etc.);

(8) The inmate will not be placed in a community-based program;

(9) The inmate will not receive a release gratuity unless approved by the Warden;

(10) [Reserved]

(11) The inmate will not receive an incentive for participation in residential drug treatment programs.

[56 FR 23477, May 21, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 15825, Apr. 4, 1994; 59 FR 16406, Apr. 6, 1994; 59 FR 53345, Oct. 21, 1994; 60 FR 240, Jan. 3, 1995; 61 FR 91, Jan. 2, 1996; 64 FR 72799, Dec. 28, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 131 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Barrett N. Weinberger v. United States, 268 F.3d 346 (6th Cir. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barrett N. Weinberger v. United States, 268 F.3d 346 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 8× “(citing 28 C.F.R. 545.11). Although this court has not been presented with the issue, other circuit courts have upheld the IFRP generally and against constitutional due process challenges.”
United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 7× “28 C.F.R. § 545.11 . In doing so, they conduct an independent assessment of inmates’ abilities to pay by reviewing their financial obligations and “all available documentation.”
United States v. Jose Pacheco-Alvarado, 782 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2015). · cites it 6× “14 28 C.F.R. § 545.11 . 15 Id. at § 545.11(a).”
United States v. Boyd, 608 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “Inmates who do not participate may lose a number of privileges identified in 28 C.F.R. § 545.11 (d), which include participating in the UNICOR prison job training program, furloughs, and outside work details, and having higher commissary spending limits, access to higher-status…”
McGee v. Martinez, 627 F.3d 933 (3rd Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 545.11 . Thus, the goal of the IFRP is to achieve compliance with a provision of each convict’s criminal judgment — -namely, the timely payment of whatever sum the court has ordered him to pay.”
United States v. Sawyer, 521 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 545.11 and Program Statement P5380.”
United States v. Stephen Robert Gunning, 401 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “That has wisely induced it to create the IFRP procedure whereby the BOP will “help [the] inmate develop a financial plan” and will then “monitor the inmate’s progress” in meeting the terms of that plan.”
Salter v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 359 (Fed. Cl. 2014). · cites it 6× “Alleged breach of fiduciary duties; Bureau of Prisons; inmate trust fund account; Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, 28 C.F.R. § 545.11 (d); payment of court-ordered fine; coercion or duress; unlawful or improper conduct standard; summary judgment for the government, RCFC…”
United States v. David Diehl, 848 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “3d at 218 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 545.11 ); see also Montano-Figueroa v.”
Mujahid v. Crabtree, 999 F. Supp. 1398 (D. Or. 1998). · cites it 6× “” 28 C.F.R. § 545.11 . These latter categories seemingly include anything from child support obli *1400 gations to defaulted student loans or income taxes.”
United States v. Thomas Aloysius Warmus, 151 F. App'x 783 (11th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “” 28 C.F.R. § 545.11 . The regulation also provides that, for participants in the IFRP, $75.”
United States v. Wilson, 416 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 545.11 (d). Primarily, Wilson was concerned that, if put on “refusal status,” he might lose the opportunity to spend the last several months of his sentence at a halfway house.”
Show all 131 citing cases →
— 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(a) — 1 case
Barrett N. Weinberger v. United States, 268 F.3d 346 (6th Cir. 2001). “(citing 28 C.F.R. 545.11). Although this court has not been presented with the issue, other circuit courts have upheld the IFRP generally and against constitutional due process challenges.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(a)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Luis Sanchez-Estrada & Federico Vargas, 62 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 1995).
— 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(b) — 1 case
United States v. Jose Pacheco-Alvarado, 782 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2015). “14 28 C.F.R. § 545.11 . 15 Id. at § 545.11(a).”
— 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(d) — 2 cases
Barrett N. Weinberger v. United States, 268 F.3d 346 (6th Cir. 2001). “(citing 28 C.F.R. 545.11). Although this court has not been presented with the issue, other circuit courts have upheld the IFRP generally and against constitutional due process challenges.”
Duronio v. Gonzales, 293 F. App'x 155 (3rd Cir. 2008).
— 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(d)(6) — 1 case
O'Banion v. Matevousian (10th Cir. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.