FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

March 27, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

	UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

		Plaintiff - Appellee,	

No. 06-5021	
	v.	N.D. Oklahoma	
KENNETH ALAN LOWE,

		Defendant - Appellant.	(D.C. No. 93-CR-186-TCK)		

	ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

	After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal.  See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).  The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
I.  Background
	Kenneth Alan Lowe was convicted on robbery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to 228 months imprisonment, three years of supervised release, $10,000 restitution and a $100 special assessment.  On December 12, 2005, Lowe, proceeding pro se, filed a “Motion to Revise Restitution Payment Schedule” and on January 05, 2006, the district court entered an “Order Modifying Payment Schedule.” (Doc. No. 79, 80.)  Lowe appeals from the district court’s order claiming it implicitly delegates to the Bureau of Prisons the task of creating the payment schedule in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f) and as prohibited by United States v. Overholt, 307 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2002).  We AFFIRM.
II.  Discussion
	In Overholt, we disapproved of a district court’s restitution order which stated:
Restitution shall be paid in full immediately.   Any amount not paid immediately shall be paid while in custody through the Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.   Upon release from custody, any unpaid balance shall be paid as a condition of supervised release . . . .

Id. at 1255.  We determined the order improperly delegated the court’s duty to provide for an appropriate payment schedule to the Bureau of Prisons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664.18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2).  Mindful of the split in our sister circuits on this issue, we concluded “[t]he governing statute, . . . particularly as amended by the Anti‑terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) in 1996, clearly contemplates judicial control of restitution payment schedules.”  Id.  Although “[t]he court is granted considerable discretion in structuring a payment schedule,” it must be the judicial authority which sets a reasonable payment schedule.  Id. at 1256. 
	Lowe’s motion to revise his restitution payment schedule claimed “[o]n several occasions the [B]ureau of Prisons has taken personal funds from my account that my family has sent and raised my payment schedule based on those unscheduled gifts.” (Doc. 79 at 2.) He argued the ability of the Bureau of Prisons to change his payment schedule based upon the receipt of gifts from his family violated our ruling in Overholt.  
	The district court granted his request for modification and ordered in relevant part:
Special Monetary Assessments totaling $100, and restitution in the amount of $9,963.85 as to Count One and $36.15 as to Count Three are due in full immediately, but payable on a schedule of the greater of $25 quarterly or 50% in income pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate Financial Responsibility Program while in prison.  If restitution and fine balances remain, payment is to commence no later than 60 days following release from imprisonment to a term of supervised release in equal monthly payments of at least $25 or 10% of net income (take home pay), whichever is greater, over the duration of the term of supervised release and thereafter as prescribed by law for as long as some debt remains.  Notwithstanding establishment of a payment schedule, nothing shall prohibit the United States from executing or levying upon property of the defendant discovered before or after the date of this Judgment. The Court orders that interest shall be waived. 
				
(Doc. 80, Attach. 1.)  Lowe contends this modification “can be interpreted in several different ways in which the Bureau is still able to raise the payment at will.”  (Appellant’s Reply Br. at 2.)  Lowe does not provide an example of such interpretation.  Rather, his only complaint is that the court’s order allows the Bureau of Prisons to continue to apply 50% of any gift Lowe receives toward his restitution payments.
	The Financial Responsibility Program requires unit staff to assist an inmate in preparing a financial plan and monitoring the inmates’ progress in meeting payment.  Id. at §545.11(a).  Payments are to be made from “institution resources or non‑institution (community) resources.” 28 CFR § 545.11(b).  Unlike Overholt, the district court’s order does not delegate to the Bureau discretion to change the payment schedule by changing its regulations.  Lowe fails to cite any case or law that excludes gifts from income or limits the court’s discretion to include unexpected monetary contributions.
Conclusion
	Overholt requires a payment schedule which must be adhered to by both Lowe and the Bureau of Prisons.  The order in this case requires the Bureau of Prisons to collect “the greater of $25 quarterly or 50% in income,” in compliance with Overholt’s requirement.  AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Terrence L. O’Brien
Circuit Judge