The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
24-7035•United States of America v. Lateef Fisher, a/k/a Apple
24-7035Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 1, 2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7035
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LATEEF FISHER, a/k/a Apple,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:15-cr-00018-GMG-RWT-1)
Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: April 1, 2025
Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lateef Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberley DeAnne Crockett, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Lateef Fisher appeals the district court’s order denying his motion challenging the
amount of his monthly restitution payment. The amount of Fisher’s monthly restitution
payment is administered by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). We have held that “an inmate’s
challenge to the BOP’s administration of the [Inmate Financial Responsibility Program] is
a challenge to the ‘execution’ of a sentence” and that “attacks on the execution of a sentence
are properly raised in a [28 U.S.C.]§ 2241 petition.” Fontanez v. O’Brien, 807 F.3d 84, 87
(4th Cir. 2015). Fisher failed to properly raise his challenge in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
Further, he did not demonstrate that he pursued an administrative remedy with the BOP.∗
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
the order of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
∗ To the extent Fisher challenged the imposition of the restitution, he did not raise
the claim in his initial motion, and such a challenge should have been properly addressed
on direct appeal.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.