USA v. Soudry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-24-00402-JD
)
ALIAS BAH DE ZA LAWRENCE 	)
SOUDRY, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Restitution Statement [Doc. No. 70]. The
parties agree on the restitution amount, the waiver of interest, and a payment schedule to
begin upon Defendant Alias Bah De Za Lawrence Soudry’s release from custody, but
dispute whether restitution payments should be deferred during Mr. Soudry’s term of
imprisonment. The Court addresses that disputed issue and denies Mr. Soudry’s request
to delay restitution payments until after his release from custody, concluding that the
government’s proposed payment schedule is appropriate for the reasons stated below.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Mr. Soudry entered a plea of guilty on June 4, 2025, to the one-count Indictment
charging him with involuntary manslaughter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1112(a) and
1153. The Final Presentence Report (“PSR”) [Doc. No. 48] was filed on September 2,
2025. Mr. Soudry raised no objection to the imposition of restitution and did not dispute
paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, 76, and 77 of the PSR, each of which related to restitution. At
the sentencing hearing on November 18, 2025, the Court sentenced Mr. Soudry to 60
Case 5:24-cr-00402-JD Document 71 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 8

2
months’ imprisonment followed by 2 years of supervised release. See Judgment [Doc.
No. 58 at 2–3]. The Court also recommended that Mr. Soudry participate in the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”). Id. at 2.
At the hearing, counsel for Mr. Soudry asked that the restitution hearing be deferred to
see if the parties could reach an agreement as to restitution. As a result, the Court
continued the restitution hearing to January 27, 2026. Id. at 6; see also [Doc. No. 57 at 2].
The Court instructed the parties to file a notice with the Court 14 days in advance of the
hearing outlining their positions regarding restitution. [Doc. No. 57 at 2]. The parties
were also directed to confer 7 days in advance of the 14-day deadline to see if an
agreement as to restitution could be reached. Id.
On January 20, 2026, the Court sua sponte, and after the parties failed to meet
their deadlines, extended the deadline for filing positions on restitution to January 21 at
noon. [Doc. No. 67]. The parties filed separate notices on January 21. See [Doc. Nos. 68,
69]. Mr. Soudry’s later filed notice indicated the parties agreed as to restitution and no
hearing was necessary. [Doc. No. 69 at 1].
Subsequently, the parties filed their Joint Restitution Statement advising that the
parties had conferred regarding restitution and agreed to the following: (1) that restitution
should be ordered in the amount of $10,004.93 paid to the Estate of Raquel Anderson; (2)
that restitution should be ordered in the amount of $10,575.50 paid to L.M.; (3) that no
interest be imposed; and (4) that a payment schedule should be imposed in which Mr.
Soudry is ordered to pay the greater of $100 or 10 percent of his earnings, beginning 30
days after his release from custody. [Doc. No. 70 at 1]. The United States requested that
Case 5:24-cr-00402-JD Document 71 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 8

3
the Court also impose a payment schedule while Mr. Soudry is incarcerated at the rate of
10 percent of his earnings. Id. Mr. Soudry objects and requests that a payment schedule
not be imposed until his release from custody. Id. Finally, the parties agreed that a
restitution hearing was “not necessary as the parties do not have argument regarding the
sole contested issue and defer to the judgment of this Court.” Id. at 2. The parties jointly
requested that the Court strike the hearing pursuant to their agreement, and the Court
therefore struck the hearing. Id.; see also 1/26/2026 docket text entry.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Restitution in this case may be ordered under 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(1)(A). Here, the
parties agree on the amount of restitution owed to the victims. After determining the
amount of restitution owed, the Court “shall, pursuant to section 3572, specify in the
restitution order the manner in which, and the schedule according to which, the restitution
is to be paid.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). District courts are “granted considerable discretion
in structuring a payment schedule.” United States v. Overholt, 307 F.3d 1231, 1255 (10th
Cir. 2002). When setting a payment schedule, the Court must consider “the financial
resources and other assets of the defendant, including whether any of these assets are
jointly controlled; projected earnings and other income of the defendant; and any
financial obligations of the defendant; including obligations to dependents.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3664(f)(2). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating his financial resources. Id.
§ 3664(e).
“If . . . a restitution order . . . permits other than immediate payment, the length of
time over which scheduled payments will be made shall be set by the court, but shall be
Case 5:24-cr-00402-JD Document 71 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 8

4
the shortest time in which full payment can reasonably be made.” 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(2).
Where the payment schedule is in installments, “the installments shall be in equal
monthly payments over the period provided by the court, unless the court establishes
another schedule.” Id. § 3572(d)(1).
The BOP has established a program known as the IFRP to assist sentenced
inmates in meeting their court-ordered financial obligations. 28 C.F.R. § 545.10; BOP
Program Statement P5380.08 (Aug. 15, 2005); see also Durham v. Hood, 140 F. App’x
783, 785 (10th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (explaining that IFRP “requires participating
inmates to commit a percentage of their prison employment earnings toward the payment
of court-ordered restitution”). Although participation in the program is voluntary, IFRP’s
incentive structure strongly encourages compliance by linking participation to benefits
and opportunities within the BOP.1 See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. §§ 545.10, 545.11(d). Inmates
who refuse or fail to comply are placed on IFRP “REFUSE” status, which will result in
the loss of privileges and opportunities. See id. § 545.11(d); see also P5380.08 at 14–15.
For example, an inmate in “REFUSE” status “will not receive performance pay above the
maintenance pay level, or bonus pay, or vacation pay,” “will not be assigned to any work
1 The Tenth Circuit has consistently recognized that BOP’s IFRP is constitutional
when properly administered and has rejected due process and other constitutional
challenges to the program. See, e.g., O’Banion v. Matevousian, 835 F. App’x 347, 350
(10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (explaining that IFRP has been implemented in other
circuits and “has withstood constitutional challenge,” noting that challenges to IFRP’s
constitutionality did not raise a protected liberty interest) (citing United States v.
Williams, 996 F.2d 231, 234 (10th Cir. 1993)); Durham, 140 F. App’x at 785 (explaining
that the benefits that can be denied by one’s refusal to participate in IFRP are not
constitutionally guaranteed).
Case 5:24-cr-00402-JD Document 71 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 8

5
detail outside the secure perimeter of the facility,” “will not be placed in UNICOR,” 2 will
“be subject to a monthly commissary spending limitation,” and “will not receive an
incentive for participation in residential drug treatment programs.” 28 C.F.R.
§§ 545.11(d)(3), (4), (5), (6), and (11). As part of the initial classification process, a BOP
staff member will help the inmate in developing a financial plan for meeting his court-
ordered financial obligations, and at subsequent program reviews, BOP staff will
consider that inmate’s efforts to fulfill his obligations.3 See 28 C.F.R. § 545.10.
Although the framework set forth in IFRP is not binding on the Court, it offers a
useful indication of what constitutes a reasonable payment plan for an incarcerated
individual. In developing an inmate’s financial plan, the unit team sets a minimum
monthly payment based on the type of job the inmate has. 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(b).
Because UNICOR jobs pay significantly more than regular prison jobs, the BOP imposes
a higher minimum for UNICOR jobs. See id. Specifically, inmates assigned to UNICOR
grades 1 through 4 are expected to allocate not less than 50 percent of their monthly pay
to the payment process. Id. § 545.11(b)(2). For non-UNICOR inmates and UNICOR
grade 5 inmates, the standard minimum payment is $25.00 per quarter; however, the
required payment may exceed that amount depending on an inmate’s specific financial
2 UNICOR is the trade name for Federal Prison Industries, Inc., “whose mission is
to provide work simulation programs and training opportunities for inmates confined in
Federal correctional facilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 345.11(a).
3 A unit team can postpone a newly committed inmate’s IFRP participation, if staff
determines he has limited financial resources. Generally, an inmate is considered to have
limited financial resources when he does not have sufficient institution earnings to make
a minimum IFRP payment of $25.00 per quarter. See P5380.08 at 4.
Case 5:24-cr-00402-JD Document 71 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 8

6
obligations and available institutional and community resources. Id. § 545.11(b)(1).
There are five pay grades for UNICOR work, with grade 5 being the lowest level and
rates for graded inmate workers are currently as follows: (1) Grade 1 is $1.15; (2) Grade
2 is $0.92; (3) Grade 3 is $0.69; (4) Grade 4 is $0.46; and (5) Grade 5 is $0.23. See BOP
Program Statement P8120.03 (Feb. 23, 2017) at 25–26; see also 28 C.F.R. § 345.51(a)
(explaining that inmate pay is at “five levels ranging from 5th grade pay (lowest) to 1st
grade pay (highest)”). “Sentenced inmates who are physically and mentally able to work
are required to participate in the [BOP’s] work program.” 28 C.F.R. § 545.20(a). Further,
“[t]he scheduled workday for an inmate in a federal institution ordinarily consists of a
minimum of seven hours.” 28 C.F.R. § 545.24(a).
III. 	DISCUSSION
The United States requests that the Court direct Mr. Soudry to make payments
during incarceration at a rate of 10 percent of his earnings. Mr. Soudry is opposed and
asks that the Court defer his restitution obligation until 30 days after his release from his
60-month sentence. Mr. Soudry’s total agreed restitution obligation is $20,580.43.
Mr. Soudry will be eligible for employment in BOP custody, and the Court has
recommended that he participate in the IFRP. At this stage, it is uncertain what jobs will
be available to Mr. Soudry and what wages they will provide. Certainly, prison
employment generally pays very little, particularly if the inmate does not secure a
UNICOR job. According to P8120.03, first-time inmates, like Mr. Soudry, enter at a pay
grade five and may be required to successfully complete a training course before
promotion to pay grade four. BOP P8120.03 at 17. Assuming Mr. Soudry started at a
Case 5:24-cr-00402-JD Document 71 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 8

7
Grade 5 position, his monthly earnings would be about $32.20.4 Ten percent of his
monthly earnings would be $3.22. Although IFRP establishes a minimum quarterly
payment of $25.00 (approximately $8.33 per month), an inmate earning $32.20 per
month can justifiably contribute 10 percent of his earnings, or $3.22 per month, toward
restitution. This payment would be substantially lower than the standard minimum, but it
is consistent with IFRP’s guiding principle of considering the inmate’s ability to pay
under 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(b).
Mr. Soudry did not object to the analysis of his financial situation in the PSR. Nor
did he provide any additional information about his financial status or obligations. He
does not contend that he is physically unable to work within the prison system, that there
are insufficient opportunities to work, or that the payment schedule proposed by the
United States is disproportionate to prison wages. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 416
F.3d 1164, 1171 (10th Cir. 2005) (concluding that the district court had not abused its
discretion by requiring the defendant to make restitution payments during his term of
imprisonment, given the speculative nature of the defendant’s concerns); see also 18
U.S.C. § 3664(e) (stating that the defendant has the burden to demonstrate his financial
resources). Mr. Soudry is 21 years old and a high school graduate. See PSR at Identifying
4 By way of example, if Mr. Soudry works 7 hours per day at an hourly rate of
$0.23 for five days per week, his earnings are calculated as follows: Daily earnings are
determined by multiplying hours worked by the hourly rate, yielding $1.61 per day (7 x
$0.23 = $1.61). Weekly earnings, assuming a five-day workweek, are $8.05. Multiplying
weekly earnings by four weeks per month results in total monthly earnings of $32.20.
Case 5:24-cr-00402-JD Document 71 Filed 02/13/26 Page 7 of 8

8
Data. He reports that he is in good overall physical health. Id. ¶ 44. His employment
history includes experience as a warehouse worker. Id. ¶ 52.
“[T]he primary goal of restitution is to compensate [crime victims] for the entire
losses they have suffered.” United States v. Salti, 59 F.4th 1050, 1056 (10th Cir. 2023). It
is intended to begin promptly, even if payments during incarceration are limited in
amount. Accordingly, Mr. Soudry’s request to delay restitution payments until after his
release from custody is denied. Mr. Soudry is ordered to make payments of 10 percent of
his quarterly earnings during his term of imprisonment. In setting this payment schedule,
the Court has considered Mr. Soudry’s financial resources and assets, his projected
earnings and other income, and his financial responsibilities. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2).5
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Mr. Soudry’s request to delay restitution
payments until after his release from custody. The Court will enter an amended judgment
addressing restitution that is consistent with this Order and the parties’ agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of February 2026.
5 No party addresses whether the payment should be a percentage of monthly or
quarterly earnings while in custody. Although restitution was deferred in its original
judgment, the placeholder regarding payment schedule suggests the percentage would be
based on quarterly earnings, see [Doc. No. 58 at 7], and neither side has objected to the
percentage being calculated on quarterly instead of monthly earnings during the term of
imprisonment. Regardless, based on its consideration of the factors and its analysis
above, the Court finds it to be appropriate here that the payment schedule use quarterly
earnings during the term of imprisonment.
Case 5:24-cr-00402-JD Document 71 Filed 02/13/26 Page 8 of 8