Order Denying “Petition for Deferement [sic] of FRP” — United States v. Washington (Dkt. 283, D. Colo.)

Summary

An order by Senior United States District Judge William J. Martínez in United States of America v. Shambrica Washington, Criminal Case No. 22-cr-187-WJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, dated April 1, 2026 (Document 283). It rules on the defendant's petition for deferment of her financial responsibility program payments (ECF No. 275). The order recites that in September 2024 a jury convicted Washington of three counts of wire fraud, 22 counts of money laundering and four counts of false claims, and that the Court ordered a $3,100.00 special assessment and $542,924.45 in restitution, due immediately. It discusses her participation in the Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program and denies the petition.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM       Document 283      filed 04/01/26   USDC Colorado      pg 1
                                          of 4




                      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
                              Judge William J. Martínez

 Criminal Case No. 22-cr-187-WJM

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

       Plaintiff,

 v.

 1.    SHAMBRICA WASHINGTON,

       Defendant.


          ORDER DENYING “PETITION FOR DEFEREMENT [SIC] OF FRP”


       Before the Court is Defendant Shambrica Washington’s “Petition for Deferement

 [sic] of FRP” (“Petition”). (ECF No. 275.) The Government filed a response. (ECF No.

 279.) For the reasons explained below, the Motion is denied.

                                    I. BACKGROUND

       In September 2024, a jury convicted Washington of three counts of wire fraud, 22

 counts of money laundering, and four counts of false claims. (ECF No. 226.) In

 addition to sentencing her to a term of imprisonment and supervised release, the Court

 ordered Washington to pay a $3,100.00 special assessment and $542,924.45 in

 restitution. (Id. at 7.) The Court’s judgment specified that the special assessment and

 restitution obligations became “due immediately.” (Id. at 8.)

       The Government relates, based on information gleaned from Washington’s

 Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Case Manager, that Washington elected to

 participate in the BOP’s Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”) in December

Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM       Document 283      filed 04/01/26   USDC Colorado         pg 2
                                          of 4




 2024. (ECF No. 279 at 3.) The purpose of the IFRP is to “encourage[] each sentenced

 inmate to meet his or her legitimate financial obligations,” including special assessments

 and court-ordered restitution. 28 C.F.R. § 545.10; id. § 545.11(a). Participants are

 required to make payments in accordance with a financial plan developed by the BOP,

 in exchange for which they receive certain benefits. Id. § 545.11(b), (d).

       Between December 2024 and July 2025, Washington paid $215.01 toward her

 special assessment obligation. (ECF No. 279 at 3.) Initially, she paid $25.00 per month

 toward her Court-ordered financial obligations, but in May 2025 she agreed to increase

 her payment to $150.00 per month. (Id.; ECF No. 279-1.) After making partial

 payments in June and July 2025, however, Washington decided to cease making her

 monthly payments altogether. (ECF No. 279 at 4.)

       Between roughly May and November 2025, Washington had received more than

 $1,676.00 in her inmate trust account (“Trust Account”), of which she spent all but $0.66

 by the end of the same timeframe. (Id.; ECF No. 279-1 at 3, 5.) Only $65.01 of those

 funds were paid toward her special assessment obligation. (ECF No. 279 at 4; ECF No.

 279-1 at 6.) The BOP has not collected any money from her since July 2025. (Id.)

                                       II. ANALYSIS

       In the Petition, Washington asks the Court to “deferr [sic] my FRP payments

 while I am incarcerated until I return home.” (ECF No. 275 at 1.) She states that “do

 [sic] to unforeseen circumstances, like my home ‘mysteriously’ catching on fire and a

 reduction of my military benefits to 10%,” “[t]he only income I receive is $10 a month

 which is hardly enough to cover a FRP payment.” (Id.) If her payments “cannot be

 deferred since I only make $10 a month,” Washington asks in the alternative “that the


                                             2

Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM        Document 283       filed 04/01/26   USDC Colorado         pg 3
                                           of 4




 payment be 10% of whatever income I make in prison, not what I receive on my books,

 because anything I receive outside of that is a sacrafice [sic] that my family makes . . . .”

 (Id.) But Washington has not explained how the Court can grant her the relief she

 seeks.

          Critically, the “IFRP is a voluntary program in which inmates may choose to

 participate.” Shaw v. Daniels, 2010 WL 4628905, at *2 (D. Colo. Nov. 8, 2010) (first

 emphasis added); see also United States v. Boyd, 608 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 2010)

 (“The IFRP can be an important part of a prisoner’s efforts toward rehabilitation, but

 strictly speaking, participation in the program is voluntary.”). True,

                [t]he choice is not a neutral one; an inmate who chooses not
                to participate in the IFRP loses access to a wide array of
                privileges and benefits that participating inmates enjoy. But
                the mere fact that the BOP has sweetened [one] choice (or
                soured the other) does not alter the fundamental fact that an
                inmate may choose not to participate in the IFRP with regard
                to restitution obligations that have not otherwise been
                specifically scheduled by the sentencing court.

 Shaw, 2010 WL 4628905, at *2; see also Davis v. Wiley, 260 F. App’x 66, 69 (10th Cir.

 2008) (“the benefits that can be denied” for refusal to participate in the IFRP “are not

 constitutionally guaranteed”).

          Like the Government, the Court gathers that Washington “is asking the Court to

 remove her financial obligations in the hope that she can enjoy the IFRP’s benefits

 without the financial responsibility.” (ECF No. 279 at 4.) But Washington has not cited,

 and the Court is unaware, of any authority permitting it to order the BOP to extend the

 benefits accompanying IFRP participation to her while simultaneously excusing her from

 adhering to her financial responsibility plan. To the contrary, “[c]ourts are not authorized

 to override the Bureau’s discretion about such matters, any more than a judge could

                                              3

Case No. 1:22-cr-00187-WJM        Document 283      filed 04/01/26    USDC Colorado          pg 4
                                           of 4




 dictate particulars about a prisoner’s meal schedule or recreation (all constitutional

 problems to the side).” United States v. Sawyer, 521 F.3d 792, 794 (7th Cir. 2008).

        Lack of legal authority aside, it would also be exceedingly unfair, in the Court’s

 view, to grant Washington’s Petition when there are assuredly numerous other people in

 prison facing genuine financial hardship that nonetheless endeavor to comply with their

 financial obligations under the IFRP. If Washington still wishes to participate in the

 IFRP but the house fire and reduction in her military benefits she describes has

 lessened the amount of money her family is able to contribute to her Trust Account, the

 Court is confident that reduction in income will be taken into account when the BOP

 calculates an appropriate monthly payment. See BOP, Program Statement P5380.08,

 at § 8 (Aug. 15, 2005).

                                     III. CONCLUSION

        For the reasons stated above, Defendant Shambrica Washington’s “Petition for

 Deferement [sic] of FRP” (ECF No. 275) is DENIED.


        Dated this 1st day of April, 2026.

                                                  BY THE COURT:



                                                  ______________________
                                                  William J. Martínez
                                                  Senior United States District Judge




                                              4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cod.215884.283.0.pdf

Size

151,723 bytes

SHA-256

066caa939fd83ed5647e1e96b4b381a329e19c4e8673db89cb50f095ca9b4022

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cod.215884.283.0.pdf

Original

archive.org