43. Sentence.

U.S. Appeals Court FINES

Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683 (3rd Cir. 2002). A state inmate brought a pro se [section] 1988 action against prison officials and employees, alleging violation of his statutory and due process rights arising from seizure of money derived from his veteran's disability benefits check to pay a court-ordered fine without a predeprivation hearing. The district court dismissed the case. The appeals court vacated and remanded, finding that a federal statute that prohibits attachment, levy or seizure of a veteran's disability benefits provides a federal right that is enforceable under [section] 1983. The court also found that a state law that provided for the collection of a crime victims' assessment from the inmate's account was void to the extent that it allowed prison officials to deduct funds derived from the inmate's veteran's disability benefits. The court found that allegations supported a claim for a procedural due process violation. (ATDC, Avenel, New Jersey)

U.S. Appeals Court SEX OFFENDER 

Learner v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532 (3rd Cir. 2002). A state prisoner fried a [section] 1983 action challenging his placement on a prison's restricted activities program (RAP). The district court dismissed the case and the prisoner appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the state's unique former statutory scheme for sex offenders, which predicated the term of sentence on a prisoner's response to treatment, created a liberty interest in treatment and a right to treatment for the purposes of both procedural and substantive due process analyses. (Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center, New Jersey)

U.S. Appeals Court SUPER. RELEASE-CONDITIONS

U.S. v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2002). A defendant appealed his sentence and the appeals court affirmed the original sentence. According to the appeals court, the addition of a special condition of supervised release requiring the defendant to contribute to the costs of drug and other treatment did not create a conflict with the oral pronouncement of sentence, and the district court could delegate to a probation officer the authority to determine the defendant's ability to pay the costs. (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas)