Fines and Costs for “Old Law” Inmates

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

Program Statement	5882.03
Subject	Fines and Costs for “Old Law” Inmates
Current edition	February 4, 1998 (rules effective January 28, 1998)
Change notices	Change Notice 5882.03, February 4, 1998 — filed in front of the Program Statement
Supersedes	PS 5882.02, Fines and Costs (10/20/1983) — rescinded
Governing regulation	28 C.F.R. part 571, subpart F (§§ 571.50–571.54)
Governing statute	The pre–November 1, 1987 versions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3565 and 3569 — displaced by the Sentencing Reform Act, which took effect November 1, 1987 and applies “only to offenses committed after” that date (18 U.S.C. § 3551, effective-date note)
Who it reaches	People convicted of an offense committed before November 1, 1987
Related BP forms	BP-S401 (Committed Fine Application, Oath, and Order); BP-S395 (Notice to U.S. Attorney of Committed Fine); BP-S397 (Notice to Commissary Supervisor of Committed Fine); BP-S384 (Notice to U.S. Attorney of Release of Inmate with Fine); OBD-500 (Financial Statement of Debtor)
Official PDF	https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5882_003.pdf

Checked against the BOP policy set · 2026-09-07 · How we verify

A “committed fine” is a fine the sentencing court ordered a person to be held in prison until they pay — and Program Statement 5882.03 is the Bureau’s procedure for handling one. It reaches a narrow and shrinking group: people convicted of an offense committed before November 1, 1987, the cutoff date of the old federal sentencing regime. If your obligation is restitution, a special assessment, or a modern fine, this is the wrong page — start with inmate restitution, which covers the obligations most federal prisoners actually carry, and come back here only if a court order says someone is to stand committed until a fine is paid.

Two things need saying before anything else, because they are the difference between understanding this policy and misreading it badly.

This is old law, and the statutes it quotes no longer say what it says they say. Program Statement 5882.03 quotes 18 U.S.C. §§ 3565 and 3569 at length. Both were displaced by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which took effect November 1, 1987 and applies “only to offenses committed after the taking effect of this chapter” (18 U.S.C. § 3551, effective-date note). Today, 18 U.S.C. § 3565 is a completely different statute — “Revocation of probation” — and 18 U.S.C. § 3569 no longer appears in the U.S. Code at all. Anyone who reads this Program Statement and then looks up § 3565 in the current Code will land on the wrong law; anyone who looks up § 3569 will find nothing. The details are below.

Nobody may be held past their release date simply for being poor. That is both the Bureau’s own instruction and a constitutional limit the Supreme Court set decades ago. The whole indigency-discharge machinery this Program Statement describes exists because of it.

The rule itself: old-law fines and costs

The binding text is 28 C.F.R. part 571, subpart F, titled “Fines and Costs.” The Program Statement reproduces that regulation in bracketed text and adds the Bureau’s staff instructions in regular type — a convention the document states on its own face at p. 2: “[Bracketed Bold – Rules] / Regular Type – Implementing Information.”

The definitions that decide everything

Almost every dispute in this area turns on which of two things a court actually imposed. The regulation defines them:

(a) Fine — a monetary penalty associated with an offense imposed as part of a judgment and commitment. There are two types of fines.

(1) Committed fine — a monetary penalty imposed with a condition of imprisonment until the fine is paid.

(2) Non-committed fine — a monetary penalty which has no condition of confinement imposed.

(b) Costs — Monetary costs of the legal proceeding which the court may levy. Imposition of costs is similar in legal effect to imposition of a fine. The court may also impose costs with a condition of imprisonment.

Reproduced verbatim from 28 C.F.R. § 571.51. The same definitions appear as paragraph 6 of Program Statement 5882.03 at pp. 3–4.

The Program Statement adds a note that matters more than it looks: “The U.S. Code does not refer specifically to either committed or non-committed fines. These terms have evolved to distinguish between the two types of fines” (PS 5882.03 at p. 4). The labels are administrative shorthand, not statutory categories — which is exactly why the Judgment and Commitment order controls, and why an ambiguous J&C is such a persistent problem.

The scope, and the $20 line

This subpart establishes procedures for processing a fine, or fine and costs ordered by the court with respect to an inmate convicted of an offense committed before November 1, 1987. When the court orders a prisoner’s confinement until payment of a fine, or fine and costs under 18 U.S.C. 3565, the Bureau of Prisons shall confine that inmate until the fine, or fine and costs are paid, unless the inmate qualifies for release under 18 U.S.C. 3569.

(a) An inmate held on the sole basis of his/her inability to pay such fine, or fine and costs, and whose non-exempt property does not exceed $20.00 may request discharge from imprisonment on the basis of indigency (see 18 U.S.C. 3569).

(b) Under 18 U.S.C. 3569, the determination of indigency may be made by a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Where the U.S. Magistrate Judge makes a finding of non-indigency based on the inmate’s application for a determination of his ability to pay the committed fine, or fine and costs, staff shall refer the application to the appropriate United States Attorney for the purpose of making a final decision on the inmate’s discharge under 18 U.S.C. 3569. It is to be noted that 18 U.S.C. 3569 provides for confining an inmate for nonpayment of a committed fine, or fine and costs.

Reproduced verbatim from 28 C.F.R. § 571.50, source note [63 FR 4357, Jan. 28, 1998]. The same text appears as paragraph 1 of Program Statement 5882.03 at p. 2, where the figure is printed as “$20.”

That $20 is not a typo and it has never been indexed for inflation. It comes from the nineteenth-century “pauper’s oath” statute that the old § 3569 carried forward, and the Program Statement quotes the oath itself — the words a person had to swear to obtain discharge:

“I do solemnly swear that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help me God.”

Quoted at Program Statement 5882.03 at pp. 4–5, which describes it as “commonly known as the ‘Pauper’s Oath'” and states that the oath “is administered to the inmate when a finding of indigency is made.”

The threshold is non-exempt property. A substantial list of federal benefits cannot be reached at all, and the Program Statement reproduces it as Attachment A — Social Security old age, survivors and disability benefits (42 U.S.C. § 407); civil service retirement and disability benefits (5 U.S.C. § 8346); veterans’ benefits; armed-services annuities; longshore and harbor workers’ compensation; railroad retirement and unemployment benefits; and others (PS 5882.03 at p. 12). The Program Statement adds that “[t]his list is not inclusive and reference should be made to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. § 6334).”

What happens to the account, and when

This is the provision a person in custody feels first:

(a)(1) Promptly after the inmate’s commitment, staff shall inform the inmate that there is a committed fine, or fine and costs on file, as part of the sentence. Staff shall then impound the inmate’s trust fund account until the fine, or fine and costs is paid, except—

(i) The inmate may spend money from his/her trust fund account for the purchase of commissary items not exceeding the maximum monthly allowance authorized for such purchases.

(ii) Staff may authorize the inmate to make withdrawals from his/her trust fund account for emergency family, emergency personal needs or furlough purposes.

(2) This rule of impounding an inmate’s trust fund account applies only when the inmate is confined in a federal institution. It does not apply to a federal inmate confined in a state institution or a contract community-based facility.

(b) If the inmate pays the committed fine, or fine and costs, or staff have verified payment, staff shall document payment in the appropriate file and release the inmate’s trust fund account from impoundment.

(c) Staff shall interview the inmate with an unpaid committed fine at least 75 days prior to the inmate’s release date. Staff shall explain to the inmate that to secure release without paying the committed fine, or fine and costs in full, the inmate must make an application, on the appropriate form, to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for determination as to whether the inmate can be declared indigent under 18 U.S.C. 3569.

Reproduced verbatim from 28 C.F.R. § 571.52, source note [63 FR 4357, Jan. 28, 1998]. The same text appears as paragraph 8 of Program Statement 5882.03 at pp. 5–6.

Note what the impoundment does not do. It does not cut off commissary — the regulation preserves spending “not exceeding the maximum monthly allowance authorized for such purchases.” The regulation does not state that allowance; the Bureau’s Trust Fund manual does, and it changed recently. As of the Trust Fund/Deposit Fund Manual reissued May 7, 2026, “the Bureau implements a spending limitation of $460 per month,” increased by $50 during the November/December holiday period (PS 4500.13 at p. 28). That figure was raised from $360 in the same reissue (PS 4500.13 at p. 2). Anything published before May 2026 that states the older number is out of date. Our page on trust fund and commissary covers the exclusions from that limit.

The deadlines, in one place

The regulation sets one deadline; the Program Statement’s implementing text sets the rest. Together they are the timetable that governs whether an indigency application gets in front of a judge before a release date arrives.

Trigger	Deadline	Who acts	Source
Arrival with a committed fine	“Promptly after the inmate’s commitment” — inform the inmate, impound the account	Staff / ISM, using form BP-S397 to the Commissary Supervisor	28 C.F.R. § 571.52(a)(1); PS 5882.03 at p. 6
Unpaid committed fine approaching release	At least 75 days before the release date — interview the inmate and explain the indigency application	Staff / ISM or designee	28 C.F.R. § 571.52(c); PS 5882.03 at p. 6
Notice to the U.S. Attorneys	Not less than 60 days before the release date, using form BP-S395 — to the U.S. Attorney in the district where the fine was imposed, the U.S. Attorney where the inmate is confined, and Unit staff	ISM or designee	PS 5882.03 at p. 7
Transfer to a non-federal facility with less than six months to release	Complete OBD-500 and BP-S401 and forward BP-S395 to the U.S. Attorneys before departure	Transferring institution staff	PS 5882.03 at p. 13
Package to the U.S. Magistrate Judge (non-federal facility cases)	No later than 21 calendar days before the release date	CCM or RISA	PS 5882.03 at p. 13
No response from the U.S. Attorney	Five working days before the scheduled release — contact the U.S. Attorney; document in the J&C file	ISM, CCM or RISA	PS 5882.03 at p. 9
Parole grant with a fine outstanding	Parole grant date “set off at least 60 days from the date of the ‘Notice of Action'” to allow the fine to be processed	Unit Manager / Case Manager	PS 5882.03 at p. 11
Obligation to pay a fine or penalty	Ceases on death or 20 years after entry of judgment, whichever is earlier — extendable by written agreement between the defendant and the Attorney General	—	Old 18 U.S.C. § 3565(h), quoted at PS 5882.03 at p. 6

Deadlines compiled from 28 C.F.R. § 571.52 and Program Statement 5882.03 at the pages cited. The 75-day interview is regulatory; the rest are the Bureau’s instructions to its own staff.

The 75-day and 60-day marks are the ones to watch. The Program Statement builds in a fallback — “If it is not possible to furnish notice 60 days in advance, then written notice shall be sent as soon as ISM staff learn of the pending release date” (PS 5882.03 at p. 7) — but a late start compresses everything downstream, and the whole sequence has to finish before a release date that does not move.

The two-step decision: magistrate judge, then U.S. Attorney

An indigency finding is not the end of the process, and this surprises people. The regulation splits the decision:

(c) If the U.S. Magistrate Judge finds that the inmate is indigent, the U.S. Magistrate Judge will administer the oath to the inmate. The inmate shall be released no earlier than the regularly established release date.

(d) If the U.S. Magistrate Judge finds that the inmate is not indigent, Bureau staff shall forward a referral package to the appropriate United States Attorney for a final determination as to the inmate’s ability to pay the committed fine, or fine and costs.

Reproduced verbatim from 28 C.F.R. § 571.53, as reproduced at Program Statement 5882.03 at p. 8.

Where the magistrate judge finds non-indigency, the final call belongs to the United States Attorney, under authority delegated from the Attorney General:

(g) With respect to offenses committed prior to November 1, 1987, each United States Attorney is hereby authorized, with respect to the discharge of indigent prisoners under 18 U.S.C. 3569, to make a finding as to whether the retention by a convict of property, in excess of that which is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt, is reasonably necessary for the convict’s support or that of his family.

Reproduced verbatim from 28 C.F.R. § 0.171(g).

The Program Statement spells out the consequence of each answer. If the U.S. Attorney “authorizes release of the inmate without any payment,” the written statement “shall be the institution’s authority to release the inmate.” If the U.S. Attorney “requires the inmate to pay some or all of the fine,” that statement instead “shall serve as the institution’s authority to hold the inmate until the matter is resolved,” and “the inmate shall stay confined until the U.S. Attorney authorizes the inmate’s release” (PS 5882.03 at p. 10). The referral package itself must contain a memorandum from the Warden requesting final disposition, any document issued by the magistrate judge, documentation of financial status including the commissary account record, and copies of the federal and state exemption rules (PS 5882.03 at p. 9).

The limit that overrides all of it

The Bureau’s own policy states the rule in a single sentence:

d. An indigent inmate may not be held beyond his or her regularly established release date for nonpayment of a fine.

Reproduced from Program Statement 5882.03 at p. 11.

That instruction is not a courtesy. It reflects a constitutional line the Supreme Court drew in Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), which held that the Equal Protection Clause forbids extending imprisonment past the statutory maximum because a person cannot pay. The Court put it this way:

“[O]nce the State has defined the outer limits of incarceration necessary to satisfy its penological interests and policies, it may not then subject a certain class of convicted defendants to a period of imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum solely by reason of their indigency.”

And, stating the holding:

“[A]n indigent criminal defendant may not be imprisoned in default of payment of a fine beyond the maximum authorized by the statute regulating the substantive offense.”

Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970).

Williams has a boundary that matters here, and the Court was explicit about it: the decision addresses imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum resulting from involuntary nonpayment. The Court noted that “[t]he State is not powerless to enforce judgments against those financially unable to pay a fine,” and it did not hold that a State may never use a penal sanction to enforce a fine within the authorized term.

Thirteen years later, in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), the Court set out the inquiry that has to happen before someone is imprisoned for not paying:

“We hold, therefore, that in revocation proceedings for failure to pay a fine or restitution, a sentencing court must inquire into the reasons for the failure to pay.”

Bearden divides the cases. Where a person “willfully refused to pay or failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to pay,” a court may imprison within its sentencing authority. Where a person “could not pay despite sufficient bona fide efforts to acquire the resources to do so, the court must consider alternative measures of punishment other than imprisonment,” and may imprison “[o]nly if alternative measures are not adequate to meet the State’s interests in punishment and deterrence.” To do otherwise, the Court said, “would deprive the probationer of his conditional freedom simply because, through no fault of his own, he cannot pay the fine,” which is “contrary to the fundamental fairness required by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983).

The distinction between cannot pay and will not pay is therefore the whole ballgame, and it is why the paperwork in this Program Statement is worth taking seriously. The Financial Statement of Debtor (OBD-500) and the BP-S401 application are the documents through which that showing is made. A file that shows genuine inability, and genuine effort, is a different file from one that shows silence.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: In an old-law committed-fine file, the first thing we look for is whether the 75-day interview under 28 C.F.R. § 571.52(c) happened and whether it was documented. That interview is the mechanism that starts the clock on the indigency application, and the Program Statement’s own downstream deadlines — 60 days to the U.S. Attorneys, 21 days to the magistrate judge in transfer cases — assume it did. When it did not happen, the record of that omission is the record, and it is what a submission is built on. What we cannot do, and what nobody should tell you they can do, is predict how a magistrate judge or a U.S. Attorney will resolve an ability-to-pay question.

What the old-law fines policy means for you

If you are the person inside: start with the Judgment and Commitment order

Start with the Judgment and Commitment order, not with the Program Statement. The question is whether the J&C actually contains a committed fine, and the Program Statement sets the standard: the order “must contain language which clearly indicates that the inmate is to stand committed until the fine, or fine and costs, is paid or otherwise disposed of according to law” (PS 5882.03 at p. 4). If the order says a fine was imposed and nothing more, the Program Statement describes that as a non-committed fine, for which “release is not a condition of payment” (PS 5882.03 at p. 10). The difference determines whether anything on this page applies to you at all.

If a committed fine is on file, two documents do the work: the BP-S401 (Committed Fine Application, Oath, and Order) and the OBD-500 (Financial Statement of Debtor). The regulation directs staff to interview you at least 75 days before your release date and explain this; the Program Statement instructs staff to offer to forward the completed forms and “any other applicable information the inmate chooses” to the magistrate judge, mailed “certified, return receipt requested,” with follow-up “to assure that the U.S. Magistrate Judge receives the inmate’s application” (PS 5882.03 at p. 7). If your account has been impounded but nobody has raised the indigency application with you as your date approaches, that is the point to file a cop-out to the Inmate Systems Manager in writing and keep a copy.

Refusing to complete the forms does not stop the process. The Program Statement instructs that where an inmate “has problems completing the forms, or refuses to complete either of the forms,” staff distribute the BP-S395 to the U.S. Attorneys anyway with an explanation, and forward the forms “if and when the inmate completes” them (PS 5882.03 at p. 7). Declining to participate simply removes your evidence from a file that will move without it.

One more thing worth knowing, because it is counterintuitive: a favorable finding does not accelerate anything. Both 28 C.F.R. § 571.53(c) and the Program Statement state that a person found indigent “shall be released no earlier than the regularly established release date.” The indigency oath removes an obstacle to release on that date. It does not create an earlier one.

If you are the family: why the account was impounded

The account impoundment is usually what brings families to this page — money is deposited and then appears to be frozen. Under 28 C.F.R. § 571.52(a)(1), impoundment is exactly what the rule directs, with two carve-outs written into it: commissary purchases up to the monthly limit, and staff-authorized withdrawals “for emergency family, emergency personal needs or furlough purposes.” The Program Statement identifies who can approve the second category: “The Unit Manager and Case Manager are given the authority to authorize withdrawals from the inmate’s account for emergency or furlough purposes” (PS 5882.03 at p. 6). An emergency request goes to those staff, in writing.

Impoundment is also location-dependent. The rule “applies only when the inmate is confined in a federal institution” and “does not apply to a federal inmate confined in a state institution or a contract community-based facility” (28 C.F.R. § 571.52(a)(2)). A transfer can change how the account behaves.

If the fine has in fact been paid, the fix is documentary. The Program Statement instructs that where an inmate pays or claims to have paid, staff “shall obtain a copy of the receipt or similar document from the clerk of the court which imposed the fine,” place it in the J&C file, and release the account from impoundment — and that “[n]o further action need be taken after payment” (PS 5882.03 at p. 6). A clerk’s receipt from the sentencing court is the document that ends the matter. Our guides to sending money to federal inmates and commissary purchases cover what an account can and cannot be used for in the meantime.

If you are counsel: old-law fines and costs

The threshold issue is temporal and it is dispositive: this subpart reaches only a person “convicted of an offense committed before November 1, 1987” (28 C.F.R. § 571.50). Confirm the offense conduct date, not the sentencing date. Where the offense straddles the cutoff, that is a question worth resolving on the record before anything else.

Cite the statutes carefully. The provisions this Program Statement quotes are the pre-1987 versions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3565 and 3569. The current § 3565 is “Revocation of probation,” and the U.S. Code directs that “[f]or a prior section 3565, applicable to offenses committed prior to Nov. 1, 1987, see note set out preceding section 3551 of this title” (18 U.S.C. § 3565). Section 3569 has no counterpart in the current Code at all — it does not resolve to a section. A brief that cites either without that qualification cites the wrong statute, or none. Note also that 18 U.S.C. § 3612, the modern fine-collection statute, is by its own effective-date provision “applicable only to offenses committed after” November 1, 1987 — it does not supply authority for this regime, though its subsection (h) does let the Attorney General waive “any interest or penalty relating to a fine imposed under any prior law.”

The substantive argument, where inability to pay is genuine, runs through Williams and Bearden and lands on the Bureau’s own paragraph 13.d. The administrative record is built through the Administrative Remedy Program — informal resolution, BP-9, BP-10, BP-11 — while the indigency determination itself runs on a separate track to the magistrate judge and then the U.S. Attorney. Those tracks have different decision-makers and different timetables, and conflating them wastes the calendar. Where the dispute is really about how the sentence itself is being computed, see challenging a BOP sentence computation and the old law sentence computation policy.

Two structural features are easy to miss. First, 28 C.F.R. § 0.171(g) puts the final ability-to-pay finding with the United States Attorney — which means the person who can end the confinement is a party you can address directly, not only through the Bureau. Second, the Program Statement instructs that where an inmate is “released from incarceration by application of the ‘Indigency Oath’ and is returned to custody (i.e., parole violation) on the same case, the fine, or fine and costs or unpaid portion thereof is reinstated” (PS 5882.03 at p. 11). The oath resolves the confinement; it does not extinguish the debt.

What has not changed in PS 5882.03

Program Statement 5882.03 has not been revised since February 4, 1998. It came through the Bureau’s mass Program Statement reissue of June 22, 2026 unchanged and remains the current edition. The document is delivered as a Change Notice dated 2/4/98 filed in front of the Program Statement, with the underlying rules effective 1/28/98.

What the 1998 edition changed. It rescinded PS 5882.02, Fines and Costs (10/20/1983). The Change Notice states the reason: the revision “provides revised procedures for processing fines and costs for inmates convicted of offenses committed before November 1, 1987,” and updates “Rules language and policy text … in accord with statutory changes regarding the role of the U.S. Magistrate Judge and U.S. Attorney in processing committed fines and costs” (PS 5882.03 at p. 1). That is the shift reflected in the two-step structure described above.

The regulation is one section shorter than the Program Statement says it is. PS 5882.03 states at p. 3 that “Rules cited in this Program Statement are contained in 28 CFR 571.50-55.” Verified against the current eCFR, 28 C.F.R. part 571, subpart F contains five sections, §§ 571.50 through 571.54. There is no § 571.55. Every section of the subpart currently carries an effective date of December 29, 2016, and each carries the source note [63 FR 4357, Jan. 28, 1998] — the rulemaking the Program Statement implements.

The commissary allowance the impoundment rule preserves has gone up. 28 C.F.R. § 571.52(a)(1)(i) permits spending “not exceeding the maximum monthly allowance” without naming a figure. The Trust Fund/Deposit Fund Manual reissued May 7, 2026 sets that limit at $460 per month, raised from $360 in the same reissue, with a $50 increase during the November/December holiday period (PS 4500.13 at pp. 2, 28).

Withdrawals for a committed fine now require the person’s signature. This is the most consequential change since 1998, and it does not appear in PS 5882.03 at all. The current Trust Fund manual provides: “No funds are withdrawn from an inmate’s account without their prior consent except as noted below. The inmate’s prior consent is their signature.” It then states expressly: “The requirement for prior inmate consent includes withdrawals for committed fines, attachments, liens, or any other legal process for the satisfaction of claims,” with exceptions only for IRS tax liens and federal court orders (PS 4500.13 at p. 81). Impoundment under § 571.52 restricts what the account can be used for; it is not the same thing as the Bureau taking the money.

The vocabulary is dated. PS 5882.03 refers throughout to Community Corrections Managers (CCMs) and contract community-based facilities. The Bureau now uses Residential Reentry Managers and Residential Reentry Centers. Read CCM as RRM. Our halfway houses page uses current terminology.

One internal inconsistency in the document itself, for anyone working from the PDF. The attachments are mislabelled. The Program Statement’s body text at p. 8 refers the reader to “Attachment B” for transfer processing instructions and to “Attachment C” for direct commitments, but the pages are headed “Attachment A, Page 1” (the exemption list), “Attachment A, Page 1” again (committed fine transfers), “Attachment B, Page 1” (direct commitments), and “Attachment C, Page 2.” Navigate by the page headings — COMMITTED FINE TRANSFERS TO NON-FEDERAL FACILITIES and COMMITTED FINE DIRECT COMMITMENTS OR DESIGNATIONS TO NON-FEDERAL FACILITIES — rather than by the letters.

Where people get stuck when the J&C is ambiguous

The J&C is ambiguous about whether the fine is committed. This is the single most common problem, and the Program Statement anticipates it: “If the J&C creates some doubt as to whether the fine, or fine and costs are committed or non-committed, the ISM shall refer the case to the RISA for assistance,” and the Regional Inmate Systems Administrator “will discuss the issue with the Regional Counsel or other appropriate staff members” (PS 5882.03 at p. 11). The route: ask in writing for that referral by name. If the account is impounded on an ambiguous order, informal resolution to the ISM, then a BP-9 through the Administrative Remedy Program. The underlying question — what the sentencing court actually ordered — may ultimately need to go back to that court.

The 75-day interview never happens, and the calendar collapses. The downstream steps assume it did: 60 days for notice to two U.S. Attorneys, 21 days for the package to the magistrate judge in transfer cases, five working days for the follow-up call. Miss the first and the rest cannot be met. The route: a written cop-out to the Inmate Systems Manager citing 28 C.F.R. § 571.52(c) by section number, kept as a dated copy, then a BP-9 if there is no response. Do this the moment the date is inside 75 days rather than waiting.

Someone is held past the release date on an unresolved application. The Program Statement is unambiguous that “[a]n indigent inmate may not be held beyond his or her regularly established release date for nonpayment of a fine” (PS 5882.03 at p. 11), and Williams v. Illinois is the constitutional backdrop. But the same policy provides that where the U.S. Attorney requires payment, the written statement “shall serve as the institution’s authority to hold the inmate until the matter is resolved” (PS 5882.03 at p. 10) — so what the U.S. Attorney has actually decided is the first fact to establish. The route: this is where the administrative-remedy track and counsel’s involvement should already be running in parallel, not started. Because the deadlines are short and the consequence is continued custody, get counsel involved well before the date rather than after.

The fine was paid but the account stays impounded. Payment made directly to the clerk of the sentencing court does not automatically reach the Bureau’s records. The route: obtain a receipt or similar document from the clerk of the court that imposed the fine and give it to Inmate Systems, which the Program Statement directs be made part of the J&C file, after which the account “shall be released” from impoundment (PS 5882.03 at p. 6). Keep a copy outside the institution.

A transfer is scheduled with the release date close. Where fewer than six months remain at the expected transfer to a non-federal facility, the transferring institution must complete the OBD-500 and the BP-S401 portion and forward the BP-S395 to the U.S. Attorneys “prior to the inmate’s departure,” and the CCM or RISA must get the package to the magistrate judge “no later than 21 calendar days prior to the release date” (PS 5882.03 at p. 13). The route: raise the committed fine explicitly with the Unit Team before the transfer, in writing. A transfer that leaves the paperwork behind is the fact pattern that generates a hold at the far end.

Related BOP policy on fines and financial obligations

• Inmate restitution — the paired money page, and the obligation most federal prisoners actually carry
• Cost of Incarceration Fee (Program Statement 5380.06) — the modern, Bureau-imposed fee, expressly limited to people who began serving a sentence on or after January 1, 1995
• Old law sentence computation — how sentences for pre–November 1, 1987 offenses are computed
• Inmate Financial Responsibility Program — the collection framework for court-ordered obligations generally
• Trust Fund and commissary — the account that gets impounded, and the monthly spending limitation
• Administrative Remedy Program — the BP-9 / BP-10 / BP-11 route
• Challenging a BOP sentence computation — where the dispute is about the release date itself
• How to send money to federal inmates — deposits into an impounded account
• Inmate canteen and commissary items — what the preserved monthly allowance buys
• Halfway houses — Residential Reentry Centers, where the impoundment rule does not apply

Frequently Asked Questions About Fines and Costs

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026