monetary penalty, including restitution, shall make such payment immediately, unless ... the court provides for payment on a date certain or in installments.” 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1). With restitution, the MVRA also mandates that the sentencing order include a payment schedule in consideration of the defendant’s economic circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). Importantly, there is no analogous requirement for the imposition of fines. According to Gonzalez-Rivera’s § 2241 petition, the court at resen-tencing found that “the defendant has the wherewithal to earn [the $750 fine] in prison work programs, and that [it] is payable immediately.” The sentencing court’s order for immediate payment of the fine was permissible. See United States v. Ellis, 522 F.3d 737, 738-39 (7th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the
holding that an agency may not delegate its public duties to private entities holding that an inmate stated a claim under the due process clause when guards had placed her in a cell with a dangerous inmate holding that a sentence not in compliance with the mandatory provisions of a sentencing statute was illegal and appealable holding that 18 usc  3582a prevents a sentencing court from imposing or lengthening a prison term because the court thinks an offender will benefit from a prison treatment program holding that sentencing court did not improperly delegate its authority when it ordered that fine payments are due immediately  but may be paid from prison earnings in compliance with the inmate financial responsibility program