With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". argument, the Maryland and New Jersey courts here did not delegate the setting of payment schedules to probation or the Bureau of Prisons. Rather, both courts held that payment was due immediately. Thus, there was no improper delegation by the courts of their exclusive authority to determine a payment schedule. The Bureau of Prisons was merely using the IFRP to collect Bramson’s court-ordered payments. See, e.g., Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 712 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); McGhee v. Clark, 166 F.3d 884, 886 (7th

A: holding the state may appeal orders of dismissal that have the same effect as orders quashing an information
B: holding that bureau of prisons may administer collection of payments through ifrp where sentencing court orders immediate payment
C: holding ifrp does not deprive inmates of constitutional rights to due process
D: holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders
B.