With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". payment amounts that Durham must follow in connection with the court-ordered restitution. The essence of this claim is that decisions such as the amount and timing of IFRP payments constitute core judicial functions under Article III, and therefore a district court cannot delegate those functions without violating separation of powers. The IFRP, set forth in 28 C.F.R. §§ 545.10 and 545.11, requires participating inmates to commit a percentage of their prison employment earnings toward the payment of court-ordered restitution. Its constitutionality has been considered and upheld by other circuits. See McGhee v. Clark, 166 F.3d 884, 886 (7th Cir.1999) (noting that the IFRP “has been uniformly upheld against constitutional attack”); Dorman v. Thornburgh, 955 F.2d 57, 58-59 (D.C.Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Johnpoll v. Thornburgh, 898 F.2d 849, 851 (2d

A: holding ifrp does not deprive inmates of constitutional rights to due process
B: holding errors based on the constitutional rights to confrontation and due process may be waived by failure to object at trial
C: holding that doctrine does not violate due process
D: holding inmates in segregation unit without charges being filed against them and without informing them of reasons for such confinement violated inmates due process rights
A.