United States v. Childs ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7592
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DOUGLAS WALTER CHILDS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.  Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (CR-95-20)
    Submitted:   February 23, 2005            Decided:    March 16, 2005
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam
    opinion.
    Douglas Walter Childs, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
    United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Jerry Wayne
    Miller, Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Douglas Walter Childs appeals the district court’s order
    construing     his   motion   for    a   temporary    restraining    order,
    injunction, and show cause order as a successive 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000) motion and dismissing the motion as successive.            We vacate
    the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings as
    set forth below.
    Childs pleaded guilty to kidnapping.              In addition to
    imposing a 290-month sentence, the district court ordered Childs to
    pay restitution of $44,347.20.       Although the criminal judgment did
    not specifically delegate authority to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
    to set the amount and timing of payments, the district court did
    not set a payment schedule and it appears that the BOP has been
    determining the installment payments.
    In his motion, Childs asserted that the district court
    had improperly delegated its authority to set the amount and timing
    of his restitution payments to the BOP in violation of United
    States v. Miller, 
    77 F.3d 71
    , 78 (4th Cir. 1996), and United
    States v. Johnson, 
    48 F.3d 806
    , 808 (4th Cir. 1995).          On appeal, he
    explains that he wants collection to be deferred until his release
    from prison.
    We    find   that   Childs’       motion   only   challenges   the
    implementation of the restitution portion of his sentence. Because
    he does not seek to be released from custody, we construe his
    - 2 -
    motion as a petition for habeas corpus relief arising under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (2000).          See Blaik v. United States, 
    161 F.3d 1341
    ,
    1342-43 (11th Cir. 1998) (collecting cases holding that a § 2255
    motion   may    not     be   used   for   challenging        fines   or   restitution
    orders); cf. United States v. Miller, 
    871 F.2d 488
    , 489-90 (4th
    Cir. 1989) (holding that a claim for jail time credits should be
    brought under § 2241).
    A § 2241 petition must be brought in the district in
    which petitioner is incarcerated, see In re Jones, 
    226 F.3d 328
    ,
    332 (4th Cir. 2000), and Childs is presently incarcerated in
    Atlanta, Georgia.            Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s
    order and remand for the district court to determine whether
    transferring Childs’ § 2241 petition to the proper federal district
    court would serve the interests of justice, see 
    28 U.S.C. § 1631
    (2000), or whether the action is more appropriately dismissed
    without prejudice to allow Childs to file his action in the
    appropriate district court. We dispense with oral argument because
    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
    materials      before    the    court     and     argument    would   not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    WITH INSTRUCTIONS
    - 3 -