United States v. Hudson ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6538
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RICHARD DOYLE HUDSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.  Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (3:03-cr-00028-ALL)
    Submitted:   February 7, 2007             Decided:   March 26, 2007
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard Doyle Hudson, Appellant Pro Se.    Kimlani Murray Ford,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Richard Doyle Hudson appeals the district court’s order
    denying his motion for clarification of the restitution portion of
    the criminal judgment entered against him in the Western District
    of North Carolina after he pled guilty to two bank robberies and a
    firearm offense. The district court sentenced Hudson to a total of
    262 months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of
    supervised    release    and   imposed   restitution    in   the   amount   of
    $21,710.    Hudson filed his motion for clarification, claiming that
    the court improperly delegated the timing and amount of payments to
    the Bureau of Prisons in violation of United States v. Johnson, 
    48 F.3d 806
     (4th Cir. 1995), and United States v. Miller, 
    77 F.3d 71
    (4th Cir. 1996).        The district court denied Hudson’s motion for
    clarification, finding that the restitution order did not violate
    Miller.
    Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
    district court should have treated Hudson’s motion as a habeas
    corpus petition under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (2000), because he attacked
    the execution of the restitution order.                A § 2241 petition,
    however, must be brought in the district of incarceration.            See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    (a); In re Jones, 
    226 F.3d 328
    , 332 (4th Cir. 2000).
    Hudson is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in
    Beckley, West Virginia, which lies in the Southern District of West
    Virginia.     The district court in the Western District of North
    - 2 -
    Carolina therefore does not have jurisdiction over this § 2241
    proceeding.
    Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and
    remand for the court to determine whether transferring Hudson’s
    § 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 would be more appropriately dismissed without prejudice
    to Hudson’s right 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
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6538

Judges: Wilkinson, Michael, Duncan

Filed Date: 3/26/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024