United States v. Jarvis McCoy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6448
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JARVIS MCCOY, a/k/a Black Jarvis,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00151-H-1)
Submitted: August 26, 2014 Decided: September 4, 2014
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jarvis McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United
States Attorney, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jarvis McCoy appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to modify payments of a fine. In his motion,
McCoy sought a district court’s order directing the Bureau of
Prisons to modify the payment schedule under the Inmate
Financial Responsibility Program. Because McCoy was challenging
the execution of his sentence, such a request should have been
made in a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012). See United
States v. Diggs, 578 F.3d 318, 319 (5th Cir. 2009). Because
McCoy is currently incarcerated at the MCFP Springfield in
Springfield, Missouri, the district court in this instance did
not have jurisdiction to entertain the request to modify the
payment schedule because a § 2241 petition must be filed in the
district of incarceration. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); In re:
Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 332 (4th Cir. 2000). However, a district
court must “if it is in the interest of justice, transfer [the
petition] . . . to any other such court in which [it] could have
been brought at the time it was filed[.].” 28 U.S.C. § 1631(2012).
We accordingly vacate the district court’s order
denying the motion to modify and remand to the district court to
determine whether transferring McCoy’s motion to modify to the
proper federal district court would serve the interest of
justice, see 28 U.S.C. § 1631, or whether the action is more
2
appropriately dismissed without prejudice to allow McCoy 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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3