United States v. Hazel , 204 F. App'x 256 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6793
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM HAZEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (2:92-cr-00163-1; 3:05-cv-00611-REP)
Submitted: September 22, 2006 Decided: October 26, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Hazel, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court's order construing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(2000) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it as
successive. Although Hazel alternatively sought, and received,
transfer of his § 2241 petition from the District of Kansas, his
place of confinement, to the Eastern District of Virginia, the
sentencing court, Hazel states that he intended to file a § 2241
petition raising a challenge to the manner in which his sentence
was calculated. Judicial review of a § 2241 petition must be
sought in the district of confinement rather than the sentencing
court. In re: Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir. 2000). In cases
such as this one, where relief pursuant to § 2241 is sought in the
sentencing court, the court is without jurisdiction to consider the
request. On this basis, we affirm the district court’s dismissal
of Hazel’s § 2241 petition without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction. 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.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
- 2 -