UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -