[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 01-1935
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
RAMON E. MEJIAS-NEGRON,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Ramon E. Mejias-Negron on brief pro se.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-
Pacheco, Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Perez-
Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
March 19, 2002
Per Curiam. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
(IFP), Ramon Mejias Negron (Mejias) appeals from the district
court’s denial of his motion to hold the U.S. Marshal in contempt
of court. He also appeals the district court’s denial of his
subsequent motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) seeking
findings of fact and conclusions of law on the merits of his
contempt motion.
Mejias’s argument that the U.S. Marshal is guilty of
contempt of court because he failed to obey the district court’s
directive in its final judgment that Mejias be returned to the
federal prison facility in Rochester, Minnesota, is unavailing.
A district court does not have the authority to specify a
particular prison in which the defendant is to serve his or her
sentence. United States v. Wells, 766 F.2d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1985).
The Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons (BOP),
designates the place of confinement. See United States v. Wilson,
503 U.S. 329, 331, (1992). Accordingly, Mejias has not established
contempt of court, and the district court did not err by denying
his motion.
Furthermore, the district court did not err in denying
Mejias’s motion pursuant to Rule 52(a) either because the court was
not required to make findings of fact and draw conclusions of law
-2-
regarding Mejias’s contempt motion. Rule 52(a) states: “Findings
of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of
motions under Rule 12 or 56 or any other motion except as provided
in subdivision (c) of this rule.” Because the exception of Rule
52(c) does not apply to the present facts, it is clear that under
Rule 52(a) the district court did not err in summarily denying as
moot Mejias’s contempt motion without opinion. See Enzo Biochem,
Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
-3-