UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-11306
Summary Calendar
ROYAL MAYNE HOPPER, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:00-CV-1490-E)
March 2, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Royal Mayne Hopper, Jr., federal prisoner #27844-048, contests
the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as meritless. On
double jeopardy grounds, Hopper’s petition attacks his 1993
criminal sentence, contending it was followed by the “civil
forfeiture” of his Social Security retirement benefits under 42
U.S.C. § 402(x)(1)(A)(i).
Hopper’s double jeopardy claim is premised on an error in the
imposition of his sentence, rather than in the manner in which his
sentence is being executed. Therefore, the claim should have been
asserted in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
correct the sentence. See Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr., 911
F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990) (“Section 2255 provides the primary
means of collateral attack on a federal sentence. Relief under
this section is warranted for any error that occurred at or prior
to sentencing. A petition under § 2241 attacking custody resulting
from a federally imposed sentence may be entertained only where the
petitioner establishes that the remedy provided for under § 2255 is
inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”
(internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted)).
A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion must be filed in the district where
the sentence was imposed; Hopper’s was in the District of Nevada.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129,
1132 (5th Cir. 1987). Therefore, the district court lacked
jurisdiction to construe Hopper’s petition as a § 2255 motion. Id.
In the light of the foregoing, the judgment is AFFIRMED on the
ground that Hopper failed to state a claim for relief under § 2241.
See Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992) (court
of appeals may affirm district court’s judgment on any basis
supported by record), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 972 (1993).
AFFIRMED
2