United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-11180
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANDRECO LOTT,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:01-CR-177-6)
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
A jury convicted Andreco Lott, federal prisoner # 27068-177,
of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, two counts of bank robbery,
two counts of conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce by
robbery, and four counts of using and carrying a firearm during a
crime of violence. See United States v. Lott, 66 F. App’x 523 (5th
Cir. 2003). The district court sentenced Lott to a total aggregate
term of imprisonment of 1,111 months, to be followed by concurrent
terms of three and five years of supervised release. The district
court ordered Lott to pay restitution in the amount of $87,359.85,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
jointly and severally with his codefendants, with payment to begin
immediately. The district court also ordered Lott to pay special
assessments of $900 immediately.
More than one year after his conviction and sentence became
final, Lott filed a “Motion to Modify Assessments Court Cost and
Restitution Order and Set Installment Payments” and a petition to
establish quarterly installments. The purpose of the motions was
for the district court to establish a payment plan for the special
assessments and restitution. Lott alleged that the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) was requiring him to pay more per month than he could
afford. Lott appeals the district court’s denial of these motions.
Lott’s motions challenged the manner in which the BOP was
administering the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. His
motions did not explicitly attack any action by the sentencing
court. Lott’s motions are in the nature of 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petitions and should have been filed in the district of his
incarceration. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir.
2000).
Accordingly, the district court’s order is VACATED and this
case is REMANDED with instructions for the district court to enter
an order dismissing Lott’s petitions for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
VACATED and REMANDED.
2