Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-08-01141/USCOURTS-ca3-08-01141-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

ALD-207 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1141

___________

OSSIE ROBERT TRADER,

 Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-03698)

District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson, III

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 22, 2008

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: June 3, 2008 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Ossie Robert Trader appeals from an order of the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.

Case: 08-1141 Document: 00311904822 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2008
Notably, it appears that Trader was convicted and sentenced under the MVRA’s 1

predecessor statute, the Victim and Witness Protection Act, which did not require the

sentencing court to set the schedule of payments. See United States v. Corley, 500 F.3d

210, 226 (3d Cir. 2007); United States v. Cottman, 142 F.3d 160, 168 n.10 (3d Cir. 1998).

2

In 2007, Trader filed a § 2241 petition, alleging that the sentencing “court did not

set a [restitution] payment schedule” under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act

(“MVRA”). The District Court characterized Trader’s claim slightly differently, stating

that he was “attack[ing] the legality of the court’s calculation of the amount of restitution

he has been ordered to make.” In any event, the District Court dismissed the petition,

noting that “relief is not available under any part of AEDPA, including both 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241, if the petition solely attacks the imposition of a monetary

fine or an order of restitution.” Trader appealed.

To the extent that Trader challenged the terms of his restitution order, the District

Court correctly concluded that he could not raise such a claim in a § 2255 motion. See

Blaik v. United States, 161 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that § 2255 may

not be utilized by a person in federal custody to attack only the restitution portion of his

sentence because § 2255 affords relief only to those claiming the right to be released from

custody). We also agree with the District Court insofar as it concluded that Trader’s

claim does not fall within the purview of § 2241. Trader did not challenge the execution

of his sentence. Instead, he essentially alleged that the sentencing court failed to follow

the strictures of the MVRA. See, e.g., Coady v.Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485-86 (3d Cir.

1

Case: 08-1141 Document: 00311904822 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2008
Trader’s motion to expedite consideration of this appeal is denied. 2

3

2001) (federal prisoners’ claims involving execution of sentence are cognizable under

§ 2241).

Therefore, because the District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Trader’s

claim, we will summarily affirm.2

Case: 08-1141 Document: 00311904822 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/03/2008