Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01510/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01510-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Israel Chacon-Vega
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1510

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Israel Chacon-Vega, * Western District of Arkansas.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: January 31, 2008

Filed: February 6, 2008 

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Israel Chacon-Vega, a federal inmate incarcerated in Pennsylvania, appeals the

judgment of the district court denying his “Petition for a Waiver” of a $1,000 fine

imposed as part of the sentence he received in 2005 upon pleading guilty to an

immigration offense. Because he did not directly appeal his 2005 sentence, it is now

final and non-appealable.

After careful review of the record and considering all plausible constructions

of Chacon-Vega’s petition, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to

rule on it. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 2004) (pro se complaint

should be given liberal construction); Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.3d 521, 523 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 07-1510 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2008 Entry ID: 3399453
-2-

1991) (“jurisdiction issues will be raised sua sponte by a federal court when there is

an indication that jurisdiction is lacking”). First, only the government may bring a

petition to remit a fine under 18 U.S.C. § 3573. See United States v. Linker, 920 F.2d

1, 1-2 (7th Cir. 1990) (under current version of § 3573, defendant has no right to

request remission of fine). Further, a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the

execution of a sentence must be filed in the district where the petitioner is

incarcerated. See Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 373-74 (5th Cir. 2001) (“we have

firmly stated that the district of incarceration is the only district that has jurisdiction

to entertain a defendant’s § 2241 petition”); United States v. Leath, 711 F.2d 119, 120

(8th Cir. 1983) (case remanded to district court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

because petitioner, who was challenging execution of his sentence under § 2241, did

not file action in district where he was confined); cf. Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d

709, 711-12 (8th Cir. 2002) (where petitioners correctly framed claims regarding fine

payment schedules as § 2241 claims and brought them in district where petitioners

were incarcerated, district court erred in holding it did not have jurisdiction over such

claims). Finally, a challenge to the imposition of a fine is not cognizable in a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. Cf. United States v. Bernard, 351 F.3d 360, 361 (8th Cir.

2003) (inmate cannot challenge restitution portion of his sentence using § 2255

because statute affords relief only to prisoners claiming right to be released from

custody).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is

remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the petition without

prejudice.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1510 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2008 Entry ID: 3399453