[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 11564 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:07

- cr - 00308

- LGW

- GRS

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus DONALD FLOYD BROWN, Defendan t

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________ (January 15, 2019) Before MARCUS , MA RTIN and FAY , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Donald Brown, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals from the district

c ourt’s denial of a motion construed as being a motion to c larify his s entence. On appeal, Brown argues that the district court erred in denying his motion , and that the

Case: 18-11564 Date Filed: 01/15/2019 Page: 1 of 42 time he spent in jail from September 25, 2007, to January 9, 2009 should have been applied to his federal sentence. In response, t he government argues that Brown’s motion is best construed as seeking relief under 28 U. S.C. § 2241 and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant Brown relief under § 2241. After careful review, we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s interpretation and application of a statute and the legality of a sentence. See Dawson v. Scott , 50 F.3d 884, 88 6 (11th Cir. 1995). We also review de novo whether a district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case. Mesa Val derrama v. United States , 417 F.3d 1189, 1194 (11th Cir. 2005). We may affirm on any ground supported by the re cord. Castillo v. United States , 816 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2016); see also Fernandez v. United
States , 941 F.2d 1488, 1494

- 95 (11th Cir. 1 991). Courts are obligated to “look behind the label” of pro se inmate filings to determine whether they are cognizable under “a different remedial statutory framework.” United States v. Jordan , 91 5 F.2d 622, 624

- 25 (11th Cir. 1990). It is well establish ed that “ [a] claim for credit for time served is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after the exhaustion of administrative remedies.” United States v. Nyhuis , 211 F.3d 1340, 1345 (11th Cir. 2000). In addition, a petition filed pursuant to § 2241 must be brou ght in the district court for the district in which the inmate is

Case: 18-11564 Date Filed: 01/15/2019 Page: 2 of 43 incarcerated. Fernandez , 941 F.2d at 1495. Any other district court lacks jurisdiction over the § 2241 petition. Id

. Here, t he district court did not err in denying Brown’s motion. As an initial matter, to the extent Brown was seeking to alter his sentence based on credit for time served , his motion should have been construed as a § 2241 petition

. Nyhuis , 211 F.3d at 1345 . A s a § 2241 petition , however, the district court would have lacked jurisdiction over it

. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), 2255(e); Fernandez , 941 F.2d at 1495. This is because Brown was required to file any § 2241 petition like this in the district where he was incarcerated, which was South Carolina

. Fernandez , 941 F.2d at 1495.
F urther, the United States District Court for the D istrict of South Carolina ha s already denied a § 2241 petition from Brown that made arguments about crediting his federal sentence. S ee Brown v. Warden, FCI Williamsburg , 2017 WL 4174778 (D.S.C. Sept. 17, 2017), aff’d 712 F. App’x 298 (4th Cir. 2018)

. Accordingly, the district court would have lacked jurisdiction over any petition brought by Brown to challenge the length of his sentenc e. Our review of the record, however, indicates that Brown’s filings below are more properly construed as asking the district court only to clarify the timing of his
sentence . Specifically, in one of the filings, he claimed that he was not seeking relief but rather only clarification as to when his federal sentence began. And, as the record reveals, the district court issued an order that fully and correctly explain ed that

Case: 18-11564 Date Filed: 01/15/2019 Page: 3 of 44 Brown’s time spent in official detention prior to t he start of his sentence had been credited toward his state sentence , and , therefore, could not also be applied to his federal sentence

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (“ A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences

. . . . that has not been credited against another sentence. ”). We can find no error in the district court’s order

. Accordingly, the district court did not err in addressing Brow n’s request for clarification, and we affirm. Dawson , 50 F.3d at 886 ; Castillo , 816 F.3d at 1303. AFFIRMED

. Case: 18-11564 Date Filed: 01/15/2019 Page: 4 of 4