IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-51065

Summary Calendar

KIRK IRVING KOSKELLA,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

M. TRAVIS BRAGG, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CV-478

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Kirk Irving Koskella, federal prisoner # 08480-081, pleaded guilty

pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiring to defraud the Internal

Revenue Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and wire fraud, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1343. The United States District Court for the District of Utah

sentenced him to a total of 120 months of imprisonment. He appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 22, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-51065 Document: 00511241611 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2010
No. 09-51065

Koskella has not briefed any challenge to the dismissal of his claims that

the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) refused to provide him a statement of account,

failed to apply his payments toward the restitution obligation, and violated

provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Accordingly, he has

abandoned those issues. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993).

Koskella claims that he is entitled to release from custody as a result of

the district court’s failure to hold a proper hearing regarding the restitution

amount, his nonappearance at the resentencing hearing, the absence of a

determination of the loss amount, and the length of the sentence imposed for

Count One. Such claims relate to errors that allegedly occurred at or prior to

sentencing (or, here, resentencing) and thus are not properly raised in a § 2241

petition. Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 900 (5th Cir. 2001).

Similarly, to the extent he challenges the sentencing court’s imposition of

restitution, his claim is directed at an aspect of his sentence and not the

execution of his sentence. See Cox v. Warden, Federal Detention Center, 911 F.2d

1111, 1114 n.5 (5th Cir. 1990). Because Koskella does not contend that he was

convicted of an offense that is nonexistent or that his claim was foreclosed by

circuit law, Koskella does not meet the essential criteria for supporting a claim

under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at

904.

Thus, to the extent that Koskella’s claims challenging the restitution and

loss amounts, the resentencing hearing, and the length of his sentence are

construed as having been filed pursuant to § 2241, that portion of his § 2241

petition was an unauthorized action which the district court was without

jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th

Cir. 1994). Koskella therefore has appealed, in part, “from the denial of a

meaningless, unauthorized” action. Id. at 142. Accordingly, we affirm the

dismissal of these § 2241 claims on an alternative basis. See id.; see also

2

Case: 09-51065 Document: 00511241611 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2010
No. 09-51065

Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 769 n. 3 (5th Cir. 2009) (noting this court’s

practice of affirming the district court on alternative grounds when those

grounds are supported by the record), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3368 (2010).

Koskella also seeks immediate release from custody as a result of the

BOP’s alleged breach of the plea agreement, specifically, its provision that the

Government would not oppose Koskella’s “request to choose the correctional

facility where he will be incarcerated.” Even if it is assumed that Koskella’s

claim of a breach by the BOP was properly presented under § 2241, Koskella has

not established that he is entitled to relief. First, the Due Process Clause does

not, by itself, endow a prisoner with a protected liberty interest in the location

of his confinement. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976). A prisoner has

no constitutional right to be housed in a particular facility. See Tighe v. Wall,

100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996). Second, as the district court correctly

determined, the BOP did not breach the plea agreement executed between

Koskella and the United States Attorney for the District of Utah. Koskella’s

present assertion that the plea agreement requires the BOP to assent to his

wishes and designate a place or type of imprisonment consistent therewith is

contrary to his understanding, expressed in open court and under oath, that the

plea agreement did not amount to a binding promise on the BOP. By exercising

its authority pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), the BOP did not breach the plea

agreement. Third, Koskella’s claim that the BOP violated § 3621(b) in denying

his placement request because of his “significant financial resources” misreads

that statute. See § 3621(b) (“In designating the place of imprisonment or making

transfers under this subsection, there shall be no favoritism given to prisoners

of high social or economic status.”). Koskella has not established that he is

entitled to any of the relief requested in the district court.

Koskella additionally contends that through several unwarranted

transfers and the theft and destruction of his papers, BOP staff retaliated

against him and prevented him from seeking judicial redress. Because these

3

Case: 09-51065 Document: 00511241611 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/22/2010
No. 09-51065

issues are raised for the first time on appeal, we will not consider them. See

Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).

We caution Koskella that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise

abusive filings may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal,

monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court

or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED. Koskella’s motion for bail pending appeal and all other

outstanding motions are DENIED, and a SANCTION WARNING IS ISSUED.

4

Case: 09-51065 Document: 00511241611 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/22/2010