Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10648 Su m m ar yC al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. B E N JAM E N F RA N K L IN W H ITE , JR
. , al so kn ow n a s B e njam inF ra n k li n W h it e, J r ., a ls o k n o w n a s L y n n W h ite , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 02- C R

- 4- 1
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * In 200 2, B enj am en F ran kli n W h i t e, Jr. , f ederalpri soner # 281 22-177 p l ed gui l t y t o one co unt of bei ng a convi c t ed fel on i n pos se ss i on o f a f i r ear m and w as sen ten ced to 96 m on th s’i m p ri son m en t. M ore t h an f

ive years l ater , W h i t e f il ed a p l ead i n g en t i t l ed, “ R equ estf or N unc Pro Tu nc Cl ar i f i c at i on o f Judgm ent , ” as se r t i ng t hat , f ol l ow i ng hi s fede r al s e n te n c in g , h e h a db e e n in c a r c e r a te din a s ta te p r is o n fa c ility fo ra p p r o x im a te ly United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 12, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10648 Document: 00511049994 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2010N o. 09- 10648

S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . Edw ar ds , 7 1 1 F .2d 6 3 3 , 6 3 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 3 ). 1 Se eLe alv . Tom bo ne , 3 4 1 F .3 d4 2 7 , 4 2 7

– 3 0 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); Un i t ed S t ate s 2 v . Tu b w ell , 3 7 F .3 d1 7 5 , 1 7 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). Un i t e dS t a t e s v . B r o wn , 7 5 3 F .2 d4 5 5 , 4 5 6 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). 3 G ar c i a v . Ren o , 2 3 4 F .3d 2 5 7 , 2 5 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). 4 Bro wn , 753 F. 2d at456. 5 S eeid
. 6 2 six ye ar s. H e c ont ended t hathe w as e n ti t l ed t o c r edi tagai nsthi s fede r al s e n t e n c e fo rt h e t im e s p e n tin s t a t e c u s t o d y . T h e d is t r ic tc o u r td e n ie dW h it e ’s
m ot i on w i t h ou tassi gn i n g reasons. W h i te n ow ap p ea l s th e d en i a lof h i s p ro s e m oti on . H e a rg u es th a t a r e m andi s r e quir e d b e c aus e t he di s t ri ctcour tdi d no ta s s i gn r e as o ns f o rt he d en i a lof reli ef. B eca u se th e rec ord con cl u sively sh ow s th a t W h i te i s en ti tl ed to no r e l i e f, as t at e m e nto f r e as o ns w as no tr e quir e d. 1 W hi t e ar g u e s t h a th e i s e n t i t l e dt o c r e d i to n h i s fe d e r a ls e n t e n c e f o rt he si x- year peri od h e sp en tin stat e cu st odyfol l ow i n g h i s s en t en ci n g by the dis t ri ct c our t . W hi t e’ s cl ai m f orc r edi ton hi s fede r als ent enc e f ort he t i m e he w as i n carcer ated i n st ate pri son sh ou l d be constr u ed as seeki n g h abea s r el i ef un der 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2241 beca u se he i s c h al l en gi n g t h e m an n er i n w h i ch h i s s en t en ce 2 is b e in ge x e c u te dr a th e rt h a n t h e le g a lityo f h is c o n v ic tio n o rth e v a lid ityo f h is s e nt e nc e . Thi s c o ur t“ r e vi e w s de no vo t he di s m i s s alo f a§ 2 24 1 pe t i t i o n o n t he 3 p le a d in g s .” 4

“ To e nt e r t ai n a§ 2 24 1 hab e as pe t i t i o n, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tm us t , upo n t he fil i n g o f th e p eti ti on , h a ve j u ri sd i cti on ov er th e p ri son er orh i s cu s to d ia n .” 5 W h ite file dh is p le a d in gin t h e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f T e x a s w h ile in c a r c e r a te din a fe de r alpr i s o n fac i l i t y i n Ar ka ns as . As a re s ul t , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tw as w i t ho ut j ur i s di c t i o n t o c o ns i de rt he m e r i t s o f W hi t e ’ s pe t i t i o n. 6 Case: 09-10648 Document: 00511049994 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2010N o. 09- 10648

3 W e m o d i fy the j u d gm en t of the distri ct cou rt t o ex p l i ci tly re fl ect a d is m is s a l fo rw a n t o f ju r is d ic tio n to e n te r ta in W h ite ’ s re q u e s t. T h e ju d g m e n t is af f i r m e d a s s o m o dif

i e d. AF F I RMED AS MODI F I ED
. Case: 09-10648 Document: 00511049994 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2010