Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/982/529/137139/
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 23:50:52
Document Index: 119087362

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 3582', '§ 3621', '§ 3621', '§ 3624', '§ 3621']

John Moresco, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee, 982 F.2d 529 (10th Cir. 1992) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1992 › John Moresco, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee
John Moresco, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee, 982 F.2d 529 (10th Cir. 1992)
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 982 F.2d 529 (10th Cir. 1992) Dec. 10, 1992
The appellant has asserted two bases for the district court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. First, the appellant alleges that the district court has authority to modify his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, a habeas petition under § 2255 may only challenge the validity of a sentence, not the manner in which the sentence is being executed. United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186 (8th Cir. 1987); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1980); Thompson v. United States, 536 F.2d 459, 460 (1978). Thus, this section does not give the federal district courts authority to determine a prisoner's place of confinement. United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893 (6th Cir. 1991); Duval v. Willingham, 390 F.2d 203, 204 (10th Cir. 1968).2
Our conclusion that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) do not confer subject matter jurisdiction on the district court is supported by the grant of authority to the Bureau of Prisons in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). This section authorizes the Bureau of Prisons "to designate the place of a prisoner's imprisonment." 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). The term "imprisonment" refers to any type of custody, including custody in a correctional facility or home confinement program. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c); Jalili, 925 F.2d at 893-94. Consequently, § 3621(b) gives primary authority to the executive branch over any petition pertaining to a prisoner's place of confinement.3 See Johnson v. Moore, 926 F.2d 921, 923 (9th Cir. 1991); Jalili, 925 F.2d at 892; Dragna, 746 F.2d at 458; Duval, 390 F.2d at 204. Accordingly, we find that the district court was without authority to entertain the appellant's motion to modify his sentence.4
This court reviews de novo issues pertaining to its subject matter jurisdiction. Weiss v. United States, 889 F.2d 937, 938 (10th Cir. 1989)