Case Name: Charles Gene ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Don G. WOOD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-11
Citations: 241 F. App'x 110
Docket Number: No. 06-7374
Parties: Charles Gene ROGERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Don G. WOOD, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 241
Pages: 110–111

Head Matter:
Charles Gene ROGERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Don G. WOOD, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-7374.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 20, 2006.
Decided: July 11, 2007.
Charles Gene Rogers, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Gene Rogers, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court's orders dismissing his action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We vacate and remand.
In his § 2241 petition, Rogers challenged his convictions for murder and robbery. He filed the petition in the Middle District of North Carolina, where he is incarcerated. He was convicted and sentenced in Wayne County, North Carolina, which is in the Eastern District of North Carolina. See 28 U.S.C. § 113 (2000). The district court dismissed the action upon the finding that it should have been filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
A state prisoner incarcerated in a state with two or more judicial districts may file a habeas corpus petition in either the district of confinement or the district where the defendant was convicted and sentenced. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 497, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973). Thus, under the statute, Rogers' action was properly filed in the Middle District of North Carolina. While the district court could have transferred the petition to the Eastern District of North Carolina, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(d) (explaining that a district court, "in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice," may transfer a § 2241 petition to the district of conviction or the district of confinement), it erred in dismissing the petition.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's orders and remand. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED.