February 17, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________


          No. 93-1886

            


                               FRANCIS A. CONNOR, II.,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Walter Jay Skinner, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                             Torruella, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ___________________

               Francis A. Connor on brief pro se.
               _________________



                                  __________________

                                  __________________





















                 Per  Curiam.    Petitioner Francis  Connor  appeals  the
                 ___________

            district  court's  dismissal  of  his   petition  for  relief

            pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   2255.  We affirm.

                 Connor raises  two issues  in his  petition.   First, he

            alleges   that  the  district  court  violated  18  U.S.C.   

            3561(a)(3) when  it sentenced him  to a term of  probation at

            the same time as it  sentenced him to a term  of imprisonment

            for another offense.  See 18 U.S.C.   3561(a)(3) (sentence of
                                  ___

            probation may not be imposed if defendant is sentenced at the

            same time  to a  sentence of imprisonment  for the same  or a

            different offense).  However, section 3561(a)(3) applies only

            to offenses committed after  Nov. 1, 1987.   See Pub. L.  No.
                                                         ___

            98-473,   235(a)(1), 98 Stat.  1976, 2031.  Since the offense

            for which Connor was sentenced occurred in 1984, there was no

            error in imposing  upon him both  a sentence of  imprisonment

            and one of probation.

                 Connor  also  asserts  that  the  Probation   Department

            intends,  without authority,  to  impose upon  his  probation

            conditions  not imposed by the sentencing court.1  See United
                                                               ___ ______

            States v. Crocker, 435 F.2d 601, 603 (8th Cir. 1971) ("Fixing
            ______    _______

            the terms and conditions of probation is a judicial act which

            may not be  delegated.").  Even if we  assume that conditions

            not   yet  imposed  upon  petitioner  are  ripe  for  review,

                                
            ____________________

            1.  The conditions are that the period of probation be served
            in  Springfield, Massachusetts  and  that petitioner  refrain
            from working in the used car business.

                                         -2-















            petitioner  is not challenging  the legality of  the sentence

            imposed  by the  court  but  the  conditions  of  confinement

            imposed by the Probation Department.  The proper vehicle  for

            such  a petition is  28 U.S.C.    2241 not 28  U.S.C.   2255.

            See United States  v. Di Russo, 535 F.2d 673  (1st Cir. 1976)
            ___ _____________     ________

            (allegation that "conditions of . . . confinement differ from

            what  the judge had  contemplated at the  time of sentencing"

            cognizable under    2241 not   2255).  Motions  pursuant to  

            2241, however, must be brought before  a district court which

            has jurisdiction over  the prisoner or his  custodian. United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Glantz, 884 F.2d  1483, 1489 (1st Cir. 1989), cert.
            ______    ______                                        ____

            denied, 493 U.S. 1086 (1990). Thus, even if the petition were
            ______

            treated as one pursuant to   2241, the district court for the

            District  of   Massachusetts  was  without   jurisdiction  to

            entertain   it   since   petitioner   was   incarcerated   in

            Pennsylvania at the time the petition was brought.  See id. 
                                                                ___ __

                 Affirmed.
                 ________



















                                         -3-