Filed: Dec. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7358 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TYREZE HUGHES, a/k/a Tony Jermain Milton, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cr-00682-PMD-1) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7358 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TYREZE HUGHES, a/k/a Tony Jermain Milton, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cr-00682-PMD-1) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7358
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TYREZE HUGHES, a/k/a Tony Jermain Milton,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00682-PMD-1)
Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyreze Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Tyreze Hughes seeks to appeal the district court’s
margin order that denied his “motion for additional jail time
credit.” We conclude that the district court did not have
jurisdiction to consider Hughes’s claim because such claims,
which challenge the execution of a sentence, must be filed in a
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006), in the district court
where the prisoner is confined. United States v. Miller,
871
F.2d 488, 489-90 (4th Cir. 1989). Hughes currently is confined
in Beaver, West Virginia, but he filed the instant petition in
the sentencing court in the District of South Carolina. Because
the district court lacked jurisdiction, we affirm the denial of
relief, as modified to reflect that the dismissal is without
prejudice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
2