USA v. Addison et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cr-134-FDW-DSC-6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) ORDER
)
BRADLEY BEAUCHAMP, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________ )
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s pro se “Petition Under Nunc Pro
Tunc” [Doc. 3361].
The Defendant purports to seek a correction of a “clerical error in the record….” [Doc.
3361 at 1]. However, a review of the Petition reveals that the Defendant is actually claiming that
the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has “miscalculated time that was spent in federal custody”
between July 17, 2017 and August 11, 2018. [Id.]. He asks the Court to issue an Order stating that
he was in federal custody during that period and instructing the BOP to correct its records to reflect
that time in its sentence monitoring computation data. [Id.].
A challenge to the BOP’s computation of a sentence must be brought, if at all, in a habeas
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed in the district where the inmate is incarcerated, in this
case, the Middle District of Florida. See generally Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (claim
that challenges the present physical confinement must be filed in the district of confinement); see
United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 490 (4th Cir. 1989) (“A claim for credit against a sentence
attacks the computation and execution of the sentence rather than the sentence itself. Judicial
review must be sought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of confinement rather than in the
Case 3:17-cr-00134-FDW-MTO Document 3366 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 2

2
sentencing court.”); see also United States v. Vance, 563 F. App’x 277, 278 (4th Cir. 2014) (“A
prisoner wishing to challenge the BOP’s computation or execution of a federal sentence may do
so via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . . . in the district of his
confinement following exhaustion of available administrative remedies.”). The Court will
therefore deny the instant Petition and will instruct the Clerk to provide the Defendant with a blank
§ 2241 form.1
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant’s pro se “Petition Under Nunc Pro
Tunc” [Doc. 3361] is DENIED. The Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail the Defendant a blank
§ 2241 form and a copy of this Order.
1 The Court declines to transfer the Petition to the Middle District of Florida because he Defendant has not paid the
filing fee or moved to proceed in forma pauperis, and the Petition is not verified. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242.
Signed: June 10, 2022
Case 3:17-cr-00134-FDW-MTO Document 3366 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 2