Ossie Robert Trader v. United States of America

ALD-207 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1141
___________
OSSIE ROBERT TRADER,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-03698)
District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson, III
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 22, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 3, 2008 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Ossie Robert Trader appeals from an order of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.

-- 1 of 3 --

Notably, it appears that Trader was convicted and sentenced under the MVRA’s1
predecessor statute, the Victim and Witness Protection Act, which did not require the
sentencing court to set the schedule of payments. See United States v. Corley, 500 F.3d
210, 226 (3d Cir. 2007); United States v. Cottman, 142 F.3d 160, 168 n.10 (3d Cir. 1998).
2
In 2007, Trader filed a § 2241 petition, alleging that the sentencing “court did not
set a [restitution] payment schedule” under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act
(“MVRA”). The District Court characterized Trader’s claim slightly differently, stating
that he was “attack[ing] the legality of the court’s calculation of the amount of restitution
he has been ordered to make.” In any event, the District Court dismissed the petition,
noting that “relief is not available under any part of AEDPA, including both 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241, if the petition solely attacks the imposition of a monetary
fine or an order of restitution.” Trader appealed.
To the extent that Trader challenged the terms of his restitution order, the District
Court correctly concluded that he could not raise such a claim in a § 2255 motion. See
Blaik v. United States, 161 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that § 2255 may
not be utilized by a person in federal custody to attack only the restitution portion of his
sentence because § 2255 affords relief only to those claiming the right to be released from
custody). We also agree with the District Court insofar as it concluded that Trader’s
claim does not fall within the purview of § 2241. Trader did not challenge the execution
of his sentence. Instead, he essentially alleged that the sentencing court failed to follow
the strictures of the MVRA. See, e.g., Coady v.Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485-86 (3d Cir.1

-- 2 of 3 --

Trader’s motion to expedite consideration of this appeal is denied.2
3
2001) (federal prisoners’ claims involving execution of sentence are cognizable under
§ 2241).
Therefore, because the District Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Trader’s
claim, we will summarily affirm.2

-- 3 of 3 --