US v. Theresa Sirri Mubang
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:01-cr-00252-LMB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999214268]. Mailed to: Theresa Mubang. [13-7067]
Appeal: 13-7067
Doc: 7
Filed: 10/09/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7067
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THERESA SIRRI MUBANG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:01-cr-00252-LMB-1)
Submitted:
September 30, 2013
Decided:
October 9, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Theresa Sirri Mubang, Appellant Pro Se.
Steve Alan Linick,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-7067
Doc: 7
Filed: 10/09/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Theresa Mubang appeals a district court order denying
her
motion
to
modify
restitution
vacate the restitution order.
payments
and
her
motion
to
We affirm in part, vacate in part
and remand.
In her motion to modify, Mubang was seeking a district
court
order
payment
Program.
directing
schedule
under
the
Bureau
the
of
Inmate
Prisons
to
Financial
modify
the
Responsibility
Because Mubang was challenging the execution of her
sentence, such a request should have been made in a 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013) petition.
See United States v.
Diggs, 578 F.3d 318, 319 (5th Cir. 2009).
currently
incarcerated
at
the
SFF
Because Mubang is
Hazelton
in
the
Northern
District of West Virginia, the district court in this instance
did not have jurisdiction to entertain the request to modify the
payment schedule because a § 2241 petition must be filed in the
district of incarceration.
See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(a); In re
Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 332 (4th Cir. 2000).
However, a district
court must “if it is in the interest of justice, transfer [the
petition] . . . to any other such court in which [it] could have
been brought at the time it was filed[.]”
28 U.S.C. § 1631
(2006).
Accordingly, we vacate that part of the order denying
Mubang’s motion to modify and remand for the district court to
2
Appeal: 13-7067
Doc: 7
Filed: 10/09/2013
Pg: 3 of 3
determine whether transferring Mubang’s motion to modify to the
proper
federal
district
court
would
serve
the
interests
of
justice, see 28 U.S.C. § 1631, or whether the action is more
appropriately
dismissed
without
prejudice
to
allow
Mubang
to
file her action in the appropriate district court.
Because Mubang did not establish any reason to grant
her motion to vacate the order of restitution, we affirm for the
reasons cited by the district court.
United States v. Mubang,
No. 1:01-cr-00252-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. June 14, 2013).
Accordingly,
we
affirm
that
part
of
the
district
court’s order denying the motion to vacate and we vacate that
part of the order denying the motion to modify and remand for
further consideration by the district court in accordance with
this opinion.
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 IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?