The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas J. Mcavoy, Senior United States District Judge
Currently before the Court is a petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 submitted by Petitioner Raphael Carrera, a/k/a Ralph Milone.*fn1 Dkt. No. 1.
Petitioner, who is confined at the Federal Correctional Institution at Ray Brook, New York, brings this action to challenge the sentence that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York imposed upon him. That court sentenced Petitioner on July 2, 1999, to a term of 360 months imprisonment. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Petitioner does not indicate whether he appealed from the conviction and sentence, or whether he filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court challenging the sentence.
As a basis for his current petition, Petitioner asserts that Petitioner's sentence is being executed (1) "in a manner inconsistent with United States Supreme Court decision(s)"*fn2 ; (2) "in a manner inconsistent" with the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (3) "in a manner inconsistent with International Law." Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. Petitioner claims that his sentence is not being properly executed.*fn3
A. Section 2255 and Section 2241
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a federal court who wishes to attack the validity of his conviction or sentence collaterally may file a motion in the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Adams v. United States, 372 F.3d 132, 134 (2d Cir. 2004); Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 474 (2d Cir. 1997). That right, however, is not unlimited. Rather, § 2255 contains a gatekeeping provision that limits a petitioner's ability to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. In pertinent part, this statute provides that
[a] second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain --
(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.
By contrast, a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper vehicle to challenge the execution of a sentence. See Adams, 372 F.3d at 135; 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For example, a petitioner may use a § 2241 petition to challenge a federal official's computation of a sentence, parole decisions, or prison disciplinary actions. See Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146 (2d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). A federal ...