United States v. Mobarekeh
707 F. App'x 561
10th Cir.2017Background
- In 2015 Majid Iranpour Mobarekeh pleaded guilty to smuggling and possession with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 51 months' imprisonment.
- In Feb. 2017 he filed a "Petition for a Sentence Reduction" in the W.D. Oklahoma district court seeking admission to the BOP Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) and a sentence reduction after alleging Fourteenth Amendment violations for denial of RDAP entry.
- The Petition did not cite a statutory basis for relief and incorrectly referenced Title 28 provisions; it sought district-court intervention to obtain RDAP placement and attendant sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B).
- The district court adopted a magistrate judge recommendation construing the filing as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas application because it challenged the execution of his sentence (RDAP placement) rather than the sentence’s validity.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because § 2241 petitions must be filed in the district of the petitioner’s confinement, and Mobarekeh was confined in Texas, not Oklahoma.
- The panel affirmed, holding the petition properly construed as a § 2241 challenge to sentence execution and therefore outside the Oklahoma court’s jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is a § 2241 application challenging sentence execution | Mobarekeh argued the filing was not a § 2241 application | The government and district court treated the filing as a challenge to execution (RDAP denial) and therefore § 2241 | Petition is properly construed as a § 2241 application because it challenges prison actions affecting custody duration |
| Whether the Oklahoma district court had jurisdiction to hear the petition | Mobarekeh contended Oklahoma could hear the petition (did not concede § 2241) | Jurisdiction for § 2241 lies in the district of confinement (Texas) | Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether styling a filing differently avoids § 2241 treatment | Mobarekeh attempted different labels and statutory references | Court applies substance-over-form: relief sought determines characterization | Substance controls; labels do not avoid § 2241 classification |
| Whether appellate court should consider new arguments raised for the first time on appeal | Mobarekeh raised additional arguments on appeal | Court invoked the rule barring consideration of new arguments not presented below | Court declined to consider new arguments on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hale v. Fox, 829 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2016) (distinguishing § 2241 as remedy for challenges to execution of sentence)
- United States v. Miller, 594 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2010) (construing filings by substance as § 2241 when they challenge sentence execution)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (jurisdiction for habeas petitions lies in district of confinement)
- United States v. Mora, 293 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2002) (court will not consider arguments raised for first time on appeal)