United States v. White, 490 F. App'x 979

Appellant Michael White, a.k.a. Abdul Hakeem Kareem Mujahid, was convicted in 2010 in the District of Kansas of voluntary manslaughter and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon.
On December 30, 2010, the district court sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment; he is serving at ADX Florence, Colorado.
On the same day, a Kansas state court granted his petition to change his name to Abdul Hakeem Kareem Mujahid.
On January 15, 2011, Appellant notified the district court of his name change and sought court-ordered recognition and amendment of records to reflect his new name.
On April 21, 2011, the district court denied the relief, citing BOP policy and potential record-keeping issues from retroactive name changes.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied; the district court clarified that BOP policy allows dual-name recognition if properly documented, but declined amending the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the name-change amendment.	White argues his religious name must be reflected in the judgment.	The court found no right to retroactive name amendment and stressed potential record-keeping confusion.	No abuse; denial affirmed.
Whether this direct criminal appeal is proper to challenge BOP name-recognition policies.	White seeks a court order directing BOP to recognize his religious name.	Direct appeal is not appropriate for prison-rights claims; civil action is proper; no administrative remedies pursued.	Affirmed; appeal not a vehicle to compel BOP policy changes.

Hakim v. Hicks, 223 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2000) (duality-name considerations not include amending judgment here)
Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010) (prisoner civil-rights plausibility standards require sufficient factual allegations)
United States v. Baker, 415 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denying name-change relief)