Case Information
*1 Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Phillip T. Charleston appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Stephens v. Herrera , 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
*2 Charleston contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is improperly executing his sentence by including 84 months for Count 2, which had been dismissed. The record shows that , at the government’s request, Count 2 was reinstated six days later and Count 3 was instead dismissed. The record further shows that the jury convicted Charleston of Count 2 and the district court imposed an 84-month sentence thereon. The judgment has not been vacated or amended to change the 84-month sentence. Therefore, the BOP is correctly executing a valid judgment and the district court properly denied § 2241 relief. See United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992) (“ After a district court sentences a federal offender, the Attorney General, through the BOP, has the responsibility for administering the sentence. ”) .
This court lacks jurisdiction to consider Charleston ’s constitutional challenge to the reinstatement and conviction on Count 2 because it was not certified for appeal. See Beaty v. Stewart , 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (“ Courts of Appeals lack jurisdiction to resolve the merits of any claim for which a COA is not granted. ”); see also Porter v. Adams , 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001) (order) (holding that a successive § 2255 motion disguised as a § 2241 petition requires a COA). Insofar as Charleston seeks reconsideration of this court ’s denial of a COA as to that claim, it is denied.
AFFIRMED .
2 20-16367
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).