*1 Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2241 petition, see Alaimalo v. United States , 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and *2 we affirm.

In his section 2241 habeas petition, Fabricant challenged the constitutionality of Ninth Circuit General Order 6.11, which permits a motions panel to reject on behalf of the court a motion for en banc reconsideration of an unpublished order. This claim is not cognizable under section 2241 because it does not concern “the manner, location, or conditions of [his] sentence’s execution.” Hernandez v. Campbell , 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court therefore properly dismissed Fabricant’s section 2241 petition.

AFFIRMED.

2 17-16275

[*] 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).