UNITED STATES v. SENTY HAUGEN (2019)

[Unpublished]

While civilly committed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, Arthur Senty-Haugen got caught running a fraudulent tax-refund scheme. He pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 286, and the district court ¹ sentenced him to ten years in federal prison. On appeal, Senty-Haugen maintains the district court erred by ordering him into the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons rather than returning him to state custody.

We have previously explained that arguments concerning a prisoner's “place of confinement challenges the execution of his federal sentence, not its validity or legality,” so Senty-Haugen's proper avenue for relief, if any, is through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after he has exhausted his remedies with the Bureau of Prisons. See United States v. Sims, 51 F. App'x 1002, 1003 (8th Cir. 2002) (unpublished per curiam).

Senty-Haugen also challenges “on an Anders basis,” see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained against him. After reviewing the record and arguments, we find this contention meritless. See United States v. Meeks, 639 F.3d 522, 528–29, 528 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011).

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

PER CURIAM.