ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Glenn E. Duggins, an inmate appearing proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. In 2001, Mr. Duggins pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than one thousand kilograms of marijuana. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1); (b)(l)(A)(vii); 846. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and ten years supervised release. He did not file a direct appeal. He then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion which was denied on the merits by the district court which adopted the report *533 and recommendation of the magistrate judge. See Duggins v. United States, No. 2:99-cr-00777-JEC, ECF Nos. 408 & 409 (D.N.M. Dec. 16, 2002). We denied a certificate of appealability because Mr. Dug-gins had not objected to the proposed findings and recommended dispostion. United States v. Duggins, No. 02-2336 (10th Cir. Aug. 12, 2003). Mr. Duggins also has filed two mandamus proceedings seeking other relief. See In re: Glenn E. Duggins, No. 10-2074 (10th Cir. June 23, 2010) (dismissed for lack of prosecution); In re: Duggins, 10-2166 (10th Cir. Aug. 2, 2010) (dismissed in part and denied in part).

Mr. Duggins claims that the district court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on his drug conviction. R. 11-12. The district court recognized that this claim could only be pursued as an out-of-time, second or successive § 2255 motion, and concluded that Mr. Duggins had not demonstrated that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective, let alone sought authorization fi*om the court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1178 (10th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the district court declined to recharacterize the petition as a § 2255 motion. The district court also determined that if construed as a § 2241 petition, it was filed in the wrong court. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996) (explaining that a § 2241 petition challenges the execution of a sentence and must be filed in the district of confinement). We agree with the district court’s analysis.

AFFIRMED. We DENY the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. All pending motions and other requests for relief are denied.