UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-11306 Summary Calendar

ROYAL MAYNE HOPPER, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (4:00-CV-1490-E)

March 2, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Royal Mayne Hopper, Jr., federal prisoner #27844-048, contests

the dismissal of his

petition as meritless. On

double jeopardy grounds, Hopper’s petition attacks his 1993

criminal sentence, contending it was followed by the “civil

forfeiture” of his Social Security retirement benefits under

(x)(1)(A)(i).

Hopper’s double jeopardy claim is premised on an error in the

imposition of his sentence, rather than in the manner in which his

sentence is being executed. Therefore, the claim should have been

asserted in a

motion to vacate, set aside, or

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. correct the sentence. See Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr.,

(5th Cir. 1990) (“Section 2255 provides the primary

means of collateral attack on a federal sentence. Relief under

this section is warranted for any error that occurred at or prior

to sentencing. A petition under § 2241 attacking custody resulting

from a federally imposed sentence may be entertained only where the

petitioner establishes that the remedy provided for under § 2255 is

inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”

(internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted)).

A

motion must be filed in the district where

the sentence was imposed; Hopper’s was in the District of Nevada.

See

; Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I.,

(5th Cir. 1987). Therefore, the district court lacked

jurisdiction to construe Hopper’s petition as a § 2255 motion. Id.

In the light of the foregoing, the judgment is AFFIRMED on the

ground that Hopper failed to state a claim for relief under § 2241.

See Sojourner T v. Edwards,

(5th Cir. 1992) (court

of appeals may affirm district court’s judgment on any basis

supported by record), cert. denied,

(1993).

AFFIRMED

2