MEMORANDUM**

Federal prisoner Ronald Del Raine appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging a decision by the United States Parole Commission (“Commission”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm.

Del Raine contends that the Commission erred in computing his mandatory early release hearing date pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4206(d).

Del Raine may not challenge the execution of his sentence in the instant 28 U. S.C. § 2241 petition because his claims are barred as successive. See § 2244(a) (stating that a federal court is not required to entertain a habeas petition “if it appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus”). The district court properly dismissed Del Raine’s petition as successive because he raises the same claims raised in a prior habeas petition, and denied on the merits by the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Id; cf. Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100, 1111 (9th Cir. 2000) (deciding that the gatekeeping provisions of § 2244 did not apply to an INS detainee who filed a § 2241 petition since detention challenged was not pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United *763States); see also Hill v. Alaska, 297 F.3d 895, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2002) (deciding, in a case of first impression, that a habeas petition was not second or successive under § 2244(b) because the petition was challenging the mandatory release date for the first time, and those claims could not have been included in earlier petitions).

AFFIRMED.1