
    Alfredo ALVAREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 05-10842.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
    Alfredo Alvarez, Pine Knot, KY, pro se.
    Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alfredo Alvarez, federal prisoner # 30170-077, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction because it was not filed in the district of his incarceration. Alvarez argues that he should be allowed to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 remedy is inadequate to raise his Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995) claim. He argues in the alternative that the district court should have construed his petition as an amendment to his initial § 2255 motion.

A § 2241 petition must be filed in the district where the prisoner is incarcerated; as the sentencing court, the district court indeed lacked jurisdiction to entertain Alvarez’s pleading as a § 2241 petition. Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir.1999). Alvarez’s pleading challenged his conviction and sentence based on errors that allegedly occurred during the criminal proceedings; these claims should have been brought in a § 2255 proceeding. Davis v. Fechtel, 150 F.3d 486, 490 (5th Cir.1998). Alvarez has already unsuccessfully sought § 2255 relief, and, therefore, the instant pleading, which raised claims that were or could have been raised in a prior motion, was successive. United States v. Orozco-Ramirez, 211 F.3d 862, 867 (5th Cir.2000). Alvarez had not received prior permission from us to file a successive § 2255 motion; consequently, the district court was without jurisdiction to construe his petition as a § 2255 motion. Hooker, 187 F.3d at 681-82. The dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was therefore appropriate.

Finally, Alvarez’s contentions that (1) the district court erred in withdrawing the 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) reference of his case to the magistrate judge; (2) the district court abused its discretion in denying him an evidentiary hearing; (3) his § 2241 petition was supported by facts which demonstrate his entitlement to relief; and (4) the district court abused its discretion in failing to consider the merits of his claims are inadequately briefed and are therefore waived. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.
     