
    Juan Manuel CERVANTE, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-50248
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 18, 2010.
    Juan Manuel Cervante, Pecos, TX, pro se.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Manuel Cerrante, federal prisoner # 36300-177, filed in the district court a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that he has been deprived of benefits provided to other prisoners in light of his immigration status, including a possible one-year reduction of his sentence after completion of a drug treatment program under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) and placement in a less restrictive facility at the end of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). The district court dismissed Cervante’s habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that his claims involved the conditions of his confinement and thus should be presented in a civil rights action. Cerrante now seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal in order to challenge the district court’s adverse ruling. We grant the motion for leave to proceed IFP. Additionally, given our determination of the subject-matter jurisdiction question, we dispense with further briefing of the merits of Cer-vante’s claims.

Cervante’s challenges to his inability to receive a one-year sentence reduction after completion of a drug treatment program and to his ineligibility for placement in a halfway house or other less restrictive confinement designed to prepare a prisoner for reentry into society affect the execution of his sentence. Thus, such claims may be raised under § 2241. See Rublee v. Fleming, 160 F.3d 213, 214-17 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Cleto, 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir.1992). As a result, we vacate and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

IFP GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     