Danny FABRICANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. T. SHARTLE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, 707 F. App'x 902

MEMORANDUM Federal prisoner Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ha-beas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a

section 2241 petition, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm. In his

section 2241 habeas petition, Fab-ricant challenged the constitutionality, of Ninth Circuit General Order 6.11, which permits a motions panel to reject on behalf of the court a motion for en banc reconsideration of an unpublished order. This claim is not cognizable under

section 2241 because it does not concern “the manner, location, or conditions of [his] sentence’s execution.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court therefore properly dismissed Fabri-cant’s

section 2241 petition. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.