requires him to pay court-ordered restitution pursuant to the sentencing judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida — the district in which Durham was tried and convicted. Because Durham is proceeding pro se, we construe his petition liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Durham’s petition can be read to make out two di (8th Cir.2002) (dismissing delegation claim brought under § 2241). Thus, if Durham is to make an improper delegation claim, he must do so through a § 2255 petition filed in the Northern District of Florida. Second, Durham’s petition can also be read to challenge the IFRP’s constitutionality; namely, that the BOP lacks the constitutional authority to establi ir.1990) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Williams, 996 F.2d
holding ifrp does not deprive inmates of constitutional rights to due process holding bop did not exceed its authority in establishing ifrp and that the program does not violate due process holding that the act does not violate separation of powers is not void for vagueness and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a victim veto precluding application of the act holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof and that such a disposition does not violate the due process clause