claims. First, Durham apparently challenges the delegation of judicial authority by the sentencing court to the BOP. He cites extensively to our decision in United States v. Overholt, 307 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir.2002), which holds that 18 U.S.C. § 3664 prohibits a sentencing court from delegating to the BOP the task of establishing a payment schedule for the payment of court-ordered restitution. Id. at 1255-56. However, as noted by the district court, we lack jurisdiction to entertain a claim of judicial delegation. This is because such a claim implicates the validity of Durham’s sentence, and Durham can only attack the validity of his sentence through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition filed in the district court that sentenced him. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166-67 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709,
holding that an attack on the computation and execution of a sentence must come in the form of a  2241 petition holding that  2255 is unavailable to attack execution of sentence holding that a  2255 petition seeking only reinstatement of the right to a direct appeal does not render any later petition a second or successive petition under the aedpa holding that subject matter jurisdiction under  2241 is present in the custodial court when the petition challenges the manner location or condition of a sentences execution holding that a petition under  2241 attacks the execution of a sen tence while a  2255 petition attacks the validity of a judgment and sentence