Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480 (3d Cir.2001). Ryan does not challenge the execution of his sentence by, for example, seeking to compel the BOP to refrain from subjecting him to a requirement that he pay the costs of his incarceration. In fact, in his original § 2241 petition, which was dismissed for non-exhaustion, see note 1, supra, Ryan did challenge the execution of his sentence by asking for a declaration that the RRC contract was in conflict with his plea agreement and seeking an injunction against future sanctions for his refusal to sign. Ryan, 415 Fed.Appx. at 347. Those claims, however, are now moot because the BOP has removed Ryan’s RRC designation and there is no threat of the plea agreement being violated through any future RRC placement. Ryan’s present § 297 (3d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Ryan has not shown that his remedy under §
holding that resentencing is required holding that resentencing was required where the district court used an incorrect higher base level holding that although that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing the appellate court may nonetheless proceed to consider the district courts determination that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted holding that prisoner was required to proceed under  2255 where he sought resentencing based on claim that district court erred in assuming that the bop could lawfully place him in a community corrections center holding that pepper did not allow petitioner to seek a resentencing under  2255