The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge
Petitioner pro se Kaleel Wilson F.C.I. Fort Dix P.O. Box 2000 Fort Dix, NJ 08640
Petitioner Kaleel Wilson, a prisoner currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Dix, New Jersey, has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus*fn1 and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The sole respondent is Warden Donna Zickefoose.
Because it appears from a review of the Petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Petition will be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of (1) possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii), (2) possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), and (3) being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 180 months imprisonment, pursuant to which he is now confined. See United States v. Wilson, Criminal No. 07-0732 (E.D. Pa.).*fn2
Here, Petitioner asserts that the Bureau of Prisons has "improperly" applied to him a Sex Offender Public Safety Factor based upon a conviction for Indecent Assault when Petitioner was a minor. Petitioner alleges that he has exhausted his administrative remedies and attaches to the Petition the May 14, 2010, administrative remedy response by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Central Office.
II. STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL United States Code Title 28, Section 2243 provides in relevant part as follows:
A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.
A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions must be construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. See Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 912 (1970). Nevertheless, a federal district court can dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 320 (1996); Siers v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1025 (1989). See also 28 U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2255.