Case ID: f-appx_11/html/0108-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Vernon HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Vernon Harris, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 00-6649, 00-7599.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 23, 2001.
    Decided April 16, 2001.
    James Vernon Harris, pro se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In No. 00-7599, James Vernon Harris appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, see Harris v. United States, Nos. CR-96-23; CA-00-751-3-17 (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2000), and the district court’s order denying his motion for bail pending appeal in No. 00-6649, see Harris v. United States, Nos. CR-96-23; CA-00-751-3-17 (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2000).

To the extent that Harris seeks to challenge the computation of his sentence through a § 2241 petition, he must first exhaust administrative remedies. United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334-37, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992). While Harris claims he has attempted to seek administrative redress, there is nothing in the record demonstrating he has done so. To the extent that Harris seeks to challenge the validity of his conviction or sentence, such a claim may only be raised in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). United States v. Miller, 871 F.2d 488, 489-90 (4th Cir.1989).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Harris’ § 2241 petition (No. 00-7599). We deny the motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary and dismiss as moot Harris’ appeal of the district court’s order denying his motion for bail pending appeal (No. 00-6649) based on our determination that Harris’ underlying appeal is without merit. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

DISMISSED. 
      
       Because the district court found it was without jurisdiction to consider Harris’ claim for credit for time served because Harris failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to show the futility in failing to so exhaust, our affirmance is without prejudice to Harris’ right to re-file his petition upon exhaustion or upon a showing of futility in attempting to exhaust his administrative remedies.