Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01380/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01380-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Harvey
Appellant
William Perrill
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED sTATEs coURT oF APPEALS F

8 I.L~Jlppealt United ta h c· 't 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tent ircut 

WILLIAM HARVEY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

WILLIAM PERRILL, Warden of FCI 

Englewood at Littleton, 

Colorado, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

APR 13 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-1380 

(D.C. No. 92-M-2010) 

(D. Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed . R. App. P . 

34(e); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

William Harvey, a prisoner at FCI Englewood, Littleton, 

Colorado, filed a 28 U.S . C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-1380 Document: 010110200916 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 1 
corpus in the United States District Court f or the District of 

Colorado. Mr. Harvey contended he had been convicted twice in the 

United States District Court for the District of Montana. He 

alleged his first conviction was for possessing an unregistered 

machine gun, an offense we found constitutionally invalid in 

United States v. Dalton, 960 F.2d 121 (10th Cir. 1992 ). He 

asserted he had completed the sentence for that conviction but was 

presently in custody under a sentence arising from a second and 

unrelated conviction. Mr. Harvey alleged the first conviction 

adversely affects the custody status, security level, and "public 

safety factor" of his present confinement. The Colorado district 

court dismissed the petition on jurisdictional grounds. Mr. 

Harvey appeals, and we affirm. 

The essential issue of this case is where to insert the 

seminal point raised by Mr. Harvey: the invalidity of his first 

conviction . He argues because of the collateral effect of his 

first conviction and because he still has to serve a term of 

supervised release as part of his first sentence, he is in custody 

under the first sentence for the purpose of habeas corpus. He 

therefore insists that he may proceed under§ 2241 simply because 

he is not challenging the validity of the sentence arising from 

his second conviction. 

The district court conceded 

custodial element of his 

Mr. Harvey has satisfied 

claim, but disagreed with 

the 

his 

jurisdictional argument and held Mr. 

exclusively within 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

-2-

Harvey's remedy lies 

Consequently, the court 

Appellate Case: 92-1380 Document: 010110200916 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 2 
denied the petition and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We 

agree entirely with the district court's analysis. 

Although Mr. Harvey argues his failure to challenge his 

second conviction allows him to proceed under§ 2241, we think he 

has missed the point. The only way he can obtain the ultimate 

relief he seeks is to prove his firearms conviction is 

constitutionally invalid though a proper collateral attack. 

Although his first conviction arguably may be voidable under the 

law of this circuit, that conviction stands until it is vacated by 

a court of competent jurisdiction. The only avenue to reach the 

goal of avoiding the first conviction is through § 2255. 

Additionally, by clear mandate of that statute, the only court 

which can afford him the relief he seeks is the district court in 

Montana where the voidable conviction was obtained. Carter v. 

Attorney General, 782 F.2d 138, 141 (10th Cir. 1986); United 

States v. Condit, 621 F.2d 1096, 1097 (10th Cir. 1980 ) . 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-1380 Document: 010110200916 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-1380 Document: 010110200916 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 4