T hi s or der and j udgm ent i s not bi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce pt under t he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata an d co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l y di s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; never t hel es s , an o rde r an d jud g m en t m ay b e c it ed u n d er the term s an d co n d it ion s o f 1 0 th C ir . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly12,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

K EV I N M . J O N ES,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. E. J . G A LLE G O S, W a r de n, U SPL eave nw or t h,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 3069 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 3 1 8 2 - RDR)

(D . K ansas)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C hi ef J udge , KELLY and HENR Y , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T he pet i t i onerappea l s t he di s m i s s al byt he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor2

t he D i s t r i ctof K ans as of hi s pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . W e a ffir m . I n t he pet i t i on fi l ed i n t he di s t r i ctcour t , t he pet i t i onerchal l enged hi s drug and fi r earm s convi ct i ons and the r es ul t i ng s ent ence ent er ed byt he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ebr as ka. H e al l eged that : 1) hi s gui l t ypl ea w as notknow i ng and vol unt ary ; 2) fal s e t es t i m onyw as pr es ent ed t o t he gr and j ur yw hi ch i s s ued the i ndi ct m ent ; 3) he w as deni ed effec t i ve as s i s t ance of cou nsel ; 4) t he p rosecut i on eng aged i n m i scond uct; 5) he w as denied du e process, and 6) he i s actual l yi nnocent . T he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed. N or m al l y , “‘ [a] pet i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 2241 at t acks t he exe cut i on of a s ent ence r athert han i t s val i di t yand mustbe fi l ed i n t he di s t r i ctw her e the pr i s oneri s confi ned. A 28 U . S. C . § 2255 pet i t i on at t acks t he l egal i t yof det ent i on, and mustbe fi l ed i n t he di s t r i ctthati m pos ed the s ent ence . ’ ” Haugh v. B ooker , 210 F. 3d 1147, 1149 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng B radsha w v. Story , 86 F. 3d 164, 166 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ) . Sect i on 2241 “i s notan addi t i onal , al t ernat i ve, or s uppl ement al r emedyt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255. ” B r ads haw , 8 6 F .3 d a t 1 6 6 . O n lyif t he pet i t i oners how s t hat§ 2255 i s “i nadequa t e ori neffect i ve” t o chal l enge the val i di t yof a j udgm entors ent ence m aya pr i s onerpet i t i on fors uch a r emedy u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . Id . “Fai l ur e t o obt ai n r el i ef unde r§ 2255 does not es t abl i s h t hatt he r emedys o pr ovi ded i s ei t heri nadequa t e ori neffect i ve. ” Id . (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ).3

T he pet i t i onerhas notes t abl i s hed the i nadequa cyori neffect i venes s of 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . A ccordi ng l yt he judgm ent of t he d i stri ctcou rti s AFF I RM ED . T he m a n d a te s h a ll is s u e fo rt h w ith . E n tered fo r t h e C o u rt PerC ur i am