* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 1 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK TERRENCE JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 97-1464
v. (97-D-2105) JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden, (D. Colo.)

Respondent - Appellee.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining Petitioner-Appellant’s brief and th e appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the United St ates District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on three counts r esulting from an armed robbery of a federal credit union in Tulsa, Oklahom a. His conviction was1 Petitioner did not appeal the district court’s den ial of his first motion to

vacate his conviction. -2- affirmed by this court on direct appeal. United St ates v. Jones , 19 F.3d 34 (10th Cir. 1994) (unpublished). The District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma subsequently denied two petitions for a wr it of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appe al of his second section 2255 motion because we believed his claim was frivolous. 1 Jones v. United States , 114 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 1997) (unpublished). Petition er is presently in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons at the Feder al Correctional Institution in Englewood, Colorado. Petitioner, proceeding pro se , filed this habeas petition in the jurisdiction where he is confined, the District of Colorado, pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner attacks the validity of his conviction a lleging that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction because the government did not establi sh that the credit union he was convicted of robbing was federally insured. These claims are identical in all material respects to the claims presented to the No rthern District of Oklahoma by Petitioner in his second section 2255 motion. Peti tioner now appeals the denial of his section 2241 habeas petition by the District Co urt for the District of Colorado2 We note that a certificate of appealability is notrequired to appeal from a

final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n , 115 F.3d 809, 810 n.1 (10th Cir. 1997).

3 The “three-strikes provision” of 28 U.S.C. § 1915( g) is not implicated because Petitioner’s action is dismissed without pr ejudice. Further, although not clearly articulated by this court, it is likely that section 1915(g) does not apply to section 2241 petitions. See McIntosh , 115 F.3d at 812 (holding that section “2241 proceedings, and appeals of those proceedings , are not ‘civil actions’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(2) and (b)”); West ine v. United States , 120 F.3d 271 (10th Cir. 1997) (unpublished) (determining that section 1915(g) does not apply to section 2241 petitions under McIntosh ). -3- and the court’s dismissal of his action without pre judice. 2 He also appeals the district court’s decision denying him leave to proc eed in forma pauperis

. After carefully reviewing the record, we AFFIRM the dismissal without prejudice of Petitioner’s section 2241 petition forsubstantially the same reasons as stated by the district court in its Order filed December 4, 1997. 3 See Bradshaw v. Story , 86 F.3d 164, 166-67 (10th Cir. 1996). Pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and for the reasons stated by the district court in its Order filed December 31, 1997, we DENY Petitioner leave to proc eed in forma pauperis

. DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Entered for the Court Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge