T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunder * t he doctr i nes of l aw of t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm ay b e c i t e d , ho w e v e r , fo ri t s pe r s u a s i v e va l u e c o n s i s t e n tw i t h Fe d . R. A p p . P. 3 2 .1 (e ff. D e c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 (e ff. J a n . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D ecem b er18,2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker C lerk 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 I R C U I T J E F F R E Y T . M I L T ON,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. R . WI L E Y , R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 1340 ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - C V - 9 4 6 - Z L W )

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM E N T * B efor e B R I S COE, O’ B R I E N and M c C O NNELL , 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 o gr antt he par t i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on t he b ri e fs w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. See F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( f) ; 1 0 t h Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a s e is th e re fo re o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg 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 ct C our tfort he D i s t r i ctof C ol or ado of hi s pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus file d p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . W e a ffir m .-2-

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 the s ent ence i m pos ed byt he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ct of Penns y l vani a fol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on foras s aul t i ng a corr ect i onal o ffice r w ith a d a n g e ro u s w e a p o n . H e a lleg e d th a t th e e n h a n c e m e n t o fh is s ent ence forbei ng a ca r eeroffe nderw as i nval i d beca us e t w o of t he pr i or convi ct i ons w er e s ubs equent l yvaca t ed. 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 o f a sen tenc e ra ther tha n it s v ali d ityan d m u st be fil ed in the d istri ct w h ere t he 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 ctt hati m pos ed t he s ent ence . ’ ” Haugh v. B ooker , 210 F. 3d 1147, 1149 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng B r ads haw v. Story , 86 F. 3d 164, 166 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ) . Sect i on 2241 “i s notan a d d itio n a l, a lte rn a tiv e , o r s u p p le m e n ta l r e m e d yto 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 .” B r ads haw , 8 6 F .3 d a t 1 6 6 . O n lyifth e p e tit io n e r sh o w s th a t § 2 2 5 5 is “i nadequa t e ori neffect i ve” t o chal l enge the val i di t yof a j udgm entor s ent ence m aya pr i s onerpet i t i on fors uch a r emedyunder28 U . S. C . § 2241. Id . “Fai l ur e t o obt ai n r el i ef unde r§ 2255 does notes t abl i s h t hatt he r emedy s 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 ). T he pet i t i onerhas notes t abl i s hed t he i nadequa cyori neffect i venes s of 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . A ccordi ng l yt he judgm ent of t he d i st ri ct cou rti s AFF I R M E D . T he- 3-

m a n d a te s h a ll is s u e fo rt h w ith . E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt P E R C U R I A M