*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 21, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

EDDIE LEE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 10-6098

v. (W.D. Oklahoma)

H.A. LEDEZMA,

Respondent - Appellee.

(D.C. No. 5:10-CV-00086-W)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner and appellant Eddie Lee Williams, a federal prisoner proceeding

pro se, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition which generally

challenged his continuing criminal enterprise (“CCE”) conviction, in light of the

Appellate Case: 10-6098 Document: 01018460787 Date Filed: 07/21/2010 Page: 1
-2-

Supreme Court’s decision in Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999). 

He sought to invoke the district court’s habeas jurisdiction under § 2241, arguing

that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provided an inadequate or ineffective remedy. We agree

with the district court’s dismissal and therefore affirm its decision.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Williams was convicted on multiple drug-related charges in 1991. On

direct appeal, this court vacated his conviction for conspiracy but affirmed the

district court’s judgment in all other respects. United States v. Williams, No.

91-7094, 1993 WL 125403 (10th Cir. 1993) (unpublished). Mr. Williams then

filed a § 2255 petition, which the district court denied. This court affirmed that

denial. United States v. Williams, No. 97-7041, 1998 WL 440481 (10th Cir.

1998) (unpublished). 

The Supreme Court issued its decision in Richardson in 1999, in which it

clarified certain aspects of the law regarding CCEs. Richardson held that a jury

in a CCE case must unanimously agree not only that the defendant committed

some “continuing series of violations,” but also must agree which specific

“violations” make up that “continuing series.” Richardson, 526 U.S. at 815

(quoting 21 U.S.C. § 848). See United States v. Dago, 441 F.3d 1238, 1244 (10th

Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Mr. Williams invoked Richardson when, in January of

2010, he sought habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that

he is actually innocent of the CCE conviction because the jury was not instructed

Appellate Case: 10-6098 Document: 01018460787 Date Filed: 07/21/2010 Page: 2
-3-

to make unanimous findings as to the acts comprising the “series of violations”

needed to support his CCE conviction. He also challenged the sufficiency of the

evidence regarding the element of the offense requiring that he hold a managerial

position over five or more persons acting in concert. The district court referred

the matter to a magistrate judge, who issued a lengthy and thorough report

recommending dismissal of the petition. The district court adopted the magistrate

judge’s report and dismissed Mr. Williams’ petition. The district court also

denied Mr. Williams leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, ruling that the

appeal is not taken in good faith. This appeal followed. The government

declined to file a brief.

DISCUSSION

As the district court noted, it is well-established that habeas petitions filed

pursuant to § 2241 and those filed pursuant fo § 2255 serve different and distinct

purposes. “A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence

rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner is

confined.” Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). A § 2255

motion, by contrast, “attacks the legality of detention . . . and must be filed in the

district that imposed the sentence.” Id.. Since Mr. Williams is attacking the

legality of his conviction and sentence, § 2255 is generally the exclusive remedy

available to a federal prisoner such as he, unless a § 2255 remedy is inadequate or

ineffective. Carvallo v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1178 (10th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C.

Appellate Case: 10-6098 Document: 01018460787 Date Filed: 07/21/2010 Page: 3
-4-

§ 2255. In other words, a § 2241 habeas petition “is not an additional,

alternative, or supplemental remedy, to the relief afforded by motion in the

sentencing court under § 2255.” Williams v. United States, 323 F.2d 672, 673

(10th Cir. 1963)(per curiam). 

Relying on a number of our cases, as well as cases from other circuits, the

district court carefully explained why Mr. Williams is not entitled to relief under

§ 2241 in this case. We affirm that decision, for substantially the reasons set

forth in the report and recommendation, subsequently adopted by the district

court. We also deny Mr. Williams’ request to proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis. See Boling-Bey v. U.S. Parole Com’n, 559 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir.

2009); DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision

dismissing Mr. Williams’ § 2241 petition. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 10-6098 Document: 01018460787 Date Filed: 07/21/2010 Page: 4