Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/01/99-3345.htm
Timestamp: 2019-01-19 06:21:04
Document Index: 639304774

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 922', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2244']

99-3345 -- Gunn v. Booker -- 01/31/2000
| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added | (10928 bytes) (7478 bytes)
EDWIN J. GUNN,
J.W. BOOKER, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth,
No. 99-3345
(D.C. No. 99-CV-3320-RDR)
Mr. Gunn, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion. He was convicted on a jury verdict of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and was sentenced as an armed career criminal, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). See United States v. Gunn, 962 F. Supp. 214 (D. Mass. 1997). His conviction and sentence were upheld by the First Circuit in United States v. Gunn, No. 97-1498, 1998 WL 60404 (1st Cir. Feb. 10, 1998). Mr. Gunn then sought relief through two § 2255 motions which were denied. In the current § 2241 appeal, he claims, as he did on direct appeal, that he had not committed a felony (as defined by Massachusetts law) for purposes of his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) conviction. We affirm.
§ 2255 is the exclusive remedy for testing the validity of a judgment and sentence, unless there is a showing that such remedy is inadequate or ineffective. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). Mr. Gunn has not alleged any way in which § 2255 was an inadequate or ineffective avenue for testing his conviction. Therefore, his § 2241 motion must fail and he has failed to establish any grounds warranting a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
AFFIRMED. Mr. Gunn's motion to amend is denied.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/01/99-3345.htm.