Case Name: In re: Tony LEWIS, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-29
Citations: 360 F. App'x 161
Docket Number: No. 09-3028, 09-3030
Parties: In re: Tony LEWIS, Petitioner.
Judges: Before: GINSBURG, BROWN, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 161–161

Head Matter:
In re: Tony LEWIS, Petitioner.
No. 09-3028, 09-3030.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Dec. 29, 2009.
Steven R. Kiersh, Law Office of Steven R. Kiersh, Roy W. McLeese, III, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Appellate Division, Criminal Unit, Florence Y. Pan, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jeffrey Allen Taylor, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, Tony Lewis, Cumberland, MD, for Petitioner.
Before: GINSBURG, BROWN, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
This petition and motion were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. For the reasons stated below, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 application be denied.
Lewis has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider a successive § 2255 application, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The relief Lewis requests is premised on his argument that a motion for a sentence reduction based on post-conviction rehabilitation is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. It is not. See United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 186-87, 99 S.Ct. 2235, 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979). We therefore deny his petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider a successive § 2255 application.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.