Opinion ID: 6336322
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second Issue

Text: Turner next argues that the district court “erred in its ruling that it did not have jurisdiction.” Aplt. Br. at 7. He asserts “there is a live justiciable question” regarding the recalculation of his sentence in Turner I. Id. But the district court did not address justiciability. Even assuming there is a justiciable question here, the district court was without jurisdiction because Turner is not in custody under Turner I and Turner has not established that § 2255 is inadequate to test his incarceration in Turner II. Accordingly, his justiciability arguments are not persuasive. 6 Appellate Case: 21-6151 Document: 010110677612 Date Filed: 04/29/2022 Page: 7