Court Opinion

ID: 8673503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-25 00:55:57.429593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:22.811456
License: Public Domain

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed October 4, 2007, be affirmed. Appellant’s complaint constituted a collateral attack on his sentence, which must be pursued by motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court; or, if the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective, by a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the judicial district where appellant’s custodian is located. See In re Smith, 285 F.3d 6, 8 (D.C.Cir. 2002); Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 755-56 (6th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.