Document Info

DocketNumber: 99-3172

Filed Date: 10/4/1999

Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021

  •                                                                          F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    OCT 4 1999
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    JAMES ROBINSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    vs.                                                    No. 99-3172
    (D.C. No. 99-3169-RDR)
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                               (D. Kan.)
    Respondent - Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. **
    Mr. Robinson, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s
    judgment dismissing his habeas petition, 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    , without prejudice. On
    appeal, he argues that his conviction was invalid for lack of jurisdiction and that
    the government withheld exculpatory evidence. Of course, the validity of his
    conviction must be challenged in a § 2255 motion; a § 2241 petition goes to the
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    **
    After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
    panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
    assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
    Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    execution of the sentence. Only if the opportunity to challenge the validity of the
    conviction is “inadequate or ineffective” under § 2255 may relief be sought under
    § 2241. See Bradshaw v. Story, 
    86 F.3d 164
    , 166 (10th Cir. 1996). Mr. Robinson
    argues that his opportunity to challenge his conviction under § 2255 was
    ineffective because he was denied a certificate of appealability. Failure to obtain
    relief on a previous § 2255 motion does not make that remedy inadequate or
    ineffective. Id. Accordingly, Mr. Robinson’s claims are not proper under § 2241,
    and the district court properly dismissed the petition.
    AFFIRMED.
    Entered for the Court
    Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
    Circuit Judge
    -2-