Allmon v. United States
This text of Allmon v. United States (Allmon v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ___________________________________ ) DEREK ISAAC ALLMON, SR., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 12-0660 (ABJ) ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner files this petition for a writ of habeas corpus ostensibly to demand his release
from custody. He proposes to reach this goal by renouncing his United States citizenship, see
Pet. (Oath of Renunciation), declaring his “allegiance to the Republic of America (foreign
continent) located in American continent,” id., declaring himself “dissolved nunc pro tunc to the
date of birth,” id. (Certificate of Death), and rendering himself an alien who is subject to
“removal to the proper venue, Texas,” id. (Warrant for Removal) at 3. Missing from petitioner’s
proposal is any acknowledgement that he is serving “several concurrent life sentences” upon his
convictions “on multiple felony charges including drug trafficking, conspiracy to kill a witness,
and attempting to kill a witness.” Allmon v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 08-1183, 2010 WL 2163773,
at *1 (D. Colo. May 26, 2010); see generally United States v. Allmon, 500 F.3d 800 (8th Cir.
2007).
It is settled that claims challenging a federal conviction or sentence must be presented to
the sentencing court by motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which in relevant part states:
1 A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a); see Taylor v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (per
curiam) (stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for
challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted); see also Ojo
v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the
sentencing court is the only court with jurisdiction to hear a defendant’s complaint regarding
errors that occurred before or during sentencing). Because petitioner was tried, convicted, and
sentenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, see Pet. at 2,
this district is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of petitioner’s claim, see, e.g., Miles v.
Holder, No. 12-0218, 2012 WL 447690, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 2012).
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be denied. An Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
AMY BERMAN JACKSON United States District Judge
DATE: May 7, 2012
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Allmon v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allmon-v-united-states-dcd-2012.