Brown v. United States Attorney

D.C. Circuit

Brown v. United States Attorney

612 F. App'x 620

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedAugust 18, 2015

DocketNo. 14-5033

StatusPublished

This text of 612 F. App'x 620 (Brown v. United States Attorney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. United States Attorney, 612 F. App'x 620 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

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 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 orders filed January 3, 2014, and March 7, 2014, be affirmed. The district court correctly held that it could not address challenges to appellant’s sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because appellant was convicted in the Western District of Tennessee and that it could not entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because it lacked jurisdiction over his custodian. See, e.g., Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004). Although appellant insists that this is a civil action, he may not escape the requirements of § 2255 or the habeas statutes by labeling it as such, given the nature of his claims and the relief sought. See, e.g., Rooney v. Secretary of the Army, 405 F.3d 1029 (D.C.Cir. 2005); cf. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 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 orders filed January 3, 2014, and March 7, 2014, be affirmed. The district court correctly held that it could not address challenges to appellant’s sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because appellant was convicted in the Western District of Tennessee and that it could not entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because it lacked jurisdiction over his custodian. See, e.g., Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004). Although appellant insists that this is a civil action, he may not escape the requirements of § 2255 or the habeas statutes by labeling it as such, given the nature of his claims and the relief sought. See, e.g., Rooney v. Secretary of the Army, 405 F.3d 1029 (D.C.Cir. 2005); cf. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

612 F. App'x 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-united-states-attorney-cadc-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack