Fortson v. United States Sentencing Commission

109 F. App'x 437
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedSeptember 23, 2004
DocketNo. 04-5159
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 F. App'x 437 (Fortson v. United States Sentencing Commission) 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
Fortson v. United States Sentencing Commission, 109 F. App'x 437 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

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 order filed April 8, 2004 be affirmed. The court properly dismissed appellant’s mandamus petition without prejudice on the ground that the petition represents a collateral attack on appellant’s sentence that he must pursue through a motion to vacate his sentence filed in the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See, e.g., Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 808-10 (D.C.Cir.1988) (en banc).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 F. App'x 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fortson-v-united-states-sentencing-commission-cadc-2004.