Hills v. Million

D.C. Circuit

Hills v. Million

626 F. App'x 287

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 15, 2015

DocketNo. 15-5245

StatusPublished

This text of 626 F. App'x 287 (Hills v. Million) 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

Hills v. Million, 626 F. App'x 287 (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 and memorandum of law filed by appellant. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s dismissal order, filed July 22, 2015, and order denying reconsideration, filed August 20, 2015, be affirmed. Appellant’s collateral attack must be brought by way of a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed in the sentencing court, or, if the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective, by a habeas petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in the judicial district where petitioner’s custodian is located. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(a), (e); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-95, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 812 (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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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. [288]*288See 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 and memorandum of law filed by appellant. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s dismissal order, filed July 22, 2015, and order denying reconsideration, filed August 20, 2015, be affirmed. Appellant’s collateral attack must be brought by way of a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed in the sentencing court, or, if the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective, by a habeas petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in the judicial district where petitioner’s custodian is located. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(a), (e); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-95, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 812 (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. [288]*288See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

626 F. App'x 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hills-v-million-cadc-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack