In re Lewis

360 F. App'x 161
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided December 29, 2009·No. No. 09-3028, 09-3030·Published

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This petition and motion were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. For the reasons stated below, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 application be denied.

Lewis has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider a successive § 2255 application, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The relief Lewis requests is premised on his argument that a motion for a sentence reduction based on post-conviction rehabilitation is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. It is not. See United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 186-87, 99 S.Ct. 2235, 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979). We therefore deny his petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider a successive § 2255 application.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.

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

In re Lewis, 360 F. App'x 161 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

360 F. App'x 161 (In re Lewis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Addonizio
442 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1979)