Moore v. Smith

D.C. Circuit

Moore v. Smith

186 F. App'x 8

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 6, 2006

DocketNo. 06-5078

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 186 F. App'x 8 (Moore v. Smith) 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

Moore v. Smith, 186 F. App'x 8 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

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, the supplements thereto, and appendix filed by the appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed January 11, 2006, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s habeas petition without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A collateral attack on appellant’s sentence must be pursued through a motion, filed in the sentencing court, to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 806-10 (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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

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, the supplements thereto, and appendix filed by the appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed January 11, 2006, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s habeas petition without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A collateral attack on appellant’s sentence must be pursued through a motion, filed in the sentencing court, to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 806-10 (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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 F. App'x 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-smith-cadc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack