Watts v. Ashcroft

D.C. Circuit

Watts v. Ashcroft

84 F. App'x 98

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 29, 2003

DocketNo. 03-5165

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 F. App'x 98 (Watts v. Ashcroft) 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

Watts v. Ashcroft, 84 F. App'x 98 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

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. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s final judgment filed February 26, 2003, and the orders filed March 27, 2003, April 28, 2003, and May 21, 2003 be affirmed. Appellant may not challenge his District of Columbia conviction in federal court unless his remedy under D.C.Code Ann. § 23-110(g) is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See, e.g., Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (D.C.Cir.1998). The section 23-110 remedy is not considered inadequate or ineffective simply because the requested relief has been denied. See Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 725 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993, 107 S.Ct. 595, 93 L.Ed.2d 595 (1986).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s final judgment filed February 26, 2003, and the orders filed March 27, 2003, April 28, 2003, and May 21, 2003 be affirmed. Appellant may not challenge his District of Columbia conviction in federal court unless his remedy under D.C.Code Ann. § 23-110(g) is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See, e.g., Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (D.C.Cir.1998). The section 23-110 remedy is not considered inadequate or ineffective simply because the requested relief has been denied. See Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 725 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993, 107 S.Ct. 595, 93 L.Ed.2d 595 (1986).

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)

84 F. App'x 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-ashcroft-cadc-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack