Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google
Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo!
Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
W. Michael Lovern, Petitioner-appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 840 F.2d 11Unpublished Disposition
Submitted Nov. 30, 1987.Decided Feb. 16, 1988
Before K.K. HALL, SPROUSE, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
W. Michael Lovern, appellant pro se.
James Gordon Carpenter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, for appellee.
PER CURIAM:
W. Michael Lovern appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 petition which he filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina while he was undergoing evaluation at Butner Federal Correctional Institute. He requested that his conviction, which was imposed by the court sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia, be vacated. The North Carolina district court denied the petition because Lovern was released from Butner before the action was filed. In addition, the court stated that Lovern's attack on his conviction was properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. As such, it would have to be brought in the court that sentenced him.
Although Lovern alleged that his petition was received by the court while he was still in custody in North Carolina, we affirm the district court on the ground that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 may not be used to attack the imposition of one's sentence absent a showing that the remedy by motion under Sec. 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. We find that Lovern's remedy by motion under Sec. 2255 is adequate to test the legality of his detention. Because the dispositive issues have recently been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument and affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.