UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 4/8/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
LARRY J. CULLUM,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 95-1526
v. D. Colorado
PATRICK WHALEN, Warden, (D.C. No. 95-Z-733)
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Petitioner Larry Cullum, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the
district court’s dismissal, without prejudice, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus
petition. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Cullum is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Florence,
Colorado. He brought his habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging
his conviction in the Western District of Texas was in violation of the Double Jeopardy
clause of the Constitution because his “real estate and mineral properties” were
previously subject to civil forfeiture proceedings for the same criminal conduct. The
magistrate judge treated his habeas petition as a motion to vacate, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, and recommended that Cullum’s case be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction on the ground that the petition should be filed in the court which imposed the
sentence, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The district
court adopted that recommendation, and dismissed Cullum’s petition without prejudice.
Cullum appeals that dismissal.
Based upon a review of the pleadings, we conclude that the district court did not
err in dismissing the petition on the grounds outlined above. See Carter v. Attorney
General, 782 F.2d 138, 141 (10th Cir. 1986); see also Miller v. United States, 564 F.2d
103, 105 (1st Cir. 1977) (“The sentencing court is the designated forum for challenges to
the validity of a federal prisoner’s conviction or sentence, which are motions authorized
by 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 931 (1978).
-2-
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue
forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-