UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 10/4/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
CORDELL SMALL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 96-1165
(D.C. No. 96-S-151)
WILLIAM PERRILL, (D. Colo.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered
submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner Cordell Small, appearing pro se, appeals the district court's denial of his
28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We affirm.1
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.
1
While this appeal was pending, the President signed into law the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Section 102 of Title I
of the Act provides that a certificate of appealability must be granted before an appeal may be
(continued...)
Petitioner is currently confined in federal prison in Colorado. He was sentenced in
Montana United States District Court to a 97-month term of imprisonment in 1992 for
assault with a dangerous weapon resulting in bodily injury, use of a dangerous weapon in
relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 113(c), 924(c)(1), 922(g)(1), and 924(a)(2). His direct appeal was
affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision. He filed a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate or correct his sentence, arguing the same as he did in his
direct appeal--that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge
violation of his wife's spousal privilege not to testify against him, by failing to seek
dismissal of the felon in possession of a firearm charge based on a valid defense, and by
admitting his guilt during closing argument. The motion was denied and the denial was
affirmed. United States v. Small, 51 F.3d 284 (9th Cir. 1995) (table).
Petitioner raises the same issues here as those previously asserted in his direct
appeal and in his § 2255 motion. In dismissing this action, the district court concluded
the proper remedy was to file a § 2255 motion, and that the action was a successive
petition.
We review the denial of the § 2241 petition de novo. Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d
164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). The purposes of petitions filed under § 2241 and § 2255 are
distinct and well established. "A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of
1
(...continued)
taken in certain habeas proceedings. However, we have held that no certificate of appealability is
required for an appeal from the denial of a § 2241 petition "which is neither a 'final order in a
habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State
court' nor a 'final order in a proceeding under section 2255.'" Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164,
166 (10th Cir. 1996). Because Small filed its petition pursuant to § 2241, we conclude no
certificate of appealability is required.
-2-
a sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner is
confined." Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166. In contrast, "[a] 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition attacks
the legality of detention . . . and must be filed in the district that imposed the sentence."
Id. (citation omitted). Unless determined to be inadequate or ineffective, a § 2255
petition is "[t]he exclusive remedy for testing the validity of a judgment and sentence."
Johnson v. Taylor, 347 F.2d 365, 366 (10th Cir. 1965). If the remedy provided by § 2255
fails to adequately test the legality of a prisoner's confinement, a § 2241 petition is
appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Williams v. United States, 323 F.2d 672, 673 (10th
Cir. 1963), cert. denied 377 U.S. 980 (1964). However, a prisoner's failure to obtain
relief in a previous § 2255 motion does not demonstrate the remedy is inadequate or
ineffective. Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166.
Here, petitioner attempts to attack the validity of his convictions and sentence
under § 2241, claiming as he previously did in his direct appeal and his § 2255 motion
that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Although he acknowledges the
availability of § 2255 to assert his challenges, he argues he must be allowed to proceed
under § 2241 because the remedy provided by § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective. More
specifically, he argues § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective because the sentencing court
and the Ninth Circuit failed to give adequate consideration to his previous § 2255 motion.
We reject petitioner's arguments. The fact that his previous § 2255 motion was
denied does not demonstrate it is an inadequate and ineffective remedy.
AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-3-
-4-