F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 26 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CONRAD J. BRAUN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 01-3017
STOLE, Warden, (D.C. No. 00-CV-3410-RDR)
(D.Kan.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before HENRY, BRISCOE and MURPHY, 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner Conrad J. Braun, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the district
court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.
affirm.
In 1994, Braun pleaded guilty to five counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and
2, and five counts of interstate transportation of funds obtained by fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§
2314 and 2. He was sentenced in Missouri federal district court to 90 months'
imprisonment and ordered to pay $1,966,694.19 in restitution. His sentence was affirmed
on appeal. See United States v. Braun, 60 F.3d 451, 452 (8th Cir. 1995). After he had
been released from federal custody, Braun was arrested on September 21, 2000, for
violations of the conditions of his supervised release.
Braun filed his habeas petition on November 1, 2000, requesting “a determination
that [the] Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 . . . was never properly enacted and
thereby serves no legal basis for supervised release.” Record, Doc. 1 at 6. (We note this
is Braun's fifth federal action raising this issue.) The district court dismissed the petition
on January 9, 2001, finding:
Because petitioner is clearly challenging the legality of his federal
sentence, and makes no showing that relief under § 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective, the court concludes petitioner's application for a writ of habeas
corpus under § 2241 should be dismissed without prejudice to allow
petitioner to seek whatever relief may yet be afforded under § 2255 in a
motion presented to the sentencing court. Petitioner may not use § 2241 to
circumvent § 2255 or the restrictions imposed by the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act, enacted April 24, 1996, on seeking relief
under § 2255.
Doc. 5 at 2.
We review de novo the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.
2
§ 2241. See Hunnicutt v. Hawk, 229 F.3d 997, 1000 (10th Cir. 2000). The appropriate
proceeding for Braun's allegations is a Section 2255 petition. A petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity. A 28 U.S.C. § 2255
petition attacks the legality of detention, and must be filed in the district that imposed the
sentence. See Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1149 (10th Cir. 2000). The district court
properly dismissed Braun's § 2241 petition.1 In reaching our conclusion, we have also
considered and rejected Braun's recently-filed “Supplemental Argument – The
Impossibility of Proving a Negative.”
AFFIRMED. Braun's Motion to Dismiss Indictment with Prejudice and Declare
AEDPA of 1996 Unconstitutional is DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
1
The fact that Braun previously has filed a Section 2255 petition in the Western
District of Missouri contending the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 was
“not enacted” (Case No. 00-1021-CV-W-1-P, Aplt. Br. Exh. A) and that petition was
dismissed does not alter the types of claims this court can consider under Section 2241.
3