UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DAVID KISSI, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 11-1141 (RBW)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on David Kissi’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to
vacate, set aside or correct his criminal sentence. The motion will be denied, all pending
motions will be denied, and this action will be dismissed.
Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
by a jury on two counts of bankruptcy fraud, three counts of obstruction of justice, and two
counts of criminal contempt. A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Intent to Seek Correction
of Sentence or to Set Aside a Wrong Judgment Despite the Verdict Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2255(F)(2) (“Pet.”), Attachment (excerpt from transcript of August 10, 2007 sentencing
hearing). He already has served the 30-month term of imprisonment received, but he has not yet
paid the $40,000 assessment and penalties or completed his three-year term of supervised
release. Pet. at 1. Alleging errors in the sentence that was imposed and raising a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel, see generally id. at 1-14, petitioner “begs the court to correct
his sentence at a new hearing” and to “wipe out his court fines and probation.” Id. at 15. In the
alternative, he argues that he “should be allowed to introduce newly discovered evidence of
fraud on the part of the [United States] . . . in order to have the instant court set aside his
1
wrongful conviction despite the verdict after jury trial.” Id.
Where, as here, petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence, “he must do so in a
motion in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Spencer v. United States, No. 11-0734,
2011 WL 1624991, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2011) (Walton, J.); see also Pradelski v. Hawk-Sawyer,
36 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1999) (“When proceeding by § 2255 . . . the federal prisoner must
file his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence in the court which imposed the
sentence.”) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Olson v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 162, 162
(D.D.C. 2008) (stating that a motion under § 2255 “must be presented to the sentencing court”).
Petitioner also may raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in such a collateral
proceeding. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003).
Notwithstanding petitioner’s assertion that “all 4th Circuit forums have been very, very
hostile to him,” Pet. at 14, his motion should have been brought in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (providing that a prisoner “move the
court which imposed sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence”). The Court therefore
will deny the petition and dismiss this action without prejudice. See, e.g., Atunez v. Gonzales,
No. 07-0556, 2007 WL 1100505, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 10, 2007) (dismissing petition challenging
federal district court’s jurisdiction and raising claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because
these matters should have been brought by motion under § 2255 in the sentencing court). An
Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
/s/
DATE: July 22, 2011 REGGIE B. WALTON
United States District Judge
2