Filed: Aug. 30, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-60087 Conference Calendar JERRY COOK, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:97-CV-179-BrS - - - - - - - - - - August 27, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jerry Cook, federal prisoner # 03509-043, appeals the district court’s dismiss
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-60087 Conference Calendar JERRY COOK, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:97-CV-179-BrS - - - - - - - - - - August 27, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jerry Cook, federal prisoner # 03509-043, appeals the district court’s dismissa..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60087
Conference Calendar
JERRY COOK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:97-CV-179-BrS
- - - - - - - - - -
August 27, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerry Cook, federal prisoner # 03509-043, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion. He
argues that the court erred in its determination that Cook’s
challenge to his conviction could be brought only pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255.
“[A] petition under § 2241 attacking custody resulting from
a federally imposed sentence may be entertained only where the
petitioner establishes that the remedy provided for under § 2255
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-60087
-2-
is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.” Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr.,
911 F.2d 1111,
1113 (5th Cir. 1990) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Cook has not shown that a § 2255 motion would have been
inadequate to address the challenges to his conviction.
Therefore, his proposed pleading could not be construed as a
§ 2241 habeas petition. The district court’s judgment dismissing
Cook’s motion is AFFIRMED.
Cook’s motions for permission to supplement the appeal,
permission to amend the brief on appeal, permission to supplement
the record, and for a writ of mandamus are DENIED.