Filed: Nov. 15, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit November 15, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT CHARLES COREY FRANKLIN, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 11-1338 v. (D. Colorado) CHARLES A. DANIELS, (D.C. No. 1:11-CV-01487-LTB) Respondent - Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. Defendant Charles C. Franklin, a federal prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, filed an application fo
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit November 15, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT CHARLES COREY FRANKLIN, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 11-1338 v. (D. Colorado) CHARLES A. DANIELS, (D.C. No. 1:11-CV-01487-LTB) Respondent - Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. Defendant Charles C. Franklin, a federal prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, filed an application for..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
November 15, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES COREY FRANKLIN,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 11-1338
v. (D. Colorado)
CHARLES A. DANIELS, (D.C. No. 1:11-CV-01487-LTB)
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Charles C. Franklin, a federal prisoner at the United States
Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, filed an application for habeas relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
challenging his conviction and sentence in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. The Colorado District Court dismissed the
application because Defendant has an adequate and effective remedy under
*
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. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
28 U.S.C. § 2255. We AFFIRM that decision for essentially the reasons stated in
the district court’s Order of Dismissal. We DENY Mr. Franklin’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-2-