Lee v. Andrews

Type

Opinion of the Court

Per curiam

Yes — no individual author

Filed

June 17, 2002

Case

Lee v. Andrews

Case status

Decided

Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM ** Maurice Kristian Lee, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Lee challenges the legality of his conviction and sentence imposed after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . 1 We review the district court’s dismissal of a *335 § 2241 petition de novo, Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988), and we affirm. Lee contends that he was a minor at the time he was involved with the drug conspiracy, and that this deprived the federal court of jurisdiction over him. This is a challenge to the legality of his conviction and sentence, and Lee has failed to demonstrate that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective remedy. See Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (concluding that petitioner may not avoid the limitations imposed on successive petitions by styling his petition as one pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ). Because Lee has not carried his burden of showing that a section 2255 motion would be inadequat…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.