UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY T. BURGMAN, ) CASE NO. 4:25-CV-00704 a/k/a TERELL BURGMAN, ) ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) OPINION AND ORDER WARDEN D. FENDER, ) ) Respondent. )

Pro se petitioner Timothy T. Burgman, a/k/a Terell Burgman (“Petitioner”), filed this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

challenging his conviction in United States v. Burgman, No. 5:24-CR-00260 (N.D. Ohio July 23, 2024). Petitioner alleges a violation of his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights (pre-indictment delay), speedy trial violations, and a violation of the Fourth Amendment (unlawful search and seizure). Petitioner also alleges

is facially unconstitutional. (Doc. 1 at 6-8; Doc. 1-1 at 11-13.) Federal district courts must conduct an initial review of habeas corpus petitions. See

; Alexander v. N. Bureau of Prisons,

(6th Cir. 2011). A court must deny a petition “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)). A federal prisoner challenging the legality of his conviction or sentence must file a motion to vacate under

. Capaldi v. Pontesso,

(6th Cir. 1998). A petition under § 2241 is appropriate for claims challenging “‘the execution or manner in which the sentence is served’--those things occurring within prison.” Taylor v. Owens,

, 495-96 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting Charles v. Chandler,

(6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)). The remedy afforded under § 2241 is not an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy to that prescribed under § 2255. See Bradshaw v. Story,

(10th Cir. 1996). Here, Petitioner challenges the legality of his conviction. He cannot do so ina § 2241 petition. Pursuant to

, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED in accordance with

. Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 8, 2025 ¢ 5 rae Lip — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE