Jones v. United States
Jones v. United States
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-60709 Conference Calendar
TOMMY HILL JONES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:98-CV-135-BrS - - - - - - - - - -
August 26, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tommy Hill Jones, federal prisoner # 41337-019, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his
28 U.S.C. § 2241petition for
lack of jurisdiction. Jones was convicted and sentenced in the
district court for the Northern District of Georgia. He
currently is serving his sentence at FCI Yazoo City, Mississippi.
Jones argues that he is entitled to relief first, because
appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to contest
sufficiency of the evidence; second, trial counsel was
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 98-60709 -2-
ineffective for failing to present any defense on behalf of
Jones; third, due to intervening changes in the law, Jones should
be resentenced according to the penalties for cocaine rather than
cocaine base; and fourth, appellate counsel was ineffective for
failing to allege that the Government violated
18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) when it promised something of value in exchange for
testimony.
The district court properly construed Jones’ petition as a
motion to vacate sentence pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Ojo
v. Immigration and Naturalization Service,
106 F.3d 680, 683(5th
Cir. 1997); United States v. Gabor,
905 F.2d 76, 77-78(5th Cir.
1990). It then correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction
to rule on Jones’ § 2255 motion. See Solsona v. Warden, FCI,
821 F.2d 1129, 1131(5th Cir. 1987)(section 2255 motions must be
filed with the sentencing court). As a § 2241 petition, Jones’
complaint is thoroughly frivolous. See Ojo,
106 F.3d at 683.
Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal is AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished