IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40481 Summary Calendar

ROY PENNANT,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA; ERNEST V. CHANDLER, Warden; JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:01-CV-86 -------------------- January 3, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roy Pennant, federal inmate #16201-018, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his

petition. Pennant

contends that pursuant to Willis v. United States,

(5th Cir. 1971), he was entitled to credit against his federal

sentence for time that he spent in state custody subject to a

federal detainer until the he was transferred to federal custody.

Pennant challenges the district court’s determination that his

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 01-40481 -2-

claim concerning the Government’s delay in indicting him should

have been brought in a

motion.

Section 2255, 28 U.S.C., is the primary means of

collaterally attacking a federal sentence. Cox v. Warden, Fed.

Detention Ctr.,

(5th Cir. 1990). Relief

under

“is warranted for any error that `occurred

at or prior to sentencing.’”

A federal prisoner may seek

relief under

instead of

if he

can show that the remedies under

are inadequate

or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See

The petitioner bears the burden of affirmatively showing that the

remedy is inadequate or ineffective. See

Pennant’s preindictment delay allegation has bearing on the

validity of Pennant’s conviction and should have been brought

under

. See

Pennant has not shown that the

remedy is inadequate or ineffective. See

Solsona v. Warden,

(5th Cir. 1987)(

motion must be filed in district court that imposed

sentence).

Pennant has abandoned his contention that the sentencing

court believed that it lacked the authority to grant him credit

against his federal sentence by failing to assert the issue in

this court. See Yohey v. Collins,

(5th Cir.

1993).

Pennant’s contention that he was entitled to credit against

his federal sentence for time that he spent in state custody

subject to a federal detainer until the time that he was No. 01-40481 -3-

transferred to federal custody is without merit because Pennant

obtained credit against his state sentence for that time.

See United States v. Dovalina,

(5th Cir. 1983)

(if petitioner’s release on state bail while state charges were

pending was prevented solely because of federal detainer, he

would be entitled to credit toward his federal sentence, provided

he was not given credit on state sentence for that time); United

States v. Weathersby,

(5th Cir. 1992). The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.