United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 22-5013 September Term, 2021 1:21-cv-02583-UNA Filed On: March 22, 2022 David Hall Crum,

Appellant v.

United States,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Tatel and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to clarify, which the court construes as a motion for remand, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed November 3, 2021 be affirmed and the motion for remand be denied. Appellant has not identified any error in the district court’s dismissal of his petition for injunctive relief. To the extent appellant seeks to challenge a sentence imposed by the District of Columbia Superior Court, the appropriate avenue is by way of a motion in that court pursuant to D.C. Code § 23-110. Appellant has not demonstrated that his remedy under D.C. Code § 23-110 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his sentence. See D.C. Code § 23- 110(g); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk