Quintero

Quintero v. United States

Good Law
7 F. App'x 669
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 28, 2001No. 00-35595; D.C. No. CV-00-05248-RJBCalifornia237 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Marcelino Micolta Quintero appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging his 144-month sentence for importation and distribution of cocaine. We review the district court’s denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054 , (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1178 , 120 S.Ct. 1214 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1115 (2000), and we affirm.

Quintero contends that the district court erred by dismissing his section 2241 petition, alleging that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to file a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). This contention is without merit. The district court correctly determined that Quintero’s claims were more properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , and that his inability to bring a second or successive motion under section 2255 does not render federal habeas relief ineffective or inadequate. See Moore, 185 F.3d at 1055 (holding that a petitioner may not circumvent the requirements of the AEDPA by filing a section 2241 petition); Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988). Accordingly, the district…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.