MILES v. U.S., 07-5390 (D.C. Cir. 5-23-2008)
Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant v. United States of America, Appellee.
No. 07-5390.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: May 23, 2008.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Brown and Griffith, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motions for appointment of counsel, the motion to expedite, and appellant's brief, which the court construes as including a request for a certificate of appealability, it is
ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. The interests of justice do not warrant appointment of counsel in this case. See18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the request for a certificate of appealability be denied and the appeal dismissed. See28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Because appellant has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,"28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of appealability is warranted. See Slack v. McDaniel,529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Appellant may not challenge his District of Columbia convictions in federal court unless his remedy under D.C. Code § 23-110 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. See, e.g.,Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The § 23-110 remedy, however, is not considered inadequate or ineffective simply because the requested relief has been denied. See Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 727 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993
(1986). It isPage 2
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to expedite be dismissed as moot.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. Because no certificate of appealability has been allowed, no mandate will issue.Page 1