BANKS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES et al, No. 1:2008cv00194 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/5/09. (ms, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FREDERICK H. BANKS, Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 08-0194 (EGS) MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2004, a jury convicted Frederick H. Banks of mail fraud, copyright infringement, money laundering, uttering and possession of counterfeit and forged securities, and witness tampering[,] and he was sentenced to sixty months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. United States v. Banks, 296 Fed. Appx. 234 (3d Cir. 2008). The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment and sentence, see United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2006), and the Supreme Court denied Banks petition for certiorari. See Banks v. United States, 549 U.S. 970 (2006). Banks now alleges that he a Native American and member of an Indian tribe who is unlawfully confined in federal prison because he has a judgment from a Trial Court invalidating his federal convictions. Pet. at 3. He demands his immediate release. Id. at 8. The Court construes the petition as a challenge to the sentencing court s jurisdiction, and any argument that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction over him no matter what the basis of that argument must be raised in a petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United 1 States v. Banks, Crim. No. 04-176, 2009 WL 440369, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2009). This Court does not have jurisdiction to address the issues presented here as they regard the actual validity of his conviction and sentence and are the proper subject for a § 2255 motion which must be pursued in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania where he was convicted and sentenced. Banks v. Pearson, No. 5:08cv313, 2009 WL 161666, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 22, 2009). The Court therefore will deny the petition and dismiss this civil action. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. Signed: EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge Dated: March 5, 2009 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
