Opinion
23-5106
10-05-2023
In re: ALONZO G. DAVISON, Movant.
(D.C. Nos. 4:16-CV-00194-GKF-PJC &4:21-CV-00515-CVE-CDL) (N.D. Okla.)
Before CARSON, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
More than twenty years ago, an Oklahoma jury convicted Alonzo G. Davison of two crimes. Mr. Davison has already challenged his judgment through a habeas application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He now moves for authorization to file another § 2254 application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). His new application would argue that he has completed his sentences and that his continued detention in an Oklahoma prison is therefore unlawful.
He does not need our authorization to bring that claim. A habeas claim falls under § 2254 if it attacks the validity of a conviction and sentence. McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1997). A habeas claim falls under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, by contrast, if it attacks the execution of a sentence. Id. Mr. Davison's claim that he has completed his sentence falls under § 2241. See United States v. Scott, 803 F.2d 1095, 1096 (10th Cir. 1986). And § 2241 claims do not need prior authorization from a court of appeals. Stanko v. Davis, 617 F.3d 1262, 1269 n.5 (10th Cir. 2010).
We deny as unnecessary Mr. Davison's motion for authorization to file another § 2254 application. This denial "shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari." § 2244(b)(3)(E).