Opinion
No. 05-5316.
Filed On: November 28, 2007.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Randolph, and Brown, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of this court's order to show cause filed September 12, 2007, and the response and supplement thereto, which include a request for a certificate of appealability; and the renewed motion for appointment of counsel, it is.
ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is.
FURTHER ORDERED that the renewed motion for appointment of counsel be denied. The interests of justice do not warrant appointment of counsel in this case. See 18 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. 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). A District of Columbia prisoner may not collaterally attack his sentence in federal court unless he shows that the relief by motion in Superior Court pursuant to D.C. Code § 23-110 "is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." See Byrd v. Henderson, 119 F.3d 34, 37-38 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, as the district court noted, claims challenging the performance of appellate counsel are properly pursued in the D.C. Court of Appeals pursuant to a motion to recall the mandate. See Watson v. United States, 536 A.2d 1056, 1060 (D.C. 1987). The local remedy 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).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.