<|endoftext|> of liquid crystals.
Other objects and and advantages of this invention will be obvious to those skilled in this art.<|endoftext|>{
"images" : [
{
"idiom" : "universal",
"filename" : "Map.pdf",
"scale" : "1x"
},
{
"idiom" : "universal",
"scale" : "2x"
},
{
"idiom" : "universal",
"scale" : "3x"
}
],
"info" : {
"version" : 1,
"author" : "xcode"
},
"properties" : {
"preserves-vector-representation" : true
}
}<|endoftext|>
508 F.Supp.2d 265 (2007)
Lin CHUN, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
Nos. 05 Civ. 4515(JES), 03 Cr. 737(JES).
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
September 11, 2007.
*266 Lin Chun, LSCI Allenwood, White Deer, PA, pro se.
Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, Parvin Moyne, Assistant United States Attorney, of Counsel, New York, NY, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SPRIZZO, District Judge.
Petitioner Lin Chun brings this Motion to Vacate, Correct, or Reduce a Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (hereinafter "§ 2255 Motion") and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (hereinafter "§ 2241 Petition"), both dated April 26, 2005. Petitioner primarily argues a violation of his right to trial by jury because the Court, rather than a jury, inappropriately found the facts necessary to sentencing enhancements. The Government submitted a Response dated August 13, 2007. For the following reasons, the Court denies petitioner's § 2241 Petition and reserves decision on his § 2255 Motion pending a hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the charge of conspiring to commit robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 on November 12, 2003. Petitioner entered into a plea agreement that limited his ability to appeal or collaterally attack any sentence imposed within or below the stipulated guidelines range of 63 to 78 months. See Gov't Brief in Opp'n to § 2241 Petition and § 2255 Motion, Ex. A, 4; Tr. dated November 12, 2003 (hereinafter "Tr."), 10-11. The Court sentenced petitioner on February 26, 2004 to the low end of this range-63 months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.
Petitioner then submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on February 16, 2005 challenging his conviction in this Court. That Court dismissed his petition without prejudice on March 29, 2005.
DISCUSSION
As indicated by the Court at the time of the plea, petitioner waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence in his plea agreement. See Tr. 10-11. Given the thorough allocution, it is clear that petitioner knowingly and voluntarily entered into this plea agreement. See also Tr. 5-6. Therefore, petitioner's waiver of his right to appeal or collaterally attack this sentence is enforceable. See Garcia-Santos v. United States, 273 F.3d 506, 508-09 (2d Cir.2001); United States v. Fisher, 232 F.3d 301, 303 (2d Cir.2000). As the Court imposed a sentence at the low end of this agreement, the waiver is effective and petitioner may not challenge his sentence.
*267 Petitioner properly filed his § 2255 Motion to challenge the imposition of his sentence, not the execution thereof. The Second Circuit has made it clear that a challenge to the execution of a sentence is appropriate under § 2241, but a challenge to the imposition of a sentence should be filed as a motion under § 2255. See Poindexter v. Nash, 333 F.3d 372, 377 (2d Cir.2003). Therefore, petitioner's similar claim in his § 2241 Petition should be treated as a, § 2255 Motion. Though 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does provide a "savings clause" that allows a petitioner to file a § 2241 petitioner if a § 2255 motion is an "inadequate or ineffective" remedy, petitioner has made no such showing here.
However, the Court