1Although Henderson’s motion was date-stamped “received” on February 6, 2007, this court,
under the “mailbox rule,” deems his motion filed on the date he delivered it to prison authorities for
mailing, presumptively, January 30, 2007, the day that he signed it. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 271-72 (1988); Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001).
2On February 6, 2006, Henderson pled guilty to transportation of counterfeited securities.
On June 8, 2006, he was sentenced to twelve months and one day in prison.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DI’MITRI RAY HENDERSON,
Civil Action No.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
O R D E R
On January 30, 2007, the petitioner, Di’Mitri Ray Henderson (“Henderson”) filed a
pleading styled as a “Motion to Amend or Correct Judgment.”1 (Doc. No. 1) By this
motion, Henderson asks this court to reduce his sentence of imprisonment based on the
provisions of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. governing the imposition of a sentence on a defendant
subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment.2
Henderson’s asserted claim attacks the legality of his sentence. The law is settled that
28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the exclusive remedy for challenging the validity of a conviction and
Case 2:07-cv-00113-MHT-TFM Document 4 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 4
Henderson v. United States of America (INMATE3)
sentence, unless the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d
164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996); Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 1981); Lane
v. Hanberry, 601 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1979). The remedy afforded by § 2255 is not deemed
inadequate or ineffective merely because an inmate’s motion is barred by the applicable one-
year period of limitation or by the gatekeeping provision on successive petitions contained
in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2244(b)(3)(A). See Wofford v.