FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

July 27, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

	UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER O. WELCH,

		Plaintiff-Appellant,	

No. 05-3287	
	v.	District of Kansas	
E.J. GALLEGOS, Warden,

		Defendant-Appellee.	(D.C. No. 05-CV-3260-RDR)		

	ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before MURPHY, SEYMOUR, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

	Christopher O. Welch appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.   2241.  We affirm.
	In 1997 Mr. Welch was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi after pleading guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C.   2119.  He was sentenced to 150 months’ imprisonment and was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, in Leavenworth, Kansas.  He did not file a direct appeal, but did seek post-conviction relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   2255.  A request to file a successive   2255 petition was denied in 2001. 
	In his   2241 petition, Mr. Welch claimed that the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case and requested that his conviction and sentence be set aside.  The district court below dismissed the petition, finding that it challenged the validity of his conviction rather than the execution of his sentence, and thus could be raised only under   2255. 
	Mr. Welch now asserts that the district court’s dismissal of his petition contradicted Circuit precedent as set forth in Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164 (10th Cir. 1996), and argues that he should be allowed to proceed under   2241 because his remedy under   2255 has effectively been foreclosed.   However, Bradshaw explicitly reaffirmed the long-standing principle that the “exclusive remedy for testing the validity of a judgment and sentence, unless it is inadequate or ineffective, is that provided for in 28 U.S.C.   2255.” Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166 (quoting Johnson v. Taylor, 347 F.2d 365, 366 (10th Cir. 1965)).  Bradshaw further recognized that “[f]ailure to obtain relief under 2255 does not establish that the remedy so provided is either inadequate or ineffective.”  Id. at 166 (quoting Williams v. United States, 323 F.2d 672, 673 (10th Cir. 1963)).  Mr. Welch has shown only that his previous   2255 petition was unsuccessful, and not that the statutory remedy was inadequate or ineffective.  Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing his petition.   
	Because Mr. Welch’s claim should have been raised under   2255, and because   2255 claims must be raised before the district court that imposed the sentence, United States v. Condit, 621 F.2d 1096, 1097 (10th Cir. 1980), the district court below lacked jurisdiction over the claim and properly declined to review the merits of Mr. Welch’s petition.  See In re Dep’t of Energy Stripper Well Litig., 206 F.3d 1345, 1351 (10th Cir. 2000); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-96 (1998).
	The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.
							Entered for the Court, 
							Michael W. McConnell
							Circuit Judge