Attorney successfully defended a Federal Defenders' Office in an application for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. The petition was filed, and the petitioner joined the attorneys who represented him from the Federal Defender Office. The petitioner had been arrested in the District of Columbia, and charged with second-degree assault, and as a fugitive from justice. The U.S. Parole Commission issued a Warrant charging the petitioner with violating his conditions of parole for the assault charge, for using illegal drugs, and later for assault and additional drug charges. After petitioner's release from his State of Maryland sentences, he was transferred to the custody of the Commission. Later, the Commission conducted a relocation hearing, at which the hearing examiner recommended that his parole be revoked and that petitioner serve 78-100 months. Later, the petitioner's parole was revoked and he was ordered to serve 100 months. The petitioner appealed and lost. The petitioner then filed a Habeas Petition, and joined the Federal Public Defender's Office. He argued that the Commission violated his due process rights and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the revocation hearing. The record revealed, however, that the attorneys had the opportunity to, and actually did respond to the alleged violations. Counsel was provided at the hearing with a copy of the probable cause statement. However, the petitioner submitted nothing to refute the quantity of drugs found which was the basis for the revocation. Since the petitioner had an opportunity to respond on the quantity issue, the District Court found that petitioner could properly take into account the probable cause statement as substantial information available to it in establishing the prisoner's offense severity rating. In response to our Motion to Dismiss, the District Court found that the petitioner's claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the revocation hearing was not properly before the court. Because the petitioner was convicted in the District of Columbia, his sole post-conviction remedy was under the D.C. Code §23-110, and he could not proceed with a Federal Habeas Petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel unless the §23-110 remedy was inadequate or ineffective. The petitioner argued that he did not previously file his ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he did not discover it until after he filed his 23-110 motion in the District of Columbia. He also argued that he did not present the issue on appeal of his revocation hearing because he was not aware of the Federal Public Defender's effective assistance until after counsel filed the 23-110 in the District of Columbia. The court found that petitioner had not presented his ineffective assistance of counsel in the 23-110. Therefore, the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.