
    Harry NIE, Appellant v. Government of the UNITED STATES of America and Loretta E. Lynch, Honorable, Attorney General of the United States, sued in her official capacity, Appellees
    No. 15-5320
    September Term, 2016
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    Filed: 09/12/2016
    Rehearing En Banc Denied November 30, 2016
    Harry Nie, Pro Se.
    Elizabeth Trosman, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USAO Appellate Counsel, U.S. Attorney’s Office (USA), Appellate Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.
    BEFORE: Tatel and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges; Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge
   JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

Upon consideration of the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and appellant’s brief, see Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2), D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j); and the motion to clarify, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed October 20, 2015, be affirmed. In his complaint before the district court, appellant sought relief that is essentially equivalent to that conferred by a writ of habeas corpus. As such, the proper avenue for appellant to seek the requested relief is a -petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed either “in the district court for the district wherein [appellant] is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced [appellant].... ” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to clarify be dismissed as moot'.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.  