
    Arthur MORRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E.W. MORRIS, Warden, Federal Transfer Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States of America, ex rel, Respondent-Appellee.
    Nos. 00-6189, 00-6220.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Jan. 22, 2001.
    Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant Arthur Morrison, a federal prisoner representing himself, appeals from orders of the district court that dismissed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denied his motion for reconsideration, and denied his motion for release on bail and for permission to conduct interrogatories. He has filed motions in this court for release pending appeal and for an evidentiary hearing on the bail motion, to dismiss counsel as well as a reply to his attorney’s response moving to withdraw, to file an oversize reply brief, to supplement his reply brief, and a letter-affidavit which requests that his issues be adjudicated forthwith.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm. As we have repeatedly explained to appellant, his challenges to the legality of his conviction and sentence must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where he was sentenced. See Morrison v. Pugh, No. 98-1455, 1999 WL 176144 (10th Cir. Mar.31, 1999) (unpublished); Morrison v. Pugh, No. 98-1278, 1998 WL 704670 (10th Cir. Oct.2, 1998) (unpublished); Morrison v. Guzik, Nos. 97-6351, 97-6416, 1998 WL 380539 (10th Cir. June 30, 1998) (unpublished).

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s motion to dismiss counsel and appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw are granted. Appellant’s other motions are denied. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
     