Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted February 22, 2016 Decided February 24, 2016 Before… v. CHARLES A. DANIELS, Warden, FCI Terre Haute

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 22, 2016*
Decided February 24, 2016
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 15-­‐‑2646
ABDUWALI ABDUKHADIR MUSE,
Petitioner-­‐‑Appellant,
v.
CHARLES A. DANIELS, Warden, FCI Terre Haute,
Respondent-­‐‑Appellee.
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana,
Terre Haute Division.
No. 2:15-­‐‑cv-­‐‑00213-­‐‑JMS-­‐‑DKL
Jane E. Magnus-­‐‑Stinson, Judge.
Order
Abduwali Muse pleaded guilty to piracy, 18 U.S.C. §2280, among other crimes, for
his role in boarding the MV Maersk Alabama in 2009 in international waters off the coast
of Somalia and taking its captain hostage.
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 15-­‐‑2646 Page 2
Muse initially told federal agents that he was 16 at the time of his capture, which
created a potential for prosecution under the special rules applicable to juveniles. See 18
U.S.C. §§ 5031–42. The day before a hearing set to determine his age, Muse told an FBI
agent that he was between 18 and 19. At the hearing Muse refused to testify. Magistrate
Judge Peck, of the Southern District of New York, concluded that Muse was at least 18
when the crime occurred, which led to his prosecution as an adult. He pleaded guilty
and was sentenced to 405 months’ imprisonment. The plea agreement contains a clause
promising “not to seek to withdraw his guilty plea or file a direct appeal or any kind of
collateral attack challenging his guilty plea or conviction based on his age either at the
time of the charged conduct or at the time of the guilty plea.”
Notwithstanding the waiver, Muse filed a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §2255 asking
the Southern District of New York to set aside his conviction on the grounds that a mag-­‐‑
istrate judge lacked authority to decide whether he was an adult in 2009 and that his
lawyer furnished ineffective assistance by not pursuing that question vigorously. Chief
District Judge Preska denied the motion, relying on the waiver in the plea agreement.
Muse appealed, but the Second Circuit declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Turning to the Southern District of Indiana, where he is imprisoned, Muse filed a peti-­‐‑
tion for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241. Again he lost, this time because
the district court concluded that §2255(e) applies.
Section 2255(e) provides: “An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a
prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall
not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by mo-­‐‑
tion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless
it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality
of his detention.” Webster v. Daniels, 784 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2015) (en banc), discusses
when §2255 as a whole is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of” federal deten-­‐‑
tion. The district court properly concluded that Muse has not identified any deficiency
or inadequacy in §2255. The reason he could not contest the magistrate judge’s decision
has nothing to do with §2255. It is, instead, the consequence of his own decision to
waive any entitlement to raise the age issue on collateral attack. That waiver would ap-­‐‑
ply equally in a proceeding under §2241, had not §2255(e) taken precedence.
Muse’s brief in this court ignores his waiver and §2255(e) alike. Instead he presents
an argument about the extent to which 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) permits magistrate judg-­‐‑
es to resolve contests about criminal defendants’ ages. The brief thus gives us no reason
to question the district court’s decision.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --