¶1JUDGMENT
¶2This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
¶3ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 29, 2008, 2008 WL 576986, be affirmed. Appellant’s complaint constituted a collateral attack on his conviction and sentence, which must be pursued by motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the sentencing court; or, if the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective, by a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the judicial district where appellant’s custodian is located. See Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 755-56 (6th Cir.1999) (per curiam); Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 811 (D.C.Cir.1988) (en banc). To the extent appellant sought to challenge his conviction or sentence via an independent action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), the claim fails. Appellant may not seek relief from a criminal sentence under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), because Rule 60(b) is not applicable to criminal proceedings. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 1; United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam).
¶4Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.