and procedures governing the transfer of military prisoners in the custody of [the] Department of the Army to the Federal Bureau of Prisons." (Respondent's Ex. 3 at pg. 1). Under this agreement, the BOP promised to house up to 500 military prisoners for the Army’s convenience. The agreement provides that "[t]he Secretaries of the respective Services retain clemency authority for military prisoners in FBOP custody,” but that "[p] aróle approval for military prisoners in [the] custody of the FBOP rests with the U.S. Parole Commission.” (Respondent's Ex. 3 at pg. 3). 2 . The court notes that its decision in this regard is consistent with other recent decisions from this district. See, e.g., Goff v. O’Brien, 2009 WL 4232859, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109676 (W.D.Va. Nov. 24, 2009) (Kiser, J.) (<HOLDING>); Seay v. O’Brien, 2010 WL 889790, 2010 U.S.
recognizing futility exception in context of  2241 petition holding that  2241 was the proper statute for the petitioners pretrial double jeopardy challenge holding that obrien was the proper respondent to a  2241 petition filed by a military prisoner housed at usplee holding   2241 is the proper avenue by which to challenge pretrial detention holding that a  2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under  2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction