Federal prisoner Victor Martinez appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Martinez contends that the district court erred in concluding that (1) venue was improper, and (2) the underlying petition was duplicative of his October 22, 2003, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition filed in the Central District of California. Even if venue was proper, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 499 n. 15, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973) (<HOLDING>), we agree with the district court that the
holding that venue in the district identified in  9 was mandatory holding that venue is proper in any judicial district in which the corporation is doing business holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced recognizing that venue was proper both in district where indictment was filed and district of confinement holding that venue was proper in district where underlying transactions and investments occurred and was not limited to district where party filed arbitration request