offense level by four points because the defendant was convicted under the money laundering statute and because of the defendant’s role in the offense. The court also de ducted three points for the petitioner’s acceptance of responsibility. The Judgment and Commitment Order was entered on June 14, 2004. The petitioner did not appeal his sentence. III. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standard for a Motion Under § 2255 A person may challenge the validity of his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by moving the court that imposed the sentence to “vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374, 377, 121 S.Ct. 1578, 149 L.Ed.2d 590 (2001); Wilson v. Office of Chairperson, Dist. of Columbia Bd. of Parole, 892 F.Supp. 277, 279 n. 1 (D.D.C.1995) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Hartwell v. United States, 353
holding that it is well settled in this jurisdiction and elsewhere that  2255 will lie only to attack the imposition of a sentence and that an attack on the execution thereof may be accomplished only by way of habeas corpus in the district of confinement holding that an attack on the computation and execution of a sentence must come in the form of a  2241 petition holding that  2255 is unavailable to attack execution of sentence holding that recent cases have established that habeas corpus relief is not limited to immediate release from illegal custody but that the writ is available as well to attack future confinement and obtain future releases holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus