(1991). The District Court failed to consider what effect, if any, the abuse of the writ doctrine would have on Lee’s ability to assert his sentence calculation claim in a subsequent § 2241 petition. We need not determine whether the District Court erred, however, because Lee’s sentencing calculation claim has been adjudicated on the merits in a separate § 2241 proceedings brought in the United States District Coui't for the Western District of Louisiana. See Lee v. Keffer, Civ. Action No. 07-1873 (W.D.La.). In that case, the District Court held that Lee failed to demonstrate that his federal sentence should run concurrently with a previously-imposed state sentence. Lee is precluded from raising the sentencing calculation claim again. See Queen v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). In his Informal Brief, Lee alleges for the
recognizing that a previous panels review of the same habeas petition is the law of the case holding that district courts dismissal of state law claims was proper where the district court had properly dismissed all of the federal questions that gave it original jurisdiction holding that a  2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under  2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction holding that district court properly dismissed claims in  2241 petition that had been decided in previous habeas action holding 1 that the district court properly construed one  1983 claim as a habeas petition but improperly summarily dismissed it and 2 that the district court should have construed another  1983 claim as a habeas petition