GLASSER, United States District Judge
In a Memorandum and Order dated June 14, 2000, familiarity with which is assumed, this Court held that "the petitioner's motion which was styled as a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, should be construed as a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. So construed, the claim is untimely, and must be dismissed. Moreover, there is no basis on the record, and the petitioner fails to set forth any in his submissions, for application of the habeas savings clause of § 2255."
Mr. Cespedes then moved the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for a certificate of appealability and appointment of counsel. That Court granted his motion for the limited purpose of remanding the matter to this Court with instructions to notify Mr. Cespedes "that his § 2241 petition is being construed as filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and to give [him] the opportunity to withdraw or amend his motion." his motion for appointment of counsel was denied.
Mr. Cespedes was informed as directed by this Court's letter on October 17, 2000. In a letter dated October 27, 2000, which is styled an "amended § 2255 letter-motion, pursuant to Second Circuit's Order" he asserts yet another claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This assertion is as meritless as his first and for the reasons given in this Court's June 14th Memorandum and Order his § 2255 petition as amended is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.