Is the Circuit Split between the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and other listed Circuits sufficient given it denies defendant's in all the other Circuit's access to the Great Writ(and in effect suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus available only through the Seventh Cirvit via 28 U.S.C. § 2241) of sufficient deprivation to require this United States Supreme Court to resolve this Circuit split' which allowed to stand will deny all others except the Seventh Ciruit to have access to argue a misapplication of the sentencing guidelines, which otherwise represents a fundamental defect that constitutes a miscarriage of justice corrigible in a § 2241 proceeding?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Is the Circuit Split between the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and other! listed Circuits(see below) sufficient given it denies defendant's in all the other Circuit's access to the Great Writ(and in effect suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus available only through the Seventh Cirvit via 28 U.S.C. § 2241) of sufficient deprivation to require this United States Supreme Court to resolve this Circuit split’ which allowed to stand will deny all others except the Seventh Ciruit to have access to argue a misapplication of the sentencing guidelines, which otherwise represents a fundamental defect that constitutes a miscarriage of justice corrigible in a § 2241 proceeding? 3 1 In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605. (7th Cir. 1998) & Narvaez v US, 674 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2001). The latter decision has been rejected explicitly by” Sun Bear v US, 644 F.3d 700, 705 n.8 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc), and implicitly by McKay v_ US, 657 F.3d 1190 (Lith Cir. 2011). The former conflicts with Trenkler v US, 536 F.3d 85, 92 (lst Cir. 2008); San-Miguel v Dove, 291 F.3d 257, 261 n. 2 (4th Cir. 2002)$ Poindexter v Nash, 333 F.3d 372, 382 (2nd Cir. 2002); Okereke v US, 307 F.3d 117 (3rd Cir. 2002); Wooten v Cauley, 677 F.3d 303, 307-08 (6th Cir. 2012); Marrero v Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2012)) Prost v Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 584-93 (10th Cir. 2011). When Davenport is combined with Narvaez there is a clear conflict with Gilbert v_US, 604 F.3d 1293 (1lth Cir. 2011)(en banc) and In re Bradford, 660 F.3d 226 (Sth Cir. 2011). And Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. However, please note that as of 2013 the only Seventh Circuit Judge to dissent from the result when combining Davenport and Narvaez is Judge Easterbrook. 2 A federal prisoner may petiton under §2241 "if his section 2255 remedy "is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.’ Tq. (citing § 2255(3), the "Savings Clause"). In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998) established in the Seventh Circuit three conditions for this exception to apply: (1) he relies on a case; (2) relies on a retroactive decision that he could not have invoked in his first §2255: : & (3) the sentence enhancement has been grave enough error to be deemed a miscarriage of justice corrigible therefore in a habeas corpus procceding (showing a fundamental defect in his conviction or sentence). 3 A finding on the merits not on jurisdiction, procedure or otherwise. 4 US v Wheeler, 4th Cir., No. 16-06073, petition for rehearing en banc denied 6/11/18 The U.S. Supreme Court should take up a criminal case "of significant national importance," Judge G. Steven Agee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ‘wrote June 11, 2018. At stake is whether prisoners can take advantage of retroactive changes in the law when traditional habeas corpus review(as here)can't provide relief. A three judge panel of the court stated his claim could go forward but had to apply the "most expansive view" of the savings clause among the circuits. The Supreme Court justices were urged to step in and resolve the conflict "so that the federal courts, Congress, the Bar, and the public will have the benefit of clear guidance and consistent results of this important area of law." Wheeler's en banc was denied so the Supreme Court justices could take Wheeler(and VanDeMerve) "at the earliest . possible date in order to resolve [this]existing circuit split that the panel decision broadens even further." ‘ at “ . ; :