Whether petitioner was entitled to file an application for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241 and/or 28 U.S.C. 2255(e) in light of McFadden v. U.S.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Ae WHETHER. PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED: TO FILE AN APPLI-’ CATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS. UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2241 AND/OR 28 U.S.C. 2255(e) IN LIGHT OF McFADDEN v. U.S. 135 S.Ct. 2298(2015). UNDER THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS "SAVINGS CLAUSE TEST" IN REYES. REQUENA V. U.S. 243 F.3d. 893, 904(5th Gir. 2001), WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT (SOLE BASIS) WAS McFADDEN "WAS NOT" RETROACTIVE CN COLLATERAL REVIEW, BUT THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OVERLOOKED AND FAIL TO. ADDRESS WHETHER McFADDEN WAS IN FACT RETROACTIVE ON COLLATERAL REVIEW BY (SIDE-STEPPING) THE MATTER AND MAKING A ; SEE TILLMAN V. BARNHART 728 Fed. Appx. 361(5th , Cir. 2018); AND BUCK V. DAVIS 137 S.Ct. 759, 773 (2017)? Be WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT WILL (INTERVENE) .IN — THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND OTHER COURTS. FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE RETROACTIVITY OF McFADDEN V. U.S. 135 S.Ct. 2298(2015) ON COLLATERAL . REVIEW, BUT HAS DONE SO FROM THIS. COURT'S HOLDING IN BURRAGE V. U.S. 134 S.Ct. 881, 187 L.Ed.2d 715 (2014). SEE SANTILLANA V. UPTON 846 F.3d 779, 78384(5th Cir. 2017); HARRINGTON V. ORMOND 2018 U.S. APP. LEXIS 22335(6th Cir. 2018) AND KRIEGER V. U.S. 842 F.3d 490, 499-500(7th Cir. 2016) WHEN (BOTH) McFADDEN AND BURRAGE ARE "STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONS" ANNOUNCED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT REFLECTING 21 USC §841? i