Does the Eleventh Circuit too narrowly restrict a district court's § 2241 corpus jurisdiction?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : oo _ / — Question 1 The majority of the federal appeallate circuits conclude that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to adjudicete a claim of actuaJ. innocence, which results from a retroactive change in the circuit's controlling law. Thus, a prisoner may use § 2241 to present the actual innocence claim. The Eleventh and Tenth Circuit, however, conclude that § 2255 is at Jeast theoretically adequate or effective to remedy a claim foreclosed by circuit precedent, thus in the Eleventh and Tenth a prisoner cannot access § 2241. Does the Eleventh Circuit too narrowly restrict a district court's § 2241 corpus jurisdiction? Question 2 Section 2255 prohibits a district court from taking jurisdiction over a § 2241 habeas corpus petition unless a § 2255 motion to vacate is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the detention. _ An actual innocence claim untethered to constitutional or jurisdiction error is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; incognizability is the paradigmic example on inadequate and ineffective. Thus, § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of a detention of based on a claim of factual : innocence. ; Does the Eleventh Circuit construction of § 2255(e) improperly restrict a district court's habeas corpus jurisdiction over actual—innocence claims that are incognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) and (h)? : . in ; 1 . All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. -ii: : : . “