Whether the Eleventh Circuit has effectively suspended the writ of habeas corpus by narrowing the circumstances under which a federal prisoner can proceed under 28 U.S.C. §2241

QUESTION PRESENTED This petition presents two important issues concerning the proper interpretation of the Saving Clause, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); and the appropriate application of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. §924(e) after this Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2251 (2015). : Since this Court's decision, in Johnson v. United States, id., striking down the ACCA's residual clause as‘ unconstitutionally vague, Circuit Courts of appeals have issued published decisions on whether various state controlled substance offenses qualify as predicate offenses to trigger 18 U.S.C. §924(e) . enhancements. As a result of the differing conclusions these courts have reached, a direct conflict has emerged about whether state statutes are divisible and subject to categorical analysis, or are they broader than a neverexisted federal common law. Thus, Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013); and Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016) have redefined which prior convictions qualify as predicate enhancement offenses. In the ordinary case where someone has already filed for his first round of collateral relief this question would be raised in a request for second and successive authorization. see 28 U.S.C. §2244, and §2255. In the odd set of circumstances where a defendant has been found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and then enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act he is authorized to seek relief in collateral review only when the law has been changed and The Supreme Court holds that relief should apply retroactively. In Mr. Anderson's case he plead guilty and was enhanced under the ACCA. After he had filed for collateral relief this Court ruled in Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). Mr. Anderson was denied second and successive authorization by the Eleventh Circuit, an order that is unappealable. Thus, Mr. Anderson's only recourse, for correcting a sentence found to be | unconstitutional, is found in 28 U.S.C. §2241. “ive . 7” 5, : After Mr. Anderson was denied second and successive authorization and before he was able to articulate himself in a petition for Habeas Corpus, The Eleventh Circuit issued its ruling in McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, (llth Cir. 2017) (en bane), effectively suspending the Writ in the Eleventh Circuit. On or about April 2, 2018, The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals visited the very same issued Saving Clause interpretation as did the Eleventh Circuit, , in United States v. Wheeler, F.3d __» 2018 WL 1514418 (4th Cir. 2018). The Fourth Circuit deciding that the Saving Clause is available if sentencing was carried out in accordance with the law, the law was retroactively changed after direct appeal and first habeas petition, and the sentence presents an error grave enough to be deemed a fundamental defect putting the Fourth Circuit at odds with the Eleventh Circuit which recently held that a change in circuit sentencing law didn't qualify for the Saving Clause. Thus, Mr. Anderson presents, for resolution, the questions that follow: 1) Has the Eleventh Circuit of appeals effectively suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, without authorization, where the court has overruled its entire line of Saving Clause precedent to narrow the circumstances under which a federal prisoner can proceed under 28 U.S.C. §2241? 2) Does the difference between the Fourth and Eleventh Circuit decisions, concerning the Saving Clause interpretation, call for the exercise of this Court supervisory power, to the end that it may secure uniformity in the court of appeals? 3) Has the Eleventh Circuit established a procedural framework, by reason f of its operation, that made it highly unlikely in a typical case that a prisoner ‘ would have a meaningful opportunity to challenge a sentence, later determined to . be unconstitutional? , | -v, | iM : 4) Does 28 U.S.C. §2241 provide relief from a sentence that this court has determined i