Whether Mathis v. United States represents a substantive change in law and should be applied retroactively in a § 2241 petition

Question Presented Earl Moore Found himself in the sights of what has become known as a sting operation. That ; is, Moore was sitting at home in great need of resources to pay his bills when a controlled © call came in requesting that he join in a stash-house robbery. Unbeknowst to Moore this . was no crime to be had, but only a fabracated offense specifically designed to capture innocent individuals in dire straits. Such a crime includes a large quantity of drugs, and most always the confidential source requests the defendant to bring a gun. Moore fell for the scheme and was arrested and oe : proceeded to trial where he was convicted, and because he was a designated as a career offender : his sentence landed in the range of 360 to life. The Court without hesitation sentence Moore To 30-years in prison as a career offender. Following > : thei Court decision in Mathis v. United States, . and after his direct appeal, and § 2255, Moore .: _ sought relief under § 2241 on the basis that his : Pennsylvania resisting arrest is not longer a crime of violence. The § 2241 court determined Oo that Mathis did not represent a "change" and ¥ therefore Moore could not satisfy the second prong ok of the test in United STates v. Wheeler. The _ : question is whether Mathis is a substantive change and therefore whether the Court of Appeals erred : in dismissing his § 2241? . -~i ' No. . In The : Supreme Court of United States . Earl Moore, . Petitioner, : Vv. United States of America, ; Respondent. To the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of Supreme Court: ; Earl Moore ("Moore"), moves thisd Court for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and in support states: Opinions Below . : The Magistrate's report and recommendation and order adopting that _ report dated August 8, 2018, is attached with the Court of appeals affirmance and denial of rehearing at Exhibit-A i \*. Jurisdiction , . This Court has. jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1254(1). Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved : ‘The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause ; :