Whether an individual serving a wrongfully enhanced sentence is barred from obtaining relief solely because the wrongfulness of the sentence was established retroactively by a court of appeals decision

QUESTION PRESENTED Section 2255 of 28 U.S.C., which authorizes postconviction relief for federal prisoners, generally requires post-conviction motions be brought within a year of the judgment and prohibits second or successive claims for relief in most circumstances. But § 2255(e) includes a savings clause that allows a prisoner whose claim is otherwise barred to petition for a writ of habeas corpus if the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of his detention. In this case, after petitioner Ramon Hueso’s first § 2255 motion, a change in circuit law made it clear that Mr. Hueso had been wrongly subjected to an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence. The Sixth Circuit— explicitly disagreeing with the Fourth Circuit— nonetheless denied Mr. Hueso’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that a change in circuit law cannot support relief under the savings clause. The question presented is whether, notwithstanding the savings clause of § 2255(e), an individual serving a wrongfully enhanced sentence is barred from obtaining relief, solely because the wrongfulness of the sentence was established retroactively by a court of appeals decision. ii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS Hueso v. Barnhart, No. 18-6299, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judgment entered January 9, 2020. Hueso v. Barnhart, C/A No. 6:18-176-DCR, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judgment entered November 26, 2018. Hueso v. Sepanek, C/A No. 13-19-HRW, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judgment entered August 6, 2013. United States v. Hueso, No. 10-30017, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered March 14, 2011. United States v. Hueso, C/A No. U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. Judgment entered February 17, 2010.