Does the Chief Data Officer of the National Guard have the right to challenge the legality of his detention and seek relief through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Before Akerman can proceed with a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to the Supreme Court, he is required to exhaust all other available avenues for relief. This requirement ensures that petitioners seek relief through the most direct and appropriate channels before appealing to higher courts. : The escape hatch provision of § 2255 is particularly relevant to Akerman's case. It stipulates that a petitioner can only resort to a § 2241 petition if they fulfill two critical conditions: (1) the petitioner makes a credible claim of actual innocence, and (2) the petitioner has not had an unobstructed procedural opportunity to present this claim. The case of Muth v. Fondren, 676 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2012), further clarifies these requirements, emphasizing the necessity for petitioners to demonstrate both actual innocence and a lack of procedural opportunity in their initial or any subsequent appeals. 1. Does the Chief Data Officer of the National Guard, appointed under 44 U.S.C. § 3520, with standing under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1) and (c)(2), and detained by one or more federalized military officers of state national guard units without lawful authority to detain, have the right to challenge the legality of his detention and seek relief through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, especially in light of the due process violations outlined in 5 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(1) and the constitutional concerns raised by the Posse Comitatus Act? 2. Alternatively, do the obstructions face in timely and exhaustive habeas proceedings, entitle the petitioner to the certification required to challenge his detention, under : color of the United States, having been placed in custody for an act done in pursuance of his congressionally delegated duties under 44 U.S.C. § 3520(e), under the escape hatch provision of § 2255?