Is petitioner entitled to immediate relief, including issuance of a writ of habeas corpus from this Court, to protect the privilege of habeas corpus as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and to compel a merits determination of an actual innocence claim that the court of appeals has refused to address as a question of fact?

1. Is petitioner entitled to immediate relief, including issuance of a writ of habeas corpus from this Court, to protect the privilege of habeas corpus as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and to compel a merits determination of an actual innocence claim that the court of appeals has refused to address as a question of fact? RELIEF SOUGHT Petitioner prays for a writ of habeas corpus that directs the court of appeals to address the merits of petitioner's actual innocence claim as a question of factual innocence, not a question of law. UNAVAILABILITY OF RELIEF IN OTHER COURTS No other court can grant the relief sought by this petition because this Court's decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023) prohibits petitioner from proceeding under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 and/or 28 U.S.C. Section 2255(e) in the district of confinement, and the court of appeals is using censorship tactics comprised of filing restrictions to avoid exercising its jurisdiction to make a decision on the merits under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255(h)(1). See, Appeal No. 24-1515.. That is, the court of appeals is using unlawful/tyrannical filing restrictions to effectively suspend petitioner's right to reopen his original Motion To Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, Case No. 1-21-cv-2720, by way of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (b)(6) or his Amended Motion For A New Trial Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1), Case No. 1:17-cr-517, through an overbroad imposition, and subsequent enforcement of, filing restrictions imposed in Appeal No. 24-1515. These circumstances, combined with this Court's decision in Jones v Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023) make relief unavailable in any other court besides this Court. UNSUITABILITY OF ANY OTHER FORM OF RELIEF No other form of relief will be sufficient to protect the rights of petitioner because certiorari cannot be granted to review the denial of a petition for authorization to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255(h)(1). In lieu of Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023) petitioner cannot obtain relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241(c), Section 2255(e), Rule 33(b)(1), and because of the court of appeals' filing restrictions cannot obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6) to reopen. However, under Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 654 (1996) this Court holds that the AEDPA does not preclude this Court from entertaining an application for habeas corpus relief. This Court can solidly issue a writ of habeas corpus that directs the court of appeals to issue a merits determination and/or lift its sanctions against petitioner's ability to seek permission to reopen a previously denied claim under Section 2255 based on a defect in the integrity of the proceedings under Rule 60(b)(6).