Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a prisoner seeking to collaterally attack the legality of his sentence is required to do so in the district where the prisoner was convicted. However, by way of § 2255(e)'s saving clause, a district court is permitted to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, if the remedy provided in § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the prisoner's] detention."

The first question presented here is as follows: Whether § 2255(e)'s saving clause permits a criminal defendant to pursue a claim of actual innocence in the district where he is detained when binding precedent in the district where the defendant was convicted precluded him from adequately or effectively challenging his conviction.

The second question is whether the Attorney General had good cause for not complying with the Administrative Procedures Act's notice and comment requirements when he promulgated regulations making the criminal provisions of the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act retroactive to sex offenders whose qualifying sex offenses pre-dated the Act's enactment.

Whether § 2255(e)'s saving clause permits a criminal defendant to pursue a claim of actual innocence in the district where he is detained when binding precedent in the district where the defendant was convicted precluded him from adequately or effectively challenging his conviction