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 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 that Mathis did not represent a "change" and therefore Moore could not satisfy the second prong 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?

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