I. Whether Hinkson is entitled to habeas corpus relief where he "asserted"a valid claim of a under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 new rule of constitutional law [Sessions v Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018)l, retroactively applicable by the Supreme Court [Welch v United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016)] on collateral review, but was arbitrarily denied authorization to file a second motion to vacate sentence under. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by the court of appeals, and where the denial of authorization by the court of appeals is not appealable or subject to a petition for rehearing or a petition for writ of certiorari [28 U.S.C..§ 2244(b)(3)(E)], and thus, Hinkson has no other available remedy to challenge his a and Welch even though he is entitled to sentence under Dimaya relief.

II. Whether Hinkson is entitled to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.: § 2241 where his panel victory and reversal of his convictions on direct appeal was arbitrarily reversed by the split (6 to 5) en banc court of appeals after it changed its legal standard while Hinkson was on direct appeal, and applied the new legal standard to Hinkson's case in a manner that resulted in a harsher outcome, and thus, violated the ex post facto clause [Art. I, § 9, cl. 3 ] of the Constitution of the United States.

Question not identified