The Third Circuit has reduced the 2241 Gateway to qualify via 2255(e) to an impassable size through abuses of discretion in the creation of Dicta, that openly conflict with Statute Definitions, Supreme Court Rulings and simple logic.

1) There are multiple differing 2255(e) criteria that are each stated to be the "Only" (emphasis added) qualifier for 2241 via 2255(e). By sheer definition, there cannot be more than one "Only". In the instant case, when the petitioner satiated Okereke's "Only", they dismissed Sheehan's Writ by quoting Cradle's "only".

2) Misinterpreting the Supreme Court's ruling in Dorsainvil, at least twice, combined with #1, supra, resulting in the "disposal of submissions" not "Fairly adjudicating constitutional claims in a judicial forum", per due process.

The 3rd Circuit rules via Dorsainvil, Actual Innocence is only a "Change in Law..."
The Supreme Court ruled in Dorsainvil, otherwise, infra:
The 3rd Circuit adjudicates "Actual Innocence" as "Only a change in Law due to Newly discovered..."
The Supreme Court ruled Actual Innocence is in light of all the evidence, no juror would convict".

QUESTION: Who is right?

Whether the Third Circuit has improperly reduced the 2241 gateway via 2255(e) through abuses of discretion in creating conflicting dicta that contradict statute definitions and Supreme Court rulings