To the exception to the rule termed in 28 U.S.C. §2255(e), the "escape hatch" or "saving clause" - does it permit a federal prisoner to "file a habeas corpus petition to contest the legality of a mandatory sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) where the remedy under 28 U.S.C.S. §2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of their detention.

In Jones V. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), 28 U.S.C.S. §2255(e) this court ruled that 2255(e) does not permit a prisoner asserting an intervening change in statutory interpretation to circumvent the restrictions on second or successive 28 U.S.C.S. §2255 motion by filing a 28 U.S.C.S. 2241.

However, In Jones y this court explained that the "saving clause" preserves recourse to 28 U.S.C.S. 2241 where unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court, as well as for challenges to detention.

THE QUESTION PRESENTED HERE IS WHETHER "LEGAL INNOCENCE" APPLIES TO A SENTENCING ENHANCEMENT UNDER THE ARMED CAREER CRIMINAL ACT IN JONES V. HENDRIX AND WHETHER DOES JONES V. HENDRIX ABROGATE THE REASONABLE-OPPORTUNITY STANDARD APPEAL COURTS APPLY IN SEEKING ID.PROVE 28 U.S.C.S. §2255 's INADEQUACY UNDER 28 U.S.C.S. §2255(e).

Whether the 'escape hatch' or 'saving clause' of 28 U.S.C. §2255(e) permits a federal prisoner to file a habeas corpus petition to contest the legality of a mandatory sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)