convicted of “using” a firearm during a drug crime or violent crime found themselves innocent when the Supreme Court subsequently defined “use” in a restrictive manner in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). These prisoners, who could not establish their innocence before Bailey, were barred from § 2255 relief after Bailey because successive § 2255 petitions are limited to newly discovered evidence or a new and retroactive rule of constitutional law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.1998); Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361 (2d Cir.1997); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir.1997); see also Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623-24, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Without determining the exact scope of the
holding habeas review was available to federal prisoner claiming actual innocence who was barred from bringing a successive  2255 motion because the denial of collateral review would raise sufficiently serious constitutional questions under the eighth amendment and the due process clause holding that a showing of cause and prejudice fails to overcome a defendants initial failure to object holding that claims not asserted on direct appeal may not be raised in  2255 motion absent showing of cause for and actual prejudice resulting from failure to raise them holding that defendant could not raise in a  2255 motion an issue previously decided on direct criminal appeal holding in a  2255 case that the failure to raise a bailey claim on direct review can be overcome by a showing of actual innocence