A motion under § 2255 is not “inadequate or ineffective” simply because the petitioner cannot meet the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255. Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d at 251. However, we have held that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of a conviction where a petitioner “is being detained for conduct that has subsequently been rendered non-criminal by an intervening Supreme Court decision,” and where the petitioner is otherwise barred from filing a second or successive § 2255 motion. Id. at 252. In such a case, a petitioner may seek habeas relief under § 2241. Id. Here, McAdory contended that in light of Bond v. United States, he can argue that the Hobbs Act violates constitutional principles of federalism. See — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 2365-66, 180 L.Ed.2d 269 (2011) (<HOLDING>). However, because neither Bond nor another
holding that the city had standing to challenge the formation of a water improvement district that might impede the citys expansion holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial holding the defendant lacked standing to raise a doublejeopardy challenge to a statute authorizing additional penalties for underage driving while under the influence where there was no finding that he was punished under that statute holding that a litigant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute if the law is unconstitutional as applied to that particular litigant holding that a criminal defendant has standing to pursue a tenth amendment challenge to the statute under which he was charged as an unjustifiable expansion of federal law enforcement into a stateregulated domain