the Court could not find, any cases in which a petitioner demonstrated a fundamental miscarriage of justice due to an intervening change in law regarding a mistaken legal characterization of a predicate offense under ACCA where the habeas petition was nonetheless barred by procedural default. While the issue is complicated, and the cases are like Shipp passing in the night, the Court concludes that where a predicate offense is improperly classified as a “violent felony” under the ACCA because of an intervening change in law which created a novel claim, “cause and prejudice must yield to the imperative of correcting a fundamentally unjust incarceration.” Murray, 477 U.S. at 495, 106 S.Ct. 2639 (quotations omitted). The pro cedural default is excused as a fundamental 98 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Shannon, 410 F.3d at 1088-89 (holding that a
holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where  it appears that the  court of appeals itself would not follow that decision holding that a recent federal court of appeals decision was not a qualifying fact under  2255f4 recognizing that these two recent supreme court decisions resolve the issue of whether federal regulations alone can create enforceable rights under  1983 holding a new constitutional challenge not raised in district court was not properly before court of appeals holding that the court of appeals may not overrule modify or withdraw language from a previously published decision of the court of appeals