through international waters or airspace. See Sugiyama, 846 F.2d at 572; Perez, 776 F.2d at 801. Cabaccang expressly overruled settled law. 332 F.3d at 635 (“To the extent that Sugiyama and Perez address the transport of drugs through international airspace on a nonstop domestic flight, they are overruled.”). Alaimalo could not have raised his claim of innocence in an effective fashion prior to Cabaccang, at which point he had already exhausted his direct appeal and § 2255 motion. See Triestman 124 F.3d at 379; Davenport, 147 F.3d at 610; contra Harrison, 519 F.3d at 961 (noting that case law at the time of petitioner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 “invited the very argument” raised in the purported § 2241 petition); Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 958, 963 (8th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The government argues that Alaimalo’s actual
holding that children could receive permanent total disability payments after the death of their mother where the mothers claim was pending before the effective date of the 2008 statutory amendments and was still pending at the time of her death holding that a case remained pending where the time to file a rehearing petition had not expired holding that where petitioners  2255 motion was still pending at the time the supreme court effected a material change in the applicable law he had an unobstructed chance to raise his actual innocence claim in the pending petition recognizing that aedpa would not apply to a habeas petition that was pending at the time of its enactment 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