Challenging drug convictions

1. WHETHER SUBSTANTIVE STATUTORY-INTERPRETATION DECISIONS SUCH AS BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998), REHAIF V. UNITED STATES, 588 U.S. 225 (2019), AND RUAN V. UNITED STATES, 597 U.S. 450 (2022), APPLY RETROACTIVELY ON COLLATERAL REVIEW WHERE THOSE DECISIONS DEFINE THE SUBSTANTIVE MEANING OF A FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE AND DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED WITHOUT PROOF OF ESSENTIAL STATUTORY ELEMENTS. 2. WHETHER 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2), AS APPLIED TO A PRISONER ASSERTING LEGAL INNOCENCE BASED UPON AN INTERVENING SUBSTANTIVE INTERPRETATION OF A FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE, VIOLATES THE SUSPENSION CLAUSE AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FOR FORECLOSING ANY JUDICIAL FORUM IN WHICH TO PRESENT SUCH INNOCENCE CLAIMS. 3. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS CONTINUED IMPRISONMENT UNDER 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) AND 841(b) WHERE THE JURY NEVER FOUND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE DRUG TYPE AND DRUG QUANTITY, AND MENS REA ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO AUTHORIZE THE SENTENCE IMPOSED. 4. WHETHER ACTUAL INNOCENCE UNDER BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) OVERRIDES PROCEDURAL BARRIERS WHERE INTERVENING DECISIONS ESTABLISH THAT THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED WITHOUT FINDINGS ON ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE. 5. WHETHER THE COURTS BELOW ERRED IN REJECTING PETITIONER'S LONG-STANDING MENS REA CLAIM WHERE PETITIONER ARGUED SINCE DIRECT APPEAL, RELYING UPON FEOLA V. UNITED STATES, 420 U.S. 671 (1975), THAT HE LACKED THE CRIMINAL INTENT NECESSARY FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE NARCOTICS OFFENSE, AND SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS INCLUDING UNITED STATES V. HERAS, 609 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2010), UNITED STATES V. COLLAZO, 984 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 2021), AND UNITED STATES V. COLSTON, 4 F.4th 1179 (11th Cir. 2021), CONFIRM THE IMPORTANCE OF PROVING THE REQUISITE MENS REA FOR DRUG CONSPIRACIES AND RELATED OFFENSES.