Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042

Alaimalo was convicted in 1997 on three counts of importation and three counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, with sentences running concurrently.
Cabaccang v. United States (en banc) held transporting drugs within the U.S. from California to Guam does not constitute importation, overruling Sugiyama and Perez.
Alaimalo subsequently filed multiple habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. §2241, seeking relief based on actual innocence.
Cabaccang changed the applicable law, which Alaimalo argued made his innocence claim unavailable earlier.
The district court and Ninth Circuit panels previously concluded Alaimalo could not rely on §2255(e)’s savings clause; this panel, however, holds jurisdiction exists to consider his §2241 petition without a COA.
The court addresses jurisdiction, actual innocence, and whether prior‑panel rulings law of the case or abuse of the writ preclude relief and ultimately reverses to grant habeas relief as to importation convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction without a COA	Alaimalo argues actual innocence and Cabaccang change permit §2241 relief	Government contends §2255(e) does not negate COA requirements and limits jurisdiction	Yes; the court has jurisdiction to review without COA
Whether Alaimalo is actually innocent for habeas relief	Alaimalo was convicted of importation where Cabaccang holds no crime	Prosecution contends conviction stands	Alaimalo is actually innocent; Cabaccang nullifies importation conviction
Whether law of the case or abuse of the writ precludes relief	Alaimalo II’s denial should not bar successive petitions; manifest injustice shown	Abuse of writ and law of the case preclude repeated petitions	Neither doctrine bars relief; relief granted as to importation convictions
Whether Cabaccang's change in law was available only after direct appeal/§2255	Change in law was not available earlier, thus §2241 escape hatch applies	Law change not sufficient to bypass gatekeeping; previous panels rejected relief	Cabaccang constitutes a material change allowing §2241 relief, making §2255 route unavailable earlier
Whether dismissal of importation convictions is proper	Relief needed to avoid manifest injustice; convictions for importation lack legality	Confinement consequences remain; relief unnecessary to sentence	We reverse and remand to issue writ and vacate importation convictions

United States v. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc; held transporting drugs within U.S. territory not importation)
United States v. Sugiyama, 846 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1988) (previously held domestic transport could be importation)
United States v. Perez, 776 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1985) (transport over international waters treated as importation)
Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2008) (savings clause criteria for §2241 relief)
Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2003) (savings clause applicability and jurisdictional issues)
Stanko v. Davis, 617 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2010) (gatekeeping for §2241/§2255 interplay (certificate of authorization))
Barapind v. Reno, 225 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2000) (gatekeeping for §2244(a) and §2241 interplay; relative to 'conviction validity')
Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1999) (savings clause scope and 'adequate or ineffective' test)
Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982) (ends of justice considerations and finality in habeas)
Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (1974) (furthers the 'ends of justice' concept in relief)