Gamboa v. Krueger, 668 F. App'x 654

In 2002 Michael Gamboa was convicted in the District of North Dakota of multiple offenses including conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine and firearms offenses; he received concurrent life sentences and consecutive life and 30‑year terms for § 924(c) machine‑gun and firearm‑in‑furtherance counts.
On direct appeal the Eighth Circuit held that, under the post‑1998 amended § 924(c)(1), whether a weapon is a "machinegun" is a sentencing factor for the judge to decide by a preponderance of the evidence, and affirmed Gamboa’s convictions. United States v. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796.
Gamboa’s first § 2255 motion raising many grounds was denied; subsequent attempts to raise Castillo‑based and other claims were denied as successive.
The Supreme Court later decided United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218, holding that Castillo's reasoning applies to the amended § 924(c) and that the machine‑gun provision is an element that must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gamboa filed a § 2241 habeas petition arguing O’Brien/Castillo required vacatur of his judge‑found machine‑gun enhancements; the district court dismissed, concluding the § 2255 savings clause does not apply and O’Brien is not retroactive on collateral review.
The appellate court affirmed, holding Gamboa cannot proceed under § 2241 because his claim does not satisfy the § 2255(e) savings clause and O’Brien announced a non‑retroactive procedural rule allocating factfinding to juries.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gamboa may use § 2241 via the § 2255 savings clause to challenge his § 924(c) machine‑gun finding	O’Brien and Castillo mean the machine‑gun element must be jury‑found beyond a reasonable doubt, so his judge‑found enhancement invalidates his sentence and § 2241 is available	The § 2255 remedy is not inadequate or ineffective; the Castillo argument was available earlier and O’Brien does not provide a retroactive rule enabling § 2241 relief	Denied: Claim does not meet § 2255(e) savings‑clause criteria; § 2241 relief unavailable
Whether O’Brien announces a new rule that applies retroactively on collateral review	O’Brien recharacterizes the machine‑gun provision as an element, which should permit collateral relief	O’Brien merely applies established procedural jury‑trial principles and is not retroactive on collateral attack	O’Brien is a procedural rule about jury factfinding that does not apply retroactively; cannot support collateral relief

Castillo v. United States, 530 U.S. 120 (2000) (allocation of machine‑gun determination between judge and jury under pre‑1998 § 924(c))
United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (2010) (holding the machine‑gun provision of amended § 924(c) is an element requiring jury proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (earlier appellate decision treating machine‑gun characterization as a sentencing factor for the judge)
Poe v. LaRiva, 834 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2016) (discussing § 2255 savings clause limits on § 2241 petitions)
Montana v. Cross, 829 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2016) (same)
Light v. Caraway, 761 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2014) (same)
In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998) (formulation of the § 2255(e) savings‑clause test)
United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001) (Apprendi and similar doctrines are procedural rules not retroactive on collateral review)
Crayton v. United States, 799 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2015) (Alleyne and related jury‑trial decisions do not apply retroactively)
Curtis v. United States, 294 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2002) (Apprendi announced a procedural rule that is not retroactive)