Michael Gamboa v. Charles Daniels, 26 F.4th 410

In 2003 Michael Gamboa was convicted in the District of North Dakota of drug and firearm offenses (Counts 1–2: conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine).
The government filed a §851 notice alleging three prior state felony drug convictions (Minnesota drug-distribution conspiracy; Minnesota fifth-degree possession; North Dakota delivery of marijuana).
At sentencing the district court treated at least two prior convictions as predicate felony drug offenses and imposed concurrent life terms under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). The convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
After Mathis v. United States (2016) narrowed the elements/means analysis, Gamboa filed a §2241 habeas petition arguing his prior state statutes are overbroad and not qualifying predicate "felony drug offenses" under 21 U.S.C. § 802(44).
The district court denied §2241 relief, finding Gamboa could have raised the claim earlier (pre-Mathis) and thus failed the §2255(e) saving-clause gateway; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the claim was not previously foreclosed.
The court also confirmed it retained jurisdiction over the appeal despite Gamboa’s later transfer to another federal facility because he filed where he was incarcerated when the petition was filed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gamboa may invoke the §2255(e) saving clause via §2241 to raise a Mathis-based statutory claim	Mathis changed controlling law; the challenge to whether state statutes are divisible/overbroad was unavailable at time of his §2255	The claim was available pre-Mathis; circuit law did not foreclose the argument and Gamboa could have raised it earlier	Denied — saving-clause gateway not satisfied because the claim was not previously unavailable
Whether the prior Minnesota/North Dakota drug convictions qualify as federal "felony drug offense(s)" under §802(44)	State statutes criminalize substances and formulations broader than federal schedules and are indivisible, so they do not qualify	The statutes and straightforward statutory comparisons would permit the convictions to count; the argument could have been made earlier	Merits not reached — claim barred by procedural gateway; court noted the categorical analysis (Taylor/Descamps) could have been applied pre-Mathis
Whether the appellate court retained jurisdiction after petitioner’s transfer to another facility	Petition was filed in the district where Gamboa was incarcerated; transfer should not divest jurisdiction	Government concurred that jurisdiction remains	Held: Court retained jurisdiction over the appeal

Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarified elements vs. means distinction; limited use of the modified categorical approach)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (established the categorical approach for predicate offenses)
Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (2020) (distinguished generic-offense and conduct-based categorical methodologies)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (explained divisibility and scope of the modified categorical approach)
Chazen v. Marske, 938 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2019) (articulated requirements for invoking §2255(e) saving-clause via §2241)
Beason v. Marske, 926 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2019) (explained futility/availability for saving-clause claims)
Guenther v. Marske, 997 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2021) (addressed retroactivity and statutory-interpretation predicates for §2241)
Ruth v. United States, 966 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2020) (applied categorical methodologies post-Shular)
De La Torre v. United States, 940 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2019) (compared state drug schedules to federal definitions under the categorical approach)
United States v. Payton, 918 F.2d 54 (8th Cir. 1990) (Eighth Circuit precedent on using charging papers; discussed by parties regarding pre-Mathis landscape)