Occasionally, criminals correctly interpret the law whilR courts err. Litigation pursuant to the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) includes numerous examples. The ACCA imposes harsher sentences upon felons in possession of firearms with prior "vio!Rnt felony" convictions. Over time, courts defined "vio!Rnt" so contrary to its common meani17:g that it eventually came to encompass driving under the influence, unwanted touching, and the failure to report to correctional facilities. However, in a series of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has attempted to clarify the meaning of violent in the context of the ACCA and, in the process, excluded such offenses. The ultimate definition of vio!Rnt and resulting litigation also implicate career offender sentences imposed under the Sentencing Guidelines, because of similarities in the language of the Guidelines and the ACCA. This ArticlR is the first to examine the availability of collateral review of erroneously imposed career offender sentences resulting from the fluctuating definition of the term "violent. " The following offers an overview of the two traditional methods of collateral review availablR to federal prisoners, motions to vacate and habeas corpus petitions, and assesses the viability of each method. This Article argues for use of the relatively obscure writ of error coram nobis, a safety valve for those who are unablR to obtain relief through a motion to vacate or a traditional habeas proceeding. This ArticlR concludes that, despite the writ's disfavored status, courts should dust off the 16th century remedy. This would al!Rviate both the injustice of telling prisoners who correctly interpreted the law that they were right, but are now without remedy, and the social waste associated with unnecessary incarceration [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]