We have previously held that "[s]ections 2241 and 2255 deal with remedies; neither one is a jurisdictional clause." Harris v. Warden , 425 F.3d 386, 388 (7th Cir. 2005) ; see also Hicks v. Stancil , 642 Fed.Appx. 620, 621 (7th Cir. 2016) ("... failure to satisfy § 2255(e) does not affect the subject-matter jurisdiction to consider a § 2241 petition") (unpublished); Sperberg v. Marberry , 381 Fed.Appx. 602 (7th Cir. 2010) ("[w]hether the proceeding is allowable under § 2255(e) is a question on the merits; it does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction")(unpublished); Collins v. Holinka , 510 F.3d 666, 667 (7th Cir. 2007) ("[i]f ... § 2255 offered him one full and fair opportunity to contest his conviction ..., then the § 2241 action must be dismissed under § 2255 [e]"); Moore v. Olson , 368 F.3d 757, 759 (7th Cir. 2004) ("[s]ubject-matter jurisdiction, however, is supplied by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as any claim under § 2241 entails a federal question"). But see Williams v. Warden, Federal Bureau of Prisons , 713 F.3d 1332, 1340 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing cases indicating that the savings clause of § 2255(e) is jurisdictional).