Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in denying a Certificate of Appealability to review whether Petitioner's Rule 60(b)(6) motion challenging a procedural defect in the integrity of his federal habeas proceedings must be dismissed as a successive motion under § 2255(h)

QUESTION PRESENTED After the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit resolved Petitioner’s motion under § 2255 seeking habeas relief from his death sentence, a public investigation revealed that the federal judge who presided over Petitioner’s capital trial and habeas proceedings was suffering from a debilitating addiction to alcohol while Petitioner’s cases were pending before him. The revelations about the judge’s alcohol abuse and impaired decision-making cast new light upon irregular decisions the judge had made during the conduct of Petitioner’s proceedings. Petitioner sought relief under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that the judge’s impairment was a defect in the integrity of Petitioner’s capital trial and habeas proceedings. The district court dismissed Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive habeas petition under § 2255(h). The Fifth Circuit summarily rejected Petitioner’s request for a Certificate of Appealability. The question presented is: Whether the Fifth Circuit erred, in conflict with decisions of other federal court of appeals and the decision of this Court in Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), in denying a Certificate of Appealability to review whether Petitioner’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion challenging a procedural defect in the integrity of his federal habeas proceedings must be dismissed as a “merits-based,” successive motion under § 2255(h)?