Question not identified

Questions Presented for Resolution In Mr. Knowles initial § 2255 proceeding, he made a challenge to the criminal courts jurisdiction because he was removed from his home Country of the Bahamas by force, and was presented to the criminal court, bound hand and foot, without notification to his Consulate. His trial counsel was ineffective because he had no understanding of the basic Rules of Criminal Procedure. In the preliminary phase of the criminal proceeding, the Court was duty bound to determine that it had jurisdiction without the documentation required by . the Laws and Treaties of the United States. Moreover, Mr. Knowles was removed from his country, based on a defunct extradition proceeding, and presented to the District Court in Case No.: 1:00-CR-1091-JIC, on August 31, 2006. In a complicated shell game the Court removed Mr. Knowles from the Court and presented him in a new Case, 1:00-CR-425-JIC, the following day. Mr. Knowles questions the following: 1) Is the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in error for ignoring this Courts mandates in Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759 (2017), where this Court has determined that, where a prisoner has failed to make the ultimate showing that his claim is meritorious does not logically mean he failed to make a preliminary showing that his claim was debatable. Thus, when a reviewing court ; inverts the statutory order of operations and first decides the merits of an appeal... then justifies its denial of a C.O.A. based on its adjudication of the actual merit, it has placed too heavy a burden on the prisoner at the C.0.A. stage. 2) Is a District Court required to determine that it has jurisdiction to : proceed, in all criminal cases, as a first issue before the Court. 3) When a District Court in a criminal case has determined that it has no jurisdiction, because of a breeched extradition process, is it authorized to correct it's jurisdictional defect by presenting the defendant to the District Court under a different case number on a later day. 4) In a preliminary matter concerning a foreign national, is the Court and/or government required to notify the defendants Consulate. When the Court fails to require that the defendants Consulate be notified, has the defendant been deprived of the Due Process of Law. . 5)Is a criminal defendant authorized to raise an issue concerning jurisdictional defect in any open proceeding. -iv 6) Is the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in error to where it determined that a certificate of appealability is required to review an appeal from a District courts recharacterization of a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Prod. Rule 60(b), into a second or successive §.2255 Motion to Vacate. : 7) Was the District Court in error when it construed a Notice of Appeal as a Certificate of Appealability. 8) Was the District Court in error, by disregarding international agreements and/or Treaty, under the Constitution of the United States, Article 6 Clause >. . -v 4