Whether the lower court erred in denying Steele's second-in-time § 2255 motion, in light of his argument that the claim he has asserted for challenging his sentence did not exist at the time he filed any previous motion and the § 2255(h)'s gatekeeping provision did not apply

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW uo In Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 486, 120 S.ct. 1595 (2000), this Court said there are limited circumstances in which a numerically second § 2255 is not successive merely because it numerically follows a previously -filed motion, Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 127 S.ct. 2842 (2007), if it raises a claim that had not arisen at the time of the earlier petition. In Leal v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 214, 222 24 (5th Cir. 2009), the prisoner's second § 2255 motion was not “second or successive", because the “situation falls within what the Fifth Circuit recognized as a : small subset of unavailable claims that must not be categorized as successive". The Question presented for review in this case is: (1) In denying Steele's Second-in-time §2255 motion, did the lower court(s) err in there ‘ finding that the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear Steele's claim, in light of his argument that the claim he has asserted for challenging his sentence did not exist at the time he filed any previous motion and the § 2255(h)'s gatekeeping provision did not apply? (A) Are the considerations the Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), court identified in support of its holding specifically limited to Ford type ; Claims? (2) Does Steele's claim of an intervening change in the law which established new precedent's in the Fifth Circuit constitute an _ “extraordinary or ‘rare circumstance" under the equitable tolling analysis and "new fact" that forms the basis of a challenge under § 2255? (3) Does Steele's unconstitutional and illegal designation as a career offender which resulted in an increase in his term of imprisonment that deprived ; him of liberty without due process of law, constitute a fundamental defect resulting in a miscarriage of justice? (4) Did the lower court(s) err by denying Steele a "COA", when he raised a constitutional right to be deprived of liberty as punishment for criminal conduct only to the extent authorized by Congress, and a constitutional right to be treated on equal . terms as other similarly situated defendants in other cases,and jurists of _ reason would have found it debatable whether he stated a valid claim of a constitutional right? , ; i oe 4 : INTERESTED PARTIES Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14.1(b), Steele certifies that the names of all parties to this proceeding appear in the caption of this se Petition for Writ of Certiorari. . ; ii on a 4