Whether the Appellate Court properly resolved the District Court's abuse of discretion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . ; , 1. Whether the Appellate Court properly resolved the District Court's abuse of discretion while . performing the threshold Rule 60 determination required under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 324 (2005), when the Appellate Court denied COA on the grounds that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Rule 60(b)(3) motion was debatably not a second or successive habeas petition, and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the motion debatably presented a true fraud on the court claim, when the pleading standard required that the petitioner must prove the fraud through “clear and convincing evidence", a more demanding standard that does not permit debatability, and the petitioner submitted the required “clear and convincing evidence” that the prosecutor did in fact falsify the information used to defeat his innocence claim? : 2. Whether the government's use of falsified information to improperly discredit the petitioner's _ 7 evidence of his innocence constitutes a fraud perpetrated on the habeas court that renders the . final judgment void as a matter of law due to the fundamental denial of due process caused by . the fraud? : ; Des oo 3.. Whether the Appellate court erred by failing to address the Rule 60(b)(4) portion of the motion : , in its entirety when the Appellate Court was required to review the “denial of due process” i “ : portion de novo yet the Appellate ‘Court was completely silent regarding the denial of due process . and its effect on the final judgment? ce a 4. | Whether a COA is required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b)(3) claim of fraud on the court when the petitioner submitted clear and convincing evidence of the fraud? , , 5. Whether government fraud defiles the habeas courts in such a way as to create an inherent conflict "of interest that biases any court downstream of the fraud, requiring a jury to determine the facts?