Did the 11th Circuit adopt a divergent interpretation of the gatekeeping standard contrary to Congress' plain language in 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(C), which causes a circuit split between the 11th Circuit and all other circuits?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (a) Did the 11th Circuit adopt a "divergent" interpretation of the "gatekeeping standard" contrary to Congress' plain language in 28 U.S.c. §2244(b)(3)(C), which causes a circuit split between the 11th Circuit and "all" other circuits? (b) Should the 11th Circuit's adoption of its divergent interpretation of the gatekeeping standard (which is contrary to the plain language in 28 U.S.c. §2244(b)(3)(C)), "forever bar second and successive habeas applications brought where a new rule of law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable?" such as Johnson; Welch; Miller. (c) Does 28 U.S.C. §2255(h)(2) and 28 U.S.C, §2244(b)(2) Gatekeeper determination call for an appellate court to conduct any assessment of the merits of the underlying claim? (IT)