Whether the decision of McQuiggin v. Perkins applies retroactively

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1, WHETHER THE DECISION OF MCQUIGGIN V. PERKINS, 133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY BECAUSE IT CHANGED DECISIONAL LAW AND WHETHER THE DECISION IN BUCK V. DAVIS, 137 S.Ct. 759 (2017) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY BECAUSE IT CHANGED DECISIONAL LAW AS IT RELATES TO ARGUING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN RULE 60(b) CASES? . 2. DID PETITIONER SATISFY THE COA STANDARD BY DEMONSTRATING THAT JURIS COULD DISAGREE WITH DISTRICT COURT’S RESOLUTION ; THAT RULE 60(b) MOTION CONSTITUTED SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE § 2254 PETITION OVER WHICH THE COURT LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION? 3. SHOULD RULE 60(b) MOTIONS BE DENIED BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT PASSED BETWEEN THE TIME JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED AND THE TIME THE RULE 60(b) MOTION WAS FILED? Te UNDER AEDPA’S STANDARD FOR COA, WHEN PETITIONER SOUGHT PERMISSION TO INITIATE APPELLATE REVIEW OF DISTRICT COURT’S DENIAL OF RULE 60(b) MOTION, SHOULD EXAMINATION BE LIMITED TO A JURISDICTIONAL STATUTE, OR SHOULD THERE HAD BEEN A THRESHOLD INQUIRY INTO PETITIONER’S SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIMS? ; t : \