Whether the district court failed to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1) in denying petitioner's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and COA, and whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in providing its own findings and conclusions to deny the COA

QUESTIONS PRESENTED a 1. . CERTIORARI REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED WHERE THE DISTRICT . COURT FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY FINDINGS OF FACT SPECIALLY AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS IS REQUIRED BY FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a)(1) IN ITS ORDERS OF DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) MOTION AND . COA AND THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ERRED BY PROVIDING ITS OWN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN ORDER TO DENY _ PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR COA IN CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF THE 5TH CIRCUIT, 97 CIRCUIT, 107 CIRCUIT IL. = CERTIORARI REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED WHERE THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S FED. R. CIV. P. RULE | 60(b) MOTION WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS | PETITIONER'S SUBSTANTIVE COMPETENCY CLAIM IN COMPLIANCE WITH ‘THE BINDING CIRCUIT PRECEDENTS ESTABLISHED IN ADAMS V. WAINWRIGHT, 764 F.2D 1356, 1359 (117 CIR. 1985); CLISBY V. JONES, 960 F.2D 925, 938 (117 CIR. 1992) DURING THE PROCEEDING OF PETITIONER'S __ PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY : . a °