Does a motion filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) that does not attack the merits of a prior habeas decision, but alleges 'some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceeding' that, if proven, also implicates the substantive issues raised by the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, render the F.R.Civ.P. 60(d)(3) motion a second-and-successive motion within the meaning of Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)?

QUESTION PRESENTED Does a motion filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) that does not attack the merits of a prior habeas decision, but alleges “some defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceeding” that, if proven, also implicates the substantive issues raised by the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, render the F.R.Civ.P. 60(d)(3) motion a motion within the meaning of Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)? : i