Whether Petitioner met his burden under 28 U.S.C. 2244(B)(3)(C) and 2255(h)(2) to file a second or successive 2255 based on United States v. Davis

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1.) Because Petitioner's 18 U.S.C.2924(c) conviction identified conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act Robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951; as a predicate to support his 924(c) conviction, did Petitioner meet his burden under 28 U.S.C. 2244(B)(3)(C) and 2255(h)(2), of . establishing entitlement to file a second or successive 2255 in the District Court in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019), which announced a "new rule of constitutional law" made retroactive to cases on collateral review? : 2.) Whether the "prima facie" standard under 28 U.S.C. 2244(B)(3)(C) ' require(s) a court of appeals to engage in a "strict merits analysis", when deciding whether to grant or deny a "pro se" prisoner's application for.:leave to file a second or successive 2255, that relies on a "new rule of constitutional law", 2255(h)(2), such as United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319(2019)? 3.) Did the Eleventh Circuit invert the statutory order of operations under 2244(B)(3)(C) and 2255(h)(2) by deciding the "merits" of the Petitioner's Davis, 139 S.Ct; 2319(2019) based claim before denying leave to file a second or successive 2255 in the District Court? : (IT) INTERESTED PARTIES There are no