Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Whether the Court should grant certiorari, vacate the decision below, and remand (GVR) this case with directions that the Eleventh Circuit grant Petitioner a certificate of appealability (“COA”) because reasonable jurists could debate: (1) whether the Eleventh Circuit’s resolution of open merits issues at the authorization stage of second or successive (“SOS”) § 2255 motions exceeds its statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); (2) whether the Eleventh Circuit’s treatment of published opinions issued at the SOS authorization stage as “binding precedent” for all future appellate panels, precluding consideration of any new arguments, results in a denial of due process; (3) whether the mode of analysis employed in Jn re Saint Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2016) is inconsistent with the categorical approach, and has been abrogated by Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016); (4) whether Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b) is categorically a “crime of violence” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), if the plain language of § 1951(b) and several circuits’ pattern Hobbs Act robbery instructions indicate the offense may be committed non-violently — by causing fear of purely economic harm to property, which can include intangible rights; and (5) whether aiding and abetting a “crime of violence” is automatically and categorically a “crime of violence”? II. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred under Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-338 (2003) and Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773-774 (2017) in denying Petitioner a certificate of appealability based simply upon adverse circuit precedent? i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no