Did the court of appeal adopt divergent interpretation of the gatekeeper standard?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . . I. . . Did the court of appeal adopt divergent interpretation of the gatekeeper standard? Does the gatekeeper standard needs to be "revisited?" by this Supreme Court, because different court of appeals adopted divergent interpretations of the gatekeeper standard? See, : Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 2340, 135 L.ed.2d. 827 (1996) (Three Justices filed a concurrence warning that "the question whether the statute exceeded Congress's Exceptions Clause power" might need to be revisited "if the court of appeals adopted divergent interpretations on the gatekeeper standard." Id. at 667, 116 S. Ct.at 2342 (Souter, J., concurring). ' . It. . Did the court of appeal commit procedural errors and violated In re: Smith's statutory and constitutional rights by not sending ’ the §§2244(b); 2255(h)'s applicaiton("s") to be de novo reviewed by the District court, on the merits, before the court of appeals sua . sponte ruling that Smith was ineligible for relief under Johnson (2015), Nelson(2017), and Rehaif, without giving the district court "notice" first, in order to give Smith the chance to be heard? . IIr. © Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit impose an improper and unduly burdensome sum of $500.00 sanction fee and fine on movant petitioner for filing 28 U.S. C. §§ 2244(b); 2255(h)'s applications claim seeking relief under Johnson (2015), Nelson(2017), and Rehaif (2019)? Even after Movant Petitioner having paid the sum of $500.00 in full for a previous sanction fine? Here, Movant had one-year to file his Johnson (2015) Nelson(2017), and Rehaif(2019) §§ 2244(b), 2255(h) applicantions. Iv. , Did the Seventh Circuit deprive Smith of due process? Did the the Seventh Circuit cause controversy with the Eleventh Circuit's binding precedent case law "In re: Leonard, 655 F. Appx! 765, 7667779 (llth Cir: 2016)?? : ; : ii