whether-petitioner-is-entitled-to-rule-60-b-6-relief

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . 1. Whether, in this case, under the authorities of Martinez, Trevino and Ayestas, Petitioner is entitled to Rule 60 (b) (6) relief due to the alleged initial — review collateral attorney’s deceptive conduct and abandonment which caused his procedural default of ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim? 2. The Fifth Circuit Court agreed that Petitioner’s Rule 60 (b) (6) motion was not a successive habeas petition, however it denied a COA saying that the petitioner failed to show that a reasonable jurist could conclude that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his Rule 60 (b) motion. Did the Fifth Circuit Court use the appropriate standard as established in Slack v. McDaniel to deny a COA to appeal the dismissal of Rule 60 (b) (6) motion on procedural grounds by the district court without reaching the merits of his claim? i