Whether the governing provisions in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent case law, In re Goddard, has unlawfully created an arbitrary or ambiguous application of 28 U.S.C. §2255(h)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. WHETHER THE GOVERNING PROVISIONS IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PRECEDENT CASE LAW, IN RE GODDARD, 170 F.3d 43561999) , HAS UNLAWFULLY CREATED AN ARBITRARY OR AMBIGUOUS APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. §2255(h), THAT IS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE: : (a) To automatically dismiss a defaulted petition for a direct appeal, pursuant to §2244(B)(3)(a) based solely on the governing provisions in Goddardiarbitrarily defining that petition as a second or successive §2255. mtion awhich erroneously triggered the jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. §2255.<h); (b) In light of a conflict with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Flores, 120 S.€t. 1029, that mandates the automatic vacatur and remand of a petition to reinstate a direct appeal, When a court fails to conduct a Dos inquiry before making any ruling on: the petition; and : (c) In light of a conflict with the Supreme Court decision in Holland v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549, that mandates ' a inquiry as to whether extraordinary circumstances existed, in the petition, In order to warrant the waiver, forfeiture, or equitable tolling of any procedural or provisional violations. . . Il. WHETHER A DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO FILE A PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED MOTION TO REINSTATE A DIRECT {APPEAL , PURSUANT TO ROE v. FLORES, #0, S.Ct. 1029(2000), USING A §2255 PETITION, “WITHOUT TRIGGERING 2u THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF §2255(h)?. oo i PARTIES..TO THE PROCEEDINGS: ROBERT PERNELL, ("Pernell"), was a Criminal Defendant in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, in USDC Criminal No. as a Movant in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division in USDC Civil No. as Appellant in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, ("Fourth Circuit"), in USCA No.17-6104;.as a Movant in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, in USDC Criminal No. and as Appellant in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in USCA No.19-7625. Respondent, the United States of America, was the Plaintiff in the District Court and the Appellee in the Fourth Circuit. . ai °