When the trial court's misunderstanding or the mental intent element of a federal criminal statute becomes apparent in a conclusory footnote in its denial of Defendant's §2255 motion, and this fundamental defect indicates that she was convicted for a nonexistent offense, does 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) allow that court to review this defect, or does §2255(h)(1), expressly applicable only to state prisoners, apply to bar her Motion as with the state prisoners in Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) and Rodwell v. Pepe, 324 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2008)?

No question identified. : Queshon Presented | When the trial court's misunderstanding or the. ~ mental intent element of a tederal criminal . statute becomes apparent in a conclusory fostrote in its denial of Delendant’s $2255 mohion, and this fundamental defect indicates that she. Was Convicted for a Nonextstent olfense, does 18 USL, S 22H4(Q) and Fed. R. Civ. B b0(b) allow that Court to review this defector does 322440) | Q)-(), expressly agelicable only 10 state prisoners, apely td bar her Motion as with the state prisoners in Gonzalez v.€ rosby, 545 US. 524 (LoS)and Redwell v. pe, 324 F.3d tle (et Civ. 2008) 7 if]