Whether a Rule 60(b)(3) Motion for Fraud on the Court overcomes a Second and Successive Ruling Pursuant to the dictates of Supreme Court Precedent set forth in Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), as well as a Circuit Court's own Precedent set in Porter v. Sec'y for the Dept. of Corrections, 814 F.3d 1963 (11th Cir. 1978), and if So, Should the cause be remanded back to the Lower Court's so that the Precedents can be applied to the review of the Rule 60(b)(3) Motion alleging Fraud on the Court during the § 2255 proceedings

No question identified. : ) QUESTIONG) PRESENTED 7 x ~ Whether a Rule COCbXS) Monon for Fraud onthe. Couar avercomes.a Second and Successive Ruling Pursuant -bo the dictates & Supreme Couer Hezedent | set forth nm Gonzalez. v. Crosby ) 545 US, SAY 53g (2003) ,as well as a Gewmir GCuer's own "Precedent set Porter in Gonzalez VSec'y for the. Dept. of Corcechions , Bblo F.3d 1953 (Loa 1978 (II#Ga. doo) and if So , Should the cause be remanded back te ths Lower Couer's So that the Precedents = pe applied to The revue of the Rule (0(bX3) Monon a gin4 Fraud en ths Cour during the § 055 proceedings : Ir. Whether “the Eleventh Great is bound 4, apply its Own precedent of Korea. ford MoyoR Co., S13 F.dd 1232, 1238 CS4hGe.I78) to the review of a demal of » Rule (Old) mohin fromthe District Court , Whether the Supreme. Guar has the inherent Power 4, do a Summary remand ack 4o the Lower Gurr So th may apply hel orien Precedent in dekewining Thee morits Of the . Rule GolbX2) Monon . . pe SO ;