Whether the district court violated the congressional mandate under 28 U.S.C. §2255(b) by denying a federal prisoner's first-time habeas motion without making its own findings of fact and conclusions of law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED At The Federal Level After The District Court Receives An Ordered Response From The Government To A Federal Prisoner's Petition For Habeas Corpus Relief, Title 28 “U.S.C. §2255, Subsection (b),Requires The District Court To "Determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto." Did The District Court Adhere To This Congressional Mandate In Petitioner's Case, When The Court Denied And Dismissed Petitioner's First-Time Habeas Motion, "(Flor the reasons stated in [the] Respondent's thorough and well-drafted response," Without Making The Court's Own Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law With Respect To Petitioner's Habeas Claims? If not, Did The District Court's Procedural Resolution Of Petitioner's Habeas Motion In This Manner Violate Petitioner's Fundamental Right To Due Process Of Law, By Undermining Petitioner's Ability To Satisfy The Certificate Of Appealability Criteria As Announced By This Court In, Order To Effect An Appeal Of The District Court's Judgment? i ’ a Interested Parties Petitioner Jose Agapito Salas do certify in accordance with Rule 14(b) of the rules of the Supreme Court that all interested parties does appear in the caption of the case as appear on the cover page. . ii. : { : : . :