When Petitioner's exculpatory evidence infers an innocent man is imprisoned

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. When Petitioner’s exculpatory evidence infers an innocent man is imprisoned, did the U.S. Court of Appeals and District Court endorse a Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice by denying his Rule 60 (b)/Rule 60 (d) motion and COA, when their decisions are in conflict with This Court’s decisions and in conflict with another U.S. Court of Appeals that applies a procedure to determine Actual Innocence to overturn a conviction in the U.S. Court of Appeals to limit prejudice/bias? 2. How can Truth and Justice exist alongside the State’s witnesses numerous lies, inconsistencies and contradictions of Petitioner’s guilt, with no physical evidence of a crime, without him being Actually Innocent and/or violating his 14° Amendment Due Process Rights to grant him relief in the courts? 3. When the same Prosecutor’s office that convicted Petitioner has a conviction overturned because of their overzealousness led them to knowingly use witnesses that were not creditable to convict an innocent man, did the U.S. Court of Appeals violate Petitioner’s 14" Amendment Due Process Rights by not overturning his conviction or granting his COA, when evidence infers the Prosecution also knowingly used witnesses that were not creditable to convict him? 4. Should Petitioner be permitted to amend his habeas petition with Newly Discovered Evidence to correct clear errors of facts and laws, fraud on the court or his COA be granted, when a District Court Judge signs an order denying relief under someone else’s name (not Petitioner’s), that questions if his habeas petition is still open or judgment void pursuant to Rule 60 (b)(4)? 5. Should Petitioner’s (Pro Se) conviction be overturned or be permitted to reopen his habeas petition pursuant to Rule 60 (b)(6), Rule 60 (d)(3) or be granted a COA, when Newly Discovered Evidence proves he suffered from memory loss while taking 7 prison psychotropic medications i during his trial without having a competency hearing and never having effective counsel for his trial or for any of his post-conviction collateral proceedings, when procedural bars preclude him from asserting his constitutional rights effectively after obtaining some legal knowledge and becoming lucid (regaining most of his memory)? ii