Whether Petitioner Lewis' habaas petition should be re-opened

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whether Petitioner Lewis' habaas petition should be re-opened where (1) Petitioner was denied Due Process of Law contrary to United States v. Cestro, : 540 U.S. 375 (2003), because Patitioner was not placed on notice of the consequences of deleting unexheusted claims, end (2) tha United States District Court Judge erred in deciding exhaustion on one of Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims contrary to Strickland v. Washingtan, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Does the time limitation of Faderal Rule Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), preclude . relief from judgment under Rule.60(b)(6), where a Castro claim is involved in the responsive pleadings on exhaustion grounds? Can a conditional statement be considered a waiver of Due Process of Notice, where Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1962), and United States v. Castro, 540 U.S. 375 (2003), require Due Process of Notica? | : | | : | .