Does the definition of the term 'Claim' given by this court in Gonzales v. Crosby still stand as the law of the land?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1.) Does the definition of the term "Claim", given by this court in Gonzales V. Crosby, = 545 U.S. 524, 530-32(2005), still stand as the law of the land?; If so: 2.) Did thecruling made in the 5thecircuit.in Rohlf V. Lumpkin, No.22-10038. (5th Cir[Tex. ] Aug.11 2022) use:.a:diferent definition of "Claim", making a ruling squarely in conflict with relevant decisions of this court, and other circuit courts as well? : 3.)Couldttre 5th circuit's ruling, that my 60(b)(3) motion was a successive writ, effect other citizens similarly situated, 1.E., Pro-Se Prisoner petitioners with no other adequet remedies at law? Please keep in mind that, had I prevailed in my 60(b)(3) motion based on fraud, misrepresentation, and misconduct of the state for knowing relying on the fraud or misrepresentation, I would have only been entitled to De Novo review of the Federal §2254 petition, and not the underlying State. . court judgment of conviction<to be overturned. It was an attack on the Federal:District court proceeding's integrity, specificly, the refusal to take these acts of misconduct into consideration, and then make a dicision. 1 simply seek my right to a fair hearing, as stated in Napue V. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.CT. 1173, 3 L.Ed 2d. 1217(1959), free from false evidence, affidavits, and information. It was also an attack on the application of the statutory. required difference to the states findings of facts, which also would have only entitled me to de novo review. \