Did the Court below err in determining that the petitioner's second-in-time, §2255 motion was 'second [or] successive?'

QUESTION PRESENTED : 1. Did the Court below err in_ determining that the petitioner's second-in-time , §2255 motion was "second [or] successive?" , ; . . . JURISDICTION . The statutory preclusion of certiorari review of a "denial of an authorization . by a court of appeals to file a second loz "| successive application" under 28 U.S.C. ; §2244(b)(3)(E) applies only to an actual “denial," not some other type of ruling that might have "the effect of denying ‘authorization ... to file a second ... application.'" _ Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 380 (2003) (enphasis and alterations in the original). Thus, for example, a circuit court's denial of a habeas corpus petitioner's or §2255 movant 's argument that an application is not in fact "successive" ' is reviewable on certiorari, even though the circuit court's ruling "had the effect. of denying ‘authorization wee to file a second ... application. '" Id. As this . Court explained in Castro, "[t]he 'subject' of ... [a certiorari] petition [in such a case] is not the Court of Appeals' ‘denial of an authorization'" but rather ; the "very different question" of "the lower court's refusal to recognize that ; .». [the current] §2255 motion is [the movant]'s first, not his second." Id. , . Castro applies here. Bradley does not contest the lower court's denial of : authorization of a "second | of |successive petition." Bradley contests the lower . court's finding that his petition was "second lor } successive, and not "second, ; in-time," the later being a classification that would have allowed him to proceed . on.the merits of his §2255 application in the district court. _ Bradley filed a separate Motion for Remand with the Court of Appeals arguing _ , ‘that his §2255 application was “second-in-time," not "second lor] successive," a finding that would have precluded review under §2255(h), and required the district court. to review his application in its merits. But the. Court of Appeals denied . Bradley's motion, spending the bulk of its decision analyzing "whether Bradley's ~ ‘proposed §2255 motion is In re: Benjamin Henry Bradley, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31531, at %4 (6th Cir. 2022). See