Does a court contravene Johnson v. Williams and Trevino v. Thaler when it holds an ineffective assistance claim was unexhausted and procedurally defaulted, then holds the same claim was decided on the merits?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does a court contravene Johnson v. Williams, 569 U.S. 289 (2018), evade application of Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013), and depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, . when it holds in one opinion that an ineffective. ‘assistance claims was unexhausted and procedurally defaulted, then holds in a second opinion in the same case that the same claims was decided on the merits, and the only reason for revisiting the claims was this Court’s recognition of a narrow path to overcome the procedural default after final judgment? 2. Does a court contravenes Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005), and depart from the accepted and usual of judicial proceedings, when it holds in one opinion that "{A] Rule 60(b) motion in a §2254 case is not to be treated as a successive habeas petition because the petitioner challenges the district court procedural without analysis of the grounds underlying . constitutional claims, then holds in a second opinion — in the same case that the habeas petition is an . second or successive? i