Is a judgment denying habeas (or Section 2255) relief final and complete

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. Is a judgment denying habeas (or Section 2255) relief final and complete "as to all causes of action," as required by Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364, 370 (1920), or does : a jurisdictional defect exist that must be corrected, before an appeal can be taken, when the record reveals that fewer than all properly presented claims in the original petition (or motion to vacate) were considered and decided? B. Given the holding in Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009), that Section 2253(c) applies "only to final orders that dispose of the merits of a habeas petition," id. at 183, is a COA required by that statute to appeal! the dismissal (on procedural grounds) of a true Rule 60(b) motion, i.e., one that does not present a new, or reargue an already decided, habeas (or Section 2255) claim? . C. Ifa COA is required to appeal the procedural dismissal of a true Rule 60(b) motion, do both prongs of the COA standard set out in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), for habeas petitions, id. at 484, apply, i.e., must the applicant show that the underlying habeas petition (or motion to vacate) states a valid claim, and that the procedural ruling is debatable? Or is it enough to show only the latter? D. Does the holding in Kemp v. United States, 142 S.Ct. 1856 (2022), that Rule 60(b)(1) extends to legal errors of a judge, id. at 1862, mean that a Rule 60(b) motion is the appropriate means to seek relief when (as here) the district court has overlooked, failed to consider, and left unadjudicated, certain claims in the original (and only) motion to vacate (that survived Section 2255(b) screening)? And if so, was petitioner's Rute 60(b) motion filed following a timely notice of appeal, and before the deadline set by Rule 60(c) arguably timely? * The circuits are conflicted with respect to the answers to questions A through C above. i | : [Subsidiary Question] | E. Given that a habeas petitioner is entitled to the adjudication of all claims presented, Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 643 (1998), when (as here) | the record reveals that the district court has overlooked, failed to consider, and left | undecided, certain claims properly presented in the original (and only) motion to | vacate (that survived screening), and thus its judgment denying Section 2255 relief | is not final as to all causes of action, Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364, 370 (1920), does | the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to do anything other than correct the defect? | | | | | | | | | | | ii