Did Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60 allow the lower courts (1)
to re-open the 28 P.S.C. S 2255 proceedings, pursuant to Gonzalez v.
Crosby , 545 U.S. 524 (2005), when that error was based upon the "injustice"
to the Petitioner, and the risk to public "confidence in the judicial
process" that would accrue were his- S 2255 proceedings not re-opened,
involves the Petitioner serving a sentence for which 1) he was which
not charged, indicted, nor convicted of the crime recited in the Judgment
in a Criminal Case, and 2) Petitioner's 18 P.S.C. S 924(c) were not permitted
to start, due to Congress' directive that such sentences are to be served
"consecutive," to any other sentence, that is properly interpreted as
a lawful sentence?

(2) When the government admitted to the lower courts that it had not been
truthful in the Petitioner's first and initial 28 P.S.C. S 2255 proceedings,
concerning claims of denial of counsel at critical stages of the prosecution
and ineffective assistance of counsel, was the Eleventh Circuit required
to investigate whether it was a victim of fraud upon the Court, when
it was brought to its attention, pursuant to Federal Rules of CiviJLL Procedure,
Rule 60, and Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524 (2005)?

(3) Does the reasoning in In re West , 103 F.4th 417 (6th Cir. 2024) set forth
a pattern, for which this Court may craft a remedy in this case, pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b)(6)?

Whether Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 allows re-opening of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings based on claims of judicial injustice and potential erosion of public confidence in the judicial process