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

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 hisS 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)?