Whether the Court of Appeals violated due process by denying a Certificate of Appealability (COA) for a Rule 60(b) motion challenging a 2255 petition's procedural defects

•1) Where the District Court denied Movant ’s 2255 petition on proced ural grounds, did the.Court of Appeals violate Movant ’s rights to Due Process and this Court ’s ruling in Slack v. McDaniel by failing to grant the request for COA from the denial of the Rule 60(b) Motion? 2) Where the District Court created a defect in the integrity of the 2255 petition when it failed to give a merits analys or adjudicate the (4) substantive claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under Ground Two, did the Court of Appeals violate Movant ’s rights to Due Process and this Court's ruling in .Gonzalez v. Crosby by failing to grant a COA on a timely filed Rule 60(b) Motion? 3) Where the Court of Appeals held in Clisby v. Jones, enbanc that the District Court must resolve all claims of constitutional issues prior to granting or denying relief, did the Court of Appeals violate Movants rights to Due Process and the Stare Decisis Doctrine by granting countless other defendants request for COA on a Clisbv error but decline to grant Movant ’s request for COA on the same issue? 4) Does it violate the Constitution for the District Court and the Court of Appeals to allow a conviction to stand on an indictment that Failed to State an Offense? 5) Is Movant entitled to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that filed failed pre-trial motions On the grounds that the indictment Failed to State an Offense, violated Congress Intent, had a Juris dictional defect and violated the Double Jeopardy Clause based on a previous indictment? 6) Does it violate the Constitution for the District Court and the Court of Appeals to allow a conviction to stand that violated Congress Intent? 7) Does the District Court violate Movant's Sixth Amendment right to:counsel by failing to grant Movant a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel who filed failed pre-trial motions then was subsequently discharged and 3(a) appointed as standby counsel? 8> Where the Court of Appeals said that the two indictments in Movant's case Was the "same conduct" part of the same "common scheme or plan" with the "same modus operand!" and "common purpose" for enhancements purposes, are the two indictments also the same for Double Jeopardy purposes? 9)Does an indictment invoke the Court's jurisdiction if it charges Movant with a specific conduct under a criminal statute that Movant ’s conduct did not violate? If the Court of Appeals, the Government and the District Court all agreed that the 2013 and 2014 indictment used in this case were the "same conduct" part of the same "common scheme or plan" with the "same modus operandi and common purpose, does Movant have a valid Double Jeopardy claim?10) 11) Is it a Miscarriage of Justice to allow a conviction to stand on a fatally defective indictment that failed to (Hate an Offense, violated Congress Intent, had a Jurisdic tional defect and violated the Double Jeopardy Clause? '; Where Movant challenged a defect in the integrity of the 2255 proceedings in the tiling of a timely Rule 60(b) motion and the District Court denies relief, did the District Court violate Movant's rights to Due Process by using claims in Grounds One to deny relief on the claims raised under Ground Two when the two claims are sep arate and distinct?1?) ; Is a claim considered resolved it the District Court misconstrued the Sixth Amend ment claim and who it was directed against or applied incorrect facts to adjudicate the misconstrued claim, is that claim considered resolved?13) 14) Did the District Court violate this Court ruling in Bobbv v. Van Hook and in Strick land v. Washington by failing to grant Movant a Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the time Movant had appointed counsel? 4(a) J ■y .» <-? V