1. Did the Fifth Circuit majority err in finding that there were no "extraordinary circumstances" and that the claim was not sufficiently "substantial" to warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6)?

2. Did the Fifth Circuit majority err in holding that Haynes' claim had been considered on the merits and that the district court's "facial review" was sufficient when the underlying facts of the claim were not considered and there was no real merits review?

3. Did the Fifth Circuit majority contravene Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) and Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) in holding that "finality" is a determinative factor in the context of Rule 60(b), and did it err in holding that the claim was merely a "substitute for appeal" when it could not have been brought on appeal?

Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in finding no 'extraordinary circumstances' and that the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was not 'substantial' under Rule 60(b)(6)