Whether a Rule 60(d) motion challenging only the District Court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing presents a successive claim within the meaning of Gonzalez V. Crosby.

Whether the District Court abused it discretion by denying the Rule 60(d) motion on the basis that Appellant's allegations were insufficient raise a fact issue warranting an evidentiary hearing where Appellant has stated a facially claim based upon third-party beneficiary payments to his counsel. Upon fraud on the court for cancelling conflict of interest hearing without making any inquire of conflict exist so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the unusual manner, within meaning of Worwn, 644 Fed App 957 (11th dr 2016)

Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion by denying a second C.O.A based on the same previous C.O.A that was [granted] where the Appellant made a substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right?. The previous C.O.A was granted not because of the reasonable jurists" prong but because Hernardez sumitted a facially valid constitutional claim, i.e his conflict of interest claim based upon the third-party beneficiary. See Rouser V. Dretke, 395 F.3d 560 562 (5th cir2004); Wood V. Georgia, 450 U.S 262 268 269(1981).

Whether the court of appeals abused its discretion in denying a C.O.A based upon the "reasonable jurist" prong, or if the issue presented "deserve encouragement to proceed further." ?

Whether the court of appeals abused its discretion when it evaluated Hernandez second C.O.A differently from the "first C.O.A as" if the standards were different or distinct?.

Whether Hernandez has made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or due-process of law within meaning of Washington V. Johnson, 90 Fed 945 (5th cir 1996).

Whether a Rule 60(d) motion challenging only the District Court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing presents a successive claim within the meaning of Gonzalez V. Crosby