CERTIORARI REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY FINDINGS OF FACT SPECIALLY AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS IS REQUIRED BY FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a)(1) IN ITS ORDERS OF DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) MOTION AND COA AND THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ERRED BY PROVIDING ITS OWN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN ORDER TO DENY PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR COA IN CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF THE 5TH CIRCUIT, 9TH CIRCUIT, 10TH CIRCUIT

CERTIORARI REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED WHERE THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 60(b) MOTION WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS PETITIONER'S SUBSTANTIVE COMPETENCY CLAIM IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BINDING CIRCUIT PRECEDENTS ESTABLISHED IN ADAMS V WAIMVRIGH7 764 F.2D 1356, 1359 (11TH CIR. 1985); CLISBY V JONES, 960 F.2D 925, 938 (11TH CIR. 1992) DURING THE PROCEEDING OF PETITIONER'S PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY

Whether the district court failed to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1) in denying petitioner's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and COA, and whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in providing its own findings and conclusions to deny the COA