When the Warden Court's understanding of the mental intent element of a federal criminal statute becomes apparent in a Conclusion feed date in its denial of Defendants motion, and this fundamental defect indicates that she was Convicted for a danodstent offense does ns> & 22-44 (a} and Fed, ft Civ/- R boOf alWo dHat Coart is revleto fh\s defect or does 3 7J2S4 (b) aVCsF expressly OfpUodble onD do stateprisoners, Qppl\| is bar Her met ten as uifh ike state prisoners id Gonzalez v. Crosb y,? 5SS US. 52 M (Sens) omd Reda-ellra feye, 3SH F/3d <o(* Qat GY- Zoos) f

When the trial court's misunderstanding or the mental intent element of a federal criminal statute becomes apparent in a conclusory footnote in its denial of Defendant's §2255 motion, and this fundamental defect indicates that she was convicted for a nonexistent offense, does 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) allow that court to review this defect, or does §2255(h)(1), expressly applicable only to state prisoners, apply to bar her Motion as with the state prisoners in Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) and Rodwell v. Pepe, 324 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2008)?