Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion by holding that Mr. Patel's properly filed 2255 Motion to Vacate in Light of Newly Discovered Evidence Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling in McQuggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), in which relied upon "newly discovered evidence" but was transferred to the Sixth Circuit as a second-or-successive 2255 application, thus, did the district court have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's Ruling in McQuggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013)?

Whether the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion in holding that Mr. Patel's 2255 Motion to Vacate was properly filed and within the district court's jurisdiction under McQuggin v. Perkins