Repeat challenges after appeal

1. Whether a second-in-time motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is impermissibly "Second or successive" under AEDPA where the petitioner's first § 2255 motion was used to reinstate a lost right to direct appeal and the district Court, upon granting that motion, Re-entered the criminal judgment and GRANTED a new direct appeal, thereby creating a new judgment that petitioner is challenging for the first time in his second-in time § 2255 motion. 2. Whether the Fifth Circuit's application of U.S, v. Orozco-Ramirez, 211 F. 3d 862 (5 th Cir. 2000), to bar petitioner's second-in -time motion as "second or successive" conflicts with the holdings of a majority of circuit courts-the Second, Third, Forth' Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh circuits, Which uniformly hold that a first § 2255 motion used to reinstate appellate rights does not count as a "first" petition for AEDPA purposes, and that a subsequent § 2255 attacking the convection or sentence is not "second or successive". 3. Whether the Fifth Circuit's denial of Certificate of Appealability conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010), Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) and Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), when the district court Re-Entered petitioner's criminal judgment specifically to afford him the direct appeal of which he was deprived by constitutionally ineffective counsel. 4. Whether the district court erred in denying petitioner's collateral relief under § 2255 without conducting an evidentiary hearing on substantial claims of constitutional error arising from underlying criminal proceedings in Case No. 4:20-cr-243.