Reopening convictions over fraud

1. Whether a claim that a federal conviction was obtained through fraud on the court directed at the jurisdictional facts of the arrest — rather than a claim relitigating the merits of guilt or a claim already resolved on habeas review — is subject to AEDPA's second-or-successive gatekeeping under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), or whether it falls outside the rule of Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005). 2. Whether a court of appeals' inherent authority to recall its mandate for fraud on the court, recognized in Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 1993), survives AEDPA's successive-petition bar when the fraud goes to jurisdictional facts rather than the merits of the conviction. 3. Whether Tollett v. Henderson, 41.1 U.S. 258 (1973), forecloses a fraud-on-the-court claim that was not and could not have been known at the time of a guilty plea, where the defect was concealed by the government and discovered only years later through a FOIA disclosure. 4. Whether denying recall of the mandate without addressing a raised fraud-on-the-court claim supported by FOIA-certified evidence, and without applying the court's own controlling five-element framework in Demjanjuk, was an abuse of discretion.