limit a federal prisoner’s right to file a “second or successive” motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); id § 2255 para. 8 (incorporating requirements from § 2244(b)). In denying McVeigh’s request for a stay, the district court first assumed that under certain circumstances a showing of fraud on the court could serve to allow the reopening of a previously filed § 2255 petition under Rule 60(b) without the necessity of satisfying the rigorous standards set out in the AEDPA for the filing of second or successive habeas petitions. See Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 553, 557, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998) (arguably suggesting exception for fraud on the court); Workman v. Bell, 227 F.3d 331, 335 (6th Cir.2000) (plurality opinion for equally divided court) (<HOLDING>); United States v. MacDonald, No. 97-7297, 1998
recognizing exception recognizing emergency exception recognizing exception under state constitution recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception recognizing the public interest exception