of a Rule 60(b) motion is narrow in scope, addressing only the propriety of the denial or grant of relief, and not issues regarding the underlying judgment. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir.1999). When reviewing for an abuse of discretion, we must affirm unless the district court applied an incorrect legal standard or made findings of fact that were clearly erroneous. See Mincey v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1137 n. 69 (11th Cir.2000) (addressing the denial of a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)). In addition, in an appeal brought by an unsuccessful habeas petitioner, appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir.1998); see Jackson, 437 F.3d at 1294 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Pursuant to Rule 60(b), a party may seek
holding that certificate is required to appeal denial of rule 60b motion challenging denial of habeas application and stating that eight circuit courts including eighth circuit are in accord on this issue holding that a coa is required to appeal the denial of a rule 60b motion from a judgment in a  2254 proceeding holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself holding that on appeal from the denial of a  2255 motion appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the coa holding that the standard of review is abuse of discretion and an appeal from denial of rule 60b relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review