1. Whether the Ninth Circuit 3-panel Judges, TASHIMA,SILVERMAN, and OWENS had
INFRINGED the Rule of NATURAL JUSTICE for NOT giving the Appellant the
opportunity to explain, contradict and rebut their docket September 16, 2020 "NOT FOR
PUBLICATION September 8, 2020 district court 's Memorandum allegations " which
gave way Ninth Circuit 's December 8, 2020 DENIAL final judgement.

2. Whether Appellant 's 3-newly Source-Evidence meet the meaning of Federal Rule 60 (b)
Relief for Renewal Trial that NO TWO SOURCE and EVIDENCE CANNOT BE
IDENTICAL in Comparison to Appellant 's old Source-Evidence of "Google.com and
CVS Pharmacy, Inc.".

3. Whether Plaintiffs Constitutional 14th Amendment Rights and Due Process Clause were
violated by being DEPRIVED of the Due Process stipulated Law Rule for default
judgment/default judgment sum-certain with district court 's discrimination determination
of the Law 's 7-days ' Time Limit have allowed the defendant to defend the action of an .
UNTIMELY-Answer has actually prejudice the plaintiff, or tended to her prejudice, in
respect to a substantial right.

4. Whether the lower courts DENIAL of Plaintiff Appellant 's copy reproduction Electronic
Record audio-disc CD September 27,2918 Hearing be MAILED-OUT to her private
transcriber for evidence comparison raised a substantial federal issue to have Invalidated
the Federal Regulation Program of implicating the Federal Law Electronic Record
Freedom of Information 1996 Act .

5. Whether the appeal court 's Denial to Moot of my motion 2nd post-peremptory challenge
to final judgment has violated my Constitutionality Rights for a new trial with a new
district judge using my plausible and admissible 3-Newly Source-Evidence.

Whether the Ninth Circuit 3-panel Judges had infringed the rule of natural justice