Whether an appellate court may sue sponte dismiss an appeal which has been filed within the time limitations stated in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure FRAP Rule 26(c) that adds 3 days for service by mail to file an appeal for which the motion has been granted to reopen the time to file an appeal under rule 4(a)(6) of FRAP?

Whether non-attorney pro se parents can reasonably have been expected to know of unwritten rules that lawyers take for granted that FRAP Rule 26(c) does not apply to mailed motions that are granted to reopen the time to file an appeal under rule 4(a)(6) of FRAP when that is impossible to determine when reading the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure?

Whether the interpretation of FRAP is intended to be based on the stand-alone document and whether supplementary rules are required for its interpretation where such supplementary rules are referenced within FRAP to the particular application of FRAP rule 26(c) on FRAP rule 4(a)(6)?

Is Intensive Behavioral Intervention or its equivalent intensive Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) required for a specific period of time for a child with autism in order for the IEP to be "reasonably calculated" for the child to make progress in light of their circumstance?

In light of question 4, is there any other way to raise measures by "technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors." (20 U.S.C. § 1414 (b)(2)(C); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.6(6)(ii)(x)) such as IQ and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) such that "further education, employment and independent living' 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A) is a reasonable expectation for at least half of all school aged children with autism?

Can a court defer to the opinion of a lower judicial body when there is an alleged bias of that lower judicial body?

Are the rules, regulations and laws of 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200 et seq. and also The IDEA 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482 especially as it relates to persons with autism written so that they are unconstitutionally vague and such that they cause confusion and variation in opinion in the courts, absent expensive expert testimony, and unlawfully empower school personnel, schools, school districts other Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to broadly interpret the education law themselves especially on such pertinent matters of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) determinations and the appropriateness of a particular educational approach such that it permits the curtailing of the rights of students receiving special education and their parents and consistently results in a denial of a FAPE, a denial of access to the students LRE to the maximum extent appropriate and also results in confusion amongst the appellate courts on how to interpret the education law and render a judgment?

8. Given the nature of the common developmental delays found in nearly all autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnoses, if a student with a an ASD entitled to an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and special education and related services should the three measures of 1) expressive language, 2) conversational ability (measured in the number of peer aged exchanges that a student can consistently demonstrate) with typically developing peers if in their LRE and 3) a reduction in prompt dependence be guaranteed goals on

Whether an appellate court may sua sponte dismiss an appeal