1. Whether the COA improperly held- in conflict with
the decisions of other courts - that the Petitioner did
not show good cause to excuse any procedural default
in order to allow for a permissive extension to cure
failure of service in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P 4(i).

2. Whether the Tenth Circuit COA improperly held
that a good faith effort had not been shown by the
Petitioner to cure the failure in service when the
Courts ' own conduct contributed to the default in
mismanagement and errors in the case.

3. Whether the Tenth Circuit COA improperly held
that the Petitioner was expected to act on reissue of
service before being told to do so by the Court in a
lawful order.

4. Whether the COA improperly held that Federal
Express is not a permissible way to serve a federal
agency. See Fed. R. Civ. P 4(i)(2).

5. Whether the Court of Appeals (COA) improperly
held that Petitioner could not herself take the
packages to the mail facility because she is a party
relying on Fed. R. Civ. P 4(c)(2) which would put a
substantial burden on her as a pro se litigant.

6. Whether the 10th Circuit District erred or
mismanaged Petitioners ' case and showed favoritism
to outside interests such as Jones Day law firm
and/or interference from the President of the United
States.

Whether the COA improperly held in conflict with other courts that the Petitioner did not show good cause to excuse procedural default and allow for a permissive extension to cure failure of service