1.) WHETHER JURISTS OF REASON WOULD FIND THAT THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED, WIEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITIONER'S APPEAL FOR A LACK OF JURISDICTION.

2.) WHETHER JURISTS OF REASON WOULD FIND THAT THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED, WIEN CONTRARY TO THE APPELLATE COURT'S OWN PRESIDENT, THE APPELLATE COURT DID NOT REVIEW THE DISTRICT COURT'S ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF RULE 60(b) TO THE PETITIONER'S RULE 59(e) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

3.) WHETHER JURISTS OF REASON WOULD FIND THAT THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED, WIEN IT FOUND THE PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR A REHEARING WAS UNTIMELY.

4.) WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE PETITIONER'S RULE 59(e) MOTION, WAS THE DISTRICT COURT'S SCREENING ORDER FINAL, AND COULD THE APPELLATE COURT HAVE REVIEWED THE DENIAL

5.) COULD THE PETITIONER FILE A RULE 59(e) MOTION WITH THE DISTRICT COURT TO ADDRESS THE CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED IN IT'S 1915A SCREENING ORDER

6.) WAS THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE PETITIONER'S RULE 59(e) MOTION APPEALABLE UNDER 28 USC § 1291 AS A 'COLLATERAL' ORDER

whether-appellate-court-erred-in-dismissing-appeal-for-lack-of-jurisdiction