I. Whether or not the district court's denial of Mr. Tatar's. Motion
for relief under Rule 60(d)$3) , (b)(3), and (b)(6), for fraud, and
or fraud upon.the court, or any other reason that justify relief",
the court failed to consider thewas
and abuse of discretion, because
Mr. Tatar's Brady claims, denying evidentiary hearing, merits of
performing analysis, and whether the courts decision was based
erroneous fact finding, and *>nor
on erroneous conclusion of the law
improper application of the law to fact?

II. Whether or not ^McQuiggin 1 v. • Perkins , -569 U.S. 383-(2013):,* This
Court's Ruling, still good law and whether or not the Appellant s
Claim of Actual Innocence Should have been redressed under the
Standardfs] relying on Third Circuit's own precedence recognizing
PERKINS, supra,?

III. Whether the district court's denial of Mr. Tatar's motion
under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c) (1)(A) , for reduction of sentence was an
abuse of discretion, because the district court legally erred by '
misunderstanding the breadth of it's authority to grant Mr. Tatar's
motion and based it's decision on a clearly errouneous assessment
of the evidence?

IV. FINALLY, Whether or not, the PANEL of Judges of the Third Cir^
cuit Court of Appeals erred in light of Concepcion v.United States,
No. 20-1650?

Whether the district court's denial of Rule 60(b) motion was an abuse of discretion