1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its application of the constitutional standard for the denial of a motion for reconsideration based on the petitioner's failure to file the motion without an attorney and abandonment, and whether the Court of Appeals properly applied the constitutional standard for attorney abandonment.

2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its application of the constitutional standard for attorney abandonment.

3) Whether the test of reason and conclude that the petitioner's state a valid claim of a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and whether a motion based on the state notes of reason could be decided by treasure claim of the territorial.

Whether the U.S. District Court abused its discretion by denying the Rule 60(b)(6) motion based on the unreasonable application of the constitutional standard for attorney abandonment