1. Whether a pro se litigant's "Notice of Appeal" explaining why he submitted out of time constitutes a liberally-construed "Motion to Reopen Time to File" as well as a "Notice of Appeal";

2. Whether the district court's ruling on the motion for Certificates of Appealability indicated the district court was vested with the jurisdiction necessary to issue the order on that motion, indicating the Motion to Reopen was decided in Appellant's favor;

3. Whether the Appellate Court's apparent determination that the Notice of Appeal was procedurally deficient and thus the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction was improper when it could have remanded for clarification;

4. Whether the procedural deficiencies could have been resolved in the pro se appellant's favor on appeal since the facts satisfied the criteria for reopening the time to file and this matter was adequately briefed, or whether, in the alternative, the Appellate Court should have remanded back to the district court for clarification?

Whether a pro se litigant's 'Notice of Appeal' constitutes a liberally-construed 'Motion to Reopen Time to File' as well as a 'Notice of Appeal