Was Petitioner's right to Due Process violated in this case by the Court of Appeals making an original argument, premised on a case that nobody had cited in this case, in their summary dispositive order, and then arbitrarily rejecting Petitioner's Petition for Panel Rehearing without any consideration whatsoever?

The Court of Appeals was objectively in error regarding the scope of their jurisdiction and arbitrarily refused to review their decision. Should the Court of Appeals be required to exercise the jurisdiction they have, or should they be allowed to misconstrue the scope of their jurisdiction and refuse to review filings they objectively do have jurisdiction over?

Is Swimmer v. IRS contrary to Clay v. United States, and 28 USC Ch. 83? Is there any language in the Rules of Procedure supporting the 9th Circuit's interpretation of the FRAP Rule 4 in Swimmer?

Was Petitioner's right to Due Process violated?