1. Whether in overview of the textual language set forth in Fed. R. App. P 4(a)(5)(A) (ii) did Congress afford differing terms allowing the lower courts to exercise their full discretion in asserting equitable powers when granting or denying relief for "excusable neglect" , but limited th e power to deny a late filing, one for " good cause " differing it based upon a showing of intervening circumstances without fault of the filer mandating a standard of de novo review under a clear error of fact and law standard.

2. Whether the Court should clarify its holdings and guidance in Pioneer creating a national standard concerning the distinctions between "excusable neglect" and "good cause" setting apart Pioneer's 3rd and 4th balancing factor s, "the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant" and whether the movant acted in good faith based on a district court's di scretion differing it from good "intervening circumstances " claims eliminating them from discretionary review where the right to file late can be readily determined not due to any fault on the part of a filer, thus providi ng a single rule of uniformity, including:

a. Whether when a registered filer of record to a pending case, who is locked out of a district court's Electronic Court Filing S ystem ("ECF") without fault of their own, and resorts to pre -ECF filing procedures timely serving a notice of appeal by email on all counsel of record and by overnight service provider on the district court clerk's office, is the filing late barring appellate review for lack of jurisdiction or does it constitute a non jurisdictional claim processing event which must be reviewed de novo under the good cause standard limiting the district courts equitable powers as congress intended , excusing late filings for intervening circumstances not caused or under the control of a registered filer.

b. W hether the district court s inherent power allows it to shorten Rule 4's 30-day period to file a notice of appeal as of right "inappropriately penaliz ing" a filer who is locked out of the system without fault of their own, but who has timely filed within the structure of Rule 4 , pre-ECF filing rules , as well as in compliance with Civil LR 5 -1(d) each establish ing a showing in support of intervening circumstances constituting good

Whether Congress intended to treat 'excusable neglect' and 'good cause' separately in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii) and the appropriate standard of review