1. Within his Rule 4(a) motion to reopen the appeal, Petitioner argued for the
Court to construe his untimely pro se notice of appeal as a motion to reopen
the time to file an appeal due to receiving an untimely notice. Thus, within
his Rule 60(b) motion, Petitioner argued for the Court to vacate their
judgment and re-enter the same judgment, due to his attorney's negligence
to a manner amounting to attorney abandonment, in order,to reclock the
time to file an appeal. Therefore,
a. Did the Fifth Circuit abuse its discretion when the panel misinterpreted
Petitioner's procedural rule 60(b) motion -to vacate the judgment and
re-enter it as a jurisdictional rule 4(a) motion to.reopen the appeal?
gee Page 16.
b. Is the Fifth Circuit's decision contrary to Maples v. Thomas , for denying '
relief based on a jurisdictional rule 4(a), when the true and correct
analysis is under a procedural rule 60(b)? See Id., 565 U.S. 266, 283
See Page 18.

2. Within an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control, this Honorable C.v.
Court reasoned in Maples v. Thomas , that "under agency principles, a client
cannot be charged with the acts or omissions of an attorney who has abandon
ed him. Nor can a client be faulted for failing to act on his behalf when he
lacks reason to believe his attorneys of record, in fact, are not represent
ing him." See Id., 565 U.S. 266, 283 (2012). Therefore,
a. Is the Fifth Circuit's decision reversably flawed for holding that 'rfj
"relief is unavailable to Petitioner because the clerk of the district
court notified counsel of the decision and opinion in a timely manner,"
when the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, and 9th circuits, using this Court's
precedent, contrarily held that "relief is available under Rule 60(b)(6)(2012).
when a federal habeas petitioner has been neglected by. counsel in a
manner amounting to attorney abandonment?" See Page 22.
b. When an attorney's negligence rises to the level of attorney abandonment,
does a U.S. District Court have the power to correct the default and
re-clock the time to file a notice of appeal by means to vacate their
judgment and re-enter the same judgment through: Rule 60(b)? See
Page 25.

3. The Fifth Circuit applying the mailbox rule in U.S. v. Ekong , reasoned that
"the placement of a letter in the mail may be proved by circumstantial evi
dence, including evidence of the sender's customery mailing practice." Id.,
518 F.3d 285, 287 (5th Gir. 2007). The Fifth Circuit adopted the lower
court's ruling that took as credible, and at face value, the assertion by
counsel that after an instruction, "the office manager mailed [via] USPS
regular mail] a copy of the order to the address on file for [Petitioner]
and that mail was not returned as non deliverable."

Did the Fifth Circuit abuse its discretion by misinterpreting a Rule 60(b) motion as a jurisdictional Rule 4(a) motion, and did the circuit court's decision improperly deny relief contrary to Maples v. Thomas when an attorney's negligence amounted to abandonment?