Does the district court commit error in denying a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for not showing a constitutional violation when the unreasonable determination of the facts by the trial court on post-sentencing motions to affirm this verdict uses evidence that is contrary to the record establishing the denial of the inalienable constitutional right to due process and proof beyond a reasonable doubt under the 14th Amendment?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. DOES THE DISTRICT COURT COMMIT ERROR IN DENYING A RULE 60(b)(6) MOTION FOR NOT SHOWING A’ CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION WHEN THE UNREASONABLE DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS BY THE TRIAL COURT ON POST-SENTENCING MOTIONS TO AFFIRM THIS VERDICT USES EVIDENCE THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE RECORD ESTABLISHING THE DENIAL OF THE INALIENABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT UNDER THE 147 AMENDMENT? 2. DOES THIS COURT’S DECISION IN BUCK V. DAVIS ALLOW RULE 60(b)(6) RELIEF WHERE POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL WAS BLATANTLY INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE INEFFECTINESS OF DIRECT APPEAL COUNSEL’S NOT RAISING, THE UNREASONABLE FINDINGS OF FACTS MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT THAT RESULTED IN A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, SHOWING A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE 6" AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL ON DIRECT APPEAL? : 3. DOES THE TRIAL COURT’S UNREASONABLE DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS ON POST-SENTENCING MOTIONS THAT AFFIRMED THIS UNRELIABLE VERDICT VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS QUALIFY AS EXTRAORDINARY TO PROCEED ON HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW THROUGH THE GATEWAY EXCEPTION OF A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE? i