Whether the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion was an abuse of discretion when the motion was about a judge violating 28 U.S.C. § 455

QUESTIONS PRESENTED POINT ONE WHETHER THE DENIAL OF A RULE 60(b) MOTION, BY THE DISTRICT COURT, AND THE DENIAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, WAS A ABUSE OF DISCRETION, WHEN THE 60(b) MOTION WAS ABOUT A JUDGE VIOLATING 28 U.S.C.-§ 455, FOR THE DISQUALIFICATION OF A JUDGE WHO HAD TAKEN ACTIONS TO REMOVE THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE PROCESS 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b), AND FEDERAL RULE 8(b), IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCESS, THAT WAS RAISED AS A ARTICLE III, § 2 VIOLATION, BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MAKING THE ORDER TO REMOVE THE MAGISTRATE ; JUDGE PROCESS 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b) AND FEDERAL RULE 8(b) WAS THE PROSECUTING | ASSISTANCE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ON THE STATE'S CASE? AND DOES THIS PROVIDE THIS COURT WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE ORIGINAL MATTERS OF A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION? POINT TWO : WHETHER THE DENIAL OF A RULE 60(b) MOTION, BY THE DISTRICT COURT, AND THE ; DENIAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, WAS A ABUSE OF DISCRETION, WHEN THE 60(b) MOTION WAS ABOUT A JUDGE VIOLATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 455, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A BREAKDOWN, STRUCTURAL DEFECT, OR ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCESS, THAT AMOUNT TO A ARTICLE III, § 2 VIOLATION, WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE WAS THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY ON THE STATE'S CASE, WHO MAKES A ORDER TO REMOVE THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE PROCESS 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b) AND FEDERAL RULE 8(b), THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE PETITONER TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE FACTS AND LAWS, SURROUNDING THE WAIVER OF APPEAL RIGHTS ON A PLEA BY ONE CLAIMING INNOCENCE, FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS, OR-AND FOR PRETRIAL DECISION TO BE REVIEWED, OR THAT THE WAIVER WAS NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENT, OR NOT VOLUNTARILY DONE AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, OR THAT THE PETITIONER WAS MISINFORMED BECAUSE THE COURT FOR THE PLEA STATED THAT CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS CANNOT BE WAIVED, AND IT SHOULD HAVE CREATED THE EXCEPTION FOR PRETRIAL DECISION TO BE REVIEWED? POINT THREE WHETHER THE PLEA ALLOCATE AS THE ~ ALLOCUTE ALLOCATUR : AS PRESENTED BY THE COURT, PROVIDED THE PETITIONER ON THE PLEA THE EXCEPTION, THAT ALLOWS PRETRIAL DECISION TO BE REVIEWED, AND THE DENIAL OF REVIEW FOR THE PRETRIAL DECISION WAS A ABUSE OF DISCRETION THAT CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE ARTICLE III, § 2 VIOLATION, BY THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE WHO-WAS THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY ON THE STATE'S CASE?