Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the district court contrary to Castro v. US abused its discretion when it recharacterized the petitioner’s pleadings in equiting under 60(b)(6) and 60 (d)(3) claiming fraud as challenging the court's prior habeas judgment on the merits. 2. Did the district court judge abdicate in his duty sontrary to Porter v Warner holding Co. to. exercise his inherent equitable to jurisdiction and equitable powers to investigate the allegations of fraud. 3. Mid the district court abuse its discretion contrary to HazelAtlas v. HartPord-Empire when it fafled to apply the law which belong to courts of equity to deny suit brought in equity after discovered fraud. 4. Did the district court judge abdicate in his duty contrary to Hazel-Atlas to investigate proffer of evidence in support of fraud clain . 5 Did he district court's denial of suit brought in equity without holding investigative adversary porceedings contrary to Hazel-Atlas deprive the petitioner of due process contrary to Porter securing . complete justice. 6 Did the district court's denial of suit brought in equity wihtout holding investigation adversary proceedings contrary to Hazel-Atlas cause the petitioner to suffer a grave miscarriage of justice in violation of the due process clause contrary to Porter securing complete justice 7.Should the petitioner's pro se filings have been held to less stringent standards and been liberally construed as defined by Haines v Kerner 8. Did the district court err as a matter of law contrary to Castro when it failed to inform and warn the petitioner that a certificate of appealability was not required to appeal the court's denial of his suit brought in aquity after-discoverered fraud. 9. Did the court of appeals contrary to Gonsalez v Crosby erroneously characterized the petitioner's appeal of the district court's denial of suit in eequity under 60 (a0(3) and 60 (b)(6), as an application for certificate of appealability. Under the antiterrorism effective death penalty act. 10. Did the AEDPA provide the court of appeale with appellate $3585 Chote to review an appeal brought in equity pursuant to 60 d)(3) claiming fruad 11. Because the AEDPA did not provide the court of appeals with appellate jurisdiction to review an appeal brought in equity pursuant to 60 (d)(3), is the court of appeals judgment to be voided for want of jurisdiction in accord to Steel Co. v. Citizens for better environment 523 US 83, 94. 12. Did the court of appeals in contravention of Klapport v. US 335 US 601, 613, erroneously reason that the petitioner's 60 (b)(6) other reasons claim brought in equity was time barred by 60 (b)(3) one year violation. 13. Did the court of appeals contrary to supreme court precedence in equity, erroneously interpret 60 (d) to only be available to prevent a grave miscarrage of justice. a