Did the district court and appellate court err in concluding that the petitioner's Rule 4(a)(6) motion, which was sent on February 20, 2019, and received in an untimely manner, was too late and contrary to the date when it was sent, on the basis of their conclusion?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR KeEView Mr. Kets Pujayasa Conteads Anak Vo enkeD 4p Tell Purcuant-to Rute 4@re) , 40 reopen time to File an appeal. We fied We Worm 40 &_ OREN Whe _APPeal_on February fo, for,, Wika 4 Cechtred wail No: Aro 2040 0003 3332 3145, togrruer Wik a Votre O% Appeal, M Linckiye , due Slovekty Urcute aud Ane DSiwict Court , houwver, Comcruded Wok MC. Pujnyagis Lute 4@Y(G) Motron Was Giwd ote anQ cok wok Amy & SPectal tule for 4 Pro So Prisoner _Urhigank. We creed, agplivQ ue Usual rule OQ Conctber to Me. Pujancsys docuumnt WS Sett tue doy W Wos Teadead ‘Ry Vue Courl. Me dOcement UX TeceNed on Movcr 4.4014, Wut YW Wes Sen We tue Prisoy OREN, MET Pilee The Unik P-AS Comsetor) OA Fobruary Ro, 2019. Me ApPelotw aul Dat Courk's Teliance UPoU We doe fue document Was re_ CONcd , Gul nol Whea_k wes Sent or oven to The Prson Sfercra, BH Groecly Prejudice Me. Pujoyasa as 4 Pro Se Prsomer litgaunt. The Gse Aus Presents tug followdy Guesiron | _G) Otd Aue Vetere Court aud Fgpellate Cousk Uc M Concudltay Trek Me Peyeetors Rue 4@O mohon, Wc Wos ent on Felnuacy 20, Roly, aud Wr Amey Manger, Wes too late ond Courkrw te cate When TR wes Te ceed stead tue doko Whey k wor Seat, 09 Te Vasix Ot Kee Conclusion!