Whether the Ninth Circuit 3-panel Judges had infringed the rule of natural justice

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1, Whether the Ninth Circuit 3-panel Judges, TASHIMA,SILVERMAN, and OWENS had INFRINGED the Rule of NATURAL JUSTICE for NOT giving the Appellant the opportunity to explain, contradict and rebut their docket September 16, 2020 “NOT FOR PUBLICATION September 8, 2020 district court’s Memorandum allegations” which gave way Ninth Circuit’s December 8, 2020 DENIAL final judgement. 2. Whether Appellant’s 3-newly Source-Evidence meet the meaning of Federal Rule 60 (b) Relief for Renewal Trial that NO TWO SOURCE and EVIDENCE CANNOT BE IDENTICAL in Comparison to Appellant’s old Source-Evidence of “Google.com and CVS Pharmacy, Inc.”. 3. Whether Plaintiffs Constitutional 14th Amendment Rights and Due Process Clause were violated by being DEPRIVED of the Due Process stipulated Law Rule for default judgment/default judgment sum-certain with district court's discrimination determination of the Law’s 7-days’ Time Limit have allowed the defendant to defend the action of an . | UNTIMELY-Answer has actually prejudice the plaintiff, or tended to her prejudice, in respect to a substantial right. 4, Whether the lower courts DENIAL of copy reproduction Electronic Record audio-disc CD September 27,2918 Hearing be MAILED-OUT to her private transcriber for evidence comparison raised a substantial federal issue to have Invalidated the Federal Regulation Program of implicating the Federal Law Electronic Record Freedom of Information 1996 Act . 5. Whether the appeal court’s Denial to Moot of my motion 2™ post-peremptory challenge to final judgment has violated my Constitutionality Rights for a new trial with a new district judge using my plausible and admissible 3-Newly Source-Evidence. i