Did the district court act contrary to SCOTUS precedents in denying appellant's pro se Rule 60(b)(3) motion on untimeliness without oral argument?

QUESTION PRESENTED Did the district court act contrary to this Court’s precedents in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972) and Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) when it denied appellant’s pro se Rule 60(b)(3) motion on the grounds of untimeliness without holding oral argument to inquire into the reasons that appellant waited a bit more than eleven months to file the motion?