1. Whether the district court is required under Rule 12(d)
of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure to either exclude
matters outside the pleadings or to give notice that the
motion would be converted to a motion for summary
judgment under Rule 56; whether the failure to give notice
violated Emiabata,s due process rights. The Four Circuit in
here Decision Conflicts with this Court's Precedents.

2. Whether denying a pro se litigant leave to ament the
complaint is a violation of Rule 12(d)/Rule 56(d), and whether
when denying a pro se litigant leave to amend the complaint
as in here, a district court must provide a reason for that
denial (as held by the Third, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh, and
D.C. Circuits),or whether a district court need not provide a
justifying reason when denying a pro se litigant leave to
amend the complaint if that reason is apparent from an
analysis of the record(as held by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and
Tenth Circuits). The question presented is:

May a federal court ever grant a motion for relief from
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure in violation of
Rule 12(d) or Rule 56(d) in a case involving legal error?

Whether the district court is required under Rule 12(d) to exclude matters outside the pleadings or give notice of conversion to summary judgment