Whether the Court of Appeals erred as a matter of law in allowing the district court to summarily dismiss the petitioner's motion to reopen the case pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without either an evidentiary hearing or a reasoned explanation of its decision

No question identified. : Questron geesenTED A*, WHETHER Tie Contr ETACUTT LoakT oF. Agen’ ERRED AS A Rye aA Yaw In Allo tO <THE DISTRICT Cone “Co Sammatzby CDtsmess “TAL RETET TONER Herron “To Reopen <u Agen gultsusnt “To Hourton ov laa YET Us All Lass] Without etTHER An CU TDENTT ALY Weaktale of To Cepado Tite REL , Byealy Loren A Questz on of fer TS I NVO(VED TA rye Re TITONER CASE A, WRETRER TE (yur of Jagem\s ERRED Ad A HUTTER of (au Thy Mlwinh THe QISTR ICT yee To Aust ITS DrGETIoN To han “THE RETETTONER THE BLUNT To Apoeel PuRUANT Tr Wourton J lack Yer Us aul Lass) WHEN KE Handed UTS NOTICE a Agges\ “To me JUUTNE offreza\ To BE Hetlo@ of f To KL OtSthtct Coe lT 3° UWRETAER “TRA Quer of Aggen\s CRED At A Hater of Goa Ty AtlowrTrle -THE CDTSTRICT Coat “To ASule T1 DISCRETION IN Mapes Wndeas fle 9 Co) AND Mule 4 LALYLIGI of “Ti FEL Lule of Agqelute PRALPLEL TN AN UNlosTTTuTonal Mpnneh UW IT WAS TMgltUeTeD “THE Dut PEstes! Clyutt ,