whether-appellate-court-erred-in-dismissing-appeal-for-lack-of-jurisdiction

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | | 1.) WIETHER TURISTS OF REASON WOULD FIND THAT THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED, WHEN TT DISMISSED THE PETITIONER'S APPEAL FOR A LACK OF JURISDICTION. | | 2.) WHETHER JURISTS OF REASON WOULD FIND THAT THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED, WHEN CONTRARY TO THE | APPELLATE COURT'S OWN PRESIDENT, THE APPELLATE COURT DIN NOT REVIEW THE DISTRICT COURT'S ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF RULE 60(b) TO THE PETITIONER'S RULE 59(e) MOTTON FOR RECONSIDERATION. 3.) WHETHER JURISTS OF REASON WOULD FIND THAT THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED, WHEN TT FOUND THE PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR A REWEARING WAS ‘UNTIMELY'. | | 4.) WIEN TUE DISTRICT COURT DENTED THE PETITIONER'S RULE 59(e) MOTION, WAS THE DISTRICT | COURT'S SCREENING ORDER FINAL, AND COULD THE APPELLATE COURT HAVE REVIEWED THE DENTAL ! | 5.) COULD THE PETITIONER FILE A RULE 59(e) MOTTON WITH THE DISTRICT COURT TO ADDRESS THE CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED TN IT'S 1915A SCREENING ORDER | fi.) WAS THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE PETITIONER'S RULE 59(e) MOTION APPEALABLE UNDER 28 usc § 1291 AS A 'COLLATERAL' ORDER { THESE QUESTIONS ARE RATSED WITHIN THE PETITIONER'S BRIEF (SEE