Did the Eleventh Circuit err when not considering attorney abandonment to be an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief from a final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Lo 1. Petitioner filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) SO motion for relief from a final judgment based on attorney abandonment after learning that his attorney had not only failed to file a previously agreed upon notice of appeal in the event petitioner's 28 U.S.C. a : §2255 motion was denied -and that failure due to counsel's . ; misapprehension that a notice could not be filed since no Certificate of ; Appealability had issued -but the attorney further neglected to confer ; 7 with petitioner about the eleventh-hour decision not to file the notice; _ nor-did the attorney inform him that the $2255 had been denied. — Petitioner explained the same to District Court as necessary to meet the “reasonable time" filing requirement for Rule 60 motions, but the District Court ignored the substantive issue of. attorney abandonment which ; occasioned the default, and converted the Rule 60 motion to ‘one under ; . Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), relying also on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d)(2), to find that petitioner's failure to receive , actual notice of the §2255 denial did not affect the time for appeal, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. ; Did‘ the Eleventh Circuit err when not considering attorney abandonment to be an extraordinary circumstance warranting relief from a final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)? : eee