Whether the Third Circuit erred in holding that a petitioner asserting actual innocence in a Rule 60(b)(6) motion was not entitled to relief on the basis that the petition was untimely filed

Question presented is Whether the Third Cirenit erred in holding that Petitioner, who asserted his Actual Innocence in a Rule 50¢b)(6) Motion for Relief was sot entitled to celief on basis that ‘none of the claims in his initial habeas corpus proceedings ware dismissed as untimely, Is in contrary and/or conflict with its own decisional law, and/or this Court's involving elains of one's Actual i. Tanoecence predicated on trial counsel's ineffectiveness assistance, In Accordance to Strickland v. Washington, McQuiggin v. Perkins, Bucks v.. Davis, and, Satterfield v. District Attorney's Office of Philadelphia? i yh a . t Lat . a : soe (Cc) The Question presented Whether the Third Circuit's Decision Distorts Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures? \ . . . x di. . ii. . PARTIES TO THE: PROCEEDINGS The Petitioner in this case is, Michael Walkers, Proceeding in Pro Sea, and/or in his’ own behalf without counsel. The Respondents is the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Superintendent, SCi-Coal Township, and, Office of District Attorney, . . . of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. ; . : ; iit . : . :