Has a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred in denying the relevance of the resetting of the end date for the filing of the Notice of Appeal under FRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(ii) and/or (iv) for a pro se filed post-judgment motion?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case advanced by a self-represented party against a’ prominent Southeastern Appellate Attorney now pending for over seven years in the . Federal Courts has followed a complex path of manifest injustice through the Federal District Courts of the Eastern District of California and South Florida as well as two prior successful appeals to the Eleventh Circuit Appellate Court before now arriving to this Court for review of an adverse ruling by the Eleventh Circuit to proceed with Dismissal of this Third Appeal despite the Court having accepted jurisdiction in the case at the time of docketing on September 19, 2019 of the Notice of Appeal (App. 240a) and maintaining that jurisdictional control for a fourteen month period with active Court participation as evidenced by the multiple rulings in the case through the completion of the entirety of briefing for all parties at which point a determination was made that the Notice of Appeal (App. 240a) had been untimely filed. I. Has a US. Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it proceeds to deny the lawful relevance as occurred in this case of the resetting’ of the end date for the filing of the Notice of Appeal f~ Ce {Wp as as is required in the circumstances. of a fs MIA] -misnamed but fully qualifying pro se filed WGC: t39 | . . 1 FRAP Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(@ii) and/or (iv) postjudgment motion which clearly represents a request for relief from the District Court to : “alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59” : . or to “amend or. make additional factual findings under Rule 52(b)” irrespective of the a inartfully. referenced title by. an . unsophisticated pro se litigant inexperienced ; “ in the law? ; II. Should the compliance in this case at issue with the U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29(2) procedure for timely service which provides that a document filed in paper form is accepted to be “timely filed .. . within the time specified _ for filing” and within jurisdictional limits “if it . : is sent to the Clerk through the United States . Postal Service by first-class: mail (including express or priority mail), postage prepaid, and | bears a postmark, other. than a commercial . postage meter label, showing that the document was mailed on or before the last day for filing ; or if it is delivered on or before the last day for ; filing to a third-party commercial carrier for . delivery to the Clerk within 3 calendar days” be 7 ’ applicable to the Appeal in this case and to all . Federal.Appellate and District Court cases in order to not only bring uniformity to the Rules of Service for paper filings across the spectrum of the federal courts, and to also eliminate the : inadvertent errors and confusion that exists with the current circumstances of inconsistent applicable rules of service of documents filed in paper form in the inferior courts with the express purpose of providing a significant reduction in existing quite substantial : prejudice that exists for non-represented parties (especially those at a great distance from the receiving court) who are broadly denied E-file rights by the District Courts and are thus confined to receipt of service and the ; ; filing of time-sensitive documents by mail or third-party commercial carriers in the District Courts ? III. Should the divergent rules of timely service provided by FRCP Rule 25(A)(i) and (ii) which apply to non-electronic filings in the Federal Circuit Courts and which contain a significant disparity in the requirements for achievement of proper service with respect to a paper filing in (@) general as opposed to (ii) A Brief or