Whether the district court's denial of Rule 60(b) motion was an abuse of discretion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether or not the district court's denial of Mr. Tatar's. Motion for relief under Rule 60(4)€3), (b)(3), and (b)(6), for "fraud, and or fraud uponithe court, or any other reason that justify relief", was and abuse of discretion, because, the court failed to consider the ; merits of Mr. Tatar's Brady claims, denying evidentiary hearing, nor performing analysis, and whether the courts decision was based on erroneous conclusion of the law, erroneous fact finding, and i” improper application of the law to fact? | II. Whether or-not;*MéQuiggin’ vs: Perkins, 569°U.S. 383-(2013); ‘This | Court:'s Ruling, still good law and whether or not the Appellant's | Claim of Actual Innocence Should have been redressed under the Standard[s] relying on Third Circuit's own precedence recognizing PERKINS, supra, ? III. Whether the district court's denial of Mr. Tatar's motion ~~ under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A), for reduction of sentence was an abuse of discretion, because the district court legally erred by ~ misunderstanding the breadth of it's authority to grant Mr. Tatar's motion and based it's decision on a clearly errouneous assessment of the evidence? | IV. FINALLY, Whether or not, the PANEL of Judges of the Third Cir= éuit Court of Appeals erred in light of Concepcion v.United States, No. 20-1650?