Whether the U.S. District Court abused its discretion by denying the Rule 60(b)(6) motion based on the unreasonable application of the constitutional standard for attorney abandonment

No question identified. : re A) x appltcpla HARRENaTON N. Raclteg, S62 U.S. | @6 C201), To a RUE bo (E)(E) MotzenN, ABUseNa Hrs | DISCRETZON BY DENYING Basep ON THE UNREASONABLE | APPIECATSON OF THE CONSTETUErOIAL, STANDARD FoR THE | PE Go (EYE) MoTZoN, ABUSKNG Has D=ESCREECON EY | DENYING THE Motonl WetouT CONSIBERXNG ATICRNEN | ABANDONMENT, AND bey CoA. : : | QY=N ApPRY=Ne HARRNaTON \. RecHTER, S62 U.S. Sb (201!) » TOCA RODE bo ()(c) MOTTON BAsen ON THE STATES AND FEDERAL UNREASONABLE ApPlxcaEreEN EF THE CONSECTUEaeNAL STANBARD FoR ATIORNEY ABaNDonN MENT. 3. WHETHER SUREST OF REASON CoULS CoNc)UbE Thar THE UeS. DESTRecT courr’s DISMISSAL ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS IS PEBATABRLE OR INcogrectr, , dW.) WHETHER JURKST OF REASON COULD Faedb = DE BATABLE | AS TO PEtSECONER STAECNG A VAd=> CLATM OF THe DENTAL OF & CONStetUtcro AL RrQhh— |