Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Mr. Burgie's Rule 60(b) motion and appointment of counsel

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED »Relied undec Kedved Rules ct civil Prceduc Rule 60 his_motion, Mo _Gucyte_ssbed te be _celieved_oftine Aisharct—___ agisteake judge ‘recon mended_dispes ition? upon—descla wre __ Iya Seecifeally , the magistrate —cepodconcluded oat __ successive” undlec_sectioo 2744 ___ CE.C2), because the Sactwal end _teoqal_toasi$ for _tnisclalinas_ wx06_reasonably ovailalble to \nina_aen_tae Rest pebithion —_ 08_ Me ha200ley leit nak uses _incommect._pid_the dise fetck coc oloused tts discretion wheat rolusef to had beea—closed Yor almost _sik .yoccs—oudusetigls or __ __ccawict ond tncortecite Lollen debs Soc nonexistent 28 Dor the rest of tingle tes® sas _eomicted of _tepital —__ Rense at the time ol tne condach in Mo's cose and vs 1 id QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Burgie Rule Go Cc CL) metion mate wiltinn a rear gonable time” under such ercumstemnces 2 3. whether the dictrick cout chused ts diceektar when + denied ur, Bagie appointment of counsel undher Rule 6 (od CD so thet be codd present ondence that stake ob drtensas is engaging im shebewtdle rotal diserimination against” mostly lowfneome black deGendants comicted of capital munder and aggravated robloesy which was a non exishent RMense ak the Hime of the crime @