Whether as a matter of procedural law, Appellant's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to reopen a § 2241 case was timely

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) ulhelher as a matler of procedure! lau, Appellant's motion under Fed. ROW? Go (BMC) f teopen 82241 case was finely Where > duther'ty exists ja the Ninth Creat thot holds a court fosex § 224 Surisdiction over a projerly Filed pretrial cloudle jeopardy challenge because the petitioner subsegueatly Secomes 4 post Conyictooa prisoner, Z) i/hether 2 %& 224{ petibconer who obtanedl an order from a aireall court granting ia tspma pdaperts Can proceed in a subsepuedt 8 224 Syylicatan w Hhost payment as here both pretrca( eZ applicatans are relatecl caver by fan Caused! by dhe Same Stale orminal cadspmation lodged holding petitioner i custody s ra Violation of the. federal doudke epardy alduse « 3) idhether the Pig foe heperreonent of the Federal destrel courte of fhe Ninth Corcut for * 2241 hybnca ra bear oor pus actons ConPlecte wil Chagrese and other Creat oourds ashene 28 UBC. RIUS ix inapylicadle » .