Is the filing of an independent action under FRCP 60(d)(1) for fraud on the court distinguishable from FRCP 60(b)(3) fraud?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED The Petitioner presents two questions: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60 (d) (1) Provides: “Other powers to grant relief, This rule does not limit a courts power to, (1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order or proceeding.” and Rule 60 (d) clause (3) provides: “set aside a judgment for fraud on the court”; and In United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 at 45 (1998) This ' Court said, “the advisory committee notes confirm this , indicating that , “if the right to make a | motion is lost by the expiration to time limits fixed in these rules the only other procedural . remedy is by new or independent action to set aside a judgment upon those principles which | have heretofore been applied in such an action”, Advisory committee-notes, supra, at 787” ! | Question one: is the filing of an Independent Action by a litigant pursuant to Federal Rules of | Civil Procedure Rule 60 (d) (1) grounded on Rule 60 (d) clause (3)” set aside a judgment for fraud on the court” distinguishable from Rule 60 (b) clause (3) also, fraud, intrinsic or | extrinsic”, when applying Rule 60 (c) (1) “timing”, which provides: Rule 60 (b) clause (3)’s ; | “fraud”, “must be made within one year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of | the proceeding”; or is application of Rule 60 (d) clause (3)’s “fraud upon the court”, more | likened to an exhaustion of other remedies rule where the litigant seeking relief from a final judgment must first exhaust other judicial remedies under Rule 60 (b) prior to using 60 (d) (1) ! and clause (3 “fraud upon the court”, or wait until after the time limit to file Rule 60(b) : clauses(1) thru (6) has expired? ; | ii | Question two: In considering together, 28 U.S. Code section 1292(b) “certification of an order”, ' and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 5 “Appeals by Permission”, and “law of the case” | doctrine, “the mandate rule”. Ata later stage In litigation, after a mandate has been issued ina first appeal, If a decision in the district court denying an independent action in equity, filed by a litigant seeking to set aside the final judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 (d) (1) is appealed, in the appeals court if the appeal is certified under Rule 5, is the additional “recall of the mandate” of the first appeal of the final judgment, necessary jurisdictionally for the appeal of the order denying the Rule 60 (d) (1) motion to be heard? . ' , iii ,