Whether the circumstances surrounding the petitioner's late filing of an appeal qualify as surprise, excusable neglect, and other compelling circumstances

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1.. Do the circumstances surrounding Petitioner, Steve Van Horne’s filing of a late appeal from the United States District Court of the Northern District to the United States Court of Appeals fifth qualifies as a Surprise, Excusable Neglect and other Compelling Circumstances that justify an exception. Fed. R. Civ..P. Rule 6(b)(1)(B), 60(b)(1),(C) ne 2. Was the Petitioner, Steve Van Horne denied due process of law by the Courts wherein the Courts ignored the fact that his pleadings must be read and construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 US at 520 (1980); Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592 (1981), and that the court has ‘a responsibility and official duty to protect any and all of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. See United States v. Lee, 106 US 196, 220 [1882] and that the court’s interest is to rule on the merits of the case whenever : possible and not technicalities which frustrates justice? 3. Did the district court abuse its discretion by entering two time sensitive court orders (one dismissing the case), during the time period that the Petitioner had previously notified the court that he would not be available to correspond with the court, due to the fact that he was away on religious matters? 4. Should the Petitioner’s Appeal be reinstated or alternately, should the case be reinstated in the district court due to the fact that the Petitioner’ untimely was due to excusable neglect forced upén him by the actions of the district court? 2 a