Whether the Circuit court abused its discretion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED a. Whether the Circuit court in an abuse of the courts discretion concluded relief under Rule 60(b)(6) could not be obtained because appellant could of sought the same relief by means of appeal ? Suggested Answer: Yes b.Whether the Circuit court in an abuse of the courts discretion concluded the * district court was without jurisdiction to alter the mandate of their court on the basis of matters included or includable in [a] prior appeal ? Suggested Answer: Yes : c. Whether the Circuit court in an abuse of the courts discretion failed to discuss the merits and give its reasons for rejecting appellants argument on appeal averring that the trial court judge violated F.P.R. 12(b)(2) when he dismissed the case for lack of subject matter Jurisdiction 2 : Suggested Answer: Yes d. Whether the Circuit Court in an abuse of the courts discretion held that plaintiff . failed to exhaust the Commissioner’s administrative remedies which was waivable under the statue 42U.S.C.405(g) ? . : Suggested Answer: Yes oo , e. Whether the Circuit court abused the courts discretion by not finding the trial court judge was required to recuse himself in accordance with plaintiffs affidavit filed under 28 USC144 ? ‘ : Suggested Answer: Yes , f. Whether the Circuit court abused the courts discretion by not finding the trial court arbitrarily granted defendants motion for an enlargement of time that failed to show good cause? ; : Suggested Answer: Yes . y ; STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES On or about April 19, 2014 the petitioner filed a complaint for Social Security review in the Eastern district court of Pennsylvania against the Commissioner of : Social Security docketed under case no. 14-1860. Jude Paul S. Diamond presided "over my case. My appeal to the Third Circuit was docketed under case no. 16-1956 ’ and was denied on 10/26/2016. . ; STATEMENT OF THE LOWER COURTS JURISDICTION The third circuit appeals court jurisdiction was invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ; 1291. The District Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The provision section 405(g), allows a claimant to seek review within sixty days of a post-hearing final determination. See Cappadora v. Celebrezze, 356 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1966). ’ DECISIONS IN QUESTION ; The Circuit courts Per Curiam Opinion entered on March 1,2024 affirming the district courts October 12 ,2023 order denying plaintiffs motion to void judgment ; at doc. No. 38 The district courts Order dismissing the complaint with prejudice on 7/13/2022 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at doc no. 29 ; The district courts : Order granting defendant an enlargement of time on 6/2/2022 at doc no.17; Publishing is unknown. CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST FOR GILBERT M. MARTINEZ Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.4(a) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Petitioner Gilbert Martinez certifies the following identification of corporate parents, subsidiaries and affiliates: NONE The names of all law firms and defendants that have an interest in this case but have not yet appeared are listed below: . Solicitor General of the United States Department of Justice, Room 5616 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW . Washington, DC 20530-0001. . ; “3