Whether the district court's 2002 judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) due to a violation of due process by denying the petitioner an opportunity to be heard on his insufficiency of evidence claim

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the petitioner Damon Cook was prejudicially denied an opportunity to be heard on his insufficiency of the evidence of force claim in violation of due process — Thereby making the 2002 federal : district court’s judgment as void pursuant to Federal _ Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4)? See United Student Aid Funds Inc. v. Espinosa 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010). 2. Whether the 2002 federal district court’s judgment is void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). Because the district court acted inconsistent with due process of law? See Constr. Drilling. Inc. v. Chusid, 131 F. App'x 366, 372-3 (8d Cir. 2005). : ; 3. Whether the petitioner Damon Cook was entitled to a certificate of appealability on the Federal question of the validity of the 2002 district court’s judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). As void for a violation of due process being denied an opportunity to be heard on the true merits of his insufficiency of the evidence of force claim? See : Exp. Grp. v. Reef Indus., Inc., 54 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995). A certificate of appealability should issue on the question, 4. Whether the district court erred when it denied petitioner Damon Cook a “Hearing” on his insufficiency of the evidence of force claim? . In violation of due process that deprived Damon Cook the opportunity to the heard on his insufficiency of the evidence of force claim thereby making the 2002 federal district court’s judgment as void pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). See United ii : Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010). 5. Whether the district court erred in refusing to vacate the 2002 judgment under Rule 60(b)(4)? 6. Whether the Ninth Circuit prejudicially erred when it misconstrued the Rule 60(b)(4) motion appeal ; with the Rule 60(b)(4) motion appeal as a motion for reconsideration? Thereby denying petitioner Damon . Cook appellate review on the merits, of his Rule 60(b)(4) motion in violation of due process of law to be ; heard See Mullane 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).