Did the Fifth Circuit abuse its discretion by misinterpreting a Rule 60(b) motion as a jurisdictional Rule 4(a) motion, and did the circuit court's decision improperly deny relief contrary to Maples v. Thomas when an attorney's negligence amounted to abandonment?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Within his Rule 4(a) motion to reopen the appeal, Petitioner argued for the Court to construe his untimely pro se notice of appeal. as a motion to reopen the time to file an appeal due to receiving an untimely notice. Thus, within his Rule 60(b) motion, Petitioner argued for the Court to vacate their judgment and re-enter the same judgment, due to his attorney's negligence to a manner amounting to attorney abandonment, in order. to reclock the time to file an appeal. Therefore, a. Did the Fifth Circuit abuse its discretion when the panel misinterpreted Petitioner's procedural rule 60(b) motion ‘to vacate the judgment and re-enter it as a jurisdictional rule 4(a) motion to.reopen the appeal? See Page 16. ; b. Is the Fifth Circuit's decision contraty to Maples v. Thomas, for denying relief based on a jurisdictional rule 4(a); when the true and correct analysis is under a procedural rule 60(b)? See Id., 565 U.S. 266, 283 (2012). See Page 18. 2. Within an extraordinary circunstance beyond his control, this Honorable ©... €ourt reasoned in Maples v. Thomas, that "under agency principles, a client cannot be charged with the acts or omissions of an attorney who has abandoned him. Nor can a client be faulted for failing to act on his behalf when he lacks reason to believe his attorneys of record, in. fact, are not representing him." See Id., 565 U.S. 266, 283 (2012). Therefore, a. Is the Fifth Circuit's decision reversably flawed for holding that «=! “relief is unavailable to Petitioner because the clerk of the district : court notified counsel of the decision and opinion in a timely manner," when the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, and 9th circuits, using this Court's precedent, contrarily held that "relief is available under Rule 60(b)(6) ii when a federal habeas petitioner has been neglected by*counsel in a , ; manner amounting to attorney abandonment?" See Page 22. b. When an attorney's negligence rises to the level of attorney abandonment, does a U.S. District Court have the power to correct the default and re-clock the time to file a notice of appeal by means to vacate their judgment and re-enter the same judgment through: Rule 60(b)? See . Page 25. 3. The Fifth Circuit applying the mailbox rule in U.S. v. Ekong, reasoned that “the placement of a letter in the mail may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including evidence of the sender's customery mailing practice." Id., 518 F.3d 285, 287 (5th Gir. 2007). The Fifth Circuit adopted the lower court's ruling that took as credible, and at face value, the assertion by counsel that after an instruction, "the office manager mailed [via] USPS regular mail] a copy of the order to the address on file for [Petitioner] and that mail was not returned as non deliverable.'' See