When a district court is presented with a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), does it abuse its discretion by refusing to correct a sanctions award expressly based on facts and law the appellate court exposed to have been in error?

The questions presented are: (1) When a district court is presented with a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), does it abuse its discretion by refusing to correct a sanctions award expressly based on facts and law the appellate court exposed to have been in error? (2) Does a district court’s sanctions award violate the holding of this Court in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger , 581 U.S. 101 (2017) as being punitive when it is not causally connected but only temporally linked to the misconduct as expressly identified by the district court? (3) Is the holding of this Court in Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment , 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998), that a court has no authority to proceed after determining it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, weakened when an appellate court, after first finding the facts and law on which a sanctions award is expressly based (i.e., continuing litigation after relinquishing standing) to be in error, declines to hear whether the district court abuses its discretion in refusing to reconsider that sanctions award when confronted with those errors through a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?