Whether ministerial duties under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) regarding 'actual notice' and 'formal notice' create an equitable basis for due process relief

I. PER THE MINISTERIAL DUTIES SET FORTH IN FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 4(a)(6) DOES "ACTUAL NOTICE" SUPERSEDE "FORMAL NOTICE," AND SHOULD THE RULE'S "PERMISSIBLE LANGUAGE" CONCERNING GRANTING RELIEF SUPERSEDE ITS "EQUITABLE INTENT"? • II. IS IT EQUITABLE TO PERMIT THE SAME PARTY THAT DEPRIVED FIELDS OF DUE PROCESS [BY FAILING TO PROVIDE HIM "FORMAL NOTICE" PER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 77(d) AS REQUIRED .BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 4(a)(6)] TO BE THE ONLY PARTY THAT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE HHETHER OR NOT HE-SHALL BE GRANTED RELIEF ON THE AFORESAID VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS.