Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments were violated by the dismissal of his appeal

No question identified. : esthoutss Jeeseated bid The Kleviath Cracuit Count OF Appeal, Case Nembees VS: /0905 Violete The Pet hontai Chast tutwsal Aight lndee hed 5.1%, OF Te Uuarted Stites Lous AT aHiOM , %o pia! Protection Prd bus Pa20exss, By dimussing His EL. pen oe (“7 Failiek Jo Fle 4 Prygcnl S Méenkg JF Ais Puta Gank Aecoun?, Abuld Léslh Ze AisruisnPe 4d (2), Othewt Ruliig du Mis Timely Filed Piohaje Foe Weulaeat as Tadgneat, Callaegng FHKE Copest fat our ity OF Vite Porson hitgathont Kho het passed & CONGRESS, That ZY does ot Ap ly Jo Vt. koe 145 Appeal, decmusle IY das ot Lb wees’ boris That LP Alould Apply Jo State Ad | ! dean! Possouses Me Cought Ctdie Kégal Cruil Metiouss Thats Wad Aganust Pesou Coscadctrors bt Parser Bbteia ls. Cinaeess Lictestt hin Enacting The Pesce ditigahose licfoem ‘Act Jute Aa, das Jo Sey AM TAE Frivolous ad Sark BMG Slide Aigatest Pesouss Aad PRISM Mhemnks | His Appeal hens bron 4 bakeyptey Moiese /Ricetibneg Wat Livelves Tio beotheas, shiek Has iothie Jo Le ify Verso Corucitons Je afhinks AS Couguest Lituded. 1 — (4 , Oeclée oF buspussal, bated 1/°9-/8) “Uh &., beder Cantu Kteusion OF Tiree To SVE, bated 10-2 78) ; KS. | Apt. Motos Fok Lechentey Tacgpuenel, Dated 9-9 AP ) (x)