Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in dismissing Mr. Sherrod's pro se claims

No question identified. : C Qu EST Ion? Presen TED I. tdhether He J D. Curl of Appecls Comms: tledl 2 Lever sphle trlor. iw atues doclrone ‘pep diced Me. Dhertod a Ofo Se. tel brane 3. whelher under Arbiele i of Lhe Coastillron of te Unled shles, dnes Merion Lenton t Shervod Tr. Area Ge tax Lon _ L SHERKObD, hcue ahs wader the lorarton Lent bvatantee, tad 6s sch Aisi ty « cented/. a 4. helher Coppoxeriows have More Cit ten" ule The People He Jur For Commexerd. Cone, in Lack lecel. 6, tdhether ‘ decephive ly (pore ‘Comatercial Contracts lle gel Gad &> Such A Lread leat nn Aedwre ee oD sr or Peres ’¢ itz Eit ee Cu, 2L, Dehasen Me a CABLE OF CovrenT> Opinions Bela | _g Dortsdiztion . = a 8 Constrtobronal aad stab boas Flovisinas Lastolied p 1-2 a =f Shi bewteat of the ese eZ Besant lor Craig he cle neon 8 Conelosian . 30 Tpex To APPEdDrcES Appeadre A. CypopirsheD OPrwtes) of the United stares Court of topcel's Fourth Lyrewt Appeady Bbuoare Teork AFci payer Lu THE WATORE OF GOPPLEMEDTH, ROLES Foe ADMIT STRAT EVE Aun MerrteHe CAtn> Rupes CG) A ppeadix CTeapeEMAZK /loreRtent bapeadr EOpeererce JeGarcve AvERMEWT AWD DEwrAL Conpotmttods EXEstEdce th ependix FVeereresriow Pow OATH OF MF ELEustTIOW rr Deeper Bypeadix O-Decluea retard oF Lutiwt App Cowsraverive sorscé OF EXPATEIAT Lom) FROM THE DE FACTO CORPORATE US, GovEZNWEoT AWD REPATRIAT IO) TwTO THE DE TORE OLGANIC cont EUDEX TO APPENDZCES cont, enh * step Sreres oF AMZRICA RERWBLIO A ppeadix H Teaver BeceF Lh) SUPPORT oF ACCESS TO TWTELUATLOOAL DOK TeDIctT Iron J Aud EXTRATELPI TOLMLITY thopendex rAcerpevir MEMpe tv DUM oF LALS hp geadix DTeurk AFEIDAVIT LW THE WATORE For A PEE DO ECLARPT Lou) -endpa | pe | 4 I TReLE OF WOTHORITLES Cases? Pree Juusezn: Porsche Cws 1) An. Tac. v. Poeselhe net 302 45d d48 456 CA Cin M002) pean a. IQ See Daechotocs Ht, Calle ¥ tread), Jetd C4 wheat ) IZ 436, 657 A fed eae U9. V Teinidad Coal le. 137 0.9. bo 50+ 57 34 _ Led. 640 aoe a ag Lo 50.76 ls . iv Stabe v_This Ye Dye Seeley (lob IA Ohio ot. Corsa v Cops da 1602 Hien, BAS £00 Wt). Zo BT wean oo lb wlorkers Qhien Loe} tn [04 133 Uo. hyp. 935. ill Sad. 2 GA... Lo Ta re Crm Hheshls 183_ Mrs. 563 4¢ 0.9.9 2d 658, bbO ue 1G Fivelicls and bathner of shail. Pr. Vv. Sutheclead. 5Z typ D.C. 294 12 £4/ 870,874 pee ee n Gee Step. Couut. 168 Io? ee ee l@ Bed v. Besey $3 Fla. BA¢ Id 60, 840, 86% oN Tate tend Ladce tO Poti, ld 8A ne Fotler_v, Chibi sloth Fle. 1, WS 50.667 66F¢ ao os i7 Ia re Enles Estcle 109 Tes 507 143 2.2d 403, 905 17 b 00 Faster v. Weve lb Tex. Liv. App. 127.68 2.0). Sd. IZ Code Lapide nleder Co. v. Coder Eopide IS Tone 374, 4 ‘Mu, 16x ara VA Tlace Lovig, Dat. Bheaeed 165 0.5.1, 10 5, ct 551, , 46 Ld. 775 esee ee. 17 Fas Anderson, 138 Mina. 6$¢ 155 wid. 1040 104 _ 17 Dredy v. UD. 37% U9 742 ct 748 (14720. 2. @3 Manaine v. Clehrell Sor ashy of Tocnole, 620 £ 5d déd M7 (4th Cin 201F> al Mowisan v. Hell. dol £3d 846 (94h Ci, 900) ) in go a ae 13 OTATVTES & POLES Titot _AUMBER 28 0,2.C. 165] a.