Whether the court erred in dismissing the petitioner's claims

No question identified. : . are y a We i ‘ lishes Me si ee tec oC th, hea .shazt Crivet ty , ° bos aw : : LLL hd OW JAS ZILLES 2B LE at a . f S02 Gon Zimbra Phe Je, Less. LH LUST be Cy) ee Zi ame 4: eh EM Mee ¢ ONAL Cort NS (eZ ba OS LZLE oo 2 , Le A ca SAN whieh uth COLL co Ash Mn, COCA yp PUB GOOC Ne — y 1 ony D9 " eae QO MIG. + ITC. . MODS LOL ETAT DOE a 4. OE ZLEZE.. KOU gEFS . e O as ¢ ? y \ 7 e , ft ELS CASE T 2O77 Ms ¢ a“ 7 TAM. 5 ed <> LEC EZ LES £L2 Sa) BLL Ley wee ce 2 B eB om vA o> 7 a f Sor . ‘" Va r SOA LLOQ sL 2 Ln FQ A? LLG 22433 £2 He SKI La oe [Lw#2 LEAL? OF” 52 AZ ES 2 25 LEK Crate PD Fy eres 3 C2 Goat LOVIN NA a fen C2 LOAD GD LB LEZILIEL Not re FEED 5 -¢ Z : 7 , y Z; “LS 4 Konno NED BEM i TS, TE. ELL é KAR LED . Cerca Hs, LP tess Faia ok Sx ee. Le Zoe Lp 2UCLAE. Coe pe . LEE MNCLATT a7 Cre. WALZ ‘eat. tal) pk >be LOR g an 7 ESE fig SLL LNOLA 2 Sea Pa VWOERLI a2, eA, SR. a fa 2 paar, Z K5Q4 t[O.°P%2 JOLY Yalye Ze Siey “Te 4 > Zo ng : hes of 24, C 2 ee C ZZ € eet Ly 4 2. = CLS, Oe $9 Fhe” Qe Ai4, 27 2 CLO 2 Ce? HUD AD BWLD Liew the 0 K¢eieo ole atl val AP UME sen ert ez 2 : ~L2 x 4a CLE Kerzy : LA LVG WOU tel Ptle. Sr # SL. : . . wee, -y ; ; . “A wey Co, 7 ; ‘ gy, . Se : ; ee a, wr, pA LILLIA? OAS KOT Pe AV e¢ =e 5 Ayet Le Lean 3i227 were Be. LOS =ES ce CRL.. OM OVIAAL Pre Af” ° +e. GIES = ALS Mel Lee OL agg © J eee Za , j 7 . MO id lla 7 <a Ga LT LZ LLIN Ga , 2h Oe ioe? ere Zz ; ; _ a <7 —7 Lol AP AA Ss cs . . a ° ? MOLL LL Ge A on <———" ‘ L222 De. S Sy) * Ye ; Z é a Oo 0 “a eee eee ime . . . : . ree, ' CT Ut