Whether the lower court erred in its application of the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test for procedural due process claims

No question identified. : _ Pemexriuss STugenn ; ak _ . haiti a Sco Fe wack eh es LOTaZ) Ah kt, Bales 1o-t 55 3033.9 34 aI cS Now Rules sOMinc Gugreang, fos Aplupicabian ates Genes ___{o Beauties mo Pesrdion Magis ing lorie om tm osemssastehe __Bekkesmatinen Gdhe Sacks io Wciek <S Mie. exnpence, eceacabe > “Tabls 2 AuSornes, 5 _ Queckens Sscieskee Sie See a __ Cai Sicebe o& Seance 0 a ; _ Paaece) __CAWoN Seeds, Hod Mp. 118 ele) BH VG ___ Gees \f. Shakes 7 Mp Use Mggay BB domes Vidhebes 354 Mp cos) eT __ Melles NV Sheke 23 Wek ev 259,269 0 __ Mills Viahers alomMp aa Geet ___Siioke: \. Melia 80 Me 558 CATT) NN Shake Setkeao “la Mp.aglen§\ Sond \U, Shekes © 3% Ap 198 (0984) \¥14 ___ Skrsog Vi, Sheks: sel Mp. 3711 GAT / _1g ___Maalaop Rules tU=97 (ee Le as CA) H | K-39 GAY | q Kel. at of Maahenp peck af es a | . IN THE JURISDICTION SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES [ ] For cases from federal courts: PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case wag Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. . { ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case. . OPINIONS BELOW { ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of Appeals on the following date: _, and a copy of the [ ] For cases from federal courts: order denying rehearing appears at