Whether the district court erred in dismissing the petitioner's claims

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED NV vs9 Lov'se w, Sidnalin/ (SWE vs. wistaed Cant GAsHan! Vistales t oe NC.) (hel Con SA bukota) Athen 'fy to 4D Tu0og4£ PIB LAL [PHtionuéa EO Su,"p At Command Int Aching 2 ( WE paocéss of 140) UOladant ad the PKG | Pléa0 oe, | Com fia nat Las Bree hy Ache Puasuanf to te 7% Mbipmnéet of he Ug, Conshpupins ( SEE Dihiel p/b40m 6 py SP Pot OF Comvrany Iv415 JAW Sut) TOME po vce 4 Micchanacionde ag acre af mA bv MUS Con Ste, PEE Lamb Er. Pao / Compared ag PUGS dehay (548 S. DiShyad . US. 0: htt Comt E-Dye. WEStEin Dito, ODER.) hort thy Suton py Qupnysl pp Ssh bikong) ag € Ptehohaed a CMG ALSS ong} ACK) ) Aothert'2és ths 2 Why bags ABB wince Veg’ “ : the us covsy: ‘é 4 Sut B+ Common Igtd aud 4 trol bY Tony, Puesumt ° hike 7 EDO bk Amp FA | OF the. SB ebay Ach of (164? 4) ie , Alby ix A noe tows pavfen’s MAS Ailowb0 by te Pisteted Coomt ( 6 6E DSenet came nal, Wht Dio the Wishect comt Gat do SEQ the RéSpoypeit AS NEQLEHED BY the Ahan Ano Puls gmp te Ft tw, 9, hur é 413) 2 ; 6) the pop’ Cp mn Mt OD ins Roseo FO1e1y O She Pacion bibltrdeny Athan, Wet Ra) Paow's, . bd hoge OF US€. G16 € x4 Sry PAIPOM'S, Shadul) 45 4 DyPildswt Pant, PRHOL AL phy! baud ’ LONED Eu POM OF He hed CUS: Coshpobjon 2 Tule C Lowsé we Fan : ; OF the CESparDbnyp 5 NED thi cy . Prins 906 aye Prv ith Clim ay BeHout Polite Shap 2 : MME 4 Titec Detiam MAKI AS to Béspavigg