Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in not protecting Petitioner's constitutional right to not be deprived of liberty, where Petitioner's supplemental brief demonstrated lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in the district court

No question identified. : | Questions fresented | I, Whether Cou/t of Ayyorols ahustd (ts discretion en nor protecting Fattionerd Constitefonel right ty net be Wearived of liberty, where fatitionerss fo 50 Suppleruufo/ | ‘ Brief, submithd af SUGGES Hon @ appellate counse }, Cloimed ahd denoustroted letk of subject.na ther yurtidittien 1M the district courh tn denylag 2 Motidy by Aribianer t He : his fire se suppolennente/ bret end revused tp even Consider the constrtutoual and jurtsdhee tional eloims in , the sujejtlenzen fal jerd ve brie¥ Counsel pe fused fi aise | the yssues therein, aA Whether this Courts discretion, in tals Kiest Ih ft r0 $ lone wv tee ee. Cad Sey permits the veutew of the tonstiYutvonel endl | | jurtsdictone! cles presented below, ond py ¢Ars ferttien, ts either covrech the PeM errors Comimiy ted below aud prrovicle on of nien of impor Pence 49 the fuble 1 OF rttigagd py the Cour oF Ayyweals or the distr Coup Yor the fT f0O8€ 0% Neaching He merits herela fresenkd, and (routed ty thes Louvk dy the copy of the Supelen ey fol [YO se Bret set aut os Aycendix H $y th); petition, T2ble_of Contents Opinions Below ; / durt'sdefron / Constitattone/ ond Stotu pry Krotsiers Aavolved / Stokement of Phe Case 2 Reasons for Granting the Writ 73 Conclusion OF Index #6 Aypendices | Ayeerdcx A Opinion of the United Ftetes Coutt oF Aygae/s | for the Fourth Curent? Aypena x £8 U. S« Const, Article ms