Whether the U.S. District Court erred in dismissing Appellant's claims based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine

No question identified. : ee ae > a | , QuSs) ONG) prostiiled? — Q1. | BASCG UDON TNE _VG © oe Thien i O z a ; He Your COPEROGE wos 18 3 Oa Shoulda t_the_Coust_ conclude Ktod acimmie C ee Ponta por Mob LON . ; | | , | | | | | | | — — | | , Qs LAN | | Qu. Ibu THe Oronpweerance _O | holon Ie ree CO che 6} N N vA) Ot MM. Diane ean | a RSE ) : | Accellant dagt ——— Seo S68 ap _as— | | | | | | | | | | = | | | OB es I | oes) ie ice 10, mC a 7 WwoS.the_U.S. disttich tom's —& nn Ont ar © OChOINCK Oi) 4808. _ 3 NODES A »"FOO tn a it AIM rae aE any Ne VYSSCOSCOTAT ION Of NQT= culG _18Sue@S “aid” IG ¢ — O&. Did Te U.S pI COOIT COME Inur osdud By te. dL or fi so he ist — OOVt / 1 contsact ET co _ OY. Was he fanute_ me U.S. MSQUdLIEL NIMcCe 4 AS n Loe ain F | UF fOchiON Clapte or Tne lun Amendiient hanks Or fod. cha | WOSTITL ON | , | | | | — Qi. Wasnt tine Tih _Circurs_ Onder lon, “Mavclh al, d0aa ” Efaudulentl Ldn ..2 hecduse te, Oster i347 F Octobe a aa ea — a — Qi Mai ~~ We_The_Cyscuir’s “Hasek Teac er Cope Qe _v : ‘ 0] V.o. +86, “4 (4X) ¢ eee | | | | | . | | Qn. nota | | q | | | | | | | | | ) | | a | . | | | | | | | | |