Whether the District Court and Appellate Court violated Appellant's 1st, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment rights

No question identified. : ND XW TYE SUPREME Cour} OF THE UWITeD STATES AoBerr v. Hepriciz, ADP ele pwr) ‘ Vv Uuiret®dS Srveres of Aen A PPrlede. RoRerr L Weandit, Pro SE 94886-2119 vair SBU TeNernrt Rurlyww or Prsows ECI~ Fort bik A ov BOL Devo i Towr Bau wel, vy. 08440 AvesripwS ProscwikD FoR ReWewW Ow Ortem wer 20 LOL), Cvde 0. EAT 19-403, THE Covlr For NE FIFTY C\rémir UACATED Awd REwWAWwAED AP PYLLANT'S Tudo mewt PAN Cowley ow. THR LoovT's MawaNTE Wr ISSUES OW eBruwrd 21, LOLI; awd Rec Ponds was mAdE BH THE Govevemctet Areore THE Covrr's MAWnHTE WKS TssuEP, Bred @ vPow THESE KMerS avy THOSE PYCSERTED HOrew . CN DS ME Diswizl Aw APPLE ATE Couys ws VIOLATED pws oP PrPPELLOwT'S 1ST, Sth, Gt, Bt, awd IUTH Ameownmcel R\GHTS ¢ (29 DID The DSwicr Mun APPELLATE Couvrs “ene Iuuss Dicrow", rer Tre “vitimchk Whtment" +o Re-WsiT Tire 154025 > TMT RESULTED hk The UN UAOTED TWPLwenr gw —Aécewhtr 20; 20207 he Seurve, A Wie The Coven mint CrrFter 14 monte Aelws ) 7 FILE For “Summans Todement’" on APhelmut'S 2255 Motow Att, APOULIDTS Orde wis Vatirted? (3) tert ePPeLLAwT!S fst AMendmens MiGs Mo "Aiee5S FO Tae Covvrs vioiwhu? LYN lene APPLLLART'S Sth AWD meHt RionTs To “DvE Puoeess" Ul ot TED”, 65S were APPpL Aw 5 Lh AM DMeEWS RIGHTS TD RA Proteckry From "tmwiwerr Anweee" 62 USE Coed TIWSS UA ASS mw, THemTs , ASSAULTS, Aw Tem PTS YO Murder iw tw Tie Fe Nerne Rurim oF Orisows Violntew (A) were APPL T'S 19TH awero Mees 72) 1GHTS TD Protleriuw VinLared 2 Cours A coe e arene Oth Pam dwewl RIGHTS UiDer THE rYoHW t Ea Tbh COMErOWT Wirwesses Awd oBinimw ai .