Whether the District Court violated ADA rights under Title II, whether the District Court's procedural and evidentiary rulings constituted an abuse of discretion, whether the District Judges' extrajudicial commentary about the case prejudiced reversal of the judgment

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED frime Faue) +o Per : . The pr bi Foss Gor a Welk 6 Certiorar: oe fore Audgement Presents the Some F880C8 Ned Bac DeBeachant . ‘ “Vaas prisented MO oi*Fs Suis Mckiongl Sraktments toe hy. Gpactlake Couch (coge3ay, ) as well as tA. Sug meme eouck Ce. 527.4720) . & Wether Mae Orstrrek court Violated ADA Prghts under V+ Uh ete the Drebeied Cour Gang) procedural and evidentrany Vuliag s Con stiluted An abuse of chkisere $e on Tecamirin wy Veyarsal ot he Judgement. a). hither the De hy Sudges exbraradssel com meaty Aboud Hy, Case Prguice Peversal Of We Sucka men b, : Lecter the Os shev chs Couch ealied on MadkM erable / Lasutticiens Evidenee. . 4), Ohi thee the Dishereh couct | by che missin o Me iO yess's Comsat) SUL Defoase alarm Under (cal erim) rules 3470 3477 Th is exDloained A great Arbol. 5) Ohether Me Osskereh Couct Erced by Curva eu 4 v Police Fetealiatras / Rok ce oe wtalsdy/ Potce Errors] hy), Vrans perking AM. alleged Viking, : Ge)Whether . Doster ch couch Eeoed by nok Gran din oy | A Pew attomey PRED Prraucskock oy Dri tendank, 7.) Wh Mn oe coucky ANqoed Lr Aness es UA der rary Pent en Peri uc to take the sdanck end ike under oath | tow \, Cootacy & wos is in custody, t . rCakin, : 5.) Lhebher 4h ~steveks Sudges Mad « COMM Mico opr 2) xt prosustenal eat seonduch Song CSAs snd) Soo Mir conduct, . . . . asia Dee lawvt COUN Chat, ane dock cours ereack in Meme ard me 4 adeoaten, Ss eafucrer Fo & Meg « of veetm, under co/en oP lan, fat dazerorgeh Dep: th aad | . | f