Did the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals abuse its discretion when it claimed Mr. Bissner's appeal was frivolous?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED RUESTZONS FRESENTEL LT. DID THE S2xTH crRcurr uver, EP S7A7E> COURT OF APPEALS Anuse Ts DESCETZON WHEN ZT CLALMED mp. AISSNER'S APPEAL WAS FRE VoLous ? I. PID yore WESTERN DISTRICT op pore LG AN COURT ABY sr *7S PESCRETZOW WHEN + 7 REs CREENED "HE ALREADY SCREENED BY THE EASTERN 2257¢7c7SOURT Anp THEN DZs MISSED 45 FRI Vopows P TZ, was MBBLISSNER DENT ED HES DUE PROCESS OF LAW BLEHTS To A PR ELIZMINARY PAROLE REVOCATIO/9 PEARL WG WL Ty TEN CIO) DAYS PURSUAN7~ TO mrcy, COMP, 1. 79) 23a)? IV. WAS ngp. BISSNER DENZED HES DUE PROCES S§ CF LAW ALEHTS TO A PAROLE. FEVOcarroy __ FACT FINDING HEARING WLTYT A FOURTY-Pryp C45) DAYS og NOTICE OF vrozarmyy OF PAROLE Pursuaply TO MECH. Congp “ 791. 240.a(a)? -j MV LS THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NIZCHIGAN COURT CORRECT 7HE THE PETZLIZONER FROVEDED GacaTEe PROTECTION THEW PAROLE BEVOc aTrron WHEN MR. BESSNER DED Mores “aw "ARILY) KNOWL GLY, ARID ENTELLECENILY ins nnd 70 NEW CHARGES WHEE woueP * WES PAROLE REVOCATION BIGHES? V2. Cou LP ny ; INTE) 7 remne i PMONENGLY Ant UNPERL vrage Nene ZA CULLTY DLN THE Bnew rye , ASE WAHEW HE DED Nor . OF ae, ve COLLAT ERA. COSEQUENCES RIGHTS ? CUES HENGE. 1, 2S PAROLE REVOCATION ~jje