Whether the district court abused its discretion when it refused to appoint counsel for the appellant and denied the appellant due process and the right to present evidence in his case

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : } : ® LW Here & TRE piste Cows eid ge A®Bused H's ~’ DescReTionN WHed ite REFUSED TS APPS THR APPellad7 Coudssel.. US: COsTi amend Viry € US. COnsT Amend X{V. Woo of yy. ‘ @ wetter ve Viste ce cous! awud6t ABused is Ss Non! Wier Fle Refused" To _pllow) THE “Appel Lael” Tp — OBTAIN THe Evi Pewee s"HE Re Ques!7 | te Wscoke LP VRe Quer? All EVideWe Feom-The Hosphil aad BT ee ulHeTHea THE DISTNeT cower sudge Dewied THe (APL Lau € ual PeSTe CTO py OF tHe Law RK DENTED TH APpellauT Due-Pepcess” THe. im ‘ , PCESS OF S LAwy OX DENIed THe "APeellaNT, Bis Righ!TO —— Allewidg &) mags TRaTe Sudje tof Red hee A frmend A) 5, CoUsTs amend,