1) The Appellant: questions that in the context through the implementation op the
Current legal mail hounding ond delivery procedures used in the Commonwealth of
Virginia Department of Corrections as @ Yuly 1, A0aa iy it restrictive in its
operation? For it way not designed to allow or the timely deliverance op properly
identipied egal comrespondence from the courts ? .

') Determining i the append cout may entertain the decision of the judgement
the didtriet alleging to be correct, whet it come to the delay op the Current Segal
mal handling and delivery procedures in the Commonwealth op Virginie department
OF corrections, Does the Virginia statutes apply to determining rather the state
created, impediment' responsible for the court order not being aelivered to the appealant
to hme the allotted amount of time a5 Specipied by the court?, Would the Virginia
Statutes apply in distinguishing rather the order may or may not been statutory,
dideretional, or jurisdictional in nature ?

® The Appellant questions that the appeal court didnt properly consider the bedt
remedy to correct the current legal mailhandiing and delivery procedures. why when
they had the oppurtunity to? .

4) The Appealant questions the nature op the disposition ordered by the district court,
because it wab unexplained why the appellant complaint wag "olenied" rather than
dismissed"? How Would. a pro se litigant determine ip Wis petition was denied on the
wasid op a procedural olepault,0r a5 a denial on the merits ? .

Question not identified.