Whether a pro se litigant's procedural deficiencies in a criminal appeal can constitute grounds for dismissal or denial of review

No question identified. : a Wes1o?Z ; reerey Declare Uns Fe Pavalny OF R@Msey THAT THE Loh OWING 1s TevVE AND Copever, Tar \now \pcarcermres by Calroentia Cre Corson ~lrc. ) law mae rpennonee lv tHE Above Cites Bner, Leck Companr 0 Temiey \n THe NareRs Set few ke AAAs Decelaparion Ave |e Cuter Won Wo Pe So, Nous Ars Cold verry 7 D VETINOWER yl] N\E Db We sECoat eeary, DB) Perinever \s Net A Lawyer Ave A LaY Men a tHe lew 4) THe URRARY 1S ExfRemly liter tw qens IveTiryreny, (pepece® to Tae law \eaey ic Pieer cult. ek PETITIONER HAs Sylow Goon Cavse To Ceawr An Coney oF TIME. . — —_&) Gre re Gee Cow’ Rosons, DT xeresy Ceaect Aw LEXTESION oF TIME To AND 12/1 wf 7 SF peclaee UNbER PewalTy oF Fee Juey Ave Tile law oF Te Stare oF Caliceun Avs ned S7ares Or Amerves THAT He CtGoiwS is Teue Ano Coerecr. EX€cuTEb. was Ar Caliecema rare Peisin Lac KAW — KespecrGi\y CoB ven NEswwR 9» CaAL