1. Whether the District Court Failed To Rule consistent with the Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) (18 U.S.C. § 17) by failing to make a differentiation between Sanity at the time of the offense (and) Competence To Stand Trial, entitled of ay adigent to psychiatric evaluation of (150), and assess necessary To prepare an effective defense based on his mental condition.

2. Whether the District court has led to Rule consistent with Rule 12.2 of the FRE 4242 by failing to provide SECOND amiNnation by an jitted expert to eval uate the mental State of mind (M zo) of the defendant Bigelow and to mest gate tad to determine the extent of whence Waclgrks of fecking Big 4 cow's hatig all BL) in their uns Caused by the bee hiption thehap bmnedicahowsapproximal neni 20) each day 99+/B8-20170-1A93) (lines 2t=a5)

3. Whether the District Court abused their Discretion Denying Bigelow's Motion to withdraw the guilty Plea' considering defense counsel avis failure to looll ds Bigelow's pa GRES edical Rk conds 'het ec] we 4

4. Whether the district court was blac us'th thea decisions, allowing defense cpipse! Davis to shay Nwetectlue_assistencetas the rad displysscob stitutional violations of due procéss,metboctive in WvestianHonof caucilex<ists Ip. pe stivote mental heal Records, Stew tupecl erro s, Fuamental RaRoRs Pla ektors, ethics ChRoRS, Gomabthatmanees

5. he ek the District Court prog egs.discrimnates looaust o class of perale ORE Us able to seek out ly e.answers_to_the.questions and the cha ages being prosecuted agaiust them' Because of the many dif deren? symp tows and lohelsfor ther, itappcoas thatthe disabled iqvoropce.ct-the-law.

Whether the District Court failed to rule consistent with the Insanity Defense Reform Act