i,) i-ld'iA/ rr£ &6\/£gMrtE.iJT :TrAJhrc %bFo&£ r^sr /}pP£ A £Ahic£ di. f%& -,Td*ZUs»h
Wt A :m& ?/ Auo Ntjlsc Fo/c o£ Pea,*, of,,* T7 &j%/ -A ^ ?

$>) Pp,o&A&L£ dAvs£ ar. *
'fip f,\Q p £>p r,(x Aa C / B£.fY\Tt4BO &£SFe>fte Agge.PKO&A&L.S CflO$£ UEAteri&t 577 flow AYg &£Afrio <J<j£Y ^FAJ&tcrz/ofy

3.\ hii)i»y C-Ai'J (B\C\Zc^hJ/i)£\
UT £MA£G)g You iaJ-£ti4 UJHehj &ov/T. HAS 7S 'j#bj/e "^'s-d ifeVcaxay ''/Ww^/y" VfoUb '^j92Z^ia)
i f ? fo,imy/y, ()£ jjMgffhd)
Vii /$>4 922^<0 "or Po®' ^ F?**m
soch f^ATsTT "ow
V»*e* I?

St) /^OW :j_5 Y£AHfv\£ij-f
StPsaarzo ia/hjs^
! M/5 Co^ TwT — "iru^ ^ aJ^u^0 $r*PuL A TXOtJ To TT 'S RT4 MTS 0*
/^AiO 5^ AmetsiOMBrJT^ ^Qt^STT-TOTldhl As TT TS VY'fiTTTgsJ ? (£.£■ yM^ ftmc&rt.s&jse, OtJlY Assets** ^Iff Co^FlM, POSS. OF FXA6AAM
7He«e -r ^ tito>t«i-niev se*rencsnbMUeu
^<5/^ 7>f M DoT/sJ 6> -77/4.-J- *
**ie*r&*e> ^0u&L£nu£ 60 £t»rTj:,^pJTrtL $Tares aaF $a&tei*6
*3£oPA#0f CLA tms ?

7.) h/ AY T\xo (SiQVEnlNMetO-r Uot Pffoirx,
ho& A/ZPesr oR ScA£ctf At
~fea.R. CRTMsP Aw
** MS -xe*M"'**«»>o Ux
ZN Zr+fe*SW7S o* F&PaTGt/O COMrtZ

Whether the government is improperly denying a defendant's right to a pre-attachment hearing under the 5th Amendment