Quincy Deshan Butler v. Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
1). Wither CjLrVihczJre- APPEALA&XAXTy SHoul D 1W^ GrtAuTtml
3L). WHETHER Due 1WE5S WAS V/I<d(At6D Wfetf Cj)UKlS£L Fazlejs to te&jLEST LESSE/X TWELUDEb TMsTdlx^TZAMS 1
2l) . YLWETUEl DUE process was v/ia La-tied \a1iuzm i-tzPAL douAisgiCl \ -Aul 6 To o&^&or-To Z£MMJKS> bf Uu&DS££(L AX I4ZMT Du&ajg bSMiy^rXd-fmt Xm&5*&SL ^llajsc L'S FhUJjJZJL Tb b&^Ecx 12 AEM mzks atr/A<rct /^ SURST/UJT/AT A/(/Z) 31MTC l£2Z)6 lS Ei(€&£T THAT XXtA/U£AJCJ£D 77//T b&mrz/uBJATiz>/o ?
s'), VtatEfe liiLfe pfcsss v/As vit>ureb u/iteM pe.nriaue.nh uuTifte ^ iVXSYDELi Wfes PdsT(££> 1M THE. //£Tj:5 pApfcjL A£ t^./£_ ^v^o^M^n?W "T\£_ A- 2rt5L / r/W lr\eSA. -^ . WHETHER- Due Uiola-T&A A 3ri D/£&Z£g ?
fgloto& is tEMUA/UCZD FHOAA 9~Y !o V££&S T2> 2.5 H> 97 y&t*S <
7)> WH€TKE£_ TEXAS QitiAMLZJ^mr LAUI \JT&LAT£S Dtiu8 (JET S3paW>Y AmD Tft£- UU ^, CoUSTTTUTtOAJ DwE P&>CX6S> 2Uh3~T9^riTlEj£ 3
p\ \a1\A.ETW:E«2_ TEX/V s APF y£MAT/UE. TXxi D .Xf4£T lAlO TnI VA&LUZ. AA)b UUCOMSTXTUT IOAjAL UIM aJ XT ALLbuIS A M6AJ-A6&&AVAT& £>FF&MSE "TO 0E <SjOV/Err\\8(S> S7 A6A&AVAT Eib 5EAlTfei^CX/US- &U lX&£JLM£-5 ?
as* fta-o/M Pirn >«ot^e«r u UVEA; usWS zr/u
Whether Cortificate of APPEALABILETY SHOULD HAVE BREA GeenTen?