4he disPn'oP ccur-4' and 4be am4ed) s4dres
caur4 oP appeals 444 4o consider PcPrhOner
opp6&i+i 6a HP C-G&pond&nP cross- mo4ion 4br
Vias pe44iooers 0ppos4on 4o re&pWavb crossiMo4ion 4b r Summary 0udam&n4 COnSiCicn-C Kii4b
4We Law under Ped, K c\m- 9. 5(44 H 4^ <Suppor4
KiS \4n-Pied CCmplairrP aS Gvid-enc-C to 4K<5 ma-4erp
Qtd 4ba Dt&VrtoV CourP and 4b e Ur>i4ed oVa4e5
COur4 oP appeals 4ai)4o Kon&sVly mm review
' . -4b 15 roqPHr under Pbe4Ke Video record t ^5 in
Law?

pePiPioner couo&cl upon W\& reayecp 4bqp be,
WJaS proceeding pro Le, 4nd 4bq4 4biS PnPiro
<sP 4bfd wocUnP cua5 capWd on
VtdfiO, record^ vufch be could noP provide,
b i m - 5C 1 ■-P 40 PP>P COU 4. r

Did 4Ke DiSdncP cour4 and 4he oniPed SVaPeS
Caur4 of appeals pup p€4i4loners SaPePy in
dett^cr by nop addressing b»5 OppoSiPi
laVion 4b r Summary
Cndi rt \ocidw4 C4 4K?uSe
4oon
w>PO

Did the district court and the United States Court of Appeals fail to consider Petitioner's opposition to Respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment?