1. Whether the Lower Courts ' unconstitutional
procedural departure conflicts with the prerequisite
demand pursuant several holding of United States
Appeals Court, where judicial review of the merits of
an administrative decision is restricted to the "arbi
trary and capricious " standard prescribed by the
Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.,
the conflict pursuant the unconstitutional procedural
departure renders the judicial proceeding null in void.

2. Whether the Appeals Court has enter a decision
replete with conflicts with the Supreme Court of
United States, the holding of United States Appeals
Court, and in disaccord with Congressional intent
renders the ruling a nullity, hence void judgment.

3. Whether the Appeals Court administrative
decision on the face of its Order reveals, "Charles Simon
challenging the amount of monthly compensation he
was awarded in 1994 under the Inmate Accident
Compensation Procedure 18 U.S.C. § 4126; Section
301.301 et seq., along with the termination of his
payments in 2018. " said allegation in part show a blatant
conflict expressed at documented evidence of fact at
Exhibit D, reveal the COO 's discriminatory fraud
policy under 28 C.F.R. Part 301. The Appeals Court
issued a political partisan decision rather than issue
finding of fact and conclusion of law in the denial of
Preliminary Injunction under (APA) 5 U.S.C. § 701 et
seq., mandated by Simpson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61(1970)

4. Whether on the face of Exhibit-D, expressly
cited and accompanied the Verified Complaint and
Appeal Brief, evidence that ultimately prove obstruction
of justice imposed by the retired Chief Operating
Officer of Federal Prison Industries, fraud discrimina
tory policy under 28 C.F.R. Part 301 said discriminatory
policy require compensation recipient report Public
Assistance Program evidence the clear distortion of
Inmate Accident Compensation Procedure under 28
C.F.R. § 301.315(b) et seq., enacted by Congress. Said
COO 's policy under 28 C.F.R. Part 301, freezes all
entitlement of the Inmate Accident Compensation
Procedure 18 U.S.C. § 4126 attending sec. 301.314 et
seq., enacted by Congress.

5. Whether the Lower Court 's ruling pursuant
exhausting of remedy upon the illegal termination
imposed by the Chief Operating Officer of Federal
Prison Industries fraud discriminatory policy at 28
C.F.R. Part 301 conflict with the Inmate Accident
Compensation Procedure enacted by Congress under
18 U.S.C. § 4126 attending 28 C.F.R. § 301.315(a),
Section 301.314(b), Section 301.313.

6. Whether the Appeals Court adopts the legal
point of law that conflict with the Supreme Court in
Monel v. Department of Social Services of the City of
New York , 436 U.S. 658 (1978);

7. Whether the Declaratory Judgment and Prelim
inary

Whether the Lower Courts' unconstitutional procedural departure conflicts with the prerequisite demand pursuant several holding of United States Appeals Court