Cwr+ o-f Appeals err; wke*. d ii'Sozd
J{$ ft <H~ address '>/IAr,'$,*' /-App&ii4h+s cUum ofi Comfy
kpjoeilees w/ hotd^cj od- cl^do'svte QjJidkuc&j uoA, U ), A^ojtpj
ih° Ak€ di^rncA azurA duftnj -soMiMfy jud^^td a^d-Ke
i1>6v€ i^cts raaed Appe/hnH 0yeni^p~B ri€4^i,-r-SU)
Mr,& £iAircS dot tfroc€5< n^'h ht.th vfolaM^ 5/Mc<*
To!°i fj 'fiie fires£HT '^e, tx*>4<fl o^ uhStr0.i!reudy Ctii wi€ci in dt iJ
MopZ. ', "fisr cie-h iled !i}-rc 10'in<da\ / p/■&&>£. s€g ^.-htxcUedi (SC?) yx\j&
(lL<) ho^.^e iz&oS lyermes (fkMidix^ ?. qk) <zxpi«n* s -4**.
C(tw€ /AO^ sA cP^ dvu5T€ f^oroVQ^li/,V ' •'! jh<v$
4-hc A'n^ c\
linikcj r<iJc(dicl ^Ui-n-eu-te4 t'h 15 /aC*J5ufr th 6

Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it issued its Mandate without addressing the Appellants' claim of County Appellees' withholding of disclosure evidence, which was raised in the district court during summary judgment and the issue was raised in Appellants' Opening Brief