(I) P&£D{L ?UkPrtTTf^F~(LfLu^ £ /tidtZoa;
fy&l#rKpfafrzrSG>frPP/£LOMfr
*** fvgo?4- f>Auf£A& r toj&ty A7V&&H&T-
s*)OTZ&*J rF/Z/Kjzsszzotf <rz> J=Aj
fotjntr pahkvx , feo 5^ piAmr^je^
!?/"* Fc* 4^^ 7C ^eoc^ ^
toxmLf^T*** ^ 6'*' J>£^m^c:r C^zr /** -nr*
HorfO^.fir^uc. ■HfrfcfL'f
jz&M*yre&, t>u>ZASmt-AT s>2Vxsj=cmf,
D. Le&AtZsivizS^' -p^ec, fleotf^g
^W(v(w'/J ®F RuLCsfifP&Lt'Arz. pUDce^p^
w>£> dUcpxxr gu,u& z0>) frm M. <r. c«r of aweus
<fot-'!*&<!» ztr&mi a'ZR.cuzr?

(F) I>ts> pp_0 5E puwTxzv^A&ezcsbti-tt&fa /Hmutca,?-
iM&r-nt- TtStom^ -im.ts«*u> Kesu^^.
PV «•<■ of- KCMPI a,j7A **/*~'-"*>
lApPGf.'niC f<Uy/^to/JS x>£ y.2 U o ft ^ *U*nA*S S*TU/1P
An Tc ^ ^ M Wxbvvtr?
fyso re p<-(&7Pf=F _
TS 6^r£o gy u. f <*,_
VZ-STPc.ijf x>f $u&*tesS-£ €A-cno ^ f^erne-^^
«*** ~ v
Morns «« ^ rMe^ J^TO-Ojrcaj^^^
l/J omr- of- peemus Arm
ftM&Mj Of fat , UMW%A4)TZ£
pKjoowm. 7 WOfe) P? fr>£Mt Plats; sr Apmujtzl
4°£S%

Whether the pro se plaintiff-appellant was denied due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment when the district court denied his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his appeal was dismissed