1. 9th Cir. filed on 12-30-22 denying a motion fdr en banc without
an expalanation /?hich denied Kulick's right to due process tfhich in
turn negates 9th Cir. filed on 8-19-22, since it had jurisdiction
/?as final or appealable & because the order challenged in the appeal
Kulick's-USDC, Case # 2:21-cv-05548-DMG-PW, Complaint filed on
7-6-21,& its proof of service /?as judicially executed, thus that
Complaint in its entirety has merit & be granted by 13. S. Supreme
Remand to/
Court without any further/uSDC court hearing(s).

2. Based upon above item #1, & contract like BofA /?as unconstitutional,
since it denys Kulick fairness/equality/no ability for redress or
access to any banking transactions-being a universal banking contract &
it's impossible for an attorney at la/? to advise Kulick not to sign
such a contract-Kulick signed that contract without an attorney at
la/?-revie/? of that contract-doing under duress for that "access'^P

3. Based upon above item #s 1./2. , it's unconstitutional that Kulick's
Pro Per status be on the same level of an attorney at la/? in ability
,/?hich constitutes a discrimination by any court against Kulick's
"ability" to comply /?ith any federal rules as it related to procedures
whether civil or otherwise & any so-called failures whether to effectu
ate service &/or lack of prosecution could not be applicable under those
foregoing/discriminatory?/
not proper in the/ prevailing/factual circumstances? Any dismissal

4. Bases upon above item #s 1./2./3., it /?as a violation of Kulick's
rights under American With Disabilities Act of 1990 by Defendant(s)
since they kne/? Kulick /?as a disabled, physically person for many.
his/
years as it applies to the ADA of 1990 /?hile/transacting bankingsat
the BofA business facilities, a /?ell documentfeddfact?

Whether the 9th Circuit's denial of a motion for en banc review without explanation violated the petitioner's due process rights