0T>uA W d'SVr\cV Courts uV.\;-^a4ion of V»\t *4 o-f f^ST'V +®
^rejod.'ce 4ViC 'Pe-K-l'to/iers § 39*41 -peli-Ron, w.-Hioot
°fPor a»Aw 4u amend vtotate mea^n^ and scope of- -VV\eru\tT Jc)'Sm»S5 un-VW
• *} ><d -VV\& CoorV Noetou)
'Cjoon^ VVj oujo ^precedev^e re
of re>i\eu> '.a cases <s>-f
disV<\c4 Coor\7-€<a\s ca. mafW" of lau \oy
VW S4emdo.fcl
»s\r<M*Sal Vy c\AA-nV^ci
So <v\yv\acy di
'•0 ^Dcj-es an ft^e«^cy*s (e-^. fa.ns»oto of •prt>V\ib.4ed
Conduct (e-j. tnyviaVe dtSCvp^^ry code 4o areas wo4r
Considered of 4Vie Virnt of dV\* OcyjWVtaoS evwat-mevvf
CTro\"C>cs -e\ecV«wc wv<5Soj»^) ( -VWV 3o\>yc4 viotaAocS Vo
WxrsV> S^AcVioAS OoSS of cjood f'nveV . ce<jovr^, VVe agency
Vo ■yrt'/ide ncVlce. and comment Myvde^ -W\£
AWmis4r»4ve_ 'VwccAuct. Ao47

Did the district court's dismissal of the Petitioner's § 2241 petition, without opportunity to amend, violate the meaning and scope of the rule?