PETTIANER. YAS CLEP SUFEILIENT FAC, THAT PROVES' B (LERY PRESENT BND MINIGrE TAL puTy Owen To THE PET Toner Ufan THE RESCONDENTS PUES MCLEAN PRESENT ANT STATUTE NO proves Ta) 1ucee hd amber. HOW SPEXOY of ADEQUATE BF EDN CIUER tub To GPAw) Te eet imoy AcNOWLEDGED BY Tye IST NCS (oukT at oem us Jo Be FRiVpLoK OF PAB LA ous Not FA TOSTATE: 2 CLAIM UPON Lilo

CAN Py QISTAlcT Coury REFUSE S IRTECE MATER. JURISDILTISN BPSE0 ON SV EIGN IMMUN TY AND THE US. couel OF APPEBL. REFUSE TO REVIEW THE ONESTon OF LP BASEO ON A Fe) WoLOuS OF BY THE CLEQK OFTHE CouweT OF APPEAL WHEN THAT A EBON SUPPER ING LEGAL Weal Because OF A LACK c& AcE Y ACTION WiTHN THE MEAN INE OF A RELEVENT STOTUTE 15 FustTLED TO TUOLIAL RENEW TL Peo AND AN AcTloN JN A CougT_ cy Vie US. SEEING CEL IEP OTHER THAN Maney DAMAGES CORSE STATING ACAINCIBAT An AGENOY 02 BNI EMpipYee THEZEOE FALEO. To ACTIN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY SARLL NOT BE DIShuisse.9 Nbe_ REUGFE THELBIN DENIED oN THE GYouND THAT IT iS AGAINSY THE US. 02 THE US. iS AN INDSPENSDALE PARTY?

IADIO Bort TNE _ULS. CougT oF AoveaL Awo Tue Us. OlstW\ cy COud) Wicd PE€EOQMED THE ENimpL IN FORMB PRUPEZIS SCCEENING AND ACKNUW LEGGED OAR FOLK CV-T APY VETITIONER 16 Noy ARLE To PRY TBE FILING FEES AND THATS PET T TION ER MANDAMUS WAS NOT FeWolous 02 ON Fol 0 BUPELS.

ZS TENS Coue'S FIRST O@ORZ OF BUSSINESS TO BESAL' FADE. GENAND Bis PETITION fOR MANOBMUS a REMPNDEO for FUCTHER ACTIONS oy THE MERITS QD WHE. Cour) ae APPEDL E20 BY NS ALrowiny PETITISNER TO CULe ThE 2@ USC 3MSC\2) \SMicsu. BY PAY & WWE OulST AND 5 FILING F S TO CONTINUe BIS NPFEAL ANY @ECENVE-CRt RULING ON THI ME?Z ATS?

BNE TN PIGENT (UTIGENTS HAVE EQUAL

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals and District Court improperly dismissed a petition for mandamus based on sovereign immunity and procedural technicalities when the petitioner lacks financial resources to pay filing fees