I'/♦'The 3ezC\s\6vx by -Vke Unl-VeA CoiLf^ of
Is skooAA be fe\Aer^eJ P
e^iAetoe \a -Hie ftgk-V mo 5 4" -fMovable fo -fae
PhWnKK a^A AenteA kVw + |fty +
obu>v On £*(&+ Wt+ne-ss f^JW iTcM+es kfe
MgVvb^ ?
c3> fcs Pkn-W a
ju/y C0(x|A fg,|,y 0/9on orij ^-o ^e^erirjtYLC ■/h<Z'^
£fghWi Ame^dw^T ri'gk+5 viola-bed
toY -Hie, D&i&nia^rf-^P 3 iota-red
6^ V)«.-s 'Hl£ OtsAvToV U|Av>x « r» *»».
an exf^r-f- (V Piam -hTT s cw > eve^T -Hroua^ heJs W^-b?
^5^.Tke AKnbh CxVcat-b ha^ A«< led -bo adofb
■^Vx\\)U m-verfreb-a+rtu <?•£ fej^/ ^|e
DviAencc. T 0(a Aule Tob^) vjhtcVi fe/nn'-l-
+o u.5-e 'fyie.i f Av^cte-Kftvi -bo OL^for+^syi ~fee-5 wke/^
won | A b# ic$&4tc( -^z^r'f4t€ A<rr
Si A ^-6 Ci^A vio'F Ju/j+ -Pjy -Fhe 'b&^Cnd^n'H ?

(b) rt lezjal or CwiVf^ed dor dke PtewdvPf
do *i/\ P^v\ pbc Ptve days unpkan
beyond s^lv^jed , to ashed > eye gtobe
^d\A nop m^eP dhe CoMmu^i-^/ s+a^cterds o-(
twelve -fo Pwenhy —Four SBlMFkvours?

(^) Thg U/vf-ped <?'HchcS Coafd Op Af^emls k,#$
wudg Otn \)\a5 ed) er for 3 re vtea/idig PVt<Wvf P s
J^nuAne 4>^fuAe op ykupeffal Pacb on vuke-fher orna-|-
■VW we/e d<sl\ber^-hsly mA vPPer^b do
h\s med\cal neeA^anA ^re^ul+^Ue
<J
nod g/rKdl^d

Whether the United States Court of Appeals erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial based on alleged Eighth Amendment rights violations and expert testimony exclusion