That which follows is from WIKIPEDIA and is a good start on understanding the Appellate Process in Federal Courts...

The one distinction that needs to be made is, although the Appellate Courts are restricted to address issues of law, in order to determine whether the right Law was applied by the lower Court they often look at the FACTS of the case to make that determination. That is why every trial attorney knows that you lay the basis for your Appeal when you are trying the case at the trial level, and that is why judge Waddop has gone out of his way to write detailed opinions on decisions he has made in the Digecor case so far. He was closing the door on possible appeals by Bow by showing that his decisions were based on "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE"...

FROM WIKIPEDIA:

"Procedure

Trials, at which witnesses and other evidence are presented to a jury or judge in order to determine the truth or facts regarding a particular case, are held only in courts with original jurisdiction, i.e., courts in which a lawsuit is originally (and properly) filed and which have the power to accept evidence from witnesses and make factual and legal determinations regarding the evidence presented. Such trial courts also determine what, if any, punishment (in criminal cases), or what damages (in civil cases) should be awarded. Because the courts of appeals possess only appellate jurisdiction, they do not hold trials. Instead, appeals courts review decisions of trial courts for errors of law. Accordingly, an appeals court considers only the record (that is, the papers the parties filed and the transcripts and any exhibits from any trial) from the trial court, and the legal arguments of the parties. These arguments, which are presented in written form, and can range in length from dozens to hundreds of pages, are paradoxically known as “briefs”. Sometimes lawyers are permitted to add to their written briefs with oral arguments before the appeals judges. At such hearings, only the parties' lawyers speak to the court.

The rules that govern the procedure in the courts of appeals are the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. In a court of appeals, an appeal is almost always heard by a “panel” of three judges who are randomly selected from the available judges (including senior judges and judges temporarily assigned to the circuit). Some cases, however, receive an en banc hearing; except in the Ninth Circuit, the en banc court consists of all circuit judges on active status, but does not include senior or assigned judges (except that under some circumstances, a senior judge may participate in an en banc hearing when he or she participated at an earlier stage of the same case).

Historically, certain classes of cases held a right of automatic appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States; that is, one of the parties to the case could appeal a decision of a court of appeals and the Supreme Court had to accept the case. There is no longer any right of automatic appeal for a decision of a court of appeals, but a party may apply to the Supreme Court to review a ruling of the circuit court—called petitioning for a writ of certiorari—and the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, review any such ruling. In extremely rare cases, the Supreme Court may grant certiorari before judgment, thereby removing a case from the court of appeals and reviewing the lower court's ruling directly. This procedure was used in the Watergate-related case, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and in the 2005 decision involving the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

A court of appeals may also certify questions to the Supreme Court. This procedure was formerly used on occasion but is now rare. The Second Circuit, sitting en banc, attempted to use this procedure in United States v. Penaranda, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington. 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2), but the Supreme Court dismissed the certificate after resolving the same issue in another case that had come to the Court through the standard procedure. The last instance of the Supreme Court accepting a certificate and answering the questions presented was in 1982.

A court of appeals may convene a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) to hear appeals in bankruptcy cases directly from the bankruptcy courts of its circuit. As of 2008[update], only the First, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have established a BAP. Those judicial circuits which do not have a BAP have their bankruptcy appeals heard by the District Courts.

Appeals court decisions, unlike trial court decisions, are binding precedent. Other courts in that circuit must, from that point forward, follow the appellate court's guidance in similar cases, regardless of whether the trial judge believes that the case should be decided differently.

Laws may change over time, therefore the law that exists at the time of the appeal may differ from the law that existed at the time of the events being disputed by the litigants. A court of appeals applies the law as it exists at the time of the appeal, otherwise it would be handing down decisions that were instantly obsolete, and this would be a waste of resources since such decisions could not be cited as precedent. “[A] court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless doing so would result in manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary.” Bradley v. Richmond Sch. Bd., 416 U.S. 696, 711-12 (1974). This rule does not, however, apply in criminal cases if the effect would be to create an ex post facto law."

Gil...