author: Justice Ginsburg

text:
    [564 U.S. 915]
    GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES OPERATIONS, S. A., et al., Petitioners v EDGAR D. BROWN, et ux., co-administrators of the ESTATE OF JULIAN DAVID BROWN, et al.
    564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 2846,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 796,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4801
    [No. 10-76]
    Argued January 11, 2011.
    Decided June 27, 2011.

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL ARGUING CASE
    Meir Feder argued the cause for petitioners.
    Benjamin J. Horwich argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court.
    Collyn Peddie argued the cause for respondents.

      Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

[564 U.S. 918]

Justice Ginsburg

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the jurisdiction of state courts over corporations organized and operating abroad. We address, in particular, this question: Are foreign subsidiaries of a United States parent corporation amenable to suit in state court on claims unrelated to any activity of the subsidiaries in the forum State?

A bus accident outside Paris that took the lives of two 13-year-old boys from North Carolina gave rise to the litigation we here consider. Attributing the accident to a defective tire manufactured in Turkey at the plant of a foreign subsidiary of The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear USA), the boys’ parents commenced an action for damages in a North Carolina state court; they named as defendants Goodyear USA, an Ohio corporation, and three of its subsidiaries, organized and operating, respectively, in Turkey, France, and Luxembourg. Goodyear USA, which had plants in North Carolina and regularly engaged in commercial activity there, did not contest the North Carolina court’s jurisdiction over it; Goodyear USA’s foreign subsidiaries, however, maintained that North Carolina lacked adjudicatory authority over them.

A state court’s assertion of jurisdiction exposes defendants to the State’s coercive power, and is therefore subject to review for compatibility with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. International Shoe Co. v. Washington,

[564 U.S. 919]

326 U. S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945) (assertion of jurisdiction over out-of-state corporation must comply with “ ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ ” (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S. Ct. 339, 85 L. Ed. 278 (1940))). Opinions in the wake of the path-marking International Shoe decision have differentiated between general or all-purpose jurisdiction, and specific or case-linked jurisdiction. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, nn. 8, 9, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1984).

A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so “continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at home in the forum State. See International Shoe, 326 U.S., at 317, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95. Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, depends on an “affili-atio[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy,” principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s regulation, von Mehren & Trautman, Jurisdiction To Adjudicate: A Suggested Analysis, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1121, 1136 (1966) (hereinafter von Mehren & Trautman); see Brilmayer et ah, A General Look at General Jurisdiction, 66 Texas L. Rev. 721, 782 (1988) (hereinafter Brilmayer). In contrast to general, all-purpose jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of “issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.” von Mehren & Trautman 1136.

Because the episode-in-suit, the bus accident, occurred in France, and the tire alleged to have caused the accident was manufactured and sold abroad, North Carolina courts lacked specific jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy. The North Carolina Court of Appeals so acknowledged. Brown v. Meter, 199 N.C. App. 50, 57-58, 681 S.E.2d 382, 388 (2009). Were the foreign subsidiaries nonetheless amenable to general jurisdiction in North Carolina courts? Confusing or blending general and specific jurisdictional inquiries, the

[564 U.S. 920]

North Carolina courts answered yes. Some of the tires made abroad by Goodyear’s foreign subsidiaries, the North Carolina Court of Appeals stressed, had reached North Carolina through “the stream of commerce”; that connection, the Court of Appeals believed, gave North Carolina courts the handle needed for the exercise of general jurisdiction over the foreign corporations. Id., at 67-68, 681 S.E.2d, at 394-395.

A connection so limited between the forum and the foreign corporation, we hold, is an inadequate basis for the exercise of general jurisdiction. Such a connection does not establish the “continuous and systematic” affiliation necessary to empower North Carolina courts to entertain claims unrelated to the foreign corporation’s contacts with the State.

I

On April 18, 2004, a bus destined for Charles de Gaulle Airport overturned on a road outside Paris, France. Passengers on the bus were young soccer players from North Carolina beginning their journey home. Two 13-year-olds, Julian Brown and Matthew Helms, sustained fatal injuries. The boys’ parents, respondents in this Court, filed a suit for wrongful-death damages in the Superior Court of Onslow County, North Carolina, in their capacity as administrators of the boys’ estates. Attributing the accident to a tire that failed when its plies separated, the parents alleged negligence in the “design, construction, testing, and inspection” of the tire. 199 N.C. App., at 51, 681 S.E.2d, at 384 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Goodyear Luxembourg Tires, SA (Goodyear Luxembourg), Goodyear Lastikleri T. A. S. (Goodyear Turkey), and Goodyear Dunlop Tires France, SA (Goodyear France), petitioners here, were named as defendants. Incorporated in Luxembourg, Turkey, and France, respectively, petitioners are indirect subsidiaries of Goodyear USA, an Ohio corporation also named as a defendant in the suit. Petitioners manufacture

[564 U.S. 921]

tires primarily for sale in European and Asian markets. Their tires differ in size and construction from tires ordinarily sold in the United States. They are designed to carry significantly heavier loads, and to serve under road conditions and speed limits in the manufacturers’ primary markets.

In contrast to the parent company, Goodyear USA, which does not contest the North Carolina courts’ personal jurisdiction over it, petitioners are not registered to do business in North Carolina. They have no place of business, employees, or bank accounts in North Carolina. They do not design, manufacture, or advertise their products in North Carolina. And they do not solicit business in North Carolina or themselves sell or ship tires to North Carolina customers. Even so, a small percentage of petitioners’ tires (tens of thousands out of tens of millions manufactured between 2004 and 2007) were distributed within North Carolina by other Goodyear USA affiliates. These tires were typically custom ordered to equip specialized vehicles such as cement mixers, waste haulers, and boat and horse trailers. Petitioners state, and respondents do not here deny, that the type of tire involved in the accident, a Goodyear Regional RHS tire manufactured by Goodyear Turkey, was never distributed in North Carolina.

Petitioners moved to dismiss the claims against them for want of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed. Acknowledging that the claims neither “related to, nor . . . ar[o]se from, [petitioners’] contacts with North Carolina,” the Court of Appeals confined its analysis to “general rather

[564 U.S. 922]

than specific jurisdiction,” which the court recognized required a “higher threshold” showing: A defendant must have “continuous and systematic contacts” with the forum. Id., at 58, 681 S.E.2d, at 388 (internal quotation marks omitted). That threshold was crossed, the court determined, when petitioners placed their tires “in the stream of interstate commerce without any limitation on the extent to which those tires could be sold in North Carolina.” Id., at 67, 681 S.E.2d, at 394.

Nothing in the record, the court observed, indicated that petitioners “took any affirmative action to cause tires which they had manufactured to be shipped into North Carolina.” Id., at 64, 681 S.E.2d, at 392. The court found, however, that tires made by petitioners reached North Carolina as a consequence of a “highly-organized distribution process” involving other Goodyear USA subsidiaries. Id., at 67, 681 S.E.2d, at 394. Petitioners, the court noted, made “no attempt to keep these tires from reaching the North Carolina market.” Id., at 66, 681 S.E.2d, at 393. Indeed, the very tire involved in the accident, the court observed, conformed to tire standards established by the U. S. Department of Transportation and bore markings required for sale in the United States. Ibid. As further support, the court invoked North Carolina’s “interest in providing a forum in which its citizens are able to seek redress for [their] injuries,” and noted the hardship North Carolina plaintiffs would experience “[were they] required to litigate their claims in France,” a country to which they have no ties. Id., at 68, 681 S.E.2d, at 394. The North Carolina Supreme Court

[564 U.S. 923]

denied discretionary review. Brown v. Meter, 364 N.C. 128, 695 S.E.2d 756 (2010).

We granted certiorari to decide whether the general jurisdiction the North Carolina courts asserted over petitioners is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 561 U.S. 1508, 131 S. Ct. 63, 177 L. Ed. 2d 1152 (2010).

II

A

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment sets the outer boundaries of a state tribunal’s authority to proceed against a defendant. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 207, 97 S. Ct. 2569, 53 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1977). The canonical opinion in this area remains International Shoe, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95, in which we held that a State may authorize its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with [the State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Id., at 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (quoting Meyer, 311 U.S., at 463, 61 S. Ct. 339, 85 L. Ed. 278).

Endeavoring to give specific content to the “fair play and substantial justice” concept, the Court in International Shoe classified cases involving out-of-state corporate defendants. First, as in International Shoe itself, jurisdiction unquestionably could be asserted where the corporation’s instate activity is “continuous and systematic” and that activity gave rise to the episode-in-suit. 326 U.S., at 317, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95. Further, the Court observed, the commission of certain “single or occasional acts” in a State may be sufficient to render a corporation answerable in that State with respect to those acts, though not with respect to matters unrelated to the forum connections. Id., at 318, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95. The heading courts today use to encompass these two International Shoe categories is “specific jurisdiction.” See von Mehren & Trautman 1144-1163. Adjudicatory authority is “specific” when the suit “aris[es]

[564 U.S. 924]

out of or relate [s] to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Helicopteros, 466 U.S., at 414, n. 8, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404.

International Shoe distinguished from cases that fit within the “specific jurisdiction” categories, “instances in which the continuous corporate operations within a state [are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.” 326 U.S., at 318, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95. Adjudicatory authority so grounded is today called “general jurisdiction.” Helicopteros, 466 U.S., at 414, n. 9, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404. For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home. See Bril-mayer 728 (identifying domicile, place of incorporation, and principal place of business as “paradig[m]” bases for the exercise of general jurisdiction).

Since International Shoe, this Court’s decisions have elaborated primarily on circumstances that warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction, particularly in cases involving “single or occasional acts” occurring or having their impact within the forum State. As a rule in these cases, this Court has inquired whether there was “some act by which the defendant purposefully avail [ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1283 (1958). See, e.g., World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 287, 297, 100 S. Ct. 559, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980) (Oklahoma court may not exercise personal jurisdiction “over a nonresident automobile retailer and its wholesale distributor in a products-liability action, when the defendants’ only connection with Oklahoma is the fact that an automobile sold in New York to New York residents became involved in an accident in Oklahoma”); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474-475, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985) (franchisor headquartered in Florida

[564 U.S. 925]

may maintain breach-of-contract action in Florida against Michigan franchisees, where agreement contemplated ongoing interactions between franchisees and franchisor’s headquarters); Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 105, 107 S. Ct. 1026, 94 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1987) (Taiwanese tire manufacturer settled product liability action brought in California and sought indemnification there from Japanese valve assembly manufacturer; Japanese company’s “mere awareness . . . that the components it manufactured, sold, and delivered outside the United States would reach the forum State in the stream of commerce” held insufficient to permit California court’s adjudication of Taiwanese company’s cross-complaint); id., at 109, 107 S. Ct. 1026, 94 L. Ed. 2d 92 (opinion of O’Connor, J.); id., at 116-117, 107 S. Ct. 1026, 94 L. Ed. 2d 92 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). See also Twitchell, The Myth of General Jurisdiction, 101 Harv. L. Rev. 610, 628 (1988) (in the wake of International Shoe, “specific jurisdiction has become the centerpiece of modern jurisdiction theory, while general jurisdiction plays a reduced role”).

In only two decisions postdating International Shoe, discussed infra, at 927-929, 180 L. Ed. 2d, at 808-809, has this Court considered whether an out-of-state corporate defendant’s instate contacts were sufficiently “continuous and systematic” to justify the exercise of general jurisdiction over claims unrelated to those contacts: Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S. Ct. 413, 96 L. Ed. 485 (1952) (general jurisdiction appropriately exercised over Philippine corporation sued in Ohio, where the company’s affairs were overseen during World War II); and Helicopteros, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404 (helicopter owned by Colombian corporation crashed in Peru; survivors of U. S. citizens who died in the crash, the Court held, could not maintain wrongful-death actions against the Colombian corporation in Texas, for the corporation’s helicopter purchases and purchase-linked activity in Texas were insufficient to subject it to Texas court’s general jurisdiction).

[564 U.S. 926]

B

To justify the exercise of general jurisdiction over petitioners, the North Carolina courts relied on the petitioners’ placement of their tires in the “stream of commerce.” See supra, at 921-923, 180 L. Ed. 2d, at 804-805. The stream-of-commerce metaphor has been invoked frequently in lower court decisions permitting “jurisdiction in products liability cases in which the product has traveled through an extensive chain of distribution before reaching the ultimate consumer.” 18 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations § 8640.40, p. 133 (rev. ed. 2007). Typically, in such cases, a nonresident defendant, acting outside the forum, places in the stream of commerce a product that ultimately causes harm inside the forum. See generally Dayton, Personal Jurisdiction and the Stream of Commerce, 7 Rev. Litigation 239, 262-268 (1988) (discussing origins and evolution of the stream-of-commerce doctrine).

Many States have enacted long-arm statutes authorizing courts to exercise specific jurisdiction over manufacturers when the events in suit, or some of them, occurred within the forum state. For example, the “Local Injury; Foreign Act” subsection of North Carolina’s long-arm statute authorizes North Carolina courts to exercise personal jurisdiction in “any action claiming injury to person or property within this State arising out of [the defendant’s] act or omission outside this State,” if, “in addition[,] at or about the time of the injury,” “[p]roducts . . . manufactured by the defendant were used or consumed, within this State in the ordinary course of trade.” N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 1—75.4(4)(b) (Lexis 2009) As the North Carolina Court of Appeals recognized, this provision of the State’s long-arm statute “does not apply to this case,” for both the act alleged to have caused injury (the fabrication of the allegedly defective tire) and its impact (the

[564 U.S. 927]

accident) occurred outside the forum. See 199 N.C. App., at 61, n. 6, 681 S.E.2d, at 390, n. 6.

The North Carolina court’s stream-of-commerce analysis elided the essential difference between case-specific and all-purpose (general) jurisdiction. Flow of a manufacturer’s products into the forum, we have explained, may bolster an affiliation germane to specific jurisdiction. See, e.g., World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S., at 297, 100 S. Ct. 559, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (where “the sale of a product ... is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve . . . the market for its product in [several] States, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those States if its allegedly defective merchandise has there been the source of injury to its owner or to others” (emphasis added)). But ties serving to bolster the exercise of specific jurisdiction do not warrant a determination that, based on those ties, the forum has general jurisdiction over a defendant. See, e.g., Stabilisierungsfonds Fur Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine Distributors Pty. Ltd., 647 F.2d 200, 203, n. 5 (CADC 1981) (defendants’ marketing arrangements, although “adequate to permit litigation of claims relating to [their] introduction of. . . wine into the United States stream of commerce, . . . would not be adequate to support general, ‘all purpose’ adjudicatory authority”).

A corporation’s “continuous activity of some sorts within a state,” International Shoe instructed, “is not enough to support the demand that the corporation be amenable to suits unrelated to that activity.” 326 U.S., at 318, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95. Our

[564 U.S. 928]

1952 decision in Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co. remains “[t]he textbook case of general jurisdiction appropriately exercised over a foreign corporation that has not consented to suit in the forum.” Donahue v. Far Eastern Air Transport Corp., 652 F.2d 1032, 1037 (CADC 1981).

Sued in Ohio, the defendant in Perkins was a Philippine mining corporation that had ceased activities in the Philippines during World War II. To the extent that the company was conducting any business during and immediately after the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, it was doing so in Ohio: The corporation’s president maintained his office there, kept the company files in that office, and supervised from the Ohio office “the necessarily limited wartime activities of the company.” 342 U.S., at 447-448, 72 S. Ct. 413, 96 L. Ed. 485. Although the claim-in-suit did not arise in Ohio, this Court ruled that it would not violate due process for Ohio to adjudicate the controversy. Ibid.; see Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 779-780, n. 11, 104 S. Ct. 1473, 79 L. Ed. 2d 790 (1984) (Ohio’s exercise of general jurisdiction was permissible in Perkins because “Ohio was the corporation’s principal, if temporary, place of business”).

We next addressed the exercise of general jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation over three decades later, in Helicópteros. In that case, survivors of United States citizens who died in a helicopter crash in Peru instituted wrongful-death actions in a Texas state court against the owner and operator of the helicopter, a Colombian corporation. The Colombian corporation had no place of business in Texas and was not licensed to do business there. “Basically, [the company’s] contacts with Texas consisted of sending its chief executive officer to Houston for a contract-negotiation session; accepting into its New York bank account checks drawn on a Houston bank; purchasing helicopters, equipment, and training services from [a Texas enterprise] for substantial sums; and sending personnel to [Texas] for training.” 466 U.S., at 416, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404. These links to Texas, we determined, did not “constitute the kind of continuous and

[564 U.S. 929]

systematic general business contacts . . . found to exist in Perkins,” and were insufficient to support the exercise of jurisdiction over a claim that neither “ar[o]se out of . . . no[r] related to” the defendant’s activities in Texas. Id., at 415-416, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Helicópteros concluded that “mere purchases [made in the forum State], even if occurring at regular intervals, are not enough to warrant a State’s assertion of [general] jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions.” Id., at 418, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404. We see no reason to differentiate from the ties to Texas held insufficient in Heli-cópteros, the sales of petitioners’ tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries. Under the sprawling view of general jurisdiction urged by respondents and embraced by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, any substantial manufacturer or seller of goods would be amenable to suit, on any claim for relief, wherever its products are distributed. But cf. World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S., at 296, 100 S. Ct. 559, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (every seller of chattels does not, by virtue of the sale, “appoint the chattel his agent for service of process”).

Measured against Helicópteros and Perkins, North Carolina is not a forum in which it would be permissible to subject petitioners to general jurisdiction. Unlike the defendant in Perkins, whose sole wartime business activity was conducted in Ohio, petitioners are in no sense at home in North Carolina. Their attenuated connections to the State, see supra, at 921, 180 L. Ed. 2d, at 804, fall far short of the “the continuous and systematic general business contacts” necessary to empower North Carolina to entertain suit against them on claims unrelated to anything that connects them to the State. Helicopteros, 466 U.S., at 416, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L. Ed. 2d 404.

[564 U.S. 930]

C

Respondents belatedly assert a “single enterprise” theory, asking us to consolidate petitioners’ ties to North Carolina with those of Goodyear USA and other Goodyear entities. See Brief for Respondents 44-50. In effect, respondents would have us pierce Goodyear corporate veils, at least for jurisdictional purposes. See Brilmayer & Paisley, Personal Jurisdiction and Substantive Legal Relations: Corporations, Conspiracies, and Agency, 74 Cal. L. Rev. 1, 14, 29-30 (1986) (merging parent and subsidiary for jurisdictional purposes requires an inquiry “comparable to the corporate law question of piercing the corporate veil”). But see 199 N.C. App., at 64, 681 S.E.2d, at 392 (North Carolina Court of Appeals understood that petitioners are “separate corporate entities . . . not directly responsible for the presence in North Carolina of tires that they had manufactured”). Neither below nor in their brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari did respondents urge disregard of petitioners’ discrete status as subsidiaries and treatment of all Goodyear entities as a “unitary business,” so that jurisdiction over the parent would draw in the subsidiaries as well. Brief for Respondents

[564 U.S. 931]

44. Respondents have therefore forfeited this contention, and we do not address it. This Court’s Rule 15.2; Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 306, 130 S. Ct. 2847, 177 L. Ed. 2d 567 (2010).

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the North Carolina Court of Appeals is reversed.

      . Respondents portray Goodyear USA’s structure as a reprehensible effort to “outsource” all manufacturing, and correspondingly, tort litigation, to foreign jurisdictions. See Brief for Respondents 51-53. Yet Turkey, where the tire alleged to have caused the accident-in-suit was made, is hardly a strange location for a facility that primarily supplies markets in Europe and Asia.

      . Such markings do not necessarily show that any of the tires were destined for sale in the United States. To facilitate trade, the Solicitor General explained, the United States encourages other countries to “treat compliance with [Department of Transportation] standards, including through use of DOT markings, as evidence that the products are safely manufactured.’’ Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 32.

      . Cf. D. C. Code § 13-423(a)(4) (2001) (providing for specific jurisdiction over defendant who “caus[es] tortious injury in the [forum] by an act or omission outside the [forum]” when, in addition, the defendant “derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed ... in the [forum]”).

      . The court instead relied on  N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 1-75.4(1)(d), see 199 N.C. App., at 57, 681 S.E.2d, at 388, which provides for jurisdiction, “whether the claim arises within or without [the] State,’’ when the defendant “[i]s engaged in substantial activity within this State, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise.’’ This provision, the North Carolina Supreme Court has held, was “intended to make available to the North Carolina courts the full jurisdictional powers permissible under federal due process.’’ Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp., 291 N.C. 674, 676, 231 S.E.2d 629, 630 (1977).

      . As earlier noted, see supra, at 922, 180 L. Ed. 2d, at 804-805, the North Carolina Court of Appeals invoked the State’s “well-recognized interest in providing a forum in which its citizens are able to seek redress for injuries that they have sustained.’’ 199 N.C. App., at 68, 681 S.E.2d, at 394.  But “[g]eneral jurisdiction to adjudicate has in [United States] practice never been based on the plaintiffs relationship to the forum. There is nothing in [our] law comparable to . . . article 14 of the Civil Code of France (1804) under which the French nationality of the plaintiff is a sufficient ground for jurisdiction.’’ von Mehren & Trautman 1137; see Clermont & Palmer, Exorbitant Jurisdiction, 58 Me. L. Rev. 474, 492-495 (2006) (French law permitting plaintiff-based jurisdiction is rarely invoked in the absence of other supporting factors). When a defendant’s act outside the forum causes injury in the forum, by contrast, a plaintiffs residence in the forum may strengthen the case for the exercise of specific jurisdiction. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788, 104 S. Ct. 1482, 79 L. Ed. 2d 804 (1984); von Mehren & Trautman 1167-1173.

      . In the brief they filed in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, respondents stated that petitioners were part of integrated world-wide efforts to design, manufacture, market and sell their tires in the United States, including in North Carolina.” App. 485 (emphasis added). See also Brief in Opposition 18. Read in context, that assertion was offered in support of a narrower proposition: The distribution of petitioners’ tires in North Carolina, respondents maintained, demonstrated petitioners’ own “calculated and deliberate efforts to take advantage of the North Carolina market.” App. 485. As already explained, see supra, at 929, 180 L. Ed. 2d, at 809,  even regularly occurring sales of a product in a State do not justify the exercise of jurisdiction over a claim unrelated to those sales.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    [564 U.S. 932]
    UNITED STATES, Petitioner v JUVENILE MALE
    564 U.S. 932, 131 S. Ct. 2860,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 811,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4799
    [No. 09-940]
    Decided June 27, 2011.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

[564 U.S. 932]

Per Curiam.

The Court of Appeals in this case held that the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq., violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, when applied

[564 U.S. 933]

to juveniles adjudicated as delinquent before SORNA’s enactment. We conclude that the Court of Appeals had no authority to enter that judgment because it had no live controversy before it.

I

Respondent Juvenile Male was 13 years old when he began sexually abusing a 10-year-old boy on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Montana. The abuse continued for approximately two years, until respondent was 15 and his victim 12. In 2005, respondent was charged in the District of Montana with delinquency under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5031 et seq. Respondent pleaded “true” to charges that he knowingly engaged in sexual acts with a child under 12, which would have been a federal crime had respondent been an adult. See §§ 2241(c), 1153(a). The court sentenced respondent to two years of juvenile detention, followed by juvenile supervision until his 21st birthday. Respondent was to spend the first six months of his postconfinement supervision in a prerelease center. See United States v. Juvenile Male, 560 U.S. 558, 559, 130 S. Ct. 2518, 177 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2010) (per curiam).

In 2006, while respondent remained in juvenile detention, Congress enacted SORNA. 120 Stat. 590. Under SORNA, a sex offender must “register, and keep the registration current, in each jurisdiction” where the offender resides, is employed, or attends school. 42 U.S.C. § 16913(a). This registration requirement extends to certain juveniles adjudicated as delinquent for serious sex offenses. § 16911(8). In addition, an interim rule issued by the Attorney General mandates that SORNA’s requirements apply retroactively to sex offenders convicted before the statute’s enactment. 72 Fed. Reg. 8897 (2007) (codified at 28 CFR pt. 72 (2010)); see 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d).

[564 U.S. 934]

In July 2007, the District Court determined that respondent had failed to comply with the requirements of his prerelease program. The court revoked respondent’s juvenile supervision, imposed an additional 6-month term of detention, and ordered that the detention be followed by supervision until respondent’s 21st birthday. 560 U.S., at 559, 130 S. Ct. 2518, 177 L. Ed. 2d 64. At the Government’s urging, and over respondent’s objection, the court also imposed a “special conditio [n]” of supervision requiring respondent to register and keep current as a sex offender. Id., at 560, 130 S. Ct. 2518, 177 L. Ed. 2d 64 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Pet. for Cert. 9 (noting the Government’s argument in the District Court that respondent should be required to register under SORNA “ ‘at least until’ ” his release from juvenile supervision on his 21st birthday).

On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, respondent challenged this “special conditio[n]” of supervision. He requested that the Court of Appeals “reverse th[e] portion of his sentence requiring Sex Offender Registration and remand with instructions that the district court . . . strik[e] Sex Offender Registration as a condition of juvenile supervision.” Opening Brief for Defendant-Appellant in No. 07-30290 (CA9), p. 25. Then, in May 2008, with his appeal still pending in the Ninth Circuit, respondent turned 21, and the juvenile-supervision order requiring him to register as a sex offender expired. 560 U.S., at 560, 130 S. Ct. 2518, 177 L. Ed. 2d 64.

Over a year after respondent’s 21st birthday, the Court of Appeals handed down its decision. 581 F.3d 977 (CA9 2009), amended, 590 F.3d 924 (2010). No party had raised any issue of mootness in the Ninth Circuit, and the Court of Appeals did not address the issue sua sponte. The court’s opinion discussed only the merits and concluded that applying SORNA to juvenile delinquents who committed their offenses “before SORNA’s passage violates the Ex Post

[564 U.S. 935]

Facto Clause.” Id., at 927. On that basis, the court vacated the District Court’s condition of supervision requiring sex-offender registration and reporting. Id., at 942. The United States petitioned for a writ of certiorari.

While that petition was pending, this Court entered a per curiam opinion in this case certifying a preliminary question of Montana law to the Montana Supreme Court. 560 U.S. 558, 130 S. Ct. 2518, 177 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2010). The opinion noted that a “threshold issue of mootness” might prevent us from reviewing the decision below on the merits. Id., at 560, 130 S. Ct. 2518, 177 L. Ed. 2d 64. We explained that, because respondent is “no longer . . . subject” to the District Court’s “sex-offender-registration conditions,” respondent must “show that a decision invalidating” those conditions “would be sufficiently likely to redress ‘collateral consequences adequate to meet Article Ill’s injury-in-fact requirement.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14, 118 S. Ct. 978, 140 L. Ed. 2d 43 (1998)). We noted that by the time of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, “respondent had become registered as a sex offender in Montana.” 560 U.S., at 561, 130 S. Ct. 2518, 177 L. Ed. 2d 64 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “[p]erhaps the most likely potential ‘collateral consequenc[e]’ that might be remedied by a judgment in respondent’s favor is the requirement that respondent remain registered as a sex offender under Montana law.” Id., at 560-561, 130 S. Ct. 2518, 177 L. Ed. 2d 64. In order to ascertain whether a decision invalidating the District Court’s registration conditions would enable respondent to remove his name from the Montana sex-offender registry, the Court certified the following question to the Montana Supreme Court:

“Is respondent’s duty to remain registered as a sex offender under Montana law contingent upon the validity of the conditions of his now-expired federal juvenile-supervision order that required him to register as a sex offender, or is the duty an independent requirement of Montana law that is unaffected by the validity or invalidity of the federal juvenile-supervision conditions?” Id., at 561, 130 S. Ct. 2518, 177 L. Ed. 2d 64 (citations omitted).

[564 U.S. 936]

The Montana Supreme Court has now responded to our certified question. See United States v. Juvenile Male, 2011 MT 104, 360 Mont. 317, 255 P.3d 110. Its answer is that respondent’s “state law duty to remain registered as a sex offender is not contingent upon the validity of the conditions of his federal supervision order, but is an independent requirement of Montana law.” Id., at 318, 255 P.3d, at 111.

II

It is a basic principle of Article III that a justiciable case or controversy must remain “extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67, 117 S. Ct. 1055, 137 L. Ed. 2d 170 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]hroughout the litigation,” the party seeking relief “ ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’ ” Spencer, supra, at 7, 118 S. Ct. 978, 140 L. Ed. 2d 43 (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S. Ct. 1249, 108 L. Ed. 2d 400 (1990)).

In criminal cases, this requirement means that a defendant wishing to continue his appeals after the expiration of his sentence must suffer some “continuing injury” or “collateral consequence” sufficient to satisfy Article III. See Spencer, 523 U.S., at 7-8, 118 S. Ct. 978, 140 L. Ed. 2d 43. When the defendant challenges his underlying conviction, this Court’s cases have long presumed the existence of collateral consequences. Id., at 8, 118 S. Ct. 978, 140 L. Ed. 2d 43; see Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 55-56, 88 S. Ct. 1889, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917 (1968). But when a defendant challenges only an expired sentence, no such presumption applies, and the defendant must bear the burden of identifying some ongoing “collateral consequenc[e]” that is “traceable” to the challenged portion of the sentence and “likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” See Spencer, supra, at 7, 14, 118 S. Ct. 978, 140 L. Ed. 2d 43 (internal quotation marks omitted).

[564 U.S. 937]

At the time of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case, the District Court’s order of juvenile supervision had expired, and respondent was no longer subject to the sex-offender-registration conditions that he sought to challenge on appeal. 560 U.S., at 560, 130 S. Ct. 2518, 177 L. Ed. 2d 64. As a result, respondent’s challenge was moot before the Ninth Circuit unless he could “show that a decision invalidating” the District Court’s order would likely redress some collateral consequence of the registration conditions. Ibid, (citing Spencer, supra, at 14, 118 S. Ct. 978, 140 L. Ed. 2d 43).

As we noted in our prior opinion, one “potential collateral consequence that might be remedied” by an order invalidating the registration conditions “is the requirement that respondent remain registered” under Montana law. 560 U.S., at 560-561, 130 S. Ct. 2518, 177 L. Ed. 2d 64 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). But as the Montana Supreme Court has now clarified, respondent’s “state law duty to remain registered as a sex offender is not contingent upon the validity of the conditions of his federal supervision order,” 360 Mont., at 318, 255 P.3d, at 111, and continues to apply regardless of the outcome in this case. True, a favorable decision in this case might serve as a useful precedent for respondent in a hypothetical lawsuit challenging Montana’s registration requirement on ex post facto grounds. But this possible, indirect benefit in a future lawsuit cannot save this case from mootness. See Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 712, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1118 (2011); Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Board of Trade of Chicago, 701 F.2d 653, 656 (CA7 1989) (Posner, J.) (“[0]ne can never be certain that findings made in a decision concluding one lawsuit will not some day . . . control the outcome of another suit. But if that were enough to avoid mootness, no case would ever be moot”).

Respondent also argues that this case “cannot be considered moot in any practical sense” because, under current law, respondent may have “an independent duty to register as a

[564 U.S. 938]

sex offender” under SORNA itself. Brief in Opposition 6. But the duty to register under SORNA is not a consequence—collateral or otherwise—of the District Court’s special conditions of supervision. The statutory duty to register is, as respondent notes, an obligation that exists “independent” of those conditions. That continuing obligation might provide grounds for a preenforcement challenge to SOR-NA’s registration requirements. It does not, however, render the current controversy regarding the validity of respondent’s sentence any less moot.

Respondent further argues that this case falls within the established exception to mootness for disputes that are “ ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’” Id., at 8 (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 148-149, 96 S. Ct. 347, 46 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1975) (per curiam)). This exception, however, applies only where “(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subject to the same action again.” Spencer, supra, at 17, 118 S. Ct. 978, 140 L. Ed. 2d 43 (internal quotation marks omitted). At the very least, respondent cannot satisfy the second of these requirements. He has now turned 21, and he will never again be subject to an order imposing special conditions of juvenile supervision. See, e.g., DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 94 S. Ct. 1704, 40 L. Ed. 2d 164 (1974) (per curiam). The capable-of-repetition exception to mootness thus does not apply, and the Ninth Circuit lacked the authority under Article III to decide this case on the merits.

The petition for a writ of certiorari and respondent’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment

[564 U.S. 939]

of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal.

It is so ordered.

Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor would remand the case to the Ninth Circuit for that court’s consideration of mootness in the first instance.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

      . On December 29, 2010, the Attorney General finalized the interim rule. See 75 Fed. Reg. 81849. In Reynolds v. United States, No. 10-6549, this Court granted certiorari on the question whether sex offenders convicted before the enactment of SORNA have standing to challenge the validity of the Attorney General’s interim rule. 562 U.S. 1199, 131 S. Ct. 1043, 178 L. Ed. 2d 862 (2011); Pet. for Cert, in Reynolds, p. i. Reynolds is slated to be heard next Term.

      . See 42 U.S.C. § 16911(8) (SORNA applicable if the juvenile was “14 years of age or older at the time of the offense and the offense adjudicated was comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual abuse (as described in section 2241 of title 18)’’); 72 Fed. Reg. 8897 (codified at 28 CFR pt. 72) (SORNA’s requirements extend to sex offenders convicted before the statute’s enactment).


text:
    No. 10-868.
    Matthew Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., Petitioners v. John H. Pirtle; Matthew Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., Petitioners v. Robert Everett Johnson; James Hartley, Warden, Petitioner v. Anthony Sneed; Matthew Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., Petitioners v. Ron Mosley; and Matthew Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., Petitioners v. Michael Craig Slater.
    564 U.S. 1001, 131 S. Ct. 2988,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 818,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4393.
    June 13, 2011.
   On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Motions of respondents John H. Pirtle, Robert Everett Johnson, Anthony Sneed, and Michael Craig Slater for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of cer-tiorari as to John H. Pirtle, Robert Everett Johnson, Anthony Sneed, and Michael Craig Slater granted. Judgments vacated, and cases remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 131 S. Ct. 859, 178 L. Ed. 2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Petition for writ of certiorari as to Ron Mosley denied.

Same case below, 611 F.3d 1015 (first judgment); 394 Fed. Appx. 419 (second judgment); 390 Fed. Appx. 682 (third judgment); 400 Fed. Appx. 224 (fourth judgment).


text:
    No. 10-987.
    Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., Petitioner v. Joshua G. Fensterstock.
    564 U.S. 1001, 131 S. Ct. 2989,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 818,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4434.
    June 13, 2011.
   On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L. Ed. 2d 742 (2011).

Same case below, 611 F.3d 124.


text:
    No. 10-1070.
    Eisai Co., Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Through Its Gate Pharmaceuticals Division.
    564 U.S. 1001, 131 S. Ct. 2991,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 818,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4519.
    June 13, 2011.
   On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S. Ct. 104, 95 L. Ed. 36 (1950).

Same case below, 620 F.3d 1341.


text:
    No. 10-9970.
    Wayne Earl LaFountain, Petitioner v. Erick Balcarcel.
    564 U.S. 1001, 131 S. Ct. 2998,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 819,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4425.
    June 13, 2011.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).


text:
    No. 10-10027.
    Gary Lee Wheeler, Petitioner v. Florida.
    564 U.S. 1002, 131 S. Ct. 2997,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 819,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4548.
    June 13, 2011.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).

Same case below, 53 So. 3d 238.


text:
    No. 10-10207.
    Jason Williams, Petitioner v. Guy Pierce, Warden.
    564 U.S. 1002, 131 S. Ct. 3002,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 819,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4471.
    June 13, 2011.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.


text:
    No. 10M113.
    Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, et al., Petitioners v. Arizona, et al.
    564 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 3012,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 819,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4419.
    June 13, 2011.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. 10-947.
    Bank Melli Iran New York Representative Office, Petitioner v. Susan Weinstein, et al.
    564 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 3012,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 819,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4492.
    June 13, 2011.
   The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 10-8820.
    Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 3013,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 820,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4389.
    June 13, 2011.
   Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 10-9938.
    Jessica C. Adams, Petitioner v. Merck & Company, Inc.
    564 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 3013,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 820,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4533.
    June 13, 2011.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 5, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 10-10051.
    Yaser A. Albahri, Petitioner v. Florida.
    564 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 3013,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 820,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4496.
    June 13, 2011.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 5, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 10-10150.
    Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo, Petitioner v. Committee on Admissions, District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
    564 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 3013,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 820,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4446.
    June 13, 2011.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 5, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 10-875.
    Lynwood D. Hall, et ux., Petitioners v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 2989,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 820,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4460.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.

Same case below, 617 F.3d 1161.


text:
    No. 10-895.
    Rafael Arriaza Gonzalez, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
    564 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 2989,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 820,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4392.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted limited to the following questions: (1) Was there jurisdiction to issue a certificate of appeal-ability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and to adjudicate petitioner’s appeal? (2) Was the application for writ of habeas corpus out of time under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) due to “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review”?

Same case below, 623 F.3d 222.


text:
    No. 10-7387.
    Monroe Ace Setser, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 2988,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 821,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4525.
    June 13, 2011.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted.

Same case below, 607 F.3d 128.


text:
    No. 10-8145.
    Juan Smith, Petitioner v. Louisiana.
    564 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 2988,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 821,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4417.
    June 13, 2011.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana granted.


text:
    No. 10-1020.
    Consolidation Coal Company, et al., Petitioners v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 2990,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 821,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4532.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 615 F.3d 1378.


text:
    No. 10-1117.
    Ruth Naglich, et al., Petitioners v. Larry Camp, et al.
    564 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 2991,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 821,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4537.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 400 Fed. Appx. 519.


text:
    No. 10-1214.
    Freedom From Religion Foundation, Petitioner v. United States, et al.
    564 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 2992,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 821,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4435.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Same case below, 626 F.3d 1.


text:
    No. 10-1225.
    Bombardier Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Dow Chemical Canada ULC, et al.
    564 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 2993,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 821,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4545.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.


text:
    No. 10-1227.
    Chris Johnson, Petitioner v. Dennis Roberts, et al.
    564 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 2993,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 821,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4518.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 410 Fed. Appx. 104.


text:
    No. 10-1235.
    Dan Kovacic, et al., Petitioners v. Juan Villarreal, et al.
    564 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 2995,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 821,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4544.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 628 F.3d 209.


text:
    No. 10-1255.
    Richard L. Cowitt, et ux., Individually and as Trustees for the Cowitt Family Trust, Petitioners v. Mark Reilly, et ux.
    564 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 2996,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 822,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4445.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.


text:
    No. 10-1258.
    Raymond A. Ledbetter and Edward T. Jeszka, Petitioners v. Federal Aviation Administration.
    564 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 2996,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 822,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4535.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 392 Fed. Appx. 779.


text:
    No. 10-1260.
    Clinton Gard, et ux., Petitioners v. City of Omaha, Nebraska.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 2996,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 822,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4502,
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Nebraska denied.

Same case below, 18 Neb. App. 504, 786 N.W.2d 688.


text:
    No. 10-1296.
    Theodore P. Coates, Petitioner v. Office of Attorney Regulation of Colorado, et al.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 3000,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 822,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4458.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado denied.


text:
    No. 10-1324.
    Jeffrey Hannan, Petitioner v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, et al.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 3001,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 822,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4455.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 408 Fed. Appx. 581.


text:
    No. 10-1347.
    Robert Lee Freeman, Petitioner v. Maggie Miller-Stout, Superintendent, Airway Heights Corrections Center.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 3002,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 822,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4473.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-1372.
    Full Value Advisors, LLC, Petitioner v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 3003,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 822,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4424.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Same case below, 394 U.S. App. D.C. 204, 633 F.3d 1101.


text:
    No. 10-1376.
    Elwood J. LeBlanc, Jr. and Janice L. LeBlanc, Petitioners v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 3003,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 822,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4508.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 410 Fed. Appx. 323.


text:
    No. 10-1379.
    John Davis, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 3004,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 823,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4526.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-1386.
    Bernie Lazar Hoffman, aka Tony Alamo, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 3004,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 823,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4536.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 626 F.3d 993.


text:
    No. 10-7592.
    John Doe, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 2988,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 823,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4426,
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 617 F.3d 766.


text:
    No. 10-8832.
    Jose Clemente Hernandez, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 2990,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 823,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4410.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 399 Fed. Appx. 26.


text:
    No. 10-8907.
    James H. Gallaher, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 2990,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 823,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4539.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 624 F.3d 934.


text:
    No. 10-8908.
    Elizz Garcia, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 2990,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 823,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4467.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 401 Fed. Appx. 860.


text:
    No. 10-9076.
    Jimmie Wayne Lawrence, Petitioner v. Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North Carolina, et al.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 2990,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 823,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4524.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 398 Fed. Appx. 884.


text:
    No. 10-9176.
    Mark Burdett, Petitioner v. Ramon Reynoso, et al.
    564 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 2990,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 823,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4481.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 399 Fed. Appx. 276.


text:
    No. 10-9209.
    Gina Purvis, Petitioner v. Daniel Oest, et al.
    564 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 2991,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 824,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4433.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 614 F.3d 713.


text:
    No. 10-9334.
    Charlene Ross, Petitioner v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank.
    564 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 2991,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 824,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4520,
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 625 F.3d 808.


text:
    No. 10-9555.
    Ashley Ervin, Petitioner v. Texas.
    564 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 2992,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 824,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4448.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, denied.

Same case below, 333 S.W.3d 187.


text:
    No. 10-9758.
    John Lezell Balentine, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
    564 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 2992,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 824,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4516.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 626 F.3d 842.


text:
    No. 10-9886.
    Beatrice Fleming, Petitioner v. Chicago Transit Authority.
    564 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 2992,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 824,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4478.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 397 Fed. Appx. 249.


text:
    No. 10-9887.
    Deverick Glenn, Petitioner v. Florida.
    564 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 2992,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 824,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4549.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, denied.

Same case below, 43 So. 3d 58.


text:
    No. 10-9888.
    Stacey A. Henderson, aka Stacey Alexander Henderson, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
    564 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 2993,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 825,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4386.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-9895.
    Kenneth Bridges, Petitioner v. Dave Dormire, Superintendent, Jefferson City Correctional Center.
    564 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 2993,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 825,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4438.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-9898.
    George Guo, Petitioner v. Melissa Wagstaff, et al.
    564 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 2993,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 825,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4464.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-9900.
    B.J.G., Petitioner v. St. Charles County Sheriff, et al.
    564 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 2993,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 825,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4387,
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 400 Fed. Appx. 127.


text:
    No. 10-9908.
    Ricky Dingle, Petitioner v. Robert Koppel, Warden, et al.
    564 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 2994,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 825,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4468.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 347.


text:
    No. 10-9920.
    Michael Allan Clark, Petitioner v. Nevada.
    564 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 2994,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 825,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4495.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.

Same case below, 127 Nev. 1126.


text:
    No. 10-9924.
    Charles Michael Stokes, Petitioner v. Andrew Moorman.
    564 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 2994,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 825,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4412.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 406 Fed. Appx. 823.


text:
    No. 10-9926.
    Ignacio Macias, Petitioner v. Bill Donat, Warden, et al.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2994,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 825,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4482.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 408 Fed. Appx. 44.


text:
    No. 10-9928.
    Kelvin DeWayne King, Petitioner v. Tennessee.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2994,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 826,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4390.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Eastern Division, denied.


text:
    No. 10-9929.
    Cassie Scott Johnson, Petitioner v. North Carolina.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2994,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 826,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4440.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina denied.

Same case below, 365 N.C. 70, 705 S.E.2d 736.


text:
    No. 10-9933.
    Shawn Young, Petitioner v. Steve Larkins, Warden.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2995,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 826,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4474.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-9940.
    Carlis A. Gragg, Petitioner v. Kathy Prosper, Warden.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2995,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 826,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4385.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 411 Fed. Appx. 43.


text:
    No. 10-9943.
    Robert L. Wahl, Petitioner v. Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2995,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 826,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4456.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 407 Fed. Appx. 236.


text:
    No. 10-9945.
    Gregory Lynn Norwood, Petitioner v. William Sullivan, Warden.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2995,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 826,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4409.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 390 Fed. Appx. 762.


text:
    No. 10-9953.
    Robert F. Brown, III, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2996,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 826,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4444.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-9954.
    Thornton D. Savage, Petitioner v. Alex Bonavitacola, et al.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2996,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 826,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4514.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 404 Fed. Appx. 568.


text:
    No. 10-9958.
    William Medina, aka William Medina Lopez Negron Alverio, Petitioner v. Rick Raemisch, et al.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2996,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 827,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4466.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, denied.


text:
    No. 10-9962.
    Marquinta McGruder, Petitioner v. California.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2997,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 827,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4550.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.


text:
    No. 10-9963.
    Larry Darnell McMillian, Petitioner v. Mary Berghuis, Warden.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2998,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 827,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4396.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-9966.
    Jeriod J. Price, Petitioner v. South Carolina.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2998,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 827,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4463.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Common Pleas of South Carolina, Richland County, denied.


text:
    No. 10-9967.
    Arbary Phillip Jackson, Petitioner v. Chairman and Members of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, et al.
    564 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 2998,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 827,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4452.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-9969.
    Jeremiah Jones, Petitioner v. Maryland.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 2998,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 827,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4421.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.

Same case below, 196 Md. App. 740.


text:
    No. 10-9978.
    Stephen Edward Tatro, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 2999,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 827,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4413.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-9981.
    Joshua Wayne Andrews, Petitioner v. Virginia.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 2999,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 827,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4469.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.

Same case below, 280 Va. 231, 699 S.E.2d 237.


text:
    No. 10-9985.
    Carl Don Martin, Petitioner v. Oklahoma.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 3013,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 828,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4523.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma denied.


text:
    No. 10-9986.
    Keith Dale Martin, Petitioner v. Greg Province, Warden.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 2999,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 828,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4428.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma denied.


text:
    No. 10-9988.
    S. G., Petitioner v. J. H.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 2999,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 828,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4509,
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, denied.


text:
    No. 10-9992.
    Kirk John Northup, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 2999,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 828,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4449.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-10001.
    Cathy Reis, Petitioner v. Fannie Mae, et al.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 2997,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 828,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4507.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-10006.
    Romano Estrada, Petitioner v. Edwin G. Buss, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 2997,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 828,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4420.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-10016.
    Marco Antonio Hercules-Lopez, Petitioner v. Michigan.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 2997,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 828,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4477.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.


text:
    No. 10-10041.
    Buford O'Neal Furrow, Jr., Petitioner v. Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 2999,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 829,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4427.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 393 Fed. Appx. 398.


text:
    No. 10-10043.
    Maurice Graves, Petitioner v. A. J. Padula, Warden.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 3000,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 829,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4443.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 394 Fed. Appx. 978.


text:
    No. 10-10053.
    Eric Gearod Scarlett, Petitioner v. Edwin G. Buss, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 3000,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 829,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4382.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 404 Fed. Appx. 394.


text:
    No. 10-10059.
    Jerry Elster, Petitioner v. California Board of Parole Hearings, et al.
    564 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 3000,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 829,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4404.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-10079.
    Kent Wesley Kafatia, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, et al.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3014,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 829,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4491.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-10105.
    Ariel Bermudez, Petitioner v. New Jersey.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3000,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 829,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4429.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.


text:
    No. 10-10127.
    Ali Partovi, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3000,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 829,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4383,
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Same case below, 409 Fed. Appx. 355.


text:
    No. 10-10135.
    Carl W. Steward, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3001,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 829,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4541.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 407 Fed. Appx. 770.


text:
    No. 10-10139.
    Ali Partovi, Petitioner v. Unknown Martinez I.C.E. Officer, et al.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3001,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 830,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4529,
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-10152.
    Russell Bruce Gillott, Petitioner v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3001,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 830,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4551.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-10166.
    Basil W. Akbar, Petitioner v. Anthony J. Padula, Warden.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3001,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 830,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4400,
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 404 Fed. Appx. 733.


text:
    No. 10-10189.
    Jimmie Wellman, Petitioner v. Colorado.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3001,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 830,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4479.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.


text:
    No. 10-10192.
    Jason K., Petitioner v. California.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3002,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 830,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4490.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, denied.

Same case below, 188 Cal. App. 4th 1545, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 443.


text:
    No. 10-10234.
    Chester Johnson, Petitioner v. Gary Swarthout, Warden.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3002,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 830,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4511.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 405 Fed. Appx. 161.


text:
    No. 10-10237.
    William McNair, Petitioner v. Brian Coleman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3002,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 830,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4476.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-10277.
    Roberto Cuevas-Hernandez, Petitioner v. Lawrence Garth Wasden, Attorney General of Idaho.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3002,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 830,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4436.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-10302.
    Oral H., Petitioner v. Connecticut.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3003,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 831,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4487.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Connecticut denied.

Same case below, 125 Conn. App. 276, 7 A.3d 444.


text:
    No. 10-10314.
    Paul A. Smith, Petitioner v. Robert Stevenson, Warden.
    564 U.S. 1009, 131 S. Ct. 3003,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 831,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4515.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 410 Fed. Appx. 728.


text:
    No. 10-10388.
    Cedric M. Bucklon, Petitioner v. Florida.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3003,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 831,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4528.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.

Same case below, 53 So. 3d 1033.


text:
    No. 10-10408.
    Antonio Cameron, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3004,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 831,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4472.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 410 Fed. Appx. 626.


text:
    No. 10-10411.
    Gerardo G. Salinas, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3004,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 831,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4513.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 405 Fed. Appx. 78.


text:
    No. 10-10413.
    Jorge Reyes-Rezendes, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3004,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 831,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4442.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-10415.
    Jermaine Smith, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3005,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 831,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4461.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 633 F.3d 889.


text:
    No. 10-10418.
    Calvin Perry, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3005,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 831,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4394.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 415 Fed. Appx. 471.


text:
    No. 10-10425.
    Ronald W. Wolfe, Petitioner v. Wisconsin.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3005,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 832,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4422.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II, denied.

Same case below, 325 Wis. 2d 401, 786 N.W.2d 489.


text:
    No. 10-10429.
    Maurice Lamar Ross, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3005,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 832,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4552.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 413 Fed. Appx. 457.


text:
    No. 10-10434.
    Jermaine Woodbury, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3005,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 832,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4462.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 403 Fed. Appx. 813.


text:
    No. 10-10435.
    Nathan Smith, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3005,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 832,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4484.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 417 Fed. Appx. 911.


text:
    No. 10-10439.
    Martin Francisco Salazar, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3306,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 832,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4505,
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 396 Fed. Appx. 44.


text:
    No. 10-10440.
    John Phillip Hernandez, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3306,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 832,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4521.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 633 F.3d 370.


text:
    No. 10-10441.
    Jose Maria Hernandez Rojas, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3306,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 832,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4384.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 415 Fed. Appx. 781.


text:
    No. 10-10442.
    Jose Angel Amaya-Ramos, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3306,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 832,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4402.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 415 Fed. Appx. 788.


text:
    No. 10-10445.
    Marc K. Weathers, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3007,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 833,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4543.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Same case below, 394 U.S. App. D.C. 131, 631 F.3d 560.


text:
    No. 10-10446.
    Sanford T. Link, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 3007,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 833,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4388.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 407 Fed. Appx. 991.


text:
    No. 10-10447.
    Martell Jordan, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3007,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 833,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4530.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 409 Fed. Appx. 471.


text:
    No. 10-10449.
    Albert Jackson, Petitioner v. Helen J. Marberry, Warden.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3007,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 833,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4527.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 407 Fed. Appx. 62.


text:
    No. 10-10454.
    Rafael DeLazaro, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3008,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 833,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4403.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 415 Fed. Appx. 739.


text:
    No. 10-10459.
    Jose R. Andujar-Basco, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3008,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 833,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4504.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-10462.
    Stephen Danforth, Petitioner v. Mark Thielen, Warden, et al.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3008,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 833,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4423.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 624 F.3d 915.


text:
    No. 10-10466.
    Walter Dunbar, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3008,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 833,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4459.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 132.


text:
    No. 10-10477.
    Ralph John Prepetit, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3008,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 834,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4475.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.


text:
    No. 10-10479.
    Juris Zanis Pupols, Petitioner v. Patent and Trademark Office.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3009,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 834,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4401.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 413 Fed. Appx. 232.


text:
    No. 10-10484.
    Denard Edward Carrington, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3009,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 834,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4447.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 411 Fed. Appx. 644.


text:
    No. 10-10490.
    Lazaro Mateo, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3009,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 834,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4489.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 413 Fed. Appx. 197.


text:
    No. 10-10496.
    John Henry Stacks, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3009,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 834,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4437.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 408 Fed. Appx. 666.


text:
    No. 10-10497.
    Joseph David Zemba, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3009,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 834,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4500.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 403 Fed. Appx. 649.


text:
    No. 10-10498.
    Robert E. Young, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3009,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 834,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4408.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 414 Fed. Appx. 541.


text:
    No. 10-10499.
    Toby Begay, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3010,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 834,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4534.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 631 F.3d 1168.


text:
    No. 10-10500.
    Anthony Alexander Bridgewater, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3010,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 835,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4432.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 407 Fed. Appx. 398.


text:
    No. 10-10502.
    Derrick Lasley, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 3010,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 835,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4439.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 412 Fed. Appx. 177.


text:
    No. 10-10503.
    Derrick Jackson, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 3010,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 835,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4497.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 401 Fed. Appx. 712.


text:
    No. 10-10505.
    Kristopher Davis, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 3010,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 835,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4547.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-10512.
    Jose Portorreal, aka Jose Ramon Portorreal-Pena, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 3010,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 835,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4395.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Same case below, 413 Fed. Appx. 314.


text:
    No. 10-10513.
    Juan Medina-Esqueda, aka Oscar De La Cruz-Esqueda, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 3011,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 835,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4451.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 411 Fed. Appx. 710.


text:
    No. 10-10514.
    Ricardo Olivas, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 3011,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 835,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4542.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 405 Fed. Appx. 255.


text:
    No. 10-10520.
    Rodolfo Torrez-Chavez, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 3011,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 835,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4407.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 412 Fed. Appx. 124.


text:
    No. 10-10522.
    Corderrius Terrelle Hunt, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 3011,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 836,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4454.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 419 Fed. Appx. 949.


text:
    No. 10-10523.
    Christopher A. Hall, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 3011,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 836,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4414.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 411 Fed. Appx. 662.


text:
    No. 10-10524.
    Chenomusa N-Jie, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 3011,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 836,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4503.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 403 Fed. Appx. 839.


text:
    No. 10-10526.
    Jermaine A. Warren, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 3012,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 836,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4418.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 642 F.3d 182.


text:
    No. 10-10527.
    Okera Ulimwengu, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 3012,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 836,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4486.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 406 Fed. Appx. 918.


text:
    No. 10-738.
    Ritchie Special Credit Investments, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, et al.; and Ritchie Special Credit Investments, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Thomas Petters, et al.
    564 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 2988,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 836,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4431.
    June 13, 2011.
   Motion of National Crime Victim Law Institute for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.


text:
    No. 10-1119.
    Thomas Steinbeck, et al., Petitioners v. McIntosh & Otis, Inc., et al.
    564 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 2991,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 836,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4470.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 400 Fed. Appx. 572.


text:
    No. 10-1124.
    Turlock Irrigation District, Petitioner v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, et al.
    564 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 2992,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 837,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4406.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 393 U.S. App. D.C. 310, 628 F.3d 538.


text:
    No. 10-1357.
    Dominic F. Amorosa and Christopher Gray, Petitioners v. Ernst & Young, LLP.
    564 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 3003,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 837,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4397.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 409 Fed. Appx. 412.


text:
    No. 10-10401.
    Carlos Ricardo Jasso, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 3004,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 837,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4441.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 634 F.3d 305.


text:
    No. 10-10438.
    Josue G. Reyes-Hernandez, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 3306,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 837,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4430.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 10-10443.
    Ralph Berry, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 3306,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 837,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4405.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 10-10444.
    Joshua Acoff, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 3007,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 837,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4540.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 634 F.3d 200.


text:
    No. 10-10450.
    Rickey L. Jackson, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 3007,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 837,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4480.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 10-10468.
    Maurice Donnell Cooper, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 3008,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 838,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4522.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 397 Fed. Appx. 404.


text:
    No. 10-10637.
    In re Carl Anders Eckstrom, Petitioner.
    564 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 3012,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 838,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4517.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 10-10568.
    In re Barry Robert Schotz, Petitioner.
    564 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 3012,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 838,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4483,
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 10-9904.
    In re Victor Del Rio, Petitioner.
    564 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 2994,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 838,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4531.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 10-880.
    Carolyn Yvonne Murphy Taylor, Petitioner v. City of Columbia, South Carolina, et al.
    564 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 3014,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 838,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4510.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1287, 131 S. Ct. 1679, 179 L. Ed. 2d 616, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2257.


text:
    No. 10-8789.
    James M. Blair, Petitioner v. Alaskan Copper and Brass Company.
    564 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 3014,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 838,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4501.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 563 U.S. 921, 131 S. Ct. 1820, 179 L. Ed. 2d 778, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2667.


text:
    No. 10-9040.
    Johnney Ramey, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, et al.
    564 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 3014,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 838,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4546.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 563 U.S. 923, 131 S. Ct. 1845, 179 L. Ed. 2d 783, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2690.


text:
    No. 10-9044.
    Isidro Ramirez, Petitioner v. John Ault, Warden.
    564 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 3014,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 838,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4494.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 563 U.S. 944, 131 S. Ct. 2111, 179 L. Ed. 2d 906, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3103.


text:
    No. 10-9049.
    In re Richard Roche, Petitioner.
    564 U.S. 1013, 131 S. Ct. 3014,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 839,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4538.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1285, 131 S. Ct. 1712, 179 L. Ed. 2d 647, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2318.


text:
    No. 10-9067.
    Barry Wayne Adams, Petitioner v. Michigan.
    564 U.S. 1014, 131 S. Ct. 3014,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 839,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4415.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 563 U.S. 945, 131 S. Ct. 2112, 179 L. Ed. 2d 907, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3018.


text:
    No. 10-9094.
    Richard Lee Woodbury, Petitioner v. City of Tampa, Florida, Police Department, et al.
    564 U.S. 1014, 131 S. Ct. 3015,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 839,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4453.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 563 U.S. 962, 131 S. Ct. 2153, 179 L. Ed. 2d 939, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3344.


text:
    No. 10-9289.
    Martha Ritter, Petitioner v. E. Kerfoot Ritter, Jr., et al.
    564 U.S. 1014, 131 S. Ct. 3015,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 839,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4512.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 563 U.S. 978, 131 S. Ct. 2880, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1195, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 3533.


text:
    No. 10-9426.
    Mark Anthony Bramlett, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1014, 131 S. Ct. 3015,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 839,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4498.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 563 U.S. 949, 131 S. Ct. 2122, 179 L. Ed. 2d 914, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2916.


text:
    No. 10-9534.
    In re Julius T. Andrews, Petitioner.
    564 U.S. 1014, 131 S. Ct. 3015,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 839,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4485.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 563 U.S. 934, 131 S. Ct. 2131, 179 L. Ed. 2d 928, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2843.


text:
    No. 10-9535.
    In re Julius T. Andrews, Petitioner.
    564 U.S. 1014, 131 S. Ct. 3015,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 839,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4499.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 563 U.S. 934, 131 S. Ct. 2131, 179 L. Ed. 2d 928, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2842.


text:
    No. 10-9661.
    Jeffrey Gray, Petitioner v. United States.
    564 U.S. 1014, 131 S. Ct. 3015,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 839,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4391.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 563 U.S. 954, 131 S. Ct. 2138, 179 L. Ed. 2d 924, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2964.


text:
    No. 10-9663.
    In re James Sudberry, Petitioner.
    564 U.S. 1014, 131 S. Ct. 3015,
    180 L. Ed. 2d 840,
    2011 U.S. LEXIS 4411.
    June 13, 2011.
   Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 563 U.S. 934, 131 S. Ct. 2139, 179 L. Ed. 2d 928, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2900.