text:
    No. 72-6097.
    Figgers v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 72-6102.
    McCullough et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6108.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6109.
    Harris v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6110.
    Miramon v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6116.
    Jennings v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6117.
    Owens v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6120.
    No. 72-6142.
    Counts v. United States; and Elam v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6121.
    Hull v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6125.
    Dickson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6131.
    Ward v. United States et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6133.
    Landis v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6135.
    Cox v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6137.
    Guzman-Ayon v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6140.
    Giannoni v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6144.
    Prezzi v. Schelter et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6146.
    Suel v. Addington et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6148.
    Ratlief v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6147.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6159.
    Jordan v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6163.
    Cotten et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6165.
    Hook v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6222.
    Sparrow v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6226.
    Figueroa v. Zelker, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6235.
    Bond v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6242.
    McKinley et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Assn.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6246.
    High v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6247.
    Carter v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6251.
    Luster v. Cedars of Lebanon et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6261.
    Joseph v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Summit County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6253.
    Jackson v. Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6256.
    Snell v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6263.
    Christian v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6264.
    Krikmanis v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6267.
    Briggs et al. v. Ohio Savings & Trust Co. et al.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Tuscarawas County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6273.
    Boyd v. New Mexico.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6276.
    Colbert v. Apex Carpet Finishers, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6277.
    Hanson v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6289.
    Smith v. Saline County District Court.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 6294.
    Kavaliauskas v. Riley et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6306.
    Burton v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. 111., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6390.
    Thwing v. South Dakota.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1038.
    Krilich v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1056.
    Fiore, dba Fiore Trucking Co. et al. v. Brennan, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1134.
    Reibert et al. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1135.
    Central Railroad Company of New Jersey v. Baker, Trustee, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari. tiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1151.
    City of Santa Fe et al. v. Sangre de Cristo Development Co., Inc.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant cer-


text:
    No. 72-5002.
    Thomas v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5732.
    Dell v. Louisiana.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5972.
    Martin v. Jarrett, Judge.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6122.
    Duvall v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6124.
    Alford v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6145.
    Lopez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6252.
    Johnson et al. v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6274.
    Phillips v. Hooker, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-937.
    Zelker, Correctional Superintendent v. Robinson.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1255.
    Vowell, Commissioner of Public Welfare of Texas v. Lopez.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1024.
    Local 268, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 72-1101.
    Swords v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6048.
    Williams v. Oriscello, Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari and/or habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 71-1022.
    No. 71-1598.
    No. 72-56.
    No. 72-730.
    No. 72-841.
    No. 72-908.
    No. 72-946.
    No. 72-959.
    No. 72-5195.
    No. 72-5726.
    No. 72-5745.
    No. 72-5882.
    No. 72-6014.
    No. 72-6100.
    No. 72-6129.
    United States v. Basye et al., Brennan, Secretary of Labor v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc., et al., Markle et al. v. Abele et al., Markle et al. v. Abele et al., Eclipse Fuel Engineering Co. v. Maxon Premix Burner Co., Inc., Joftes v. Wexler et al., Musto v. United States, Young v. United States, Smith v. Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Furgerson v. Casper, Lopez v. California, Walker v. Alabama, Todd v. Cardwell, Warden, Gerardi v. Faver, Gerardi v. MacLaughlin et al.,
   410 U. S. 441;

410 U. S. 512;

410 U. S. 951;

410 U. S. 951;

410 U. S. 929;

410 U. S. 966;

410 U. S. 982;

410 U. S. 967;

409 U. S. 1126;

410 U. S. 933;

410 U. S. 959;

410 U. S. 939;

410 U. S. 970;

410 U. S. 981; and

410 U. S. 981. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-434.
    Byrn, Guardian v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. et al.,
   410 U. S. 949. Motion of Mrs. Arlethia Gilliam et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in support of rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-5401.
    Cason v. City of Columbus,
   409 U. S. 1053. Motion for leave to supplement petition for rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-5677.
    Hessel v. Arizona et al.,
   410 U. S. 933. Petition for rehearing and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 72-766.
    No. 72-5099.
    No. 72-5173.
    Calabro v. United States, DuBose v. Craven, Warden, et al., Waddell v. North Carolina,
   410 U. S. 926;

409 U. S. 1130; and

409 U. S. 952. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    April 23, 1973
    No. 72-993.
    Sager et ux. v. Burgess of Pottstown et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. E. D. Pa.


text:
    No. 72-1104.
    R-C Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. M. D. Fla.


text:
    No. 72-1234.
    Silverman, Administrator v. Browning et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Conn.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. 71-1263.
    Kahn et ux. v. Arizona State Tax Commission.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ariz. Motion to dispense with printing jurisdictional statement granted. Appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan concurs,

dissenting.

Appellants, after exhausting administrative remedies, brought suit in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona to recover personal income tax assessments paid under protest for the years 1967-1969. The assessments in question were imposed on the income of the appellant husband (hereafter appellant) which he earned while being employed, first as a law clerk and then later as an attorney for the Navajo Tribe. Appellant’s salary was paid out of Indian tribal funds. Appellant and his wife, who are not Indians, resided within the reservation. The Superior Court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.

Appellant’s employment was controlled by 25 U. S. C. § 81, which governs the conditions under which contracts can be made with Indian tribes or Indians. Even more specifically, appellant’s employment was subject to the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior in 25 CFR §§ 72.1-72.25. Under these regulations, any attorney performing legal services for the Indian tribe must have his employment contract, which includes fees and expenses, approved by the Secretary of the Interior. (25 CFR § 72.1.) In addition, in determining the appropriateness of the fees, the amount of tribal funds held in the tribal treasury, not otherwise appropriated and available for payment, must be considered. (25 CFR § 72.5.) Tribal funds may not be used for payment of attorney fees and expenses in the absence of express authorization by Congress. (25 CFR § 72.6.) In order to be eligible to act as an attorney for an Indian tribe, the area director must review the applying attorney’s references and qualifications (25 CFR § 72.4) and transmit a recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior. In order to be qualified to provide such representation, the attorney must be admitted to practice before the Department of the Interior and the bureaus thereof. (25 CFR § 72.2.) An attorney performing legal services for an Indian tribe is subject to criminal penalties for the violation of the statutes governing attorney contracts with Indian tribes (18 U. S. C. § 438), and can be fired by the Secretary of the Interior (Udall v. Littell, 125 U. S. App. D. C. 89, 366 F. 2d 668, cert, denied, 385 U. S. 1007).

As this Court recently stated in McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, ante, p. 164, at 168, “c[t]he policy of leaving Indians free from state jurisdiction and control is deeply rooted in the Nation’s history.’ Rice v. Olson, 324 U. S. 786, 789 (1945).” In McClanahan the Court rejected the theory that nothing remains of the notion that reservation Indians are a separate people to whom state jurisdiction, and therefore state tax legislation, may not extend.

In Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm’n, 380 U. S. 685, this Court struck down a state attempt to assess a 2% tax on the “gross proceeds of sales, or gross income” of the Warren Trading Post Co., which did retail trading with Indians on the reservation under a license granted by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. The Court emphasized the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme applicable to persons doing business as Indian traders, which granted the Commissioner of Indian Affairs the authority to appoint the traders, specify the types of goods sold, and regulate the actual running of the business. The Court concluded that these apparently all-inclusive regulations and statutes would be sufficient to show that Congress had taken the business of Indian trading on reservations so fully in hand that no room remained for state laws imposing additional burdens.

Part of the Court’s reasoning in Warren Trading Post, supra, was that “Congress has, since the creation of the Navajo Reservation nearly a century ago, left the Indians on it largely free to run the reservation and its affairs without state control, a policy which has automatically relieved Arizona of all burdens for carrying on those same responsibilities.” Therefore, the Court concluded that “[t]his state tax on gross income would put financial burdens on appellant or the Indians with whom it deals in addition to those Congress or the tribes have prescribed, and could thereby disturb and disarrange the statutory plan Congress set up in order to protect Indians against prices deemed unfair or unreasonable.” Id., at 690, 691.

These policy considerations should also be controlling here. Attorneys providing legal services for Indian tribes are subject to strict Federal Government regulation and control, from the very selection of counsel through negotiations of the employment contract to approval of the form and content of such contract, including fees, and criminal sanctions for the breach of these regulations.

Legal representation has become an important avenue by which the Indian tribes can attempt to salvage a decent lifestyle. Very simply, a skilled professional can afford to take a lower salary if he does not have to pay income taxes to the State. As in the situation of a tax on the income of a trading post, an additional tax on these essential services could indeed “disturb and disarrange the statutory plan Congress set up in order to protect Indians against prices deemed unfair or unreasonable.”

I would note probable jurisdiction and not dispose of the case without full argument and briefing.


text:
    No. 72-871.
    Silvers v. Dowling, Judge, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. La. Motion to dispense with printing jurisdictional statement and motion to dispense with printing motion to dismiss or affirm granted. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1007.
    Mullarkey, Administrator v. Florida Feed Mills, Inc., et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-1206.
    Reader’s Digest Assn., Inc. v. Washington.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Wash, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-6255.
    Ruderer v. United States et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Ill. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this appeal.


text:
    No. 72-1130.
    Denham et al., dba Denham Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded with instructions to remand case to the National Labor Relations Board for such further proceedings as may be appropriate in light of Burns International Security Services, Inc. v. NLRB, 406 U. S. 272 (1972). FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U. S. 233, 245-250 (1972); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 87-88 (1943).


text:
    No. 72-6347.
    Bumpus v. Massachusetts.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U. S. 524 (1973).


text:
    No. 72-550.
    Bradley et al. v. State Board of Education of Virginia et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 409 U. S. 1124.] Motion of Black Parents of Atlanta, Georgia, for leave to file an untimely brief as amici curiae in support of petitioners granted.

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


text:
    No. 72-694.
    No. 72-753.
    No. 72-791.
    No. 72-929.
    Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty et al. v. Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al.; Anderson v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty et al.; Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al. v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty et al.; and Cherry et al. v. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty et al.
   Appeals from D. C. S. D. N. Y. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 410 U. S. 980.] Motion of National Jewish Commission on Law & Public Affairs for leave to file an untimely brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 72-5443.
    Barnes v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 409 U. S. 1037.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Malcolm H. Mackey, Esquire, of Los Angeles, California, a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed nunc pro tunc to serve as counsel for petitioner in this Court.


text:
    No. 72-6259.
    Theriault et al. v. Establishment of Religion on Taxpayers' Money in the Federal Bureau of Prisons et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6298.
    Carter v. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 72-671.
    Espinoza et vir v. Farah Manufacturing Co., Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-1176.
    North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-1188.
    Richardson, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-777.
    Cleveland Board of Education et al. v. LaFleur et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petitioners’ supplemental brief granted. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument with No. 72-1129 [immediately infra].


text:
    No. 72-1129.
    Cohen v. Chesterfield County School Board et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument with No. 72-777 [immediately supra,].


text:
    No. 72-1052.
    Morton, Secretary of the Interior v. Ruiz et ux.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion- of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-1148.
    Cupp, Penitentiary Superintendent v. Naughten.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-1012.
    Parks v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1077.
    Walters v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1092.
    Cassity v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1085.
    Combs v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1095.
    Stockwell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1098.
    No. 72-1103.
    Ortega v. United States; and Orsini v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1099.
    Russo v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1102.
    International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 57 v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1140.
    Gasparino v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1184.
    Choctaw County Board of Education v. Cole.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1186.
    Top Vision Cable Co. of Kentucky v. City of Owensboro et al.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1205.
    Stove, Furnace & Allied Appliance Workers’ International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 123-B v. Gaffers & Sattler, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1233.
    Texas Mortgage Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1269.
    Davidson v. Long Island Railroad Co.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6026.
    Davis v. United States et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6034.
    Pipito v. Cady, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6038.
    Miller v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6128.
    Lacey v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6143.
    McGann v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6158.
    Bueno v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6166.
    Kelly v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6173.
    Hillman v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6174.
    Ragin v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6176.
    Justice v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6178.
    Battaglia v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6194.
    McAnulty v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6181.
    Plante v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6192.
    Stevison v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6195.
    Nelson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6207.
    Carballea-Cusidor et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6210.
    Huff v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6297.
    McGann v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6311.
    Nutter v. Reagan, Governor of California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6318.
    Landes v. Pageant-Poseidon, Ltd.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6320.
    Turner v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6331.
    Smith v. Missouri.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6333.
    Portelli v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6337.
    Campbell v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6339.
    Howard v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6340.
    Rudman v. Stone, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6341.
    Masqua v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6343.
    Bernatowicz v. Twomey, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6346.
    Sowder v. City of Cincinnati.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6354.
    Baker v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6356.
    Lombardi v. New York Post et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6360.
    Hallowell v. Delaware.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6361.
    Bryant v. Prescott et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6362.
    Dostal v. Novak, Correction Administrator.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-983.
    Lightman v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1096.
    Nadaline et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1142.
    Melton et ux. v. Young et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6183.
    Smith v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1274.
    Stilson et ux. v. Reader’s Digest Assn., Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6167.
    Giordano, aka Gino, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1208.
    Porzuczek, Guardian v. Towner et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6083.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan concurs,

dissenting.

Petitioner was originally charged with removing a United States Treasury check from the mail, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1702, and uttering a forged Treasury check, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 495. After a jury trial, petitioner was convicted on the obstruction-of-the-mails charge but acquitted on the uttering charge. Thereafter, petitioner was granted a new trial.

Prior to the new trial, a superseding indictment was returned, which repeated the charge of removing a United States Treasury check from the mail in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1702, but charged forgery of a Treasury check in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 495, rather than the uttering charge on which petitioner had been previously acquitted. Petitioner moved to dismiss the forgery count, contending that his acquittal at the first trial on the charge of uttering a forged instrument barred the Government from proving, at a second trial, that he was the forger. The District Court denied the motion. The Government moved to dismiss the obstruction-of-the-mails charge. Petitioner waived his right to jury trial and on a stipulation to the facts alleged in this count was found guilty of forgery.

Petitioner urges that both the forgery and uttering charges should have been prosecuted in a single trial. I would agree. As was stated in the dissent in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 452: “Given the tendency of modern criminal legislation to divide the phases of a criminal transaction into numerous separate crimes, the opportunities for multiple prosecutions for an essentially unitary criminal episode are frightening.” The instant action is a prime example of how the prosecution, with the hindsight of what developed at the initial trial, can thereafter choose another phase of the criminal transaction on which to indict a defendant and force him to go through the emotional and monetary strains of additional litigation.

1 would adopt the interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause urged by the dissent in Ashe. Except in limited circumstances, the prosecution should be required to join in one trial all the charges against a single defendant which grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction. Only such an interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause will promote justice, economy, and convenience, as well as guard against vexatious prosecutions. Such an interpretation is imperative in light of the virtually unreviewable prosecutorial discretion concerning the initiation and scope of a criminal prosecution.

       The trial judge died before sentencing petitioner, and the case was reassigned to another judge who imposed sentence. Unnoticed in the transfer was the fact that the petitioner’s motion for a new trial had never been ruled upon. When this was discovered, petitioner was granted a new trial.

       The Government gave the petitioner the option of going to trial on either the charge of forgery or the charge of taking the check from the mails. Petitioner chose the forgery count, expressly acknowledging that he chose it even though the penalties thereunder were the more severe.


text:
    No. 72-6127.
    Egger v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to amend petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6190.
    Douver v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of Jack Harris, Jr., and Joe Mack Harris for leave to join in petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6206.
    Neely v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall concur,

dissenting.

This case presents a question which this Court has not previously answered — under what circumstances a defendant, prior to sentencing, may withdraw a guilty plea.

Harold Neely, the petitioner, was indicted by a Berks County, Pennsylvania, grand jury on a charge of murder.' Although petitioner initially pleaded not guilty at his arraignment on November 20, 1969, when his case was called for trial on March 23, 1970, he pleaded guilty on the advice of counsel and with the consent of the district attorney to the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. There is no question that the trial judge, in accepting the plea, complied with the mandate of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, that the record disclose that the plea was entered voluntarily and understandingly. At the same time, upon motion of the district attorney, the charge of murder was withdrawn.

On April 23, 1970, petitioner filed a petition for a rule to show cause why he should not be permitted to withdraw his plea. He alleged that the plea was induced upon advice of counsel “that should the defendant take the witness stand in his own defense, he is the same as any other witness and his credibility is in issue, and that the Commonwealth therefore may introduce evidence of his prior criminal record of conviction . ...” At the hearing on his petition, which was not held until September 2, 1970, petitioner testified that he had “a statement from a Ronnie Templeton who was an eyewitness originally for the State, who now changes his statement and says he was at another place and that the State’s chief witness was with him at the time the shooting occurred, and makes it impossible for any one of them to have seen the incident at all.”

The trial judge, without explication, ruled that both asserted reasons for withdrawing the guilty plea were “without merit” and stated that the court was “not aware of any unusual circumstances being present whereby justice will best be served by submitting the case to a jury.” The petition to withdraw the plea was dismissed, and petitioner subsequently was sentenced. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed. 449 Pa. 3, 295 A. 2d 75. I would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and set the case for oral argument.

A guilty plea constitutes a waiver of the fundamental rights to a jury trial, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145; to confront one’s accusers, Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400; to remain silent, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1; and to be convicted by proof beyond all reasonable doubt, In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358. In short, we have recognized a “right not to plead guilty.” United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, 581. It is because of the waiver of these rights and that a guilty plea is itself a conviction that a guilty plea “demands the utmost solicitude.” Boykin v. Alabama, supra, at 243.

The court below in essence ruled that a defendant may not withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing unless there are “unusual circumstances . . . whereby justice will best be served by submitting the case to a jury.” In my view, this standard deprived petitioner of the full panoply of fundamental rights subsumed within the right not to plead guilty. I would hold, instead, that “where the defendant presents a reason for vacating his plea and the government has not relied on the plea to its disadvantage, the plea may be vacated and the right to trial regained, at least where the motion to vacate is made prior to sentence and judgment.” Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257, 267-268 (Marshall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); see Dukes v. Warden, 406 U. S. 250, 257 (Stewart, J., concurring).

I start with the premise that under our system of criminal justice a defendant is presumed innocent until proved guilty. Moreover, due process of law requires that a person be convicted by proof beyond all reasonable doubt. In re Winship, supra. A guilty plea, if it is to be consistent with these principles, should not be allowed to stand if the defendant upon reflection or additional developments seeks in good faith to exercise his right to trial. I cannot accept a concept of irrevocable waiver of constitutional rights, at least where the government will not suffer substantial prejudice in restoring those rights. The criminal process is not a contest where the government’s success is necessarily measured by the number of convictions it obtains, regardless of the methods used. A conviction after trial accords with due process only if it is based upon a full and fair presentation of all the relevant evidence which bears upon the guilt of the defendant. See, e. g., Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, 87-88. Similarly, a guilty plea should not be a trap for the unwary or unwilling. We should not countenance the “easy way out” for the State merely because it has induced a guilty plea through a plea bargain.

It is true, of course, that the guilty plea plays an important role in the administration of the criminal law. See, e. g., Santobello v. New York, supra, at 260. But, the mere interest of the government in avoiding a full-blown trial cannot outweigh the interests of the defendant, when he asserts sufficient reasons, valid on their face, for withdrawing a guilty plea. See Dukes v. Warden, supra, at 257-258 (Stewart, J., concurring). Here the petitioner claimed that he pleaded guilty on the basis of a misunderstanding of applicable law. Also, he had reason to believe that a key prosecution witness would not testify as originally expected. Presumably, petitioner believed in good faith that he might present a successful defense to the charge of murder. In its opposition to the motion to withdraw the plea, the State did not assert any prejudice whatsoever if the plea were withdrawn. Only now, in its opposition to the petition for a writ of certiorari, does the State claim prejudice: “[I]n the truest sense, the Commonwealth does change its position because it requires a total rescheduling of cases with all the difficulties encountered by the calling of witnesses.” This conclusory allegation, absent a showing that the State has suffered inroads on its ability to maintain a prosecution, is not sufficient to override the vindication of petitioner’s fundamental constitutional rights.

       Although the opinion of Mr. Justice Marshall concurring in part and dissenting in part in Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257, 267, joined by Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stewart, addressed this question, the Court, vacating petitioner’s conviction because the State did not abide by a promise made to petitioner at the time of his guilty plea, remanded for a determination “whether the circumstances of this ease require only that there be specific performance of the agreement on the plea, in which case petitioner should be resentenced by a different judge, or whether, in the view of the state court, the circumstances require granting the relief sought by petitioner, i. e., the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty.” Id., at 263. In Dukes v. Warden, 406 U. S. 250, Mr. Justice Marshall, in dissent, joined by me, again addressed this issue. Id., at 259. The Court, however, considered solely whether petitioner’s guilty plea had been voluntary when entered. Mr. Justice Stewart concurred on the understanding that the case did not properly present an instance where the defendant had moved to withdraw his guilty plea before judgment. Id., at 258.

       The indictment charged that “on or about July 18, 1969, in said County, the said Harold Neely, feloniously, wilfully and of his malice aforethought did kill and murder Richard Earl Williams, all of which is against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

       The rule to show cause also alleged “[t]hat your petitioner is of the opinion that the Act of March 15, 1911, P. L. 20, Section 1 (19 P. S. 711) prohibits cross-examination by the Commonwealth of a Defendant as to his prior conviction for impeachment purposes unless the Defendant himself has placed his good character and reputation in issue.” That Act provides in relevant part:
      “Hereafter any person charged with any crime, and called as a witness in his own behalf, shall not be asked, and, if asked, shall not be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed, or been charged with, or been convicted of any offense other than the one wherewith he shall then be charged, or tending to show that he has been of bad character or reputation; unless,—
      “One. He shall have at such trial, personally or by his advocate, asked questions of the witness for the prosecution with a view to establish his own good reputation or character, or has given evidence tending to prove his own good character or reputation; or,
      “Two. He shall have testified at such trial against a co-defendant, charged with the same offense.”
      The State, in its answer to the rule to show cause, responded that “the fine of cases interpreting this section have allowed the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of a Defendant’s prior criminal record of conviction of felonies or of misdemeanors in the nature of crimen falsi for the purpose of affecting his credibility where a Defendant takes the witness stand in his own defense.”

       Three judges, concurring, would have adopted Standard 2.1 (b) of the American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Pleas of Guilty (Approved Draft 1968), which provides:
      “In the absence of a showing that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice, a defendant may not withdraw his plea of guilty or nolo contendere as a matter of right once the plea has been accepted by the court. Before sentence, the court in its discretion may allow the defendant to withdraw his plea for any fair and just reason unless the prosecution has been substantially prejudiced by reliance upon the defendant’s plea.”
      They concluded that under this standard the trial judge had not abused his discretion in refusing to allow petitioner to withdraw his plea.


text:
    No. 71-1332.
    No. 71-1371.
    No. 72-842.
    No. 72-1010.
    No. 72-5860.
    No. 72-6186.
    No. 72-6187.
    No. 72-6188.
    San Antonio Independent School District et al. v. Rodriguez et al., Rosario et al. v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al., Bradley v. Florida, Ohio Municipal Judges Assn, et al. v. Davis et al., Murray v. Mississippi, Gerardi v. Seamans, Secretary of the Air Force, Gerardi v. Johnson, Administrator of Veterans Affairs, Gerardi v. United States Department of Justice,
   ante, p. 1;

410 U. S. 752;

ante, p. 916;

ante, p. 144;

ante, p. 907;

ante, p. 913;

ante, p. 913; and

ante, p. 913. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-6778.
    No. 72-5161.
    Williams v. California, Saffioti v. United States,
   409 U. S. 1073; and

409 U. S. 908. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-794.
    Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri et al.,
   410 U. S. 667. Motion of Citizens for Decent Literature, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    May 1, 1973
    No. 72-6114.
    Matthews v. United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 72-6451.
    Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    May 4, 1973
    No. A-1110.
    Doe et al. v. Bellin Memorial Hospital et al.
   Application to vacate stay order of Honorable John Paul Stevens of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, dated May 3, 1973, presented to Mr. Justice Rehnquist, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.

       For Court’s order prescribing Bankruptcy Rules and Official Bankruptcy Forms, see post, p. 991.


text:
    May 7, 1973
    No. 72-1003.
    Mertes v. Mertes et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Del.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 72-1334.
    Fincher v. Scott et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. M. D. N. C.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 72-1238.
    Beene et al. v. Louisiana.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. La. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-6149.
    House v. St. Agnes Hospital, Inc., et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 4th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6260.
    Witzkowski v. Illinois.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. dismissed for want of final judgment.


text:
    No. 72-6271.
    Ruderer v. Vance et al.
   Appeal from D. C. D. C. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this appeal.


text:
    No. 71-1562.
    Choung v. Lowe, Sheriff.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial District, ante, p. 345.


text:
    No. 71-6836.
    Gunston v. Superior Court of Alameda County.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Hensley v. Municipal Court, San JoseMilpitas Judicial District, ante, p. 345.


text:
    No. D-9.
    In re Disbarment of Thaler.
   It having been reported that Seymour It. Thaler of New York, New York, has been disbarred from the practice of law in all of the courts of the State of New York, and this Court by order of February 20, 1973 [410 U. S. 921], having suspended the said Seymour It. Thaler from the practice of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred;

And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued and served upon respondent and that the time within which to file a return to the rule has expired;

It is ordered that the said Seymour R. Thaler be, and he is hereby, disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.


text:
    No. 72-812.
    Storer et al. v. Brown, Secretary of State of California, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 410 U. S. 965.] Motion of Committee for Democratic Election Laws for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of appellants granted.


text:
    No. 72-1428.
    Eller et al. v. Vaughns et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion to advance and for pendente lite relief denied.


text:
    No. 72-6272.
    Higgs v. Schlesinger, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6348.
    No. 72-6407.
    No. 72-6421.
    No. 72-6437.
    In re Stypmann; Majchszak, aka Majors v. United States; Loddy v. Wyoming et al.; and Hawkins v. Meacham, Warden, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 72-1171.
    Garner v. Chambers, Chief Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 72-1058.
    O’Brien et al. v. Skinner, Sheriff, et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 72-1125.
    Allee et al. v. Medrano et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Tex. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 72-1019.
    Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, Administratrix.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-1195.
    American Pipe & Construction Co. et al. v. Utah et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-1168.
    United States v. Maze.
   C. A. 6th Cir.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-1231.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Savair Manufacturing Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-1264.
    Mayor of Philadelphia v. Educational Equality League et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondents to dispense with printing response and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-6852.
    Lubin v. Allison, Registrar-Recorder of County of Los Angeles.


text:
    No. 72-274.
    Cohen v. Hongisto, Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-786.
    Basey v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-951.
    Salem Equipment, Inc., et al. v. Kockum Industries, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-981.
    No. 72-6266.
    Pierro v. United States; and Panica v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1068.
    No. 72-1069.
    Svejcar v. United States; and Grizaffi et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1091.
    Heitzler v. O’Neill, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1086.
    DeLong Corp. Et Al. v. Oregon, By and Through State Highway Commission.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1100.
    Jenning v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1124.
    Hydrocraft, Inc., et al. v. Panther Pumps & Equipment Co., Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1127.
    O. M. Scott & Sons Co. v. Noll et al., Trustees.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1133.
    Morris et al. v. Werner-Continental, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1137.
    City of New Haven v. Town of East Haven et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1138.
    Harrison v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1141.
    De Pompeis v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1144.
    Lomprez et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1156.
    Parenti v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1160. No. 72-6232.
    Lucas v. United States; and Jiminez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1174.
    Saglimbene v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1175.
    Lobue v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1189.
    Johnson et al. v. Warner, Secretary of the Navy, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1192.
    Bostic v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1216.
    Baker et al. v. F & F Investment et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1226.
    Brierley, Warden v. Phelan.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1230.
    Young v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1237.
    Service Investment Co., Inc. v. State Mutual Life Assurance Company of America.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1241.
    Illman v. Toledo Bar Assn.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1242.
    Durell Products, Inc. v. Ajax Realty Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1248.
    Multari Equipment Corp. et al. v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1263.
    Wilk et al. v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1258.
    Heitzler v. Cincinnati Bar Assn.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1261.
    Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, International Typographical Union v. Detroit Newspaper Publishers Assn, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1273.
    Cohen v. Mongiardo et al.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1276.
    Coleman Oil Co., Inc. v. Cities Service Oil Co.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1277.
    Rafter v. Blackmon et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1278.
    Board of Junior College District No. 515 et al. v. Hostrop.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1280.
    Damco Testers, Inc., et al. v. Superior Testers, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1283.
    Mr. Boston Distiller Corp. et al. v. Pallot et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1286.
    Ciraolo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1326.
    Buford et al. v. Southeast Dubois County School Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5964.
    Black et al. v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5797.
    Williams v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5995.
    Haywood v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6066.
    Richard v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6080.
    Kruse v. Gagnon, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6084.
    Boag v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6086.
    White v. Brough, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6092.
    Jones v. Missouri.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6093.
    Carter v. Gupton, Judge, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6094.
    Brittain v. Whalen et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6096.
    Cole v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6112.
    Conklin v. Britton, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6151.
    Morris v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6162.
    Nelson v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6171.
    Dempsey v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6175.
    Dean v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6177.
    Ellis v. Twomey, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6179.
    Hayles et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6202.
    Page v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6209.
    Rivers v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6216.
    Anderson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6218.
    Goodwin v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6228.
    Baltierra-Frausto v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6229.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6234.
    Rodriquez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6236.
    Jarratt v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6239.
    Bozada v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6243.
    Leach v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6245.
    Colletti v. Fare.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6248.
    Culp v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6250.
    Faulkenbery v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6268.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6278.
    Vasquez-Velasco v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6279.
    Smith v. Rodgers, Jail Superintendent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6280.
    Chapman v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6284.
    Rootes v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6285.
    Valle-Rojas v. United States.
   C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6296.
    Sappington v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6300.
    Sprouse v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6305.
    Malinowski v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6307.
    Pigg v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6330.
    McCloud v. Gowan et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6369.
    Cosco v. Meacham et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6371.
    Padilla v. California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6380.
    Mock v. Rose, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6381.
    Jones v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6382.
    Neal v. Howard Johnson, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6383.
    Stahl v. Henderson, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6387.
    Woolsey v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6397.
    Oller v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6399.
    Ellison v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6403.
    Aldabe v. Aldabe et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6409.
    Hawkins v. Hawkins.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6416.
    Muery v. Muery.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6423.
    Mendes v. Brotherhood of Railway & Airline Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees, AFL-CIO-CLC, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6417.
    Richardson v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6471.
    Pizzolato v. Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-992.
    Murray v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1136.
    Weatherford et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1159.
    Habig et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1244.
    Clark v. Holmes et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6106.
    Blackman v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6257.
    Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6262.
    Harvey v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6374.
    Rando v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6378.
    Thomas v. Cowan, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6472.
    Turner v. Clinchfield Railroad Co.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-976.
    Woodbury et al. v. Coller, Judge, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1149.
    Carter et al. v. Straight et al.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Gallia County. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1161.
    General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 72-1272.
    Beltrone v. General Motors Corp. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 72-6213.
    Hunter v. General Motors Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 72-1253.
    Walsh, Trustee in Bankruptcy, et al. v. Cedor et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5572.
    Gay v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall concur,

dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted of larceny. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed. 241 A. 2d 446. The United States Court of Appeals reversed the latter court, 133 U. S. App. D. C. 337, 410 F. 2d 1036, and remanded the case to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals for a ruling on the propriety of the trial court’s instruction. That court held that the instructions had not been prejudicial, 259 A. 2d 593, and the United States Court of Appeals affirmed. Thereafter petitioner sought relief by way of coram nobis. The trial court dismissed the case without prejudice and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed.

During the time petitioner’s original or direct appeal was being considered by the court, Frank Q. Nebeker was Assistant United States Attorney in charge of the Appellate Section in the office of the United States Attorney for the District. One of his duties was to review the appellate briefs submitted by that office to the appellate courts. His name was on the brief opposing petitioner on the appeal. He was named to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals by President Nixon in May of 1969.

When the coram nobis action, was brought to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals it was heard by a three-judge panel which included Judge Nebeker.

His prior role in the case was not brought to his attention and he doubtless was unaware of the fact that this case had been one of the many hundreds he had processed while in the United States Attorney’s office.

Nonetheless Canon 3C (1) (b) of the recently adopted Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

“A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where ... he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy . . . .”

This Canon, as it applies to this case, is merely a reflection of the basic concept of due process of law that a person should not serve as both prosecutor and judge.

The matter might not be considered of any great moment here if the three judges in the panel had taken part. But one of the three, Judge Yeagley, did not participate in the decision. Hence, in one view there was only a single qualified judge sitting on the appeal. That fact makes singularly appropriate the suggestion of the Solicitor General that it may be just, under the circumstances, to vacate the judgment of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings. I would do just that.

Although this issue may not rise to the level of a constitutional question and there is no federal statute involved, we should take this action under our supervisory authority over the administration of justice in the federal courts. See, e. g., Mallory v. United States, 354 U. S. 449, 452-453; McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, 341; Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341-342. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, established by Congress pursuant to Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, of the Constitution, clearly is within the parameters of the federal court system. See Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3, 10; Moss v. United States, 23 App. D. C. 475, 482-483. The judges of that court are appointed, with the advice and consent of the Senate, by the President. It is true, of course, that this Court normally will not review decisions of the courts of the District of Columbia which involve merely questions of “local law.” See, e. g., General Motors Corp. v. District of Columbia, 380 U. S. 553, 556-557; Griffin v. United States, 336 U. S. 704, 717-718. To this extent the courts of the District may be comparable to state courts. Nevertheless, we heretofore have exercised jurisdiction where a decision “has an impact not confined to the Potomac’s shores . . . .” General Motors Corp. v. District of Columbia, supra, at 556. See also Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301, 306. In this case any appearance of impropriety may reflect adversely on the federal judiciary as a whole. Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that “[a]n independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.” Canon 2 provides that a judge “should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” and the commentary to that Canon states that he “must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety.” We must bear the ultimate responsibility, within the limits of our jurisdiction, for insuring that the federal judiciary adheres scrupulously to these principles of impartial adjudication.

       See § 111 of the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 475, D. C. Code Ann. § 11-101 (2) (A) (Supp. V, 1972). We discussed the differences between “legislative,” or Art. I, courts and “constitutional,” or Art. III, courts in Palmore v. United States, ante, p. 389, and Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U. S. 530.

       District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, D. C. Code Ann. § 11-1501 (a).

       The House Report states that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals will be “the highest court in the jurisdiction, similar to a state Supreme Court,” H. R. Rep. No. 91-907, p. 23, and that "[t]he jurisdictional changes recommended by your Committee will result in a Federal-State court system in the District of Columbia analogous to the court systems in the several States." Id., at 35.
      The Senate Report states:
      “This constitutional authority for the creation of a local court system, distinct from the Federal court system established pursuant to. article III, has been recognized in Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U. S. 428 (1923); Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U. S. 464 (1930); and O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U. S. 516 (1933). The committee believes that there is nothing in the result reached in Glidden v. Zdanok, 370 U. S. 530 (1962), which denies the congressional authority to create a local court system for the District of Columbia which is distinct from the Federal court system.” S. Rep. No. 91-405, p. 18.
      The statement that the new D. C. court system is “distinct from the Federal court system” obviously relates only to the distinction between Art. I and Art. Ill courts. See n. 1, supra.

       This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (3). See District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, supra, § 11-102. Under 28 U. S. C. § 2106, we may vacate the judgment below and “require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.”
      While four of us would grant certiorari and vacate the judgment, we do not insist on oral argument.


text:
    No. 60, Orig.
    No. 71-1515.
    No. 72-921.
    No. 72-1015.
    No. 72-1080.
    No. 72-1082.
    No. 72-5066.
    Pennsylvania v. New York et al., Rodovich v. United States, Newport Associates, Inc. v. Solow, Tred-Air of California, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Peltzman v. American Radio Assn. et al., Benners, Executrix v. City of University Park, Ross v. United States,
   410 U. S. 978;

409 U. S. 846;

410 U. S. 931;

ante, p. 906;

ante, p. 916;

ante, p. 901; and

410 U. S. 990. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-5707.
    No. 72-5725.
    No. 72-5811.
    No. 72-5897.
    No. 72-5985.
    No. 72-5986.
    No. 72-6091.
    No. 72-6170.
    Bassett v. Smith, Warden, Polak v. Craven, Warden; Large v. Ohio, Brown v. Cardwell, Warden, Harris v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Penix v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Lee v. Alabama, Kaplan v. Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit et al.,
   410 U. S. 991;

410 U. S. 984;

410 U. S. 912;

ante, p. 907;

410 U. S. 986;

410 U. S. 986;

ante, p. 908; and ante, p. 905. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-6742.
    Hurtado et al. v. United States,
   410 U. S. 578. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-1115.
    Rozelle v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. et al.,
   ante, p. 921. Motion tendering payment of money judgment presented to Mr. Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Motion to stay decision on petition for rehearing denied. Motion to dispense with printing petition for rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    May 14, 1973
    No. 72-264.
    Parker, Treasurer of Louisiana, et al. v. Levy et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. M. D. La.


text:
    No. 72-6446.
    Winston et al. v. Scott, Attorney General of Illinois, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill.


text:
    No. 72-1112.
    Coffee-Rich, Inc., et al. v. Fielder, Director of Agriculture, et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-1287.
    Mager et ux. v. Hilltown Township.
   Appeal from Pa. Commw. Ct. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-965.
    United States v. Knight.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Russell, ante, p. 423.


text:
    No. 72-1240.
    Spitzer Akron, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded with instructions to remand case to the National Labor Relations Board for such further proceedings as may be appropriate in light of Burns International Security Services, Inc. v. NLRB, 406 U. S. 272 (1972). FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U. S. 233, 245-250 (1972); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 87-88 (1943); Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. v. NLRB, ante, p. 912; Denham v. NLRB, ante, p. 945.


text:
    No. 72-6303.
    Model Cities Policy Board of Ann Arbor et al. v. Lynn, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded to consider question of mootness.


text:
    No. A-1083 (72-1441).
    Phillips v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Application for bail presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-1111.
    Friends of the Earth et al. v. Armstrong, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, et al.
   Application to vacate stay order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, dated May 1, 1973, presented to Mr. Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 71-1332.
    San Antonio Independent School District et al. v. Rodriguez et al.,
   411 U. S. 1. Motions of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis nunc pro tunc and to retax costs denied.


text:
    No. 72-6191.
    No. 72-6406.
    No. 72-6426.
    Carter v. Heard, Judge; Dean v. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; and Wilson v. Swygert, Chief Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 72-1297.
    Johnson, Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, et al. v. Robison.
   Appeal from D. C. Mass. Further consideration of question of jurisdiction postponed to hearing of case on the merits. Case set for oral argument with No. 72-700 [Hernandez v. Veterans Administration], infra.


text:
    No. 72-1328.
    United States v. Kahn et ux.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-700.
    Hernandez et al. v. Veterans’ Administration et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition and certiorari granted. Case set for oral argument with No. 72-1297 [Johnson v. Robison], supra.


text:
    No. 72-948.
    National Cable Television Assn., Inc. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument with No. 72-1162 immediately infra.


text:
    No. 72-1162.
    Federal Power Commission v. New England Power Co. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument, with No. 72-948 immediately supra.


text:
    No. 72-1289.
    National Railroad Passenger Corp. et al. v. National Association of Railroad Passengers.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.

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


text:
    No. 72-6160.
    Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co.
   Sup. Ct. La. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-846.
    Ball, Director, Department of Agriculture of Michigan, et al. v. Armour & Co. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1172.
    Milner, dba Belvedere Driving School, et al. v. Burson, Director, Georgia Department of Public Safety, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1046.
    San Jacinto Junior College et al. v. Hander.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1191.
    No. 72-1193.
    Kahn v. United States; and Teleprompter Corp. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1199.
    Culpepper v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1204.
    Pearson Candy Co., a Division of W. R. Grace & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1214.
    Silverman v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1282.
    Bowser v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1288.
    United Pacific Insurance Co. v. Discount Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1292.
    International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Reeve Aleutian Airways, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1294.
    Washington Kelpers Assn. v. Washington et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1308.
    Shutler et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1303.
    Tubbs v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1348.
    Kuhlman et al. v. Siegler, Administratrix.
   Sup, Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6090.
    King v. California.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Alameda. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6182.
    Cordle v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6200.
    Varner v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6205.
    Ford v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6211.
    Lucas v. Wyoming et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6240.
    Lanham v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6254.
    Harvell v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6270.
    Tatum v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6275.
    Temple v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6283.
    Branch v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6302.
    Evans v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6304.
    Williams v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6301.
    Theriault v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6313.
    Patterson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6314.
    Tucker v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6317.
    Stamps v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6319.
    Derks v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6323.
    Pye v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6325.
    Theriault v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6326.
    Biddle et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6327.
    Knox v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6328.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6334.
    Hurt v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6338.
    DeGraffenreid v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6349.
    Catanio v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6352.
    Lowes v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6410.
    Walters v. Walters, Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6422.
    Fullen v. Washington et al.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6431.
    Craig v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6433.
    Rogers v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6438.
    Fritz v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6439.
    Williams v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6441.
    Matthews v. Wingo, Warden.
   C A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6444.
    Salazar v. New Mexico.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6452.
    Morris v. Sparrow et al.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6453.
    Flint v. Glasgow, State’s Attorney of Piatt County, Illinois, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6544.
    Elliott v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-470.
    Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent v. Hairston.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1113.
    Pennsylvania v. Lopinson.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1323.
    Norvell, Warden v. Jones et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1054.
    Tyler Junior College et al. v. Lansdale et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1145.
    Newsome v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1152.
    Cement Masons Union Local 337, Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ International Association of United States & Canada, AFL-CIO, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1194.
    Kahn et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1220.
    Richardson v. Hamilton International Corp. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1203.
    Simpson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1257.
    United New York Sandy Hook Pilots Assn. et al. v. Dent, Secretary of Commerce, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5695.
    Keeton v. Procunier et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6168.
    Foxworth v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6345.
    Kimbel v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1185.
    Fields et al. v. Schuyler, Commissioner of Patents.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1315.
    Colorado Pump & Supply Co. v. Febco, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-797.
    Bowers et al. v. United States,
   410 U. S. 927. Motion to dispense with printing petition for rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-5456.
    Flores v. Employers’ Fire Insurance Company of San Antonio, Texas,
   409 U. S. 1046. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 36, Orig.
    No. 72-6831.
    No. 72-6117.
    No. 72-6204.
    Texas v. Louisiana, Rothstein et al. v. Wyman, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York, et al., Owens v. United States, LeBrun v. Cupp, Penitentiary Superintendent,
   410 U. S. 702;

ante, p. 921;

ante, p. 935; and

ante, p. 919. Petitions for rehearing denied.