author: Per Curiam. MR. Chief Justice Burger,

text:
    IN RE LITTLE
    No. 71-244.
    Decided January 24, 1972
   Per Curiam.

Petitioner was convicted of committing a direct contempt of a judge of the District Court Division of the Forsyth County, North Carolina, General Court of Justice. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail as summary punishment authorized by General Statutes of North Carolina §1 5-1 (1) and 5-6. He sought habeas corpus in the Superior Court Division of the General Court. That court denied relief after hearing oral argument but without receiving evidence. Both the North Carolina Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court denied review by certiorari.

Neither the order of the District Court nor the judgment of the Superior Court details the events leading to the conviction. The petition recites these events, however, and the State’s response does not challenge the accuracy of the recital. Petitioner’s trial on a charge of carrying a concealed weapon was scheduled for March 8, 1971, in the District Court at Winston-Salem. Petitioner appeared and filed a written motion for continuance by reason of another trial engagement of his retained counsel in Charlotte. The trial judge denied the motion and proceeded with the trial. Without benefit of counsel petitioner attempted to defend himself. In summation following the close of the evidence petitioner made statements that the court was biased and had prejudged the case and that petitioner was a political prisoner. The trial judge adjudged petitioner in contempt for these statements. The court’s order recites that “[t]he Court at this point informed the [petitioner] that he was in contempt as the Court felt that these remarks were very disrespectful and tended to subvert and prevent justice,” and further recites that “[t]he Court concludes on the foregoing facts that the conduct of the [petitioner] and the words spoken by him in the presence of the Court were contemptuous, that they reflected on the integrity of the Court and tended to subvert and prevent justice.”

The order also recites, “As the defendant was being removed from the courtroom by deputy sheriff [following the contempt adjudication], he spoke out and called the undersigned presiding judge a M-F-.” This language in a courtroom is, of course, reprehensible and cannot be tolerated. But this was not relied upon by either the District Court or the Superior Court for the conviction and sentence and the State defends the conviction in this Court without any reference to it. We therefore also lay it aside for the purpose of our decision.

The Superior Court had the District Court order before it but no other evidence. The Superior Court judgment tracks the statutory language in reciting that petitioner’s statements “directly tended to interrupt its proceedings and to impair the respect due the District Court’s authority,” and, further, the District Court’s conclusion that the statements “ ‘reflected on the integrity of the Court and tended to subvert and prevent justice’ amounted to a finding by the District Court that the words were wilful and intentionally used and that the words used tended to interrupt the Court’s proceedings and to impair the respect due its authority.”

We hold that in the context of this case petitioner’s statements in summation did not constitute criminal contempt. The court’s denial of the continuance forced petitioner to argue his own cause. He was therefore clearly entitled to as much latitude in conducting his defense as we have held is enjoyed by counsel vigorously espousing a client’s cause. In re McConnell, 370 U. S. 230 (1962). There is no indication, and the State does not argue, that petitioner’s statements were uttered in a boisterous tone or in any wise actually disrupted the court proceeding. Therefore, “The vehemence of the language used is not alone the measure of the power to punish for contempt. The fires which it kindles must constitute an imminent, not merely a likely, threat to the administration of justice. The danger must not be remote or even probable; it must immediately imperil .... [T]he law of contempt is not made for the protection of judges who may be sensitive to the winds of public opinion. Judges are supposed to be men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate.” Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367, 376 (1947). “Trial courts . . . must be on guard against confusing offenses to their sensibilities with obstruction to the administration of justice.” Brown v. United States, 356 U. S. 148, 153 (1958).

The reversal of this conviction is necessarily required under our holding in Holt v. Virginia, 381 U. S. 131 (1965). There attorneys filed motions that the trial judge recuse himself and for a change of venue, alleging that the judge was biased. The motion for change of venue alleged that the judge intimidated and harassed the attorneys’ client. The court adjudged the attorneys in contempt for filing these motions. We reversed for reasons also applicable here:

“It is not charged that petitioners here disobeyed any valid court order, talked loudly, acted boisterously, or attempted to prevent the judge or any other officer of the court from carrying on his court duties. Their convictions rest on nothing whatever except allegations made in motions for change of venue and disqualification of Judge Holladay because of alleged bias on his part.” Id., at 136.

The petition for certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed.

It is so ordered.

MR. Chief Justice Burger,

with whom Mr. Justice Rehnquist joins,

concurring.

I agree with the Court’s disposition of the case but something more needs to be said.

A contempt holding depends in a very special way on the setting, and such elusive factors as the tone of voice, the facial expressions, and the physical gestures of the contemnor; these cannot be dealt with except on full ventilation of the facts. Those present often have a totally different impression of the events from what would appear even in a faithful transcript of the record. Some measure of the flavor of what really occurred in this episode, and of the petitioner’s attitude and demeanor, how his spoken words impressed those present, may be gleaned from the events and utterances described in the Court’s per curiam opinion.

The North Carolina court is, of course, free to promptly summon this petitioner before it and, observing the strictures of Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U. S. 455 (1971), issue process requiring him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for the conduct and utterances following the contempt adjudication.

      Section 5-1 (1) makes punishable for contempt “[disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior committed during the sitting of any court of justice, in immediate view and presence of the court, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings, or to impair the respect due to its authority.”


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    UNITED STATES v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA
    No. 71-527.
    Decided January 24, 1972
   Per Curiam.

The United States sought injunctive relief against ap-pellee, alleging that appellee combined and conspired to restrain and monopolize the distribution and sale of petroleum products in American Samoa, in violation of § 3 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 3. The District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that American Samoa is not a “Territory of the United States” within the meaning of § 3. 330 F. Supp. 371 (1971). The United States has appealed pursuant to the Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29. We note probable jurisdiction and reverse.

American Samoa is a group of seven small islands in the South Pacific. Treaties with Great Britain and Germany recognize the claims of the United States to the islands. 31 Stat. 1878, T. S. No. 314. By Act of Congress, 45 Stat. 1253, 48 U. S. C. § 1661, powers to govern the islands are vested in the President, who has delegated the authority to the Secretary of the Interior, Exec. Order No. 10264, 16 Fed. Reg. 6417.

The District Court distinguished between “organized” and other Territories, holding that only the former are Territories within § 3 and that American Samoa is not “organized.”

Section 3 extends to “any Territory of the United States.” Congress, of course, did not have Samoa in mind when it enacted the Sherman Act. Yet, as this Court pointed out in holding that Puerto Rico is within the coverage of § 3, “that is not enough. It is necessary to go further and to say that if the acquisition of that insular dependency had been foreseen, Congress would have so varied its comprehensive language as to exclude it from the operation of the act.” Puerto Rico v. Shell Co., 302 U. S. 253, 257 (1937). There is no more reason to think that Congress would have done so for Samoa than for Puerto Rico. The Court stressed in Puerto Rico that Congress intended by § 3 “to exert all the power it possessed in respect of the subject matter— trade and commerce,” and the Court therefore found it

“equally reasonable to conclude that Congress intended to include all territories to which its powers might extend. The same reason which requires the utmost liberality of construction in respect of the word ‘trade,’ also requires the same degree of liberality of construction in respect of the word ‘territory’; and we hold, accordingly, that the word ‘territory’ was used in its most comprehensive sense, as embracing all organized territories, whether incorporated into the United States or not, including Puerto Rico.” Id., at 259.

There is no question that Congress has power to apply the Sherman Act to Samoa. Because “Congress intended to include all Territories to which its powers might extend,” it follows that Samoa is a “Territory” within the meaning of § 3. We are not persuaded by the District Court’s distinction, for purposes of § 3, between organized and unorganized Territories. The Court held in Puerto Rico that “ 'territory’ was used in its most comprehensive sense”; the Court’s further reference to “organized territories” was simply an application of that construction to the facts of the case, for Puerto Rico was an organized Territory, as well as a response to the contention that Puerto Rico could not be included within § 3 because it was not an “incorporated” Territory. We discern no reason, and appellee suggests none, why Congress would have wished to exclude unorganized Territories from the coverage of § 3.

Reversed.

       Section 3 provides in pertinent part:
      “Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is declared illegal.”

       An “organized” Territory is one in which a civil government has been established by an Organic Act of Congress.


text:
    UNITED STATES v. CHRISTIAN ECHOES NATIONAL MINISTRY, INC.
    No. 71-565.
    Decided January 24, 1972
   Per Curiam.

This case began when the Internal Revenue Service revoked the tax-exempt status of the appellee, a nonprofit religious corporation. The appellee had previously enjoyed a tax exemption under § 501 (c) (3) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 501 (c)(3). This section defines exempt organizations, in pertinent part, as:

“Corporations . . . organized and operated exclusively for religious . . . purposes ... , no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”

The appellee’s exemption under this provision was revoked on three grounds: (1) that the appellee was not operated exclusively for religious purposes, (2) that it had engaged in substantial activity aimed at influencing legislation, and (3) that it had intervened in political campaigns on behalf of candidates for public office.

The appellee paid the taxes assertedly owed and then filed the present suit for a refund in Federal District Court, claiming that it was entitled to an exempt status under § 501 (c) (3) of the Code. The case was heard by a single District Judge sitting without a jury. The judge ultimately decided that the appellee was entitled to tax-exempt status and to a refund of the taxes paid.

The District Court rejected all three grounds on which the Internal Revenue Service had revoked the appellee’s exempt status. It found, as fact, (1) that the appellee’s “activities have been directed toward achieving its religious goals,” (2) that “[w]ith the exception of support of the proposed Becker Amendment to the United States Constitution relating to voluntary prayer and Bible reading in public schools, [the appellee] has not engaged in attempts to influence legislation,” and (3) that the ap-pellee “has not endorsed a political candidate, and has not instructed its followers as to how to vote but only to vote.” On the basis of its findings of fact, the court concluded as law that the appellee fell within the terms of §501 (c)(3). That ended the case. But the District Court nonetheless went on to discuss certain constitutional issues.

In its conclusions of law, the court stated that the First Amendment prohibits both the Government and the courts from determining whether a religious organization is operated for exclusively religious purposes, and is thus eligible for tax-exempt status, by analyzing each and every activity of the organization and classifying it as “religious” or “political.” In this case, the court said, the Internal Revenue Service conducted and relied upon such an analysis in revoking the appellee’s exemption and, for that reason, the Service denied the free exercise of religion to the appellee. The District Court also stated that the Internal Revenue Service violated the appellee’s right to due process of law by singling it out, among all other religious organizations, for investigation and exemption revocation “without evidence to support its action.”

The United States seeks to appeal the decision of the single District Judge directly to this Court. It argues that we have jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1252. That jurisdictional provision allows a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of “any court of the United States . . . holding an Act of Congress unconstitutional in any civil action, suit, or proceeding to which the United States ... is a party.” Such a direct appeal is allowed whether the Act of Congress was declared unconstitutional “as a whole” or simply “as applied.” Fleming v. Rhodes, 331 U. S. 100, 102-103. The findings and conclusions of the District Court in the present case, however, reveal that it did not hold § 501 (c) (3) unconstitutional in either of these ways. Hence, we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The “basis” of the District Court’s decision, United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 20, was that, under the facts adduced at trial, the appellee qualified for exempt status under §501 (c)(3). The court did not question or even consider the constitutionality of § 501 (c)(3) “as a whole.” Nor does any part of its opinion hold that the section was unconstitutional “as applied.” Indeed, the court in this case would hardly have found the appellee to be qualified for an exemption under §501 (c)(3), only to hold that the section could not be validly applied in the first place.

The District Court’s commentary on the denial of due process to the appellee was directed simply to’ the method by which § 501 (c) (3) was enforced — not to its basic applicability. The court held that the Internal Revenue Service may not discriminate in applying the section. This holding restricts freewheeling enforcement and may make it more difficult to revoke certain tax exemptions. But it does not call into question the validity of the underlying statute. Under § 1252, direct appeal to the Supreme Court is authorized only in the latter situation.

Similarly, the District Court’s commentary on the denial of the appellee’s First Amendment rights was directed to the particular interpretation given to § 501 (c)(3) by the Internal Revenue Service in this case and to its means of enforcing that interpretation. At most, the court’s reasoning on this point can be read to construe § 501 (c) (3) narrowly so as to avoid a First Amendment problem. The court refused to interpret and apply the section to require an analysis of the “religious'’ or “non-religious" character of every activity by a concededly religious organization, because such an interpretation and application would infringe the right to free exercise of religion. It stated that the Internal Revenue Service had already gone too far in its enforcement of this interpretation. But the statement that the Service violated the appellee’s First Amendment rights is not the same as a holding that Congress did so in enacting § 501 (c)(3). The court avoided holding that the section itself was unconstitutional “as applied” — i. e., that the section, by its own terms, infringed constitutional freedoms in the circumstances of the particular case. Rather, it held that the Service had misinterpreted § 501 (c) (3) and that the section must be narrowly construed. Although the construction was based on a constitutional premise, it did not amount to a holding that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional, as contemplated by § 1252. To the contrary, the District Court construed the section so as to save its constitutionality.

Our interpretation of the District Court’s conclusions of law does not, of course, indicate approval of those conclusions. The issue is not before us. We hold only that there is an absence of appellate jurisdiction under § 1252.

The judgment is vacated and the case remanded to the District Court for the entry of a fresh decree, so that the appellant may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

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

       The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the District Court in this case, entered on June 24, 1971, are not officially reported.

       By far the greatest portion of the District Court’s findings of fact are directed to the detailed history of the Government’s investigation of the appellee’s exempt status.

       For example, the District Court stated:
      “43. [The appellant] has characterized certain of [the appellee’s] activities during the years involved in this suit as urging the public to contact members of legislative bodies for the purpose of proposing, supporting or opposing legislation. [The appellee] has characterized the same activities as taking stands on issues of the day concerning matters which it construes to threaten its religious beliefs. The Court finds that these activities have resulted from [the appellee’s] religious beliefs and were merely incidental to the exercise of its religion and the expression and dissemination of its understanding of biblical concepts. The Court further finds that any such activities by [the appellee] were insubstantial in relationship to the totality of [the appellee’s] activities.
      “44. [The appellant], in describing and characterizing [the appel-lee’s] activities as political and non-religious, has in fact indicated a disagreement with the content and nature of what [the appellee] has said and written. [The appellant] has thereby sponsored its own definitions of ‘religion’ and ‘religious.’ Such definitions by [the appellant] are impermissable [sic], ...
      “45. [The appellee’s] expression of opinion on ‘current issues or issues of the day’ is not an act contemplated by prohibition against intervention in political campaigns or legislation and is not a violation of the provisions of Internal Revenue Code.”

       A similar distinction has been drawn in the context of the three-judge district court statute, 28 U. S. C. §2281. “It is necessary to distinguish between a petition for injunction on the ground of the unconstitutionality of a statute as applied, which requires a three-judge court, and a petition which seeks an injunction on the ground of.the uneonstitutionality of the result obtained by the use of a statute which is not attacked as unconstitutional. The latter petition does not require a three-judge court. In such a case the attack is aimed at an allegedly erroneous administrative action.” Ex parte Bransford, 310 U. S. 354, 361.


text:
    BRADLEY v. UNITED STATES
    No. 71-5431.
    Decided January 24, 1972
   Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted.

The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa with directions to dismiss the indictment. Durham v. United States, 401 U. S. 481 (1971).

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Blackmun dissent for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Blackmun’s dissenting opinion in Durham v. United States, 401 U. S. 481, 483-485 (1971).


text:
    No. 70-5139.
    Green v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed July 14, 1971, pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 70-5104.
    McGhee v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed July 27, 1971, pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 70-100.
    Col-An Entertainment Corp. et al. v. Harper et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Fla. dismissed August 20, 1971, pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.

[Probable jurisdiction noted, 402 U. S. 941.]


text:
    No. 70-177.
    United States v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
   Appeal from D. C. Conn, dismissed August 23, 1971, pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 70-5374.
    Ameeriar et ux. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed September 2, 1971, pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 71-5199.
    Kopolsky v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed September 3, 1971, pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 70-62.
    Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. Prepmore Apparel, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Writ of certiorari dismissed September 15, 1971, pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.

[Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 993.]


text:
    No. 71-5079.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed September 29, 1971, pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    October 6, 1971
    No. 70-5147.
    Massey v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    October 12, 1971
    No. 70-8.
    United States v. Johnson.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.

[Certiorari granted, 400 U. S. 990.]


text:
    No. 70-157.
    Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., et al. v. United States et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Colo.


text:
    No. 70-329.
    Syufy Enterprises v. United States et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y.


text:
    No. 70-328.
    United Federation of Postal Clerks v. Blount, Postmaster General.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. D. C.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-63.
    Juras v. Meyers et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Ore. Motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Motion of Harold O. Swank et al. for leave to intervene and to adopt jurisdictional statement denied. Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 70-111.
    Wall et al. v. California.
   Appeal from App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Los Angeles, dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.


text:
    No. 70-201.
    Levin et al. v. Township Committee of the Township of Bridgewater et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. J. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 70-226.
    Maryland Community Developers, Inc. v. State Roads Commission of Maryland.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Md. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 70-296.
    Spellerberg v. Adams, Secretary of State of Florida, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 70-331.
    Second United Presbyterian Church of Johnstown v. Presbytery of Albany.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 71-31.
    Kinney Car Corp. et al. v. City of New York et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 70-5140.
    Cole v. Nigro, Judge.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Mo. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 71-59.
    Hershberger et ux. v. City of Troy et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Mich, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 71-193.
    Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Washington.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Wash. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 70-133.
    Strasbourg v. California.
   Appeal from App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Los Angeles, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 70-214.
    Pinson, Administrator v. California.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-18.
    Pacheco v. Pacheco.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-5023.
    Haynes et al. v. New York.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Brennan is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 71-197.
    Rogoff v. Anderson et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and case set for oral argument.


text:
    No. 70-178.
    DeMartino et ux. v. Scarpetta et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5172.
    Quarles v. Texas et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 5th 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. 70-5190.
    Clark v. Craven, Warden.
   Appeal from C. A. 9th 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. 71-131.
    Ramos, aka Raymond v. Louisiana.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. La. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-181.
    Watkins et al. v. Grover, Trustee in Bankruptcy.
   Appeal from C. A. 9th 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. 71-5071.
    Taylor et al. v. Donaldson.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ga. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-237.
    Beaufort Transfer Co. et al. v. United States et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Mo. dismissed for failure to docket case within time prescribed by Rule 13 of the Rules of this Court. Shapiro v. Doe, 396 U. S. 488.


text:
    No. 70-146.
    No. 70-147.
    Southern Governors’ Conference et al. v. United States et al.; and Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Co. et al. v. United States et al.
   Appeals from D. C. E. D. La. Judgment vacated and cases remanded with directions to dismiss proceedings as moot insofar as they involve formulation of terms of remand to the Interstate Commerce Commission.


text:
    No. 70-184.
    Pope et al. v. Haimowitz et al.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Fla. Judgment vacated and case remanded with directions to dismiss proceedings as moot.


text:
    No. 70-114.
    Hicks, District Attorney of Orange County, California v. Grove Press, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for reconsideration in light of Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U. S. 82.

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


text:
    No. 70-122.
    Burgin v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari granted and judgment reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.

The. Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Blackmun dissent.


text:
    No. 70-164.
    Police Jury of the Parish of Vermilion v. Hebert.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari granted and judgment reversed. Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U. S. 701; City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U. S. 204; and Stewart v. Parish School Board of the Parish of St. Charles, 400 U. S. 884.


text:
    No. 70-5078.
    Latham v. Tynan, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of Connecticut.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. A-285 (71-377).
    No. A-342.
    Elias, Correctional Superintendent v. Catena. United States ex rel. Annaloro v. Elias, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Reported below: 449 F. 2d 40; and

Pending appeal to C. A. 3d Cir. Motion for stay in Application No. A-285 granted, and counter application for bail denied. Application for bail in Application No. A-342 presented to Mr. Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the motion or applications.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

These are applications for bail in cases from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Catena pending cer-tiorari to this Court and in Annaloro pending appeal to the Court of Appeals. Each applicant was convicted by a state court for refusing to testify before a grand jury. Each sought habeas corpus in the federal court; and in the Catena case, 449 F. 2d 40, the Court of Appeals held that the applicant was unconstitutionally detained. Concededly, the Annaloro case is on all fours with Catena, although the Court of Appeals has not yet heard the merits.

The underlying question in these cases is whether the immunity to which a witness is entitled who refuses to testify because of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment is "transactional” immunity or “use” immunity. The question is one that was stirred last Term in Piccirillo v. New York, 400 U. S. 548. As MR. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Marshall, and I concluded in that case, the constitutional requirement calls for “transactional” immunity. Id., at 550-551,562, et seq. That plainly is the law as it now stands, ibid.; and the Court of Appeals so held. Since applicants were granted only “use” immunity and refused to testify on that ground, they have wrongfully been imprisoned. They are therefore being held unconstitutionally and should be discharged pending review of the cases.

We have noted jurisdiction in No. 69-4, Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation, 401 U. S. 933, which raises the same question. But since Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, held that the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Self-Incrimination Clause to the States as fully as to the Federal Government, it will require a reversal in direction by this Court and a dilution of Malloy to say that these applicants are lawfully detained.

I would follow settled law until it is changed and meanwhile discharge these prisoners on suitable bail.

      “A justice or judge of the United States before whom a habeas corpus proceeding is pending, may, before final judgment or after final judgment of discharge, or pending appeal, stay any proceeding against the person detained in any State court or by or under the authority of any State for any matter involved in the habeas corpus proceeding.” 28 U. S. C. § 2251.


text:
    No. A-311 (70-51).
    Whitcomb, Governor of Indiana, et al. v. Affeldt et ux.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ind. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-385.
    Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Application for temporary restraining order or injunction presented to Mr. Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

Applicants, state prisoners currently incarcerated at Attica State Prison, brought a class action in the District Court, under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3), alleging systematic violations of their constitutional rights by prison officials and state authorities in the aftermath of the Attica uprising of September 9-13, 1971. They requested, inter alia, that state officials be enjoined from questioning any prisoners concerning the uprising unless Miranda warnings were given and counsel present. The District Court denied this request, while reserving rulings on other requested relief arising from charges of beatings, threats, interference with access to counsel, and destruction of legal materials. The question, however, was certified for appeal to the Court of Appeals, and is at present awaiting a decision there.

This is a case in which the public interest runs high and which raises grave questions concerning procedures for law enforcement that comport with the Constitution. The need for an immediate, authoritative determination of the prisoners' claims is paramount. It would serve no interest of the public, or of judicial order, for that determination to await the exhaustion of remedies in the lower courts.

Miranda is part of a prisoner's bill of rights. In a recent case Miranda was applied where a federal agent questioned a prisoner who was at the time serving a state sentence on a different crime. The Solicitor General argued that Miranda was not applicable to that situation. We disagreed and, speaking through Mr. Justice Black, said:

“The Government also seeks to narrow the scope of the Miranda holding by making it applicable only to questioning one who is 'in custody’ in connection with the very case under investigation. There is no substance to such a distinction, and in effect it goes against the whole purpose of the Miranda decision which was designed to give meaningful protection to Fifth Amendment rights. We find nothing in the Miranda opinion which calls for a curtailment of the warnings to be given persons under interrogation by officers based on the reason why the person is in custody.” Mathis v. United States, 391 U. S. 1, 4-5.

I would treat the application before us as a petition for certiorari, and bring to this Court for summary disposition the entire matter pending in the Court of Appeals. See, e. g., Wilson v. Girard, 354 U. S. 524, 928; Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1.

       Subsequent to the retaking of the prison on September 13, all inmates who had not been freed from their cells were transferred to other institutions. The current prison population at Attica consists only of prisoners who had previously been assigned to Cell Block D, which was the block involved in the uprising.

        Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, held that the subject of custodial interrogation must be clearly advised that he has a right to remain silent, and that anything he says may be used against him in court. He must be clearly informed that he has a right to consult with an attorney, to have an attorney present during interrogation, and, if he is indigent, to have an attorney appointed to represent him. Statements elicited without these warnings having been given are inadmissible against the subject at trial.

       The District Court, on October 6, 1971, dismissed the remainder of the prisoners’ claims. Were an appeal of these claims presently docketed in the Court of Appeals, I would consolidate them so that the entire case could be disposed of at one time.


text:
    No. A-389.
    Allgood et al. v. Brewer et al.
   Application for stay of order of District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No.-.
    Jackson et al. v. Ellington et al.
   D. C. W. D. Tenn. Motion of appellee Canale to dismiss cause pursuant to Rule 14 (3) of the Rules of this Court granted.


text:
    No. 45,
    Orig.
    Washington et al. v. General Motors Corp. et al.
    [For earlier orders herein, see, e. g., 403 U. S. 949.]
   Motion of Heart Disease Research Foundation et al. for leave to intervene and to participate in oral argument denied. Motion of Attorney General of California for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 154,
    No. 226,
    October Term, 1970.
    October Term, 1970.
    James et al. v. Valtierra et al.; and Shaffer v. Valtierra et al.,
   402 U. S. 137. Motions of appellees to be relieved of costs denied.


text:
    No. 281,
    October Term, 1970.
    Swann et al. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al.,
   402 U. S. 1. Pursuant to motion of petitioners to tax costs herein, it is ordered that one-half of the taxable costs herein shall be allowed to petitioners, to be paid by respondents.


text:
    No. 68-5009.
    Schneble v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. [Certiorari granted, 403 U. S. 952.] Motion to use record in No. 1070, Misc., October Term, 1967 [Schneble v. Florida, 392 U. S. 298], granted.


text:
    No. 68-5027.
    No. 69-5003.
    No. 69-5030.
    No. 69-5031.
    Aikens v. California. Furman v. Georgia. Jackson v. Georgia. Branch v. Texas.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.; and

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Motions of James V. Bennett et al., National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al., Synagogue Council of America and its Constituents et al., and American Civil Liberties Union for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Motion of respondent in No. 68-5027 for leave to proceed on original record granted. [Certiorari granted, 403 U. S. 952.]


text:
    No. 69-4.
    Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. J. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 401 U. S. 933.] Motion of National District Attorneys Assn. et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae denied.

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


text:
    No. 69-5.
    D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc., of Ohio et al. v. Frick Co.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lucas County. [Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 992.] Motions of Ohio State Legal Services Assn, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae and to dispense with printing granted.


text:
    No. 69-5001.
    Moore v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. [Certiorari granted, 403 U. S. 953.] Motion of petitioner to proceed on original record granted. Motion of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 69-5035.
    Johnson v. Louisiana.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. La. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 400 U. S. 900.] Motion of appellant for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 70-2.
    United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Super 8mm. Film et al. (Paladini, Claimant).
   Appeal from D. C. C. D. Cal. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 403 U. S. 930.] Thomas H. Kuchel, Esquire, of Beverly Hills, California, a member of the Bar of this Court, is invited to brief and argue this case as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below.


text:
    No. 70-4.
    No. 70-5026.
    Reed v. Reed, Administrator. Alexander v. Louisiana.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Idaho. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 401 U. S. 934]; and

Sup. Ct. La. [Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 936.] Motion of National Federation of Business & Professional Women’s Clubs, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 70-18.
    No. 70-40.
    Roe et al. v. Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County. Doe et al. v. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Tex.; and

Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ga. Motions of National Legal Program on Health Problems of the Poor et al., American Ethical Union et al., Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al., American Association of University Women et al., New Women Lawyers et al., Robert L. Sassone, and State Communities Aid Assn, for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Motion of appellants for additional time for oral argument in No. 70-18 denied. Motion of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in No. 70-40 granted. [Probable jurisdiction postponed, 402 U. S. 941.]


text:
    No. 70-6.
    Swarb et al. v. Lennox et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Pa. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 401 U. S. 991.] Motion of Pennsylvania Credit Union League for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied. Motion of Pennsylvania Bankers Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 70-9.
    Younger, Attorney General of California, et al. v. Gilmore et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. [Probable jurisdiction postponed, 401 U. S. 906.] Motion of appellees for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that John E. Wahl, Esquire, of San Prancisco, California, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for appellees in this case.


text:
    No. 70-19.
    United States v. Marion et al.
   Appeal from D. C. D. C. [Probable jurisdiction postponed, 401 U. S. 934.] Motion of appellee Cratch for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Motion of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 70-34.
    Sierra Club v. Morton, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 907.] Motion of American National Cattlemen’s Assn. et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Motion of petitioner for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 70-47.
    Diffenderfer et al. v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Florida, Inc., et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Fla. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 401 U. S. 934.] Motion of appellant Diffenderfer for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 70-54.
    Victory Carriers, Inc., et al. v. Law.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 936.] Motion of National Maritime Compensation Committee for leave to file an untimely brief as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 70-57.
    United States v. Caldwell.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 402 U. S. 942.] Motion of respondent for additional time for oral argument denied. Motions of Washington Post Co. et al., and New York Times et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae denied.


text:
    No. 70-85.
    No. 70-94.
    Branzburg v. Hayes et al., Judges. In re Pappas.
   Ct. App. Ky.; and

Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Motion of the Solicitor General to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in support of respondents in each case granted. The Solicitor General allotted 15 minutes for his argument and counsel for petitioner allotted 15 additional minutes to argue in each case. Motions of American Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, CLC, and American Newspaper Publishers Assn. for leave to file briefs in No. 70-85 as amici curiae granted. [Certiorari granted, 402 U. S. 942.]


text:
    No. 70-60.
    Superintendent of Insurance of New York v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 973.] Motion to substitute Ruth M. Garvin as Executrix of Estate of George K. Garvin in place of George K. Garvin, deceased, granted.


text:
    No. 70-73.
    Miller v. California.
   Appeal from App. Dept., Super. Ct., County of Orange. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 401 U. S. 992.] Motion of American Civil Liberties Union et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 70-77.
    North Carolina v. Rice.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 1008.] Motion of Prison Research Council for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 70-75.
    Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis et al.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Pa. [Probable jurisdiction postponed, 401 U. S. 992.] Motions of Washington State Federation of Fraternal, Patriotic, City & Country Clubs, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks of the United States, and American Jewish Committee et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 70-78.
    Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 402 U. S. 905.] Motions of Ute Indian Tribe of Uintah and Ouray Reservations et al., and Native American Rights Fund for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Upon consideration of motion of the Solicitor General for additional time for oral argument, petitioners allotted 40 minutes for oral argument; the Solicitor General allotted 20 minutes and other respondents allotted 20 minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 70-88.
    S&E Contractors, Inc. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. [Certiorari granted, 402 U. S. 971.] Motion of American Bar Assn, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 70-90.
    Schilb et al. v. Kuebel et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 402 U. S. 928.] Motion of Frederick Douglas Andrews for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae, to dispense with printing, and for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 70-113.
    Ford Motor Co. v. United States et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Mich. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 403 U. S. 903.] Joint motion for additional time for oral argument granted, and both appellant and ap-pellees granted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 70-97.
    Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Nemitz et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 402 U. S. 994.] Motion of United Transportation Union for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 70-250.
    Carleson, Director of Department of Social Welfare, et al. v. Remillard et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. Motion for reinstatement of stay of injunctive order denied.


text:
    No. 70-5305.
    Digesualdo et al. v. Shea, Director of Department of Social Services, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Colo. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 71-183.
    Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians et al. v. County of Riverside, California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 70-5033.
    Love v. Pullman Co.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 401 U. S. 907.] Motion of National Association for Advancement of Colored People for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 70-5039.
    Fuentes et al. v. Shevin, Attorney General of Florida, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Fla. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 401 U. S. 906, sub nom. Fuentes v. Faircloth.] Motions of National Consumer Law Center and Urban Law Institute for leave to file a brief as amid curiae and to dispense with printing granted.


text:
    No. 70-5045.
    Lindsey et al. v. Normet et al.
   D. C. Ore. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 402 U. S. 941.] Motions of Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc., New Hampshire Legal Assistance, Memphis & Shelby County Legal Services Assn., Inc., June Brooks, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Western Center on Law & Poverty, Legal Aid Society of Louisville, Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Community Action for Legal Services, Inc., et al., and Allen County Legal Aid Society et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae, granted.

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Marshall would deny these motions.


text:
    No. 70-239.
    No. 70-321.
    Kazubowski et al. v. Dolar, aka Kazubowski, et al.; and Kazubowski v. Ray, Sheriff, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of certiorari and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 70-5257.
    No. 70-5338.
    Jackson v. Perini, Correctional Superintendent; and Daugherty v. Craven, Warden.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 70-5115.
    No. 70-5196.
    No. 71-90.
    Carter v. United States Court of Claims; Watson v. Goodwin, U. S. District Judge; and Kazubowski et al. v. Alloy, Chief Justice, Appellate Court of Illinois.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 70-5366.
    No. 71-5003.
    Tatum v. Steckler, Chief Judge, U. S. District Court; and Theriault v. Mississippi.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.


text:
    No. 70-5164.
    Gunston v. Superior Court, County of Alameda, California.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 70-304.
    No. 70-343.
    Lewis et al. v. Brown, Chief Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals, et al.; and Kelly et al. v. United States District Court, Central District of California, et al. (Union Oil Company of California, Real Party in Interest) .
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus and/or certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-139.
    Ormento v. MacMahon, U. S. District Judge.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 70-118.
    Smith et al. v. District Court of Oklahoma County et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 70-69.
    United States v. Orito.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Wis. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 70-212.
    Northeast Airlines, Inc., et al. v. New Hampshire Aeronautics Comm’n et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. H. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 70-161.
    No. 70-5211.
    Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Wright et al.; and Wright et al. v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   Appeals from D. C. D. C. Motion of appellants in No. 70-5211 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted. Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 321 F. Supp. 383.


text:
    No. 70-5064.
    Jefferson et al. v. Hackney, Commissioner of Public Welfare, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Tex. Motion of appellants for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 70-5106.
    Grayned v. City of Rockford.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted. Case consolidated with No. 70-87 [Police Department of the City of Chicago v. Mosley, certiorari granted, infra] and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 70-99.
    Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority District et al. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 70-188.
    Wright et al. v. Council of the City of Emporia et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 70-251.
    Joseph v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 70-286.
    Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Thompson et al.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 70-295.
    First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 70-305.
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. First Security Bank of Utah, N. A., et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 70-87.
    Police Department of the City of Chicago et al. v. Mosley.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted. Case consolidated with No. 70-5106 [Grayned v. City of Rockford, probable jurisdiction noted, supra] and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 70-267.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Scrivener, dba AA Electric Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing respondent’s brief and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 70-130.
    No. 70-187.
    United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education et al.; and Cotton et al. v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted. Cases consolidated and a total of one and one-half hours allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 442 F. 2d 575.


text:
    No. 70-5112.
    Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 70-5122.
    Duncan v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 70-5388.
    Loper v. Beto, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition which reads as follows:

“1. Does the use of prior, void convictions for impeachment purposes deprive a criminal defendant of due process of law where their use might well have influenced the outcome of the case?”


text:
    No. 71-123.
    No. 71-198.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Burns International Security Services, Inc. (formerly known as William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc.), et al.; and Burns International Security Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted in No. 71-123. Certiorari granted in No. 71-198 limited to Question 2 presented by the petition which reads as follows:

“2. In such a proceeding, may a sub-contractor who is awarded a contract to provide services at a facility be held to be a successor of the previous sub-contractor and required to bargain with the union representing the previous sub-contractor’s employees, where: (a) there is a total absence of dealings between the two sub-contractors; (b) the previous sub-contractor’s performance at the facility constitutes a small portion of its total business, the balance of which was not affected by the change of sub-contractors; (c) the performance of the contract is integrated into the new sub-contractor’s previously existing business; (d) there is a change in supervision at the facility by the new sub-contractor; and (e) within six months after the awarding of the contract the previous sub-contractor’s employees constitute less than a majority of employees employed at the facility?”

Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 441 F. 2d 911.


text:
    No. 70-101.
    O’Dell v. Garrett, Executrix, et al.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-115.
    McVean v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-107.
    Webster v. Offshore Food Service, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-116.
    Dowell v. Beech Acceptance Corp., Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-119.
    Blevins v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-121.
    Lee v. County Court of Erie County et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-126.
    Rhoades v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-129.
    Clark v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-132.
    No. 70-134.
    No. 70-135.
    No. 70-5136.
    No. 70-5228.
    No. 70-5321.
    Riggs v. United States; Amick v. United States; Nash v. United States; Mayne v. United States; Wymer et al. v. United States; and Broderick v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 439 F. 2d 351.


text:
    No. 70-136.
    No. 70-137.
    F. D. Rich Co., Inc., et al. v. Acme Granite & Tile Co., a Division of Piper & Greenhalgh, Inc., et al.; and Acme Granite & Tile Co., a Division of Piper & Greenhalgh, Inc. v. F. D. Rich Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 437 F. 2d 549.


text:
    No. 70-124.
    Beaudine v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-138.
    Kirker et al. v. Moore, Governor of West Virginia, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-139.
    No. 70-259.
    Aloisio et al. v. United States; and Bartoli v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 440 F. 2d 705.


text:
    No. 70-150.
    Lipsey et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-151.
    Kraemer et al. v. Public Employment Relations Board et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-155.
    Devers et al. v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-156.
    Escute v. Delgado, Warden.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-158.
    Inject-O-Meter Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. North Plains Fertilizer & Chemical, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-160.
    No. 71-82.
    Luros et al. v. California; and Sturman et al. v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 4 Cal. 3d 84, 480 P. 2d 633.


text:
    No. 70-162.
    Rogers v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-163.
    Varner v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-166.
    No. 70-194.
    Goldman v. United States; and Catalano v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 439 F. 2d 1100.


text:
    No. 70-168.
    Klein v. Supreme Court of New York, County of New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-169.
    United Transportation Union et al. v. Atlanta & West Point Rail Road Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-170.
    Rhinehart v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-171.
    Andrews et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-175.
    Heald v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-182.
    Luckenbach Overseas Corp. v. Ozga.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-181.
    Berke v. Lehigh Marine Disposal Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-183.
    Reynolds Metals Co. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-186.
    Top Shippers Assn., Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-189.
    Callahan et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-190.
    Poppenheimer et al. v. Clty of Memphis et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-191.
    Sandell v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-192.
    Sacramento Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local 150, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-195.
    Xydas v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-196.
    Umpqua River Navigation Co. v. Oregon et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-198.
    Dowell et al. v. Acheson et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-200.
    No. 71-76.
    Union Carbide Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board; and National Labor Relations Board v. Union Carbide Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 440 F. 2d 54.


text:
    No. 70-203.
    Western Fidelity Corp. et al. v. Insurance Company of North America.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-204.
    Zollman et al. v. Symington Wayne Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-205.
    Caine et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-206.
    Peterson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-207.
    Levy v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich, and/or Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-208.
    Miller v. Speight.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-213.
    Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-216.
    International Paper Co. v. Federal Power Commission.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-217.
    Ansted v. Froehlke, Secretary of the Army, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-219.
    Muncaster v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-224.
    Holcomb v. Cessna Aircraft Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-225.
    Falk et al., dba Drucker & Falk v. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-229.
    International Printing Pressmen & Assistants’ Union of North America v. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-230.
    No. 70-5277.
    No. 70-5284.
    No. 70-5300.
    No. 70-5301.
    No. 70-5313.
    Crandall v. United States; Gordon v. United States; Dixon v. United States; Fanning v. United States; Marmorstein et al. v. United States; and Schikevitz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 438 F. 2d 858.


text:
    No. 70-231.
    Town of Harrison v. Myers, Administratrix.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-232.
    Independent Broker-Dealers’ Trade Assn. et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-234.
    First National Bank of Commerce, formerly National Bank of Commerce in New Orleans v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-235.
    Buble v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-236.
    Henderson, Executor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-245.
    Picchione et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-238.
    DuNord Cafe, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-241.
    Texaco Inc. v. Gizzi et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-247.
    Lyman Printing & Finishing Co., a Division of M. Lowenstein & Sons v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-248.
    Harrison et al. v. Prather.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-252.
    International Union of Operating Engineers v. Metropolitan Paving Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-253.
    Deere & Co. v. Hesston Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-254.
    Smith Tug & Barge Co. et al. v. Columbia-Pacific Towing Corp. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-255.
    Warner et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-256.
    Aguirre et al. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-257.
    Cox v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-260.
    King v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-258.
    Diehl et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-264.
    J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-268.
    Patat et al. v. Day Companies, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-269.
    Johnston et al. v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-270.
    No. 70-298.
    Porter et al. v. United States; and Fuller v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 441 F. 2d 755.


text:
    No. 70-271.
    Italia Societa di Navigazione (Italian Line) v. Maroceano Compania Naviera S. A.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-273.
    Kappel et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-275.
    Lafer v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-276.
    D. J. McQuestion & Sons v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-277.
    International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 1 v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-278.
    Glouner et al. v. California ex rel. Department of Public Works.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d

App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-281.
    Wallace et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-282.
    Homemakers, Inc. v. Chicago Home for the Friendless.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-288.
    A. Zerkowitz & Co., Inc. v. United States.
   C. C. P. A. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-289.
    Rose v. Rose et al.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-292.
    Hyman-Michaels Co. et al. v. National Cargo Bureau, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-293.
    Allessandrini, aka Aless v. American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-294.
    City of Los Angeles v. Shell Oil Co.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-302.
    Fiorino v. New England School of Law et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-306.
    Tobar et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-307.
    No. 70-309.
    Bechtel Corp. v. New Jersey; and Colonial Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-310.
    Phillips, Administratrix v. First National City Bank of New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-312.
    Goodman v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-318.
    Harris et al. v. Samuels et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-323.
    Kendall House Apartments, Inc. v. Department of Revenue et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-324.
    Mathis v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-325.
    Travelers Insurance Co. v. Smith, Executrix.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-327.
    Rust v. Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-332.
    Uhrig v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-333.
    United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the United States & Canada, Local Union No. 189 v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-334.
    Du Page Utility Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-335.
    Electronic Components for Industry Co. et al. v. Electronic Communications, Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-337.
    Hy-Lan Furniture, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-340.
    Hancock v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-341.
    Taggart v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-345.
    Skillman v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-346.
    Geo. A. Clark & Son, Inc. v. Nold et ux.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-348.
    Rath v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-349.
    Speese v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-350.
    Easter v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-355.
    Lowe v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-356.
    Gordon v. Adcock.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5081.
    Suggs, aka Ferguson v. Comstock, Conservation Center Superintendent.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5071.
    Rogers v. Adams, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5086.
    Allen v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5088.
    Kirby v. Cox, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5089.
    Sacco v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5090.
    Anglin v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5094.
    Dwyer v. Perini, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5096.
    Sher v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5098.
    Sweeney v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5099.
    Longoria v. Comstock, Conservation Center Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5100.
    Gibson et al. v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5103.
    Miller v. Twomey, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5105.
    Marquez v. Connecticut.
   App. Div., Cir. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5107.
    Visconti v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5108.
    Hawkins v. Brewer, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5110.
    Bojaski v. Haynes, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5111.
    Edgeworth v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5113.
    Wyche v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5114.
    Schoolcraft v. Haynes, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5116.
    Brown v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5117.
    Fallang v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5119.
    Bailleaux v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5120.
    Helmick v. Cupp, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5121.
    Bryant v. Blackwell, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5123.
    Smith v. Municipal Court, Oakland-Piedmont Judicial District, Alameda County.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5127.
    Pieze v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5126.
    Vickers v. Coiner, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5128.
    Parker v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5129.
    Rainey v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5130.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5131.
    No. 70-5134.
    Simuel v. United States; and Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 439 F. 2d 687.


text:
    No. 70-5132.
    Bazzelle v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5133.
    Finch v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5137.
    Casiano v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5141.
    Konigsberg v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5143.
    Chapman v. Moseley, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5144.
    Blue v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5145.
    Lund v. Maine.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5149.
    Reeves v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5150.
    Manley v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5151.
    McCabe, aka Case v. Rodgers.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5152.
    Whitty v. Wisconsin et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5155.
    Forte v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5156.
    Simpson v. Cady, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5159.
    Johnson v. California et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5160.
    Manning v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5163.
    Mullins v. Moynahan, Chief Judge, U. S. District Court.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5167.
    Dickinson v. Bridges, Sheriff.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5168.
    Smith v. California.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Alameda. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5169.
    Brown v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5171.
    Shea v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5174.
    Mills v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5175.
    Hutter v. Door County Chamber of Commerce.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5176.
    Terrell v. Powell, Correctional Superintendent.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5177.
    Glucksman v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5179.
    Pipito v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5181.
    Holmes v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5182.
    Chase v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5183.
    Kline v. Russell, Judge.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5184.
    Makal v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5186.
    Serio, aka Beard v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5412.
    Rose, aka Carr v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5189.
    Gay v. Caldwell, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5192.
    Spencer v. Eyman, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5191.
    Lane v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5193.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5194.
    Green v. Governor of California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5195.
    Wallace v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5197.
    Sweeney v. Sheridan, Chief Judge, U. S. District Court, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5199.
    Marts et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5205.
    Methvin v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5206.
    Tyson v. Buchkoe, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5209.
    Flanagan v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5212.
    Brooks v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5216.
    Zick v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5218.
    Howard v. Zelker, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5219.
    Fountain v. Redevelopment Land Agency.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5222.
    Lathrop et al. v. Oklahoma City Housing Authority et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5223.
    Lipscomb v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5224.
    Bullock v. Blackledge, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5225.
    Hall v. Cardwell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5226.
    Small v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5227.
    Magee v. Superior Court of Marin County.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5230.
    Lopez v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5232.
    Reams v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5234.
    McDonald v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5235.
    Dorrough v. Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5237.
    No. 70-5242.
    Martin v. Michigan; and Martin v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5238.
    Winton v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5239.
    Bennett v. Cardwell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5240.
    Morales v. Deegan, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5241.
    Kennedy v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5243.
    Green v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5244.
    Armsbury v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5245.
    Casas v. Texas.
   Ct. Crina. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5247.
    Piper v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5251.
    Vigil v. Hanratty et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5253.
    Crackenberger v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5254.
    Thurman v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5255.
    Stuckey v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5256.
    Chandler v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5258.
    Williams v. Haynes, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5259.
    Ream v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hardin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5260.
    Harper v. Ciccone, Medical Center Director.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5261.
    Cannon v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5262.
    Jordan v. New Jersey.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5263.
    Lomas v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5264.
    Burland v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5265.
    Pittman et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5268.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5270.
    Brandyberry v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5271.
    Gibson v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5272.
    Clausser v. First National Bank of Arizona, Administrator, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5273.
    Boyden v. Commissioner of Patents.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5275.
    Brown v. Van der Voort, Judge, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5279.
    Herrington v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5278.
    Shorts v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5280.
    Page v. United States
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5283.
    Davis, aka Brown v. Eide et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5285.
    Holland v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5286.
    Rosson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5287.
    Archambault v. United States.
   C. A. 10th-Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5289.
    James v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5290.
    Karcher v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5292.
    McDonald v. Metropolitan Traffic and Parking Commission et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 70-5293.
    Winegar v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5294.
    Wright v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5298.
    Boyer v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5299.
    Oakcrum v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5303.
    Kohls v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5306.
    Caffey v. Swenson, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5309.
    Bayless v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5311.
    Hatzman v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5315.
    Morgan v. West Virginia.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5316.
    Pennington v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5320.
    Buick v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5322.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5324.
    Newton v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5325.
    Williamson v. Alabama.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5327.
    Arndt et al. v. United States District Court for District of Nebraska et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5328.
    Serrano v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5332.
    Hill v. Dutton, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5335.
    Reynolds v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5337.
    Dodd v. Beto, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5340.
    Bryant v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5341.
    Jasso v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5342.
    Ovalle et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5345.
    Buonomo v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5349.
    James v. Zelker, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5350.
    Starnes et al. v. Erickson, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5352.
    Goodseal v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5353.
    Schoen v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5354.
    Nance v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5357.
    Fallang v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5355.
    Mendoza-Acosta, aka Aquilar v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5358.
    Leifermann v. Secretary of the Army et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5359.
    Sanders v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5360.
    No. 70-5365.
    Robinson v. United States; and Mowbray v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 442 F. 2d 517.


text:
    No. 70-5362.
    Weinstein v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5363.
    Davis v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5364.
    Manuel v. American National Trust et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5368.
    Delancey v. City of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5369.
    Haggerty v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5370.
    Reich v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5371.
    Gebhart v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5372.
    Cepelis v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5373.
    DeBow v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5380.
    Truitt v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5382.
    Brown v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5383.
    Wright v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5386.
    Butler v. Thomas, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5387.
    Hernandez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5390.
    Shaw v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5391.
    Wright v. Slaughter et al., dba Doctors Business Bureau of California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5392.
    Tillery v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5393.
    Berezanski v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5396.
    Crow v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5402.
    Wade v. Twomey, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5403.
    Calo v. Zelker, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5404.
    Capello v. Cox, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5408.
    Watson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5410.
    Workman v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, 8th Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5411.
    Parker v. Walsh, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5413.
    Staten v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5414.
    Rhodes v. Wolff, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5415.
    Jefferson v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5416.
    Wilson v. Beto, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5419.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5420.
    Steele v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5421.
    Sokal v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5422.
    Johnson v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5423.
    Steward v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5424.
    Canada v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5425.
    Ward v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5426.
    Elliott v. Dollar General Corp. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5427.
    Maddox v. California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5429.
    Brown v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5430.
    Brisbane v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5432.
    Cole v. Nelson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5433.
    Giles v. Beto, Corrections Director.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5434.
    Hughes et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5435.
    Pugach v. Mancusi, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 70-5436.
    Albers v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-2.
    Horvath et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-5.
    School Committee of Leyden v. Massachusetts Commissioner of Education.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-6.
    Sadrzadeh v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-7.
    Watson v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-8.
    Gower v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-13.
    Boyle et al. v. Lavella.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-14.
    Edwards v. Edwards.
   Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-19.
    Intercontinental Promotions, Inc. v. Miami Beach First National Bank et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-20.
    Alo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-21.
    Heard v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-22.
    No. 71-44.
    D’Avanzo v. United States; and Falcone v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 443 F. 2d 1224.


text:
    No. 71-23.
    Womack et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-24.
    Upper Allegheny Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-26.
    Quinn et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-25.
    Stamas v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-27.
    Lecci v. Looney et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-28.
    D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc., et al. v. Loflin, dba Loflin Sand & Gravel Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-29.
    Wilkerson et ux. v. Murray et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-33.
    No. 71-34.
    Zannino et al. v. United States; and Strauss et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 443 F. 2d 986.


text:
    No. 71-35.
    Harper v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-37.
    Geiger v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-39.
    Wabnik v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-42.
    No. 71-43.
    Bornstein v. United States; and Grossgold v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 447 F. 2d 742.


text:
    No. 71-46.
    Kelchner v. Summerlin et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-48.
    Western-Pacific Dredging Corp. v. Williamson.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-47.
    Worth v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-49.
    Local Union No. 18, International Union of Operating Engineers v. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-50.
    Stanley, Chief Judge, U. S. District Court v. Tights, Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-51.
    Lagerquist et al. v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-52.
    Taitano et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-55.
    Koska v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-56.
    Merryman et al. v. Price et al., Trustees.
   App. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-58.
    Orton v. Missouri ex inf. Danforth, Attorney General.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-60.
    Howell v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-64.
    Stukenborg et al. v. Teledyne, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-67.
    Charleroi-Monessen Hospital v. Petty, Guardian.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-65.
    Puchi v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-69.
    Webster et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-70.
    Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-71.
    Matalon v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-72.
    Jernek v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-73.
    Greenberg v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-74.
    No. 71-75.
    Conell v. United States; and Smallwood et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 443 F. 2d 535.


text:
    No. 71-77.
    Farrell et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-79.
    New York v. Minicone et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-85.
    Rumfelt v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-87.
    Herring v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-88.
    The Cygnus et al. v. Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-91.
    Underwriters at Lloyds London et al. v. Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-94.
    Pennington v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-95.
    No. 71-128.
    Shoup Voting Machine Corp. v. Datamedia Computer Service, Inc.; and AVM Corp. v. Datamedia Computer Service, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 441 F. 2d 604.


text:
    No. 71-96.
    Madden v. Madden et al.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-98.
    John S. Barnes Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-99.
    Spering v. Texas Butadiene & Chemical Corp.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-100.
    Glasser v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-102.
    McAndrew et al. v. Selective Service Board No. 22 et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-104.
    In re Reilly.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-106.
    Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania et al. v. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-105.
    Kuder et al. v. First Wisconsin Trust Co.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-108.
    Ingalls Shipbuilding Division of Litton Systems, Inc. v. American Zinc Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-111.
    Crawford v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-112.
    Gebhart et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-113.
    Ryba v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-122.
    Farland et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-127.
    Early et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-129.
    Illinois State Trust Co., Guardian, et al. v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-134.
    Gibson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-135.
    John W. McGrath Corp. v. Cabot Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-140.
    Edge v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-136.
    Insurance Company of North America v. Prieto.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-137.
    Fremont v. New York.
   App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 9th and/or 10th Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-142.
    Kirsner et al. v. Fleischmann et al.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-144.
    Chambers v. Chambers.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-146.
    Craven, Warden v. Alesi.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-149.
    Allen v. Bankers Trust Co. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-154.
    Tougher et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-155.
    Snow v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-156.
    Chestnut et al. v. Criminal Court of the City of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-160.
    Levin Service Co. et al. v. Davidson Excavating, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-163.
    Komatz Construction, Inc. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-164.
    Virginia Stage Lines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-166.
    Carter v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-167.
    St. Paul at Chase Corp. v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Company of Toronto.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-168.
    Henderson v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-172.
    Chrysler Corp. v. Vaughn, Guardian, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-174.
    Mal Bros. Contracting Co. et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-176.
    Viserto v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-177.
    Childers et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.