text:
    No. 72-307.
    Russo et al. v. Byrne,
   U. S. District Judge. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan would grant certiorari.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

I regret that the Court does not take this occasion to lay down some further ground rules for the conduct of criminal cases involving electronic surveillance in the sensitive area which involves both the Fourth and the Sixth Amendments.

In Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, we laid down rules governing the district courts where there had been electronic surveillance of the defendant in a criminal case or where in other surveillance his words had been recorded. Alderman and its descendants made possible the conduct of criminal trials with fairness to all sides and with no disturbance to orderly proceedings.

The present case is one of several that have come across my desk this year involving not the surveillance of a defendant in a criminal case but the surveillance of his lawyer.

It is time, I think, that we hold that the confidences of the lawyer-client relationship remain inviolate. It is also time that we set forth the prescribed procedures in an Alderman type of opinion.

The problems where the lawyer is involved seem to me to be as critical as those where the defendant’s privacy under the Fourth Amendment is violated. The ruling which I made this last summer when I granted the stay in this case was based on the premise that the teaching of Alderman would fully apply "to a case where the Sixth Amendment rights of a defendant were imperiled.

We held in United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297, that electronic surveillance of internal security measures was not permissible on the basis of an order of the Attorney General, but only on judicial search warrants. We reserved decision “with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents.” Id., at 322. When the argument was held last summer on the stay order, the prosecution in oral presentation distinguished that case on the ground that it involved “domestic” surveillance while the present one involved “foreign” surveillance. The prosecution seemed reluctant to enlarge on that distinction, which led me to note in the opinion I filed granting the stay that we may be dealing only with a matter of semantics. The prosecution never submitted to me in camera the logs in question. I have now seen them, and it appears that the electronic surveillance was of a telephone of a foreign national and that the intercepted conversations in this case had nothing to do “with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents,” the question we reserved in the previous case. Ibid. As I understand it, the conversation was an inquiry by one of the counsel concerning wholly personal social and commercial matters. It is not conceivable to me that this conversation is in the “foreign” field in the sense the word is used in the statutes involved in the United States District Court case. No activity of any foreign “agent” is even suggested. We should therefore take the case to resolve what immunity the Executive Branch has in setting up schemes of pervasive surveillance of foreign nationals that is unrelated to espionage.

It is, however, said that the conversation is utterly irrelevant to the issues in the present case. How can we know? Only one immersed in building a case for the prosecution or constructing a defense can know whether an innocuous-appearing conversation would be a “link” in a chain of evidence which in time would be necessary or convenient for either the prosecution or the defense. That is why I feel strongly that, as we held in Alderman v. United States, supra, the question of relevance must be submitted for adversary hearing before the trial judge.

1 suspect that if that had been done here, the dispute that has delayed this trial for some months would have been quickly resolved. A grave injustice may or may not ride on the denial of certiorari today. My concern is not that, but the administration of the law. I use the word law in its largest sense — where the prosecution as well as the defense is required to live within the spirit and letter of the constitutional rules designed to keep Government off the backs of the people and to take no shortcuts because of public hysteria or political pressures.

That question concerning the applicability of the pretrial procedures laid out in Alderman to the protection of Sixth Amendment claims makes this case a singularly appropriate occasion for laying down the ground rules that will apply in federal trials.

       Wiretapping, which Justice Holmes called “dirty business," Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 470 (dissenting), was put by Justice Brandeis in a constitutional frame of reference:
      “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.’’ Id., at 478.
      And he added:
      “Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.” Id., at 485.

       In Alderman v. United States we read:
      “Adversary proceedings are a major aspect of our system of criminal justice. Their superiority as a means for attaining justice in a given case is nowhere more evident than in those cases, such as the ones at bar, where an issue must be decided on the basis of a large volume of factual materials, and after consideration of the many and subtle interrelationships which may exist among the facts reflected by these records. As the need for adversary inquiry is increased by the complexity of the issues presented for adjudication, and by the consequent inadequacy of ex parte procedures as a means for their accurate resolution, the displacement of well-informed advocacy necessarily becomes less justifiable.
      “Adversary proceedings will not magically eliminate all error, but they will substantially reduce its incidence by guarding against the possibility that the trial judge, through lack of time or unfamiliarity with the information contained in and suggested by the materials, will be unable to provide the scrutiny which the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule demands. It may be that the prospect of disclosure will compel the Government to dismiss some prosecutions in deference to national security or third-party interests. But this is a choice the Government coneededly faces with respect to material which it has obtained illegally and which it admits, or which a judge would find, is arguably relevant to the evidence offered against the defendant.” 394 U. S., at 183-184.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 72-345.
    Rao v. Board of County Commissioners (Pierce County) et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Mr. Justice Brennan,

text:
    No. 72-5247.
    Grubb v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

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

dissenting.

Petitioner and Lynette Murphy lived together as husband and wife in Collinsville, Oklahoma, from September 1970 through the end of January 1971. After leaving petitioner, Lynette went to live with her sister and brother-in-law, Lana and Larry Sanders, in Collinsville. At approximately 8 p. m. on February 2, 1971, petitioner went to the Sanders' residence, displayed a gun, and informed Gary Hany, another occupant, that he intended to take Lynette with him. After a wait of approximately 45 minutes, Lynette, Lana, and Larry arrived at the residence. Petitioner told Lynette that if she refused to go with him he would kill them all. Lynette became “kind of shook up” and agreed to go. Petitioner then took Larry Sanders’ money (three dollars) and car keys, and left with Lynette in the Sanders’ car. After an extensive chase, petitioner was apprehended by the Oklahoma police and was charged with kidnaping, two counts of armed robbery, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

Although all of these charges arose out of the “same transaction or occurrence,” they were prosecuted by the State in two separate proceedings. At the first trial, petitioner was convicted of the armed robbery of Larry Sanders. At the second trial, he was convicted of kid-naping Lynette Murphy, and was acquitted of a charge of armed robbery of Lana Sanders. Petitioner’s contention that this second prosecution was barred by the provisions against double jeopardy in both the State and Federal Constitutions was rejected by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, one judge dissenting. Grubb v. State, 497 P. 2d 1305 (1972).

I would grant the petition for certiorari and reverse. I adhere to my view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969), requires the prosecution, except in most limited circumstances not present here, “to join at one trial all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (concurring opinion); see Miller v. Oregon, 405 U. S. 1047 (1972) (dissenting opinion); Harris v. Washington, 404 U. S. 55, 57 (1971) (concurring opinion). Under this “same transaction” test, all charges against petitioner should have been brought in a single prosecution.

       The charge of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it violated petitioner’s right against double jeopardy. The court apparently ruled that the prosecution for armed robbery of Larry Sanders, which included the forcible taking of Sanders’ car keys, precluded an additional prosecution for unauthorized use of the vehicle itself.


text:
    No. 72-5299.
    Salter v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 71-6594.
    No. 71-6691.
    No. 71-6729.
    No. 71-6813.
    No. 71-6819.
    No. 71-6861.
    No. 72-5067.
    Tyler v. Parks, Zimmer v. Gaffney, Warden, Weaver v. California Department of Corrections et al., Fermin v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Nelson v. Butler, Prison Superintendent, Dockery v. California, Wimberley et al. v. Lynch, Attorney General of California, et al.,
   ante, p. 858;

ante, p. 862;

ante, p. 864;

ante, ■ p. 868 ;

ante, p. 869;

ante, p. 871; and

ante, p. 882. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-1270.
    McKee v. United States,
   407 U. S. 910, and ante, p. 899. Motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-1401.
    Smith, Trustee v. Baker et al.,
   ante, p. 890. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 71-5689.
    Nachbaur v. Herman,
   405 U. S. 931. Second motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    November 20, 1972
    No. 72-334.
    Rose v. Bondurant, Chairman, Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. M.

Mr. Justice Stewart would vacate judgment and remand case to determine whether case has become moot.


text:
    No. 72-413.
    Simon v. Sargent, Governor of Massachusetts, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Mass.


text:
    No. 72-432.
    Moritt v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y. Motion to dispense with printing jurisdictional statement granted. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Douglas would postpone question of jurisdiction to a hearing of case on the merits.


text:
    No. 71-1478.
    Falkner et ux. v. Pastrano et ux.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion to dispense with printing jurisdictional statement and motion to dismiss granted. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-412.
    Martinez v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners.
   Appeal from Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 4th Sup. Jud. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-415.
    Conn-Wood Investment Corp. et al. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board of California et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-5118.
    Martin v. Texas.
   Appeal from Ct. Crim. App. Tex. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-1133.
    Upper Pecos Assn. v. Peterson, Secretary of Commerce, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Cer-tiorari granted, 406 U. S. 944.] Upon consideration of memorandum for respondents suggesting mootness and brief in opposition thereto, judgment vacated and case remanded to determine whether case has become moot.

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


text:
    No. A-360 (72-730).
    Markle et al. v. Abele et al.
   D. C. Conn. Motion to vacate stay heretofore granted by the Court on October 16, 1972 [ante, p. 908], denied.


text:
    No. A-457.
    Borkenhagen v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Application for stay and/or bail presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant the stay.

468 F. 2d 43.


text:
    No. 58,
    Orig.
    American Party et al. v. New York et al.
   Motion for leave to file bill of complaint denied.


text:
    No. 71-1043.
    Heller v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. [Certiorari granted, 406 U. S. 916.] Motion of Charles H. Keating, Jr., to file untimely brief as amicus curiae in support of respondent granted.

* For reference to Court’s order prescribing Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates, Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, see post, p. 1132.


text:
    No. 72-397.
    Bonelli Cattle Co. et al. v. Arizona et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.


text:
    No. 72-400.
    Rose, Warden v. Rivera.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner to consolidate case with Nos. 71-1281 [Linder, Warden v. Recor] and 71-1472 [Neil, Warden v. Pendergrass] denied.


text:
    No. 71-1567.
    Berry v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-6824.
    Morton v. Wyoming.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-6841.
    Sigman v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-6894.
    McGhee v. Wolff, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-6899.
    Reardon v. Meacham.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-396.
    Johns v. Johns.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-401.
    Citizens Utilities Water Company of Arizona v. Superior Court of Arizona in and for the County of Pima et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-404.
    Disposable Services, Inc. v. ITT Life Insurance Company of New York.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-405.
    Merrick v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-409.
    Lauria v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-411.
    Masonite Corp. et al. v. Hendry et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-423.
    Hadco Products, Inc. v. Walter Kidde & Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-424.
    City of Crystal City v. Del Monte Corp., dba Del Monte Foods, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-427.
    Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. United States et al.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-428.
    Alabama v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-429.
    Bolton v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-430.
    Doss v. Lewis-Gale Hospital, Inc.
   Cir. Ct. Roanoke, Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-437.
    Mader et al. v. Armel et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-439.
    Alexander v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-440.
    Saez v. Goslee et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-443.
    Campo Corp. et al. v. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-445.
    Duquesne Brewing Company of Pittsburgh v. Connor et al.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 42-447.
    Hutter et ux. v. City of Chicago.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-449.
    Capitol Tile & Marble, Inc., et al. v. Deese.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-450.
    Bellingham Stevedoring Co. v. Dampskibsaktieselskabet et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-454.
    Estate of Hedrick v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-458.
    Hospital Television, Inc. v. Wells Television, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-460.
    Garrison v. Shaw.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5020.
    Gay v. License Branch, Real Estate Commission of the District of Columbia.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5132.
    Redman v. Conboy, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5044.
    Hughes v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5346.
    Rensing v. Zelker, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5347.
    Wynn v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5350.
    Dapper v. O’Connor et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5351.
    Newell v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5352.
    Johnson v. Meacham.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5354.
    Bustillo v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5355.
    Mitchelson v. Henderson, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5357.
    Priore v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuya-hoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5360.
    Navallez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5361.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5364.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5369.
    Harbolt v. Alldredge, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5365.
    Cassidy v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5366.
    Yeager v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5370.
    Congrove v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5373.
    Potts v. Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5374.
    Ethington v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5376.
    Johns v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5378.
    Pejokovich v. Board of Education, Prince George’s County, et al.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5380.
    Banks v. Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5382.
    Keller v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5384.
    Roberts v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5393.
    Ferrer-Vega v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5394.
    Hitchcock v. Gomes, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5395.
    Buckles v. Wyoming.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5396.
    McBride v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5397.
    Linwood et al. v. Board of Education of City of Peoria, School District No. 150.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5402.
    Tate v. D. C. Transit Co.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5404.
    LeBrun v. Cupp, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5410.
    Black v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-1381.
    Caldwell, Warden v. Thornton.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-6690.
    Keeny v. Swenson, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-326.
    Charlton v. United States et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-370.
    Marcus et al. v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-398.
    WAIT Radio v. Federal Communications Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-417.
    Ware et al. v. Estes, Superintendent, Dallas Public Schools, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant cer-tiorari.


text:
    No. 72-406.
    Dominey v. Dominey.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 8th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.

MR. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-416.
    Seward Motor Freight, Inc., et al. v. Nebraska State Railway Comm’n et al.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-418.
    Hammond v. United Papermakers & Paperworkers Union, AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-431.
    Clark et al. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5353.
    Brownstein v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5362.
    Hereden v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5363.
    Gant v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5399.
    Tatum v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5409.
    Gedarro v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-399.
    Williams v. Hilliard.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5073.
    Zeigler v. Riley, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would deny the petition on ground of mootness.


text:
    No. 71-1109.
    No. 71-1439.
    Norris et al. v. Jordan et al.; and Norris et al. v. Jordan et al.,
   ante, p. 811. Motion of appellants for specification of grounds for finding want of jurisdiction denied. Petition for rehearing of appellant Kerns denied.


text:
    No. 71-1666.
    No. 71-6487.
    No. 71-6673.
    No. 71-6723.
    No. 71-6786.
    No. 72-5133.
    Huie et al. v. United States, Medina v. United States, Golden v. Henderson, Warden, Chais-Shulman v. Bank of America Trust No. 54212, Crow v. Eyman, Warden, et al., Buchanan v. Texas,
   ante, p. 891;

ante, p. 855;

ante, p. 861;

ante, p. 864;

ante, p. 867; and

ante, p. 814. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-1680.
    Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. et al. v. Rodes, Trustee in Bankruptcy, et al.,
   ante, p. 893. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 72-5101.
    Serzysko v. Chase Manhattan Bank,
   ante, p. 883.

Motion to recuse Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist denied.

Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    November 22, 1972
    No. 71-1586.
    Wood v. Goodson, Judge.
   Cir. Ct. Ark., Miller County. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    November 27, 1972
    No. 72-536.
    Third Brevoort Corp. v. Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    December 1, 1972
    No. A-555.
    Adams v. Maylin.
   Sup. Ct. La. Application for stay of execution and enforcement of judgment presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant the application.


text:
    December 4, 1972
    No. 71-6658.
    Anderson et al. 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. Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 72-484.
    Felland v. Schaefer et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-516.
    O’Connor et al. v. New Jersey et al.
   Appeal from Super. Ct. N. J. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-570.
    Washer One, Inc., dba Irish Wash-woman, et al. v. Kentucky ex rel. Division of Unemployment Insurance.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ky. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-546.
    Finger Lakes Racing Assn., Inc. v. New York State Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Betting Commission et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 72-5412.
    Ruderer v. United States.
   Appeal from C. A. 8th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 72-517.
    Pennsylvania v. Linde.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. It appearing that respondent, a defendant in a state criminal proceeding, died on November 2, 1972, the petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District, is dismissed. Gersewitz v. New York, 326 U. S. 687 (1945).


text:
    No. 72-5206.
    Alexander v. Henderson, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated insofar as it leaves undisturbed the death penalty imposed and case remanded for further proceedings. See Stewart v. Massachusetts, 408 U. S. 845 (1972).


text:
    No. 70-279.
    United States et al. v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. et al.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Flá. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 407 U. S. 908.] Motion of appellee Seaboard Coast Line Co. to permit two counsel to argue on behalf of appellees granted.

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


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. A-552 (72-640).
    Oregon State Elks Assn. et al. v. Falkenstein et al.
   D. C. Ore. Application for stay of judgment presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

A three-judge court has declared Oregon’s tax exemption to the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks unconstitutional because the Elks Lodge in question practices racial discrimination in membership selection. The Elks Lodge seeks to have the judgment of the three-judge court stayed pending its appeal to this Court, not on the merits, but from denial of its application to intervene. If the Elks Lodge could intervene as a matter of right, the order of the court denying intervention is generally appealable. Sutphen Estates, Inc. v. United States, 342 U. S. 19, 20; Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 386 U. S. 129, 132-136. The ground of intervention is the inadequacy of the representation of their interests by the Oregon tax authorities in the litigation.

The cases cited above were not appeals from a three-judge court but appeals from a single district judge in antitrust cases, where appeal lies to this Court from “the final judgment.” 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29. Title 28 U. S. C. § 1253, however, gives the right of appeal to this Court to “any party” where there has been an order “granting or denying” an injunction by a three-judge dOUrt.

Applicants were not parties; they are only seeking to be made parties, Whether such persons are “any party” within the meaning of § 1253, so far as unsuccessful intervenors are concerned, seems not to have been decided by this Court. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, 42 U. S. C. § 1973 et seq,, gives the District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting in a panel of three, the right to sit on and determine the issues in those cases. 42 U. S. C. § 1973b. And it is provided that the court is constituted the same as the other three-judge courts, since § 1973b refers to 28 U. S. C. § 2284, under which the three-judge court in the Oregon case was constituted. And the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides that “any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.” Ibid. It is therefore arguable that “any appeal” under the Voting Rights Act is restricted to those who are parties.

On November 6, 1972, we postponed the question of jurisdiction to the merits in No. 72-129, NAACP v. New York. That case raises the question whether the NAACP, which was denied intervention by a three-judge court sitting in a case under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, may appeal to this Court. That issue has not been resolved.

Even if we were to decide that applicants are “any party” within the meaning of § 1253, that section still permits appeal to this Court only from the grant or denial of an injunction, whereas the Voting Rights Act refers to “any appeal.” It would appear, then, that regardless of our decision in NAACP v. New York, the appeal in this case should have been taken to the Court of Appeals. In that event, applicants also should apply to that court for a stay.

Finally, applicants allege that they will lose their right to appeal on the merits if the final judgment below has not been stayed, even if they are successful on appeal from the denial of intervention. That result, however, is problematical. See Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., supra, where we vacated the judgment below upon reversing the order denying intervention.

Since we decided to review NAACP v. New York, I would grant the stay.


text:
    No. 71-1136.
    Tillman et al. v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Assn., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 406 U. S. 916.] Motion of respondents for leave to file supplemental memorandum after oral argument granted.


text:
    No. 71-1178.
    Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Federal Power Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 406 U. S. 956.] Motion of Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., for leave to participate in oral argument and for additional time denied.


text:
    No. 71-1193.
    United States v. Enmons et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. La. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 406 U. S. 916.] Motion of Chamber of Commerce of the United States for leave to file untimely brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 71-1497.
    Beck v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.,
   ante, p. 845. Respondent requested to file response to petition for rehearing within 30 days.


text:
    No. 71-1371.
    Rosario et al. v. Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 406 U. S. 957.] Motion of County Attorney for Nassau County, New York, for leave to participate in oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 71-1583.
    Brown, Secretary of State of California v. Chote.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 911.] It is ordered that Philip Elman, Esquire, of Washington, D. C., a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for appellee in this case.


text:
    No. 71-6272.
    Robinson v. Neil, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 406 U. S. 916.] Motion of counsel for petitioner to allow additional time and/or division of argument denied.


text:
    No. 71-6278.
    Almeida-Sanchez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 406 U. S. 944.] Motion of Gilbert Foerster for leave to file untimely brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 71-6316.
    Goosby et al. v. Osser et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 408 U. S. 922.] Motion of Elliot P. Platt and Joseph A. Torregrossa to permit Ann I. Torregrossa to argue pro hac vice for petitioners granted. Motion of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania for divided argument granted and an additional 10 minutes allotted for that purpose.


text:
    No. 72-77.
    Norwood et al. v. Harrison et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Miss. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 839.] Motion of appellants for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted.


text:
    No. 72-5388.
    Robinson v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 71-6356.
    Doe et al. v. McMillan et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 408 U. S. 922.] Motion of Legislative Respondents for further divided argument granted and an additional five minutes for oral argument allotted to respondents for that purpose.


text:
    No. 72-5377.
    MaGee v. Superior Court of San Francisco County, California, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 72-493.
    Vlandis v. Kline et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Conn. Motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 72-534.
    United States Department of Agriculture et al. v. Moreno et al.
   Appeal from D. C. D. C. Motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 72-212.
    Cupp, Penitentiary Superintendent v. Murphy.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-490.
    McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-419.
    Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations et al.
   Pa. Commw. Ct. Motion of American Newspaper Publishers Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-486.
    No. 72-488.
    Federal Power Commission v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division et al.; and Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted. Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 149 U. S. App. D. C. 238, 462 F. 2d 853.


text:
    No. 72-5323.
    Keeble v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 2 presented by the petition which reads as follows: “Whether the District Court’s refusal to give a lesser included offense instruction under 18 U. S. C. 1153 violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee.”


text:
    No. 72-5443.
    Barnes v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-1465.
    Rosenthal v. Arkansas Louisiana Finance Corp.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-1648.
    Napolitano v. Ward, Justice, Supreme Court of Illinois, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-6694.
    Wilson v. Downie, Warden.
   Süp. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-472.
    Sims, Guardian, et al. v. Idaho State Department of Highways et al.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-6777.
    Heston v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-111.
    Bloom et al. v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-231.
    Biscuitti v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-322.
    The Flying Foam et al. v. Iron Ore Transport Co., Ltd.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-422.
    Benevento et al. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-435.
    Melancon v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-436.
    Patterson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-442.
    Lowenthal et al. v. Tcherepnin et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-461.
    Modla v. Southside Hospital et al.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-462.
    Ford Motor Co. v. Fortunato.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-494.
    Della Croce v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-467.
    Kaufman v. Diversified Industries, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-468.
    Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Guardian-Glass Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-471.
    Johnson v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-473.
    Mahoney v. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-477.
    Stephenson et al. v. Landegger et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-479.
    Garren et al. v. City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-487.
    Prisco v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-495.
    Stiglets v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-496.
    Benson v. Newman et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-497.
    Oklahoma v. Cherokee Nation et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-508.
    Charles C. Wilson, Inc., et al. v. Medicenters of America, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-499.
    Tremarco v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-505.
    Price v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-509.
    DiPaolo v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-512.
    Bolt Associates, Inc. v. Western Geophysical Company of America et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-513.
    DeRosa v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-518.
    Atwell v. Hardy et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-519.
    American Mannex Corp. v. Rozands, Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-526.
    Perreira v. Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-527.
    Potomac Sand & Gravel Co. v. Governor of Maryland et al.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-530.
    Levine v. Long Island Railroad Co. et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-531.
    Dow Chemical Co. v. Dixie Carriers, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-543.
    Smith, Administratrix v. Olsen & Ugelstad.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-533.
    Luttrell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-544.
    Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools et al. v. Dowell.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-547.
    Leskiw et al. v. Local 1470, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-548.
    Michael v. Gomes, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-551.
    Daly et al. v. McCarthy, Clerk, Supreme Court of Minnesota, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-554.
    Mims et al. v. Yarborough et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-556.
    Sid Harvey, Inc., et al. v. Local 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys & Hardware Fabricators & Warehousemen, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-561.
    Florida Vanderbilt Development Corp., formerly Florida Realty Co., et al. v. Chandler Leasing Division, Pepsico Service Industries Leasing Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-563.
    McKy v. Union Bank & Trust Company of Helena, Montana, Executor.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-564.
    Board of Education of Central District No. 1 of the Town of Addison et al. v. James.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-565.
    Baldassaro v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-572.
    Schoenling Brewing Co., Inc. v. Wurzburger Hofbrau Aktiengesellschaft et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-573.
    Marsh v. Curry.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-576.
    Robinson et al. v. McCorkle, Commissioner, Department of Institutions and Agencies, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5030.
    Wolfe v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5038.
    Chavez et al. v. Freshpict Foods, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5058.
    Lotz v. Koloski, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5082.
    Wocher v. Los Angeles City School District et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5089.
    Tahl v. O'Connor, Sheriff.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5100.
    Mills v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5145.
    Nudo v. Brantley, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5157.
    Kyle v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5196.
    Watson v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5204.
    Tanner v. Twomey, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5356.
    Ford v. California State Personnel Board.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5383.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5385.
    Kotrlik et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5387.
    McEachern v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5392.
    Martin v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5400.
    Overton v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5403.
    Garrett v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5408.
    Jackson v. Bohlinger.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5415.
    Wilson v. Scott, District Attorney of Kenosha County, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5416.
    Fidanian v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5417.
    Murdock v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5418.
    Perry v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5419.
    Flinchum v. Clinchfield Railroad Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5420.
    Olden v. Wilson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5421.
    Nichols v. Page, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5422.
    Dailey v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5423.
    Traber v. United States.
   C. A. 5th. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5424.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5425.
    Cooney v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5427.
    Carver v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5428.
    Starnes v. Harris, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5430.
    Fletcher v. Brierley, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5429.
    Grayton v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5433.
    Stock v. Maryland.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5435.
    Hurst, aka Cloe v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5436.
    Lewis v. Mancusi, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5438.
    Warner v. United States Patent Office et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5439.
    Epperson v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5440.
    Woods v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5444.
    Jackson v. Follette, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5445.
    Hurd v. Bailey et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5446.
    Nelson v. Zelker, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5447.
    Tyler v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5448.
    Waddell v. Alldredge, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5449.
    Ratliff v. Coiner, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5450.
    Sanders v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5452.
    Daras v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5456.
    Flores v. Employers’ Fire Insurance Company of San Antonio, Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5457.
    Strollo v. Alldredge, Warden.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5461.
    Rogers v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5462.
    Lee v. Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certi-orari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5463.
    Hill v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Summit County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5465.
    Berryhill v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5466.
    Lewis v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-1634.
    Zemliak v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 71-6929.
    Kochel v. Maryland.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-164.
    Honeycutt v. North Carolina.
   Gen. Ct. Justice, Super. Ct. Div., Cumberland County, N. C. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-453.
    Roger v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-469.
    Bradford Township et al. v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-476.
    Baldivid v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-500.
    Davis v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant cer-tiorari.


text:
    No. 72-504.
    Slone v. Supreme Court of Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-553.
    In re Schwarz.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certi-orari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant cer-tiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5053.
    McClenan v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5120.
    Kwitek et al. v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5203.
    Cradle v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5386.
    Vines v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5407.
    No. 72-5459.
    Kephart v. United States; and Roth v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.

Reported below: 466 F. 2d 1111.


text:
    No. 72-5458.
    Griffith v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 71-1699.
    Godwin v. Dies,
   Secretary of State of Texas. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-171.
    Steward v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-426.
    Corey v. Attorney General of the United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-463.
    Silver v. Castle Memorial Hospital et al.
   Sup. Ct. Hawaii. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-464.
    Alfar Dairy, Inc. v. Palm Beach County Board of Public Instruction.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-475.
    No. 72-5451.
    No. 72-5476.
    Austin v. United States; Savidge v. United States; and Beeman v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Powell would grant certiorari.

Reported below: 462 F. 2d 724.


text:
    No. 72-520.
    Tillman v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-478.
    Perini, Correctional Superintendent v. Johns.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motions to dispense with printing petition and respondent’s brief granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-489.
    Dauer et al. v. Conley et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-571.
    Zelker, Correctional Superintendent v. Lopez.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-507.
    Goudie v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. et al.
   Ct. App. D. C. Motion to dispense with printing portions of appendix granted. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 71-1403.
    No. 71-1408.
    No. 71-1419.
    No. 71-1519.
    No. 71-1547.
    No. 72-149.
    Forbes Leasing & Finance Corp. v. Lebowitz, Aero Mayflower Transit Co., Inc., et al. v. United States et al., Hutter et ux. v. Korzen, Brown et al. v. Scott, C & H Transportation Co., Inc., et al. v. Interstate Commerce Commission; and United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (International Transport, Inc., Case),
   ante, p. 843;

ante, p. 905;

ante, p. 905;

ante, p. 846;

ante, p. 904. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-1573.
    No. 71-1614.
    No. 71-1640.
    No. 71-1651.
    No. 71-6329.
    No. 71-6431.
    No. 71-6464.
    No. 71-6495.
    No. 71-6518.
    No. 71-6606.
    No. 71-6643.
    No. 71-6677.
    No. 71-6680.
    No. 71-6717.
    No. 71-6873.
    No. 71-6875.
    No. 72-134.
    No. 72-148.
    No. 72-150.
    Peltzman v. National Labor Relations Board, Lowry et al. v. United States, Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn. v. United States, Newbern, Executrix, et al. v. Alabama, Estes v. Northcross et al., Nash v. Texas, Murray v. City of Cincinnati, Caldrone v. Gaffney, Warden, Martinez v. Mancusi, Correctional Superintendent, Wetteroff et al. v. Grand, Trustee, Picking v. Yates et al., Allard v. United States, Ferguson v. Virginia, Robinson v. United States, Neely v. Field, U. S. District Judge, et al., Moran v. Tuition Plan of New Hampshire, Inc., McClure v. Salvation Army, Rothman et al. v. United States, United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (Ace Doran Hauling Co. Case),
   ante, p. 887;

ante, p. 887;

ante, p. 850;

ante, p. 813;

ante, p. 853;

ante, p. 887;

ante, p. 855;

ante, p. 855;

ante, p. 959;

ante, p. 934;

ante, p. 812;

ante, p. 861 ;

ante, p. 861;

ante, p. 863;

ante, p. 871 ;

ante, p. 872;

ante, p. 896;

ante, p. 956; and

ante, p. 904. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-152.
    No. 72-156.
    No. 72-5011.
    No. 72-5065.
    No. 72-5158.
    Ming v. United States, Zarate v. United States, Hohensee v. Scientific Living, Inc., et al., Crawford v. Missouri, Sikes et al. v. United States,
   ante, p. 915;

ante, p. 915;

ante, p. 880;

ante, p. 811; and

ante, p. 951. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-1555.
    No. 71-1633.
    No. 71-1655.
    Johnston et ux. v. Byrd, Larsen v. Air California, Falkner v. Supreme Court of Florida et al.,
   ante, p. 847;

ante, p. 895; and

ante, p. 823. Motions to dispense with printing petitions for rehearing granted. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-6754.
    No. 72-2.
    No. 72-5109.
    Van Pelt v. DiCosimo, Palmer et al. v. United States, Hill v. Gauvin et al.,
   ante, p. 865;

ante, p.

874; and

ante, p. 918. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-6883.
    Fair v. Hodges et al.,
   ante, p. 872. Application to enjoin respondents from hearing petitioner’s future cases, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant the application. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    December 11, 1972
    No. 72-506.
    Robinson v. McCorkle, Commissioner, Department of Institutions and Agencies, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. J.


text:
    No. 72-583.
    Bearden v. Metropolitan Dade County.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-585.
    Pepper & Tanner, Inc. v. International Equity Corp.
   Appeal from Super. Ct. Pa. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-588.
    Loyal Order of Moose, Lodge No. 107 v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-589.
    Krause, Administrator v. Ohio.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-600.
    Cities Service Gas Co. v. Western Natural Gas Co. et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Okla. dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5529.
    In re Negron.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

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


text:
    No. 72-582.
    Lavine, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York v. Shirley et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. N. Y. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Chapter 687 of the 1972 Laws of New York (N. Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 101-a, as amended). Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church, 404 U. S. 412 (1972).


author: Mr. Justice Powell,

text:
    No. 72-5401.
    Cason v. City of Columbus.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment reversed. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972).

Mr. Justice Powell,

concurring in the result.

As the court below applied a per se rule, apparently without regard to the circumstances under which the words were used, I join in the reversal. See my dissenting opinion in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U. S. 901, 903 (1972); Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 408 U. S. 913 (1972), and Brown v. Oklahoma, 408 U. S. 914 (1972) (both concurring in result).

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Blackmun, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissent for the reasons expressed in the several opinions in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U. S. 901 (1972); Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 408 U. S. 913 (1972); and Brown v. Oklahoma, 408 U. S. 914 (1972).


text:
    No. 72-217.
    Allman v. Manns.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma-pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104 (1972).


text:
    No. A-433 (72-762).
    Reyes v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Application for bail presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-556.
    Berbling, State's Attorney of Alexander County, et al. v. Littleton et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Application for stay of judgment presented to Mr. Justice Rehnquist, and by him referred to the Court, granted insofar as it applies to applicants O’Shea and Spomer pending the timely filing of a petition for writ of certiorari. Should such a petition be so timely filed, this order is to continue pending this Court’s action on the petition. If the petition for writ of certiorari is denied, this order is to terminate automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this order is to remain in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.


text:
    No. A-580 (72-804).
    Ruckelshaus, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency v. Sierra Club et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Application for stay presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending this Court’s action on the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of cer-tiorari be denied, this order is to terminate automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this order is to remain in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

Mr. Justice Douglas would deny the stay.


text:
    No. A-600.
    Hampton, Chairman, U. S. Civil Service Commission, et al. v. Fitzgerald et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Application for extension of time to file petition for writ of certiorari presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, granted. It is ordered that the time for filing such petition be, and the same is hereby, extended to and including January 13, 1973.


text:
    No. 71-1193.
    United States v. Enmons et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. La. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 406 U. S. 916.] Motion of appellees for leave to file supplemental brief after argument granted.


text:
    No. A-605.
    Hampton, Chairman, U. S. Civil Service Commission, et al. v. Fitzgerald et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Application for stay of mandate presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending timely filing of petition for writ of cer-tiorari. Should such petition be so timely filed, this order is to continue pending this Court’s action on the petition. If the petition for writ of certiorari is denied, this order is to terminate automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this order is to remain in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.


text:
    No. 71-1442.
    Colgrove v. Battin, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 841.] Motion of Nooter Corp. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 72-11.
    Palmore v. United States.
   Appeal from Ct. App. D. C. [Probable jurisdiction postponed, ante, p. 840.] Motion of appellee for additional time for oral argument granted and 15 minutes allotted for that purpose. Appellant also allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 72-239.
    Childs v. United States,
   ante, p. 966. Respondent requested to file a response to petition for rehearing within 30 days.


text:
    No. 72-578.
    Bublick v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of Chicago Bar Assn, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 72-5162.
    Braden v. Capps, Warden.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 72-5493.
    Strode v. Mississippi.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. A-603.
    Schlesinger v. Laird, Secretary of Defense, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

Applicant, a lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve, has asked this Court for a stay of the order requiring him to report to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for active duty for training, concededly a part of his military obligation. He claims, however, that he is entitled to a medical discharge.

Applicant was examined by three physicians at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center in Illinois. Each was a specialist in the area in which he conducted his examination. Purporting to follow Army regulations governing the standards for retention in the Army, one determined that applicant has a disqualifying foot condition and another that he has a disqualifying allergic condition. The third, a psychiatrist, found that applicant’s psychiatric condition, if further documented, would render him ineligible for service. Despite these findings, the Surgeon General, exercising his ex parte discretion pursuant to Army Regulation 40-501, determined that applicant is qualified for active duty. The only substantiation for that decision submitted to the Court is a letter written by the Surgeon General to Senator Percy, in which he stated that applicant’s problems are not of sufficient severity to render him unfit under Army regulations.

Applicant brought an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, challenging the decision of the Surgeon General on the grounds that it constituted an abuse of discretion and was without a basis in fact. While this action was pending, applicant was ordered to active duty for training. Subsequently, the District Court granted summary judgment for the Government, finding that the Surgeon General’s action was not arbitrary or capricious. Applicant’s appeal from that judgment is now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which refused to stay his order to active duty pending appeal.

Applicant does not challenge the validity of the regulation allowing the Surgeon General to review the decisions of examining physicians. And, indeed, it may be that applicant is in fact qualified for retention and that the Surgeon General has not abused his discretion. The difficulty I have with the procedure afforded applicant is that the record does not disclose any basis for the Surgeon General’s action. When the District Court concluded that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious and granted summary judgment for the Government, it in effect refused to inquire into the basis for overriding the judgment of the specialists who had examined applicant. This amounts to a conclusion that the Surgeon General has unreviewable discretion.

However one views the merits of military service, there can be no question that it results in very real and severe restrictions on personal liberty. We have always demanded that such restraints, at a minimum, accord with accepted notions of procedural due process. In SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 94, we stated: "The Commission’s action cannot be upheld merely because findings might have been made and considerations disclosed which would justify its order as an appropriate safeguard for the interests protected by the Act. There must be such a responsible finding. . . . For the courts cannot exercise their duty of review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under review. . . . [T]he orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained.” Certainly, no less protection should be afforded a person who is subjected to significant restraints on his personal liberty as a result of administrative action.

Since I conclude that the decision of the Surgeon General failed to comport with this basic requirement of procedural due process, I would grant the stay requested.

       The Surgeon General apparently considered earlier physical examinations of applicant in addition to those conducted at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center.

       The order to active duty was postponed pending decision by the District Court. We are told that applicant subsequently was scheduled to report for active duty on December 6 or 7.

       Applicant has requested a stay pending his petition to this Court for a writ of certiorari to the Seventh Circuit to review the order denying a stay pending appeal.


text:
    No. 72-5474.
    Morton v. United States et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 71-1639.
    Broadrick et al. v. Oklahoma et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Okla. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 72-402.
    United States v. General Dynamics Corp. et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 72-634.
    United States Civil Service Commission et al. v. National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. D. C. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 71-1647.
    Federal Maritime Commission v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-586.
    Cady, Warden v. Dombrowski.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 71-6670.
    Richburg v. Leeke, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-6926.
    Splinter v. Hanrahan, State’s Attorney of Cook County.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-220.
    No. 72-359.
    Phelps Dodge Corp. v. AFL-CIO Joint Negotiating Committee for Phelps Dodge et al.; and National Labor Relations Board v. AFL-CIO Joint Negotiating Committee for Phelps Dodge et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 470 F. 2d 722.


text:
    No. 72-317.
    Gomez v. Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-332.
    Fiocconi et al. v. Attorney General of the United States et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-491.
    No. 72-492.
    Brach v. United States; and Fried v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 464 F. 2d 983.


text:
    No. 72-503.
    Harris Trust & Savings Bank et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-522.
    Rogers et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-574.
    Sellars v. Committee on Admissions of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-577.
    Cawy Bottling Co., Inc. v. Maltina Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-587.
    Holland-America Line v. Foreign Study League.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-596.
    Adams et al. v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-597.
    McDaniel v. Colorado.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-602.
    Harsh Building Co. et al. v. Bialac et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-605.
    Buckelew v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-607.
    Gaillot v. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-614.
    Shaps v. Union Commerce Bank.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 9th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5175.
    Meyer v. Weil et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5473.
    Sadler v. North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-626.
    University of Illinois Foundation v. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-639.
    Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Sutton’s Steel & Supply, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-652.
    Brown, Executor v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-688.
    White Motor Corp. et al. v. Stewart et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5075.
    Myers v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5095.
    McInnis v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5151.
    Smith v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th • Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5168.
    Whitney v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5188.
    Hood v. Purcell, Sheriff.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5478.
    Salazar v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5483.
    Driver v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5481.
    Banks v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5482.
    Carbonaro v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5485.
    Drew v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5487.
    English et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5488.
    Lego v. Twomey, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5489.
    Perkins v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5490.
    Bryant v. Pickett, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5491.
    Richards v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. Ann. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5495.
    Dalton v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5498.
    White v. Cardwell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5502.
    Bartley v. Kentucky.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5511.
    Tracy v. Hawks.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5532.
    Campbell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5515.
    Harmon v. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5517.
    Rooney et ux. v. First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5518.
    Kasey et ux. v. Molybdenum Corporation of America.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-482.
    Marchetti v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-501.
    Terminal Freight Cooperative Assn. et al. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-515.
    Santoro et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-541.
    Von Sleichter v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-559.
    Western & Southern Life Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-592.
    Cities Service Oil Co., formerly Columbian Fuel Co. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant cer-tiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5545.
    In re Engler.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5090.
    Peters v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5138.
    Minor v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.

Mr. .Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5486.
    Crosson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5492.
    Glass v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-590.
    Anders v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Motion of petitioner to strike matter from brief for respondent denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-599.
    Phipps et al. v. Associate Fundings, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-629.
    Spence et al. v. Canterbury.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion to dispense with printing respondent’s brief granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5537.
    Markoff v. New York Life Insurance Co.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Mr. Justice White,

text:
    No. 72-5301.
    Nugent v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan join,

dissenting.

Acting, on an informant’s tip that one “Cherokee” had a mill for diluting narcotics in a certain apartment building, police officers secured the consent of the landlord to search, and then searched the basement area of the building open to use by both landlord and tenants. In one storage room they saw a closed but unlocked trunk, on top of which were a can of milk-sugar, a scale, rubber bands, and a brown paper bag with a message telling Cherokee that “we are out of . . . action.” The trunk was then opened. Heroin and narcotics paraphernalia were discovered, seized, and used against Cherokee who was later arrested and tried.

Whether the search of the trunk and seizure of its contents squared with the Fourth Amendment is a substantial question warranting review here. The seizure was not incident to petitioner’s arrest, which occurred later at another place. The officers were legally in the storage room by virtue of the landlord’s consent, Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731, 740 (1969), but nothing in the trunk was in plain view as long as the trunk was unopened, and it would seem that the landlord had no authority whatsoever to consent to the search of the trunk or the seizure of its contents, which were petitioner’s effects within the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

The United States argues that there was probable cause to search the trunk and a warrant should not be required, because the items sought could be so easily moved. The Court has embraced such a rationale in the Carroll-Chambers line of cases with respect to automobiles, but has expressly questioned this approach with respect to other movable personal property. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 461 n. 18 (1971) (“We have found no case that suggests such an extension of Carroll" to “containers” that are “equally movable, e. g., trunks, suitcases, boxes, briefcases, and bags”). Moreover, in Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), searches incident to arrest were limited to the person and immediate vicinity, even though there is clearly probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of crime will be found elsewhere on the premises where the arrest takes place. The Court there rejected the argument urged in dissent that a warrant could be dispensed with to avoid the disappearance of the property for which there was probable cause to search.

Because the decision below is arguably at odds with decisions of this Court, I would grant the petition for certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-5455.
    Smith et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom Mr. Justice Brennan concurs,

dissenting.

Petitioners were convicted of sexually assaulting a fellow inmate while incarcerated in the Federal Youth Center, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 13 and Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §40-2-31 (1963). Immediately following the assault, petitioners were placed in segregated confinement and were not arraigned until more than five months later, after an indictment had been returned. They appealed their convictions, in part on the ground that they had not been brought promptly before a United States Commissioner as required by former Rule 5 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Rule 5 does not apply when the person affected is “in custody pursuant to an unrelated valid conviction.” Accord, United States v. Reid, 437 F. 2d 1166, 1167 (CA7 1971).

The result below stemmed from a narrow, technical reading of the word “arrest” in former Rule 5 (a). Since petitioners “were already in custody for unrelated convictions,” 464 F. 2d 194, 196, according to the Court of Appeals, they had not been “arrested” for the alleged offense. The issue presented here is whether former Rule 5 (a) should be interpreted in this myopic fashion, without regard to the policies underlying Rule 5 as a whole.

Former Rule 5 (b) required the commissioner, inter alia, to “inform the defendant ... of his right to retain counsel, of his right to request the assignment of counsel if he is unable to obtain counsel .... He shall also inform the defendant that he is not required to make a statement and that any statement made by him may be used against him.” A basic purpose of this rule is to interpose a judicial officer between the accused and the accuser early in the process of custodial interrogation. This procedure insures that the accused is objectively and intelligently apprised of his rights and helps prevent the “utilization of intensive interrogation, easily gliding into the evils of 'the third degree.’ ” Mallory v. United States, 354 U. S. 449, 453. The Court of Appeals effectively has deprived petitioners of the protection afforded by Rule 5 (b), even though there is no reason to believe that they were less vulnerable to the overbearing effects of custodial interrogation. The policies underlying Rule 5 (b) apply with as much force to the accused already in custody pursuant to an unrelated conviction as they do to the accused in custody solely on the basis of the alleged offense. Indeed, in the case at hand, the danger of overreaching by prison officials is vividly apparent from the very fact that petitioners were placed in segregated confinement. Certainly, it cannot be suggested that petitioners, because they previously had been convicted of another offense, were any less entitled to the rudimentary procedures afforded to a person who stands accused of a crime.

I would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari solely to consider whether petitioners should have been arraigned promptly after the alleged offense.

       Rule 5 (a) then provided:
      “An officer making an arrest under a warrant issued upon a complaint or any person making an arrest without a warrant shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available commissioner or before any other nearby officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States. When a person arrested without a warrant is brought before a commissioner or other officer, a complaint shall be filed forthwith.”
      Rule 5 was amended, effective October 1, 1972. References herein are to the Rule as it existed at the time of the decision below.


text:
    No. 72-5273.
    Myers v. Pinnock.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Motion to consolidate with No. 72-5075 [Myers v. Washington.] granted. Certiorari denied.

Rehearing Denied


text:
    No. 71-651.
    No. 72-42.
    No. 72-159.
    No. 72-160.
    No. 72-324.
    No. 72-5150.
    No. 72-5171.
    California v. Krivda et al., Durst v. National Casualty Co. et al., Durst v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit et al., Durst v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Carter v. United States, Garcia-Turino v. United States, Sibonga v. Administrator of Veterans Affairs,
   ante, p. 33;

ante, p. 967;

ante, p. 947;

ante, p. 946;

ante, p. 984;

ante, p. 951; and

ante, p. 952. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-5289.
    No. 71-5005.
    No. 71-5075.
    No. 71-5207.
    No. 71-5311.
    Frierson v. Spruill, Judge, et al., Brooks v. Florida et al., Brooks v. Florida, Brooks v. Wainwright, Corrections Director, Brooks v. Wainwright, Corrections Director,
   ante, p. 989. Petition for rehearing denied.

404 U. S. 956 ;

404 U. S. 956;

404 U. S. 966; and

404 U. S. 1020. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-136.
    Durst v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit et al.,
   ante, p. 946. Motion for leave to use record in No. 72-42 [Durst v. National Casualty Co. et al.] in support of rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    December 18, 1972
    No. 72-421.
    Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Davis.
   Appeal from D. C. Conn. Motion of appellee for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment affirmed. Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164 (1972).

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 72-655.
    Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Griffin et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Md. Motion of appellee for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment affirmed.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 72-465.
    Lance Roofing Co., Inc., et al. v. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Ga.

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


text:
    No. 72-466.
    Frank Irey, Jr., Inc. v. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. W. Va.

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


text:
    No. 72-610.
    Ace Doran Hauling & Rigging Co. et al. v. Interstate Commerce Commission.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. W. D. Pa.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents from the affirmance.


text:
    No. 72-615.
    Glenovich et al. v. Noerenberg, Commissioner of Fish and Game, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Alaska.


text:
    No. 72-618.
    American Party of Florida et al. v. Askew, Governor of Florida, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. N. D. Fla.


text:
    No. 72-650.
    Sterrett, Administrator, Department of Public Welfare, et al. v. Gaither et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ind. Motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 71-6689.
    Clark v. Payne.
   Appeal from C. A. 3d Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereupon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-300.
    Huggins et al. v. Dement et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. C. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied. Me. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


text:
    No. 72-5170.
    Sayles v. Nunzio et al., Judges.
   Appeal from Ct. App. D. C. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 72-5549.
    Hight v. Texas.
   Appeal from Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 1st Sup. Jud. Dist. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Reported below: 473 S. W. 2d 348.


text:
    No. 71-1261.
    Cook, Director, Department of Liquor Control, et al. v. Peto, dba Loop Carry Out.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Ohio. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of California v. LaRue, ante, p. 109.


text:
    No. 72-178.
    Struck v. Secretary of Defense et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 947.] Judgment vacated and case remanded to consider issue of mootness in light of the position presently asserted by the Government.

Mr. Justice Stewart would postpone issue of mootness to hearing of case on the merits.


text:
    No. 72-5530.
    Arnold v. Oliver, Judge.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of prohibition denied.


text:
    No. A-565 (72-774).
    Cooper v. Florida Board of Dentistry.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-598 (72-5800).
    Dawson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Application for stay of execution and enforcement of mandate presented to Mr. Justice Stewart, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-612.
    Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., et al. v. Froehlke, Secretary of the Army, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Application for injunction presented to Mr. Justice Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant the injunction.


text:
    No. A-633.
    Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., et al. v. Corps of Engineers of the United States Army et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Application for injunction presented to Mr. Justice Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant the injunction.


text:
    No. 71-685.
    No. 71-691.
    Lehnhausen, Director, Department of Local Government Affairs of Illinois v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co. et al.; and Barrett, County Clerk of Cook County, Illinois, et al. v. Shapiro et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. [Certiorari granted, 405 U. S. 1039.] Motion for order respecting oral argument granted. It is ordered that the Attorney General of Illinois be allotted 20 minutes for oral argument on behalf of petitioner in No. 71-685; that the State’s Attorney be allotted 10 minutes for oral argument on behalf of petitioners in No. 71-691; that counsel for Lake Shore Auto Parts Co. be allotted 20 minutes for oral argument on behalf of respondents in No. 71-685; and that counsel for M. Weil & Sons, Inc., be allotted 10 minutes for oral argument on behalf of respondents in No. 71-691.


text:
    No. 71-1637.
    City of Burbank et al. v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 9th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 840.] Motion of the Attorney General of California for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in support of appellants granted and 15 minutes allotted for that purpose. Appellees also allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 72-730.
    Markle et al. v. Abele et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Conn. Motion of appellants to expedite consideration denied.


text:
    No. 71-6778.
    No. 72-5522.
    No. 72-5527.
    Williams v. California; Blankenship v. Meacham et al.; and Szijarto v. Nelson, Warden.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 72-5593.
    Zenchak v. United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 72-535.
    No. 72-562.
    United States et al. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) et al.; and Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Co. et al. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) et al.
   Appeals from D. C. D. C. Motion of appellee SCRAP for leave to dispense with printing motion to dismiss or affirm granted. Probable jurisdiction noted. Cases consolidated and one hour allotted for oral argument. Motion of Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Co. et al. to advance cases granted.

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the motions and the jurisdictional statements.

Reported below: 346 F. Supp. 189.


text:
    No. 71-1417.
    No. 71-1607.
    Booster Lodge No. 405, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board et al.; and National Labor Relations Board v. Boeing Co. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted. Cases consolidated and a total of one and one-half hours allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 148 U. S. App. D. C. 119, 459 F. 2d 1143.


text:
    No. 72-624.
    United States v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-630.
    Hall et al. v. Cole.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:

“1. Whether a federal court in a Section 102 proceeding, reviewing an expulsion of a member by a union, finding his expulsion in violation of Section 101 (a)(2), and directing his restoration to membership, may also award the member’s attorney reasonable counsel fees.

“2. Whether a federal court in a Section 102 proceeding, in restoring an expelled member to membership, may award reasonable counsel fees when it is found that the member sustained no damages by reason of the expulsion; additionally found that the union in good faith believed it had the right to discipline the member for his conduct; further found no motivation of malice by the union in its discipline of the member and does not find that the member by his conduct acted in good faith, but instead concludes the member’s conduct was motivated in part for personal political ambitions.”

Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the motion and petition.


text:
    No. 71-1529.
    Poff, dba 1st King v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-1563.
    Boeing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 71-6928.
    Valentine v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-185.
    Byrd v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
   Ct. App. D. C. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-195.
    Coleman, dba Club Hi Dolly v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-279.
    Knox v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-441.
    No. 72-648.
    Williams et al. v. Bornemeier et al.; and Morgan v. Bornemeier et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-542.
    Slatko v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-456.
    Star Industries, Inc. v. United States.
   C. C. P. A. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-502.
    Irons v. Commissioner of Patents.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-523.
    Plantation Patterns, Inc., et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-545.
    Liberty Amendment Committee of the U. S. A. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-557.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-567.
    Beauchamp v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-568.
    Kraude v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-575.
    Shameia v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-578.
    Bublick v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-593.
    Travis-Edwards, Inc. v. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-604.
    New Jersey et al. v. Smith.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-653.
    Laird, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Anderson et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-611.
    No. 72-612.
    Goodson et al. v. Davis et al.; and May, as Intervenor on behalf of Custom Component Switches, Inc. v. Davis et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-613.
    Carpenters District Council of Houston and Vicinity et al. v. Linbeck Construction Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-616.
    Gulf Oil Corp. v. Lehrman.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-651.
    Berndt et al. v. Papilsky.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-659.
    Offenberg et ux. v. California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-676.
    Craig v. Colorado.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5117.
    Crowe et al. v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5183.
    Dodson v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa, Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5186.
    Fair v. Florida et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5200.
    Thompson v. Gray, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5253.
    Moon v. Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5254.
    Valdez v. New Mexico.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5265.
    Pressel v. Oregon.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5275.
    Flint v. Howard, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. R. I. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5284.
    Hill v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5313.
    Dunk et al. v. Manufacturers Light & Heat Co.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5331.
    Simpson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5479.
    Preston v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5499.
    Way v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5500.
    Cardillo v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5505.
    Steed v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5510.
    Williams v. Louisiana.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5519.
    Sutherland v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5523.
    McMullen v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5555.
    MaGee v. Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5516.
    Ochoa v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5524.
    MaGee v. Nelson, Warden.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5533.
    Arvin v. Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5534.
    Albert v. Wyoming.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5544.
    Kwitek v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5548.
    Porter v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5551.
    Andrews v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5554.
    Cratic v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuya-hoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5559.
    Stafford v. N. A. A. Employees Federal Credit Union et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5577.
    Payne v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5579.
    Bekeny et ux. v. Wandschneider, Executor, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-5587.
    Ritch et al. v. Tarrant County Hospital District.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-254.
    Neil, Warden v. Venable.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.