author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    April 21, 1969.
    No. —.
    Negre v. Larsen, Commanding General, et al.

      Solicitor General Griswold in opposition.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Application for stay and alternative writ of mandate presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

Petitioner, a member of the Armed Forces who was inducted in August 1967, applied for discharge as a conscientious objector in January 1969.

The Army hearing officer recommended that petitioner be discharged as a religiously motivated CO. But the Army denied relief. Petitioner then appealed to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, which denied relief.

Meanwhile petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Federal District Court (D. C. N. D. Calif.) asking inter alia for a stay of his shipment overseas pending disposition of his claim before the Army Board. The District Court denied relief and petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.

On April 7, 1969, petitioner asked me as Circuit Justice to stay his shipment overseas, pending disposition of his appeal by the Court of Appeals. The application reached me at 7:30 p. m., April 7. The shipment of petitioner overseas was scheduled for April 8, 1969, at 10 a. m. (E. S. T.). So I issued the stay about 8:15 p. m., April 7. My stay ran through April 18, and was issued so that the Conference could pass on the questions which seemed to me to be substantial.

Federal courts do not intervene on the merits pending exhaustion of military administrative remedies. Gusik v. Schilder, 340 U. S. 128. But the question is whether the federal courts have any oversight over members of the Armed Forces when they are seeking to exhaust their military administrative remedies. Moreover, when military administrative remedies are exhausted, can a federal court maintain the status quo while it determines the merits? That is to say, can a federal court “in aid of” its jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1651, keep a member of the Armed Services from being spirited out of the country? Some lower courts have granted interim relief pending exhaustion of military administrative remedies. Schwartz v. Covington, 341 F. 2d 537. Cf. Nelson v. Miller, 373 F. 2d 474.

Army Regulation 15-185, § III, par. 9 (Jan. 8, 1962), provides: “The application to the Board for correction of a record will not operate as a stay of any proceedings being taken with respect to the person involved.” While that gives the Army a directive, it is of no significance in resolving the “in aid of” question under 28 U. S. C. § 1651.

This question is, in my mind, so substantial that it warrants issuance of the stay.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 1115.
    Henderson, Warden v. Pryor.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition denied and the Clerk is directed to proceed under Rule 39 (4) of the Rules of this Court.

Mr. Justice Black dissents.


text:
    No. 1574,
    No. 1669,
    No. 1723,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Lupino v. Young, Warden; Madison v. Washington et al.; and Stone v. Trujillo, Sheriff, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 1113.
    Telephone Users Association, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition denied and the Clerk is directed to proceed under Rule 39 (4) of the Rules of this Court. Arthur S. Curtis on the motion.


text:
    No. 1184,
    Misc.
    Tyler et ux. v. Ingraham, U. S. District Judge, et al.

      Edward A. Cazares for respondents in opposition.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 1585,
    Misc.
    Smith v. Supreme Court of Illinois.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 776.
    Utah Public Service Commission v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. et al.

      David L. Berman, Special Assistant to the Attorney General of Utah, on the motion to dismiss.

      William M. Bennett, pro se, on the motion for hearing.
   Appeal from D. C. Utah. The motion of appellant to dismiss the appeal under Rule 60 and the motion of William M. Bennett for a hearing are set for oral argument on April 29,1969. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief and present oral argument if he so desires. Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent, believing that the action taken by the Court abuses its own processes. See Rule 60.

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


text:
    No. 1504,
    Misc.
    Burhoe v. Julian, U. S. District Judge.

      David Berman on the motion.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Ruckelshaus, Alan S. Rosenthal, and J. F. Bishop in opposition.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 634.
    Wheeler et al. v. Montgomery, Director, Department of Social Welfare of California, et al.

      Charles

      Stephen Ralston for appellants.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. Probable jurisdiction noted. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Richard L. Mayers and Elizabeth Palmer, Deputy Attorneys General, and Thomas M. O’Connor for appellees.

Martin Garbus for Roger Baldwin Foundation of the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae in support of the petition.


text:
    No. 675.
    United States v. Knox.

      Solicitor General Griswold, former Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, Jerome M. Feit, and Charles Ruff for the United States.

      J. Edwin Smith for appellee.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Tex. Probable jurisdiction noted and case set for oral argument immediately following No. 934 [certiorari granted, 393 U. S. 1079].


text:
    No. 1120.
    Goldberg, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York v. Kelly et al.

      J. Lee Rankin, Stanley Buchsbaum, and John J. Loflin for appellant.

      Martin Garbus for appellees.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y. Probable jurisdiction noted and case set for oral argument immediately following No. 634, ante, p. 970. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 1133.
    Mills et al. v. Electric Autolite Co. et al.

      Arnold I. Shure, Robert A. Sprecher, and Mozart G. Ratner for petitioners.

      Albert E. Jenner, Jr., and Jerold S. Solovy for respondents.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 976.
    No. 1104.
    Choctaw Nation et al. v. Oklahoma et al.; and Cherokee Nation or Tribe of Indians in Oklahoma v. Oklahoma et al.

      J. D. McLaughlin for petitioners in No. 976, and Peyton Ford, Earl Boyd Pierce, and Paul M. Niebell for petitioner in No. 1104. G. T. Blankenship, Attorney General, for respondent State of Oklahoma, N. A. Gibson for respondents Commissioners of the Land Office of Oklahoma, James H. Ross for respondent Eason Oil Co., Robert W. Richards for respondent Mobil Oil Corp., David 0. Cordell, Riley B. Fell, and Oscar L. Hasty for respondent Marathon Oil Co., and S. W. Wells for respondent Skelly Oil Co., in both cases. Solicitor General Griswold, Acting Assistant Attorney General Taylor, Louis F. Claiborne, and Roger P. Marquis for the United States as amicus curiae in support of the petitions in both cases.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted. Cases consolidated and a total of two hours allotted for oral argument.

Reported below: 402 F. 2d 739.


text:
    No. 668,
    Misc.
    Morales v. New York.

      Henry B. Rothblatt for petitioner.

      Burton B. Roberts and Daniel J. Sullivan for respondent.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted and case transferred to appellate docket.


text:
    No. 1094.
    Borchert v. United States.

      Robert A. Neeb, Jr., for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Edward Fenig for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 902.
    Irwin v. Texas.

      J. Edwin Smith and Clayton Malone for petitioner.

      Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Hawthorne Phillips, Executive Assistant Attorney General, Robert C. Flowers, Alio B. Crow, Jr., and Gilbert J. Pena, Assistant Attorneys General, and W. V. Geppert for respondent.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 996.
    Burhoe v. Julian, U. S. District Judge, et al.

      David Ber-man for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Ruckelshaus, Alan S. Rosenthal, and J. F. Bishop for Julian, and Howard M. Miller, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, for Byrne, respondents.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1032.
    Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. United States.

      James A. Velde and John F. Beggan for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Walters, Joseph Kovner, and Elmer J. Kelsey for the United States.
   Ct. Cl. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1037.
    Russell v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.

      Donald C. Little for petitioner.

      Roy P. Swanson for respondent.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1085.
    Zudick et al. v. United States et al.

      Herbert L. Zuckerman for petitioners.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Walters, Joseph M. Howard, and John P. Burke for the United States et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1090.
    McMenama v. United States.

      William H. Beck for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Jerome M. Feit, and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1098.
    Potomac Cooperators, Inc., et al. v. American Security & Trust Co., Trustee in Reorganization.

      John M. Bray and Burton A. Schwalb for petitioners.

      Alexander B. Hawes and Samuel M. Greenbaum for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1100.
    International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Masonite Corp.

      James E. Youngdahl for petitioners.

      Hulse Hays, Jr., and Frank H. Stewart for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1105.
    Berk, dba Berk Trade School v. United States.

      Moe D. Karash for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Buckelshaus, and Alan S. Rosenthal for the United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1108.
    Chertkof v. Harry C. Weiskittel Co., Inc.

      Benjamin Lipsitz for petitioner.

      Joseph Sherbow, Edward F. Shea, Jr., and Robert W. Kernan for respondent.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1117.
    Barrows et al. v. United States.

      Allen B. Gresham for petitioners.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Acting Assistant Attorney General Taylor, Roger P. Marquis, and Robert S. Lynch for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1107.
    Wilson v. Maryland.

      Martin H. Freeman for petitioner.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1119.
    United States for the Use and Benefit of Trane Co. v. Gelman, dba Gelco Builders et al.

      Herman N. Schwartz for petitioner.

      Jack Hart for respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1122.
    Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Roth.

      Allan F. Conwill for petitioner.

      Philip B. Kurland for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1136.
    Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. et al.

      Joseph F. Meglen for petitioner.

      Gale Crowley for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., and Charles C. Collins for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1137.
    Haber v. Greason.

      Sam Haber, petitioner, pro se.

      Edward Margolin for respondent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 887.
    3259 M Street, Inc. v. Citizens Association of Georgetown.

      Frank H. Strickler for petitioner.

      E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., and Robert C. Maynard for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1139.
    Gulf Stevedore Corp. et al. v. Watson et al.

      Carl O. Bue, Jr., for petitioners.

      W. Jiles Roberts for Watson, and Solicitor General Griswold for Shea, respondents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1151.
    Broadview Chemical Corp. v. Loctite Corp.

      Granger Cook, Jr., and James P. Hume for petitioner.

      Walter D. Ames for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


author: Mr. Justice White,

text:
    No. 897.
    No. 937.
    Coates v. Securities and Exchange Commission; and Kline v. Securities and Exchange Commission.

      Albert R. Connelly, Gordon Gooch, and Donald Strauber for petitioner in No. 897, and Orison S. Marden for petitioner in No. 937.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Philip A. Loo-mis, Jr., David Berber, and Donald M. Feuerstein for respondent in both cases.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White,

dissenting.

I would grant certiorari in No. 937 and set the case for oral argument. The issues are of general importance, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals ordering cancellation of petitioner’s stock option has sufficient finality to warrant review now rather than after further proceedings in the District Court.


text:
    No. 1009.
    Daniels, aka Jones v. Michigan.

      Wendell A. Miles for petitioner.

      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, and Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, for respondent.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


author: Mr. Justice Black,

text:
    No. 1061.
    Teague et al. v. Regional Commissioner of Customs, Region II, et al.

      Henry Winestine, Osmond K. Fraenkel, Melvin L. Wulf, and Alan H. Levine for petitioners.

      Solicitor General Griswold for respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,

dissenting.

This case presents a highly important question under the First Amendment, namely, whether, as the court below held, American citizens can be required to apply to the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control for a license in order to receive magazines, films, or other publications sent to them from mainland China, North Korea, or North Vietnam. The decision of the Court of Appeals may well be inconsistent with Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U. S. 301 (1965), in which we recently invalidated a somewhat similar regulation of the Post Office Department. Nevertheless, the Court denies certiorari here. It seems plain that the sole explanation for the Court’s action is the fact that the petition for certiorari, having been delayed by an unusually severe snowstorm, arrived here two days after the 90-day period allowed for seeking certiorari, 28 U. S. C. § 2101 (c), would normally expire. Because I think the important First Amendment issue in this case demands consideration by this Court, and because I cannot accept the Court’s interpretation of § 2101 (c), which penalizes petitioners for a snowstorm, an act of God, I must dissent.

I.

Petitioners are addressees of mail packages containing publications originating in China and North Vietnam. When these packages reached the United States they were detained by the Commissioner of Customs pursuant to the Foreign Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR § 500.808. The Commissioner then sent notices to petitioners, advising them that this mail would be released only if licenses were obtained from the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Petitioners did not apply for licenses but instead brought this suit, claiming that the regulations were unconstitutional. Their primary claim was and is that the regulations, by authorizing customs officials to refuse delivery under some circumstances and by requiring in all cases that the addressees submit to the cumbersome and time-consuming licensing process, abridged their First Amendment rights to receive published material.

The decision below, upholding these regulations, seems difficult to reconcile with our recent decision in Lamont, supra. In that case we held unconstitutional a Post Office regulation that required addressees of “communist political propaganda” to notify the Post Office explicitly of their desire to receive such publications in order to obtain delivery. We stated that the fatal flaw of the scheme was that “it requires an official act {viz., returning the reply card) as a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressee’s First Amendment rights.” 381 U. S., at 305. In the present case the burden imposed on addressees is, if anything, far greater than that involved in Lamont. The addressee is not merely required to fill out and return a reply card, after which the magazine will automatically be sent. In the present case something quite different is required. The addressee must fill out a detailed license application and file it in duplicate. He has no assurance that his application, once filed, will be granted, and in fact the regulations provide only general guidance as to the factors that will be considered in determining whether to grant a license. Processing of the application normally requires about 10 days, according to the Government, but this period, which is itself not inconsiderable, may in fact represent only the minimum delay.

Only one justification is suggested for the very severe prior restraint on First Amendment rights that results from this licensing scheme. The Court of Appeals said that the regulations are permissible as a means of restricting the flow of American currency to designated foreign countries determined to be hostile to the United States. Petitioners, on the other hand, argue broadly that they have a right under the First Amendment to purchase publications from any source of their choosing, even a country with which we might be at war. It may not, however, even be necessary to reach this important question because there is considerable doubt whether the regulations relating to publications can be considered necessary for preventing the outflow of American currency. Other regulations promulgated under the President’s emergency power to control transactions in foreign exchange, 40 Stat. 415, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 5 (b), broadly prohibit the making of any payments directly or indirectly to the designated foreign countries or their nationals by any person or corporation subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of how such payments are effectuated and regardless of whether the banks or other institutions serving as intermediaries are located in third countries. 31 CFR § 500.201. Violation of these regulations is a felony punishable by heavy penalties. 50 U. S. C. App. § 5 (b)(3). Although the licensing provisions related to publications may make it more difficult to evade this direct prohibition against foreign exchange transactions with the designated countries, such incidental benefits in the enforcement of even a permissible governmental policy ordinarily do not justify infringement on First Amendment rights. Cf. Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147 (1959). In addition, the regulations explicitly permit the purchase of publications from these countries “without restrictions as to method of payment” in the case of universities, libraries, research, and scientific institutions acting under programs approved by the Librarian of Congress or the National Science Foundation. 31 CFR § 500.204 App. (108). The additional demand for these publications by private parties may be insignificant compared to the volume of transactions the Government has chosen to permit in the case of “approved” institutions. In fact, the remaining potential dollar outflow, and especially the part of it that would not be checked by the general prohibitions relating to foreign exchange transactions, may be so insubstantial that the only significant effect of the regulations would be to choke off the flow of these publications to readers who would not actually pay for them but who may not take the trouble to fill out the required forms or who may not be able to establish, to the satisfaction of the Government’s licensing officials, that the publications involved were in fact gifts. Under these circumstances, the regulations involved here surely raise a serious First Amendment question that should be heard and decided by this Court.

II.

The only apparent explanation for the Court’s denial of certiorari in this case is the fact that the petition arrived here two days after the 90-day period allowed by 28 U. S. C. § 2101 (c) for seeking certiorari in a civil case would normally have expired. The circumstances under which this occurred are these. The judgments sought to be reviewed were entered on November 14,1968, and the 90-day period therefore expired on Wednesday, February 12,1969. The petition for certiorari, along with the required number of copies, was sent from New York City by first-class mail at about noon on Monday, February 10. A severe snowstorm had hit New York City the night before, causing considerable disruption of many services including, as it turned out, the mails. Counsel for petitioners no doubt anticipated that some delay might possibly result from the storm, but since first-class mail from New York normally reaches Washington overnight, they could not have anticipated that it would take more than the remaining two and one-half days for their petition to arrive. In fact, however, the petition took four days to reach Washington and was docketed here on Friday, February 14, 1969.

The statute governing the time for seeking certiorari in a civil case, 28 U. S. C. § 2101 (c), provides that a petition for review of any judgment or decree “shall be taken or applied for within ninety days after the entry of such judgment or decree.” It is suggested by the Solicitor General, on behalf of respondents here, that this statute is “jurisdictional,” and that we must follow it. I agree, of course, that we should follow the statute. But we must first determine what the statute means. Commentators and this Court alike have often said that the statute is “jurisdictional,” and no doubt this statement is true in certain senses of that term. But the statement certainly is not true if it is intended to suggest that the statute deprives this Court of all power to hear cases filed after the 90-day period, regardless of whether the delay was caused by snowstorms making the transportation of the mails impossible. Under no known principle of statutory construction can such an interpretation of § 2101 (c) be supported. Nor have I been able to find any case interpreting the statute in this way. Although many cases repeat the “jurisdictional” formula, none of them that I have found involved situations where the delay was wholly caused by circumstances entirely beyond the petitioner’s control. In fact, many of the early cases interpreting Rev. Stat. §§ 997 and 1008, the predecessors of § 2101 (c), made clear that this Court had power to waive the time requirement of these provisions under appropriate circumstances. In recent years this Court has on occasion granted certiorari and decided on the merits civil cases that had been filed after the 90-day period, without making any mention of the time question. See, e. g., Ray v. Pierson, 386 U. S. 547 (1967) (No. 94, October Term, 1966).

In addition, we have squarely adopted this approach in interpreting several related statutes. The provision governing direct appeals to this Court from a district court, now § 2101 (a), provides that “[t]he record shall be made up and the ease docketed within sixty days from the time such appeal is taken under rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.” The Court held, under circumstances much less compelling than those present here, that this provision did not eliminate our power to hear appeals docketed after the 60-day period, noting that “[i]t will not expedite determination of constitutional questions to dismiss appeals because of errors of practice.” United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 86 (1947). The cases deciding the timeliness of an appeal to the court of appeals have reached the same result under statutes that were even more clearly phrased in mandatory terms, and did not explicitly include even an indirect reference to a judicial rule-making power on the subject. E. g., Georgia Lumber Co. v. Compania, 323 U. S. 334 (1945); R. F. C. v. Prudence Group, 311 U. S. 579 (1941).

As all these cases show, the Court’s Draconian interpretation of the statute is not supported by our prior decisions. Nor does the language of the statute itself dictate the Court’s result. The statute does not say explicitly that the time limitation may be inapplicable under certain extenuating circumstances, but it also does not say that the time limit must be ruthlessly applied in every conceivable situation, without regard to hardships involved or extenuating circumstances present. The Court therefore must decide what is the more sensible interpretation of the statute. I for one cannot think of any purpose Congress might have had that could possibly be served by holding that a litigant can be defeated solely because of a delay that was entirely beyond his control. As we stressed in the R. F. C. case, supra:

“If that were true, the existence of the right to appeal would be subject to contingencies which no degree of diligence by an appellant could control. Ambiguities in statutory language should not be resolved so as to imperil a substantial right which has been granted.” 311 U. S., at 582.

It might be well to imagine for a moment what would have happened if some Senator or Representative had suggested an amendment to “clarify” the proposed § 2101 (c) by stating that a petition filed after the 90-day period will not be out of time “when the delay is caused solely by an interruption of the mail service due to snowstorms.” It is conceivable that more than a few members of Congress would consider such an amendment an insult to this Court’s intelligence and would feel it unnecessary to lead this Court by the hand on such matters of elementary common sense. It is impossible, however, to believe that any of them would have regarded an amendment to the opposite effect as properly reflecting the purpose of the statute, and yet this opposite amendment, ruling a petition out of time under these circumstances, is precisely the amendment that the Court today tacitly engrafts onto § 2101 (c).

I would not adopt any such pointlessly harsh interpretation of the statute, one that furthers no congressional objective whatsoever and denies litigants their opportunity to seek review in this Court on the basis of atmospheric events wholly beyond their control. This is a return to all the cruel technicalities of common-law pleading, and then some. I would grant certiorari and hear argument on the vital First Amendment issues at stake in this case.

Mr. Justice Harlan would also grant certiorari, but would postpone the question of jurisdiction to consideration of the case on the merits.

       31 CFR §500.801 (b)(2).

       31 CFR §500.204 App. (108) (1969) provides as follows:

        “Publications and films from China, North Korea and North Viet Nam. Publications and films originating in mainland China, North Korea or North Viet Nam are licensed for commercial importation provided all payments due to the suppliers are made into blocked accounts. Publications and films originating in mainland China, North Korea, and North Viet Nam are also licensed without restrictions as to method of payment under programs approved by the Librarian of Congress or the National Science Foundation for universities, libraries, research and scientific institutions. Such publications and films are also licensed in exchange for publications from the United States. Additionally, such publications and films are licensed when the Office of Foreign Assets Control is satisfied that they are bona fide gifts to the importers and that there is not and has not been since the effective date any direct or indirect financial or commercial benefit to designated countries or nationals thereof from the importations.”

       After the commencement of this suit, petitioner Pollin applied for a license and after waiting four weeks received only a request for additional information; the license was finally granted after a total delay of eight weeks. Similarly, petitioner Teague waited five weeks after submitting a license application, only to receive a request that he answer an additional number of detailed questions; he did not pursue the matter further.

       See, e. g., Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U. S. 505, 506-507 (1879); Richardson v. Green, 130 U. S. 104, 111 (1889); Green v. Elbert, 137 U. S. 615, 621-623 (1891).


author: Mr. Justice Fortas,

text:
    No. 1070.
    Balistrieri v. United States.

      Edward Bennett Williams, Harold Ungar, and Maurice Walsh for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Walters, Joseph M. Howard, and Charles A. McNelis for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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

Mr. Justice Fortas,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,

dissenting.

Petitioner was adjudged guilty of income tax evasion. Petitioner claims and the Government does not deny the following astounding record of lawless invasion of his rights by government agents:

1. An electronic “bug,” installed by trespass, was maintained in his office for over a year.

2. A “bug” was unlawfully installed and maintained for almost six months in the office of petitioner’s counsel.

3. A “bug” was installed by trespass and maintained in the office-apartment of petitioner’s secretary for some eight months.

4. FBI agents broke into the apartment of petitioner’s secretary and photographed papers in a private file belonging to petitioner.

5. IRS agents searched the secretary’s apartment and seized records of petitioner pursuant to a warrant later held invalid. Alioto v. United States, 216 F. Supp. 48 (D. C. E. D. Wis. 1963).

FBI and IRS agents also kept the secretary’s office-apartment under observation through a peephole in the door of a room across the hall and, at the request of IRS officials, the Post Office maintained a mail cover of the petitioner, recording the addressee and sender of all mail delivered to certain addresses believed to be connected with petitioner.

Much evidence was suppressed by the District Court as the product of the unlawful activities of the federal agents, and one count of the indictment was dismissed. However, the District Court held that the Government had adequately shown that on two other counts its case rested on independently obtained evidence, free of the taint of the illegal searches. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. 403 F. 2d 472. This Court now refuses to review the case.

I do not agree. This is not merely a factual problem which must be regarded by this Court as finally disposed of by the findings below. It presents a fundamental question of law: The Government contends and the courts below found that the federal agents obtained incriminating evidence relating to unreported income from a scrap metal company as a result of assertedly non-tainted leads gleaned from the mail cover. It is true that the agent who decided to examine the company’s records knew that 14 months earlier the mail cover had turned up a letter addressed to the company at one of petitioner’s addresses. But the agent also admittedly had access to the inventory of illegally seized documents. That inventory included documents explicitly showing many transactions by the company in which petitioner might have been involved. The agent therefore had access to a great mass of illegally obtained information unmistakably suggesting a line of further inquiry, as well as to the isolated fact that a letter — of unknown contents— to the scrap metal company had been delivered many months before to an address associated with petitioner.

Whether in these circumstances the IRS agent’s decision to examine the scrap metal company’s records was “gained from an independent source” (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 392 (1920)) and was not an “exploitation of ... illegality” (Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 488 (1963)) raises basic questions of the burden of proof and the standard to be applied in determining whether and to what extent widespread lawlessness in an investigation should deny the prosecution use of evidentiary material. I would grant certiorari to examine these important questions.


text:
    No. 1093.
    Best Medium Publishing Co., Inc. v. Varnish.

      Irwin M. Taylor for petitioner.

      Ernest Allen Cohen for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1095.
    Acuff et al. v. United Papermakers & Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, et al.

      Reber Boult, Jr., Charles Morgan, Jr., Melvin L. Wulf, and Eleanor Holmes Norton for petitioners.

      Warren Woods, Betty Southard Murphy, Benjamin Wyle, and Willis C. Darby, Jr., for United Papermakers & Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, et al., and T. K. Jackson, Jr., for Scott Paper Co., Southern Division, respondents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1116.
    Bufalino v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. et al.

      William E. Bufalino, petitioner, pro se.

      Leslie W. Fleming for respondents Michigan Bell Telephone Co. et al., and John F. Hathaway for respondents Bullock et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 627,
    Misc.
    LeMaster v. Texas et al.

      Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, and Robert C. Flowers and Lonny F. Zwiener, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1112.
    Leighton v. One William Street Fund, Inc., et al.

      Arthur W. Murphy for respondent One William Street Fund, Inc., Benjamin C. Milner III and Anthony L. Fletcher for respondents Lehman Brothers et al., and Harvey D. Myerson for respondent Reed.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner to require certification of additional portions of appendix granted. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1129.
    Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Simpson, Administratrix.

      Martin J. Flynn for petitioner. Alex M. Clark for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing respondent’s brief granted. Cer-tiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Fortas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1135.
    Kaufman v. New York Central Railroad Co., now known as Penn Central Co.

      Charles H. Brady for petitioner.

      George J. Gould and Richard F. Ellenberger for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion to change title of respondent from New York Central Railroad Co. to New York Central Railroad Co., now known as Penn Central Co., granted. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 943,
    Misc.
    Hayes v. Wisconsin.

      Robert W. Warren, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and William A. Platz, Betty R. Brown, and William F. Eich, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 973,
    Misc.
    Wideman v. Pennsylvania.

      James D. Crawford and Arlen Specter for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 964,
    Misc.
    Edwards v. Kansas.

      Kent Frizzell, Attorney General of Kansas, and Edward G. Collister, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1119,
    Misc.
    Lawhon v. Texas.

      Charles W. Tessmer for petitioner.

      Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, and Robert C. Flowers and Lonny F. Zwiener, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1179,
    Misc.
    Maestas v. Utah.

      Vernon B. Romney, Attorney General of Utah, and Lauren N. Beasley, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1302,
    Misc.
    Ramer v. Wisconsin.

      Robert W. Warren, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and William A. Platz, Betty R. Brown, and William F. Eich, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1352,
    Misc.
    Capaldo v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1361,
    Misc.
    Meyer v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1427,
    Misc.
    Silver v. Dickson et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1438,
    Misc.
    Black v. United States.

      William F. Walsh for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Jerome M. Feit, and Leonard H. Dick-stein for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1442,
    Misc.
    Mower v. United States.

      J. B. Stoner for petitioner. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1449,
    Misc.
    Reese v. Meier, Warden, et al.

      Solicitor General Griswold for respondents.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1482,
    Misc.
    Harrison v. United States.

      Solicitor General Gris-wold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1461,
    Misc.
    Camak v. Michigan.

      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and James J. Wood, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1462,
    Misc.
    Crachy v. Kropp, Warden.

      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and James J. Wood, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1450,
    Misc.
    Horton v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1477,
    Misc.
    Carter v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1492,
    Misc.
    Williams v. Peyton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1500,
    Misc.
    Jones v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Mervyn Hamburg for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1501,
    Misc.
    Silva v. Field, Men’s Colony Superintendent, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1531,
    Misc.
    DeLorme et al. v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1539,
    Misc.
    Rodriguez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1541,
    Misc.
    Geeter v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1556,
    Misc.
    Scott v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Roger A. Pauley for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1545,
    Misc.
    McKinney v. Boyle et al.

      Harold R. Scoville for respondents.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1550,
    Misc.
    Dowling v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1566,
    Misc.
    Williams v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1581,
    Misc.
    Fields v. Mancusi, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1583,
    Misc.
    Hansen v. Utah.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1592,
    Misc.
    Sumlin v. Illinois.

      Gerald W. Getty and James J. Doherty for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1598,
    Misc.
    Carr v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1601,
    Misc.
    Harrell v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1602,
    Misc.
    Broussard v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1641,
    Misc.
    Brown v. Peyton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1629,
    Misc.
    Jones v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1640,
    Misc.
    Olenin v. Curtin & Johnson, Inc., et al.

      Arthur S. Curtis for petitioner.

      Denver H. Graham and Albert E. Brault for respondents.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1649,
    Misc.
    Brotze v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 732,
    Misc.
    Rich v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Jerome M. Feit, and Marshall T. Golding for the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted. Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 751,
    Misc.
    McKnight v. Illinois.

      Gerald W. Getty for petitioner.

      William J. Scott, Attorney General of Illinois, and John J. O’Toole, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice White are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted and judgment reversed.


text:
    No. 1570,
    Misc.
    Rubio v. United States.

      Terence F. MacCarthy for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 9,
    Orig.
    United States v. Louisiana et al.
   (Louisiana Boundary Case), ante, p. 11. Petition for

rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 964.
    No. 987.
    Inter National Bank of Miami v. Brock, Trustee, et al., Alameda Conservation Assn. v. City of Alameda et al.,
   393 U. S. 1118; and

ante, p. 906. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 317.
    Di Pietto et al. v. United States,
   ante, p. 310. Petition for rehearing on behalf of Di Pietto, In-felice, and Santucci denied.


text:
    No. 562.
    No. 595.
    Benson v. Carter, Probation Officer, et al., Hinger v. City of Piqua,
   393 U. S. 1080; and

393 U. S. 1001. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 752.
    Milton Frank Allen Publications, Inc. v. Georgia Association of Petroleum Retailers, Inc.,
   393 U. S. 1025, 1112. Motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 792.
    Birnbaum v. United States,
   ante, p. 922. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 1011.
    O’Bryan v. Chandler, Chief Judge, U. S. District Court,
   ante, p. 906. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 656,
    No. 901,
    No. 1276,
    No. 1332,
    No. 1362,
    No. 1469,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Reece v. United States et al., Watson v. Schneckloth, Conservation Center Superintendent, Jennison v. United States, McGurrin v. Shovlin, State Hospital Superintendent, Smith v. Laird, Secretary of Defense, Furtak v. Mancusi, Warden,
   ante, p. 912; 393 U. S. 1114; ante, p. 912; 393 U. S. 1075; ante, p. 934; and ante, p. 939. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 971,
    Misc.
    Lynch v. Landy, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Employees’ Compensation, United States Department of Labor, et al.,
   393 U. S. 1070. Petition for rehearing and other relief denied.


text:
    April 28, 1969.
    No. —.
    United Telephone Company of Florida v. Mayo et al.

      Charles Pickett on the motion.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of appellant to dismiss appeal under Rule 14 (1) granted.


text:
    No. —.
    Mendez v. Craven, Warden, et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 2000,
    Misc.
    In re Disbarment of Sullivan.
   It is ordered that Thomas W. Sullivan of Montgomery, Alabama, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 777.
    No. 932.
    First National Bank in Plant City v. Dickinson, Comptroller of Florida, et al.; and Camp, Comptroller of the Currency v. Dickinson, Comptroller of Florida, et al.

      Solicitor General Griswold for Camp and Robert S. Edwards for First National Bank in Plant City on the motion.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 393 U. S. 1079.] Motion to enlarge time for oral argument granted and a total of one hour and 40 minutes allotted for oral argument.

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


text:
    No. 1718,
    No. 1720,
    No. 1725,
    No. 1746,
    No. 1771,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Riley v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent, et al.; Spaniel v. Nelson, Warden, et al.; Jones v. Russell, Warden; Akers v. Cassin, Judge; and White v. Field, Men's Colony Superintendent.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 1146.
    Goldstein, aka Pietraru, et al. v. Cox et al.

      John R. Vintilla, Emanuel Eschwege, and Novak N. Marku for appellants.

      Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Daniel M. Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees. Martin Popper on the motion.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y. Motion of Wolf Popper Ross Wolf & Jones for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 1124.
    United States v. W. M. Webb, Inc., et al.

      Solicitor General

      Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Walters, Harris Weinstein, Louis M. Kauder, and Robert I. Waxman for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.

Joseph J. Lyman for respondents.


text:
    No. 1144.
    Breen v. Selective Service Local Board No. 16, Bridgeport, Connecticut, et al.

      Emanuel Margolis, Lawrence P. Weisman, and Melvin L. Wulf for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Grisivold, Assistant Attorney General Ruckels-haus, Morton Hollander, and Ralph A. Fine for respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 1176.
    Gutknecht v. United States.

      Melvin L. Wulf for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted and case set for oral argument immediately following No. 1144, supra.


text:
    No. 1127.
    Technitrol, Inc. v. McManus, U. S. District Judge.

      Laurence B. Dodds for petitioner.

      Morris Relson for Collins Radio Co., defendant below, in opposition.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1134.
    Williams et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

      Phillip L. Charles for petitioners.

      Solicitor General Griswold and Assistant Attorney General Walters for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1153.
    Ciaffoni et al. v. Brunswick Corp. et al.

      Milton D. Rosenberg for petitioners.

      John G. Buchanan, Jr., for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1103.
    Gainey et al. v. Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees et al.

      Lawrence J. Richette for petitioners.

      Allen S. Olmsted M for respondent Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1118.
    Roberts v. Resor, Secretary of the Army, et al.

      Thomas B. Sweeney for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Ruckelshaus, Alan S. Rosenthal, and J. F. Bishop for respondents.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1138.
    Bossert Machine Co. et al. v. City of Cincinnati.

      Philip J. Schneider for petitioners.

      William A. McClain and Thomas H. Crush for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1145.
    Gordon v. Brooklyn Bar Assn.

      Morton Lijtin for petitioner.

      Herbert H. Hefier for respondent.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1150.
    Durham et al. v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc.

      H. Solomon Horen and Mozart G. Ratner for petitioners.

      Edgar A. Zingman for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1154.
    Longfellow v. United States.

      George A. Daugherty for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Roger A. Pauley for the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1142.
    Abex Corp. et al. v. Trustees of the Property of New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. et al.

      JohnW. Barnett for petitioners Abex Corp. et al., and John F. Hunt, Jr., for petitioners Bethlehem Steel Corp. et al. James Wm. Moore, Joseph W. Bishop, Jr., Joseph Auer-bach, and Morris Raker for respondent Smith, Trustee; Albert X. Bader, Jr., for respondent Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., Trustee, Joseph Schreiber and Wilkie Bushby for respondent Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A., Trustee, Lester C. Migdal and Lawrence W. Pollack for respondent New Haven Railroad 4% Bondholders Committee, and Myron S. Isaacs for respondent Oscar Gruss & Son.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1156.
    Checker Motors Corp. v. Chrysler Corp. et al.

      Jesse QUmenko and Herbert B. Lazarus for petitioner.

      Robert Ehrenbard for respondents.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 839.
    Pate, Warden v. Pugh.

      William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and John J. O’Toole and Donald J. Veverka, Assistant Attorneys General, for petitioner.

      Stanley A. Bass and Sam Adam for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1078.
    Celanese Corp. v. Brenner, Commissioner of Patents.

      Stephen Rackow Kaye for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Ruckelshaus, and Morton Hollander for respondent.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1167.
    Smith v. James Irvine Foundation et al.

      Lyndol L. Young for petitioner.

      Burnham Enersen for respondent James Irvine Foundation, and Reid- R. Briggs for respondents Irvine et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1203.
    Borg-Warner Corp. v. Republic Gear Co.

      James E. S. Baker, Robert W. Murphy, and George L. Saunders for petitioner.

      Aaron Lewittes and Edward I. Rothschild for respondent.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1126.
    Farinella et al. v. United States.

      Milton E. Grus-mark and Natalie Baskin for petitioners.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Jerome M. Feit, and Roger A. Pauley for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion to defer consideration of petition for certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1155.
    Tartaglio et al. v. Department of Institutions and Agencies, Division of Public Welfare.

      George F. Bason, Jr., for petitioners.

      Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Eugene T. Urbaniak, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Motion to defer consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1174.
    United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. Hamilton Steel Products, Inc., et al.

      Bernard Kleiman, Gilbert Feldman, Elliot Bredhoff, Michael H. Gottesman, and George H. Cohen for petitioner.

      J. Robert Geiman for respondent Union Central Life Insurance Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Fortas are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1147.
    Polur v. Botein et al.

      Sam Polur, petitioner, pro se.

      Whitney North Seymour for respondents.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Motion to dispense with printing petition denied. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1149.
    Mooneyhan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

      Lowe Watkins for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Walters, Louis M. Kauder, and John S. Stephan for respondent.
   C. Á. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 7,
    Misc.
    Gardner v. California.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Jack K. Weber, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Super. Ct. Cal., County of San Luis Obispo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 10,
    Misc.
    Gardner v. California.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Jack K. Weber, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 724,
    Misc.
    Clark v. Maryland.

      Robert Gordon King and Louis Peregoff for petitioner.

      Francis B. Burch, Attorney General of Maryland, and William E. Brannan, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1250,
    Misc.
    Foggy v. Eyman, Warden, et al.

      Gary K. Nelson, Attorney General of Arizona, and Thomas M. Tuggle, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 545,
    Misc.
    Childs v. Ohio.

      Gerald A. Messermcm for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 875,
    Misc.
    Hamilton v. Patterson, Vocational Institution Superintendent.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Doris H. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, and Nelson P. Kempsky, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 1207,
    Misc.
    Miller v. Baker, Warden.

      James A. Maloney, Attorney General of New Mexico, and James V. Noble, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1233,
    Misc.
    Juelich v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Mervyn Hamburg for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1290,
    Misc.
    Ralph v. Maryland.

      Edward L. Genii for petitioner.

      Francis B. Burch, Attorney General of Maryland, Alfred J. O’Ferrall III, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1408,
    Misc.
    Burton v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1445,
    Misc.
    Wade v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1301,
    Misc.
    Pagano v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Jerome M. Feit, and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1459,
    Misc.
    Bonton v. California.

      S. Carter McMorris for petitioner.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Sacramento. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1467,
    Misc.
    Devine v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1509,
    Misc.
    Wilson v. United States.

      William E. Hellerstein and Phylis Skloot Bamberger for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1522,
    Misc.
    Winkle v. Kropp, Warden.

      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Stewart H. Freeman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1536,
    Misc.
    Johnson v. Insurance Department of Pennsylvania et al.

      Edward O. Spotts for petitioner.

      William C. Sennett, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Charles D. Cowley, Assistant Attorney General, and Frederic G. Antoun, Deputy Attorney General, for respondents. John P. Walsh for Insurance Rating Board, intervenor below, in opposition.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1521,
    Misc.
    Grays v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1546,
    Misc.
    Curl v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1557,
    Misc.
    Hamilton v. Faulkner.

      John Unger for petitioner.

      John E. Sebat for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1565,
    Misc.
    McConnell v. Washington et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1568,
    Misc.
    Parker v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Philip R. Mona-han for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1577,
    Misc.
    Frazier v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1582,
    Misc.
    Ball v. Maryland.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1584,
    Misc.
    Ford v. Comstock, Conservation Center Superintendent.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1589,
    Misc.
    Caldwell v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Roger A. Pauley for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1588,
    Misc.
    Daubin v. California.

      Meredith M. Daubin for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1591,
    Misc.
    Hudson v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1594,
    Misc.
    Riordan v. Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Law and Public Safety.

      Mark F. Hughes, Jr., for petitioner.

      Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, Elias Abelson, Assistant Attorney General, and Thaddeus C. Raczkowski, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1595,
    Misc.
    Montez v. Eyman, Warden.

      Gary K. Nelson, Attorney General of Arizona, for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1599,
    Misc.
    Nam Sing Shak v. Hawaii.
   Sup. Ct. Hawaii. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1603,
    Misc.
    Parness v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1611,
    Misc.
    Wright v. Michigan.

      Sam Adam for petitioner.

      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, and Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, for respondent.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1615,
    Misc.
    Odell v. Schmidt et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1616,
    Misc.
    Christian v. Jackson County.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1618,
    Misc.
    Denham v. Illinois.

      Gerald W. Getty, Marshall J. Hartman, and James J. Doherty for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1619,
    Misc.
    Craig v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1622,
    Misc.
    Moore v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1624,
    Misc.
    Taplin v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1626,
    Misc.
    Henderson v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1638,
    Misc.
    Griffin v. Martin, Correction Commissioner.

      Paul Taylor for petitioner.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1647,
    Misc.
    McCray v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1648,
    Misc.
    Hopson v. Peyton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1627,
    Misc.
    Sweet v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1651,
    Misc.
    Young v. United States.

      Solicitor General Gris-wold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Jerome M. Feit, and Sidney M. Glazer for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1652,
    Misc.
    Kelly v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1653,
    Misc.
    Frizer v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1654,
    Misc.
    Berry v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1659,
    Misc.
    Mangini v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1660,
    Misc.
    Baxley v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1663,
    Misc.
    Gorum v. Craven, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1671,
    Misc.
    Pollard v. United States et al.

      Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1682,
    Misc.
    Ritter v. McMann, Warden.

      William E. Hellerstein, Phylis Skloot Bamberger, and Harry C. Batchelder, Jr., for petitioner.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1672,
    Misc.
    Cappetta v. Florida.

      Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and Charles W. Musgrove, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1673,
    Misc.
    McCargo v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1677,
    Misc.
    Tabor, aka Reichner v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1679,
    Misc.
    Riley v. Parker et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1687,
    Misc.
    Dearinger v. Rhay, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1694,
    Misc.
    Tinsley v. McMann, Warden.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1699,
    Misc.
    Farnsworth v. Second District Court.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1548,
    Misc.
    Aadal v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Jerome M. Feit, and Sidney M. Glaser for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 1105,
    Misc.
    Hancock v. Tennessee.

      George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Robert H. Roberts, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1701,
    Misc.
    Casey v. Lambros, U. S. District Judge.

      Solicitor General Griswold for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1703,
    Misc.
    Wilson v. United States.

      Solicitor General Gris-wold for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1707,
    Misc.
    Evans v. Peyton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1724,
    Misc.
    Willis v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 699.
    No. 1506,
    Misc.
    Daly v. California, Hillery v. California,
   ante, p. 929; and

ante, p. 951. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 927.
    Granello, aka Burns v. United States,
   393 U. S. 1095. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    May 5, 1969.
    No. 776.
    Utah Public Service Commission v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. et al.

      David K. Watkiss and James D. McKinney, Jr., on the motion.
    [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 970.]
   Appeal from D. C. Utah. Motion of Colonial Group for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.

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


text:
    No. 705.
    Cipriano v. City of Houma et al.

      John V. Parker on the motion.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. La. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 393 U. S. 1061.] Motion of Louisiana Municipal Assn, for leave to join in the amicus curiae brief of the State of Louisiana granted.


text:
    No. 1700,
    Misc.
    In re Disbarment of Sill.
   It having been reported to the Court that Norman E. Sill of Washington, District of Columbia, has been disbarred from the practice of law by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, duly entered on the 18th day of February, 1968, and this Court by order of March 10, 1969 [ante, p. 902], having suspended the said Norman E. Sill from the practice of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred;

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

It Is Ordered that the said Norman E. Sill be, and he is hereby, disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.


text:
    No. 1242,
    Misc.
    Bivens v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold in opposition.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Application for bail presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 1064.
    North Carolina v. Alford.
   Appeal from C. A. 4th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 956.] Motion of appellee for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Doris R. Bray, of Greensboro, North Carolina, be, and she is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for appellee in this case.


text:
    No. 622.
    Maxwell v. Bishop, Penitentiary Superintendent.

      Anthony G. Amsterdam, Jack Greenberg, Michael Meltsner, Melvyn Zarr, and Charles S. Ralston on the motion.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 393 U. S. 997.] Motion of Robert Page Anderson et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae after argument granted.


text:
    No. 1192.
    Coleman et al. v. Alabama.
   Ct. App. Ala. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 916.] Motions of petitioners for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Charles Tarter, Esquire, of Birmingham, Alabama, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for petitioners in this case.


text:
    No. 1785,
    No. 1820,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Kinderman v. Young, Warden; and Duckworth v. Craven, Warden.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 950.
    Hall et ux. v. Beals, Clerk and Recorder of El Paso County, et al.

      John P. Moore, Deputy Attorney General of Colorado, and Carroll E. Multz for appellees.
   Appeal from D. C. Colo. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 1223.
    Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.

      Eleanor Jackson Piel for petitioner.

      Sanford M. Litvack, James R. Withrow, Jr., and Alfred H. Hoddinott, Jr., for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 1106.
    Evans et al. v. Abney et al.

      Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Charles L. Black, Jr., and Anthony G. Amsterdam for petitioners.

      Frank C. Jones for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari granted.

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


text:
    No. 946.
    Beech-Nut Life Savers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.

      Leonard Joseph for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli, and Norton J. Come for respondent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 982.
    Teledyne, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.

      Charles G. Bakaly, Jr., for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli, and Norton J. Come for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1071.
    Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, et al.

      Payne Ratner and Joe H. Tonahill for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli, Norton J. Come, and Linda Sher for respondents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1111.
    Hadley v. Indiana.

      William C. Erbecker and James Manaban for petitioner.

      Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General of Indiana, and Lloyd C. Hutchinson and William F. Thompson, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1157.
    Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.

      Ben G. Sewell for petitioner. Tom M. Davis for respondent.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 14th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1159.
    Lewis et al. v. United States.

      Charles A. Bellows for petitioners.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Jerome M. Feit for the United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1161.
    Carlino v. United States.

      James E. Birdsall for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Walters, and Joseph M. Howard for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1164.
    Kanarek v. United States.

      Irving A. Kanarek, petitioner, pro se.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Ruckelshaus, and Robert V. Zener for the United States.
   Ct. Cl. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1166.
    Gerhard v. United States.

      Henry Mark Holzer for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Mervyn Hamburg for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1171.
    Bloomfield v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

      Milton T. Simmons and Donald L. Ungar for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Roger A. Pauley for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1172.
    Denver Union Stockyard Co. et al. v. Denver Live Stock Commission Co.

      Winston S. Howard for petitioners.

      Maurice Reuler for respondent.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1177.
    No. 1178.
    No. 1179.
    Fluor Corp., Ltd., et al. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co.; Ward Industries Corp. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co.; and Union Tank Car Co. v. United States ex rel. Mosher Steel Co. et al.

      Harold C. Warnock for petitioners in No. 1177, R. Graeme Smith for petitioner in No. 1178, and Francis J. McConnell and Robert. A. May for petitioner in No. 1179.

      Maurice E. Purnell, Sr., for Mosher Steel Co. in all three cases.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Reported below: 405 F. 2d 823.


text:
    No. 1180.
    Carlton v. United States.

      Arnold D. Levine for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1183.
    Electronic Systems Investment Corp. v. Small Business Administration.

      John Lewis Kelly for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold for respondent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1184.
    First National Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

      William Waller for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Walters, and Jonathan S. Cohen for respondent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1188.
    Diric v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

      Myron L. Borawick for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Kirby W. Patterson for respondent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1193.
    Thomas v. United States.

      James R. Willis for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1196.
    Echard v. Ohio.

      Allan Sherry for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 1202.
    Speyer, Inc., et al. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. et al.

      William W. Knox and John G. Gent for petitioners.

      John M. Wolford, Cloyd R. Mellott, and Barton Z. Cowan for Humble Oil & Refining Co., and Raymond G. Hasley for A. O. Smith Corp., respondents.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 983.
    Hanna v. United States.

      Guy Johnson for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Gristoold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Sidney M. Glazer for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Fortas,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,

dissenting.

Petitioner asks that we review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirming his convictions for defrauding the telephone company in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1343 and for use of interstate commerce facilities for illegal gambling in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 1084 and 1952. The only evidence against petitioner was obtained by the telephone company’s action in tapping his telephone line or was the product of information gained from that tap. The company became suspicious that petitioner was using a “blue box” to avoid payment for long-distance telephone calls. A “blue box” is an electronic signaling device which can be used to bypass the equipment which automatically records tolls on direct-dialed long-distance calls. An electronic device— which did not record the content of any conversations— confirmed the presence on the line of the 2,600-cycle tone characteristic of the operation of a “blue box.” Company security officers then connected to petitioner’s line a tape recorder which began recording the conversations on the line whenever the 2,600-cycle tone appeared and which automatically cut off after 35 to 45 seconds.

The recording instrument was used for about three weeks. The FBI was then informed of the recordings, and the recordings were turned over to a grand jury in response to a subpoena. Using the recorded information, the FBI obtained a warrant and conducted a search of petitioner’s home.

Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1103, 47 U. S. C. § 605, prohibits the interception and divulgence of telephone messages. It is argued— and the Fifth Circuit held — that the information was not unlawfully obtained because § 605 excludes from its prohibitions certain divulging of telephone messages by “[a] person . . . transmitting, or assisting in transmitting” conversations.

In a similar case, Bubis v. United States, 384 F. 2d 643 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1967), the Ninth Circuit held that under § 605 the telephone company was not allowed to continue tapping its subscribers’ lines to detect fraud “after ample evidence had been secured of the illegal use ... of the company’s facilities.” 384 F. 2d, at 648. The tap in Bubis recorded the whole conversation and not merely the first part, but an essential fact — that the interception was more extensive than necessary to detect fraud — is the same in both cases.

I would grant certiorari in this case to resolve the area of conflict between circuits and to determine whether § 605 permits the telephone company to intercept and divulge personal communications which are used in the expectation of freedom from “the uninvited ear.” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 352 (1967).

       This tap was installed without a trespass, but if placed by law enforcement officers, it would clearly have violated the protections of the Fourth Amendment, as defined by this Court in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967). The tap was, however, installed before the decision in Katz was announced. This Court has determined that it will not consider the constitutionality of non-trespassory invasions which took place prior to Katz. Desist v. United States, ante, p. 244; Kaiser v. New York, ante, p. 280. Accordingly, I consider only statutory questions here.

       The Government argues that the applicability of § 605 to events such as this is now of only academic interest because of the recent enactment of § 802 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 212, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq. (1964 ed., Supp. IV). That argument is untenable. Section 2511 (2) (a) of 18 U. S. C. declares:
      “It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of any communication common carrier, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of such communication: Provided, That said communication common carriers shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.”
      It is by no means clear that the new statute would authorize this kind of conduct if a similar case occurred today. Unless it did, § 605 would still apply and the same problems that exist in this case would arise again.


text:
    No. 1251.
    United Forest Products Co., Inc. v. Baxter et al.

      E. Eugene Davis, F. J. O’Hara, Jr., and Hugh Lynch, Jr., for petitioner.

      Donald A. Wine for respondents.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1109.
    Weed v. Bilbrey et al.

      Frederick William Wagner and Peter G. Kalogridis for petitioner.

      William A. Gillen for respondents.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Brennan are of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


text:
    No. 1131.
    Bankers Commercial Life Insurance Co. et al. v. American Hospital Assn. et al.

      Otis B. Gary for respondents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. G. H. Kelsoe, Jr., for petitioners.


text:
    No. 1197.
    Bentley v. New Hampshire.

      George S. Pappagianis, Attorney-General of New Hampshire, and David H. Souter, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 921,
    Misc.
    Kennedy v. United States.

      Arthur I. Vorys for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1108,
    Misc.
    Bullard v. United States.

      Solicitor General Gris-wold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1420,
    Misc.
    Spivey v. Virginia.

      Samuel A. Garrison III for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1003,
    Misc.
    Sullivan v. California.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Robert R. Granucci and Louise H. Renne, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1031,
    Misc.
    Dorrough v. United States.

      W. B. West III for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Mervyn Hamburg for the United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1576,
    Misc.
    Eaton v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1621,
    Misc.
    Dancis v. United States.

      Alan H. Levine, Melvin L. Wulf, and Marvin M. Karpatkin for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Jerome M. Feit, and Roger A. Pauley for the United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1665,
    Misc.
    Anderson v. Wilson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1675,
    Misc.
    Saavedra v. Connecticut.

      William D. Graham for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1644,
    Misc.
    Shock v. Tester et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1664,
    Misc.
    Allen v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1680,
    Misc.
    Chester v. United States.

      Thomas B. Rutter for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Jerome M. Feit, and Robert G. Maysack for the United States.
   C. A.

3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1685,
    Misc.
    Horton v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1689,
    Misc.
    Harris v. Michigan et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1710,
    Misc.
    Bradford v. Georgia.

      Guy B. Scott, Jr., for petitioner.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1702,
    Misc.
    Denman et al. v. County of Barnstable et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1704,
    Misc.
    Gilchrist v. United States.

      H. Elliot Wales for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Philip R. Monahan for the United States.
   C. A.

2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1708,
    Misc.
    Hunt v. Eyman, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1688,
    Misc.
    Houghtaling v. Virginia.

      Humes J. Franklin for petitioner.
   Sup. Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1713,
    Misc.
    Jessy v. Superior Court of California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1722,
    Misc.
    Theriault v. Peek et al.

      Solicitor General Griswold for respondents.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1728,
    Misc.
    Rush v. Pennsylvania.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1729,
    Misc.
    Meadows v. Warden, Brooklyn House of Detention.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1741,
    Misc.
    Whitehead v. Michigan.

      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney-General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Stewart H. Freeman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1744,
    Misc.
    Lockhart v. Hendrick, County Prisons Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1055,
    Misc.
    Reed v. United States.

      George Howard, Jr., for petitioner.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 8th

Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.


author: Mr. Chief Justice Warren,

text:
    No. 1481,
    Misc.
    Bradford v. Michigan.

      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Stewart H. Freeman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Ct. App. Mich. Motion for leave to supplement petition granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Chief Justice Warren,

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

dissenting.

During the early morning hours of November 5, 1962, two Benton Harbor, Michigan, policemen stopped an automobile in the course of investigating a robbery. They were shot by the occupants of the vehicle and seriously wounded. Shortly thereafter LeRoy Payne was arrested. He was brutally treated by his captors until he confessed, implicating petitioner. Payne then became the State’s chief trial witness. Petitioner was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder and was sentenced to a term of 20 to 40 years.

At petitioner’s trial the State conceded that Payne testified truthfully concerning the manner in which the police had obtained his confession. The police campaign to compel Payne to confess began upon Payne’s arrest. On the way to the police station Payne was called a “dirty bastard” and a “nigger.” The police suggested that they might throw him out of the police car and then shoot him, claiming that he had attempted to escape. Payne was questioned for two days without food, water, or sleep; he was informed that all three necessities of life would be provided once he confessed and informed the police as to the identity of his accomplice. During the course of questioning Payne was beaten about the face until both eyes were blackened, was kicked and was held by one officer while the other twisted his fingers and then squeezed his testicles. Finally, the police threatened to prosecute Payne’s wife for perjury and to have his children taken away. The State admits that the confession implicating petitioner was the product of these tactics.

Prior to petitioner’s trial Payne had entered a guilty plea but had not as yet been sentenced. Although he stated that his testimony was not prompted by fear, Payne later signed an affidavit to the contrary. In this affidavit, presented to the trial court at petitioner’s motion for a new trial, Payne insisted:

“At the time of Mr. Bradford [petitioner’s] trial I was in fear of my life, safety of my family. As a result of this I gave false testimony at the preliminary hearing and trial of Mr. Bradford. The only part of my testimony [which was true] at that time was that of the treatment I received at the hands of the police.”

On June 15, 1967, Payne’s guilty plea was set aside on the basis that it was involuntary.

It is now a commonplace that coerced confessions are inadmissible at criminal trials because they are untrustworthy and the methods used to obtain them offend the principle that our system of criminal justice is accusa-torial not inquisitorial. Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U. S. 534, 540-541 (1961). Nor do I think it relevant that the coercion in this case was exerted against the chief state witness rather than the accused. As was said by Mr. Justice Rutledge, dissenting in part in Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401, 430-431 (1945):

“Due process does not permit one to be convicted upon his own coerced confession. It should not allow him to be convicted upon a confession wrung from another by coercion. A conviction supported only by such a confession could be but a variation of trial by ordeal.”

Admission of Payne’s trial testimony was, in my view, a violation of due process as it was cut from the same fabric that produced his original statement. Even if the brutality ceased at the time Payne confessed, he remained under the control of those who had elicited the confession. See Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227, 235 (1940). Faced with memories of his ordeal and with the fact that he had not as yet been sentenced, Payne had little choice but to repeat at trial what the police had earlier forced from his lips, as is conclusively demonstrated by the fact that Payne’s plea has been found involuntary.

Since I cannot separate Payne’s trial testimony from the original coercion, and because I believe that the majesty of the law cannot be enhanced by a conviction based on such medieval cruelty, I would grant certiorari and reverse this conviction.


text:
    No. 1753,
    Misc.
    Purnell v. Peyton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 1634,
    Misc.
    Derengowski v. United States.

      Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 69.
    Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al. v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.,
   ante, p. 369. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 62.
    No. 109.
    No. 199.
    No. 940.
    No. 1005.
    No. 1012.
    No. 1042.
    No. 1087.
    No. 524,
    No. 857,
    No. 1457,
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Misc.
    Kaiser v. New York, Snyder v. Harris et al., Harris, U. S. District Judge (Walker, Real Party in Interest) v. Nelson, Warden, Kenney v. American Can Co., Howe v. General Motors Corp., National Sponge Cushion Co., Inc. v. Allen Industries, Inc., et al., Gould et ux. v. American Water Works Service Co., Inc., et al., Ashton v. United States, Cassasa v. California, Bush v. United States, Glass v. United States,
   ante, p. 280;

ante, p. 332;

ante, p. 286;

393 U. S. 1119;

ante, p. 919;

ante, p. 920;

ante, p. 943 ;

ante, p. 960;

393 U. S. 1066;

393 U. S. 532; and

ante, p. 939. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    May 12, 1969.
    No. 5,
    Misc.
    Sanchez v. California.

      Charles F. Prael for petitioner.

      Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, and Edward P. O’Brien and Karl S. Mayer, Deputy Attorneys General, for respondent.
    [For earlier order herein, see 389 U. S. 999.]
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.