text:
    No. 93-651.
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Shrader & York et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 93-1313.
    White v. Runyon, Postmaster General.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1327.
    Branch et al. v. Tunnell, Individually and as Special Agent of the Bureau of Land Management.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1358.
    Jackson v. Hoylman et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1422.
    Weissich et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1446.
    Cretan, Widow of Cretan, et al. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1471.
    Somenski et al. v. Companhia de Navegacio Lloyd Brasileiro.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1475.
    Wong v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1522.
    Maravilla et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1540.
    McNichols v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1560.
    Huff et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1564.
    No. 93-1639.
    Alaska et al. v. United States; and United States v. Alaska et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1582.
    LeBlanc et al. v. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1625.
    North Star Alaska Housing Corp. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1652.
    Calderon, Warden, et al. v. Hamilton.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1692.
    County of San Diego et al. v. Murphy.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1697.
    Reilly v. Tucson Electric Power Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1702.
    Hidalgo v. Featherlite Building Products Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1705.
    Hall et al. v. San Bernard Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1708.
    Wardell v. Tracy.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1709.
    New Orleans 2000 Partnership v. Board of Commissioners of the New Orleans Exhibition Hall Authority.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1714.
    Keplinger v. Wilson et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1716.
    Profile Manufacturing, Inc., et al. v. Kress et al.
   Cir. Ct. Macomb County, Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1717.
    Snyder v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1719.
    Lindmark v. Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1720.
    Evans v. Weir et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1722.
    Morgan v. Ford et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1724.
    Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al. v. National Indian Gaming Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1726.
    Tarrant Service Agency, Inc. v. American Standard, Inc., dba Trane Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1732.
    Gilder v. Aetna Life & Casualty.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1738.
    Marine Recreational Opportunities, Inc. v. Berman et ux.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1739.
    Thompson v. Virginia.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1740.
    Kuhn v. Philip Morris U. S. A.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1741.
    Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Newport Ltd.
   C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1744.
    Choate v. TRW, Inc.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1754.
    Daneshmand v. R. B. Hazard, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1762.
    Larson et al. v. Sanft et al.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1766.
    U. S. Anchor Manufacturing, Inc. v. Rule Industries, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1771.
    Casillan et al. v. Regional Transportation District et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1774.
    Behrens v. Sharp et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1777.
    LaChance v. Reno, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1778.
    Shaw v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1799.
    Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1814.
    Flores de Brenes, Individually, and as Executor, Administrator, or Personal Representative of the Estate of Brenes, Decedent, et al. v. Transportes Aereos Nacionales, S. A., et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1822.
    O’Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1838.
    King v. Dutton, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1856.
    Clay v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1858.
    Brewer v. Rogers et al.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1859.
    Meisler v. Gannett Co., Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1861.
    PSI Energy, Inc. v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1864.
    Kurzawa v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1871.
    Antonio Urrego v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1888.
    Brun v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7932.
    Chapman v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8320.
    Piron v. Department of Energy et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8381.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8429.
    Dershem v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8442.
    Darden-Bey et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8468.
    Choate v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8540.
    Caldwell et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8581.
    Sepulveda et al. v. United States (two cases).
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8625.
    Goodley v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8654.
    Sword v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8656.
    Torres-Tirado v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8687.
    Morris v. Graven et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8807.
    Sule v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8840.
    Manuel L. v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied..


text:
    No. 93-8867.
    Engron v. Department of Labor.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8871.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8877.
    Wilson v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8890.
    Rochon v. Roemer, Governor of Louisiana, et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8891.
    Mosley v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8894.
    Mlo v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8899.
    Williams v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8922.
    Jones v. Toombs, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8924.
    Jackson v. Makel, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8929.
    DeAngelo v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8937.
    LaGatta v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8980.
    Chevalier v. Whitley, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8981.
    Starnes v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8991.
    Andersen v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9018.
    Drake v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9036.
    Dearinger v. Barbour, Superintendent, Twin Rivers Corrections Center.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9040.
    Arditi v. Runyon, Postmaster General.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9041.
    DeVitto v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9042.
    Cooper et al. v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9043.
    Hayes v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9062.
    Andrisani v. Lucas et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9065.
    Brim v. Wright, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9066.
    Shirar v. Office of Personnel Management.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9067.
    Swasey v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9084.
    Bellucci v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9086.
    Wendt v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9093.
    Boyland v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9095.
    Tolver v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9100.
    Backstrom v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9105.
    Hollon v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9111.
    Witherspoon et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9124.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9127.
    Campbell v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9138.
    Bosarge v. Department of Education et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9142.
    Glasgow v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9143.
    Joyner v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9147.
    Logan v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9154.
    Hamilton v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9168.
    Ospina v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9180.
    Dextras v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9187.
    Klein v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9190.
    Parker v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9200.
    Delbridge et ux. v. New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9209.
    Tavarez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9210.
    Strope v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9211.
    Dickinson v. Gopalan et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9213.
    Chaves v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9215.
    Silvers v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9232.
    Witherspoon v. Rees, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9236.
    Isang v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9252.
    Faulkner v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9277.
    James v. Mann, Superintendent, Shawangunk Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9306.
    Hawkins v. Abramajtys, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9312.
    Gatlin v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9315.
    Prewitt v. Parke, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9316.
    Lamphear v. Abrahamson, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-241.
    Jaffe v. Snow et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Motions of Government of Canada, International Human Rights Law Group et al., and Canadian Helsinki Watch Group for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Blackmun,

text:
    No. 93-1033.
    No. 93-6191.
    No. 93-6220.
    No. 93-7042.
    No. 93-8823.
    No. 93-8839.
    No. 93-8943.
    Chandler v. United States. Hicks v. Texas. Johnson v. Illinois. Colvin-El v. Maryland. Valdes v. Florida. Milke v. Arizona. Mordenti v. Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir.; Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; Sup. Ct. Ill.; Ct. App. Md.; Sup. Ct. Fla.; Sup. Ct. Ariz.; and Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution, see my dissent in Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 93-1222.
    Garcia et al. v. Spun Steak Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun and Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 93-1592.
    International House of Pancakes v. Pinnock et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 93-1710.
    Philip Morris Inc., dba Philip Morris U. S. A. v. Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Motions of Committee on State Taxation, North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry, and Institute of Property Taxation for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1742.
    Lummi Indian Tribe v. Whatcom County, Washington, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Blackfeet Tribe of Indians for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1833.
    Citizens for Term Limits v. Foley et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner to expedite consideration of petition for writ of certiorari granted. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 93-1955.
    Gregoire, Attorney General of Washington, et al. v. Thorsted et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioners to expedite consideration of petition for writ of certiorari granted. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 93-7724.
    Buchanan v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun dissents and would grant the petition for writ of certiorari and remand the case for reentry of judgment and appointment of counsel.


text:
    No. 93-8423.
    Hopkins v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun dissents and would grant the petition for writ of certiorari and remand the case for reentry of judgment and appointment of counsel.


text:
    No. 93-8599.
    Hamilton v. Calderon, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of counsel to supplement the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution, see my dissent in Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    No. 93-594.
    No. 93-1386.
    No. 93-1410.
    No. 93-8066.
    No. 93-8187.
    No. 93-8190.
    No. 93-8200.
    No. 93-8208.
    No. 93-8333.
    Watts v. Rice, Secretary of the Army, et al., Richardson v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., University of Colorado, Boulder, et al. v. Derdeyn, Witcher v. Witcher, LaFlamme v. Gomez, Price v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Hazzard v. City of Oakland, California, et al., Israel, aka Bryant v. United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Cochran v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.,
   510 U. S. 1012;

511 U. S. 1033;

511 U. S. 1070;

511 U. S. 1055;

511 U. S. 1073;

511 U. S. 1073;

511 U. S. 1073;

511 U. S. 1110; and

511 U. S. 1075. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 93-7809.
    In re Bennett et al.,
   511 U. S. 1016. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 22, 1994
    No. 93-9361 (A-1017).
    Deputy v. Taylor, Warden.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Souter, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg would grant the application for stay of execution.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution, see my dissent in Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994), I would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    No. 93-9675 (A-1077).
    Deputy v. Snyder, Warden.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Souter, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution, see my dissent in Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994), I would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    June 27, 1994
    No. 93-45.
    National Interfaith Cable Coalition, Inc., Operating as the Vision Interfaith Satellite Network, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   Appeal from D. C. D. C. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, ante, p. 622.


text:
    No. 93-1539.
    Louisiana et al. v. Hays et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. La. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Act 1 of the Second Extraordinary Session of the 1994 Louisiana Legislature and the parties’ filings in this Court concerning Act 1.


text:
    No. 93-696.
    Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Ohio State University, dba Ohio State Hospitals.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, ante, p. 504.


text:
    No. 93-697.
    Snap-On Tools Corp. et al. v. Eulrich et al.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, ante, p. 415.


text:
    No. 93-842.
    Ehrlich v. City of Culver City et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Motion of Pacific Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Dolan v. City of Tigard, ante, p. 374.

Justice Blackmun, Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg would deny certiorari.


text:
    No. 93-935.
    Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v. Jones, Widow of Jones, Deceased, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, ante, p. 267.


text:
    No. 93-964.
    Consolidation Coal Co. v. Skukan et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, ante, p. 267.


text:
    No. 93-1584.
    Hirras v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, ante, p. 246.


text:
    No.---.
    Escamilla v. Nebraska; Holloway v. Burch et al.; and King v. Vaughn et al.
    No.---.
    No.---.
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No.---.
    Smith v. Hargett, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al.
   Motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis without an affidavit of indigency executed by petitioner granted.


text:
    No. D-1381.
    In re Disbarment of Meacham.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 511 U. S. 1027.]


text:
    No. D-1386.
    In re Disbarment of Heiman.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 511 U. S. 1028.]


text:
    No. D-1403.
    In re Disbarment of Mostman.
   Paul Ian Mostman, of Granada Hills, Cal., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on June 6, 1994 [511 U. S. 1140], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-1412.
    In re Disbarment of Lederberg.
   It is ordered that Joshua Lederberg, of Babylon, N. Y., 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. D-1413.
    In re Disbarment of Kilpatrick.
   It is ordered that Donald E. Kilpatrick, of Houston, Tex., 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. D-1414.
    In re Disbarment of Woodside.
   It is ordered that Jon Lee Woodside, of Portland, Ore., 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. D-1415.
    In re Disbarment of Margolis.
   It is ordered that Marvin Margolis, of New York, N. Y, 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. D-1416.
    In re Disbarment of Meyer.
   It is ordered that Gary Kenneth Meyer, of New York, N. Y, 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. 93-404.
    Gustafson et al. v. Alloyd Co., Inc., fka Alloyd Holdings, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 510 U. S. 1176.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 93-1286.
    American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. [Certiorari granted, 511 U. S. 1017.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 93-7407.
    O’Neal v. McAninch, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 511 U. S. 1017.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 93-823.
    Nebraska Department of Revenue v. Loewenstein.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. [Certiorari granted, 510 U. S. 1176.] Motion of Dreyfus Corp. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 93-1612.
    No. 93-1613.
    NationsBank of North Carolina, N. A., et al. v. Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. et al.; and Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency, et al. v. Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 511 U. S. 1141.] Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 93-1660.
    Arizona v. Evans.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. [Certiorari granted, 511 U. S. 1126.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Carol A. Carrigan, Esq., of Phoenix, Ariz., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 93-8394.
    DiDomenico v. Berk et al.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed informa pawperis [511 U. S. 1081] denied.


text:
    No. 93-8569.
    In re Whitaker.
   Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [511 U. S. 1105] denied.


text:
    No. 93-9593.
    Gendron v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of petitioner to expedite consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9335.
    No. 93-9433.
    In re Thomas; and In re Andersen.
   Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 93-8620.
    No. 93-8893.
    No. 93-8919.
    No. 93-8990.
    In re Monroe; In re McCurdy; In re Tyler; and In re Bilyeu.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 93-768.
    Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 93-7659.
    Harris v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 92-1751.
    Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board of California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 92-8835.
    Dean v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-474.
    No. 93-666.
    Santoro v. Maher Terminals, Inc., et al.; and Maher Terminals, Inc. v. Santoro et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-813.
    Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board of California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1132.
    Reuters Ltd. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1401.
    Abi-Ghanem v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1450.
    Cedars-Sinai Medical Center et al. v. O’Leary, Secretary of Energy.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1544.
    Nebraska v. Hughes.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1570.
    No. 93-1759.
    Preferred Communications, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles et al.; and City of Los Angeles et al. v. Preferred Communications, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1576.
    United Texas Transmission Co. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1587.
    Lovell et al. v. Peoples Heritage Savings Bank et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1591.
    Delgado Garcia et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for First City, Texas-Houston, N. A., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1599.
    Henry v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1609.
    Calvary Baptist Church et al. v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services et al.
   Ct. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1621.
    Hardy v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1626.
    Truex v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1629.
    Stephens v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1643.
    Budd et ux. v. City of Seward, Alaska, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1673.
    Chonich et al. v. Wayne County Community College et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1745.
    Kilpatrick v. State Bar of Texas.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1746.
    Tweedy v. American Airlines, Inc.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1747.
    Eight Unknown Officers v. Centanni.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1749.
    Schoolcraft v. Utah et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1750.
    Mace v. Blunt et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1753.
    City of Timber Lake, South Dakota, et al. v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1756.
    Cohen v. City of Des Plaines.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1760.
    Ohio v. Carpenter.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1761.
    Schmidt et al. v. Texas et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1764.
    Takeall v. PepsiCo, Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1769.
    School District No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1770.
    Cimorelli v. General Electric Co.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1772.
    Pusey v. City of Youngstown, Ohio, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1773.
    Deaton et al. v. City of Dayton et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1775.
    Mosesian v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1780.
    Ryan v. Schutter et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1781.
    Spence v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. et al.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1786.
    Galin Corp. et al. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1788.
    Brownlee et al. v. Lear Siegler Management Services Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1792.
    Jones v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1798.
    Rood v. Pinellas County et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1800.
    Sackman et ux. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of East Brunswick, New Jersey.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1801.
    Byrne et al. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1813.
    El Vocero de Puerto Rico (Caribbean International News Corp.) et al. v. Rodriguez et al.
   Sup. Ct. P. R. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1818.
    Hickey v. Hollister et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1834.
    Aquarian Foundation et al. v. Washington.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1837.
    Abbott v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1853.
    Hartline, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Hartline, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1862.
    Messa v. Foley, Secretary of Department of Labor and Industry of Pennsylvania, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1895.
    Thomas, a Minor by Thomas et al., His Natural Parents and Guardians v. Zubritzky et al.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1901.
    Beddoe v. Spillman et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1905.
    Kodak, fka Kozuck v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1919.
    Bergmann v. Lee Data Corp. et al.
   Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-5738.
    Harrison v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-5743.
    Bogdanoff v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-6747.
    Thigpen et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7000.
    Fisher v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7159.
    McLean v. Hamblen et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7604.
    Yepes-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8050.
    Barber v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8126.
    Pierce v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8262.
    No. 93-9125.
    Angell v. United States; and Angell v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8426.
    Harper v. Interior Board of Land Appeals.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8427.
    Jones v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8472.
    Nhan Kiem Tran v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8477.
    Scott v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8478.
    Turner v. Lumadue.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8479.
    Urrego v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8490.
    Gaydos v. National Fire Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8503.
    Abreu v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8506.
    Palmer v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8515.
    Mayes v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8551.
    Pare et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8557.
    Colon-Osorio v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8570.
    Allen v. United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8579.
    Sykes v. James.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8608.
    Brooks v. McCauseland.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8609.
    Ajayi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8614.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8627.
    Donaldson v. Swiderski et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8645.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8647.
    Berduzco v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8665.
    Gibbs v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8688.
    Ruthers v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8760.
    Daniel v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8772.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8838.
    Taplin v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8846.
    Beasley v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8907.
    Nettles v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8914.
    Barfield v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8933.
    Clifford v. Espy, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8944.
    Reeves v. Keane, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8954.
    Georgescu v. Bechtel Construction, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8957.
    George v. Illinois (two cases).
   App. Ct. Ill, 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8958.
    Duvall v. Purkett, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8959.
    Boodram v. Maryland Farms Condominium et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8970.
    Ponce-Bran v. California Faculty Assn. et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8975.
    Jones v. Washington, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8982.
    No. 93-9114.
    Cutwright v. United States; and McKibben v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8992.
    Lorah v. Department of Human Rights.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8997.
    Chavez v. New Mexico.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8998.
    Smith v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crira. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9016.
    DaSilva v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9109.
    No. 93-9206.
    Long v. United States; and Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9131.
    D’Anjou v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9159.
    Bryant v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9161.
    Carlton v. Dutton, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9162.
    Watts v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (two cases).
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9163.
    Quinn v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9167.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9188.
    Klein v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9189.
    Guerrero v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9191.
    Pointer v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9192.
    Ailport v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9194.
    Arionus v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9198.
    Daniel v. Florida.
   Cir. Ct. Fla., Hillsborough County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9219.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9226.
    Tate v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9227.
    Allen v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9229.
    Sloley v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9241.
    Worytko v. Nickerson.
   App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 9th and 10th Jud. Dists. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9243.
    Autrey v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9246.
    Williams v. Josephs et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9253.
    Kimble v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9254.
    No. 93-9310.
    Fulton et al. v. United States; and Cuero-Gongora, aka Arroya-Riena v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9255.
    Buhl v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9262.
    Leonard v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9266.
    Reid v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9271.
    Beard v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9272.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9280.
    Hopson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9281.
    Hopson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9284.
    Wright v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9285.
    LeCroix v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9294.
    Schuenemann v. Hames, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9297.
    Bradshaw v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9298.
    Damatta-Olivera v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9299.
    McPhail et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9302.
    Matthews v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9304.
    Mintz v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9307.
    Angel Gonzalez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9323.
    O’Neal v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9324.
    MacMillan v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9329.
    Alexander v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9330.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9332.
    Lee v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9333.
    Legg v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9336.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9337.
    Ballard v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9338.
    Duarte v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9342.
    Castner v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9343.
    Bryan v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9346.
    Nash v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9357.
    Ware v. Yukins, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9365.
    Romano v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9370.
    Covington v. Moody, Superintendent, Wildwood Correctional Center.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9390.
    Anderson v. SUNY Health Science Center at Syracuse et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-541.
    NCR Corp. v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 93-1416.
    NCR Corp. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 93-1354.
    Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jacoby.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1572.
    United States v. Villegas.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1713.
    Wayfield v. Town of Tisbury et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of Polish Historical Society for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1797.
    Insurance Company of North America et al. v. Morton International, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Motion of Insurance Environmental Litigation Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1870.
    Aidant, Inc., et al. v. Sirex, U. S. A., Inc., et al.; Aidant, L. R, et al. v. Hummel et al.; and Izadpanah et al. v. Hummel et al.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Motion of petitioners to strike respondents’ brief in opposition denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1878.
    Roe v. Louisiana Supreme Court et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner to direct that the response to the petition and the lodging be placed under seal denied. Motion of John Doe for leave to intervene and other relief denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 92-8717.
    No. 93-6225.
    No. 93-7248.
    No. 93-7641.
    No. 93-8096.
    No. 93-8147.
    No. 93-8358.
    No. 93-8360.
    No. 93-8372.
    No. 93-8501.
    No. 93-8505.
    No. 93-8571.
    No. 93-8586.
    No. 93-8604.
    No. 93-8723.
    No. 93-8825.
    No. 93-8852.
    No. 93-8854.
    No. 93-9025.
    No. 93-9046.
    No. 93-9112.
    No. 93-9364.
    Robinson v. Texas. Slawson v. Florida. McBride v. Texas. Martinez v. Texas. Edgeston v. Illinois. Byrd v. Ohio. Hicks v. Ohio. Poindexter v. Ohio. Henderson v. Ohio. Gibbs v. North Carolina. Sowell v. Ohio. Byrd v. Ohio; Greer v. Ohio; Henderson v. Ohio; Hicks v. Ohio; Jamison v. Ohio; Montgomery v. Ohio; Poindexter Ohio; Scott v. Ohio; and Sowell v. Ohio. Otey v. Hopkins, Warden. Tenner v. Illinois. Bedford v. Ohio. Smith v. Ohio. Steffen v. Ohio. Scott v. Ohio. Resnover v. Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, et al. Hall v. South Carolina. Woodard v. Ohio. Rose v. North Carolina.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Sup. Ct. 111.;

Sup. Ct. Ohio;

Sup. Ct. Ohio;

Sup. Ct. Ohio;

Sup. Ct. Ohio;

Sup. Ct. N. C.;

Sup. Ct. Ohio;

Sup. Ct. Ohio v.

C. A. 8th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. 111.;

Sup. Ct. Ohio;

Sup. Ct. Ohio;

Sup. Ct. Ohio;

Sup. Ct. Ohio;

C. A. 7th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. S. C.;

Sup. Ct. Ohio; and

Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution, see my dissent in Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 92-903.
    No. 92-1370.
    No. 93-289.
    No. 93-1257.
    No. 93-1407.
    No. 93-1498.
    No. 93-7824.
    No. 93-7995.
    No. 93-8189.
    No. 93-8230.
    Posters ‘N’ Things, Ltd., et al. v. United States, BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation, as Receiver of Imperial Federal Savings Assn., et al., Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, et al. v. Specter et al., Catlett v. Virginia, Pearson v. United States, Sakaria et al. v. Trans World Airlines, Titlemore v. Raymond et al., Edwards v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital et al., Crawford v. Connell, Bacon v. Department of the Air Force, Spychala v. Gomez, Dunn v. Regents of the University of California, Dorado v. Maryland, Seagrave v. County of Lake et al., Dempsey v. Rangaire Corp., Kotas et ux. v. Journal Communications et al., In re Preuss, Jackson et ux. v. City of Reno, Wallace v. United States, Ryskamp v. United States,
   511 U. S. 513;

511 U. S. 531;

511 U. S. 462;

511 U. S. 1005;

511 U. S. 1126;

511 U. S. 1083;

511 U. S. 1036;

511 U. S. 1039;

511 U. S. 1073;

511 U. S. 1043;

No. 93-8343.

No. 93-8367.

No. 93-8446.

No. 93-8460.

No. 93-8480.

No. 93-8518.

No. 93-8519.

No. 93-8556.

No. 93-8653.

No. 93-9003.

511 U. S. 1089;

511 U. S. 1090;

511 U. S. 1092;

511 U. S. 1092;

511 U. S. 1092;

511 U. S. 1093;

511 U. S. 1081;

511 U. S. 1094;

511 U. S. 1095; and

511 U. S. 1148. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 93-609.
    Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al. v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. et al.,
   511 U. S. 658. Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 93-8226.
    No. 93-8405.
    No. 93-8736.
    Ford v. Alabama, Code v. Louisiana, Conklin v. Zant, Warden,
   511 U. S. 1078;

511 U. S. 1100; and

511 U. S. 1100. Petitions for rehearing denied.

Justice Blackmun dissents from the denial of rehearing. He would grant the petitions for rehearing, grant the petitions for certiorari, and vacate petitioners’ death sentences. See Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994).


text:
    No. 93-8289.
    No. 93-8615.
    Traunig v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Dowell v. Wright et al.,
   511 U. S. 1044; and

511 U. S. 1077. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 30, 1994
    No. 93-1108.
    McWherter, Governor of Tennessee, et al. v. Rural West Tennessee African-American Affairs Council, Inc., et al.; and Rural West Tennessee African-American Affairs Council, Inc., et al. v. McWherter, Governor of Tennessee, et al.
    No. 93-1379.
   Appeals from D. C. W. D. Tenn. Judgment vacated and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Johnson v. De Grandy, ante, p. 997.


text:
    No. 93-828.
    Pearson et al. v. Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger Clinic (Manhattan) et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Mine Workers v. Bagwell, ante, p. 821.


text:
    No. 93-1279.
    Reali et al. v. Feminist Women’s Health Center.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., ante, p. 753.


text:
    No. 93-1394.
    Tyus et al. v. Bosley et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Johnson v. De Grandy, ante, p. 997.


text:
    No. 93-7348.
    Price v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Simmons v. South Carolina, ante, p. 154.

Justice Blackmun,

concurring.

Although I concur in the Court’s remand of this case for further consideration in light of the recent decision in Simmons v. South Carolina, ante, p. 154, I write to note that there remains another serious error in this case, one this Court has not reached before and does not reach today.

It is undisputed that petitioner’s sentencing jury was given the very instruction found unconstitutional in McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U. S. 433 (1990). This instruction ran afoul of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U. S. 367 (1988), by requiring that all jurors agree on the existence of a mitigating circumstance before any juror could give it effect. The North Carolina Supreme Court concluded, however, that this McKoy error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 331 N. C. 620, 418 S. E. 2d 169 (1992). The state court’s analysis does not support its conclusion.

The State Supreme Court relied on a poll of the sentencing jurors. In that poll, each juror first was asked:

“‘Do you unanimously find from the evidence the existence of one or more of the following mitigating circumstances?’ ” Id., at 626, 418 S. E. 2d, at 172.

Then, for each of 10 mitigating circumstances submitted to the jury, each juror was asked, for example:

“Q: As to the mitigating factors. ‘Number 1: This murder was committed while the defendant was under the influence of mental illness or emotional disturbance. Answer: No.’ Is this your answer?
“A: Yes.
“Q: Do you still assent thereto?
“A: Yes.” Ibid.

The State’s Supreme Court ruled that, in this context, the question, “‘Is this your answer?’” could reasonably be understood only as asking each juror “Is this your own individual answer?” Id., at 627, 418 S. E. 2d, at 173. Our concern, however, is “not what the State Supreme Court declares the meaning of the [poll question] to be, but rather what a reasonable juror could have understood the [poll question] as meaning.” Francis v. Franklin, 471 U. S. 307, 315-316 (1985). It is equally plausible that a reasonable juror could have interpreted “Is this your answer?” to mean “Is this your, the jury’s, answer?” Since the jurors had been instructed that they could answer “yes” only if they unanimously agreed, a juror’s answer to the poll question easily could have meant, “Yes, that was our answer, because we could not achieve unanimity on the existence of that factor.” Or even if the juror was answering for himself, he could be saying “Yes, that was my answer, but only because I could not get the others unanimously to agree that this mitigating circumstance existed.” Jurors are presumed to follow their instructions. See, e. g., Yates v. Evatt, 500 U. S. 391, 403 (1991); Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U. S. 200, 211 (1987).

Given the ambiguity of the poll, I “cannot say with any degree of confidence which interpretation [Price’s] jury adopted,” Mills, 486 U. S., at 383, and consequently, I cannot conclude that the McKoy error was harmless. A finding of harmlessness is warranted only if it appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 24 (1967). Because the unanimity instruction preceded and shaped the jury’s consideration of mitigating evidence, it may have contributed to the verdict by directing the jury to “examin[e] the evidence with the wrong question in mind.” Yates v. Evatt, 500 U. S., at 413 (Scalia, J., concurring). The poll tells us nothing about how the juror would have voted — either on a particular mitigating circumstance or on the ultimate life-or-death question — had he been instructed that he could give effect to all the mitigating evidence, as the Constitution requires. Thus, the state court’s analysis does not satisfy the “high standard” of harmlessness for federal constitutional error. See Sochor v. Florida, 504 U. S. 527, 541 (1992) (O’Connor, J., concurring); see also Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738 (1990) (remanding a case to state court for “detailed explanation” and analysis of its conclusion of harmlessness).

Because the poll does not demonstrate convincingly, much less beyond a reasonable doubt, that no juror interpreted the unconstitutional instruction to block consideration of mitigating evidence on which the jurors were not unanimous, I do not share the state court’s “confiden[ce]” that the poll “demonstrates unequivocally” that the instruction did not prevent any juror from giving weight to any mitigating evidence. See 331 N. C., at 628, 418 S. E. 2d, at 173. Concern that the McKoy instruction may have precluded consideration of relevant mitigating evidence is only fueled by the North Carolina Supreme Court’s acknowledgment “there [wa]s evidence which supported] several of the mitigating circumstances not found by the jury.” 331 N. C., at 628, 418 S. E. 2d, at 173. Cf. McNeil v. North Carolina, 494 U. S. 1050 (1990) (Kennedy, J., dissenting from grant of certiorari) (noting that McKoy error may be harmless where the defendant did not present mitigating evidence).

It is true that this is the third time we have remanded this case for further consideration in light of an intervening decision, again providing the state court the opportunity to consider and to correct constitutional error. See 498 U. S. 802 (1990) (vacated and remanded in light of McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U. S. 433 (1990)); 506 U. S. 1043 (1993) (vacated and remanded in light of Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U. S. 719 (1992)). On this remand, if the North Carolina Supreme Court concludes that there is Simmons error that requires resentencing, the new sentencing jurors will not receive the now-abandoned McKoy instruction, and the case will be purged of any existing nonharmless McKoy error. But if petitioner does not receive a new sentencing hearing, I believe the harmlessness of the McKoy error deserves this Court’s attention on the next round, notwithstanding petitioner’s previous visits to this Court.


text:
    No. 93-7494.
    Moreno v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of McFarland v. Scott, ante, p. 849.


text:
    No. 93-7739.
    Joiner v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of McFarland v. Scott, ante, p. 849.


text:
    No. 93-8233.
    Clayton v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of McFarland v. Scott, ante, p. 849.


text:
    No. 93-8621.
    McDonald v. New Mexico et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [511 U. S. 1125] denied.


text:
    No. 93-812.
    Red Clay Consolidated School District Board of Education et al. v. Jenkins et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1454.
    Calderon, Warden, et al. v. Clair.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 92-8482.
    No. 93-5140.
    No. 93-6801.
    No. 93-6863.
    No. 93-7249.
    No. 93-7278.
    No. 93-7376.
    No. 93-7399.
    No. 93-7414.
    No. 93-7442.
    No. 93-7631.
    No. 93-7680.
    No. 93-7955.
    No. 93-8118.
    Espinoza v. California. Noguera v. California. Mayfield v. California. Wader v. California. Page v. Illinois. Mitcham v. California. Miranda v. California. Douglas v. Calderon, Warden. Sims v. California. Edwards v. Calderon, Warden. Bacigalupo v. California. Montiel v. California. Rudd v. Texas. Clark v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Cal;

Sup. Ct. Ill.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; and

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution, see my dissent in Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


author: Justice Scalia,

text:
    No. 93-1159.
    Winfield et al. v. Kaplan et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.

Justice Scalia,

with whom Justice Kennedy and Justice Thomas join,

dissenting.

In Greensboro, North Carolina, a state trial court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting antiabortion protesters from picketing, parading, marching, or demonstrating anywhere on respondent’s street or within 300 feet of the center line of that street. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court of North Carolina denied discretionary review. The protesters petitioned this Court for review. When their petition first came before us for consideration, we voted to defer disposition pending the announcement of our judgment in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., ante, p. 753, because of the similarity of the issues presented in the two cases.

In Part III-E of the Madsen opinion, announced today, we find unconstitutional an injunctive provision — forbidding congregating, picketing, patrolling, and demonstrating within 300 feet of the residences of respondents’ employees — indistinguishable in relevant respects from the one that remains in effect in the present case. The obviously appropriate course of action, therefore, is to grant the present petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand the cause to the North Carolina Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Madsen. That is what we ordinarily do with petitions that have been held for the decision of cases that, in the event, show the petitions to have merit.

Instead, the Court chooses to deny the petition for certiorari. The only conceivable explanation for this decision is that because the injunction presently under consideration is temporary, the North Carolina courts will have the benefit of our Madsen opinion when they come to decide whether a permanent injunction should issue. But if that fact alone justifies denial of the petition, we should have denied it at the outset, rather than held it pending Madsen.

No possible resolution of Madsen could have shown this case more flatly wrong than the opinion that issued. By holding the petition for Madsen, and then, in light of Madsen, letting the challenged injunction stand, we send a confusing message to the North Carolina courts. And also, of course, we leave a clear judicial abridgment of petitioners’ First Amendment rights in effect. For these reasons, I dissent from the denial of certiorari.


text:
    No. 93-7200.
    McCollum v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

Henry Lee “Buddy” McCollum is sentenced to be executed for his part in a brutal crime. He participated with three other young men in the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl. Each raped the child, and McCollum helped hold her down while another young man stuffed her panties down her throat with a stick. When I announced in Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994) (opinion dissenting from denial of certiorari), that I had reached the conclusion that the death penalty, as currently administered, is unconstitutional, Justice Scalia questioned why I did not choose Buddy McCollum’s case as the vehicle to announce that position. Id., at 1142-1143 (Scalia, J., concurring in denial of certiorari). He seemed to believe that my position would be harder to defend in a case like this one that “cries out for punishment.” 334 N. C. 208, 245, 433 S. E. 2d 144, 165 (1993) (Exum, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Far from it. The crime indeed is abhorrent, but there is more to the story.

Buddy McCollum is mentally retarded. He has an IQ between 60 and 69 and the mental age of a 9-year-old. He reads on a second-grade level. This factor alone persuades me that the death penalty in his case is unconstitutional. See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 350 (1989) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (executions of the mentally retarded are unconstitutional).

The sentencing jury found two aggravating circumstances: that the murder was committed to avoid arrest and that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. It found seven mitigating circumstances: that McCollum was mentally retarded, that he had difficulty thinking clearly under stress, that he was easily influenced by others, that he committed the felony murder under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance, that he had cooperated with the police, that he had no significant history of prior criminal activity, and that he had adapted well to prison. In addition, the trial judge concluded that “[a]ll of the evidence tends to show that [McCollum’s] capacity ... to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 50. McCollum was 19 at the time of the crime.

Along with these compelling mitigating circumstances, the evidence at trial tended to show that Buddy McCollum was far from the most culpable of the four accomplices. He was not the one who initiated the rape, the one who proposed the murder, or the one who actually committed the murder. Nonetheless, he was the only one convicted of murder and the only one sentenced to die.

North Carolina’s death penalty scheme requires appellate proportionality review, N. C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2000(d)(2) (1988), and the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court found himself compelled to conclude that the death penalty for Buddy McCollum was disproportionate. 334 N. C., at 248-250, 433 S. E. 2d, at 167-168 (Exum, C. J., dissenting). North Carolina jurors had never before recommended death for a defendant whom they had found mentally retarded. Only once had jurors recommended death where there was even any evidence of mental retardation. No North Carolina jury ever had recommended death for a felony murderer under 20 years of age. Nor had any jury recommended death in a sexual offense felony murder where there was evidence of the defendant’s mental and emotional disturbance, not even where the defendant was the actual perpetrator of an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel killing.

That our system of capital punishment would single out Buddy McCollum to die for this brutal crime only confirms my conclusion that the death penalty experiment has failed. Our system of capital punishment simply does not accurately and consistently determine which defendants most “deserve” to die.


text:
    No. 93-8040.
    McFarland v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

Today in McFarland v. Scott, ante, p. 849, this Court addressed the right to qualified legal counsel guaranteed to all capital defendants in federal habeas corpus proceedings. See 21 U. S. C. § 848(q)(4)(B). More often than not, however, it is in the proceedings antecedent to federal habeas corpus — the capital trial, and to a lesser extent state postconviction proceedings — that a capital defendant’s case is won or lost. Frequently the legal counsel available to capital defendants at these critical stages is woefully inadequate. I therefore write to address the crisis in trial and state postconviction legal representation for capital defendants that forms the backdrop to the federal right to counsel afforded by § 848(q)(4)(B).

Without question, “the principal failings of the capital punishment review process today are the inadequacy and inadequate compensation of counsel at trial and the unavailability of counsel in state post-conviction proceedings.” Robbins, Toward a More Just and Effective System of Review in State Death Penalty Cases, Report of the American Bar Association’s Recommendations Concerning Death Penalty Habeas Corpus, 40 Am. U. L. Rev. 1, 16 (1990) (ABA Report). The unique, bifurcated nature of capital trials and the special investigation into a defendant’s personal history and background that may be required, the complexity and fluidity of the law, and the high, emotional stakes involved all make capital cases more costly and difficult to litigate than ordinary criminal trials. Yet, the attorneys assigned to represent indigent capital defendants at times are less qualified than those appointed in ordinary criminal cases. See Green, Lethal Fiction: The Meaning of ‘Counsel’ in the Sixth Amendment, 78 Iowa L. Rev. 433, 434 (1993); Coyle, et al., Fatal Defense, 12 Nat. L. J. 30, 44 (June 11, 1990) (Capital-defense attorneys in eight States were disbarred, suspended, or disciplined at rates 3 to 46 times higher than the general attorney-discipline rates).

Two factors contribute to the general unavailability of qualified attorneys to represent capital defendants. The absence of standards governing court-appointed capital-defense counsel means that unqualified lawyers often are appointed, and the absence of funds to compensate lawyers prevents even qualified lawyers from being able to present an adequate defense. Many States that regularly impose the death penalty have few, if any, standards governing the qualifications required of court-appointed capital-defense counsel. In 21 U. S. C. §§848(q)(5) and (6), Congress has required that attorneys appointed to represent capital defendants in federal habeas corpus proceedings must have five years of experience litigating before the relevant court and three years of felony experience. See McFarland, ante, at 854, n. 2. According to a 1990 survey by the National Law Journal, however, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and California have no binding statewide qualification criteria for capital-defense counsel. See Coyle, 12 Nat. L. J., at 32. Capital-defense attorneys in Louisiana must have five years’ experience practicing in some area of law, but are not required to have experience in. capital defense or any form of criminal practice. Ibid.

In addition to the lack of standards, compensation for attorneys representing indigent capital defendants often is perversely low. Although a properly conducted capital trial can involve hundreds of hours of investigation, preparation, and lengthy trial proceedings, many States severely limit the compensation paid for capital defense. Louisiana limits the compensation for court-appointed capital-defense counsel to $1,000 for all pretrial preparation and trial proceedings. Kentucky pays a maximum of $2,500 for the same services. Alabama limits reimbursement for out-of-court preparation in capital cases to a maximum of $1,000 each for the trial and penalty phases. Ala. Code §15-12-21(a) (Supp. 1992); Op. Ala. Atty. Gen. No. 91-00206 (Mar. 21, 1991). See generally Klein, The Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Be Compelled to Render the Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, 68 Ind. L. J. 363, 364-375 (1993).

Court-awarded funds for the appointment of investigators and experts often are either unavailable, severely limited, or not provided by state courts. As a result, attorneys appointed to represent capital defendants at the trial level frequently are unable to recoup even their overhead costs and out-of-pocket expenses, and effectively may be required to work at minimum wage or below while funding from their own pockets their client’s defense. A recent survey by the Mississippi Trial Lawyers’ Association estimated that capital-defense attorneys in that State are compensated at an average rate of $11.75 per hour. See Coyle, 12 Nat. L. J., at 32. Compensation rates of $5 per horn- or less are not uncommon. Strasser, $1,000 Fee Cap Makes Death Row’s ‘Justice’ A Bargain for the State, 12 Nat. L. J. 33 (June 11, 1990). The prospect that hours spent in trial preparation or funds expended hiring psychiatrists or ballistics experts will be uncompensated unquestionably chills even a qualified attorney’s zealous representation of his client.

The practical costs of such ad hoc systems of attorney selection and compensation are well documented. Capital defendants have been sentenced to death when represented by counsel who never bothered to read the state death penalty statute, e. g., Smith v. State, 581 So. 2d 497 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990), slept through or otherwise were not present during trial, or failed to investigate or present any mitigating evidence at the penalty phase, Mitchell v. Kemp, 483 U. S. 1026 (1987) (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). Other indigent defendants have been represented by attorneys who had been admitted to the bar only six months before and never had conducted a criminal trial. E. g., Paradis v. Arave, 954 F. 2d 1483, 1490-1491 (CA9 1992), vacated and remanded, 507 U. S. 1026 (1993), relief denied, 20 F. 3d 950, 959 (1994). One Louisiana defendant was convicted of capital murder following a 1-day trial and 20-minute penalty phase proceeding, in which his counsel stipulated to the defendant’s age at the time of the crime and rested. State v. Messiah, 538 So. 2d 175, 187 (La. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U. S. 1063 (1990). When asked to cite the criminal cases he knew, one defense attorney who failed to challenge his client’s racially unrepresentative jury pool could name only two cases: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857). See Bright, Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence Not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst Lawyer, 103 Yale L. J. 1835, 1839, and n. 32 (1994), citing Tr. of Hearing 231 (Apr. 25-27, 1988) in State v. Birt, No. 2360 (Super. Ct. Jefferson Cty., Ga. 1988).

The consequences of such poor trial representation for the capital defendant, of course, can be lethal. Evidence not presented at trial cannot later be discovered and introduced; arguments and objections not advanced are forever waived. Nor is a capital defendant likely to be able to demonstrate that his legal counsel was ineffective, given the low standard for acceptable attorney conduct and the high showing of prejudice required under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). Ten years after the articulation of that standard, practical experience establishes that the Strickland test, in application, has failed to protect a defendant’s right to be represented by something more than “a person who happens to be a lawyer.” Id., at 685.

The impotence of the Strickland standard is perhaps best evidenced in the cases in which ineffective-assistance claims have been denied. John Young, for example, was represented in his capital trial by an attorney who was addicted to drugs and who a few weeks later was incarcerated on federal drug charges. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected Young’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on federal habeas, Young v. Kemp, 727 F. 2d 1489 (1984), and this Court denied review, 470 U. S. 1009 (1985). Young was executed in 1985. John Smith and his codefendant Rebecca Machetti were sentenced to death by juries selected under the same Georgia statute. Machetti’s attorneys successfully challenged the statute under a recent Supreme Court decision, Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522 (1975), winning Machetti a new trial and ultimately a life sentence. Machetti v. Linahan, 679 F. 2d 286 (CA11 1982). Smith’s counsel was unaware of the Supreme Court decision, however, and failed similarly to object at trial. Smith v. Kemp, 715 F. 2d 1459 (CA11 1983). Smith was executed in 1983.

Jesus Romero’s attorney failed to present any evidence at the penalty phase and delivered a closing argument totaling 29 words. Although the attorney later was suspended on unrelated grounds, Romero’s ineffective-assistance claim was rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Romero v. Lynaugh, 884 F. 2d 871, 875 (1989), and this Court denied certiorari, 494 U. S. 1012 (1990). Romero was executed in 1992. Larry Heath was represented on direct appeal by counsel who filed a 6-page brief before the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. The attorney failed to appear for oral argument before the Alabama Supreme Court and filed a brief in that court containing a 1-page argument and citing a single case. The Eleventh Circuit found no prejudice, Heath v. Jones, 941 F. 2d 1126, 1131 (1991), and this Court denied review, 502 U. S. 1077 (1992). Heath was executed in Alabama in 1992.

James Messer, a mentally impaired capital defendant, was represented by an attorney who at the trial’s guilt phase presented no defense, made no objections, and emphasized the horror of the capital crime in his closing statement. At the penalty phase, the attorney presented no evidence of mental impairment, failed to introduce other substantial mitigating evidence, and again repeatedly suggested in closing that death was the appropriate punishment. The Eleventh Circuit refused to grant relief, Messer v. Kemp, 760 F. 2d 1080 (1985) (Johnson, J., dissenting), and this Court denied certiorari, 474 U. S. 1088 (1986). Messer was executed in 1988. Even the attorney who could name only Miranda and Dred Scott twice has survived ineffective-assistance challenges. See Birt v. Montgomery, 725 F. 2d 587, 596-601 (CA11) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 874 (1984); Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 281, 368 S. E. 2d 742 (1988), cert. denied, 492 U. S. 925 (1989). None of these cases inspires confidence that the adversarial system functioned properly or “that the trial ca[n] be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland, 466 U. S., at 686. Yet, in none of these cases was counsel’s assistance found to be ineffective.

Regardless of the quality of counsel, capital defendants constitutionally are entitled to have some “person who happens to be a lawyer . . . present at trial alongside the accused.” Id., at 685. The same cannot be said for state postconviction review. State habeas corpus proceedings are a vital link in the capital review process, not the least because all federal habeas claims first must be adequately raised in state court. This Court thus far has declined to hold that indigent capital defendants have a right to counsel at this level, based on the assumption that capital defendants generally can obtain volunteer or other counsel to represent them in these state proceedings. Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U. S. 1, 14 (1989) (Kennedy, J., joined by O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (In “the case before us ... no prisoner on death row in Virginia has been unable to obtain counsel to represent him in postconviction proceedings”).

Though perhaps true for some jurisdictions, this assumption bears little resemblance to the realities confronting McFarland and other condemned inmates in Texas. A recent study of state postconviction capital representation in Texas sponsored by the State Bar of Texas concluded that the capital-defense situation in that State is “desperate.” The Spangenberg Group, A Study of Representation in Capital Cases in Texas, ii (Mar. 1993). According to the Spangenberg Group, “Texas has already reached the crisis stage in capital representation and ... the problem is substantially worse than that faced by any other state with the death penalty.” Id., at i.

Texas has the second largest death row in the country, with approximately 375 inmates currently facing execution. Since 1976, Texas has executed approximately one third of all the defendants put to death in the United States, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Death Row, U. S. A., 10 (spring 1994), and the pace of executions in Texas is increasing. In June 1993, this Court denied certiorari in an unprecedented 29 capital cases from Texas, including McFarland’s. During the ensuing period between June 1 and October 21, 1993, Texas scheduled 39 executions and actually executed 10 capital defendants. All told, the Lone Star State set more than 100 execution dates in 1993, at least 8 of which were set within 45 days of the close of direct review.

Finding qualified defense counsel capable of meeting this demand might be formidable even if an adequate pool of attorneys and adequate funds were available. Capital defendants in Texas, however, have no statutory right to counsel in state post-conviction proceedings, receive little benefit from the State’s skeletal public defender service, and are not provided even discretionary court-appointed counsel. Although the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Arts. 11.07, 26.04, 26.05, gives state courts discretion to appoint and compensate counsel for state habeas corpus proceedings, “this is almost never done.” Spangenberg Group, at vii. Funds for experts and other expenses also “are almost never approved.” Ibid. Indeed, the Texas Bar study found that “[pjresently no funds are allocated for payment of counsel or litigation expenses at the state habeas level.” Spangenberg Group, at ii. Capital defendants in state postconviction proceedings must rely almost exclusively on volunteer private counsel — volunteers who are increasingly difficult to find. Texas thus has become “the only death penalty state in which death-sentenced prisoners are not routinely represented in state post-conviction proceedings.” Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae, McFarland v. Scott, No. 93-6497, p. 3, and n. 9. The lack of attorney compensation and Texas’ aggressive practice of “[d]ocket control by execution date,” Jones, Death Penalty Procedures: A Proposal for Reform, 53 Tex. Bar J. 850, 851 (1990), have left an estimated 75 capital defendants in Texas who currently are facing execution dates without any legal representation.

The right to qualified legal counsel in federal habeas corpus proceedings bestowed by § 848(q)(4)(B) is triggered only after a capital defendant has completed his direct review and, generally, some form of state postconviction proceeding. The continuing importance of federal habeas corpus in correcting constitutional errors is well documented. Of the capital cases reviewed in federal habeas corpus proceedings between 1976 and 1991, nearly half (46%) were found to have constitutional error. Liebman, More than ‘Slightly Retro:’ The Rehnquist Court’s Rout of Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction in Teague v. Lane, 18 N. Y. U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 537, 541, n. 15 (1990-1991). The total reversal rate of capital cases at all stages of review during the same time period was estimated at 60% or more. Id., at 541, n. 15; see also Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U. S., at 23-24, and n. 13 (Stevens, J., joined by Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting) (citing a federal habeas corpus success rate of 60% to 70% in capital cases, versus 0.25% to 7% in noncapital cases); id., at 14 (Kennedy, J., joined by O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). This Court itself frequently has granted capital defendants relief in federal habeas corpus proceedings. See, e. g., Parker v. Dugger, 498 U. S. 308 (1991); Yates v. Evatt, 500 U. S. 391 (1991); Yates v. Aiken, 484 U. S. 211 (1988); Yates v. Aiken, 474 U. S. 896 (1985); Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989); Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U. S. 214 (1988); Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U. S. 356 (1988); Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U. S. 578 (1988); Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U. S. 393 (1987); Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399 (1986).

The mere presence of “[s]uch a high incidence of uncorrected error” found in capital habeas corpus proceedings, Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U. S., at 24 (Stevens, J., joined by Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting), testifies to the inadequacy of the legal representation afforded at the trial and state postconviction stages. Yet the barriers to relief in federal habeas corpus proceedings are high. Even the best lawyers cannot rectify a meritorious constitutional claim that has been procedurally defaulted or waived by prior inadequate counsel. The accumulating and often byzantine restrictions this Court has imposed on federal habeas corpus review, see, e.g., Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390 (1993); Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U. S. 333 (1992); Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U. S. 1 (1992); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722 (1991); McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467 (1991); Butler v. McKellar, 494 U. S. 407 (1990); Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), make it even less likely that future capital defendants who receive qualified legal counsel in federal habeas actually will obtain relief. And it is the capital defendant who pays the price for the failings of counsel and this review process — generally with his life.

Our system of justice is adversarial and depends for its legitimacy on the fair and adequate representation of all parties at all levels of the judicial process. The trial is the main event in this system, where the prosecution and the defense do battle to reach a presumptively reliable result. When we execute a capital defendant in this country, we rely on the belief that the individual was guilty, and was convicted and sentenced after a fair trial, to justify the imposition of state-sponsored killing. And when this Court curtails federal oversight of state-court proceedings, it does so in reliance on the proposition that justice has been done at the trial level. My 24 years of overseeing the imposition of the death penalty from this Court have left me in grave doubt whether this reliance is justified and whether the constitutional requirement of competent legal counsel for capital defendants is being fulfilled. It is my hope and belief that this Nation soon will come to realize that capital punishment cannot morally or constitutionally be imposed. Until that time, however, we must have the courage to recognize the failings of our present system of capital representation and the conviction to do what is necessary to improve it.

Adhering to my belief that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution, Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994) (Blackmun, J., dissenting), I would grant the petition for certiorari and vacate the death sentence.

       Recent improvements have been made, however. The Florida Supreme Court struck down the State’s maximum fee of $3,500 as unconstitutional when applied in such a manner as to impinge on the right to effective counsel in capital cases. White v. Board of County Comm’rs, 537 So. 2d 1376 (1989). The court found itself “hard pressed to find any capital case in which the circumstances would not warrant an award of attorneys’ fees in excess of the [$3,500] fee cap.” Id., at 1378. South Carolina’s Supreme Court also refused, on Sixth Amendment grounds, to enforce the State’s $10 and $15 per hour and $5,000 maximum compensation levels in capital cases. Bailey v. State, 424 S. E. 2d 503, 508 (1992). The Oklahoma and Arkansas Supreme Courts recently struck down their States’ respective compensation caps of $3,200 and $1,000 as unconstitutional takings when applied to capital cases. See State v. Lynch, 796 P. 2d 1150 (Okla. 1990); Arnold v. Kemp, 306 Ark. 294, 813 S. W. 2d 770 (1991).

       For further discussion of these and other examples of indigent capital defense representation, see, e.g., Bright, Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence Not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst Lawyer, 103 Yale L. J. 1835 (1994); ABA Report, at 65-70.


text:
    No. 93-7699.
    No. 93-8295.
    No. 93-8401.
    No. 93-8458.
    No. 93-8853.
    Karim-Panahi v. United States et al., Warren v. United States, Fromal v. Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, Woods v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al., Whitley v. Florida,
   511 U. S. 1109;

511 U. S. 1110;

511 U. S. 1090;

511 U. S. 1092; and

ante, p. 1210. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    July 12, 1994
    No. 92-1996.
    Alaska Housing Finance Corp. v. Kurth.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    July 28, 1994
    No. A-60 (O. T. 1994).
    Amsden et al. v. Biden, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, et al.
   Application for injunction, presented to Justice Souter, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    July 29, 1994
    No. 93-9795.
    Tornow v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    August 1, 1994
    No. 93-1812.
    Sea Savage, Inc., et al. v. Chevron U. S. A., Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule

46.1.


text:
    No. 94-5427 (A-100).
    Drew v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution, see my dissent in Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994), I would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    No. 94-5446 (A-98).
    Drew v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty cannot be imposed fairly within the constraints of our Constitution, see my dissent in Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994), I would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    August 2, 1994
    No. D-1356.
    In re Disbarment of Seeman.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 510 U. S. 1104.]


text:
    No. D-1371.
    In re Disbarment of McGrath.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 510 U. S. 1174.]


text:
    No. D-1383.
    In re Disbarment of Budman.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 511 U. S. 1027.]


text:
    No. D-1384.
    In re Disbarment of Wells.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 511 U. S. 1028.]


text:
    No. D-1388.
    In re Disbarment of Klein.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 511 U. S. 1051.]


text:
    No. D-1390.
    In re Disbarment of Dubow.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 511 U. S. 1066.]


text:
    No. D-1393.
    In re Disbarment of Comici.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 511 U. S. 1104.]


text:
    No. D-1394.
    In re Disbarment of Farhat.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 511 U. S. 1104.]


text:
    No. D-1395.
    In re Disbarment of Moringiello.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 511 U. S. 1104.]


text:
    No. D-1397.
    In re Disbarment of Cloutier.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 511 U. S. 1125.]


text:
    No. D-1398.
    In re Disbarment of Sloan.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 511 U. S. 1139.]


text:
    No. D-1402.
    In re Disbarment of Griffin.
   James H. Griffin, of Los Angeles, Cal., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on June 6, 1994 [511 U. S. 1140], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-1417.
    In re Disbarment of Asbell.
   It is ordered that Samuel Asbell, of Camden, N. J., 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. D-1418.
    In re Disbarment of Griffith.
   It is ordered that John B. Griffith, of Silver Spring, Md., 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. D-1419.
    In re Disbarment of Lashley.
   It is ordered that Douglas L. Lashley, of Olney, Md., 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. D-1420.
    In re Disbarment of Bernstein.
   It is ordered that Harry J. Bernstein, of Belmore, N. Y., 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. D-1421.
    In re Disbarment of Slan.
   It is ordered that Allan G. Slan, of Rockville, Md., 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. D-1422.
    In re Disbarment of Mosely.
   It is ordered that Fred M. Mosely, of East Cleveland, Ohio, 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. D-1423.
    In re Disbarment of Okocha.
   It is ordered that Nwabueze Vincent Okocha, of Cleveland, Ohio, 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. D-1424.
    In re Disbarment of Holzmann.
   It is ordered that James Charles Holzmann, of San Diego, Cal., 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. D-1425.
    In re Disbarment of Abrams.
   It is ordered that Harold B. Abrams, of Los Angeles, Cal., 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. D-1426.
    In re Disbarment of Nolan.
   It is ordered that Patrick James Nolan, of Sacramento, Cal., 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. D-1427.
    In re Disbarment of Schechterman.
   It is ordered that Lawrence Schechterman, of Boca Raton, Fla., 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. D-1428.
    In re Disbarment of Sternberg.
   It is ordered that Les Paul Sternberg, of Sunrise, Fla., 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. D-1429.
    In re Disbarment of Bernard.
   It is ordered that Donald Ray Bernard, of Seabrook, Tex., 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. D-1430.
    In re Disbarment of Field.
   It is ordered that Carl M. Field, of Cedarhurst, N. Y., 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. D-1431.
    In re Disbarment of Schmieder.
   It is ordered that Robert W. Schmieder, of Belleville, 111., 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. D-1432.
    In re Disbarment of Thompson.
   It is ordered that Bruce A. Thompson, of Fair Haven, N. J., 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. D-1433.
    In re Disbarment of Corces.
   It is ordered that Charles B. Corces, of Tampa, Fla., 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. 92-2038.
    Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer et al., dba deeBees.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 511 U. S. 1029.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 93-1543.
    McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 511 U. S. 1106.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 93-1340.
    United States v. Mezzanatto.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 511 U. S. 1029.] Motion of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 93-1631.
    Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury v. Adolph Coors Co.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1203.] Motion of respondent to substitute Coors Brewing Co. in place of Adolph Coors Co. granted.


text:
    No. 93-1636.
    Swint et al. v. Chambers County Commission et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1204.] Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 93-7901.
    Schlup v. Belo, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 511 U. S. 1003.] Motion of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 92-7264.
    No. 93-1329.
    No. 93-1377.
    No. 93-1469.
    No. 93-1620.
    No. 93-1652.
    No. 93-1654.
    No. 93-1730.
    No. 93-1815.
    No. 93-1868.
    No. 93-7394.
    No. 93-7936.
    No. 93-8044.
    No. 93-8272.
    No. 93-8315.
    No. 93-8368.
    No. 93-8436.
    Walker v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, DiPinto et al. v. Sperling et al., Wardlaw v. Pickett et al., Foxwood Management Co. et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al., Rubens et al. v. Shine, Julianelle, Karp, Bozelko & Karazin, P. C., Calderon, Warden, et al. v. Hamilton, Crutchfield v. McGregor, Miccio v. New Jersey Department of Community Affairs et al., Burns-Toole v. Byrne et al., Ortman v. Oakland County, Michigan, et al., McClendon v. California, Smith v. United States, Toegemann v. Rich et al., Gaydos v. Chertoff, United States Attorney, et al., Ruchti v. Hedley et al., Asrar v. United States, Reid v. City of Flint et al., Clinton v. Smith, Warden, et al., Hawkins v. Green et al., Mark v. United States et al., Payne v. Escambia County Sheriff, Kleinschmidt et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. et al., Lange v. Heitkamp et al., Taveras v. New York Department of Correctional Services et al., Jeffress v. Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Burnett v. Fairley et al., Carpenter et ux. v. Blankenship, Fromal v. Robins et al., Poole v. Holland, Warden, Edwards v. Hargett, Warden, Sule v. United States, Barnes v. Garetner et al., Cooley et ux. v. Knapp et al., Okor v. United States, Newkirk v. Smith, Warden, et al., In re Franz,
   507 U. S. 964;

511 U. S. 1082;

ante, p. 1204;

ante, p. 1204;

511 U. S. 1142;

ante, p. 1220;

ante, p. 1205;

511 U. S. 1129;

ante, p. 1207;

ante, p. 1208;

511 U. S. 1085;

511 U. S. 1130;

511 U. S. 1055;

511 U. S. 1087;

511 U. S. 1088;

511 U. S. 1045;

511 U. S. 1091;

No. 93-8439.

No. 93-8494.

No. 93-8510.

No. 93-8530.

No. 93-8595.

No. 93-8619.

No. 93-8628.

No. 93-8639.

No. 93-8664.

No. 93-8695.

No. 93-8718.

No. 93-8727.

No. 93-8771.

No. 93-8807.

No. 93-8831.

No. 93-8861.

No. 93-8911.

No. 93-9057.

No. 93-9320.

511 U. S. 1091;

511 U. S. 1093;

511 U. S. 1144;

511 U. S. 1111;

511 U. S. 1112;

511 U. S. 1131;

511 U. S. 1132;

511 U. S. 1112;

511 U. S. 1132;

511 U. S. 1133;

511 U. S. 1133;

511 U. S. 1145;

ante, p. 1209;

ante, p. 1223;

ante, p. 1210;

ante, p. 1210;

511 U. S. 1146;

511 U. S. 1149; and

ante, p. 1218. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 93-10.
    Cullen v. Trainor, Robertson, Smits & Wade et al.,
   510 U. S. 859. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 93-1443.
    Makin v. Evans et al.,
   511 U. S. 1082. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    August 3, 1994
    No. 93-1904.
    Colorado v. Leftwich et al.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    No. A-79 (O. T. 1994).
    Richley v. Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
    Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, denied.