author: Justice Souter

text:
    ROTELLA v. WOOD et al.
    No. 98-896.
    Argued November 3, 1999
    Decided February 23, 2000

      SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Richard P. Hogan, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Kevin Dubose, Richard W. Mithoff, Tommy Jacks, and Robert F. Andrews.

      Charles T. Frazier, Jr., argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Debora B. Alsup, John H. Martin, Tom Renfro, and Joseph R. Cleveland, Jr.

        Daniel J. Popeo and Richard A. Samp filed a brief for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.

        Philip Allen Lacovara, Evan M. Tager, and Gary E. Hughes filed a brief for the American Council of Life Insurance as amicus curiae.

   Justice Souter

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The commencement of petitioner’s civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was timely only if the so-called “injury and pattern discovery” rule governs the start of the 4-year limitations period. We hold that it does not.

I

In February 1985, petitioner, Mark Rotella, was admitted to the Brookhaven Psychiatric Pavilion with a diagnosis of major depression. Rotella v. Pederson, 144 F. 3d 892, 894 (CA5 1998). He was discharged in 1986. In 1994, Brook-haven’s parent company and one of its directors pleaded guilty to charges of criminal fraud perpetrated through improper relationships and illegal agreements between the company and its doctors. Rotella learned of the plea agreement that same year, and in 1997 he filed a civil RICO claim against respondents, a group of doctors and related business entities, in Federal District Court.

RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (1994 ed. and Supp. III), makes it criminal “to conduct” an “enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity,” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(e), defined as behavior that violates certain other laws, either enumerated federal statutes or state laws addressing specified topics and bearing specified penalties, 18 U. S. C. § 1961(1) (Supp. III). “Pattern” is also a defined term requiring “at least two acts of racketeering activity ..., the last of which occurred within ten years... after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.” 18 U. S. C. § 1961(5).

RICO provides for civil actions (like this one) by which “[a]ny person injured in his business or property” by a RICO violation may seek treble damages and attorney’s fees. 18 U. S. C. § 1964(c) (Supp. III). Rotella alleged such injury, in that respondents had conspired to admit, treat, and retain him at Brookhaven not for any medical reason but simply to maximize their profits. Respondents raised the statute of limitations as a defense and sought summary judgment on the ground that the period for bringing the civil action had expired before Rotella sued.

Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U. S. 143, 156 (1987), established a 4-year limitations period for civil RICO claims. The District Court held that the period began when Rotella discovered his injury, which he concedes he did in 1986 at the latest. 147 F. 3d 438, 439 (CA5 1998). Under this “injury discovery” rule, the limitations period expired in 1990, and the District Court accordingly ordered summary judgment for respondents. Rotella appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the RICO limitations period does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers (or should have discovered) both the injury and the pattern of racketeering activity. After the Fifth Circuit ruled against him, ibid., we granted certiorari to address a split of authority among the Courts of Appeals on whether the limitations period is triggered in accordance with the “injury and pattern discovery” rule invoked by Rotella. 526 U. S. 1003 (1999). We now affirm.

> — i H-Í

Given civil RICO’s want of any express limitations provision for civil enforcement actions, in Malley-Duff we undertook to derive one and determined that the limitations period should take no account of differences among the multifarious predicate acts of racketeering activity covered by the statute. Although we chose a uniform 4-year period on a Clayton Act analogy, §4B, as added, 69 Stat. 283, 15 U. S. C. § 15b, we did not decide when the period began to run, and the question has divided the Courts of Appeals.

Three distinct approaches emerged in the wake of Malley-Duff. Some Circuits, like the Fifth in this case, applied an injury discovery accrual rule starting the clock when a plaintiff knew or should have known of his injury. See, e. g., Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F. 3d 506, 511 (CA9 1996); McCool v. Strata Oil Co., 972 F. 2d 1452, 1464-1465 (CA7 1992); Rodriguez v. Banco Central Corp., 917 F. 2d 664, 665-666 (CA1 1990); Bankers Trust Co. v. Rhoades, 859 F. 2d 1096, 1102 (CA2 1988); Pocahontas Supreme Coal Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 828 F. 2d 211, 220 (CA4 1987).

Some applied the injury and pattern discovery rule that Rotella seeks, under which a civil RICO claim accrues only when the claimant discovers, or should discover, both an injury and a pattern of RICO activity. See, e. g., Caproni v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 15 F. 3d 614, 619-620 (CA6 1994); Granite Falls Bank v. Henrikson, 924 F. 2d 150, 154 (CA8 1991); Bath v. Bushkin, Gaims, Gaines & Jonas, 913 F. 2d 817, 820-821 (CA10 1990); Bivens Gardens Office Building, Inc. v. Barnett Bank, 906 F. 2d 1546, 1554-1555 (CA11 1990).

The Third Circuit applied a “last predicate act” rule, see Keystone Ins. Co. v. Houghton, 863 F. 2d 1125, 1130 (CA3 1988). Under this rule, the period began to run as soon as the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury and the pattern of racketeering activity, but began to run anew upon each predicate act forming part of the same pattern.

In Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corp., 521 U. S. 179 (1997), we cut the possibilities by one in rejecting the last predicate act rule. Since a pattern of predicate acts can continue indefinitely, with each separated by as many as 10 years, that rule might have extended the limitations period to many decades, and so beyond any limit that Congress could have contemplated. See ibid. Preserving a right of action for such a vast stretch of time would have thwarted the basic objective of repose underlying the very notion of a limitations period. See id., at 189. The last predicate act rule was likewise at odds with the model for civil RICO, the Clayton Act, under which “[generally, a cause of action accrues and the statute begins to run when a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiff’s business.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U. S. 321, 338 (1971); Klehr, supra, at 188.

The decision in Klehr left two candidates favored by various Courts of Appeals: some form of the injury discovery rule (preferred by a majority of Circuits to have considered it), and the injury and pattern discovery rule. Today, guided by principles enunciated in Klehr, we eliminate the latter.

h-i HH h — {

We think the minority injury and pattern discovery rule unsound for a number of reasons. We start with the realization that under the provision recognizing the possibility of finding a pattern of racketeering in predicate acts 10 years apart, even an injury occurrence rule unsoftened by a discovery feature could in theory open the door to proof of predicate acts occurring 10 years before injury and 14 before commencement of litigation. A pattern discovery rule would allow proof of a defendant’s acts even more remote from time of trial and, hence, litigation even more at odds with the basic policies of all limitations provisions: repose, elimination of stale claims, and certainty about a plaintiff’s opportunity for recovery and a defendant’s potential liabilities. See, e. g., Klehr, supra, at 187; Malley-Duff, 483 U. S., at 150, 156; Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U. S. 261, 270, 271 (1985).

How long is too long is, of course, a matter of judgment based on experience, and it gives us great pause that the injury and pattern discovery rule is an extension of the traditional federal accrual rule of injury discovery, and unwarranted by the injury discovery rule’s rationale. Federal courts, to be sure, generally apply a discovery accrual rule when a statute is silent on the issue, as civil RICO is here. Klehr, supra, at 191 (citing Connors v. Hallmark & Son Coal Co., 935 F. 2d 336, 342 (CADC 1991), and 1 C. Corman, Limitation of Actions § 6.5.5.1, p. 449 (1991)). But in applying a discovery accrual rule, we have been at pains to explain that discovery of the injury, not discovery of the other elements of a claim, is what starts the clock. In the circumstance of medical malpractice, where the cry for a discovery rule is loudest, we have been emphatic that the justification for a discovery rule does not extend beyond the injury:

“We are unconvinced that for statute of limitations purposes a plaintiff’s ignorance of his legal rights and his ignorance of the fact of his injury or its cause should receive identical treatment. That he has been injured in fact may be unknown or unknowable until the injury manifests itself; and the facts about causation may be in the control of the putative defendant, unavailable to the plaintiff or at least very difficult to obtain. The prospect is not so bleak for a plaintiff in possession of the critical facts that he has been hurt and who has inflicted the injury. He is no longer at the mercy of the latter. There are others who can tell him if he has been wronged, and he need only ask.” United States v. Kubrick, 444 U. S. 111, 122 (1979).

A person suffering from inadequate treatment is thus responsible for determining within the limitations period then running whether the inadequacy was malpractice.

We see no good reason for accepting a lesser degree of responsibility on the part of a RICO plaintiff. It is true, of course, as Rotella points out, that RICO has a unique pattern requirement, see Malley-Duff, supra, at 154 (“[T]he heart of any RICO complaint is the allegation of a pattern of racketeering”); H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U. S. 229, 236 (1989) (referring to “RICQ’s key requirement of a pattern of racketeering”). And it is true as well that a pattern of predicate acts may well be complex, concealed, or fraudulent. But identifying professional negligence may also be a matter of real complexity, and its discovery is not required before the statute starts running. Kubrick, supra, at 122, 124. Although we said that the potential malpractice plaintiff “need only ask” if he has been wronged by a doctor, considerable enquiry and investigation may be necessary before he can make a responsible judgment about the action-ability of the unsuccessful treatment he received. The fact, then, that a considerable effort may be required before a RICO plaintiff can tell whether a pattern of racketeering is demonstrable does not place him in a significantly different position from the malpractice victim. A RICO plaintiff's ability to investigate the cause of his injuries is no more impaired by his ignorance of the underlying RICO pattern than a malpractice plaintiff is thwarted by ignorance of the details of treatment decisions or of prevailing standards of medical practice.

Nor does Rotella’s argument gain strength from the fact that some patterns of racketeering will include fraud, which is generally associated with a different accrual rule; we have already found the connection between civil RICO and fraud to be an insufficient ground for recognizing a limitations period beyond four years, Malley-Duff, supra, at 149, and the lenient rule Rotella seeks would amount to backsliding from Malley-Duff.

What is equally bad is that a less demanding basic discovery rule than federal law generally applies would clash with the limitations imposed on Clayton Act suits. This is important because, as we have previously noted, there is a clear legislative record of congressional reliance on the Clayton Act when RICO was under consideration, see Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 489 (1985), and we have recognized before that the Clayton Act’s injury-focused accrual rule was well established by the time civil RICO was enacted. Klehr, 521 U. S., at 189. In rejecting a significantly different focus under RICO, therefore, we are honoring an analogy that Congress itself accepted and relied upon, and one that promotes the objectives of civil RICO as readily as it furthers the objects of the Clayton Act. Both statutes share a common congressional objective of encouraging civil litigation to supplement Government efforts to deter and penalize the respectively prohibited practices. The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into prosecutors, “private attorneys general,” dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U. S., at 151) (civil RICO specifically has a “further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate”). The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better. It would, accordingly, be strange to provide an unusually long basic limitations period that could only have the effect of postponing whatever public benefit civil RICO might realize. The Clayton Act avoids any such policy conflict by its accrual rule that “[generally, a cause of action accrues and the statute begins to run when a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiff’s business,” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U. S., at 338, and the Clayton Act analogy reflects the clear intent of Congress to reject a potentially longer basic rule under RICO.

In sum, any accrual rule softened by a pattern discovery feature would, undercut every single policy we have mentioned. By tying the start of the limitations period to a plaintiff’s reasonable discovery of a pattern rather than to the point of injury or its reasonable discovery, the rule would extend the potential limitations period for most civil RICO cases well beyond the time when a plaintiff’s cause of action is complete, as this ease shows. Rotella does not deny that he knew of his injury in 1986 when it occurred, or that his civil RICO claim was complete and subject to suit at that time. But under Rotella’s rule, the clock would have started only in 1994, when he discovered the pattern of predicate acts (his assumption being that he could not reasonably have been expected to discover them sooner). A limitations period that would have begun to run only eight years after a claim became ripe would bar repose, prove a godsend to stale claims, and doom any hope of certainty in identifying potential liability. Whatever disputes may arise about pinpointing the moment a plaintiff should have discovered an injury to himself would be dwarfed by the controversy inherent in divining when a plaintiff should have discovered a racketeering pattern that might well be complex, concealed or fraudulent, and involve harm to parties wholly unrelated to an injured plaintiff. The fact, as Rotella notes, that difficulty in identifying a pattern is inherent in civil RICO, see H. J. Inc., 492 U. S., at 235, n. 2 (collecting cases), only reinforces our reluctance to parlay the necessary complexity of RICO into worse trouble in applying its limitations rule. Cf. Wilson, 471 U. S., at 270 (discussing need for firmly defined, easily applied rules). A pattern discovery rule would patently disserve the congressional objective of a civil enforcement scheme parallel to the Clayton Act regime, aimed at rewarding the swift who undertake litigation in the public good.

Rotella has two remaining points about which a word should be said. We have already encountered his argument that differences between RICO and the Clayton Act render their analogy inapt, and we have explained why neither the RICO pattern requirement nor the occurrence of fraud in RICO patterns is a good reason to ignore the Clayton Act model, see supra, at 556-557. Here it remains only to respond to Rotella’s argument that we ourselves undercut the force of the Clayton Act analogy when we held that RICO had no racketeering injury requirement comparable to the antitrust injury requirement under the Clayton Act, see Sedima, 473 U. S., at 495. This point not only fails to support but even cuts against Rotella’s position. By eliminating the complication of anything like an antitrust injury element we have, to that extent, recognized a simpler RICO cause of action than its Clayton Act counterpart, and RICO’s comparative simplicity in this respect surely does not support the adoption of a more protracted basic limitations period.

Finally, Rotella returns to his point that RICO patterns will involve fraud in many eases, when he argues that unless a pattern discovery rule is recognized, a RICO plaintiff will sometimes be barred from suit by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which provides that fraud must be pleaded with particularity. While we will assume that Rule 9(b) will exact some cost, we are wary of allowing speculation about that cost to control the resolution of the issue here. Rotella has presented no case in which Rule 9(b) has effectively barred a claim like his, and he ignores the flexibility provided by Rule 11(b)(3), allowing pleadings based on evidence reasonably anticipated after further, investigation or discovery. See, e. g., Corley v. Rosewood Care Center, Inc. of Peoria, 142 F. 3d 1041, 1050-1051 (CA7 1998) (relaxing particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) where RICO plaintiff lacks access to all facts necessary to detail claim). It is not that we mean to reject Rotella’s concern about allowing “blameless ignorance” to defeat a claim, Urie v. Thompson, 337 U. S. 163, 170 (1949); we simply do not think such a concern should control the decision about the basic limitations rule. In rejecting pattern discovery as a basic rule, we do not unsettle the understanding that federal statutes of limitations are generally subject to equitable principles of tolling, see Holm berg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392, 397 (1946), and where a pattern remains obscure in the face of a plaintiff’s diligence in seeking to identify it, equitable tolling may be one answer to the plaintiff’s difficulty, complementing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3). See ibid.; see generally Klehr, 521 U. S., at 192-193 (noting distinctions between different equitable devices). The virtue of relying on equitable tolling lies in the very nature of such tolling as the exception, not the rule.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

       Rotella alleged that “a group of doctors and their related business entities . . . improperly conspir[ed] to admit, treat, and retain him at Brookhaven Psychiatric Pavilion for reasons related to their own financial interests rather than the patient’s psychiatric condition.” 147 F. 3d 438, 439 (CA5 1998). As injuries, he alleged, among other things, confinement for an excessive period because of the conspiracy to draw down his and other patients’ insurance coverage, loss of a number of personal items, and fraudulent charges for unnecessary treatment. Brief for Petitioner 3; App. 20-24.

       We do not, however, settle upon a final rule. In addition to the possibilities entertained in the Courts of Appeals, Justice Scaiia has espoused an “injury occurrence” rule, under which discovery would be irrelevant, Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corp., 521 U. S. 179, 198 (1997) (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment), and our decision in Klehr leaves open the possibility of a straight injury occurrence rule. Amicus American Council of Life Insurance urges us to adopt this injury occurrence rule in this case, see Brief for American Council of Life Insurance as Amicus Curiae 5-14, but the parties have not focused on this option, and we would not pass upon it without more attentive advocacy.

       This objective of encouraging prompt litigation to combat racketeering is the most obvious answer to Rotella’s argument that the injury and pattern discovery rule should be adopted because “RICO is to be read broadly” and “‘liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes,”' Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 497-498 (1985) (quoting Pub. L. 91-452, § 904(a), 84 Stat. 947).

       Some Circuits apply injury and pattern discovery out of fear that when the injury precedes a second predicate act, the limitations period might otherwise expire before the pattern is created. E. g., Granite Falls Bank v. Henrikson, 924 P. 2d 150, 154 (CA8 1991). Respondents argue that this overlooks the cardinal principle that a limitations period does not begin to run until the cause of action is complete. Rawlings v. Ray, 312 U. S. 96, 98 (1941); see also United States v. Lindsay, 346 U. S. 568, 569 (1954); Clark v. Iowa City, 20 Wall. 583, 589 (1875).
      The quandary is hypothetical here; Rotella does not dispute that his injury in 1986 completed the elements of his cause of action. Hence, we need not and do not decide whether civil RICO allows for a cause of action when a second predicate act follows the injury, or what limitations accrual rule might apply in such a case. In any event, doubt about whether a harm might be actionable before a pattern is complete is a weak justification for the cost of a general pattern discovery rule.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam. Justice Breyer,

license: Public Domain

text:
    VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK et al. v. OLECH
    No. 98-1288.
    Argued January 10, 2000
    Decided February 23, 2000

      James L. DeAno argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioners.

      Irving L. Gornstein argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Acting Assistant Attorney General Ogden, Deputy Solicitor General Underwood, and Mark B. Stem.

      John R. Wimmer argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

        Richard Ruda, James I. Crowley, and Donald B. Ayer filed a brief for the International City/County Management Association et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

        Harvey Grossman, Steven R. Shapiro, and Richard J. O’Brien filed a brief for the ACLU as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

   Per Curiam.

Respondent Grace Oleeh and her late husband Thaddeus asked petitioner Village of Willowbrook (Village) to connect their property to the municipal water supply. The Village at first conditioned the connection on the Olechs granting the Village a 33-foot easement. The Olechs objected, claiming that the Village only required a 15-foot easement from other property owners seeking access to the water supply. After a 3-month delay, the Village relented and agreed to provide water service with only a 15-foot easement.

Oleeh sued the Village, claiming that the Village’s demand of an additional 18-foot easement violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Oleeh asserted that the 33-foot easement demand was “irrational and wholly arbitrary”; that the Village’s demand was actually motivated by ill will resulting from the Olechs’ previous filing of an unrelated, successful lawsuit against the Village; and that the Village acted either with the intent to deprive Oleeh of her rights or in reckless disregard of her rights. App. 10, 12.

The District Court dismissed the lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cognizable claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Relying on Circuit precedent, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that a plaintiff can allege an equal protection violation by asserting that state action was motivated solely by a “ ‘spiteful effort to “get” him for reasons wholly unrelated to any legitimate state objective.’” 160 F. 3d 386, 387 (1998) (quoting Esmail v. Macrane, 53 F. 3d 176, 180 (CA7 1995)). It determined that Olech’s complaint sufficiently alleged such a claim. 160 F. 3d, at 388. We granted certiorari to determine whether the Equal Protection Clause gives rise to a cause of action on behalf of a “class of one” where the plaintiff did not allege membership in a class or group. 527 U. S. 1067 (1999).

Our cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a “class of one,” where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. See Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441 (1923); Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty., 488 U. S. 336 (1989). In so doing, we have explained that “‘[t]he purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.’ ” Sioux City Bridge Co., supra, at 445 (quoting Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Township of Wakefield, 247 U. S. 350, 352 (1918)).

That reasoning is applicable to this ease. Oleeh’s complaint can fairly be construed as alleging that the Village intentionally demanded a 33-foot easement as a condition of connecting her property to the municipal water supply where the Village required only a 15-foot easement from other similarly situated property owners. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957). The complaint also alleged that the Village’s demand was “irrational and wholly arbitrary” and that the Village ultimately connected her property after receiving a clearly adequate 15-foot easement. These allegations, quite apart from the Village’s subjective motivation, are sufficient to state a claim for relief under traditional equal protection analysis. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, but do not reach the alternative theory of “subjective ill will” relied on by that court.

It is so ordered.

Justice Breyer,

concurring in the result.

The Solicitor General and the village of Willowbrook have expressed concern lest we interpret the Equal Protection Clause in this case in a way that would transform many ordinary violations of city or state law into violations of the Constitution. It might be thought that a rule that looks only to an intentional difference in treatment and a lack of a rational basis for that different treatment would work such a transformation. Zoning decisions, for example, will often, perhaps almost always, treat one landowner differently from another, and one might claim that, when a city’s zoning authority takes an action that fails to conform to a city zoning regulation, it lacks a “rational basis” for its action (at least if the regulation in question is reasonably clear).

This case, however, does not directly raise the question whether the simple and common instance of a faulty zoning decision would violate the Equal Protection Clause. That is because the Court of Appeals found that in this case respondent had alleged an extra factor as well — a factor that the Court of Appeals called “vindictive action,” “illegitimate animus,” or “ill will.” 160 F. 3d 386, 388 (CA7 1998). And, in that respect, the court said this case resembled Esmail v. Macrane, 53 F. 3d 176 (CA7 1995), because the Esmail plaintiff had alleged that the municipality’s differential treatment “was the result not of prosecutorial discretion honestly (even if ineptly — even if arbitrarily) exercised but of an illegitimate desire to ‘get’ him.” 160 F. 3d, at 388.

In my view, the presence of that added factor in this case is sufficient to minimize any concern about transforming run-of-the-mill zoning cases into cases of constitutional right. For this reason, along with the others mentioned by the Court, I concur in the result.

      We note that the complaint in this case could be read to allege a class of five. In addition to Grace and Thaddeus Olech, their neighbors Rodney and Phyllis Zimmer and Howard Brinkman requested to be connected to the municipal water supply, and the Village initially demanded the 33-foot easement from all of them. The Zimmers and Mr. Brinkman were also involved in the previous, successful lawsuit against the Village, which allegedly created the ill will motivating the excessive easement demand. Whether the complaint alleges a class of one or of five is of no consequence because we conclude that the number of individuals in a class is immaterial for equal protection analysis.


text:
    October 4, 1999
    No. 98-9308.
    No. 98-9504.
    Cross v. California. Cooper v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist.; and

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and eases remanded for further consideration in light of Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (1999).


text:
    No. D-1961.
    In re Disbarment of Weisser.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 524 U. S. 913.]


text:
    No. D-2073.
    In re Disbarment of Nunes.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 526 U. S. 1128.]


text:
    No. D-2076.
    In re Disbarment of Patt.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 526 U. S. 1143.]


text:
    No. D-2088.
    In re Disbarment of Robins.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 527 U. S. 1020.]


text:
    No. D-2101.
    In re Disbarment of Jacobs.
   Patricia Dianne Jacobs, of Washington, D. C., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-2102.
    In re Disbarment of Eagle.
   Saul L. Eagle, of New York, N. Y., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will 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-2103.
    In re Disbarment of Maney.
   William Kenneth Maney, of Johnson City, N. Y., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will 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-2104.
    In re Disbarment of Ponzini.
   Robert J. Pon-zini, of Tarrytown, N. Y., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will 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-2105.
    In re Disbarment of Warren.
   Kenneth Xavier Warren, of Baltimore, Md., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will 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. 98M75.
    Morgan v. CMS/Data Corp.
   Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to file petition for writ of certio-rari out of time [527 U. S. 1002] denied.


text:
    No. 99M1.
    No. 99M2.
    No. 99M3.
    No. 99M4.
    No. 99M5.
    No. 99M6.
    No. 99M7.
    No. 99M8.
    No. 99M9.
    No. 99M10.
    No. 99M11.
    No. 99M13.
    No. 99M14.
    No. 99M15.
    No. 99M16.
    No. 99M17.
    No. 99M19.
    Chaney v. Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections; West v. United States; Evans v. City of Victorville et al.; Parrish v. Nebraska et al.; Carter v. United States; Florida v. Rodriguez; Orleans Levee District et al. v. Lange et al.; Ward v. Hanks, Superintendent, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility; Autodie International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board; Bolanos Portillo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service; Dominguez v. Casey, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas; Zwicker v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.; Solivan v. Scottsdale Justice Court et al.; Powell v. Powell et al.; Aspelmeier v. Gilmore, Warden; Calderon v. Dugan; Slayton v. Mountain City Club; Heinemann v. Mid-State Trust IV; Tarver v. Haley, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections; Bickford v. Anchorage School District; Mahon et ux. v. Credit Bureau of Placer County et al.; and Cherry v. Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, et al.
    No. 99M23.
    No. 99M24.
    No. 99M25.
    No. 99M26.
    No. 99M27.
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. 99M12.
    Sanders v. Gramley, Warden.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time under this Court’s Rule 14.5 denied.


text:
    No. 99M18.
    In re Clancy.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file submitted pleadings denied.


text:
    No. 99M20.
    Rotzinger v. United States et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari that does not comply with the Rules of this Court denied.


text:
    No. 99M21.
    Lam, aka Moody v. Moody.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99M22.
    Council v. South Carolina.
   Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without an affidavit of indigency executed by petitioner granted.


text:
    No. 8,
    Orig.
    Arizona v. California et al.
   Report of the Special Master received and ordered filed. Exceptions to the Report, with supporting briefs, may be filed by the parties within 45 days. Reply briefs, if any, may be filed by the parties within 30 days. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 514 U. S. 1081.]


text:
    No. 98-238.
    West, Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Gibson,
   527 U. S. 212. Motion of respondent to retax costs denied, except that respondent is relieved of $45.56 in costs.


text:
    No. 98-1037.
    Smith, Warden v. Robbins.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 526 U. S. 1003.] Motion of petitioner, to strike lodged materials denied, except that the uncertified transcript of the oral argument before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is stricken.


text:
    No. 98-1161.
    City of Erie et al. v. Pap’s A. M., tdba “Kandyland.”
   Sup. Ct. Pa. [Certiorari granted, 526 U. S. 1111.] Motions of Erie County Citizens Coalition Against ’Violent Pornography, American Liberties Institute et al., and Orange County, Florida, for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 98-1189.
    Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 526 U. S. 1038.] Motion of Student Rights Law Center, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 98-1441.
    Roe, Warden v. Flores-Ortega.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 526 U. S. 1097.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 98-1480.
    Beck v. Prupis et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 526 U. S. 1158.] Motion of Washington Legal Foundation et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 98-1747.
    No. 98-1768.
    No. 98-1836.
    No. 98-1971.
    No. 98-1987.
    No. 98-9663.
    Perez et al. v. Pasadena Independent School District et al. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee. United States Healthcare Systems of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Hospital Insurance Co. et al. Robinson et al. v. Administrative Committee of the Sea Ray Employees’ Stock Ownership and Profit Sharing Plan et al. Valdespino et al. v. Alamo Heights Independent School District et al. Davis v. Hopper, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir.;

C. A. 3d Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Pa.;

C. A. 6th Cir.;

C. A. 5th Cir.; and

C. A. 11th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 98-8384.
    Williams v. Taylor, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 526 U. S. 1050.] Motions of Marvin Frankel et al. and Lance Banning et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 98-8711.
    Tyler et al. v. Moriarty, Judge, Circuit Court of Missouri, City of St. Louis, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioners for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed informa pauperis [526 U.S. 1143] denied.


text:
    No. 98-8785.
    No. 98-8798.
    No. 98-8802.
    Baez v. Breslin. Balawajder v. Scott, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Cunningham v. Poppell, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir.;

C. A. 5th Cir.; and

C. A. 5th Cir. Motions of petitioners for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [526 U. S. 1157] denied.


text:
    No. 98-8821.
    Arbogast v. Alcoa Building Products.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [526 U. S. 1157] denied.


text:
    No. 98-9085.
    Whitfield v. Texas (three judgments).
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [527 U.S. 885] denied.


text:
    No. 98-9133.
    Cohea v. Bray et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [527 U. S. 1034] denied.


text:
    No. 98-9473.
    In re Hill.
   Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [527 U. S. 1002] denied.


text:
    No. 98-9254.
    No. 98-9261.
    No. 98-9282.
    No. 98-9301.
    No. 98-9384.
    No. 98-9431.
    No. 98-9443.
    No. 98-9475.
    No. 98-9516.
    No. 98-9545.
    No. 98-9553.
    Chrispen v. Feiner et al. Chrispen v. Feiner et al. Cross v. Murphy et al. Galloway v. California. Braun v. Department of Justice et al. Mangrum v. Reddy et al. Browning v. Weichert. Hill v. Pennsylvania. Tyler v. Cryne. Mason v. Westminster Investments et al. Lyle v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Taylor v. Winnebago County Jail et al. Thompson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Shabazz v. Keating, Governor of Oklahoma, et al. Oriakhi v. Harding et al. Baba v. Warren Management Consultants, Inc., et al. Mangrum v. Charter Property Management Co., Inc. Higgason v. Hanks, Superintendent, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. Browning v. Family Fitness Center. Fabian v. Paradise Park Apartments et al. Lyle v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Bailey v. United States. Bennett v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. In re Ganey; and In re Altschul.
   C. A. 11th Cir.;

C. A. 11th Cir.;

Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist.;

Sup. Ct. Cal.;

C. A. 8th Cir.;

C. A. 11th Cir.;

C. A. 9th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Pa.;

Sup. Ct. Neb.;

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist.;

C. A. 6th Cir.;

No. 98-9557.

No. 98-9634.

No. 98-9765.

No. 98-9903.

No. 98-9922.

No. 98-9965.

No. 98-10019.

No. 99-5007.

No. 99-5362.

No. 99-5390.

No. 99-5566.

No. 99-5616.

No. 99-5829.

No. 99-6052.

C. A. 7th Cir.;

C. A. 8th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Olda.;

C. A. 4th Cir.;

C. A. 2d Cir.;

G. A. 11th Cir.;

C. A. 7th Cir.;

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist.;

C. A. 11th Cir.;

C. A. 6th Cir.;

C. A. 7th Cir.;

C. A. 5th Cir.;

Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Petitioners are allowed until October 25, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 98-9539.
    No. 98-9749.
    No. 98-9760.
    No. 98-9992.
    No. 98-10040.
    Lai v. International Immunology Corp. et al. McFall v. Department of Agriculture. Boone v. Charlie Obaugh Pontiac Buick, Inc. Sharif-Johnson v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board et al. Basta v. Farner. Ladner v. City of New York et al. Sumner v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist.;

C. A. Fed. Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Va.;

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.;

Cir. Ct. Wood County, W. Va.;

No. 99-5301.

No. 99-5599.

C. A. 2d Cir.; and

C. A. Fed. Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until October 25, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 99-5.
    No. 99-29.
    United States v. Morrison et al.; and Brzonkala v. Morrison et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1068.] Motion of Pacific Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 99-5746.
    Weeks v. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1060.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Timothy M. Richardson, Esq., of Virginia Beach, Va., be appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 98-9743.
    No. 98-9908.
    No. 98-9928.
    No. 98-10017.
    No. 98-10024.
    No. 99-5025.
    No. 99-5108.
    No. 99-5147.
    No. 99-5170.
    No. 99-5228.
    No. 99-5259.
    No. 99-5292.
    No. 99-5294.
    No. 99-5380.
    No. 99-5424.
    No. 99-5446.
    No. 99-5567.
    No. 99-5593.
    No. 99-5604.
    No. 99-5617.
    No. 99-5648.
    No. 99-5649.
    In re Johnson; In re Coleman; In re Robinson; In re Davis; In re Tennille; In re Townsend; In re Crowder; In re Holston; In re Mallard; In re Verdone; In re Cotner; In re Minarik; In re Jones; In re Poe; In re McKee; In re Baynes; In re Coach; In re Woods; In re Tiffany; In re Clincy; In re Nha Khiem Tran; In re Webb-El; In re Ross; In re McCowin; In re Stone; and In re Brewer.
    No. 99-5696.
    No. 99-5853.
    No. 99-5974.
    No. 99-6055.
   Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 98-2048.
    No. 98-9171.
    No. 98-9311.
    No. 98-9335.
    No. 98-9428.
    No. 98-9503.
    No. 98-9766.
    No. 98-9845.
    No. 98-9917.
    No. 98-9926.
    No. 99-57.
    No. 99-5028.
    No. 99-5092.
    No. 99-5135.
    No. 99-5336.
    No. 99-5343.
    No. 99-5383.
    No. 99-5408.
    No. 99-5410.
    No. 99-5474.
    No. 99-5549.
    In re Walker; In re Johnson; In re Proctor; In re Nicholson-El; In re Watkis; In re Warren; In re Ogunde; In re Tucker; In re Anderson; In re Proctor; In re Fallin et al.; In re Roy; In re Farrell; In re Francis; In re Grady; In re Brannan; In re Santo-Garcia; In re Bean; In re Maxwell; In re Bartel; and In re Wallace.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 98-2037.
    No. 99-5592.
    In re Jackson; and In re Woody.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 99-150.
    Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted limited to the following question:- “What must be shown to establish that a product’s design is inherently distinctive for purposes of Lanham Act trade-dress protection?” Brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, November 18, 1999. Brief of respondent is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, December 20, 1999. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Monday, January 10,2000. This Court’s Rule 29.2 does not apply.


text:
    No. 98-1270.
    Albertson’s, Inc. v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO and CLC, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1584.
    Ivester v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1599.
    Mortham, Secretary of State of Florida, et al. v. Walker et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1600.
    Unser v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1649.
    Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1651.
    Kim v. United States.
   G. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1654.
    Carleton et al. v. City of Tulsa et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1662.
    Alexander v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1688.
    Bonneville Associates, Limited Partnership, et al. v. Barram, Administrator, General Services Administration.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1689.
    Porter v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1692.
    Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1695.
    Prudential Insurance Company of America et al. v. Prince George Center, Inc., et al.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1698.
    Renteria-Prado v. Pasquarell, District Director, San Antonio District of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1700.
    Hindenlang v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1702.
    Abu-Jamal v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1715.
    Krilich v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1718.
    Rhodes v. Killian, Director, Arizona Department of Revenue, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1725.
    Rahim v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1729.
    McNeil v. Utah, Medicaid Section.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1735.
    Bestfoods, fka CPC International, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1740.
    Benito v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1743.
    MCM Partners, Inc. v. Andrews-Bartlett & Associates, Inc., dba Andrews-Bartlett Exposition Services, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1744.
    Taylor v. Monfils, Special Administrator of the Estate of Monfils, Deceased, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1745.
    Van Horne v. Evergreen Media Corp. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1756.
    Evans et ux. v. Tohono O’Odham Nation et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1761.
    Rainsong Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1763.
    Stone Casket Company of Oklahoma City v. Oklahoma Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors.
   Ct. Civ. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1771.
    Skaggs, Guardian of Person and Estate of Skaggs, Incapacitated v. Otis Elevator Co.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1772.
    Mir v. FHP, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1774.
    Jones v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1778.
    Koveleskie v. SBC Capital Markets, Inc., aka SBC Warburg, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1779.
    Mullin v. Raytheon Co.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1780.
    Sorrow v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1782.
    Deerwester v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1784.
    Pack v. Kmart Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1785.
    Boggs v. Summers, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1794.
    International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 351 v. Cooper Natural Resources, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1795.
    Martinez v. City of Los Fresnos.
   Ct. App. Tex., 13th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1797.
    Iglesias v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1799.
    Knox County Education Assn. v. Knox County Board of Education.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1800.
    Philadelphia, Bethlehem & New England Railroad Co. v. Newhard.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1801.
    Swisher v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1802.
    Baltimore City Police Department et al. v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 3, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1803.
    Gibson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. ' Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1804.
    Kaul et vir v. Kansas Department of Revenue et al.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1805.
    Irving v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1807.
    No. 98-1997.
    Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. City of Tuscaloosa et al.; and Harcros Chemicals, Inc. v. City of Tuscaloosa et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 158 F. 3d 548.


text:
    No. 98-1808.
    Cureton et al. v. Sharpe et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1810.
    McGinnis v. Anchorage School District et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1813.
    Baker et al. v. Hadley et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1820.
    Spangler et al. v. Altec International Limited Partnership et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1823.
    Acri v. Vanderveen et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1827.
    Hunt v. Hunt.
   Sup. Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1829.
    Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Medlock.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1831.
    Montalvo, Parent and Guardian of Montalvo v. Radcliffe et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1833.
    Doherty, dba The Menlo Club v. Wireless Broadcasting Systems of Sacramento, Inc., dba Pacific West Cable Television.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1837.
    Diettrich v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1838.
    Cohen et al. v. Recreation and Park Commission for the Parish of East Baton Rouge (BREC) et al.
   Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1842.
    Patterson et vir v. Premier Bank.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1843.
    Green v. Terhune, Director, California Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1844.
    Sudarsky v. City of New York et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1846.
    Pfau v. Reed, Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1849.
    McClain v. Scharrer et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1850.
    J. F. v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1853.
    Webb v. California Department of Rehabilitation et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1854.
    Anaeme v. Diagnostek, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1857.
    Esperance, Ltd. v. Den Norske Bank.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1859.
    Babcock v. City of Manchester.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1860.
    Bianchi, fdba M. Bianchi of California v. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1862.
    Gordon v. Community First Bank of Nebraska, fka The Abbott Bank, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1863.
    Riggan v. R. W. Moore Equipment Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1864.
    Pueschel v. Slater, Secretary of Transportation.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1866.
    Karam et al. v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1867.
    Davis v. Lauria.
   App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1869.
    Gagliano v. Storage Technology Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1872.
    Nashua Corp. v. Ricoh Co., Ltd., et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1875.
    Everett et al. v. US Airways Group, Inc., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1876.
    Sheren v. Dayton Hudson Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1877.
    Gipson v. Kajima Engineering & Construction Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1878.
    Garrick et ux. v. Thibodeaux et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1879.
    Court of Indian Offenses of the Choctaw Nation et al. v. Dry et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1880.
    Leader v. Livingston Parish School Board et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1881.
    Liu et ux. v. Silverman, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Liu, et ux.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1882.
    Peek v. Peek.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1883.
    Polaris Pictures Corp. et al. v. Cigna Property et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1884.
    Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1885.
    Carella, Trustee/Receiver v. New Jersey Department of Treasury, by Crane, Treasurer.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1888.
    Edwards v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1889.
    Brooks v. The Gas Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1890.
    Pace et al. v. Mortgage Investors, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1891.
    Waite v. Empson et al.
   Ct. App. Neb. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1892.
    Franklin v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1894.
    Buckley v. California Coastal Commission.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1895.
    Sank v. Bergen County Superintendent of Elections et al.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1896.
    Jackson v. Houston County Board of Education.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1897.
    Fisher et ux. v. Aetna Life Insurance & Annuity Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1898.
    Johnson v. Summers, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1899.
    Conk v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1902.
    Adcock v. Chrysler Corp.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1903.
    Benson v. Benson.
   Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1905.
    Tompkins et al. v. Alabama State University et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1906.
    Romano et ux. v. Bible et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1909.
    Huneycutt et al. v. City of Suffolk.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1911.
    Rodriguez et al. v. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.
   Ct. App. La., 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1912.
    Owens v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1913.
    Clifton v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1914.
    Paulson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1917.
    Nussbeck v. Nussbeck.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1918.
    Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1919.
    City of Newark et al. v. Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 12 et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1920.
    In re S. H.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1922.
    Kreischer et al. v. Kerrisons Dry Goods Co. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1923.
    Freund v. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1924.
    Wojciechowski v. Montevideo Partnership et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1925.
    Campbell v. City of Plymouth.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1926.
    Cockrell et al. v. City of Southaven.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1927.
    Braun v. Bureau of State Audits et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1928.
    Lopez Cantu v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1929.
    American Lung Assn. et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1930.
    Chambers v. McClenney et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1934.
    Carlson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1936.
    Shaw v. Shivers, Conservator for Levitz, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1937.
    Vey v. Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1938.
    Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1939.
    Dawson v. Lovell et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1940.
    Pittman, a Minor, by Pittman, Her Father and Legal Custodian, et al. v. Icelandair, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1941.
    McNaughton v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1943.
    Espinoza v. Wyoming.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1944.
    Oiknine v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1945.
    Burnette v. Grove Isle Club, Inc., et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1946.
    Franklin v. West, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1947.
    Jandu v. National Science Foundation.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1948.
    Angulo Alvarez et al. v. Aponte de la Torre et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1950.
    Bolinger v. Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1951.
    Foroglou v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1952.
    Marathon Oil Co. v. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1953.
    Ferguson v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1954.
    Local Union 1393, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO v. Utilities District of Western Indiana Rural Electric Membership Cooperative.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.'


text:
    No. 98-1955.
    Wojciechowski v. Walt Disney Concert Hall No. 1 et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1956.
    Johnson v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1957.
    Bennett v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1958.
    Achebe v. Chicago Board of Education.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1959.
    Harris v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1962.
    Burns v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1963.
    Franklin v. City of Birmingham et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1965.
    Welch et al. v. Town of Mountain City et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1966.
    Sherman Park Apartments et al. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1968.
    Gresham v. Henderson, Postmaster General.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1969.
    Morelli v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1970.
    Commercial Energies, Inc. v. Danzig, Secretary of the Navy.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1972.
    Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1973.
    Szenay v. Yukins et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1974.
    Mergens et al. v. Dreyfoos et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1975.
    Buggs et vir v. Tisdale et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1977.
    Paredes-Ravelo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1978.
    Haefling v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1979.
    Small v. United States; and Neptune et al. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 158 F. 3d 576 (first judgment); 178 F. 3d 1306 (second judgment).


text:
    No. 98-1980.
    Allison et ux. v. Pacific Bell.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1981.
    Contech Division, SPX Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1982.
    Lee v. Hawaii.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1984.
    Spiers v. Sydnor.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1985.
    Morrissey et al. v. Jackson.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1986.
    Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO v. American Automatic Sprinkler Systems, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1988.
    Swainston et al. v. Turnipseed, Nevada State Engineer, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1990.
    Mole v. Buckhorn Rubber Products, Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1992.
    Worth Capital, Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1994.
    Brian v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1995.
    Graphic Communications International Union, Local 1B v. Bureau of Engraving, Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1999.
    Luther v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2000.
    Potts v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2002.
    Balogh et al. v. Ramos.
   Ct. App. Tex., 13th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2003.
    Hoffman et al. v. Ballew, Sheriff, LeFlore County, Oklahoma, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2005.
    Bannum, Inc., et al. v. City of Fort Lauderdale.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2008.
    Davis v. Davis.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2009.
    Florida Department of Corrections v. Gomez et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2010.
    Charles Schwab Corp. et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2011.
    Davis et al. v. Tabachnick.
   App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2012.
    Josenhans v. Sherwood Medical Corp. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2013.
    Kamasinski v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2014.
    Blountt v. Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2015.
    Interstate Brands Corp. v. Bakery Drivers & Bakery Goods Vending Machines, Local No. 550, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2017.
    Coggins v. District of Columbia.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2018.
    Oakley v. Wilson.
   Sup. Ct. Term. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2019.
    James v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2020.
    Carpenter v. Federal National Mortgage Association.
   C. A. D. G. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2022.
    Corley v. City of Longview.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2023.
    Alabama Municipal Insurance Corp. et al. v. Alabama et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2024.
    Furlow et vir v. Allied Conveyor, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2025.
    Pike et ux. v. Arizona Department of Transportation et al.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2026.
    LoCascio v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2027.
    Lawson et al. v. Abrams, Former Attorney General of New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2028.
    Lewis v. Cowen et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2029.
    Rothbury Investments et al. v. Dura-Corp., Inc.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2030.
    Sapp et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2031.
    Kahre et al. v. International Monetary Fund et al.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2032.
    McQueen v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2033.
    Schlosser v. Town of Woodside et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2034.
    Robinson et al. v. Sheriff of Cook County.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2035.
    McGee et ux. v. County of Orange.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2036.
    Jackson v. The Right Stuff, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2038.
    Greene v. City of Montgomery.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2039.
    Guidish v. White et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2040.
    Gourley v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2041.
    Jefferson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2042.
    Benjamin et al. v. Kerik, Commissioner, New York City Department of Correction, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2044.
    Aloupis et vir v. Roop et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2045.
    Pelullo v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2046.
    Thompson v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2047.
    Dittler v. Robey.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2049.
    Douros et ux. v. Sharon Savings Bank, Formerly Sharon Savings and Loan Assn.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2050.
    Matteo v. Brennan, Superintendent, Albion Correctional Institution, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2054.
    Jobe, Assignee of Air New Orleans, Inc. v. ATR Marketing, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2055.
    Dunn et al. v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2057.
    Norton et ux., as Parents of Norton, a Minor v. Orinda Union School District.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2058.
    R. M. S. Titanic, Inc., Successor in Interest to Titanic Ventures, Limited Partnership v. Haver et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-2061.
    Pi et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8002.
    Martinez v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8051.
    Dewberry v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. OMa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8159.
    Turpin v. Hanks, Superintendent, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8318.
    Barraza v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8359.
    Gonzalez v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8551.
    Beets v. Kautzky, Director, Iowa Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8571.
    No. 98-8589.
    No. 98-8604.
    No. 98-8614.
    No. 98-9006.
    Sheppard v. United States; Sheppard v. United States; Sheppard v. United States; Brown v. United States; and Edwards v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 159 F. 3d 1117.


text:
    No. 98-8629.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8702.
    Soriano v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8777.
    Chester v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8795.
    Fuller v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8799.
    Cromer v. Smith et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8804.
    Sosa v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8828.
    Watson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir, Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8840.
    Gonzalez-Almaraz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8894.
    Barajas-Chavez v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8896.
    Mancillas-Zarate v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8907.
    Patterson v. Texas.
   Ct. Grim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8929.
    Bell v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8972.
    Gutierrez v. United States Postal Service.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8973.
    Griffith v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8981.
    Romanelli v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-8999.
    Vail v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9044.
    Degen v. Louisiana.
   Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9057.
    Thomas v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9061.
    Baez v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9066.
    No. 98-9090.
    Castro v. United States; and Gomez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied. Reported below: 166 F. 3d 728.


text:
    No. 98-9073.
    Williams v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9095.
    Rith v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9096.
    Shearer v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9121.
    Durfee, fka Dupre, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9124.
    Bull v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9137.
    Olmstead v. Social and Rehabilitative Services of Wyandotte County.
   Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9147.
    Schell v. Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9148.
    Sorton v. California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9149.
    Rivera v. Sistrunk, Superintendent, Charlotte Correctional Institution, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9154.
    Macri v. LaCoille et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9155.
    Kreager v. Struble et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9156.
    Miles v. Ugast et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9161.
    Lee v. Johnson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. . 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9162.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9170.
    Lee v. Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9174.
    Leonard v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9175.
    Morris v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9178.
    Stewart v. California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9180.
    Pairis v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9182.
    Muhleisen v. Ieyoub, Attorney General of Louisiana, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9186.
    Wright v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9187.
    Wilson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9192.
    Williams v. Johnson, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Cresson, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9199.
    Reliford v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9200.
    Smith v. Peters et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9205.
    Burkes v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9207.
    Lisenbee v. Henry.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9211.
    Weaselhead v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9212.
    Webster v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9213.
    Zagorski v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9214.
    Welch v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9216.
    Macri v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9217.
    James v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9220.
    Mayfield-El v. Schottey et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9221.
    Joiner v. Bennett.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9223.
    Ramsey v. Kemna, Superintendent, Crossroads Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9227.
    Antonio Sanchez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9230.
    Ganus v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9234.
    Hand v. Mensh and MacIntosh, P. A.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9238.
    Duncan v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9239.
    Sarvey v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9243.
    Lynes v. Massachusetts.
   App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9244.
    Johnson v. Stubblefield, Superintendent, Missouri Eastern Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9245.
    Jefferies v. Andrews.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9247.
    Rayas Mejia v. Cole et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9250.
    Thomas v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9257.
    Olson et ux. v. Christian County Planning and Zoning et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9259.
    Jackson v. Town of Jonesboro et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9265.
    No. 98-9286.
    Steward v. United States; and Harris v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied. Reported below: 154 F. 3d 1082 and 163 F. 3d 608.


text:
    No. 98-9268.
    Alexander v. Catoe, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9269.
    Alexander v. Doe et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9272.
    Weaver v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9276.
    Copenhefer v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9281.
    Kliner v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9283.
    Conners et al. v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9284.
    Davis v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9285.
    Hamilton v. Roe, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9287.
    Dutch v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9289.
    No. 98-9290.
    No. 98-9295.
    Dominguez-Carmona v. United States; Hernandez-Villanueva v. United States; and Rubio-Loya et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 166 F. 3d 1052.


text:
    No. 98-9298.
    Scott v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9300.
    Frost v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9310.
    Rodgers v. Tobin, Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Columbiana County, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9312.
    Richardson v. North Carolina Department of Correction et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9314.
    Pennington v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9315.
    Young v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9319.
    Woods v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9325.
    Moore v. Parrott, Judge, Superior Court of Georgia, Jasper County, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9326.
    Milburn v. West Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9327.
    Stroud v. Patton, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9328.
    Roybal v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9329.
    Pesek v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District III, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9330.
    Burral v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9332.
    Turner v. Miller County Sheriff's Department.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9333.
    Mahan v. Hargett, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9334.
    King v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9336.
    McBroom v. Techneglas, Inc.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9337.
    Wiggins v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9338.
    Boggs v. Treadway et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9339.
    Pesek v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District III.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9345.
    Johnson v. San Bernardino County et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9346.
    Rivera v. Nelson et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9347.
    Stevens v. Wingard, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9352.
    Cavender v. Miller, Judge, Circuit Court of Kentucky, Wolfe County.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9354.
    Lemley v. Lemley.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9369.
    Splunge v. Anderson, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9370.
    Reid v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9371.
    Smith v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9375.
    No. 99-5085.
    Sykes-Bey v. Maryland; and Evans v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari

denied. Reported below: 352 Md. 496, 723 A. 2d 423.


text:
    No. 98-9381.
    Magana-Cardona v. Papac et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9382.
    Angehrn v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9383.
    Braxton v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9385.
    Byrd v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9387.
    Cook v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9388.
    Clarke v. Sikes, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9389.
    Barksdale v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9390.
    Caudle v. Hightower, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9392.
    Bogard v. California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9396.
    Howell v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9400.
    Folck v. Maschner, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9408.
    Rather v. Suthers, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9410.
    Tong Park v. San Mateo County, California, et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9411.
    Martinez-Villareal v. Arizona.
   Super. Ct. Ariz., Cochise County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9413.
    Maestas v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9415.
    McSheffrey v. Henry, Warden; McSheffrey v. Crump et al.; McSheffrey v. United States; and McSheffrey v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 164 F. 3d 625 (first judgment); 166 F. 3d 333 (second judgment).


text:
    No. 98-9416.
    Burrell v. Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9417.
    Closson v. Pitcher, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9420.
    Cooks v. Ward, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9421.
    Tortorici v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9422.
    Weldon v. Wyoming.
   Dist. Ct. Wyo., Natrona County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9423.
    Wayne v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9424.
    Trull v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9425.
    Zigmund v. Norko et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9426.
    Crawford v. Texas.
   Ct. Grim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9430.
    Johnson v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9437.
    Perelman v. Reno, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9438.
    Hobson v. Department of the Treasury.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9440.
    Perelman v. Reno, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9441.
    Smith v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9444.
    Chhim v. City of Houston et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9447.
    Hanson v. South Dakota.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9448.
    Egeolu v. University of Texas at San Antonio.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9450.
    Franklin v. Goodwin, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9451.
    French v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9457.
    Sumter v. Saybolt, Inc.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9459.
    Trobaugh v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9468.
    Counterman v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9465.
    Raphael v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9466.
    Mendez v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9467.
    McCall-Bey v. Brady, Judge, Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9468.
    McDaniel-Ortega v. Williams, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9469.
    Luntao v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9470.
    Harris v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9471.
    Franks v. Thomas, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9477.
    Cortez Escamilla v. Prunty, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9479.
    Hodges v. Blocker et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9482.
    Flynn v. Endicott, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9483.
    Gleason v. Burtner.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9484.
    Fane v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9485.
    Gaffin v. Clarke, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9486.
    Hayden v. Morgan, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9489.
    Herbin v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9490.
    Northington v. Elo, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9492.
    Vasquez del Rosario v. Radloff et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9495.
    Brannon v. Tarlov et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9502.
    Young v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Grim. App. OMa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9505.
    Spires v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9506.
    Mahmoud v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9507.
    McCants v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9509.
    Galvan Rodriguez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9510.
    Sisk v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9511.
    Brown et al. v. Ohio; and Johnson et al. v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Ross County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9515.
    Watson v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9517.
    Robbins v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9520.
    Weathers v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9522.
    Vega v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9523.
    Skibinski v. Bell Atlantic et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9526.
    Cardales v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9528.
    Hoskins v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 98-9530.
    Hommrich v. Marinette County, Wisconsin, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9532.
    Frazier v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9534.
    Parker v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9535.
    Padgett v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9541.
    McNeill v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9542.
    Kirtman v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9543.
    Muniz-Herrera v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9544.
    Murillo v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9546.
    Shaw v. Lindsey, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9547.
    Rushing v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9548.
    Roque v. Louisiana.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9549.
    Muhammad v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9550.
    Lomax v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9552.
    Montoya v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9555.
    No. 99-5535.
    Schultz v. United States; and Biggins v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 174 F. 3d 201.


text:
    No. 98-9556.
    Smith v. Robinson, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9558.
    Shields v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9559.
    No. 98-9746.
    Bell v. United States; and Bell v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied. Reported below: 178 F. 3d 1296.


text:
    No. 98-9560.
    Chapa v. Adams et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9561.
    Crowe v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9562.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9564.
    Burns v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9565.
    Bishop v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9566.
    Ospina v. Pataki, Governor of New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9568.
    Mendoza-Perez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9570.
    Nagy v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9571.
    Mike v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9572.
    L. M. K., a Juvenile v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9573.
    McQuillion v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9574.
    Mahique v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9575.
    Middleton v. Ray, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9576.
    Turner v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9577.
    Villarreal-Fuentes v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9578.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9579.
    Martinez v. Kelly, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9581.
    Mack v. Mohr et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9582.
    Terio v. Kurtzman & Haspel, Trustee, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9583.
    Welch v. Lambert, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9584.
    Wheeler v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9585.
    Williams v. Schriro, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9586.
    Tyler v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9587.
    Bates v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9591.
    Contreras-Cardenas v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9592.
    Cave v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9593.
    Bell v. Day et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9594.
    Terry v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9596.
    Wesley v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9597.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9598.
    Wells v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9599.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9600.
    Wilson v. Roe, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9602.
    No. 98-9796.
    Atondo v. California; and Atondo v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9603.
    Carrillo v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9604.
    Crippen v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9605.
    Buchholz v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9606.
    Coe v. Bell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9607.
    Jackson v. Houston, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9608.
    Natale v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9609.
    Moore v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9611.
    Searcy v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9612.
    Singleton v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9613.
    No. 98-9658.
    No. 98-9719.
    No. 98-9797.
    No. 98-9841.
    No. 98-9947.
    No. 98-9948.
    No. 98-9950.
    No. 98-9954.
    Payan-Solis v. United States; Rivas-Lerma v. United States; Rojas Renteria v. United States; Morcillo-Vidal v. United States; Palma-Robayo v. United States; Ferraro Montesdeoca v. United States; Lerma-Lerma v. United States; Otero-Estupinan v. United States; and Caicedo Pineda v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 144 F. 3d 1249.


text:
    No. 98-9614.
    Rollack v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9615.
    Williams v. Galaza, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9616.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9618.
    Bonnell v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9619.
    Aguilar v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9620.
    Cole v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9621.
    Medina v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Gertiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9622.
    O’Neal v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9623.
    Solis v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9624.
    Okeezie v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9625.
    Sellner v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9626.
    Sheets v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9627.
    Roston v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9628.
    Strother v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9629.
    Sharrow v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9630.
    Payton v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9631.
    Small v. Idaho.
   Ct. App. Idaho. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9632.
    Cole v. Yearwood, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9633.
    Washington v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9635.
    Lusk v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9636.
    Smith v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9637.
    Simon v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9638.
    Bilderbeck v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9639.
    Bennett v. Stewart, Superintendent, McNeil Island Corrections Center.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9640.
    Aguilar v. Abbott et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9641.
    Cook v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9642.
    Bishop v. Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9643.
    Wilson v. Reynolds et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9644.
    Walker v. Collins, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9645.
    Carthane v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Pla. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9646.
    Casey v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9647.
    Hilton v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9648.
    Herrera et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9649.
    Chong Ling Dan v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9650.
    Dean v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9651.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9652.
    Fowler v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9653.
    Freeman v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9654.
    Graham v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9655.
    Garcia v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9656.
    Ekandem v. District of Columbia et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9657.
    Poland v. Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9659.
    No. 99-5423.
    Edmondson v. United States; and Vargas Navarro v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 169 F. 3d 228.


text:
    No. 98-9660.
    No. 98-9890.
    Eagle Tail v. United States; and Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 164 F. 3d 403.


text:
    No. 98-9661.
    Flores v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9662.
    Fleming v. Cape May County Courthouse et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.