author: Per Curiam.

text:
    FOREMAN et al. v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al.
    No. 96-987.
    Decided June 27, 1997

      Together with No. 96-1389, Foreman et al. v. Dallas County, Texas, et al., also on appeal from the same court.

   Per Curiam.

Texas by statute authorizes counties to appoint election judges, one for each precinct, who supervise voting at the polls on election days. In 1988 and several times thereafter, Dallas County changed its procedures for selecting these officials. Each of the new methods used party-affiliation formulas of one sort or another. After the most recent change in 1996, appellants sued the county and others in the United States District Court, claiming that § 6 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, required that the changes be precleared.

A three-judge court held that preclearance was not required because the county was simply exercising, under the state statute, its “discretion to adjust [the procedure for appointing election judges] according to party power.” App. to Juris. Statement 4a. The court apparently concluded that this “discretionary” use of political power meant that the various methods for selecting election judges were not covered changes under § 5. The court also concluded that the Justice Department’s preclearance of a 1985 submission from the State — the recodification of its entire election code — operated to preclear the county’s use of partisan considerations in selecting election judges. The court denied injunctive relief, and later dismissed appellants’ complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Appellants have brought both of these rulings here.

We believe that the decision of the District Court is inconsistent with our precedents. First, in NAACP v. Hampton County Election Comm’n, 470 U. S. 166, 178 (1985), we held that even “an administrative effort to comply with a statute that had already received clearance” may require separate preclearance, because § 5 “reaches informal as well as formal changes.” Thus, the fact that the county here was exercising its “discretion” pursuant to a state statute does not shield its actions from § 5. The question is simply whether the county, by its actions, whether taken pursuant to a statute or not, “enact[ed] or [sought] to administer any ... standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from” the one in place on November 1, 1972. § 5. The fact that the county’s new procedures used political party affiliation as the selection criterion does not mean that the methods were exempt from preclearance.

Second, the State’s 1985 submission (the recodification and a 30-page summary of changes to the old law) indicated that the only change being made to the statute concerning election judges was a change to “the beginning date and duration of [their] appointment.” Thus, neither the recodified statute nor the State’s explanations said anything about the use of specific, partisan-affiliation methods for selecting election judges. This submission was clearly insufficient under our precedents to put the Justice Department on notice that the State was seeking preclearance of the use of partisan affiliations in selecting election judges. See, e.g., Young v. Fordice, 520 U. S. 273, 286-287 (1997); Lopez v. Monterey County, 519 U. S. 9, 15 (1996); Clark v. Roemer, 500 U. S. 646, 658-659 (1991).

Because the parties agree that the record is silent as to the procedure used by Dallas County for appointing election judges as of November 1,1972, the date on which Texas became a covered jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act, we cannot make a final determination here as to whether pre-clearance is in fact required. We therefore vacate the judgment of the District Court in No. 96-1389, dismiss the appeal from the District Court’s interlocutory judgment in No. 96-987, see Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S. 37, 44 (1920), and remand the cases for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam. Justice Stevens,

license: Public Domain

text:
    POUNDERS, JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY v. PENELOPE WATSON
    No. 96-1383.
    Decided June 27, 1997
   Per Curiam.

In this case the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted respondent’s habeas corpus petition and held invalid on due process grounds her conviction for summary contempt before a state-court judge for conduct in open court. The Court of Appeals misinterpreted the constitutional requirements for imposition of a summary contempt order. We grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and reverse.

Respondent Penelope Watson is an attorney who represented William Mora in a multidefendant murder trial in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles. The Honorable William Pounders presided over the case, and he is the petitioner here. On April 7, 1994, counsel for one of Mora’s codefendants repeatedly raised in open court the issue of the punishment defendants might receive if they were convicted. Judge Pounders stated that possible punishment “ ‘is not a subject that’s open to discussion. It should not be explored.’ ” App. to Pet. for Cert. 20. Though it is not clear whether this was said at a bench conference only or reiterated in open court, it seems respondent remained at the defense table during the bench conference. Her co-counsel, Joseph Gutierrez, was at the bench on behalf of their client Mora. In later proceedings, Judge Pounders noted that “Miss Watson is no more than six feet away from us when we’re at the side bar conference. She’s at the end of the center table closest to the bench and only a matter of feet away.” Id., at 36.

On April 20, counsel for a different codefendant again raised the issue of punishment. Judge Pounders stated in open court: “ ‘[T]he subject of sentencing of Mr. Fernandez is not part of the conversation. But more than that, it is prejudicial under [Cal. Evid. Code Ann. § ]352 [(West 1966)]. It’s not a subject the jury is entitled to discuss. This is not a death penalty case, so penalties are not something to discuss ... .’” Id., at 21.

The next day, respondent’s co-counsel Gutierrez asked a series of questions in which he stated that defendants were “looking at life in prison.” At a bench conference, while respondent remained at the defense table, Judge Pounders told Gutierrez:

“ ‘You had an ulterior motive in bringing out the amount of time [the witness] spent [in prison], and I think it’s to show the contrast between what he got and what your clients may be facing. . . . I’m saying that’s the last time I want to hear anything about a sentence. . . . You’ve covered it. Do not cover it again.’” Watson v. Block, 102 F. 3d 433, 435 (CA9 1996).

After the side bar, Gutierrez apologized in open court:

“ ‘Judge, I would just like the record to reflect that I apologize to this court for asking the question as to or informing this witness through my question that he served six months in jail and three years probation. . . . I obviously defied the Court Order, and I misunderstood the Court and I apologize.’ ” Ibid.

In response, Judge Pounders said in open court: “ ‘It’s simply that punishment is not an issue for this jury to decide, and the more that counsel want to harp on this issue of punishment, the more inappropriate it becomes.’ ” Ibid.

On June 21, while respondent was questioning Mora, the following examination and colloquy occurred:

By Ms. Watson: “[Throughout this trial sometimes you’ve had to get up at 4:00 in the morning and not go to sleep until 10:00 at night?
“Ms. Walker [for the People of California]: Objection, your honor, relevance.
“The Court: Sustained.
“By Ms. Watson: And during that four years [that you have been in prison], you were facing the death penalty until just the day before we started.
“Ms. Walker: Your honor, People are going to object.
“The Court: Sustained.
“Ms. Walker: Ask Miss Watson to be admonished and the Court—
“The Court: Sustained. We’ve already talked about this at side bar. Follow the Court’s admonitions.
“By Ms. Watson: You’re facing life without possibility of parole?” App. to Pet. for Cert. 30-31.

At that point, Judge Pounders called counsel to the bench. The judge asked respondent why he should not hold her in contempt for discussing punishment after he had “at least twice ordered counsel not to cover” the issue. Respondent replied, “I think it goes to [Mora’s] state of mind as to why he would take this risk at this point in revealing that he was the person who called 911.” When the judge asked why respondent did not raise the point at sidebar, particularly when her co-counsel Gutierrez had been admonished for raising the issue, Watson responded: “I wasn’t at side bar with any of that involving Mr. Gutierrez . . . .” The judge said, “You’re in violation of a court order. You do not think that’s relevant to anything?” Watson responded, “I didn’t think it was.” Id., at 31, 32.

Judge Pounders then found respondent in contempt for violating Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1209(a)(5) (West 1997), which provides that “[disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court” is grounds for contempt. The next day, on June 22, the judge issued a written order of contempt finding that “the questions asked by contemnor of Defendant Mora in the presence of the jury had as its [sic] sole purpose improperly advising the jury of the potential penalty for the defendants in violation of the court order.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 26. He found “contemnor was aware of the Order,” since she was

“at all times . . . present (a) at or immediately adjacent to all side bar conferences and (b) present in open court on April 7,1994, when the initial warning was given, and (c) on April 20, 1994, when the warning was repeated in open court, and (d) on April 21, 1994, when co-counsel Mr. Gutierrez apologized in open court for defying that same order.” Ibid.

The court imposed a 2.-day jail sentence to be served after trial.

On July 8, two days after the murder case was submitted to the jury, Judge Pounders gave respondent another opportunity to justify her actions. She again explained and argued through her counsel that she thought her questions were relevant and “ ‘not covered by the court’s previous rulings or admonitions.’” 102 F. 3d, at 436. Judge Pounders was not convinced. Respondent, he noted, did not ask for a side bar for clarification. He found:

“T think she has permanently prejudiced this jury in favor of her client.... They know the penalty he’s facing . . . and they know that the person that was killed [a gang member] isn’t worth that penalty, and so they are not going to find him guilty of the major charge.
“ ‘And when the penalty is as extreme as this one is presented to the jury, I think that’s a prejudice that cannot be overcome....
“ ‘And I believe that the result is going to be that [the jury] will not find Mr. Mora guilty of the main offense, which is murder, that they may not find him guilty of much at all.’” Ibid.

Respondent’s habeas petitions to the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court were denied summarily. She filed this federal habeas corpus action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court denied the petition on September 8, 1994, finding “[t]he record makes it quite clear that multiple statements made in open court gave Petitioner adequate warning to put a person of reasonable intelligence on notice as to what conduct Judge Pounders had prohibited, satisfying due process notice requirements.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 15.

Respondent appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that her due process rights were violated because she did not have notice of the prohibited conduct and because the trial judge could not have known without a hearing whether her conduct was willful. The Court of Appeals did not dispute the state trial court’s findings on these points. Instead, it held that “her conduct was not so disruptive as to justify use of summary contempt procedure,” 102 F. 3d, at 437.

Longstanding precedent confirms the power of courts to find summary contempt and impose punishment. See, e. g., Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289 (1888). In Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517 (1925), the Court said:

“To preserve order in the court room for the proper conduct of business, the court must act instantly to suppress disturbance or violence or physical obstruction or disrespect to the court when occurring in open court. There is no need of evidence or assistance of counsel before punishment, because the court has seen the offense. Such summary vindication of the court’s dignity and authority is necessary. It has always been so in the courts of the common law and the punishment imposed is due process of law.” Id., at 534-535.

As we have recognized, however, the contempt power may be abused. We have held the summary contempt exception to the normal due process requirements, such as a hearing, counsel, and the opportunity to call witnesses, “includes only charges of misconduct, in open court, in the presence of the judge, which disturbs the court’s business, where all of the essential elements of the misconduct are under the eye of the court, are actually observed by the court, and where immediate punishment is essential to prevent ‘demoralization of the court’s authority’ before the public.” In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 275 (1948) (quoting Cooke, supra, at 536).

We have stressed the importance of confining summary contempt orders to misconduct occurring in court. Where misconduct occurs in open court, the affront to the court’s dignity is more widely observed, justifying summary vindication. See In re Green, 369 U. S. 689, 692 (1962) (relying on due process cases); Harris v. United States, 382 U. S. 162, 164 (1965) (defining boundary between summary and ordinary contempt under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 42).

United States v. Wilson, 421 U. S. 309 (1975), sheds light on the case before us. In Wilson, the prosecution called two witnesses who, in open court, refused to testify. The United States District Court granted immunity and ordered them to answer. The witnesses still refused, and the court summarily held them in contempt. We noted that although the witnesses’ refusals to testify were “not delivered disrespectfully,” id., at 314, their conduct nevertheless justified summary contempt under Rule 42(a). It was not intimated that the contempt convictions there violated due process. “The face-to-face refusal to comply with the court’s order itself constituted an affront to the court, and when that kind of refusal disrupts and frustrates an ongoing proceeding, as it did here, summary contempt must be available to vindicate the authority of the court. ..Id., at 316. Even the dissent suggested contempt convictions would have been warranted if the witnesses had engaged in “'insolent tactics.’” Id., at 326 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (quoting Harris, supra, at 165).

In this case the state trial court made an express finding that respondent willfully refused to comply with the court’s order. Again and again the trial court admonished counsel, both in open court and at bench conferences when respondent was sitting a few feet away, not to discuss punishment. After respondent asked her client whether he had been facing the death penalty, the court sustained an objection and said: “ ‘We’ve already talked about this at side bar. Follow the Court’s admonitions.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 24. Undaunted, respondent’s next question was, “ ‘You’re facing life without possibility of parole?’ ” Id., at 25.

The Court of Appeals did not question the willfulness finding in its opinion. 102 F. 3d, at 438 (“[W]e do not decide the issue whether Ms. Watson willfully disobeyed a court order”). Instead, the Court of Appeals held her conduct was not sufficiently disruptive because she herself “did not engage in a pattern of repeated violations that pervaded the courtroom and threatened the dignity of the court” and because the record did not indicate she would have repeated the references to punishment unless she were held in summary contempt. Ibid.

All that is before us is the ruling that respondent’s conduct was not disruptive enough to justify contempt, and on this issue we are in disagreement with the Court of Appeals. Nothing in our cases supports a requirement that a contem-nor “engage in a pattern of repeated violations that pervaded the courtroom,” ibid., before she may be held in summary contempt. To the contrary,.in Wilson, the summary contempt convictions were upheld after a single refusal to give immunized testimony, “not delivered disrespectfully.” 421 U. S., at 314. We nevertheless held that the conduct there “disrupted] and frustrated] an ongoing proceeding.” Id., at 316. And we have not required that a court determine a contemnor would have repeated the misconduct but for summary punishment. While we have approved, in the context of reviewing a federal contempt order, the equitable principle that only “ 'the least possible power adequate to the end proposed’ should be used in contempt cases,” id., at 319 (quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 231 (1821)), we found that principle satisfied in the circumstances in Wilson because, during an ongoing trial, the court is justified in acting swiftly “to prevent a breakdown of the proceedings.” 421 U. S., at 319. Likewise, in Sacher v. United States, 343 U. S. 1, 5 (1952), the Court upheld summary contempt convictions of counsel where the misconduct had the following characteristics: “It took place in the immediate presence of the trial judge; it consisted of breaches of decorum and disobedience in the presence of the jury of his orders and rulings upon the trial; the misconduct was professional in that it was that of lawyers” and conviction was based “upon a course of conduct long-continued in the face of warnings that it was regarded by the court as contemptuous.” See also Groppi v. Leslie, 404 U. S. 496, 506 (1972). Cf. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337, 343 (1970) (“We believe trial judges confronted with disruptive, contumacious, stubbornly defiant defendants must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case”).

Here the trial court expressly found that respondent’s questions had “permanently prejudiced the jury in favor of her client” and that the prejudice “cannot be overcome.” The Court of Appeals glossed over the state-court finding, saying “we can understand Judge Pounders’ concern that her two questions might prejudice jurors in favor of her client,” 102 F. 3d, at 438 (emphasis added). Seriously prejudicing the jury is comparable in terms of damage to the administration of justice to the refusals to testify in Wilson. The trial court’s finding that respondent’s comments had prejudiced the jury — together with its assessment of the flagrance of respondent’s defiance — support the finding of the need for summary contempt to vindicate the court’s authority.

While the Due Process Clause no doubt imposes limits on the authority to issue a summary contempt order, the States must have latitude in determining what conduct so infects orderly judicial proceedings that contempt is permitted. As we have noted, we have used various phrases to describe the type of conduct required. We need not explore these limitations and standards, however, for the conduct of counsel here was well within the range of contumacious conduct disruptive of judicial proceedings and damaging to the court’s authority. Advocacy that is “fearless, vigorous, and effective,” Sacher, supra, at 13, does not extend to disruptive conduct in the course of trial and in knowing violation of a clear and specific direction from the trial judge.

On the record before us, the Court of Appeals was in error. It was error for the Court of Appeals to rule, as a matter of law, that the contempt order went beyond those necessities pertaining to the ordered administration of justice. The ruling of the Court of Appeals, not reviewed en banc, introduced uncertainty into routine proceedings of the many state courts within the Court of Appeals’ large geographical jurisdiction. The judgment is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Breyer joins,

disseiiting.

As the Court correctly explains, the record supports the conclusion that respondent defied a court order when she asked two questions about her client’s potential punishment. I assume, therefore, that she acted in contempt of court. The record also demonstrates, however, that no further misconduct or disruption of the trial occurred. The question the Court of Appeals addressed was whether these circumstances justified a summary contempt proceeding conducted by the judge before whom the contempt occurred. I do not agree with the Court that the answer to this question is so clear as to justify summary reversal.

In the majority of the cases relied on by the Court, the summary contempt power was invoked to punish conduct that threatened to disrupt the court’s ongoing proceedings. See, e. g., United States v. Wilson, 421 U. S. 309 (1975). A more substantial question arises when the summary contempt proceeding is not invoked to prevent disruption of the trial, but to punish action that has already occurred. As Justice Frankfurter recognized in his dissenting opinion in Sacher v. United States, 343 U. S. 1 (1952), concerns about the adequacy of procedural safeguards are heightened in cases involving summary contempt procedures:

“Summary punishment of contempt is concededly an exception to the requirements of Due Process. Necessity dictates the departure. Necessity must bound its limits. In this ease, the course of events to the very end of the trial shows that summary measures were not necessary to enable the trial to go on. Departure from established judicial practice, which makes it unfitting for a judge who is personally involved to sit in his own case, was therefore unwarranted. .. .
“This, then, was not a situation in which, even though a judge was personally involved as the target of the contemptuous conduct, peremptory action against contem-nors was necessary to maintain order and to salvage the proceedings. Where such action is necessary for the decorous continuance of a pending trial, disposition by another judge of a charge of contempt is impracticable. Interruption for a hearing before a separate judge would disrupt the trial and thus achieve the illicit purpose of a contemnor.” Id., at 36-37, 39.

We recognized these limits to a court’s summary contempt power in In re McConnell, 370 U. S. 230 (1962), where we granted plenary review and set aside a $100 contempt sanetion for conduct that was more disruptive (although arguably more justified) than what occurred in this case. We emphasized:

“To preserve the kind of trials that our system envisages, Congress has limited the summary contempt power vested in courts to the least possible power adequate to prevent actual obstruction of justice, and we think that that power did not extend to this case.” Id., at 236.

Given that the respondent in this case asked two inappropriate questions over the course of a three and a half month long trial and that the trial continued without incident for two weeks after her contemptuous conduct, a substantial question exists as to whether fair procedure required a hearing before another judge. Neither the Court nor the petitioner contends that this summary contempt power was exercised to prevent the “actual obstruction of justice,” such that a hearing before an entirely disinterested judge would have been impractical. Because I believe that these questions are important and not clearly answered by our precedents — indeed, the Court does not cite a single case that is at all comparable to this one on its facts — it is unwise to answer it without full briefing and argument.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

      In McConnell, the judge had erroneously ruled that plaintiff’s counsel could not try a charge of conspiracy, holding that he must do so in a separate trial. To preserve his client’s rights on appeal, counsel persisted in asking questions in the presence of the jury regarding the conspiracy charge. Counsel then refused to obey the judge’s order to stop asking the questions, and stated that he would continue to do so unless stopped by the bailiff. After a recess, plaintiff’s counsel returned to trial and asked no more forbidden questions. Following trial, and after holding a hearing, the trial judge summarily found counsel guilty of contempt and imposed a jail sentence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals sustained the convictions, but reduced the sentence to a fine of $100.


text:
    June 23, 1997
    No. 96-1480.
    Louisiana et al. v. United States.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. W. D. La.


text:
    No. 96-17.
    Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States ex rel. Hyatt.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U. S. 939 (1997).


text:
    No. A-855.
    Young v. Illinois et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Ginsburg and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-1812.
    In re Disbarment of Kaplan.
   Robert Steven Kaplan, of Irvine, Cal., 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-1813.
    In re Disbarment of Weisman.
   David S. Weisman, of Los Angeles, Cal., 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-1814.
    In re Disbarment of Shieh.
   Liang-Houh Shieh, of Taipei, Taiwan, 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-1815.
    In re Disbarment of Barnes.
   Brenda Powers Barnes, of Santa Monica, Cal., 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-1816.
    In re Disbarment of Horne.
   Wayne N. Horne, of Chicago, Ill., 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. M-83.
    No. M-84.
    No. M-85.
    Eggett v. Integrated Systems Solutions Corp. et al.; Irby v. United States; and Okoro v. United States.
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. 96-188.
    General Electric Co. et al. v. Joiner et ux.
   C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 520 U. S. 1114.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 96-667.
    United States v. Hyde,
   520 U. S. 670. Motion of respondent to modify the opinion of this Court denied.


text:
    No. 96-1462.
    Lunding et ux. v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. [Certiorari granted, 520 U. S. 1227.] Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 96-1482.
    Lexecon Inc. et al. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 520 U. S. 1227.] Motion of Cotchett respondents to be dismissed as parties to this case denied.


text:
    No. 96-7151.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Cer-tiorari granted, 520 U. S. 1209 and 1226.] Motion of James M. Lewis for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted.


text:
    No. 96-1151.
    In re Allen et al.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 96-1683.
    In re Calderon, Warden.
   Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 96-1577.
    Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 96-1469.
    United States v. Ramirez.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 96-881.
    Taffi et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1102.
    South Carolina et al. v. Environmental Technology Council.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1294.
    RMC International, Ltd., et al. v. Sengoku Works, Ltd.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1473.
    Zevalkink et al. v. Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1479.
    Strano et al., dba Strano Farms v. Department of Justice et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1494.
    Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1511.
    O’Dell v. Herman, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1518.
    United Technologies Corp., by Its Division, Pratt & Whitney v. Federal Aviation Administration.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1618.
    Saenz, Personal Representative of the Estate of Saenz, Deceased v. Humana Health Plan of Texas, Inc., dba Humana Health Plan of Corpus Christi, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1628.
    New York et al. v. Yonkers Board of Education et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1641.
    International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 66 v. Houston Lighting & Power Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1642.
    Alpex Computer Corp. v. Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1668.
    Sheehan v. Daily Racing Form, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1670.
    Taylor et al. v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1672.
    Phillips Co. v. Southern Pacific Rail Corp. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1674.
    Byrnes et al. v. LCI Communications Holdings Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1684.
    Mucklow v. Farrow Harvey et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1685.
    California v. Broome.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1688.
    Schlessinger v. Salimes et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied:


text:
    No. 96-1689.
    McCoy v. City and County of San Francisco et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1691.
    Orr v. Yuhas.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1704.
    Sandra B. et al. v. O’Connor, Director, Milwaukee County Department of Human Services, et al.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1713.
    Skeens v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1724.
    Hosch v. Georgia Department of Human Resources et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1725.
    Scallet v. Rosenblum et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1727.
    Fetner v. Haggerty et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1730.
    Bershatsky v. Levin, Commissioner of Jurors, Kings County, New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1747.
    Lew v. Rosemount, Inc.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1783.
    Office of the President v. Office of Independent Counsel et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1784.
    Jaisinghani v. Patchett.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1807.
    Sanchez v. Ector County et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1810.
    Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum (two judgments).
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1823.
    Tucker et al. v. Department of the Navy et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1825.
    Boddie v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1835.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1845.
    Regan v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1869.
    Christy v. United States.
   C. A. Armed Forces. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1873.
    Lockhart v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-7746.
    Brannan v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-7934.
    Morris v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-7983.
    Clarkson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8080.
    Allen v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8310.
    Matthews v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8335.
    Pollard v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8432.
    McClain v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8712.
    Randall v. City of Edgewater et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8713.
    Pruitt v. South Carolina et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8722.
    Lewis v. Supreme Court of California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8733.
    Estes v. Baldwin, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8739.
    Torres v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8742.
    Taylor v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8748.
    Lucien v. Peters et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8757.
    Smith v. Ieyoub, Attorney General of Louisiana, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8760.
    White v. Anderson, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8761.
    McBroom v. Franklin County Board of Elections.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8762.
    Miller v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8764.
    Matchett v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8772.
    Wolfgram v. Miller et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8782.
    Brown v. American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari

denied.


text:
    No. 96-8783.
    Jarrett v. W-F Development Co., Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8788.
    Lowe v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8790.
    Cumbee v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8791.
    McKay v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8800.
    Hughey v. Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8818.
    Moore v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8822.
    Manwani v. Brunelle et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8846.
    Foster v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8869.
    Anderson v. Groose, Superintendent, Jefferson City Correctional Center, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8893.
    Penrod v. Norton et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8899.
    Bartley v. Sullivan et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8911.
    Mitchell v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8912.
    McGregor v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8915.
    Wallace v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8928.
    Evans v. Demosthenes, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8931.
    Ewing v. McDaniel, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8942.
    Mundy v. Hatcher, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8944.
    Jones v. Toombs, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8968.
    Allen v. Duncan, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8977.
    Edwards v. Thomas, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8979.
    Satterwhite v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8995.
    Masters v. California.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Los Angeles. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9008.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9013.
    Onyeagoro v. R. P. Holmes, Inc.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9014.
    Smith v. Biller et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9038.
    Elder v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9042.
    Route v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9043.
    Harmon v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9044.
    Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9045.
    Warren v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9046.
    Toney v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9048.
    Thompson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9051.
    Spencer v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9055.
    Matlock v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9060.
    Ng v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9061.
    Rogers v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9066.
    Codrington v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9070.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9071.
    Short v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9073.
    Bundy v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9077.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9079.
    Burns v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9096.
    Elias v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9098.
    De la Mora v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9100.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9101.
    Hill v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9102.
    Hibbley v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9104.
    Gnirke v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9110.
    Lowe v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9112.
    Estrella v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9115.
    Banks v. United States et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9116.
    Malpiedi v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9117.
    Hernandez Salgado v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9120.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9123.
    Burton v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9129.
    Nesbitt v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9135.
    Rua v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9136.
    Simpson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9139.
    Bozza v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9147.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9152.
    Upshaw v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9153.
    Turner v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9157.
    Artola v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1210.
    United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Brannan.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1678.
    Calderon, Warden v. Moore.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1498.
    Scioto County Regional Water District No. 1, Authority v. Scioto Water, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motions of Bell Arthur Water Corp. et al. and Cass Rural Water Users Inc. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1694.
    New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department v. Conoco, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 96-8743.
    Benney v. Shaw Industries, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 96-1707.
    Texas Manufactured Housing Assn., Inc., et al. v. City of Nederland et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Manufactured Housing Institute for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-879.
    No. 96-7411.
    No. 96-7729.
    No. 96-7783. No. 96-8047.
    No. 96-8096.
    No. 96-8126.
    No. 96-8152.
    No. 96-8153.
    No. 96-8438.
    Soffer v. Board of Trustees of the City University of New York et al., Smith v. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security (two judgments), Parker v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, et al., Eddmonds v. Washington, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, Jenkins v. Oakley et al., Multani v. United States et al., Kent v. Harvard et al., Porter v. United States, Spears v. United States, Pizzo v. Louisiana,
   519 U. S. 1112; 520 U. S. 1171; 520 U. S. 1171; 520 U. S. 1172; 520 U. S. 1200; 520 U. S. 1214; 520 U. S. .1215; 520 U. S. 1177; 520 U. S. 1178; and 520 U. S. 1218. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 24, 1997
    No. 96-1652.
    Zoller v. New York Life Insurance Co. et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.2.


text:
    June 25, 1997
    No. 96-9506 (A-931).
    In re Woratzeck.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of ha-beas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 96-9505 (A-929).
    Woratzeck v. Arizona Board of Executive Clemency et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice O’Con-nor, and by her referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    June 26, 1997
    No. 96-1706.
    Texas Life, Accident, Health & Hospital Service Insurance Guaranty Assn. v. Gaylord Entertainment Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.2.


text:
    June 27, 1997
    No. 96-595.
    Reno, Attorney General v. Shea.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y.


text:
    No. 96-1779.
    No. 96-1918.
    Meadows, Secretary, State Board of Elections of Virginia, et al. v. Moon et al.; and Harris et al. v. Moon et al.
   Affirmed on appeals from D. C. E. D. Va.


text:
    No. 95-1879.
    Department of Agriculture v. Cal-Almond, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., ante, p. 457.


text:
    No. 95-2006.
    Frank, Sheriff, Orange County, Vermont v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Printz v. United States, ante, p. 898.


text:
    No. 96-323.
    K. R., an Infant, by Her Parents and Next Friends, et al. v. Anderson Community School Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997.


text:
    No. 96-437.
    Christians, Trustee v. Crystal Evangelical Free Church.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of City of Boerne v. Flores, ante, p. 507.


text:
    No. 96-710.
    Sullivan et al. v. Sasnett et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of City of Boerne. v. Flores, ante, p. 507.


text:
    No. 96-776.
    Board of Education of the Enlarged City School District of the City of Watervliet, New York v. Russman, Child With Disabilities, by Her Parents, Russman et vir.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997.


text:
    No. 96-1267.
    Abrams v. Barnett, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Lindh v. Murphy, ante, p. 320.


text:
    No. 96-1379.
    No. 96-1394.
    Flanagan et al. v. Ahearn et al.; and Ortiz et al. v. Fibreboard Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, ante, p. 591.


text:
    No. 96-1633.
    No. 96-1865.
    Unified School District No. 259, Sedgwick County, Kansas v. Fowler et ux., Parents and Next Friends of Fowler; and Fowler et ux., Parents and Next Friends of Fowler v. Unified School District No. 259, Sedgwick County, Kansas.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997.


text:
    No. 96-8014.
    Fretwell v. Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certio-rari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Lindh v. Murphy, ante, p. 320.


text:
    No. 96-8170.
    Moore v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Lindh v. Murphy, ante, p. 320.


text:
    No. D-1798.
    In re Disbarment of Sloboda.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 520 U. S. 1184.]


text:
    No. D-1817.
    In re Disbarment of Williams.
   Kenneth Mack Williams, of Glen Burnie, 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. D-1818.
    In re Disbarment of Sosnay.
   Robert S. Sos-nay, of Wauwatosa, Wis., 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. M-87.
    Rivera-Robles v. United States.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.


text:
    No. M-89.
    No. M-90.
    No. M-91.
    Lyle v. Jarrell et al.; Coleman v. Taylor; and North American Marine, Inc., et al. v. Pontoon Shipping Co., Ltd. (Cyprus).
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied. Special Master for compensation and reimbursement of expenses granted, and the Special Master is awarded a total óf $42,577.26 for the period of November 16, 1996, through June 15, 1997, to be paid as follows: 30% by Nebraska, 30% by Wyoming, 15% by Colorado, and 25% by the United States. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 519 U. S. 1038.]


text:
    No. 108, Orig.
    Nebraska v. Wyoming et al.
   Motion of the cial Master for compensation and reimbursement of expenses granted, and the Special Master is awarded a total of $263,488.89 to be paid equally by the parties. Motion of New York for leave to file Exceptions in excess of the page limitations denied. Motion of the City of New York for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in excess of the page limitations denied. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 520 U. S. 1273.]


text:
    No. 120, Orig.
    New Jersey v. New York.
   Motion of the Spe-


text:
    No. 95-1726.
    United States v. LaBonte et al.,
   520 U. S. 751. Motion of respondent Stephen Dyer to modify the opinion denied.


text:
    No. 96-779.
    Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 520 U. S. 1114.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted to be divided as follows: petitioner, 25 minutes; respondent, 25 minutes; and the Acting Solicitor General, 10 minutes.


text:
    No. 96-871.
    State Oil Co. v. Khan et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 519 U. S. 1107.] Motion of New York et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 96-1742.
    Belshe, Director, California Department of Health Services v. Orthopaedic Hospital et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 96-9220.
    No. 96-9235.
    No. 96-9255.
    In re Hughey; In re Stone; and In re Blumeyer.
   Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 96-8947.
    In re Carney et al.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 96-1037.
    Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.
   Ct. Civ. App. Okla. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 96-1613.
    United States v. Estate of Romani.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 96-679.
    Piscataway Township Board of Education v. Taxman.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motions of National School Boards Association and New Jersey School Boards Association for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 96-1395.
    King, Director, Office of Personnel Management v. Erickson et al.; and King, Director, Office of Personnel Management v. McManus et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir.

Motion of respondent Jeanette Walsh for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 96-1578.
    Phillips et al. v. Washington Legal Foundation et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Is interest earned on client trust funds held by lawyers in IOLTA accounts a property interest of the client or lawyer, cognizable under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, despite the fundamental precept of IOLTA that such funds, absent the IOLTA program, could not earn interest for the client or lawyer?”


text:
    No. 96-1769.
    Ohio Adult Parole Authority et al. v. Woodard.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 95-2052.
    No. 95-2077.
    United States v. Gonzalez, Sheriff, Val Verde County, Texas, et al.; and Gonzalez, Sheriff, Val Verde County, Texas, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8131.
    Schmidt v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8204.
    Post et al. v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9308.
    Marberry v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-577.
    Tristar Corp. v. Freitas et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-628.
    Keane, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility v. Boria.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-823.
    KIansas v. Myers.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1059.
    Sycuan Band of Mission Indians et al. v. Wilson, Governor of California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1326.
    Handicabs, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1392.
    Fink v. Ryan, Secretary of State of Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1447.
    United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO v. BE&K Construction Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1491.
    Cusimano v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1538.
    No. 96-1731.
    No. 96-1732.
    Toland et ux., dba John Toland Co. v. Prudential Securities Inc. et al.; Bishofberger et ux. v. Prudential Securities Inc. et al.; and Jackson et ux. v. Prudential Securities Inc. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1539.
    Loon Mountain Recreation Corp. v. Dubois et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1542.
    Federation for American Immigration Reform, Inc. v. Reno, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1571.
    KARE 11, an NBC Affiliate and a Division of Combined Communications Corp., et al. v. Ryther.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1574.
    Pantani et vir v. Richardson, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1639.
    Dempster v. Municipality of Anchorage et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1651.
    WCC Associates et al. v. Hawaii Carpenters Trust Funds.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1657.
    Mullins v. Manning Coal Corp. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1687.
    Isenbergh et al., Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Isenbergh, Deceased v. Knight-Ridder Newspaper Sales, Inc., nka Newspapers First, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1696.
    Dagi v. Chris Motors Corp. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1698.
    Institut Pasteur et al. v. Cambridge Biotech Corp.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1701.
    Vernon, Sheriff, Rockingham County v. Harter et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1708.
    Holt v. Mitchell, Judge, Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1709.
    Holt v. Lee.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1710.
    United States Fire Insurance Co. et al. v. Asbestos Claims Management Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1714.
    Elliott et vir, Representatives of the Estate of Elliott, Deceased v. Leavitt et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1718.
    Homebuilders Association of Central Arizona et al. v. City of Scottsdale et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1722.
    RFE Industries, Inc. v. SPM Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1726.
    American Investors Life Insurance Co. v. Hudson.
   Ct. App. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1729.
    Kniskern, Administrator of the Estate of Cavaliere, Deceased, et al. v. Township of Somerford et al.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1734.
    Arizona v. Palenkas.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1735.
    Texas v. Mowbray.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1737.
    Swanson v. Knabe.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1744.
    Gonzalez et al. v. Gallo.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1745.
    Enercon Industries Corp. et al. v. Pillar Corp. et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1748.
    Johnson v. Greater Southeast Community Hospital Corp. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1750.
    Medico v. Medico et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1752.
    New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1756.
    No. 96-1765.
    McMillian v. Tate et al.; and Tate v. McMillian.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1766.
    Washington Legal Foundation et al. v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1778.
    Abrams v. Office of Bar Counsel for the District of Columbia.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1780.
    Members of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of New Mexico et al. v. Revo.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1781.
    Stevens et ux. v. City of Cannon Beach et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1817.
    Taylor v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1834.
    Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc., et al. v. Hall.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1842.
    Rush v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Cer-

tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1846.
    Newman et ux. v. Worcester County Department of Social Services.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1850.
    Reynolds, Warden, et al. v. Brown.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1859.
    Diana v. Florida.
   Cir. Ct. Pinellas County, Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1868.
    Goldtooth v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1876.
    Ehrlander v. Department of Transportation of Alaska et al.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1903.
    Abbey v. Sverdrup Corp. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1922.
    Great Plains Chemical Co., Inc., et al. v. Micro Chemical, Inc.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1931.
    Salerno v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-5609.
    Christy v. Magnuson et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-7662.
    Anderson v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-7758.
    Fierro v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8280.
    Willis v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8380.
    Unterburger et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8405.
    Vasquez v. Office of Personnel Management et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8413.
    Murdoch v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8499.
    Cardan v. Nyx et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8577.
    Lockhart v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8672.
    Mathenia v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8755.
    Gibson v. Massachusetts.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.

776.


text:
    No. 96-8767.
    Barquero v. Medrano.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8773.
    Amerson v. Idaho.
   Ct. App. Idaho. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8774.
    Bowles v. Walden et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8797.
    Stobaugh v. Wood, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8803.
    Grant v. In Rem Release Board et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8804.
    Godett v. Gaither, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8805.
    Thomas v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8811.
    McGee v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8814.
    Moya v. Eyherbide et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8817.
    Loyer v. Loyer et al. (two judgments).
   Ct. App. Ohio, Huron County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8819.
    Johnson v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8832.
    Assa’ad-Faltas v. Rogers.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8833.
    Coolidge v. Block Drug, Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8834.
    Setchell v. Little Six, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8835.
    Brown v. Netherland, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8839.
    Bond v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8840.
    Washington v. Oakland Unified School District.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

F. 3d 518.


text:
    No. 96-8841.
    Cadejuste v. Welch, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8843.
    DiCesare v. Cowley, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8848.
    Bates v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8852.
    Curtis v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8854.
    Visciotti v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8856.
    Eley v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8872.
    Smith v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8880.
    Kovacik v. Hackel et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8881.
    Marr v. Wright, Superintendent, Clallam Bay Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8884.
    Lachica v. Medical College of Wisconsin et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

F. 3d 110.


text:
    No. 96-8886.
    Bell v. Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8890.
    Rodriguez v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8896.
    Fabian v. Metropolitan Dade County et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8923.
    Blaisdell v. Penarosa, Acting Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8938.
    Peterson v. Shanks, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8939.
    Barbary v. Sturm et al.
   Ct. App. Wis. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8941.
    Singh v. Commissioner of Social Services, City of New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8956.
    Owens v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-8959.
    Longfellow v. Delaware.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9015.
    Walker v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9020.
    Whyte v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y, 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9036.
    Greer v. Parke, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9049.
    Arteaga v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9067.
    Bair v. Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9069.
    Simon v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9092.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied..


text:
    No. 96-9094.
    Schwarz v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9103.
    Dorlouis et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9114.
    Lauti v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9122.
    Arroyo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9127.
    Russell v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9128.
    Schweitzer v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9130.
    Martinez v. Slater, Secretary of Transportation.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9132.
    Isenberg v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9133.
    Ries v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9134.
    Olivares-Sevilla v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9137.
    Bannister v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9145.
    Bramson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9149.
    McDonald v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9150.
    Nagib v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9151.
    Medina-Alfonso v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9159.
    Austin v. Lucht, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9162.
    Jennings v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9164.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9165.
    Haut v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9168.
    Hathcock v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9171.
    Fernandez-Roque v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9172.
    Haut v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9173.
    Hamilton v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9174.
    Draves v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9175.
    Collins v. Farmers Home Administration et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9179.
    Scroggins v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9181.
    Merrick v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9185.
    Starnes v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9186.
    Polanco v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9189.
    Boyless v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9193.
    Ware v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9199.
    Scott v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9205.
    Binford v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9206.
    Becker v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9207.
    Sanford v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9208.
    Satz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9209.
    Owens v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9212.
    Stewart v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9213.
    Rogers v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9222.
    Edmonson v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9225.
    Everett v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9237.
    Tinsley v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-9239.
    Williams et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-31.
    Smith v. California Fair Employment and Housing Commission et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motions of American Jewish Congress et al. and Defenders of Property Rights for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-174.
    Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now et al. v. Foster, Governor of Louisiana, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Public Citizen for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1231.
    E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Sheridan.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 96-1591.
    Calderon, Warden v. Silva.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1719.
    Gallo et al. v. Amoco Corp., as Plan Administrator, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 96-1755.
    Calderon, Warden v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Hayes, Real Party in Interest).
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Motion of respondent Blufford Hayes, Jr., for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-1160.
    No. 96-1390.
    Richardson v. Albertson’s, Inc., Evans, by Her Mother and Next Friend, Evans v. Avery et al., United States ex rel. Haycock v. Hughes Aircraft Co., Sidles v. Lewis et al., Williams et ux. v. United States et al., Harris v. Cuyahoga County, Ohio, et al., Golden v. Texas, McReynolds v. Venkataraghaven et al., Henry v. Williamson et al., Taylor v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Sisk v. Texas, Parker v. United States,
   520 U. S. 1196;

520 U. S. 1210;

No. 96-1399.

No. 96-7555.

No. 96-7565.

No. 96-7849.

No. 96-8015.

No. 96-8046.

No. 96-8175.

No. 96-8265.

No. 96-8273.

No. 96-8604.

520 U. S. 1211;

520 U. S. 1146;

520 U. S. 1188;

520 U. S. 1174;

520 U. S. 1176;

520 U. S. 1200;

520 U. S. 1216;

520 U. S. 1201;

520 U. S. 1232; and

520 U. S. 1223. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 30, 1997
    No. 97-5020 (A-8).
    McQueen v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-5021 (A-10).
    McQueen v. Patton, Governor of Kentucky.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-5030 (A-2).
    McQueen v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-5039 (A-12).
    McQueen v. Sapp, Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Justice Stevens would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. 96-8750 (A-7).
    McQueen v. Parker, Warden,
   520 U. S. 1257. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    July 1, 1997
    No. 97-5019 (A-6).
    In re Hunt.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 96-9160 (A-862).
    Hunt v. Maryland.


text:
    July 3, 1997
    No. 96-1400 (A-925).
    California et al. v. Deep Sea Research, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 520 U. S. 1263.] Application for stay, presented to Justice O’Con-nor, and by her referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    July 16, 1997
    No. A-904.
    Prewitt v. Alexander et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Stevens and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    July 17, 1997
    No. 97-5106 (A-49).
    Smith v. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Cer-tiorari denied. Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg would grant the application for stay of execution.


text:
    July 23, 1997
    No. 97-5311 (A-76).
    In re O’Dell.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 97-5300 (A-74).
    O’Dell v. Allen, Governor of Virginia, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for injunction staying the execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    July 25, 1997
    No. 96-1880.
    Anello v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Dobbs Ferry et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    July 29, 1997
    No. 97-5381 (A-85).
    In re West.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus and petition for review denied.


text:
    No. 97-5348 (A-78).
    West v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-5406 (A-89).
    West v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-7332 (A-82).
    West v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division,
   520 U. S. 1242. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    August 1, 1997
    No. 97-197.
    In re Calderon, Warden.
   Motion of petitioner to proceed with 8V2- by 11-inch paper granted. Motion of petitioner to expedite consideration of petition for writ of mandamus granted. Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    August 4, 1997
    No. D-1803.
    In re Disbarment of Schwartz.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 520 U. S. 1208.]


text:
    No. D-1804.
    In re Disbarment of Cooley.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 520 U. S. 1208.]


text:
    No. D-1813.
    In re Disbarment of Weisman.
   David S. Weis-man, of Los Angeles, Cal., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court. The rule to shew cause, issued on June 23,1997 [ante, p. 1101], is discharged.


text:
    No. D-1819.
    In re Disbarment of Kramer.
   Michael A. Kramer, of Casselberry, Fla., 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-1820.
    In re Disbarment of Franzen.
   Charles Robert Franzen, of Houston, Tex., 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-1821.
    In re Disbarment of Siddiqi.
   Anis Ahmad Siddiqi, of Brooklyn, 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-1822.
    In re Disbarment of Cade.
   Gladys Maxine B. Cade, of Silver Spring, Md., 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-1823.
    In re Disbarment of Baldauff.
   Michael Chapman Baldauff, of York, Pa., 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-1824.
    In re Disbarment of Barron.
   Kenneth Ray Barron, of Tyler, Tex., 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-1825.
    In re Disbarment of Hines.
   John H. Hines, Jr., of Smithfield, R. I., 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-1826.
    In re Disbarment of Piccirilli.
   Vincent J. Piccirilli, of Cranston, R. I., 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-1827.
    In re Disbarment of Tallo.
   Richard C. Tallo, of East Greenwich, R. I., 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-1828.
    In re Disbarment of Newell.
   Frank Harvey Newell III, of Towson, 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. D-1829.
    In re Disbarment of Dyson.
   Thomas R. Dyson, Jr., of Chevy Chase, 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. D-1830.
    In re Disbarment of Haller.
   Arthur Gordon Haller, of Gainesville, Fla., 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-1831.
    In re Disbarment of Scott.
   Richard Scott, of Lincoln, Neb., 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-1832.
    In re Disbarment of Welcker.
   Ronald Alfred Welcker, of New Orleans, La., 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-1833.
    In re Disbarment of Tobin.
   Harris A. Tobin, of Gainesville, Fla., 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-1834.
    In re Disbarment of Apollo.
   Stephen Apollo, of Hackensack, N. J., 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-1835.
    In re Disbarment of Beckman.
   A. Thomas Beckman, of Lutherville, 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. D-1836.
    In re Disbarment of Zolot.
   Lawrence M. Zolot, of San Diego, Cal, 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-1837.
    In re Disbarment of Quinn.
   Anthony P. Quinn, of Queens, 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-1838.
    In re Disbarment of Crowley.
   Martin J. Crowley, of Smithtown, 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. 97-215.
    Calderon, Warden v. Thompson.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner to proceed with 8V2- by 11-inch paper granted. Motion of petitioner to expedite consideration granted. Petition for writ of mandamus denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, certiorari granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 95-1764.
    No. 96-538.
    No. 96-1358.
    No. 96-1534.
    No. 96-1593.
    No. 96-1664.
    No. 96-1700.
    Saratoga Fishing Co. v. J. M. Martinac & Co. et al., Frost et al. v. United States, Ochoa v. Federal Communications Commission et al., Sweeney v. Schmoke, Mayor of Baltimore, et al., Hinchliffe v. Pennsylvania, Tin Yat Chin v. Department of Justice, Abidekun v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development et al., Dutcher v. Moreo et al., Fidis v. Lakeside Medical Center, Soria v. Texas, Wilkins v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Rodriguez v. United States, Tuerk v. Otis Elevator Co., Inc., et al., Hale v. Runyon, Postmaster General, Feltrop v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, Arteaga v. Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, Arteaga v. Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, Multani v. Ross University et al., Keirsey v. Maryland, Sacerio v. School Board of Dade County, Werner, aka Thomas v. McCotter, Executive Director, Utah Department of Corrections, et al., Gary v. Turpin, Warden, Howard v. Howard, Judd v. University of New Mexico et al., Lambert v. Indiana, Reynolds v. Los Angeles County Department of Children’s Services, Sikora v. Doe et al., Jenkins et al. v. Oakley et al., Gray v. Wood, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary, et al., Hansen v. United States, Sharp v. Allstate Insurance Co. et al., Burgess v. Easley Municipal Election Commission, Nagi v. C. E. Fleming Corp. et al., In re Robinson, Tidik v. Ritsema et al., In re Grubbs, Burnett v. Chippewa County Sheriff’s Department, Trowbridge v. United States, Stewart v. United States, Washington v. Oakland Unified School District, Dancer v. Merit Systems Protection Board,
   520 U. S. 875;

520 U. S. 1226;

520 U. S. 1229;

520 U. S. 1251;

520 U. S. 1265;

520 U. S. 1231;

520 U. S. 1241;

No. 96-6480.

No. 96-7748.

No. 96-7796.

No. 96-7937.

No. 96-7980.

No. 96-8086.

No. 96-8172.

No. 96-8250.

No. 96-8288.

No. 96-8289.

No. 96-8292.

No. 96-8294.

No. 96-8299.

No. 96-8373.

No. 96-8375.

No. 96-8384.

No. 96-8428.

No. 96-8464.

No. 96-8498.

No. 96-8512.

No. 96-8532.

No. 96-8571.

No. 96-8572.

No. 96-8606.

519 U. S. 1063;

520 U. S. 1171;

520 U. S. 1253;

520 U. S. 1189;

520 U. S. 1160;

520 U. S. 1214;

520 U. S. 1190;

520 U. S. 1242;

520 U. S. 1233;

520 U. S. 1233;

520 U. S. 1233;

520 U. S. 1191;

520 U. S. 1242;

520 U. S. 1244;

520 U. S. 1244;

520 U. S. 1244;

520 U. S. 1245;

520 U. S. 1255;

520 U. S. 1234;

520 U. S. 1266;

520 U. S. 1256;

520 U. S. 1268;

520 U. S. 1222;

520 U. S. 1268;

No. 96-8618.

No. 96-8627.

No. 96-8637.

No. 96-8644.

No. 96-8667.

No. 96-8677.

No. 96-8697.

No. 96-8771.

No. 96-8840.

No. 96-8919.

520 U. S. 1234;

520 U. S. 1234;

520 U. S. 1273;

520 U. S. 1256;

520 U. S. 1227;

520 U. S. 1279;

520 U. S. 1235;

520 U. S. 1246;

ante, p. 1124; and

520 U. S. 1280. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 96-79.
    Boggs v. Boggs et al.,
   520 U. S. 833. Motion of respondents to supplement petition for rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 96-8894.
    Robinson v. Clinton, President of the United States, et al.,
   520 U. S. 1283. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    August 5, 1997
    No. 97-5492 (A-107).
    In re Feltrop.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    August 6, 1997
    No. A-61 (97-122).
    City of Monroe et al. v. United States.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. Ga. Application for stay of permanent injunction entered by the three judge panel of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, case No. 94-CV-45(WDO), on April 21, 1997, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending action by this Court on the statement as to jurisdiction. Should the appeal be dismissed or the judgment affirmed, this order shall terminate automatically. If probable jurisdiction is noted or postponed, this order shall continue in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Motion to seal exhibits filed by the appellants denied.


text:
    No. A-111 (O. T. 1997).
    Perry v. Brownlee et al.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-112 (O. T. 1997).
    Perry v. Morgan, Warden, et al.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-114 (O. T. 1997).
    Perry v. Morgan, Warden, et al.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 97-5495 (A-108).
    In re Perry.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 97-5366 (A-96).
    Perry v. Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    August 12, 1997
    No. 97-5464 (A-99).
    In re Reese.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    August 14, 1997
    No. 97-5246 (A-67).
    Corwin v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    August 15, 1997
    No. A-31 (97-5078).
    Hunt v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Application for bail, addressed to Justice Breyer and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-71 (96-9490).
    Ziglar v. Alabama.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Stevens and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    August 18, 1997
    No. 96-1746.
    Hellenic American Neighborhood Action Committee v. City of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    August 19, 1997
    No. 97-5637 (A-141).
    In re Six.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 97-5343 (A-126).
    Pope v. Pruett, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg would grant the application for stay of execution.


text:
    No. 97-5617 (A-138).
    Six v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    August 26, 1997
    No. 97-215.
    Calderon, Warden v. Thompson.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1136.] The order granting the petition for writ of certiorari is amended to read as follows: Motion of petitioner to proceed with 8Vz- by 11-inch paper granted. Motion of petitioner to expedite consideration granted. Petition for writ of mandamus denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, certiorari granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition. In addition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: “Did the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, err in concluding that the three-judge panel ‘committed fundamental errors of law that would result in manifest injustice’ sufficient to justify recalling the mandate?”


text:
    August 27, 1997
    No. 96-9376.
    In re Rodden.
   Petition for writ of mandamus dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    August 29, 1997
    No. A-166 (97-5639).
    Carr v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Application of respondent to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death granted by the Superior Court of Monroe County on August 25, 1997, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    September 3, 1997
    No. A-98 (97-5250).
    Miller v. Corcoran, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for bail, addressed to Justice Stevens and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    September 4, 1997
    No. A-174 (97-369).
    No. A-175.
    Coalition for Economic Equity et al. v. Wilson, Governor of California, et al.; and City and County of San Francisco v. Wilson, Governor of California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Applications for stay, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    September 9, 1997
    No. 97-5798 (A-178).
    In re Davis.
   Motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis without an affidavit of indigency executed by petitioner granted. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.

Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer would grant the application for stay of execution.


text:
    September 12, 1997
    No. D-1805.
    In re Disbarment of Schlottman.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 520 U. S. 1208.]


text:
    No. D-1807.
    In re Disbarment of Calvert.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 520 U. S. 1262.]


text:
    No. D-1810.
    In re Disbarment of Lash.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 520 U. S. 1262.]


text:
    No. D-1811.
    In re Disbarment of Watkins.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 520 U. S. 1272.]


text:
    No. D-1812.
    In re Disbarment of Kaplan.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1101.]


text:
    No. D-1816.
    In re Disbarment of Horne.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1102.]


text:
    No. D-1817.
    In re Disbarment of Williams.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1115.]


text:
    No. D-1818.
    In re Disbarment of Sosnay.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1115.]


text:
    No. D-1819.
    In re Disbarment of Kramer.
   Michael A. Kramer, of Casselberry, Fla., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court. The rule to show cause, issued on August 4, 1997 [ante, p. 1133], is discharged.


text:
    No. 96-370.
    Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corporation of California, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 520 U. S. 1209.] Motions of National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans et al., Midwest Motor Express, Inc., and John T. Joyce et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 96-643.
    Steel Co., aka Chicago Steel & Pickling Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Cer-tiorari granted, 519 U. S. 1147.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 96-792.
    Kalina v. Fletcher.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 519 U. S. 1148.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 96-843.
    No. 96-847.
    National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co. et al.; and AT&T Family Federal Credit Union et al. v. First National Bank & Trust Co. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 519 U. S. 1148.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 96-1395.
    King, Director, Office of Personnel Management v. Erickson et al.; and King, Director, Office of Personnel Management v. McManus et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1117.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 96-1487.
    United States v. Bajakajian.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 520 U. S. 1239.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 96-1613.
    United States v. Estate of Romani.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1117.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 96-8400.
    Buchanan v. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certio-rari granted, 520 U. S. 1196.] Motion of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 97-5808 (A-210).
    Murphy v. Netherland, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg would grant the application for stay of execution.


text:
    No. 84, Orig.
    No. 94-9498.
    No. 96-31.
    No. 96-1903.
    No. 96-5609.
    No. 96-7326.
    No. 96-7703.
    No. 96-7878.
    No. 96-7929.
    No. 96-7957.
    No. 96-8405.
    No. 96-8483.
    No. 96-8491.
    No. 96-8534.
    No. 96-8535.
    No. 96-8590.
    No. 96-8639.
    No. 96-8668.
    No. 96-8681.
    United States v. Alaska, Hemphill v. Housing Authority of the City of Charleston et al., Smith v. California Fair Employment and Housing Commission et al., Abbey v. Sverdrup Corp. et al., Christy v. Magnuson et al., Scott v. Nachman, Carter v. Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Maxwell v. Texas, Perez v. United States, Veatch v. United States, Vasquez v. Office of Personnel Management et al., Taplin v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Gangi v. Baybank, FSB, et al., Sidles v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Siddiqui v. New York, Howard v. Caspari, Superintendent, Missouri Eastern Correctional Center, In re Rodriguez, Hart v. California et al., Bergne v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Causey v. United States, Oberuch v. Arizona et al., Lewis v. Supreme Court of California et al., McBroom v. Franklin County Board of Elections, Grant v. In Rem Release Board et al., Loyer v. Loyer et al. (two judgments); Barbary v. Sturm et al., In re Carney et al., Smith v. Biller et al., Elder v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Toney v. United States, Short v. United States, Bundy v. United States, Burns v. United States, Schwarz v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Banks v. United States et al., Bannister v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, Collins v. Farmers Home Administration et al., Tinsley v. United States,
   ante, p. 1;

516 U. S. 838;

ante, p. 1129;

ante, p. 1122;

ante, p. 1122;

520 U. S. 1107;

520 U. S. 1213;

520 U. S. 1175;

520 U. S. 1175;

520 U. S. 1149;

ante, p. 1122;

520 U. S. 1255;

520 U. S. 1256;

520 U. S. 1267;

520 U. S. 1267;

520 U. S. 1234;

520 U. S. 1208;

520 U. S. 1279;

520 U. S. 1279;

No. 96-8686.

No. 96-8699.

No. 96-8722.

No. 96-8761.

No. 96-8803.

No. 96-8817.

No. 96-8939.

No. 96-8947.

No. 96-9014.

No. 96-9038.

No. 96-9046.

No. 96-9071.

No. 96-9073.

No. 96-9079.

No. 96-9094.

No. 96-9115.

No. 96-9137.

No. 96-9175.

No. 96-9237.

520 U. S. 1235;

520 U. S. 1279;

ante, p. 1106;

ante, p. 1107;

ante, p. 1123;

ante, p. 1123;

ante, p. 1125;

ante, p. 1109;

ante, p. 1117;

ante, p. 1109;

ante, p. 1109;

ante, p. 1110;

ante, p. 1110;

ante, p. 1110;

ante, p. 1126;

ante, p. 1110;

ante, p. 1126;

ante, p. 1127; and

ante, p. 1128. Petitions for rehearing denied.