text:
    No. 94-967.
    Field et al. v. Mans.
   C. A. 1st Cir. [Certiorari granted, 514 U. S. 1095.] Motion of respondent for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted. Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that W. E. Whit-tington IV, Esq., of Norwich, Vt., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 94-1239.
    Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, Secretary of Revenue of North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. [Certiorari granted, 514 U. S. 1062.] Motion of respondent to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted denied.


text:
    No. 94-1361.
    No. 94-1477.
    Zicherman, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Kole, et al. v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd.; and Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. v. Zicherman, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Kole, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 514 U. S. 1062.] Motion of Philomena Dooley et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Motion of Plaintiffs’ Committee in In Re Air Crash Disaster at Lockerbie, Scotland, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 94-1785.
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lundy.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1102.] Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 94-1818.
    Equicor, Inc. v. Lordmann Enterprises, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 94-1857.
    Beyer et al. v. Simmons.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondent Lawrence Simmons to expedite consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9204.
    In re Vey.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Petitioner is allowed until July 17, 1995, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 94-8929.
    No. 94-9193.
    In re Muina; and In re Heisz.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 94-9115.
    In re Awofolu.
   Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 94-1175.
    Bank One Chicago, N. A. v. Midwest Bank & Trust Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 94-1893.
    No. 94-1900.
    United States et al. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia et al.; and National Cable Television Assn., Inc. v. Bell Atlantic Corp. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 42 F. 3d 181.


text:
    No. 94-8769.
    Rutledge v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 94-158.
    Bates v. Walker; and Mahoney v. Mays.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-608.
    City of Yonkers v. United States et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1443.
    Adams et al. v. Dickinson et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1462.
    Baez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1523.
    Alaska v. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1528.
    No. 94-1564.
    Solomon et al. v. Resolution Trust Corporation, as Receiver for Nassau Savings & Loan Assn., F. A.; and Pattullo et al. v. Resolution Trust Corporation, as Receiver for Nassau Savings & Loan Assn., F. A.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1557.
    No. 94-1800.
    Hercules Inc. v. United States; and Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 46 F. 3d 803.


text:
    No. 94-1613.
    America’s Best Quality Coatings Corp. (ABQC) v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1641.
    Manarite v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1642.
    Stollings v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Department of Labor.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1653.
    American Library Assn. et al. v. Reno, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1665.
    Rowland et ux. v. Department of Agriculture.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1669.
    Brace et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1684.
    Agricultural Labor Relations Board et al. v. Bud Antle, Inc., dba Bud of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1685.
    Kerr-McGee Coal Corp. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1692.
    Johnson & Higgins v. Sempier.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1696.
    No. 94-1826.
    Hansen et al. v. Westerville City School District, Board of Education, et al.; and Hayfield et al. v. McIntyre, Executor of the Estate of McIntyre, Deceased, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 43 F. 3d 1472.


text:
    No. 94-1702.
    Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, et al. v. Selin et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1703.
    Saleh, dba KB’s Limited Fine Foods v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1706.
    The Mill v. Colorado Department of Health et al.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1738.
    Scott, Individually and as Personal Representative for the Estate of Scott, Deceased v. Henrich et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1764.
    Intermountain Ranches, Ltd., et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1780.
    Gehring v. Case Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1790.
    Wellington Trade Inc., dba Containerhouse v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1799.
    Silano v. Sag Harbor Union Free School District Board of Education et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1801.
    Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., et al. v. Columbia County.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1806.
    Chawla et al. v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1808.
    Pierce v. Pierce.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1812.
    Friedman v. Tolentino.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1815.
    Miller v. Santa Cruz County, California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1816.
    Blas, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Blas and as Guardian for the Minor, Borja v. Charfauros et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1820.
    Darrah et ux. v. Children’s Home Society of California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1821.
    Truly, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Labor v. Bayou Steel Corp. et al.
   Ct. App. La., 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1822.
    W. R. Grace & Co. et al. v. West Virginia et al.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1824.
    Connor v. Western Pennsylvania Teamsters & Employees Pension Fund.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1830.
    Rogers et vir v. Corrosion Products, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1832.
    Martello v. CIBA Vision Corp.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1833.
    Moser et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1835.
    Sanders v. Los Angeles Unified School District et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1836.
    National Association of Government Employees et al. v. Massachusetts et al.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1840.
    Borza et al. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., t/a Ambassador Cards, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1843.
    Edgerton Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. General Casualty Company of Wisconsin et al.
   Sup.Ct.Wis. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1844.
    Young v. Immigration and Naturalization Service et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1847.
    Multnomah County v. Johnson.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1862.
    Williams v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1870.
    Marullo et al. v. Cassanova et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1882.
    Umbehr v. Heiser et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1906.
    Scott v. Dodge Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1915.
    Shumate v. NationsBank et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1935.
    Welch et al. v. Welch, Administrator of the Estate of Welch, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1949.
    Muscatell et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-6153.
    Guinn v. Hesse, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-7343.
    Richardson v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-8365.
    Robison v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-8381.
    Bigby v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 94-8679.
    Santiago v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-8771.
    Volges v. Resolution Trust Corporation.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-8818.
    Johnston v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-8920.
    Hightower v. Thomas, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9009.
    Heath v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct.. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9036.
    Crawford v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Western Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9042.
    Prunty v. Rogers et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9060.
    Williams v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9067.
    Tilli v. Sowecke et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9068.
    Tuggle v. Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9071.
    Giles v. Parker, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9080.
    Lazzell v. Cain, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9085.
    Preblich v. Battley.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9089.
    Lane v. Singletary, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9093.
    Bell v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9095.
    Bergmann v. Nieske.
   C. A. 7th. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9096.
    Everette v. Roth, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9097.
    Alexander v. Ward, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9107.
    Dawson v. Thomas, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9108.
    Harrison v. Whitley, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9116.
    Woods v. FCC National Bank.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Montgomery County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9118.
    Keithley v. Hopkins, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9122.
    Riggins v. Washington, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9126.
    Heller v. Steindler et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9128.
    Summers v. Welborn, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9129.
    Poe v. Gammon, Superintendent, Moberly Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9130.
    Page v. Pung et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9131.
    Stephen v. Zulfacar.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9132.
    Reedom v. Mosley et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9133.
    Orr v. Borg, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9137.
    M. M. v. Kansas.
   Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9138.
    Johnson v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9142.
    Sudduth v. Hargett, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9143.
    Rodriguez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9146.
    Brunner v. Cain, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9148.
    Schorn v. Mack et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9150.
    Scudder v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9158.
    Burnett v. Cain, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9159.
    Cooper v. Nash et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9165.
    McCall v. Delo, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9166.
    Boothe v. Equifax Credit Information Services.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9167.
    Atkins v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9169.
    Benton v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9175.
    Roaquin v. Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9177.
    Pudder, aka Cromar v. Irwin et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9184.
    Walker v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9185.
    Kyong Sik Kim v. Virginia et al.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9187.
    Wanless v. Parks et al.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9189.
    Goynes v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9191.
    Davis v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9195.
    Thayer v. Maine.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9211.
    Alexander v. Macoubrie et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9212.
    Arteaga v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9217.
    Thomas v. McCotter, Executive Director, Utah Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9232.
    Coleman v. Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9261.
    Mari v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9294.
    Hunter v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9302.
    Marquez-Payares v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9303.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9322.
    No. 94-9329.
    McNair, aka Turner v. United States; and Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 48 F. 3d 535.


text:
    No. 94-9328.
    Roulty v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9332.
    Harrison v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9338.
    Dortch v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9362.
    Legree v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9363.
    Renfroe v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9371.
    Samuel-Bey v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9377.
    Miguel v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9382.
    Wilkins v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9384.
    Wu v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9385.
    Torres v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9387.
    Newby v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9388.
    Beebe v. United States.
   C. A. Armed Forces. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9389.
    Cleveland v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9392.
    Ruff v. Beaver et al.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9400.
    Fernandez et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9401.
    Green v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9402.
    Genoa v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9403.
    Ekwunife v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9406.
    Herald v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9411.
    Stark v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9412.
    Strickland v. Walker, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9414.
    Allen v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9418.
    Holmes v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9419.
    Forney v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9420.
    Hunter v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9426.
    Rice v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9430.
    Griffin v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9431.
    Ronayne v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9432.
    Adway v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9433.
    Dorsey v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9442.
    Deason v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9444.
    Short v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9446.
    Riley v. Newberry, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9449.
    Woods v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9451.
    Mendez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9454.
    Perry v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9460.
    Baker v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9461.
    Ahaneku v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9463.
    Burrows v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9466.
    Juda et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9467.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9468.
    Vila v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9469.
    Young v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9470.
    Velasquez v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9472.
    Holloway v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9479.
    Spradley v. White, Clerk, Supreme Court of Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9483.
    Lunsford v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9484.
    Moran-Leon v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-9491.
    Jones v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1811.
    Cutler et al. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 94-1819.
    Fox et al. v. Board of Trustees of the State University of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of Student Association of the State University of New York, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-8806.
    Amsden v. Senate Judiciary Committee et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.

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


text:
    No. 94-802.
    No. 94-1460.
    No. 94-1529.
    No. 94-1543.
    No. 94-1574.
    No. 94-1619.
    No. 94-8255.
    No. 94-8313.
    No. 94-8374.
    No. 94-8683.
    Purkett, Superintendent, Farmington Correctional Center v. Elem, Culp v. Wismer & Becker et al., Hudson v. First Fidelity Bank, N. A., New Jersey, fka First National State Bank, Warren v. Kentucky, Kaliardos v. General Motors Corp. et al., Douglas v. First Security Federal Savings Bank et al., Litzenberg v. Carr, Judge, Circuit Court of Maryland, Harford County, et al., Price v. Runyon, Postmaster General, Fenelon v. United States Postal Service, White v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections,
   514 U. S. 765;

514 U. S. 1108;

514 U. S. 1108;

514 U. S. 1109;

514 U. S. 1110;

514 U. S. 1128;

514 U. S. 1085;

514 U. S. 1114;

514 U. S. 1114; and

514 U. S. 1131. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 94-7778.
    Darby v. United States,
   514 U. S. 1097. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 27, 1995
    No. 94-9205.
    In re Vey.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    June 29, 1995
    No. 94-275.
    DeWitt et al. v. Wilson, Governor of California, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Cal. With respect to Questions 1 through 4 presented by the statement as to jurisdiction, judgment affirmed. With respect to Questions 5 and 6, appeal dismissed.


text:
    No. 94-1242.
    Knights of Columbus Council No. 2961 et al. v. Town of Trumbull et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration' in light of Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, ante, p. 753.


text:
    No. D-1532.
    In re Disbarment of Crawford.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 514 U. S. 1060.]


text:
    No. D-1566.
    In re Disbarment of Crikelair.
   It is ordered that Paul B. Crikelair, of Ventura, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1567.
    In re Disbarment of Olsen.
   It is ordered that Kim David Olsen, of San Francisco, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1568.
    In re Disbarment of Lida.
   It is ordered that Norman I. Lida, of New York, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1569.
    In re Disbarment of Kelly.
   It is ordered that Leo C. Kelly, of Albuquerque, N. M., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1570.
    In re Disbarment of Wheeler.
   It is ordered that Gregory H. Wheeler, of Mt. Laurel, N. J., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1571.
    In re Disbarment of Peck.
   It is ordered that Michael Allan Peck, of Hartford, Conn., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1572.
    In re Disbarment of Giampa.
   It is ordered that Richard L. Giampa, of Peekskill, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1573.
    In re Disbarment of Hoppmann.
   It is ordered that Barbara E. Hoppmann, of Brooklyn, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule 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. 94-8845.
    Tabas v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner to consolidate this petition with No. 94-7427, Libretti v. United States [certiorari granted, 514 U. S. 1035], denied.


text:
    No. 94-805.
    No. 94-806.
    No. 94-988.
    Bush, Governor of Texas, et al. v. Vera et al.; Lawson et al. v. Vera et al.; and United States v. Vera et al.
   Appeals from D. C. S. D. Tex. Probable jurisdiction noted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 861 F. Supp. 1304.


text:
    No. 94-923.
    No. 94-924.
    Shaw et al. v. Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, et al.; and Pope et al. v. Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, et al.
   Appeals from D. C. E. D. N. C. Probable jurisdiction noted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 861 F. Supp. 408.


text:
    No. 94-1654.
    Heiser et al. v. Umbehr.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 95-5015 (A-2).
    Lonchar v. Thomas, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, granted. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.

The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia would deny the application for stay and the petition for writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. 94-1299.
    School District of the City of Ladue, Missouri, et al. v. Good News/Good Sports Club et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 94-1423.
    Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied;


text:
    June 30, 1995.
    No. 95-5017 (A-3).
    Stafford v. Ward, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice.-Breyer, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-5021 (A-13).
    Stafford v. Ward, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Breyer, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Justice Stevens would grant the application for stay of execution of sentence of death.


text:
    No. 95-5029 (A-12).
    Stafford v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Breyer, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    July 17, 1995
    No. 95-5195 (A-41).
    Bolender v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    July 18, 1995
    No. A-50.
    Bolender v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.


text:
    No. 95-5230 (A-49).
    Bolender v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this application and this petition.


text:
    July 27, 1995
    No. 94-2032.
    Franklin et al. v. Beasley, Governor of South Carolina, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. C. Stipulation to dismiss the appeal as to David Beasley, Governor of South Carolina; Edwin Huggins, Willard Lawrimore, and J. Wesley Kennedy, as Members of the Hemingway Annexation Steering Committee; and the Hemingway Annexation Steering Committee filed, and appeal dismissed as to these appellees under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    July 28, 1995
    No. A-947.
    Fleschner et al. v. United States.
   Application for bail, addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-34 (O. T. 1995).
    Wolfberg et ux. v. Greenberg.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Kennedy and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    July 31, 1995
    No. 94-8922 (A-73).
    Brecheen v. Ward, Warden,
   ante, p. 1135. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Breyer, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    August 3, 1995
    No. 94-1978.
    Farmer v. Hawk, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    August 10, 1995
    No. 94-2077.
    Fitzgerald et al. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., dba U. S. West Communications, Inc.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    August 11, 1995
    No. D-1333.
    In re Disbarment of Sharp.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 510 U. S. 987.]


text:
    No. D-1365.
    In re Disbarment of Micelli.
   It having been reported to the Court that Nicholas Angelo Micelli, of Los Angeles, Cal., has died, the rule to show cause, heretofore issued on February 22, 1994 [510 U. S. 1105], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-1535.
    In re Disbarment of Frankum.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 514 U. S. 1061.]


text:
    No. D-1542.
    In re Disbarment of Kitsos.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 514 U. S. 1081.]


text:
    No. D-1546.
    In re Disbarment of Smith.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 514 U. S. 1106.]


text:
    No. D-1547.
    In re Disbarment of Sealy.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 514 U. S. 1106.]


text:
    No. D-1548.
    In re Disbarment of Dickinson.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 514 U. S. 1106.]


text:
    No. D-1549.
    In re Disbarment of Jan.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1120.]


text:
    No. D-1550.
    In re Disbarment of Diuguid.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1120.]


text:
    No. D-1551.
    In re Disbarment of Weeks.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1120.]


text:
    No. D-1554.
    In re Disbarment of Offner.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1120.]


text:
    No. D-1555.
    In re Disbarment of Feit.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1129.]


text:
    No. D-1556.
    In re Disbarment of Warter.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1129.]


text:
    No. D-1557.
    In re Disbarment of Hilgendorf.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1129.]


text:
    No. D-1574.
    In re Disbarment of Muhammad.
   It is ordered that Ahmad Raheem Muhammad, of Lorman, Miss., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1575.
    In re Disbarment of Rosenblum.
   It is ordered that Sheldon Rosenblum, of Little Neck, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1576.
    In re Disbarment of Ross.
   It is ordered that John Michael Ross, of El Cajon, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1577.
    In re Disbarment of Ortman.
   It is ordered that William Andrew Ortman, of Farmington Hills, Mich., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1578.
    In re Disbarment of Thrower.
   It is ordered that John Snow Thrower, Jr., of Opelika, Ala., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1579.
    In re Disbarment of Kohnen.
   It is ordered that David A. Kohnen, of Cincinnati, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1580.
    In re Disbarment of Ewers.
   It is ordered that James J. Ewers, of Yankton, S. D., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue,- returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1581.
    In re Disbarment of Crawford.
   It is ordered that Desiree White Crawford, of Henderson, N. C., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule 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-1582.
    In re Disbarment of Kellner.
   It is ordered that Fred Neal Kellner, of Coral Gables, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1583.
    In re Disbarment of Tache.
   It is ordered that Simon W. Tache, of Philadelphia, Pa., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1584.
    In re Disbarment of Felman.
   It is ordered that David Sherman Felman, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 95-5328 (A-123).
    Sattiewhite v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg would grant the application for stay of execution.


text:
    No. 95-5543 (A-138).
    Brecheen v. Ward, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Breyer, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. D-1485.
    No. 93-9218.
    No. 94-1339.
    No. 94-1388.
    No. 94-1482.
    No. 94-1521.
    No. 94-1532.
    No. 94-1551.
    No. 94-1607.
    No. 94-1672.
    No. 94-1680.
    No. 94-1733.
    No. 94-1759.
    No. 94-1781.
    No. 94-1852.
    In re Disbarment of Jacobs, Boyd v. Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Maltby v. Winston et al., Berry et al. v. Parrish, Kansas Securities Commissioner, Clouser et al. v. Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Spencer v. Mrs. Baird’s Bakeries, Inc., et al., Parking Association of Georgia, Inc., et al. v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, Snead et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Neal v. Brown et al., Shumate v. NCNB Corp., Wilson v. California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board et al., Turner, aka Foutz v. United States, Ellington et al. v. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, et al., Attorney R v. Mississippi Bar, Alley v. General Electric Capital Core, Perryman v. Prado, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, DeBardeleben v. Quinlan et al., McCullum v. Jackson Public School District, Hudspeth v. United States, Chase v. Mississippi, Martin v. Louisiana, Barwick v. City of Aurora, Colorado, Animal Care Division, Csoka v. United States et al., Gamble v. Terry, In re Bearden, Mason v. California, Brown v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Blackston v. Becker, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, et al., Douglass v. Estate of Douglass, Weeks v. Kay & Associates, Inc., Martin v. Peters et al., Roberts v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Brannon v. LaMaina; and Hinte v. Shupe, Watson v. Monroe, Warden, Wallace, aka Cole v. Wallace, Vohra v. Sikand Engineering Associates et al., Williams v. Runyon, Postmaster General, Miller v. White, Warden, Adams v. Moore, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Swain v. Virginia, Sibay v. Crestar Financial Corp. et al., Busch v. Nix et al., Jacobs v. Supreme Court of Missouri, Ignacio v. Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jones v. Roadway Express, Inc., Jones et al. v. North Woodland Hills Community Assn., Alexander v. Johnson et al., Vohra v. California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board et al., Schwarz v. Interpol et al., Schwarz v. Church of Scientology International et al., Wood v. Arizona, Mincey v. Thomas, Warden, Tobias v. Texas, Hundley v. United States, Morgan v. MacDonald et al., Giles v. Parker, Warden, Alexander v. Ward, Warden, Butler v. Richards et al., Freeman v. California, Aziz v. United States, Smith v. Drug Enforcement Agency et al., Coleman v. Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Mark v. United States, Carroll et al. v. United States, Lockett v. Mississippi, Lockett v. Mississippi, Waldemer v. United States, Ruff v. Beaver et al.,
   ante, p. 1139;

513 U. S. 837;

ante, p. 1141;

514 U. S. 1064;

ante, p. 1141;

514 U. S. 1108;

ante, p. 1116;

514 U. S. 1096;

514 U. S. 1127;

ante, p. 1104;

ante, p. 1104;

ante, p. 1104;

ante, p. 1143;

ante, p. 1144;

ante, p. 1145;

No. 94-7286.

No. 94-7789.

No. 94-8195.

No. 94-8273.

No. 94-8377.

No. 94-8379.

No. 94-8502.

No. 94-8560.

No. 94-8576.

No. 94-8628.

No. 94-8655.

No. 94-8666.

No. 94-8675.

No. 94-8705.

No. 94-8707.

No. 94-8712.

No. 94-8722.

No. 94-8725.

No. 94-8734.

No. 94-8775.

No. 94-8778.

No. 94-8780.

No. 94-8781.

No. 94-8786.

No. 94-8802.

513 U. S. 1166;

ante, p. 1105;

514 U. S. 1070;

ante, p. 1105;

ante, p. 1123;

ante, p. 1105;

514 U. S. 1117;

514 U. S. 1119;

514 U. S. 1119;

514 U. S. 1126;

514 U. S. 1131;

514 U. S. 1131;

ante, p. 1133;

ante, p. 1106;

514 U. S. 1120;

ante, p. 1106;

ante, p. 1133;

ante, p. 1106;

ante, p. 1106;

ante, p. 1107;

ante, p. 1123;

ante, p. 1123;

ante, p. 1123;

ante, p. 1124;

ante, p. 1124;

No. 94-8843.

No. 94-8844.

No. 94-8846.

No. 94-8856.

No. 94-8904.

No. 94-8927.

No. 94-8941.

No. 94-8954.

No. 94-8958.

No. 94-8959.

No. 94-8978.

No. 94-8991.

No. 94-9017.

No. 94-9051.

No. 94-9063.

No. 94-9071.

No. 94-9097.

No. 94-9160.

No. 94-9190.

No. 94-9206.

No. 94-9222.

No. 94-9232.

No. 94-9235.

No. 94-9267.

No. 94-9273.

No. 94-9274.

No. 94-9348.

No. 94-9392.

ante, p. 1125;

ante, p. 1133;

ante, p. 1133;

ante, p. 1125;

ante, p. 1135;

ante, p. 1135;

ante, p. 1146;

ante, p. 1146;

ante, p. 1146;

ante, p. 1146;

ante, p. 1147;

ante, p. 1147;

ante, p. 1126;

ante, p. 1109;

ante, p. 1148;

ante, p. 1163;

ante, p. 1163;

ante, p. 1136;

ante, p. 1149;

ante, p. 1128;

ante, p. 1128;

ante, p. 1166;

ante, p. 1149;

ante, p. 1150;

ante, p. 1150;

ante, p. 1150;

ante, p. 1151; and

ante, p. 1167. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 94-1404.
    Attar et al. v. United States,
   514 U. S. 1107. Motion of petitioner Amir James Attar for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 94-7212.
    No. 94-8440.
    Cupit v. Whitley, Warden, Boal v. Department of the Army,
   513 U. S. 1163; and

514 U. S. 1116. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    August 15, 1995
    No. A-156 (O. T. 1995).
    Moser, By and Through Holland v. Horn, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
   Application to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Souter, and by him referred to the Court, granted.

Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer would deny the application to vacate the stay of execution.


text:
    August 16, 1995
    No. A-158 (O. T. 1995).
    Moser, By and Through Holland v. Horn, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.
   Application to vacate the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, presented to Justice Souter, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Chief Justice Rehnquist would grant the application to vacate.


text:
    No. A-159 (O. T. 1995).
    Moser, By and Through Holland v. Horn, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.
   Application to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Souter, and by him referred to the Court, granted.

Justice Stevens, Justice Sou-ter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer would deny the application to vacate the stay of execution.


text:
    August 17, 1995
    No. A-163 (O. T. 1995).
    Adams v. Moore, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-164 (O. T. 1995).
    Adams v. Moore, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    August 31, 1995
    No. 95-5789 (A-201).
    Fairchild 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:
    September 1, 1995
    No. 94-1660.
    American Airlines, Inc. v. Lockwood.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1121.] Judgment vacated and case remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California with instructions to proceed with the case.


text:
    No. D-1552.
    In re Disbarment of Cacioppo.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1120.]


text:
    No. D-1559.
    In re Disbarment of Crewell.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1140.]


text:
    No. D-1562.
    In re Disbarment of Barlow.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1155.]


text:
    No. D-1565.
    In re Disbarment of Gould.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1156.]


text:
    No. D-1566.
    In re Disbarment of Crikelair.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1171.]


text:
    No. D-1568.
    In re Disbarment of Lida.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1171.]


text:
    No. D-1579.
    In re Disbarment of Kohnen.
   David A. Koh-nen, of Cincinnati, Ohio, having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on August 11, 1995 [ante, p. 1177], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-1585.
    In re Disbarment of Palmisano.
   It is ordered that Joseph Christopher Palmisano, of Scottsdale, Ariz., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 94-1359.
    No. 94-8558.
    No. 94-8577.
    No. 94-8804.
    No. 94-8920.
    No. 94-8938.
    No. 94-9067.
    No. 94-9095.
    No. 94-9115.
    No. 94-9185.
    No. 94-9192.
    No. 94-9212.
    No. 94-9217.
    No. 94-9491.
    Clements et al. v. United States, Bell v. Washington, Warden, Hubbard v. Lowe, In re Sato, Hightower v. Thomas, Warden, Hays v. Arends et al., Tilli v. Sowecke et al., Bergmann v. Nieske, In re Awofolu, Kyong Sik Kim v. Virginia et al., Green v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Arteaga v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Thomas v. McCotter, Executive Director, Utah Department of Corrections, et al., Jones v. North Carolina,
   514 U. S. 1107;

514 U. S. 1119;

514 U. S. 1100;

ante, p. 1130;

ante, p. 1162;

ante, p. 1135;

ante, p. 1162;

ante, p. 1163;

ante, p. 1157;

ante, p. 1165;

ante, p. 1149;

ante, p. 1165;

ante, p. 1166; and

ante, p. 1169. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    September 8, 1995
    No. 95-276.
    Grossi v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    No. 95-132 (A-181).
    Voinovich, Governor of Ohio, et al. v. Quilter, Speaker Pro Tempore of Ohio House of Representatives, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ohio. Application for stay of orders issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in case No. 5:91CV-2219 on April 28, May 26, and August 11, 1995, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending further order of this Court. It is further ordered that appellees’ motion to dismiss or affirm in case No. 95-378, Voinovich, Governor of Ohio, et al. v. Quilter, Speaker Pro Tempore of Ohio House of Representatives, et al., shall be filed within 10 days of the date of this order.


text:
    September 11, 1995
    No. 122,
    Orig.
    Texas et al. v. Louisiana et al.
   Motion for leave to file bill of complaint dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    No. 94-2125.
    Hansen et al. v. Midlantic National Bank.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    September 13, 1995
    No. A-251 (O. T. 1995).
    Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jeffers.
   Application to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 13, 1995, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-1553.
    In re Disbarment of Brown.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1120.]


text:
    No. D-1560.
    In re Disbarment of Washington.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1140.]


text:
    No. D-1561.
    In re Disbarment of Fusilier.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1155.]


text:
    No. D-1563.
    In re Disbarment of Robertson.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1155.]


text:
    No. D-1567.
    In re Disbarment of Olsen.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1171.]


text:
    No. D-1569.
    In re Disbarment of Kelly.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1171.]


text:
    No. D-1570.
    In re Disbarment of Wheeler.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1171.]


text:
    No. D-1586.
    In re Disbarment of Glassman.
   It is ordered that John Steven Glassman, of Tacoma, Wash., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1587.
    In re Disbarment of Genins.
   It is ordered that John Genins, of Atlanta, Ga., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1588.
    In re Disbarment of Jackson.
   It is ordered that Gregory Keith Jackson, of Southfield, Mich., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 121,
    Orig.
    Louisiana v. Mississippi et al.
   Motion of defendants for divided argument granted. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 514 U. S. 1002.]


text:
    No. 94-967.
    Field et al. v. Mans.
   C. A. 1st Cir: [Certiorari granted, 514 U. S. 1095.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 94-1244.
    Behrens v. Pelletier.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 514 U. S. 1035.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 94-1471.
    Varity Corp. v. Howe et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 514 U. S. 1082.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 94-8729.
    Bennis v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1121.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 94-1140.
    44 Liqourmart Inc., et al. v. Rhode Island et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. [Certiorari granted, 514 U. S. 1095.] Motion of respondent Rhode Island Liquor Stores Association for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 94-1175.
    Bank One Chicago, N. A. v. Midwest Bank & Trust Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1157.] Motion of Electronic Check Clearing House Organization for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 94-1361.
    No. 94-1477.
    Zicherman, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Kole, et al. v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd.; and Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. v. Zicherman, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Kole, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 514 U. S. 1062.] Motion of Pan American World Airways, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 94-1387.
    Yamaha Motor Corp., U. S. A., et al. v. Calhoun et al., Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Calhoun, Deceased.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 514 U. S. 1126.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted. Motion of Maritime Law Association of the United States for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 94-1530.
    Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 514 U. S. 1095.] Motion of Connecticut Bar Association, Commercial Law and Bankruptcy Section, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 94-1592.
    Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers et al. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1141.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 94-1809.
    Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., et al. v. Epstein et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1141.] Motion of Washington Legal Foundation et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 95-5956 (A-256).
    Jeffers v. Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, denied. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this application and this petition.


text:
    September 15, 1995
    No. 94-2054.
    National Environmental Services Co., dba NESCO, et al. v. Tracer Research Corp.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    No. 94-9112.
    Stockton v. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    September 18, 1995
    No. 95-5990 (A-263).
    Johnson v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    September 19, 1995
    No. A-277 (O. T. 1995).
    Albanese v. Peters, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    September 20, 1995
    No. 94-9791.
    In re Peltier.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Petition for writ of habeas corpus or in the alternative petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    September 21, 1995
    No. A-270 (95-6016).
    Tuggle 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, granted pending the disposition by this Court of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.


text:
    No. A-285 (O. T. 1995).
    Thompson, as Next Friend of Ingle v. French, Warden.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    September 26, 1995
    No. 95-5016.
    Jackson v. Jones, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    No. 95-25.
    Silva et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed as to Edward Silva and Silva Harvesting under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    No. 95-5076.
    Vaughn v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    September 27, 1995
    No. A-241 (O. T. 1995).
    Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Rekdahl et ux.
   Application for stay of judgment, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, granted to the extent that the execution and enforcement of the punitive damages portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three, case No. B068259, entered on May 25, 1995, and modified on June 20, 1995, is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition by this Court of a petition for writ of certiorari.

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


text:
    No. A-302 (O. T. 1995).
    Stockton v. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

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


text:
    No. 94-1614.
    No. 94-1631.
    No. 94-1985.
    Wisconsin v. City of New York et al.; Oklahoma v. City of New York et al.; and Department of Commerce et al. v. City of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Briefs of petitioners are to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, November 9, 1995. Briefs of respondents are to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, December 8, 1995. Reply briefs, if any, are to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, December 28, 1995. This Court’s Rule 29.2 does not apply. Reported below: 34 F. 3d 1114.


text:
    No. 94-1664.
    No. 94-8842.
    Koon v. United States; and Powell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari in No. 94-1664 granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. Motion of petitioner in No. 94-8842 for leave to proceed in forma pawperis granted. Certiorari in No. 94-8842 granted limited to Question 4 presented by the petition. Cases consolidated and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Briefs of petitioners are to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, November 9, 1995. Brief of respondent is .to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, December 8, 1995. Reply briefs, if any, are to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, December 28, 1995. This Court’s Rule 29.2 does not apply. Reported below: 34 F. 3d 1416.


text:
    No. 94-1837.
    Barnett Bank of Marion County, N. A. v. Gallagher, Florida Insurance Commissioner, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of Consumer Bankers Association et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted. Brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, November 9,1995. Brief of respondents is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, December 8, 1995. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, December 28, 1995. This Court’s Rule 29.2 does not apply.


text:
    No. 94-1966.
    Loving v. United States.
   C. A. Armed Forces. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1, 2, and 3 presented by the petition. Brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, November 9, 1995. Brief of respondent is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, December 8,1995. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, December 28, 1995. This Court’s Rule 29.2 does not apply.


text:
    No. 94-2003.
    Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motions of Intellectual Property Owners and Information Technology Industry Council for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted. Brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, November 9, 1995. Brief of respondent is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, December 8, 1995. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, December 28, 1995. This Court’s Rule 29.2 does not apply. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions and this petition.


text:
    No. 94-9247.
    Carlisle v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted. Brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, November 9, 1995. Brief of respondent is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, December 8, 1995. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, December 28, 1995. This Court’s Rule 29.2 does not apply.


text:
    No. 95-6.
    Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Hiles.
   App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari granted. Brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, November 9, 1995. Brief of respondent is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, December 8, 1995. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, December 28, 1995. This Court’s Rule 29.2 does not apply.


text:
    No. 95-26.
    Markman et al. v. Westview Instruments, Inc., et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Motion of American Board of Trial Advocates for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari granted. Brief of petitioners is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, November 9, 1995. Brief of respondents is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, December 8,1995. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, December 28, 1995. This Court’s Rule 29.2 does not apply.


text:
    No. 95-83.
    Meghrig et al. v. KFC Western, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted. Brief of petitioners is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, November 9, 1995. Brief of respondent is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, December 8, 1995. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Thursday, December 28, 1995. This Court’s Rule 29.2 does not apply.


text:
    September 28, 1995
    No. 94-2100.
    International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1269 v. Vikman et al.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    September 29, 1995
    No. A-241 (O. T. 1995).
    Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Rekdahl et ux.
   Application for stay of judgment, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, granted. Execution and enforcement of that portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three, ease No. B068259, entered on May 25, 1995, and modified on June 20, 1995, awarding punitive damages against applicant Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition by this Court of a petition for writ of certio-rari.

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


text:
    No. A-249 (O. T. 1995).
    Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior v. Environmental Defense Center.
   Application for stay, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, granted, and it is ordered that the order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California is stayed until October 31, 1995, or such earlier time as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may take action on the Secretary’s appeal. The Secretary remains at liberty to apply, in the first instance to the Court of Appeals, for an order extending the period of the stay in the event that the statutory restriction on the Secretary’s commitment of funds is renewed.

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


text:
    FOSTER, SHERIFF, et al. v. GILLIAM et al.
    No. A-126.
    Decided August 17, 1995
   Chief Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.

The State of South Carolina seeks relief from an order of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in which that court refused to stay the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to respondents, defendants in criminal proceedings in South Carolina. The State asks that I stay the District Court’s order and allow the State to resume its prosecution of respondents, and stay the enlargement of respondents pending appellate review of their habeas corpus petition.

Respondents were prosecuted in South Carolina state court in 1994 on charges of murder and lynching. During the trial, confusion and dispute arose over whether particular photographs that had been seen by the jury during a luncheon recess had actually been admitted into evidence or were merely marked for identification. The prosecuting attorney’s motion for a mistrial was granted by the trial court over respondents’ objection, and the trial court calendared the case for a second trial starting July 17, 1995. Between the first and the second trial, the trial court denied a motion by respondents to dismiss the charges on grounds of double jeopardy, and the Supreme Court of South Carolina dismissed respondents’ appeal without ruling on its merits.

Respondents then sought habeas relief in federal court under 28 U. S. C. § 2254, and sought to enjoin the imminent second trial pending final disposition of their habeas petition. On July 11, 1995, six days before the second trial was to start, the District Court for the District of South Carolina refused to issue an injunction, and a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s determination four days later, with one judge in dissent. On July 20, three days into the trial, the Court of Appeals en banc granted respondents’ request for a temporary restraining order, enjoined the state proceedings until the District Court ruled on respondents’ habeas petition, and ordered the District Court to rule on the petition as expeditiously as possible. The State did not apply for a stay of the Court of Appeals’ order at this time.

The very next day, the District Court, having held an 8-hour hearing to investigate respondents’ double jeopardy claim, granted respondents’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (This order, though entered July 21, was not reduced to writing for another week.) The District Court denied the State’s application to stay the issuance of the writ on July 31, and the Court of Appeals denied a similar application on August 8. The State then made the application before me now.

However debatable may have been the justification for the Court of Appeals’ July 20 order enjoining the continuation of a state criminal trial that had already begun, the trial was interrupted as of that date, and the State sought no relief in this Court from the order of the Court of Appeals. Nothing I do now, several weeks later, can undo the interruption of the state trial, and I therefore decline to stay the District Court’s order granting habeas relief to the extent that it enjoins the resumption of the state trial proceedings.

That portion of the District Court’s order releasing respondents from custody, however, seems to me to stand on a different footing, and I believe that the State has met the traditional criteria for a stay of the enlargement of a prisoner in a habeas corpus proceeding. The state trial court ruled against respondents’ double jeopardy claims on the merits. In Arizona v. Washington, 434 U. S. 497 (1978), we held that one claiming double jeopardy by reason of a second trial must show that there was no “manifest necessity” for the trial court to grant the State’s mistrial motion. And we stated that the trial court’s judgment about the necessity is entitled to great deference, never more so than when the judgment is based on an evaluation of such factors as the admissibility of evidence, any prejudice caused by the introduction of such evidence, and the trial court’s familiarity with the jurors. Id., at 513-514. Washington indicates that the State will be able to present at the least a substantial case on the merits on appeal, and the other traditional factors in a stay analysis counsel in favor of continued custody. See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U. S. 770, 777-778 (1987) (discussing the circumstances in which a stay of enlargement should be granted under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 23(c) and (d), which are virtually identical to this Court’s Rules 36.3(b) and 36.4). I will therefore stay the enlargement of respondents under the District Court’s July 21 order pending disposition of the State’s appeal from that order (now set for argument before the en banc court on September 26) by the Court of Appeals.

Accordingly, the application for stay of enlargement is granted, and the application is otherwise denied.


author: Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice.

text:
    PENRY v. TEXAS
    No. A-180.
    Decided August 28, 1995
   Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice.

I have before me an application for extension of time in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Counsel seek a 59-day extension of the filing deadline “because of the voluminous record below and the breadth of errors that were committed below which warrant review by this Court.” Counsel explain: “The petitioner’s brief to the Court of Criminal Appeal[s] of Texas discussed 132 points of error and is 375 pages in length. The State’s brief is 248 pages in length. The judgment affirming petitioner’s conviction and death sentence is 76 pages with 6 additional pages of concurrences.” The application offers one additional reason for the extension request: “[CJounsel of record will be out of his office during the entire week before September 5,1995 — the day that the time to file the petition will expire.”

Our Rules provide that “[a] petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort, . . . shall be deemed in time when it is filed with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after the entry of the judgment,” Rule 13.1, and that a Justice may extend the time to file for up to 60 days “for good cause shown,” Rule 13.2. Our Rules specify, however, that “[a]n application to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is not favored.” Rule 13.6.

I have made it clear that I take the rule of disfavor seriously. In Madden v. Texas, 498 U. S. 1301 (1991) (opinion in chambers), I considered four applications for extensions of time in capital cases. Three of them sought an extension because appellate counsel had withdrawn from the applicant’s case (with no indication that the withdrawal could not reasonably have been foreseen). Id., at 1302-1304. In the fourth, the asserted reason was similar to that offered here: Counsel needed additional time “ ‘to ensure that the important constitutional issues in [the] case are properly researched and presented to this Court.’” Id., at 1302. At that time, I expressed my view that “none of these applications, as an original matter, would meet the standard of ‘good cause shown’ for the granting of an extension.” Id., at 1304. I nonetheless granted extensions in the three cases where counsel had withdrawn, primarily because I was a new Circuit Justice, and was reluctant to impose without notice a standard more stringent, perhaps, than what the Fifth Circuit bar was accustomed to. I gave notice, however, that “I shall not grant extensions in similar circumstances again.” Id., at 1305.

By now, counsel litigating in the Fifth Circuit ought to be familiar with my view of what constitutes “good cause” to support the disfavored application to extend the time to file a petition for certiorari. See R. Stern, E. Gressman, S. Shapiro, & K. Geller, Supreme Court Practice §6.7 (7th ed. 1993). The reasons offered by counsel in this application fall short. As I have previously observed, all applicants can honestly claim that they would benefit from additional time to prepare a petition for certiorari. Kleem v. INS, 479 U. S. 1308 (1986) (opinion in chambers); see also Madden, supra, at 1304. By their own account, counsel here filed a brief of 376 pages, raising 132 assignments of error, in the Court of Criminal Appeals; it is inconceivable that this could have been achieved without acquiring considerable familiarity with the record, voluminous though it may be. Moreover, counsel sought rehearing below, and thus have had six months to review the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, which discussed in considerable detail the 132 allegations of error as it rejected each of them. Finally — and needless to say — counsel’s planned absences should affect neither the degree of preparation afforded a client’s case nor the orderly administration of our deadlines.

This is indeed a capital case, but our Rules envision only one “good cause” standard. See 498 U. S., at 1304-1305. Because the applicant here has failed to meet that standard, I deny the application for extension of time.


text:
    RODRIGUEZ v. TEXAS
    No. 95-5650 (A-202).
    Decided August 31, 1995
   Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice.

I have before me an application for a stay of execution pending disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Petitioner seeks direct review of that court’s judgment, entered May 17, 1995, affirming his conviction and death sentence. The petition was timely filed on August 15, 1995, and petitioner’s application states that he is scheduled to be executed on November 8, 1995.

I have said that “I will... in every capital case on direct review, grant a stay of execution pending disposition by this Court of the petition for certiorari.” Cole v. Texas, 499 U. S. 1301 (1991). I have also made clear, however, that the purpose of such a stay is to prevent the execution date from “interfering] with the orderly processing of a petition on direct review by this Court.” Ibid. In the present case, and at the present time, there is no reason to believe such interference will occur. A petition for certiorari filed in this Court on August 15 will ordinarily be disposed of well before November 8.

Staying the hand of state justice is no small matter, and should not be considered when no need exists. Accordingly, the application for stay is denied, without prejudice to its renewal at a later date.


author: Justice Stevens, Circuit Justice.

text:
    McGRAW-HILL COS., INC. v. PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. et al.
    No. A-276.
    Decided September 21, 1995
   Justice Stevens, Circuit Justice.

On September 19, 1995, petitioner, the publisher of Business Week magazine, filed with me in my capacity as Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit a hastily prepared document entitled “Application to Stay Restraining Order Pending Certiorari.” The caption of the document recites: “On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.” The conclusion of the document asks me to stay the “outstanding prior restraint” against petitioner effected by an order entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, on September 13. That order restrains petitioner from publishing an article containing “any disclosure of documents filed under seal, or the contents thereof, without the prior consent” of the District Court. Petitioner requests that a stay of the District Court order “be granted pending its filing of and this Court’s ultimate determination of a petition for a writ of certiorari.”

It appears that the District Court order of September 13 was entered without notice to petitioner and that it was not supported by the findings of fact required by Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I assume, therefore, that if petitioner had filed a prompt motion to dissolve the order, the District Court would have granted that relief, or if it had refused to do so, the Court of Appeals would have had jurisdiction to address the merits of the restraint. Petitioner, however, filed an expedited appeal in the Sixth Circuit, and, on September 19, that court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction to review the merits of the restraining order.

The stay application that petitioner has filed with me indicates that it will seek review by writ of certiorari of the Court of Appeals’ jurisdictional holding, but the arguments advanced in the application address the merits of the District Court’s order. The application does not explain why there is a substantial basis for concluding that the Court of Appeals erred, or that four Justices of this Court would grant certiorari to review the jurisdictional issue. Moreover, a stay is not necessary to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction to review the Court of Appeals’ decision; indeed, if the requested stay were granted, any possible review of that decision would probably become moot.

In its discussion of the merits of the District Court’s order, petitioner explains that the documents whose contents it wants to publish were attachments to a motion filed by Procter & Gamble in the District Court on September 1, 1995. Referring to that motion, petitioner states:

“The motion was not filed under seal with the district court and there is no indication anywhere on the motion itself that any of the described attachments were being filed under seal.” Application to Stay Restraining Order Pending Certiorari 4.

That statement appears to have been intended to give me the impression that petitioner’s agents obtained knowledge of the contents of the attachments either (1) without any notice that they were filed under seal, or (2) under the legitimate belief that their filing in court without any effort to preserve their confidentiality had the effect of placing their contents in the public domain. The memoranda filed in opposition to the stay application indicate that I may have been misled by the foregoing statement and that disputed issues of fact should be resolved before expressing an opinion on the important constitutional issue that petitioner argues in its stay application. The statement that I have quoted above seems to acknowledge that the manner in which petitioner came into possession of the information it seeks to publish may have a bearing on its right to do so.

Even if I have jurisdiction to pass on the merits of the District Court’s order of September 13 — a matter which is doubtful at best — I am satisfied that the wiser course is to give the District Court an opportunity to find the relevant facts, and to allow both that court and the Court of Appeals to consider the merits of the First Amendment issue before it is addressed in this Court. The stay application is, accordingly, denied.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    WOOD, SUPERINTENDENT, WASHINGTON STATE PENITENTIARY v. BARTHOLOMEW
    No. 94-1419.
    Decided October 10, 1995
   Per Curiam.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s denial of habeas relief based on its speculation that the prosecution’s failure to turn over the results of a polygraph examination of a key witness might have had an adverse effect on pretrial preparation by the defense. The Court of Appeals assumed, and the parties do not dispute, that the results were inadmissible under state law both for substantive purposes as well as for impeachment. The decision below is a misapplication of our Brady jurisprudence, see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), and we accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings.

I

On August 1, 1981, respondent Dwayne Bartholomew robbed a laundromat in Tacoma, Washington. In the course of the robbery, the laundromat attendant was shot and killed. Two shots were fired: One hit the attendant in the head; the second lodged in a counter near the victim’s body. From the beginning, respondent admitted that he committed the robbery and that the shots came from his gun.

The only issue at trial was whether respondent was guilty of aggravated first-degree murder, which requires proof of premeditation; or of first-degree (felony) murder, which does not. Respondent’s defense was that the gun, a single action revolver (one that must be cocked manually before each shot), discharged by accident — twice.

In addition to the physical evidence concerning the operation of the gun, the prosecution’s evidence consisted of the testimony of respondent’s brother, Rodney Bartholomew, and of Rodney’s girlfriend, Tracy Dormady. Both Rodney and Tracy testified that on the day of the crime they had gone to the laundromat in question to do their laundry, and that respondent was sitting in his car in the parking lot when they arrived. While waiting for their laundry, Rodney sat with his brother in the car. Rodney testified that respondent told him that he intended to rob the laundromat and “leave no witnesses.” According to their testimony, Rodney and Tracy left the laundromat soon after the conversation and went to Tracy’s house. Respondent arrived at the house a short time later, and when Tracy asked respondent if he had killed the attendant respondent said “he had put two bullets in the kid’s head.” Tracy also testified that she had heard respondent say that he intended to leave no witnesses. Both Rodney and Tracy’s testimony was consistent with their pretrial statements to the police. State v. Bartholomew, 98 Wash. 2d 173, 176-178, 654 P. 2d 1170, 1173-1174 (1982).

Respondent testified in his own defense. He admitted threatening the victim with his gun and forcing him to lie down on the floor. Respondent said, however, that while he was removing money from the cash drawer his gun acci-dently fired, discharging a bullet into the victim’s head. Respondent further claimed that the gun went off a second time while he was running away. Respondent denied telling Rodney or Tracy that he intended to leave no witnesses. According to his testimony, moreover, Rodney had assisted in the robbery by convincing the attendant to open the laundromat’s door after it had closed for the night, although Rodney left before the crime was committed. Ibid. In closing argument the defense sought to discredit Rodney and Tracy’s testimony by suggesting that they were lying about the extent of Rodney’s participation in the crime. 34 F. 3d 870, 872 (CA9 1994).

At the sentencing phase of the trial (respondent was sentenced to death but his sentence was overturned on appeal and he was resentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole), the prosecution’s first witness was respondent’s cellmate, Stanley Bell. Bell testified that respondent told him that he made the victim lie on the floor, asked him his age, found out it was 17, replied “[t]oo bad,” and shot him. See State v. Bartholomew, supra, at 178, 654 P. 2d, at 1174.

Before trial, the prosecution requested that Rodney and Tracy submit to polygraph examinations. The answers of both witnesses to the questions asked by the polygraph examiner were consistent with their testimony at trial. As part of the polygraph examination, the examiner asked Tracy whether she had helped respondent commit the robbery and whether she had ever handled the murder weapon. Tracy answered in the negative to both questions. The results of the testing as to these questions were inconclusive, but the examiner noted his personal opinion that her responses were truthful. The examiner also asked Rodney whether he had assisted his brother in the robbery and whether at any time he and his brother were in the laundromat together. Rodney responded in the negative to both questions, and the examiner concluded that the responses to the questions indicated deception. Neither examination was disclosed to the defense.

After exhausting his state remedies, respondent filed a ha-beas action in the District Court for the Western District of Washington, raising, inter alia, a Brady claim based on the prosecution’s failure to produce the polygraph examinations. The District Court denied the writ, concluding that respondent “fails ... to show that evidence was withheld. The information withheld only possibly could have led to some admissible evidence. He fails to show that disclosure of the results of the polygraph to defense counsel would have had a reasonable likelihood of affecting the verdict.” App. to Pet. for Cert. B5 (emphasis in original).

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed. 34 F. 3d 870 (1994). The Court of Appeals noted that under Washington law polygraphic examinations are inadmissible in evidence, even for impeachment purposes. See id., at 875 (citing State v. Ellison, 36 Wash. App. 564, 676 P. 2d 531 (1984)). The court nevertheless reversed the District Court’s denial of the writ, concluding that although the results would have been inadmissible at trial, the information was material under Brady. The court reasoned that “[h]ad [respondent’s] counsel known of the polygraph results, he would have had a stronger reason to pursue an investigation of Rodney’s story”; that he “likely would have taken Rodney’s deposition” and that in that deposition “might well have succeeded in obtaining an admission that he was lying about his participation in the crime” and “would likely have Uncovered a variety of conflicting statements which could have been used quite effectively in cross-examination at trial.” 34 F. 3d, at 875-876.

II

If the prosecution’s initial denial that polygraph examinations of the two witnesses existed were an intentional misstatement, we would not hesitate to condemn that misrepresentation in the strongest terms. But as we reiterated just last Term, evidence is “material” under Brady, and the failure to disclose it justifies setting aside a conviction, only where there exists a “reasonable probability” that had the evidence been disclosed the result at trial would have been different. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419, 433-434 (1995); United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667, 682 (1985) (opinion of Blackmun, J.); id., at 685 (White, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). To begin with, on the Court of Appeals’ own assumption, the polygraph results were inadmissible under state law, even for impeachment purposes, absent a stipulation by the parties, see 34 F. 3d, at 875 (citing State v. Ellison, supra), and the parties do not contend otherwise. The information at issue here, then — the results of a polygraph examination of one of the witnesses — is not “evidence” at all. Disclosure of the polygraph results, then, could have had no direct effect on the outcome of trial, because respondent could have made no mention of them either during argument or while questioning witnesses. To get around this problem, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the information, had it been disclosed to the defense, might have led respondent’s counsel to conduct additional discovery that might have led to some additional evidence that could have been utilized. See 34 F. 3d, at 875. Other than expressing a belief that in a deposition Rodney might have confessed to his involvement in the initial stages of the crime — a confession that itself would have been in no way inconsistent with respondent’s guilt — the Court of Appeals did not specify what particular evidence it had in mind. Its judgment is based on mere speculation, in violation of the standards we have established.

At trial, respondent’s strategy was to discredit Rodney’s damaging testimony by suggesting that Rodney was lying in order to downplay his own involvement in the crime. Id., at 872. That strategy did not involve deposing Rodney. It is difficult to see, then, on what basis the Ninth Circuit concluded that respondent’s counsel would have prepared in a different manner, or (more important) would have discovered some unspecified additional evidence, merely by disclosure of polygraph results that, as to two questions, were consistent with respondent’s preestablished defense.

In speculating that the undisclosed polygraph results might have affected trial counsel’s preparation, and hence the result at trial, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with, or disregarded, the view of respondent’s own trial counsel. At the evidentiary hearing held in the Federal District Court in this habeas action, respondent’s habeas counsel questioned trial counsel on the importance of the polygraph results:

“Q: And you indicated that your cross-examination of Rodney was, I think, somewhat limited because of concern that—
“A: It was limited in my own respect. Nobody tried to limit me. In my opinion, as a trial lawyer, that was a very dangerous witness to me, and I wanted to get as much as I could out of him without recalling the crystal words again. Leave no prisoners.
“Q: Do you think it would have been any help to you in doing that, if you had known of specific questions regarding the offense on which Mr. Rodney Bartholomew had failed a polygraph examination? Would that have perhaps affected the shape of your cross-examination of him?
“A: I think in retrospect they’re almost parallel. The questions that he failed were his contribution or implication in the offense, the holdup, with Mr. Dwayne Bartholomew. I believe they were in gloves, so in retrospect they wouldn’t have affected it. I would have liked to have known it, Mr. Ford, but I don’t think it would have affected the outcome of the case.” Tr. 55-56.

Trial counsel’s strategic decision to limit his questioning of Rodney undermines the suggestion by the Court of Appeals that counsel might have chosen to depose Rodney had the polygraph results been disclosed. But of even greater importance was counsel’s candid acknowledgment that disclosure would not have affected the scope of his cross-examination. That assessment is borne out by the best possible proof: The Federal District Court below went so far as to permit respondent’s habeas counsel, armed with the. information about the polygraph examinations, to question Rodney under oath. Even though respondent’s counsel was permitted to refer to the polygraph results themselves — reference to which would not be permissible on retrial — counsel obtained no contradictions or admissions out of Rodney. See id., at 84-87.

In short, it is not “reasonably likely” that disclosure of the polygraph results — inadmissible under state law — would have resulted in a different outcome at trial. Even without Rodney’s testimony, the case against respondent was overwhelming. To acquit of aggravated murder, the jury would have had to believe that respondent’s single action revolver discharged accidently, not once but twice, by tragic coincidence depositing a bullet to the back of the victim’s head, execution style, as the victim lay face down on the floor. In the face of this physical evidence, as well as Rodney and Tracy’s testimony — to say nothing of the testimony by Bell that the State likely could introduce on retrial — it should take more than supposition on the weak premises offered by respondent to undermine a court’s confidence in the outcome.

Whenever a federal court grants habeas relief to a state prisoner the issuance of the writ exacts great costs to the-State’s legitimate interest in finality. And where, as here, retrial would occur 13 years later, those costs and burdens are compounded many times. Those costs may be justified where serious doubts about the reliability of a trial infested with constitutional error exist. But where, as in this case, a federal appellate court, second-guessing a convict’s own trial counsel, grants habeas relief on the basis of little more than speculation with slight support, the proper delicate balance between the federal courts and the States is upset to a degree that requires correction.

* * *

The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The respondent’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer dissent from summary disposition of this case.