source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam. Justice Stevens,

license: Public Domain

text:
    PENNSYLVANIA v. LABRON
    No. 95-1691.
    Decided July 1, 1996

      Together with No. 95-1738, Pennsylvania v. Kilgore, also on petition for writ of certiorari to the same court.

   Per Curiam.

In these two cases, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth, requires police to obtain a warrant before searching an automobile unless exigent circumstances are present. Because the holdings rest on an incorrect reading of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, we grant the petitions for certiorari and reverse.

In Labron, No. 95-1691, police observed respondent La-bron and others engaging in a series of drug transactions on a street in Philadelphia. The police arrested the suspects, searched the trunk of a car from which the drugs had been produced, and found bags containing cocaine. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the trial court (but not with the intermediate court of appeals, 428 Pa. Super. 616, 626 A. 2d 646 (1993), whose judgment it reversed) that this evidence should be suppressed. 543 Pa. 86, 669 A. 2d 917 (1995). After surveying our precedents on the automobile exception as well as some of its own decisions, the court “conclude [d] that this Commonwealth’s jurisprudence of the automobile exception has long required both the existence of probable cause and the presence of exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search.” Id., at 100, 669 A. 2d, at 924. Satisfied the police had time to secure a warrant, id., at 100-103, 699 A. 2d, at 924-925, the court held that “the warrant-less search of this stationary vehicle violated constitutional guarantees,” id., at 101, 669 A. 2d, at 924.

In Kilgore, No. 95-1738, an undercover informant agreed to buy drugs from respondent Randy Lee Kilgore’s accomplice, Kelly Jo Kilgore. To obtain the drugs, Kelly Jo drove from the parking lot where the deal was made to a farmhouse where she met with Randy Kilgore and obtained the drugs. After the drugs were delivered and the Kilgores were arrested, police searched the farmhouse with the consent of its owner and also searched Randy Kilgore’s pickup truck; they had seen the Kilgores walking to and from the truck, which was parked in the driveway of the farmhouse. The search turned up cocaine on the truck’s floor. The trial court denied Randy Kilgore’s motion to suppress the cocaine, holding the officers had probable cause to make the search. The appellate court affirmed. 437 Pa. Super. 491, 650 A. 2d 462 (1994). The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed, citing Labron and holding that although there was probable cause to search the truck, 544 Pa. 439, 444, 677 A. 2d 311, 313 (1995), the search violated the Fourth Amendment because no exigent circumstances justified the failure to obtain a warrant, id., at 445, 677 A. 2d, at 313-314.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held the rule permitting warrantless searches of automobiles is limited to cases where “ ‘unforeseen circumstances involving the search of an automobile [are] coupled with the presence of probable cause.’ ” 543 Pa., at 100, 669 A. 2d, at 924, quoting Commonwealth v. White, 543 Pa. 45, 53, 669 A. 2d 896, 901 (1995) (emphasis deleted). This was incorrect. Our first cases establishing the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement were based on the automobile’s “ready mobility,” an exigency sufficient to excuse failure to obtain a search warrant once probable cause to conduct the search is clear. California v. Carney, 471 U. S. 386, 390-391 (1985) (tracing the history of the exception); Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925). More recent cases provide a further justification: the individual’s reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile, owing to its pervasive regulation. Carney, supra, at 391-392. If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment thus permits police to search the vehicle without more. Carney, supra, at 393. As the state courts found, there was probable cause in both of these cases: Police had seen respondent Labron put drugs in the trunk of the car they searched and had seen respondent Kilgore act in ways that suggested he had drugs in his truck. We conclude the searches of the automobiles in these cases did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Respondent Labron claims we have no jurisdiction to review the judgment in his case because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion rests on an adequate and independent state ground, viz., “this Commonwealth’s jurisprudence of the automobile exception.” 543 Pa., at 100, 669 A. 2d, at 924. We disagree. The language we have quoted is not a “plain statement” sufficient to tell us “the federal cases [were] being used only for the purpose of guidance, and d[id] not themselves compel the result that the court ha[d] reached.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1041 (1983). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did discuss several of its own decisions; as it noted, however, some of those cases relied on an analysis of our cases on the automobile exception, see, e. g., 543 Pa., at 95, 669 A. 2d, at 921 (observing Commonwealth v. Holzer, 480 Pa. 93, 103, 389 A. 2d 101, 106 (1978), cited Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971)); 543 Pa., at 100, 669 A. 2d, at 924 (stating Commonwealth v. White, supra, rested in part upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s analysis of Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42 (1970)). The law of the Commonwealth thus appears to us “interwoven with the federal law, and . . . the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S., at 1040-1041. Our jurisdiction in Labron’s case is secure. Ibid. The opinion in respondent Kilgore’s case, meanwhile, rests on an explicit conclusion that the officers’ conduct violated the Fourth Amendment; we have jurisdiction to review this judgment as well.

Respondent Labron’s motion to proceed informa pauperis is granted. The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted, the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania are reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting.

The decisions that the Court summarily reverses today are two of a trilogy of cases decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court within three days of each other. See 544 Pa. 439, 677 A. 2d 311 (1995); Commonwealth v. White, 543 Pa. 45, 669 A. 2d 896 (1995); 543 Pa. 86, 669 A. 2d 917 (1995). In each case, that court concluded that citizens of Pennsylvania are protected from warrantless searches and seizures of their automobiles absent exigent circumstances. But a fair reading of both White (the holding of which the Commonwealth has not challenged in this Court) and Labron (which the Court reverses today) demonstrates that their judgments almost certainly rested upon the Pennsylvania court’s independent consideration of its own Constitution. For that reason, I do not believe that we have jurisdiction over the decision in Labron, just as we would not have jurisdiction in White, See 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a). Furthermore, when considered in light of those two more carefully reasoned decisions, there is no reason for this Court to disturb the state court’s finding in Kilgore, since the result will almost certainly be affirmed on remand.

In its per curiam decision, this Court concludes that because the decision in Labron cited state decisions which in turn referred to two 25-year-old cases of this Court, any reference to state law is “‘interwoven with the federal law.’” Ante, at 941 (quoting Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1040 (1983)). These references, however, seem to me a rather short thread with which to weave — let alone upon which to hang — our jurisdiction.

In my opinion, the best reading of Labron’s plain language is that it relied on adequate and independent state grounds. The majority decision below includes references to four sources of federal law: the Federal Constitution and three federal cases. None of the references demonstrates that the decision rested upon anything other than state law.

The decision begins with the proposition, not at issue here, that “the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution generally require that searches be predicated upon a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate.” 543 Pa., at 93, 669 A. 2d, at 920 (citations omitted). It then reviews the history of the so-called “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement by quoting several passages from our decision in Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925), which first established the exception, and then quotes a passage from Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 52 (1970), which appears to support the proposition under federal law that the Court emphasizes here today (that the existence of probable cause is sufficient in and of itself to justify a search of a vehicle). 543 Pa., at 94-95, 669 A. 2d, at 920-921.

Rather than follow the developments of federal law, however, the decision then specifically and immediately notes that “[w]hen reviewing warrantless automobile searches in this Commonwealth, we have constantly held that ‘there is no “automobile exception” as such and [that] the constitutional protections are applicable to searches and seizures of a person’s car.’ Commonwealth v. Holzer, 480 Pa. 93, 103, 389 A. 2d 101, 106 (1978) (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 . . . (1971)).” Id., at 95, 669 A. 2d, at 921 (emphasis added). From that point onward, the only reference to federal law in the decision’s remaining 30 citations is a recognition that White, the sole decision of this trio of “exigent circumstance” cases that is not before our Court, was “based upon” that Court’s analysis of Chambers. 543 Pa., at 99-100, 669 A. 2d, at 923-924. Every other citation in Labron is to Pennsylvania law.

Because White was issued on the same day as Labron and reached an identical conclusion regarding the “exigent circumstances” rule, that decision is worth reviewing. In White, the court hesitated before considering the merits of the case “to address the Commonwealth’s claim that White has waived his claim that the search of his automobile was illegal under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because he did not set forth his state constitutional claims in the manner required.” The Commonwealth’s claim, the court found, was “meritless.” “White clearly raises a claim under the Pennsylvania Constitution, cites cases in support of his claim, and relates the cases to the claim. That is sufficient.” 543 Pa., at 50, 669 A. 2d, at 899.

Having established the importance of the state constitutional claim to the defendant’s argument, White went on to discuss the “exigent circumstance” exception at issue here in light of both federal and state law. And although the court’s analysis relied upon our decision in Chambers v. Maroney, it cited none of the subsequent cases in which this Court has effectively converted the “automobile exception” into an absolute rule allowing searches in the presence of probable cause. See 543 Pa., at 49-53, 669 A. 2d, at 899-901; n. 6, infra (noting that the Pennsylvania courts’ failure to refer to this Court’s subsequent decisions in this area may be intentional rather than ignorant). Stressing the independent evaluation it makes of its State Constitution, the Pennsylvania court also rejected our decision in New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981), on state constitutional grounds. See 543 Pa., at 54-58, 669 A. 2d, at 901-903.

Notably, the Commonwealth has not asked this Court to review the Pennsylvania court’s decision in White, even though the search in that case would be affirmed under the Commonwealth’s and this Court’s understanding of Pennsylvania’s holding regarding exigent circumstances. I also note that lower state courts have explicitly read White as establishing a state constitutional right, not a federal right. Commonwealth v. Haskins, 450 Pa. Super. 540, 545, 677 A. 2d 328, 330 (1996) (“In order to search an automobile without a warrant, the police must still show the existence of both probable cause and exigent circumstances. Commonwealth v. White, 543 Pa. 45, 669 A. 2d 896 (1995)_In White, our Supreme Court reiterated that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires such a showing”); see also Commonwealth v. Yedinak, 450 Pa. Super. 352, 359, n. 5, 676 A. 2d 1217, 1220, n. 5 (1996) (“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater protection than the United States Constitution with regard to automobile searches in Commonwealth v. White”).

The lower courts’ understanding regarding the state-law nature of White — and my understanding of the state-law nature of Labron as well — is almost perfectly reflected in the dissents to each case that were penned by Justice Castille. In both instances, Justice Castille recognizes, even more explicitly than the majority, that the decisions were based on state law.

In Labron, for instance, his main point was that the defendant had no standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search of a car that he did not own. In making his argument, however, he noted that “the majority correctly characterizes Pennsylvania law regarding the ‘automobile exception’ to the warrant requirement.” 543 Pa., at 104, 669 A. 2d, at 926 (emphasis added). And although he reviewed decisions of this Court on standing to claim violations of the Fourth Amendment, he went on to note: “Under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, however, this Court looks to several additional factors to determine whether a criminal defendant has standing to challenge the admission of evidence against him.” Id., at 106, 669 A. 2d, at 927 (emphasis added).

In White, Justice Castille stated that he believed that “the automobile exception to the warrant requirements of this Commonwealth should be a per se rule regardless of how much time police may have to obtain a warrant,” 543 Pa., at 70, 669 A. 2d, at 909 (emphasis added), and he further concluded that he would “urge the adoption of a bright line rule that would allow warrantless searches of all automobiles for which police have independent probable cause,” id., at 71, 669 A. 2d, at 909-910. Of course, if Justice Castille were interpreting federal, rather than state, law, he would not have the luxury of “urging the adoption” of a particular rule.

Having reviewed the range of the Pennsylvania courts’ statements regarding the source of the “exigent circumstances” rule, it is worthwhile to review this Court’s understanding of when a state decision is based on adequate and independent state grounds. In Michigan v. Long, the Court adopted a “plain statement” rule for determining whether a state decision rested on “independent and adequate” state-law grounds. “[B]ecause of [our] respect for state courts, and [a] desire to avoid advisory opinions, ... we [did] not wish to continue to decide issues of state law that go beyond the opinion that we review, or to require state courts to reconsider cases to clarify the grounds of their decisions.” 463 U. S., at 1040. When “a state court decision fairly appears to rest 'primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law, and when the adequacy and independence of any possible state law ground is not clear from the face of the opinion,” we héld, we would conclude that the State decided as it did because federal law required it to do so. Id., at 1040-1041.

Given the explicit and nearly exclusive references to state law that I review above, it seems to me that the Court’s decision to take jurisdiction in Labron not only extends Michigan v. Long beyond its original scope, but stands its rationale on its head. Labron does not rest “primarily” on federal law; as Justice Castille understood it, as the briefing in White understood it, and as the Commonwealth’s decision to stay out of White demonstrates, every indication is that the rule adopted in Labron and White rests primarily on state law. Nor are these holdings “interwoven” with federal law: Both Labron and White cite only two federal cases, both over a quarter-century old; rather than implicitly conclude that the absence of any reference to more recent decisions is due to poor legal research, I would trust the Pennsylvania courts’ ability to understand and choose to deviate from our federal law. Certainly it would be a more respectful approach, in a case where the question is as close as it is in this case, to conclude that the State had made a conscious decision to depart from the jurisprudence of this Court rather than an error of law.

The nature of the Pennsylvania court’s reliance on federal law in these cases, therefore, is quite different from that which spurred the Court to conclude in Michigan v. Long that the judgment of the Michigan Supreme Court had not relied on adequate and independent state grounds. There, as the Court noted, the decision below “referred twice to the State Constitution in its opinion, but otherwise relied exclusively on federal law.” 463 U. S., at 1037 (emphasis added). The dissents below also relied explicitly and exclusively on decisions of this Court. Id., at 1037, n. 2; Michigan v. Long, 413 Mich. 461, 473-486, 320 N. W. 2d 866, 870-875 (1982) (Coleman, C. J., dissenting, Moody, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Indeed, the critical holding of the Court was that the Michigan “Court of Appeals erroneously applied the principles of Terry v. Ohio.” Id., at 471, 320 N. W. 2d, at 869 (citation omitted). The opinion in these cases presents almost precisely the opposite situation: The decision refers to the Federal Constitution once, but otherwise relies exclusively on state law.

For these reasons, just as the decision in White would not merit summary reversal were it before this Court, the decision in Labron should not be summarily reversed. Although Labron and White both touch upon, and even place some historical reliance upon, federal search and seizure law, each also recognizes the broad interpretation that the Pennsylvania court has given its own constitutional prohibition against warrantless searches. I therefore seriously question whether respect for the reasoning, independence, and resources of the Pennsylvania court will be advanced by today’s decision.

While Kilgore relies more explicitly on the Federal Constitution than the other two decisions, it decided the identical issue that was decided in Labron and White only three days before those decisions issued. The reference to the Federal Constitution upon which the Court rests its jurisdiction— only one of two references to federal law — must be read in the context of the other two decisions, each of which relied heavily upon the Commonwealth’s own Constitution. In light of Labron and White, the judgment in Kilgore will almost certainly remain the same on remand. In such a circumstance, the rationales supporting the rule of Michigan v. Long simply do not support the decision to reverse. The petition in Kilgore should simply be denied.

On many prior occasions, I have noted the unfortunate effects of the rule of Michigan v. Long. See, e. g., Harris v. Reed, 489 U. S. 255, 266-267 (1989) (concurring opinion); Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 689-708 (1986) (dissenting opinion); Montana v. Hall, 481 U. S. 400, 411 (1987) (per curiam) (dissenting opinion); Ponte v. Real, 471 U. S. 491, 501-503 (1985) (opinion concurring in part); see also Arizona v. Evans, 514 U. S. 1, 24, 31-34 (1995) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Because the state-law ground supporting these judgments is so much clearer than has been true on most prior occasions, see n. 5, supra, these decisions exacerbate those effects to a nearly intolerable degree. Particularly in light of my understanding of this Court’s primary role — “to protect the rights of the individual that are embodied in the Federal Constitution,” Harris, 489 U. S., at 267 — the decision to summarily reverse state decisions resting tenuously at best on federal grounds is imprudent and entirely inconsistent “with the sound administration of this Court’s discretionary docket.” Ponte, 471 U. S., at 502-503.

The Pennsylvania court has in these and other cases expressly indicated its intent to extend the protections of its Constitution beyond those available under the Federal Constitution, see, e. g., Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374, 586 A. 2d 887 (1991) (setting forth test for establishing rights under Pennsylvania Constitution); Commonwealth v. Rosenfelt, 443 Pa. Super. 616, 634-637, 662 A. 2d 1131, 1140-1141 (1995) (reviewing state cases extending greater protections under the Pennsylvania Constitution). The per curiam decision that the Court issues today merely makes that task harder by requiring the Commonwealth to purge its decisions of any reliance on the latter, despite the value of the insights that our decisions can provide on related issues of law. By “unceremoniously reversing its judgment,” Van Arsdall, 475 U. S., at 701 (Stevens, J., dissenting), we also demonstrate a lack of respect for the Pennsylvania court and the sophistication of its state search and seizure law. See id., at 699.

These harms are particularly unnecessary given the likely result on remand. To reinvigorate the privacy protections extended to Pennsylvania citizens under Labron, Kilgore, and White, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court need only set forth the appropriate talismanic language and state, even more clearly than it already has, that the “Commonwealth’s jurisprudence of the automobile exception [requires] both the existence of probable cause and the presence of exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search.” Labron, 543 Pa., at 100, 669 A. 2d, at 924 (emphasis added). While the result will be identical, resources and respect will have been unnecessarily lost.

I respectfully dissent.

       Each decision was issued by a different division of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

       Even if, as the Court concludes, ante, at 941, some element of residual doubt suggests that Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court drew inspiration from our interpretations of the Federal Constitution, I do not think that reliance sufficient to justify expending this Court’s time — or that of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court — simply to scour the state decisions of all references to the Federal Constitution. See infra, at 943-950.

       As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted, in Chambers we held that ‘“[f]or constitutional purposes, [there is] no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding a car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate and on the other hand carrying out an immediate search without a warrant.’” 543 Pa. 86, 95, 669 A. 2d 917, 921 (1995) (quoting Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S., at 52).

       Although the court’s main opinion in Commonwealth v. White also asked whether the search would have been permissible as a search incident to an arrest, the dissent later noted that the only question presented in the appeal was whether “exigent circumstances” were necessary to permit a warrantless search of a car based on probable cause. See 543 Pa., at 72-73, 669 A. 2d, at 910.

         Justice Castille also specifically noted that the Belton decision was not raised by the parties, and that the majority’s discussion of it was dicta, further emphasizing that his emphasis on Pennsylvania law was related to the sole issue that he believed presented: whether a warrantless search of an automobile requires both probable cause and an exigent circumstance.

       Indeed, the author of Labron noted in White that “the history of Article I, Section 8 and case-law interpreting it reveal a history of according a limited expectation of privacy in an automobile independently under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Therefore, the question before us today is not whether we wish to extend additional privacy protections to the Appellant but whether we wish to follow the United States Supreme Court and sharply curtail a privacy interest long recognized by this Court.” Commonwealth v. White, 543 Pa., at 62, 669 A. 2d, at 905.
      To this end, I find it particularly interesting that only two Pennsylvania courts have cited the decision in California v. Carney, 471 U. S. 386 (1985), upon which the per curiam decision relies as modern support for its interpretation of federal constitutional law. See Commonwealth v. Rosenfelt, 443 Pa. Super. 616, 632-634, 662 A. 2d 1131, 1139 (1995); Commonwealth v. Camacho, 425 Pa. Super. 567, 625 A. 2d 1242 (1995). Each of those decisions expressly noted the presence of conflict between federal and state law on this issue.
      In Camacho, the Superior Court noted “the discrepancy between some of the Commonwealth’s past cases and federal cases which speak to automobile searches” in eases like those at issue here. Id., at 576, n. 2, 625 A. 2d, at 1247, n. 2. After reviewing the holding in Carney, the court noted that the state cases concluding that there was no per se “ ‘automobile exception’ ” were “simply dated and not in keeping with the tenor of current law.” 425 Pa. Super., at 577, n. 2, 625 A. 2d, at 1247, n. 2.
      The court in Rosenfelt reached an alternative explanation for the conflict — and a result identical to that reached in the eases reversed by the Court today. There, the defendant agreed that the search of the vehicle was not illegal under federal law. Citing Carney, the court noted that the federal “automobile exception” had “jettison[ed]” the requirement of exigency, essentially converting the exception into a per se rule allowing a search once probable cause exists. See 443 Pa. Super., at 633, 644-645, 662 A. 2d, at 1139, 1145. Noting that the State Constitution could extend greater protections to Pennsylvania citizens than did the Federal Constitution, but that its Supreme Court had not yet decided whether that was the case, the Superior Court went on to review the issue on its own and found a state constitutional violation. Ibid. After it decided the cases at issue here, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the Commonwealth’s appeal. See 544 Pa. 605, 674 A. 2d 1070 (1996) (table).

       On the many subsequent occasions in which this Court has taken jurisdiction over state decisions over which there was some dispute about the nature of the relationship between federal and state law, the state opinions were far more “interwoven” with federal law than is true in these cases. See, e. g., Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U. S. 177, 182 (1990) (decision below did not “rely on (or even mention) any specific provision” of State Constitution); Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U. S. 582, 588, n. 4 (1990) (state constitutional provision construed to provide protections identical to Federal Constitution); Florida v. Riley, 488 U. S. 445, 448, n. 1 (1989) (decision below mentioned State Constitution only twice, but “focused exclusively on federal cases dealing with the Fourth Amendment”); Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U. S. 567, 571, n. 3 (1988) (decision below “said nothing to suggest that the Michigan Constitution’s seizure provision provided an independent source of relief, and the court’s entire analysis rested expressly on the Fourth Amendment and federal cases”); Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U. S. 730, 735, n. 7 (1987) (decision below “consistently referred to respondent’s rights under the... Federal Constitution as supporting its ruling”); Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U. S. 79, 83-84 (1987) (State Constitution construed in pari materia with Federal Constitution).

       State courts have, of course, done this on many occasions in the past. See, e. g., Ponte v. Real, 471 U. S. 491, 503, n. 4 (1985) (Stevens, J., concurring in part) (listing various cases in which reversals by this Court were followed by state-court decisions affirming the original holding on state-law grounds); Montana v. Hall, 481 U. S. 400, 411 (1987) (per curiam) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (same).


author: Justice Scalia,

text:
    June 17, 1996
    No. 95-239.
    Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc., et al. v. City of Cincinnati et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996).

Justice Scalia,

with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

I dissent from the decision to remand this case in light of Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996). Romer involved a state constitutional amendment prohibiting special protection for homosexuals. The consequence of its holding is that homosexuals in a city (or other electoral subunit) that wishes to accord them special protection cannot be compelled to achieve a state constitutional amendment in order to have the benefit of that democratic preference. The present case, by contrast, involves a determination by what appears to be the lowest electoral subunit that it does not wish to accord homosexuals special protection. It can make that determination effective, of course, only by instructing its departments and agencies to obey it — which is what the Cincinnati Charter Amendment does. Thus, the consequence of holding this provision unconstitutional would be that nowhere in the country may the people decide, in democratic fashion, not to accord special protection to homosexuals. Unelected heads of city departments and agencies, who are in other respects (as democratic theory requires) subject to the control of the people, must, where special protection for homosexuals are concerned, be permitted to do what they please. This is such an absurd proposition that Romer, which did not involve the issue, cannot possibly be thought to have embraced it.

I would deny certiorari in this case, or else set the case for argument to decide for ourselves the ultra-Romer issue that it presents.


text:
    No. 95-7430.
    Londre v. Merkle, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U. S. 99 (1995).


text:
    No. D-1667.
    In re Disbarment of Glenn.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1131.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1668.
    In re Disbarment of Kelly.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1131.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1669.
    In re Disbarment of Ewing.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1131.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1670.
    In re Disbarment of Ready.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1131.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1675.
    In re Disbarment of Pincham.
   Robert Eugene Pincham, Jr., of Chicago, Ill., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court. The rule to show cause, issued on April 22, 1996 [517 U. S. 1153], is discharged.


text:
    No. D-1691.
    In re Disbarment of Burkhart.
   Auben Gray Burkhart, Jr., of Memphis, Tenn., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1692.
    In re Disbarment of Kiely.
   Dan Ray Kiely, of Vero Beach, Fla., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 108,
    Orig.
    Nebraska v. Wyoming et al.
   Motion of the Special Master for compensation and reimbursement of expenses granted, and the Special Master is awarded a total of $46,305.87 for the period November 18, 1995, through May 31, 1996, to be paid as follows: 30% by Nebraska, 30% by Wyoming, 15% by Colorado, and 25% by the United States.

[For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 516 U. S. 1026.]


text:
    No. 95-1426.
    Estate of Hansen v. City of New Haven.
   517 U. S. 1189. Motion of respondent for costs denied.


text:
    No. 95-1439.
    Lakoski v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
   C. A. 5th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 95-8550.
    In re Washington.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 95-1747.
    No. 95-8709.
    In re O’Connor et al.; and In re Jaffer.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 95-1521.
    United States Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, et al. v. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, Inc., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 95-1723.
    Grimmett, Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Siragusa, et al. v. Brown et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 95-1478.
    No. 95-1503.
    Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana v. United States; and Mack, Sheriff, Graham County v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 95-1268.
    Maryland v. Wilson.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis without an affidavit of indigency executed by respondent granted. Cer-tiorari granted.


text:
    No. 95-1605.
    United States v. Gonzales et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motions of respondents Miguel Gonzales, Orlenis Hernandez-Diaz, and Mario Perez for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 95-1649.
    No. 95-9075.
    Kansas v. Hendricks; and Hendricks v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Motions of Leroy Hendricks for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 95-1694.
    Regents of the University of California et al. v. Doe.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of American Council on Education et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 95-1717.
    United States v. Lanier.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of Southern Poverty Law Center et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 95-1469.
    Richard v. Hinson, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1472.
    Klump v. Duffus et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1480.
    Hotcaveg et al. v. Kennedy, Director, National Park Service, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1483.
    Yanez-Penaloza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1492.
    Akers et al. v. Palmer et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1528.
    Harris County Appraisal District et al. v. Virginia Indonesia Co.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1557.
    Showa Aluminum Corp. et al. v. Modine Manufacturing Co. et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1599.
    Karadzic v. Kadic, on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Her Infant Sons, Benjamin and Ognjen, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1603.
    Yontz v. Adams et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1635.
    Minnesota Council of Dog Clubs et al. v. City of Minneapolis.
   Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1642.
    Gomez v. Allegheny Health Services, Inc., aka Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1646.
    Wharf Cable Ltd. v. United International Holdings, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1666.
    Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (Matson Navigation Co., Inc., et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1679.
    Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination v. Chaulk Services, Inc.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1688.
    Hankins et al. v. Melton.
   Ct. App. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1695.
    California v. Binda.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1703.
    Wood v. Superior Court of California, Alameda County, et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1707.
    TIC United Corp. v. Patton et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1714.
    Niewald v. Scafe, Chief of Police, Overland Park Police Department.
   Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1719.
    Daniels v. Greater Baltimore Medical Center et al.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1735.
    Walker v. Manville Personal Injury Trust.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1737.
    Lucas v. Gee et al.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1739.
    Breedlove v. Tysons Manor Homeowners Assn. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1748.
    Aaron v. Public Utilities Commission of California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1753.
    Arens v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1759.
    Minix v. Frazier, Judge, Johnson Circuit Court (Minix, Real Party in Interest).
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1761.
    Heinmiller v. Department of Health of Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1786.
    Doucette v. Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (San Diego Unified Port District, Real Party in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1799.
    Gilleland v. Dubuisson et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1801.
    Zaidi v. Carrico, Chief Justice of Virginia, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1815.
    Bright v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1817.
    Kornman et vir, Individually and on Behalf of Their Dependent Son, Kornman v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana.
   Ct. App. La., 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1857.
    Stephen M. v. Pamela N.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1866.
    $227,865 in United States Currency v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1894.
    Liberty Natural Products, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-6488.
    Willis v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-6724.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-7323.
    Hofmann v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-7955.
    Cretacci v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-7986.
    Rodriguez v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8005.
    Sharp v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8121.
    Botero-Ospina v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8248.
    Reese v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8276.
    Tokerud v. CapitolBank Sacramento.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8299.
    Early v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8569.
    Lopez v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8599.
    Holliday v. Page.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8601.
    Lewis v. Knox et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8608.
    Nash v. Mississippi Department of Corrections et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8611.
    Lacey v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8612.
    McCargo v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8613.
    Lamb v. North Dakota State Bar Board.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8620.
    Hay v. Groose, Superintendent, Jefferson City Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8623.
    Tedder v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8634.
    Stocking v. Lee Fook-Kai.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8636.
    Ruel v. Saco & Biddeford Savings Institution et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8638.
    Prado v. Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8641.
    Stephens v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8645.
    Rodriguez v. Alford, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8647.
    Kukes v. Mulkey, Judge, Superior Court of California, Butte County, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8651.
    Carlsen v. Utah.
   Ct. App. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8652.
    Scott v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8654.
    Bates v. True.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8660.
    Faish v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8668.
    Aragon v. Wade, Director, Bernalillo County Detention Center, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8671.
    Wilder v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8672.
    Wilson v. Ragen.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8675.
    Luna v. Miller.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8678.
    Charron v. Gammon et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8682.
    Bell v. Moore, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8691.
    Waits v. Crapps et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8692.
    Washington v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8693.
    Wooldridge v. Scott, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8694.
    Younkin v. Sobina, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Somerset.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8696.
    Turner v. Clinton, President of the United States, et al.; Turner v. Ervin; Turner v. Kuykendall; Turner v. Kuykendall; and Turner v. Augusta County Sheriff’s Department et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8707.
    Link v. United States et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8720.
    Barzilla v. United States Postal Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8742.
    Amarille v. Office of Personnel Management.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8756.
    Borden v. Massachusetts.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8814.
    Murray v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8833.
    Croasmun v. Frank, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Cresson.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8846.
    Phillips v. James, Governor of Alabama, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8874.
    Johnson v. Delaware.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8902.
    Hall v. DiPaolo, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8917.
    Jones v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8922.
    Dela Rama Lorenzo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8923.
    Mehta et al. v. Pamrapo Savings Bank.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8927.
    Parrish v. Colorado et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8928.
    Stahler v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8943.
    Rice v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8949.
    Stamps v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8950.
    Peguero v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8964.
    Daniels v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8966.
    Grubb v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8979.
    Middlebrook v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8988.
    Wells v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8994.
    Smith-Bowman v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8996.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8998.
    Ivester v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8999.
    Lebron v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9000.
    Knight v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9001.
    Infante v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9003.
    Anudu et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9008.
    Almstedt v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9015.
    Floyd v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9025.
    Ludy v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9030.
    Bennett v. United States Parole Commission.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9031.
    Cabrerra v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9038.
    Obajuluwa v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9043.
    Beck v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9047.
    Abayan v. Office of Personnel Management.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9050.
    Scolari v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9052.
    Crawford v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9054.
    Bellis v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9060.
    Eickleberry v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9061.
    Fuller v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9064.
    Gaither et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1729.
    Forrest, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, et al. v. Blanchard et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8059.
    No. 95-8073.
    No. 95-8094.
    No. 95-8101.
    No. 95-8148.
    No. 95-8330.
    No. 95-8633.
    Minetti v. Local 9, International Longshoremen and Warehousemen Union, et al., Dale v. Champion, Warden, Kornahrens v. Moore, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al., Olsen v. Sabal Marketing, Inc., et al., Idemudia v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, McCauley v. Winegarden, Judge, Superior Court of Georgia, Gwinnett County, et al., In re Day,
   517 U. S. 1170;

517 U. S. 1170;

517 U. S. 1171;

517 U. S. 1171;

517 U. S. 1172;

517 U. S. 1149; and

517 U. S. 1186. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 18, 1996
    No. A-1014 (95-1608).
    McKenna, Director, Ramsey County Department of Property Records and Revenue, et al. v. Twin Cities Area New Party.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 517 U. S. 1219.] Application for stay, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    June 20, 1996
    No. 95-797.
    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Rekdahl et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    June 24, 1996
    No. 95-1681.
    No. 95-1682.
    No. 95-1710.
    Louisiana et al. v. Hays et al.; Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus et al. v. Hays et al.; and United States v. Hays et al.
   Appeals from D. C. W. D. La. dismissed as moot. Justice Stevens dissents.


text:
    No. 95-378.
    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. Judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Bush v. Vera, 517 U. S. 952 (1996), and Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U. S. 899 (1996).


text:
    No. 95-830.
    Reno, Attorney General of the United States v. Doe, by Lavery, Executor of His Estate.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Lane v. Peña, ante, p. 187.


text:
    No. 95-6636.
    Rybicki v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Koon v. United States, ante, p. 81.


text:
    No. 95-8431.
    Cuellar v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137 (1995).


text:
    No. 95-8563.
    Edwards v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Rutledge v. United States, 517 U. S. 292 (1996).


text:
    No. A-975.
    Welz et al. v. New York.
   Justice Ct., Village of Dobbs Ferry, N. Y. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-1690.
    In re Disbarment of Weinig.
   Harvey Weinig, of New York, N. Y, having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court. The rule to show cause, issued on June 10, 1996 [517 U. S. 1242], is discharged.


text:
    No. D-1693.
    In re Disbarment of Sheffey.
   Ralph E. Shef-fey, of Rochester, Minn., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1694.
    In re Disbarment of Cook.
   Clifford Ronald Cook, of Sandwich, Ill., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1695.
    In re Disbarment of Schneider.
   Patricia A. Schneider, of Shorewood, Ill., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. M-70.
    Medina v. California.
   Motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis without an affidavit of indigency executed by petitioner granted.


text:
    No. 95-1498.
    Hill v. Department of the Air Force et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner to review second extension of time to file a brief in opposition and other relief denied.


text:
    No. 95-1598.
    Young et al. v. Harper.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 517 U. S. 1219.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Margaret Winter, Esq., of Washington, D. C., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this ease.


text:
    No. 95-1773.
    Texas et al. v. Hopwood et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioners in No. 95-1845 to have this petition considered with No. 95-1845, Thurgood Marshall Legal Society et al. v. Hopwood et al., granted.


text:
    No. 95-8723.
    No. 95-8900.
    In re Swendra; and In re Ballard et al.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 95-8749.
    No. 95-8848.
    In re Hampton; and In re Rivera.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 95-9048.
    In re Van.
   Petition for writ of prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 95-897.
    Auer et al. v. Robbins et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 95-1853.
    Clinton v. Jones.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 95-1726.
    United States v. LaBonte et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motions of respondents Alfred Hunnewell, George LaBonte, and Stephen Dyer for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 95-137.
    Williams et al. v. National Basketball Assn. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-270.
    Worcester County, Maryland, et al. v. Cane et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1302.
    Diaz Matos v. Puerto Rico.
   Sup. Ct. P. R. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1311.
    Parravano et al. v. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1381.
    Village of Airmont, New York v. LeBlanc-Sternberg et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1534.
    Constellation Development Corp. v. Dowden, Successor Trustee, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1558.
    Diaz et al. v. City of New York et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y, 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1579.
    Price et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1596.
    GICC Capital Corp. v. Technology Finance Group, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1601.
    Carroll et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1613.
    Perkins v. Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1619.
    Shangreau v. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1634.
    Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1653.
    St. Hilaire, Individually, and as Executrix for the Estate of St. Hilaire, Deceased v. City of Laconia et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1672.
    No. 95-1881.
    Black Television Workshop of Los Angeles, Inc., et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.; and Ware et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1696.
    Charney et al. v. Panitz.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1697.
    Schafer et al. v. Kennedy et ux.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1700.
    Espinosa Guerrero et al. v. Cummings et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1702.
    Village of Sun v. Ritter.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1705.
    Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Roth.
   Ct. App. Mo., Western Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1712.
    Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Metcalf, Hawaii Insurance Commissioner, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1721.
    Imazio Nursery, Inc. v. Coastal Nursery et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1728.
    Lohman et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1730.
    Northrop Grumman Corp. et al. v. United States ex rel. Green.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1731.
    Ohio v. Beeman et ux.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1732.
    City of Portland v. Northwest Environmental Advocates et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1741.
    Davis et al. v. Shanor, Trustee.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1750.
    Nolen v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1752.
    Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1755.
    Fabricacion Metalica de Matamoros, S. A. de C. V. v. Hernandez et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1758.
    Williams Natural Gas Co. v. Talus Properties Limited Partnership et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1767.
    Utah Women’s Clinic, Inc., et al. v. Leavitt, Governor of Utah, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1771.
    Pierce v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1787.
    Flatley v. Whitman, Governor of New Jersey, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1790.
    United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 204, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Lundy Packing Co. et al. (two judgments).
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1800.
    Chamblee et al. v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1813.
    Cheguina v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1822.
    Schnuck Markets, Inc. v. Marx.
   C. A. 10th

Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1827.
    Klat v. County of San Diego et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1836.
    Birdseye et al. v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1838.
    Rucker v. Illinois Civil Service Commission et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1843.
    Robinett v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1850.
    Woods v. Wal-Mart et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1862.
    Harnish et ux. v. Keystone Farm Credit.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1870.
    Eberwien v. Virginia.
   Ct. App. Va. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1876.
    Levin v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, Supreme Court of Illinois, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1877.
    Williams v. Air Wisconsin, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1892.
    Knapp v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1899.
    Harvey v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1900.
    Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc., et al. v. Lubrizol Corp.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1903.
    Tibolt v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1907.
    Saenz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1909.
    Jackson et ux. v. Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1921.
    Sarno v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1923.
    Amigable v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1934.
    Theodosopoulos v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-5022.
    Polanco, aka Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-6721.
    Bashir v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-6977.
    McCann v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-7079.
    Thomas, aka ShisInday v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-7568.
    Barbour v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-7651.
    Green v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-7867.
    Demetress W. v. San Bernardino County Department of Public Social Services.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-7981.
    Simms v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8160.
    McIntyre v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8263.
    Keltner v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8335.
    Wapnick v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8391.
    Ahmad v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8438.
    Sanabria-Casares v. Crabtree, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8441.
    No. 95-8674.
    Conner v. United States; and Titus v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8465.
    Long v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8466.
    McCoy, on Behalf of McCoy v. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8483.
    Barrios v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8534.
    Juvenile Male v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8537.
    Smyth v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8591.
    McCallum v. Edison Community College.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8681.
    Siegel v. Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8686.
    Porrata v. Peters, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8697.
    Gulbrandson v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8699.
    Dunn v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8702.
    Nichols v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8703.
    Jackson v. Ylst, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8705.
    Lekhovitser v. Lekhovitser.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8706.
    Lightner v. Dixon Lumber Co. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8713.
    Braun v. Stotts et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8716.
    Lane v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8718.
    Armstead v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8719.
    Chapman v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8724.
    Anderson v. Illinois et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8726.
    Teel v. Parker County, Texas, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8728.
    R. A. D. v. M. H. M.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8732.
    Doyle v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8734.
    Fica v. Crawford et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8735.
    Hagar v. Nottingham, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8743.
    Plantillas Benitez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8744.
    Dye v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8745.
    Gaston v. Whitley, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8746.
    Herring v. Department of Veterans Affairs et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8748.
    Hernandez v. Alonso.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8760.
    Moody v. Security Pacific Financial Corp.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8763.
    Jabaar v. Kruger et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8771.
    Brennan v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8772.
    Araya v. University of the District of Columbia.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8778.
    Dees v. Braddock, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8779.
    Hinkle v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8780.
    Grismore v. Ryder Truck Rental et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8781.
    Fica v. Corrections Corporation of America et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8783.
    Gill v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8784.
    Page v. Runyon, Postmaster General.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8787.
    MacDonald v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8789.
    Jaynes v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8799.
    Link v. Dirks et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8803.
    St. Louis v. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8807.
    Abidekun v. Coombe, Acting Commissioner, New York Department of Correctional Services.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8817.
    Bowell v. Prunty, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8831.
    Schindler v. Montana.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8857.
    France v. Burton, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8862.
    D’Agnillo v. Department of Housing and Urban Development et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8881.
    Brown v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8888.
    Williams v. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8894.
    Hudson v. Gammon, Superintendent, Moberly Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8926.
    Ballenger v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8929.
    Antonio Rodriguez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8944.
    Holly v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8952.
    Pizzo v. Cain, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8954.
    Ragland v. Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8971.
    Brattman v. Galvin, Secretary of Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8972.
    Lee v. McDaniel, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8990.
    Barfield v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9012.
    Houston v. Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9014.
    Haynes v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9022.
    Mayfield v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9045.
    Nance v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9056.
    Austin v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9063.
    Herrera v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9070.
    Powers v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9071.
    Guzman v. Office of Personnel Management.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9073.
    Hopkins, aka Hopkins Bey v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9074.
    Gary v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9079.
    Somes v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9080.
    Pirtle v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9082.
    Capps v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9086.
    Coughenour v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9090.
    MacKenzie v. Internal Revenue Service et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9092.
    Flores v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9093.
    Havener v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9103.
    Alston v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9104.
    Murray v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9112.
    Austin v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9113.
    Abdul v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9116.
    Robinson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9120.
    Caron v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9121.
    Campos v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9124.
    West v. Seabold, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9126.
    Davidson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9138.
    James, aka Israel v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9159.
    Juvenile Male C. L. O. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9161.
    Yu v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9163.
    Tapia Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-9164.
    Farmer v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1569.
    Sidwell v. Express Container Services, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner to consolidate this case with No. 95-1840, Parker et al. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, et al., denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1670.
    McDonald v. Youakim et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1720.
    Green Construction Co. et al. v. VanKirk, West Virginia Commissioner of Highways.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Motion of American Insurance Association et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1734.
    M. H. v. T. J. et al.
   Ct. App. D. C. Motion of respondent M. D. for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-6997.
    No. 95-7004.
    No. 95-7007.
    No. 95-7088.
    No. 95-7147.
    No. 95-7463.
    No. 95-7915.
    No. 95-8058.
    Siwa v. Office of Personnel Management, Mauricio v. Office of Personnel Management, De Jesus v. Office of Personnel Management, Danao v. Office of Personnel Management, Navarro v. Office of Personnel Management, Tillo v. Office of Personnel Management, Scott v. California, McQueen v. Hayes et al., White v. Zimmers, Clerk, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Montgomery County, Balele v. Klauser, Secretary, Department of Administration, et al., Tinsley v. Methodist Hospital of Indiana, Becker v. United States, Sussman v. New York,
   517 U. S. 1138;

517 U. S. 1138;

517 U. S. 1138;

517 U. S. 1139;

517 U. S. 1140;

517 U. S. 1141;

517 U. S. 1144;

517 U. S. 1145;

No. 95-8080.

No. 95-8124.

No. 95-8154.

No. 95-8155.

No. 95-8383.

517 U. S. 1171;

517 U. S. 1172;

517 U. S. 1146;

517 U. S. 1126; and

517 U. S. 1173. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 94-2133.
    No. 95-6259.
    Crawford v. United States Department of Agriculture, Gerwig v. California Department of Corrections,
   516 U. S. 824; and

516 U. S. 1013. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 26, 1996
    No. 95-1910.
    Zimmer et ux. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company of Michigan et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari dismissed as to American Telephone & Telegraph Company of Michigan under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    June 27, 1996
    No. A-1054 (95-9439).
    Joubert v. Hopkins, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, 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. 95-9424 (A-1040).
    Joubert v. Hopkins, Warden.
   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. Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg would grant the application for stay of execution.


text:
    July 1, 1996
    No. 95-806.
    Penn Advertising of Baltimore, Inc. v. Schmoke, Mayor of Baltimore City, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U. S. 484 (1996).


text:
    No. 95-1010.
    Duvall et ux. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, ante, p. 470. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.


text:
    No. 95-1034.
    English et ux. v. Mentor Corp.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, ante, p. 470.


text:
    No. 95-1037.
    No. 95-1214.
    Mentor Corp. v. Feldt; and Feldt v. Mentor Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari granted, judgment vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, ante, p. 470.


text:
    No. 95-1058.
    Nevada v. Desimone.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further- consideration in light of United States v. Ursery, ante, p. 267.


text:
    No. 95-1323.
    Mitchell et vir v. Collagen Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and ease remanded for further consideration in light of Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, ante, p. 470.


text:
    No. 95-1336.
    Martin et vir v. Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, ante, p. 470.


text:
    No. 95-1339.
    Consorti et ux. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., ante, p. 415.


text:
    No. 95-1367.
    No. 95-1609.
    Mentor Corp. v. Bingham; and Bingham v. Mentor Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari granted, judgment vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, ante, p. 470.


text:
    No. 95-1436.
    Illinois v. Kimery.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Ursery, ante, p. 267.


text:
    No. 95-8323.
    Covelli v. Crystal, Connecticut Commissioner of Revenue Services.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certio-rari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Ursery, ante, p. 267.


text:
    No. 95-9261.
    Smith v. Parke, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 95-9264.
    Oxford v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 95-9439.
    Joubert v. Hopkins, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. A-970 (95-9315).
    Williams v. Cousin-Williams.
   Ct. App. Neb. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Breyer and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-1027.
    Fitzhugh v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Breyer and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-1673.
    In re Disbarment of Pollack.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1153.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1676.
    In re Disbarment of Summers.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1165.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1696.
    In re Disbarment of Morrow.
   John O. Morrow, Jr., of Florence, Ala., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1697.
    In re Disbarment of Koss.
   Lewis Michael Koss, of Calabasas, Cal., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1698.
    In re Disbarment of McAtee.
   James R. McAtee, of Pensacola, Fla., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. M-72.
    Fike v. Ruger et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. 95-992.
    Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   D. C. D. C. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 516 U. S. 1110.] Motion of appellants to file one volume of the joint appendix under seal granted.


text:
    No. 95-9263.
    No. 95-9463.
    In re Oxford; and In re Joubert.
   Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 95-326.
    J & T Coal, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1012.
    Caldwell v. American Basketball Assn., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

66 F. Bd 523.


text:
    No. 95-1258.
    Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, et al. v. Carver.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1524.
    Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, et al. v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1644.
    Collagen Corp. v. Kennedy et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-1845.
    Thurgood Marshall Legal Society et al. v. Hopwood et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-5495.
    Murphy v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-6474.
    Pierce v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-7017.
    Henry et al. v. Caballero, Director, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-7422.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 95-7444.
    Stewart v. Washington, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 95-8470.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


author: Justice Ginsburg,

text:
    No. 95-1773.
    Texas et al. v. Hopwood et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Opinion of

Justice Ginsburg,

with whom Justice Souter joins, respecting the denial of certiorari.

Whether it is constitutional for a public college or graduate school to use race or national origin as a factor in its admissions process is an issue of great national importance. The petition before us, however, does not challenge the lower courts’ judgments that the particular admissions procedure used by the University of Texas Law School in 1992 was unconstitutional. Acknowledging that the 1992 admissions program “has long since been discontinued and will not be reinstated,” Pet. for Cert. 28, petitioners do not defend that program in this Court, see Reply to Brief in Opposition 1, 3; see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14, n. 13 (“We agree that the 1992 [admissions] policy was constitutionally flawed . . . .”). Instead, petitioners challenge the rationale relied on by the Court of Appeals. “[T]his Court,” however, “reviews judgments, not opinions.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842 (1984) (footnote omitted). Accordingly, we must await a final judgment on a program genuinely in controversy before addressing the important question raised in this petition. See Reply to Brief in Opposition 2 (“[A]ll concede this record is inadequate to assess definitively” the constitutionality of the law school’s current consideration of race in its admissions process.).


text:
    No. 95-1172.
    Sanjuan et al. v. American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology, Inc., et al.,
   516 U. S. 1159. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    July 10, 1996
    No. 95-1855.
    Barton et al. v. Landmark Land Company of Carolina, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari dismissed as to Joe W. Walser under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    No. A-898.
    D’Amario v. Rhode Island.
   Super. Ct. Providence County, R. I. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Ginsburg and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-1035 (95-1962).
    Republican Party of Alaska v. O’Callaghan et al.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-1059.
    Hayden et al. v. Nassau County et al.
   Ap- • plication for injunctive relief, addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-11 (O. T. 1996).
    Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections v. Stewart, By and Through Rausch.
   Application to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death granted by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on July 3, 1996, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    July 16, 1996
    No. 96-5030 (A-13).
    Joubert v. Nebraska Board of Pardons et al.
   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:
    No. 96-5034 (A-12).
    Joubert v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 96-5139 (A-21).
    Smith v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    July 17, 1996
    No. A-30 (O. T. 1996).
    Kornahrens 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. 96-5190 (A-28).
    In re Smith.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 96-5239 (A-42).
    In re Savino.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 96-5164 (A-27).
    Savino v. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Cer-tiorari denied. Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg would grant the application for stay of execution.


text:
    July 18, 1996
    No. 96-5252 (A-46).
    In re Kornahrens.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari dismissed. Application for other relief denied..


text:
    July 31, 1996
    No. A-945 (95-2022).
    Thiry et al. v. Carlson, Secretary of Transportation of Kansas, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Souter and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-987.
    Weinstein et al. v. New Jersey Republican Party et al.
   Application for injunctive relief, addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 96-5408 (A-75).
    In re Nave.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    August 1, 1996
    No. A-50 (O. T. 1996).
    Truesdale v. South Carolina.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 95-1694.
    Regents of the University of California et al. v. Doe.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1004.] Motion of respondent for leave to proceed further herein informa pauperis granted.


text:
    No. 95-1726.
    United States v. LaBonte et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1016.] Motion of respondent George LaBonte for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that John A. Ciraldo, Esq., of Portland, Me., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent George LaBonte in this ease. Motion of respondent Alfred Lawrence Hunnewell for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Michael C. Bour-beau, Esq., of Boston, Mass., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent Alfred Lawrence Hunnewell in this case. Motion of respondent Stephen Dyer for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Peter Goldberger, Esq., of Ardmore, Pa., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent Stephen Dyer in this case.


text:
    August 5, 1996
    No. D-1692.
    In re Disbarment of Kiely.
   Dan Ray Kiely, of Vero Beach, Fla., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court. The rule to show cause, issued on June 17, 1996 [ante, p. 1002], is discharged.


text:
    No. D-1699.
    In re Disbarment of Barr.
   Bonnie Jean Barr, of La Habra, Cal., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1700.
    In re Disbarment of Henry.
   Val Arturo Henry, of Brooklyn, N. Y., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1701.
    In re Disbarment of Schimenti.
   Charles M. Schimenti, of Jersey City, N. J., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1702.
    In re Disbarment of Scott.
   Arthur R. Scott, Jr., of New York, N. Y., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1703.
    In re Disbarment of Abramson.
   Herbert W. Abramson, of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1704.
    In re Disbarment of Cooke.
   Lane J. Cooke, of Hickory, N. C., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1705.
    In re Disbarment of Grines.
   Joseph Michael Grines, of Langhorne, Pa., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1706.
    In re Disbarment of Swaim.
   John J. Swaim, of Philadelphia, Pa., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1707.
    In re Disbarment of Barnett.
   Elliott B. Barnett, of Delray Beach, Fla., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 94-9428.
    No. 95-1292.
    No. 95-1461.
    McKensley v. United States, Jacobs v. Kern Community College District, Petitte Brothers Mining Co., Inc., et al. v. Connors, Trustee, United Mine Workers of America 1950 Pension Plan, et al., Hinchliffe et ux. v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation et al., Connor v. Flynn, Kelly v. Penson, Anderson v. Sharma et al. (two judgments), Capers et al. v. United States, Carpio v. Office of Personnel Management, Cabiles v. Office of Personnel Management, Isla v. Office of Personnel Management, Magante v. Office of Personnel Management, Davis v. Mississippi, Amos v. Esmor Mansfield, Inc., et al., Escusa v. Office of Personnel Management, Pulido v. United States, Smith v. Herring, Warden, et al., Burress v. Unitarian-Universalist Society of Sacramento, Inc., et al., Cudal v. Office of Personnel Management, Anderson v. Davis et al., Paje v. Office of Personnel Management, Sandoval v. Office of Personnel Management, Taylor v. Hanks, Superintendent, Wabash Valley Correctional Institute, De Guzman v. Office of Personnel Management, Jeffress v. Suter, Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, Okolie et al. v. Richardson, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Fabian v. Shade, Stitt v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Buc-Hanan v. California, Gold v. Morrison-Knudsen Co. et al., Spychala v. Lewis, Warden, et al., Rodenbaugh v. Leary, Prieto v. Crawford et al., In re Spellman, McQueen v. Mata et al., McQueen v. Turner et al., Moomchi v. University of New Mexico et al., Artis v. Garraghty, Warden, Levine v. United States et al., Jones v. United States, Bounds v. United States, Lewis v. Century Mortgage Co. et al., Alvarez v. Office of Personnel Management, Dedes v. Page et al., McQueen v. Cannon et al., Williams v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board et al., Scott v. Moyer, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio, et al., In re Crowder, Ayars v. New Jersey, Tilli v. Van Antwerpen, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, et al., Turner v. Clinton, President of the United States, et al.; Turner v. Ervin; Turner v. Kuykendall; Turner v. Kuykendall; and Turner v. Augusta County Sheriff’s Department et al., In re Jaffer, Amarille v. Office of Personnel Management, Campbell v. United States, In re Sisk, Baxter v. City of Los Angeles, California, In re Ballard et al., In re Lorenz, Parrish v. Colorado et al., Abayan v. Office of Personnel Management,
   516 U. S. 826;

517 U. S. 1135;

517 U. S. 1189;

No. 95-1551.

No. 95-1555.

No. 95-1578.

No. 95-1640.

No. 95-7022.

No. 95-7041.

No. 95-7081.

No. 95-7145.

No. 95-7182.

No. 95-7505.

No. 95-7663.

No. 95-7816.

No. 95-7946.

No. 95-7983.

No. 95-8017.

No. 95-8082.

No. 95-8114.

No. 95-8138.

No. 95-8143.

No. 95-8219.

No. 95-8224.

No. 95-8230.

No. 95-8237.

No. 95-8305.

517 U. S. 1209;

517 U. S. 1210;

517 U. S. 1210;

517 U. S. 1234;

517 U. S. 1211;

517 U. S. 1139;

517 U. S. 1139;

517 U. S. 1139;

517 U. S. 1140;

517 U. S. 1192;

517 U. S. 1110;

517 U. S. 1142;

517 U. S. 1235;

517 U. S. 1159;

517 U. S. 1169;

517 U. S. 1211;

517 U. S. 1172;

517 U. S. 1211;

517 U. S. 1211;

517 U. S. 1194;

517 U. S. 1211;

517 U. S. 1194;

517 U. S. 1161;

517 U. S. 1212;

No. 95-8316.

No. 95-8320.

No. 95-8356.

No. 95-8373.

No. 95-8376.

No. 95-8377.

No. 95-8387.

No. 95-8417.

No. 95-8418.

No. 95-8420.

No. 95-8433.

No. 95-8474.

No. 95-8513.

No. 95-8514.

No. 95-8521.

No. 95-8522.

No. 95-8533.

No. 95-8546.

No. 95-8580.

No. 95-8597.

No. 95-8625.

No. 95-8649.

No. 95-8690.

No. 95-8696.

No. 95-8709.

No. 95-8742.

517 U. S. 1212;

517 U. S. 1212;

517 U. S. 1213;

517 U. S. 1223;

517 U. S. 1223;

517 U. S. 1223;

517 U. S. 1219;

517 U. S. 1224;

517 U. S. 1224;

517 U. S. 1224;

517 U. S. 1225;

517 U. S. 1225;

517 U. S. 1198;

517 U. S. 1198;

517 U. S. 1237;

517 U. S. 1226;

517 U. S. 1237;

517 U. S. 1247;

517 U. S. 1248;

517 U. S. 1226;

517 U. S. 1207;

517 U. S. 1227;

517 U. S. 1227;

ante, p. 1010;

ante, p. 1003;

ante, p. 1010;

No. 95-8769.

No. 95-8796.

No. 95-8818.

No. 95-8900.

No. 95-8919.

No. 95-8927.

No. 95-9047.

517 U. S. 1228;

517 U. S. 1219;

517 U. S. 1249;

ante, p. 1016;

517 U. S. 1232;

ante, p. 1011; and

ante, p. 1012. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 95-1190.
    No. 95-8309.
    No. 95-8670.
    McClaran, Director, Child Support Services, Tennessee Department of Human Services v. Davis et al., Jedrzejewski v. Menacker, Truesdale v. United States,
   517 U. S. 1128;

517 U. S. 1212; and

517 U. S. 1215. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 95-8824.
    Pandey v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co. et al.,
   517 U. S. 1251. Petition for rehearing denied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 95-9263 (A-64).
    In re Oxford,
   ante, p. 1032. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 95-9264 (A-64).
    Oxford v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center,
   ante, p. 1031. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for rehearing dismissed.


text:
    August 6, 1996
    No. 96-5395 (A-73).
    In re Parker.
   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. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. Petition for writ of review denied.


text:
    August 8, 1996
    No. 96-5483 (A-96).
    In re Hatch.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Breyer, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 96-5505 (A-98).
    In re Hatch.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Breyer, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 96-5504 (A-97).
    Hatch 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:
    August 9, 1996
    No. A-100 (O. T. 1996).
    Ake v. Ward, Warden, et al.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death of Steven Keith Hatch, presented to Justice Breyer, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    August 19, 1996
    No. A-1005.
    Dubin v. United States.
   Application for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari in excess of the page limitations, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-106 (O. T. 1996).
    Martini v. Office of the Public Defender.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    August 21, 1996
    No. A-137 (O. T. 1996).
    Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al. v. Mata.
   Application to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, granted. Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer would deny the application to vacate the stay of execution.


text:
    No. A-141 (O. T. 1996).
    Mata v. Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.
   Application for stay of exertion of sentence of death, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-1671.
    In re Disbarment of Wall.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1153.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1672.
    In re Disbarment of Jennings.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1153.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1674.
    In re Disbarment of Mims.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1165.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1677.
    In re Disbarment of Witt.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1185.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1678.
    In re Disbarment of Hirsh.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1185.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1679.
    In re Disbarment of Brown.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1185.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1681.
    In re Disbarment of Biederman.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1207.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1682.
    In re Disbarment of Bramhall.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1217.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1683.
    In re Disbarment of Clinard.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1217.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-1684.
    In re Disbarment of Bloomfield.
    [For earlier order herein, see 517 U. S. 1217.]
   Disbarment entered.