text:
    No. 93-8652.
    Sims-Robertson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 93-8653.
    Wallace v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8655.
    Serna Sanchez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8658.
    Butt v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8666.
    Collins v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8667.
    Barker v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8672.
    Herrera v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8675.
    Gonzalez-Lerma v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8676.
    Harris v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8677.
    Naranjo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8680.
    Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8681.
    Messer v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8682.
    Reaves v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8686.
    Welch v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8700.
    El-Masri, aka Masri v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8705.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8713.
    Mihalek v. Michigan et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8714.
    Barreto v. McClellan, Superintendent, Southport Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8729.
    Nader v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8733.
    Lopez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8738.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8741.
    Cuevas v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8742.
    Burke v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8743.
    Burciaga v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8744.
    Broussard v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8745.
    Bragg v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8746.
    Rivas-Cordova v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8748.
    Weber v. Murphy, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8749.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8756.
    Snitkin v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8787.
    Prudhome v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8788.
    Lejarde v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8789.
    Pope v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1272.
    Andersen v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 93-1495.
    Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al. v. Blazak.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1500.
    Sowders, Warden v. Carter.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice O’Connor, Justice Blackmun,

text:
    No. 93-6047.
    Wills v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor,

concurring.

As Justice Blackmun details, post, p. 1098, petitioner appears to have a strong claim under Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989), that the jury at his capital sentencing trial was unable to give mitigating effect to his mental retardation. It has been the traditional practice of this Court, however, to decline to review claims raised for the first time on rehearing in the court below. See Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 128 (1945) (“Questions first presented to the highest State court on a petition for rehearing come too late for consideration here, unless the State court exerted its jurisdiction [over them on rehearing]”) (emphasis added). Following this practice here makes good sense because we do not have the benefit of a decision analyzing the application of Penry to the facts of petitioner’s case. Petitioner is free to bring his Penry claim to the attention of the Texas courts in a postconviction proceeding. See Ex parte Kunkle, 852 S. W. 2d 499, 502, n. 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (Penry claims are cognizable in state habeas despite an applicant’s failure to raise them on direct appeal). If he is unsuccessful in state court, petitioner can proceed to federal court and petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because these avenues of relief are sufficient to afford full review of petitioner’s substantial constitutional claim, I concur in the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

Petitioner Bobby Joe Wills, a mentally retarded capital defendant who was 17 at the time of his offense, was sentenced to death in Texas without the jury’s being allowed to give mitigating effect to his mental impairment. Petitioner’s death sentence thus was imposed in direct violation of Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989), and is devoid of the reliability the Constitution requires before death can be the appropriate punishment. See Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 305 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.).

Petitioner has an IQ of 61. At his trial in 1985, petitioner’s counsel introduced evidence of petitioner’s mental retardation to challenge only the reliability of his confession and his mens rea to commit the offense. At the close of the guilt phase, the prosecutor admonished the jury not to “‘have any sympathy for the defendant because he’s a little slow or he’s borderline mentally retarded .... Don't say, Poor Old Bobby Joe, he’s a little slow, he’s borderline mentally retarded. Let’s give him a break.’” Pet. for Cert. 10. At the penalty phase, the jurors were asked to answer Texas’ two standard “special issues”: “Did [Wills] act deliberately when he murdered . . . ? Is there a probability that he will be dangerous in the future?” See Penry, 492 U. S., at 320. The prosecutor repeatedly commanded the jurors to consider only these questions and reminded them: “ ‘You’re not asked, “Was the defendant given an unfair chance at life?”’” Pet. for Cert. 11. After reviewing petitioner’s unstable past, the prosecutor concluded that “all the counselors and all the psychologists and all the teachers and all the case workers and all the supervisors can’t do anything for Bobby Joe Wills. They can’t rehabilitate Bobby Joe Wills.” Ibid, (emphasis added). The jury returned affirmative answers to both special issues and sentenced petitioner to death.

Penry v. Lynaugh was decided while petitioner’s direct appeal was pending. Recognizing that mental retardation may render a defendant “less morally ‘culpable than defendants who have no such excuse,’ ” 492 U. S., at 322, quoting California v. Brown, 479 U. S. 538, 545 (1987) (O’Connor, J., concurring), this Court held that Texas’ execution of a mentally retarded defendant, without the jury’s being instructed that it could consider and give mitigating effect to his mental impairment in imposing sentence, would violate the Eighth Amendment. A rational juror, this Court observed, readily could conclude that a mentally retarded capital defendant had killed deliberately and was likely to be dangerous in the future, while also concluding that mercy and the defendant’s reduced culpability for the crime made his execution inappropriate. Texas’ capital sentencing scheme allowed a jury to give effect to the former conclusion but not the latter, and thus eliminated “a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death.” Woodson, 428 U. S., at 304 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.).

Like Penry, petitioner was condemned to die by the State of Texas without the jury’s ever having had an opportunity to give a “reasoned moral response to the defendant’s background, character, and crime.” Brown, 479 U. S., at 545 (O’Connor, J., concurring). His sentence therefore runs the constitutionally intolerable risk that the death penalty has been imposed despite the presence of factors that may justify a sentence less than death. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 605 (1978) (opinion of Burger, C. J.).

It is possible that petitioner’s claims may be better addressed in state and federal postconviction proceedings. Even if I did not believe that the death penalty cannot be fairly administered within the constraints of our Constitution, see Callins v.. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994) (Blackmun, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), however, because the execution of this mentally retarded juvenile offender would constitute a miscarriage of justice, I would grant the petition, vacate the death sentence, and remand for resentencing. I therefore dissent.

       At the time of petitioner’s trial, the American Association on Mental Retardation classified individuals with an IQ score between 50-55 and 70 as having “mild” retardation. See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 308, n. 1 (1989). In 1992, the association revised its classification to identify individuals with an IQ of 75 or below as presumptively retarded. See AAMR, Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports 14 (9th ed. 1992).

       Petitioner additionally claims that the execution of mentally retarded juvenile offenders is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This Court has recognized that youth, like mental retardation, reduces a defendant’s criminal culpability and may render the imposition of society’s ultimate retributive sanction inappropriate. See, e. g., Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 115-116 (1982); Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S.. 815 (1988) (striking death sentence for juvenile offender under age 16); but see Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361 (1989) (declining to declare capital punishment per se invalid for juvenile offenders age 16 or older). That such executions violate society’s “evolving standards of decency,” Trap v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion), is consistent, of course, with international practice, which condemns the execution of both the mentally disabled and juvenile offenders. At least 72 countries that retain the death penalty restrict its administration to persons age 18 or over at the time of the offense. Amnesty International, Open Letter to the President on the Death Penalty 8, n. 10 (1994). The United States thus “stands almost alone in the world in still executing offenders who were under-18 at the time of the crime.” Id., at 8. See generally W. Schabas, The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law (1993).


author: Justice Blackmun,

text:
    No. 93-6750.
    No. 93-7505.
    No. 93-8029.
    No. 93-8205.
    No. 93-8329.
    No. 93-8405.
    No. 93-8550.
    No. 93-8585.
    No. 93-8717.
    No. 93-8736.
    Mann v. Oklahoma. Alexander v. Texas. Marek v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections. Hooks v. Oklahoma. Hallford v. Alabama. Code v. Louisiana. Beuke v. Ohio. Chambers v. Texas. Buell v. Ohio. Conklin v. Zant, Warden.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla.; Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; Sup. Ct. Fla.; Ct. Crim. App. Okla.; Ct. Crim. App. Ala.; Sup. Ct. La.; Sup. Ct. Ohio; Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; Sup. Ct. Ohio; and Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 93-8371.
    Adesanya v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 92-9049.
    No. 93-946.
    No. 93-1063.
    No. 93-1219.
    No. 93-1311.
    No. 93-6585.
    No. 93-7195.
    No. 93-7257.
    No. 93-7429.
    No. 93-7488.
    No. 93-7551.
    No. 93-7562.
    No. 93-7570.
    No. 93-7575.
    No. 93-7658.
    Sandoval v. California, Wuliger v. United States, Hayward et al. v. United States, Wilson v. Southern Railway Co. et al., Burchill v. Kish et al., Stribling v. Collins et al., Warren v. City of Grand Rapids, Harris v. Campbell, Judge, Circuit Court of Missouri, St. Louis County, Poole v. City of Killeen et al., Pawlak v. Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners, Cotton v. Kansas, McConnell v. Armontrout, Warden, et al., Sipos v. Williamson, Franklin v. Michigan, Kleinschmidt v. Gator Office Supply & Furniture, Inc., et al., Blackston v. Skarbnik et al., Sanford v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District et al., Sweeney v. Civil Service Commission, Williams v. Pine Bluff School District No. 3 et al., Lyle v. McKeon, Rogers v. North Carolina, Shanteau v. Department of Social Services, In re Madsen, Estes v. Van der Veur, Warden, Flynn v. City of Garden City, Michigan, et al.; and Flynn v. B&T Towing, Wright v. Marshall et al., Simpson v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Bartlett v. Vance, In re Sammons,
   ante, p. 1;

510 U. S. 1191;

ante, p. 1004;

510 U. S. 1195;

ante, p. 1006;

510 U. S. 1053;

510 U. S. 1127;

510 U. S. 1130;

510 U. S. 1180;

510 U. S. 1215;

510 U. S. 1199;

510 U. S. 1200;

510 U. S. 1200;

510 U. S. 1200;

510 U. S. 1202;

No. 93-7673.

No. 93-7721.

No. 93-7723.

No. 93-7728.

No. 93-7752.

No. 93-7753.

No. 93-7764.

No. 93-7767.

No. 93-7783.

No. 93-7844.

No. 93-7861.

No. 93-7867.

No. 93-8045.

No. 93-8058.

510 U. S. 1202;

ante, p. 1007;

ante, p. 1007;

ante, p. 1007;

ante, p. 1008;

ante, p. 1008;

ante, p. 1008;

ante, p. 1003;

ante, p. 1021;

ante, p. 1010;

ante, p. 1022;

510 U. S. 1205;

ante, p. 1040; and

510 U. S. 1190. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 93-6776.
    No. 93-7396.
    Hicks v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., Laan v. California,
   510 U. S. 1059; and 510 U. S. 1167. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    May 18, 1994
    No. 93-1170.
    United States et al. v. National Treasury Employees Union et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1029.] Writ of certiorari as to Thomas C. Fishell dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    May 23, 1994
    No. 93-8684.
    Royal v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46. Reported below: 16 F. 3d 413.


text:
    No. 93-883.
    Interstate Commerce Commission et al. v. Overland Express, Inc.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for farther consideration in light of Security Services, Inc. v. Kmart Corp., ante, p. 431. Justice Ginsburg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    No. 93-1129.
    Cotter & Co. v. Brizendine.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Security Services, Inc. v. Kmart Corp., ante, p. 431.


text:
    No. 93-1563.
    Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Edwards et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of North-brook Property Insurance Co. for leave to intervene denied. Motion of Northbrook Property Insurance Co. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 93-1504, Celotex Corp. v. Edwards et ux. [certiorari granted, infra, p. 1105], granted. Certiorari dismissed.


text:
    No. D-1336.
    In re Disbarment of Price.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 510 U. S. 1022.]


text:
    No. D-1349.
    In re Disbarment of Cooper.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 510 U. S. 1036.]


text:
    No. D-1359.
    In re Disbarment of Steinhorn.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 510 U. S. 1104.]


text:
    No. D-1360.
    In re Disbarment of Provda.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 510 U. S. 1105.]


text:
    No. D-1364.
    In re Disbarment of Herring.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 510 U. S. 1105.]


text:
    No. D-1366.
    In re Disbarment of Stevens.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 510 U. S. 1105.]


text:
    No. D-1372.
    In re Disbarment of Smith.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 510 U. S. 1188.]


text:
    No. D-1376.
    In re Disbarment of Nath.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1002.]


text:
    No. D-1391.
    In re Disbarment of Castro.
   It is ordered that William Castro, of Miami, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1392.
    In re Disbarment of Bledsoe.
   It is ordered that Carter Bledsoe, of McLean, Va., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1393.
    In re Disbarment of Comici.
   It is ordered that Erio M. Comici, of Chesterfield, Mo., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1394.
    In re Disbarment of Farhat.
   It is ordered that Norman C. Farhat, of Farmington Hills, Mich., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1395.
    In re Disbarment of Moringiello.
   It is ordered that Lawrence D. Moringiello, of Brooklyn, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1396.
    In re Disbarment of Cairo.
   It is ordered that Joseph G. Cairo, Jr., of Corona Village, N. Y, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 93-823.
    Nebraska Department of Revenue v. Loewenstein.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. [Certiorari granted, 510 U. S. 1176.] Motions of Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Council of State Governments et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 93-1260.
    United States v. Lopez.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1029.] Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 93-1318.
    Interstate Commerce Commission v. Transcon Lines et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1029.] Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 93-1341.
    West Penn Power Co. et al. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 93-7745.
    Johnson v. Johnson.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 1003] denied.


text:
    No. 93-8569.
    In re Whitaker.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Petitioner is allowed until June 13, 1994, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 93-8547.
    No. 93-8616.
    In re James; and In re Beaumont.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 93-1199.
    Stone v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 93-1525.
    Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 93-1504.
    Celotex Corp. v. Edwards et ux.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Whether Rule 65.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows enforcement of a supersedeas bond, posted to stay execution of judgment against a defendant that filed for reorganization after the judgment became final, against the nonbankrupt surety that issued the bond, even though a bankruptcy court in another circuit has attempted to restrain execution on supersedeas bonds posted in favor of the debtor under § 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.”


text:
    No. 93-1543.
    McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of American Association of Retired Persons et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 93-683.
    Security Services, Inc., fka Riss International Corp. v. Garvey Corp. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-792.
    Silvey Refrigerated Carriers, Inc. v. H. J. Heinz Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1133.
    Town of Gray et al. v. Tri-State Rubbish, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1215.
    Mitchell Arms, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1230.
    Schneider v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1265.
    Dougharty v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1335.
    Security Services, Inc. v. John H. Harland Co.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1403.
    Arthur et al. v. Bell Atlantic Core et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1470.
    Metzger et al. v. Berhanu, Personal Representative of the Estate of Seraw, Deceased.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1505.
    Tri-State Rubbish, Inc. v. City of Auburn, Maine, et al.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1508.
    Moseley et ux. v. Georgia et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1526.
    Nelson v. Nelson.
   Super. Ct. Ga., Gwinnett County. Certiorari denied..


text:
    No. 93-1527.
    Rogers v. City of Inverness, Florida, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1528.
    Clark v. Baltimore Municipal Golf Corp. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1536.
    Ejay Travel, Inc., et al. v. Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioenfonds.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1537.
    Kehs et al. v. Foster et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1541.
    No. 93-1542.
    Hall v. Hall; and Camoscio v. Hall.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1545.
    Ruscitti et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange.
   Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1546.
    Ray v. Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University Conservatory of Music.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1548.
    Johnson, Individually and as Conservator of the Estate of Johnson, and as Next Best Friend of Johnson, a Minor v. Methodist Medical Center of Illinois.
   C. A; 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1549.
    County of Westchester, New York v. Commissioner of Transportation of Connecticut et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1553.
    Boyd v. Goolsby et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1557.
    Lamb v. Union Carbide Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1558.
    Spranger v. Runyon, Postmaster General.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1574.
    McNaron v. Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1580.
    Krug v. Ambrose, Wilson, Grimm & Durand et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1590.
    Harper v. Harper.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1600.
    EGB Associates, Inc., et al. v. TCBY Systems, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1601.
    Bachtel et al. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1605.
    Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Oberg et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1611.
    Whitman, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Whitman, Deceased, et al. v. Donoghue, Individually and in His Capacity as Commissioner of Public Works for the County of Broome, New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1616.
    Guzman v. Hudson, Director, United States Marshals Service.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1641.
    Doe, By and Through His Parents and Next Friends, Doe et al. v. Tullahoma City Schools Board of Education et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1646.
    Forestwood Farms, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1648.
    Kamienski v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1664.
    Williams et al. v. Stewart, Personal Representative of the Estate of Stewart.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1668.
    Crowell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1680.
    Contreras-Subias v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1694.
    Adams v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-6253.
    Allum v. Second Judicial District Court of Nevada et al.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7583.
    Black v. Colorado.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7699.
    Karim-Panahi v. United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7826.
    Geery v. United States District Court for the District of Idaho.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7849.
    Barfield v. Secretary, North Carolina Department of Crime Control, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7856.
    Bennett v. Borg, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7871.
    Dupard v. Jarvis et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7935.
    Kowalczyk v. Thompson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7979.
    Lowery v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8006.
    Mena v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8035.
    Goins v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8049.
    Balog v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8070.
    Mikhail v. Railroad Retirement Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8208.
    Israel, aka Bryant v. United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8255.
    Streeter v. Alabama.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8295.
    Warren v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8299.
    Starkey v. Henderson.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8428.
    Culp v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8474.
    Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 of Wheeling Township, Illinois, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8509.
    Murphy v. County of Westchester et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8512.
    Maxwell v. Arvonio.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8513.
    Castro Lopez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8517.
    Meeks v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8527.
    Ray v. Ervin et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8529.
    Pressley v. Medlock, Attorney General of South Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8530.
    Payne v. Escambia County Sheriff.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8532.
    Medina v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8533.
    Wilson v. Sanders, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8537.
    Draper v. Gunn et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8538.
    Lucero v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8541.
    D’Amario v. O’Neil, Attorney General of Rhode Island.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8548.
    Williams v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8560.
    Franklin v. Ennis Police Department et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8561.
    Reynolds v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8566.
    Walker v. Jones, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8567.
    Tucker v. Nink, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8568.
    Toy v. Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8574.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8584.
    Dukovich v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8588.
    Ewell et al. v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8591.
    Gipson v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8594.
    Jordan v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8595.
    Kleinschmidt et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8598.
    Mitchell v. Osborne, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8600.
    Maciel v. Gomez, Director, California Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8602.
    Richards v. Bartlett, Superintendent, Elmira Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8605.
    Greco, aka Grieco v. Nelson, Superintendent, Bay State Correctional Center.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8629.
    Sloan v. Roberts et al.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8639.
    Jeffress v. Brown, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8660.
    Thompson v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8661.
    Voight v. Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8668.
    Griffith v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8693.
    Branham v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8696.
    Barnum v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8726.
    LeBlanc v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8734.
    Rau v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8763.
    Kaplan v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8764.
    Forrest v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8765.
    Kanu v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8773.
    Fiallo v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8779.
    Atamantyk v. Department of Defense.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8781.
    Kelly v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8784.
    Colvin v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8786.
    McKay v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8790.
    Messer v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8791.
    Lee v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8794.
    McQueen v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8797.
    McKnight v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8806.
    Gholston v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8808.
    Marshall v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8812.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8814.
    Martinez Diaz v. Government of the Virgin Islands.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8817.
    Hankerson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8821.
    Lee v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8826.
    Sanchez Santana v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8835.
    Dressler v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8845.
    Phelps v. United States Federal Government et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8847.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8850.
    Dizon v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8856.
    Salcedo v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8857.
    Ball v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8862.
    Gregg v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8863.
    Fredette et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8878.
    Anthony v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8888.
    Page v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8889.
    Mendez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8892.
    Cazares-Barragan v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8904.
    Heilig v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1533.
    Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Robertson Oil Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 93-5893.
    No. 93-7957.
    No. 93-8089.
    No. 93-8229.
    No. 93-8376.
    Williamson v. Oklahoma. Beltran-Lopez v. Florida. Towns v. Illinois. Arbelaez v. Florida. Sam v. Pennsylvania.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Sup. Ct. 111.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.; and

Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

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


author: Justice Ginsburg, Justice Thomas,

text:
    No. 93-6577.
    Davis v. Minnesota.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.

Justice Ginsburg,

concurring.

I write only to note that the dissent’s portrayal of the opinion of the Minnesota Supreme Court is incomplete. That court made two key observations: (1) “[Rjeligious affiliation (or lack thereof) is not as self-evident as race or gender,” 504 N. W. 2d 767, 771 (Minn. 1993); (2) “Ordinarily . . . , inquiry on voir dire into a juror’s religious affiliation and beliefs is irrelevant and prejudicial, and to ask such questions is improper,” id., at 772 (adding that “proper questioning . . . should be limited to asking jurors if they knew of any reason why they could not sit, if they would have any difficulty in following the law as given by the court, or if they would have any difficulty in sitting in judgment”).

Justice Thomas,

with whom Justice Scalia joins,

dissenting.

During jury selection for petitioner’s trial on a charge of aggravated robbery, the prosecutor used a peremptory strike to remove a black man from the venire. Petitioner, who is black, objected on Batson grounds and requested a race-neutral explanation for the strike. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79, 97 (1986). The prosecutor responded that she had struck the venireman because he was a Jehovah’s Witness and explained that “[i]n my experience Jahovah Witness [sic] are reluctant to exercise authority over their fellow human beings in this Court House.” 504 N. W. 2d 767, 768 (Minn. 1993). The trial court accepted that reason for the strike and proceeded to trial. Petitioner subsequently was convicted.

On appeal, petitioner conceded that the prosecutor’s explanation for the strike was race neutral, but contended that Batson should be extended to prohibit peremptory strikes based on religion. The Supreme Court of Minnesota rejected petitioner’s Batson argument and affirmed the conviction. The court reasoned that this Court has never held that “Batson should extend beyond race-based peremptory challenges,” and noted that “Batson, itself, speaks solely of the need to eradicate racial discrimination.” Ibid. Acknowledging that “[i]f the life of the law were logic rather than experience, Batson might well be extended to include religious bias and, for that matter, an endless number of other biases,” id., at 769, the court nevertheless concluded that, because Batson had been confined by this Court to the context of race, it should not be broadened to reach petitioner’s claim in this case, 504 N. W. 2d, at 772.

I find it difficult to understand how the Court concludes today that the judgment of the court below should not be vacated and the case remanded in light of our recent decision in J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., ante, p. 127, which shatters the Supreme Court of Minnesota’s understanding that Batson’s equal protection analysis applies solely to racially based peremptory strikes. It is abundantly clear that the lower court was relying on just such a reading of Batson, for it reasoned that Batson embodies “ ‘a special rule of relevance’ ” that operates only in the context of race, and concluded that “ ‘[ojutside the uniquely sensitive area of race the ordinary rule that a prosecutor may strike without giving any reason applies.’” 504 N. W. 2d, at 771-772 (quoting Brown v. North Carolina, 479 U. S. 940, 942 (1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring in denial of certiorari)). In extending Equal Protection Clause analysis to prohibit strikes exercised on the basis of sex, J. E. B. explicitly disavowed that understanding of Batson.

Indeed, given the Court’s rationale in J. E. B., no principled reason immediately appears for declining to apply Batson to any strike based on a classification that is accorded heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court’s decision in J. E. B. was explicitly grounded on a conclusion that peremptory strikes based on sex cannot survive “heightened scrutiny” under the Clause, ante, at 135, because such strikes “are not substantially related to an important government objective,” ante, at 137, n. 6. In breaking the barrier between classifications that merit strict equal protection scrutiny and those that receive what we have termed “heightened” or “intermediate” scrutiny, J. E. B. would seem to have extended Batson’s equal protection analysis to all strikes based on the latter category of classifications — a category which presumably would include classifications based on religion. Cf. Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, 244-246 (1982); Batson, supra, at 124 (Burger, C. J., dissenting). It is at least not obvious, given the reasoning in J. E. B., why peremptory strikes based on religious affiliation would survive equal protection analysis. As Justice Scalia pointed out in dissent, J. E. B. itself provided no rationale for distinguishing between strikes exercised on the basis of various classifications that receive heightened scrutiny, ante, at 161, and the Supreme Court of Minnesota certainly did not develop such a distinction. As described above, the court relied expressly on the understanding that Batson was confined to the context of race. Under these circumstances, this case should be remanded for the Supreme Court of Minnesota to consider explicitly whether a principled basis exists for confining the holding in J. E. B. to the context of sex.

I can only conclude that the Court’s decision to deny certiorari stems from an unwillingness to confront forthrightly the ramifications of the decision in J. E. B. It has long been recognized by some Members of the Court that subjecting the peremptory strike to the rigors of equal protection analysis may ultimately spell the doom of the strike altogether, because the peremptory challenge is by nature "“‘an arbitrary and capricious right.’”” Batson, supra, at 123 (Burger, C. J., dissenting) (quoting Swain v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202, 219 (1965) (quoting Lewis v. United States, 146 U. S. 370, 378 (1892))). Cf. J. E. B., ante, at 161-162 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Once the scope of the logic in J E. B. is honestly acknowledged, it cannot be glibly asserted that the decision has no implications for peremptory strikes based on classifications other than sex, or that it does not imply further restrictions on the exercise of the peremptory strike outside the context of race and sex.

In my view, the petition should therefore be granted, the judgment below vacated, and the case remanded for reconsideration in light of J E. B. I respectfully dissent.


text:
    No. 93-6630.
    No. 93-7108.
    No. 93-7696.
    No. 93-7813.
    No. 93-7820.
    No. 93-7892.
    No. 93-7948.
    Murphy v. United States, Semien v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Gant v. United States, Adams v. United States, Watson v. Morris et al., Steel v. Wachtler et al., Kennedy v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division,
   ante, p. 1019;

510 U. S. 1198;

510 U. S. 1183;

ante, p. 1021;

ante, p. 1021;

ante, p. 1023; and

ante, p. 1038. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 93-423.
    No. 93-7501.
    Katsis v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Maldonado v. United States,
   510 U. S. 1081; and

510 U. S. 1138. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 93-7002.
    Campbell v. Wood, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary, et al.,
   510 U. S. 1215. Petition for rehearing denied. Justice Blackmun dissents from the denial of rehearing. He would grant the petition for rehearing, grant the petition for certiorari, and vacate petitioner’s death sentence. See Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994).


text:
    May 26, 1994
    No. 93-8931 (A-901).
    Campbell v. Wood, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg would grant the application for stay of execution of sentence of death.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

In 1853, hanging was the “nearly universal form of execution” in the United States, State v. Frampton, 95 Wash. 2d 469, 492, 627 P. 2d 922, 934 (1981), and 48 States once imposed death by this method. Today, only Washington and Montana still employ judicial hanging., Montana has not executed anyone by hanging in over 50 years, and no one who has contested the sentence has been lawfully hanged in the United States in more than three decades. Petitioner Charles Rodman Campbell, who is scheduled to be executed “by hanging by the neck” in Washington this week, contends that his hanging will constitute a cruel and unusual punishment. I agree, and accordingly, even if I believed that the death penalty could be applied constitutionally, see Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1143 (1994) (Blackmun, J., dissenting), I would vote to grant the application for stay and the petition for certiorari in this case.

This Court has accepted that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments “draw[sj its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion), and that the best evidence of these evolving standards “is the legislation enacted by the country’s legislatures,” Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 331 (1989); see also Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361, 370 (1989) (citations omitted) (“ ‘[Fjirst’ among the ‘objective indicia that reflect the public attitude toward a given sanction’ are statutes passed by society’s elected representatives”); Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 408-410 (1986). The public condemnation of hanging is overwhelming. Not only have 46 of the 48 States that once regularly imposed hanging abandoned the practice, but many state legislatures rejected the practice because it was perceived as inhumane and barbaric, precisely the concern that lies at the core of the Eighth Amendment. See, e. g., Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 296-297 (1972) (Brennan, J., concurring) (“Since the development of the supposedly more humane methods” of lethal gas and electrocution, “hanging and shooting have virtually ceased”); Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U. S. 180, 185 (1915) (noting that 11 States altered their practice based on “a well-grounded belief that electrocution is less painful and more humane than hanging”). But see Glass v. Louisiana, 471 U. S. 1080 (1985) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (arguing that death by electrocution is cruel and unusual). Even as the death penalty’s popularity has increased in recent years, toleration for hanging has steadily declined. Of the eight States that provided for judicial hanging by the time of the Furman decision, see 408 U. S., at 297, n. 50 (Brennan, J., concurring), all but two have abolished it. Today, the only three jurisdictions in the English-speaking world that impose state-sponsored hangings are Washington, Montana, and South Africa. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-38.

Moreover, the States’ rejection of hanging has been much more universal than that of practices this Court previously has found to be cruel and unusual. Compare Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815 (1988) (invalidating capital punishment for offenders under age 16 where almost two-thirds of state legislatures rejected the practice); Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782 (1982) (striking down the death penalty for vicarious felony murders where only eight States still authorized the punishment); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584, 595-596 (1977) (abolishing the death penalty for rape where only Georgia imposed death for rape of an adult and only three States imposed the penalty for any rape), with Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S., at 371 (upholding the death penalty for 16-year-olds since “a majority of the States that permit capital punishment authorize” the practice). If the Eighth Amendment represents anything other than a prohibition against punishments that have been entirely abolished, a punishment once universally practiced and then abandoned specifically due to its inhumanity must qualify as cruel and unusual.

In a 6-to-5 en banc opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disregarded this overwhelming evidence of state practice, holding that such evidence is relevant to consideration only of the proportionality of a death sentence. Where the method of execution-is contested, the majority reasoned, the Eighth Amendment prohibits only “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-20. Because hanging does not inflict “purposeful cruelty,” the method is constitutional. Id., at A-25. The Ninth Circuit’s analysis is surprising given that this Court never has held that pain is the exclusive consideration under the Eighth Amendment, nor distinguished between challenges to the proportionality and the method of capital punishment. To the contrary, we have suggested that “[a] penalty must also accord with ‘the dignity of man,’ which is the ‘basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment,’ ” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 173 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.), a suggestion supported by our recognition that painless, post mortem punishments such as public display, drawing and quartering, and mutilation also violate the Eighth Amendment. Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U. S. 130, 135-136 (1879).

But the en banc panel’s emphasis on pain also fails on its own terms. Under the most “ideal” of circumstances, hanging kills by breaking the spine, “When the victim is dropped from a sufficient height his vertebrae are dislocated and his spinal cord crushed; unconsciousness is immediate and death follows a short time later.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-49 (Reinhardt, J., dissenting), quoting Gardner, Executions and Indignities — An Eighth Amendment Assessment of Methods of Inflicting Capital Punishment, 39 Ohio St. L. J. 96, 120 (1978). Hanging, however, is a crude and imprecise practice, which always includes a risk that the inmate will slowly strangulate or asphyxiate, if the rope is too elastic or too short, or will be decapitated, if the rope is too taut or too long. A veteran prison warden has described a typical hanging:

“When the trap springs he dangles at the end of the rope. There are times when the neck has not been broken and the prisoner strangles to death. His eyes pop almost out of his head, his tongue swells and protrudes from his mouth, his neck may be broken, and the rope many times takes large portions of skin and flesh from the side of the face that the noose is on. He urinates, he defecates, and droppings fall to the floor while witnesses look on.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-57 (Reinhardt, J., dissenting), quoting Gardner, 39 Ohio St. L. J., at 121.

A person who slowly asphyxiates or strangulates while twisting at the end of a rope unquestionably experiences the most torturous and “wanton infliction of pain,” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 173 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.), while partial or complete decapitation of the person, as blood sprays uncontrollably, obviously violates human dignity.

Washington contends that by conducting its hangings pursuant to its Field Instruction WSP 410.500 or “protocol,” these misfortunes can be reduced. Washington’s protocol details the appropriate placement of the noose knot and the width and length of the rope to avoid decapitation, and provides that the rope be boiled, stretched, and waxed to reduce asphyxiation. The protocol includes a chart for determining, based on the weight of the defendant, the appropriate distance the body should be dropped. Washington relies entirely on this protocol in conducting its judicial hangings; the State employs no “trained hangers,” nor, apparently, are there any persons so trained in the United States. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-26.

The Ninth Circuit relied on this protocol and the State’s own evidence from its sole recent hanging to find only a “slight risk” that death by hanging will not be rapid or comparatively painless. Id., at A-25. Washington’s protocol, however, is derived almost verbatim from a 1959 military execution manual that never has been used in any hanging, and that is almost indistinguishable from hanging procedures that resulted in torturous deaths and mutilations in the past. See id., at A-50, and n. 31 (Reinhardt, J., dissenting). Experts for both parties who testified before the District Court agreed that hanging always includes a risk that unconsciousness and death will not be instantaneous, and admitted that a certain number of Washington’s hangings inevitably will result in death by decapitation. The State presented no evidence that Washington’s protocol will significantly reduce the risk of asphyxiation or decapitation, and Campbell introduced unrefuted testimony that the protocol actually may increase the likelihood that an inmate’s head will be torn off. The evidence in the record is uncontested, therefore, that Washington’s hangings will suffer the inevitable failings that led all but one other State to abandon hanging as a means of execution.

I do not dispute that petitioner’s crime was horrible or that his punishment should be severe. It is equally irrefutable, however, that the Constitution prohibits the imposition of punishments that are offensive to civilized society. Forty-six of the forty-eight States that once imposed hanging have rejected that punishment as unnecessarily torturous, brutal, and inhumane. I can only conclude that today in the United States of America, hanging is cruel and unusual punishment. I dissent.

       The only execution by hanging to occur since 1963 was that of Westley Alan Dodd, who was executed in Washington last year. Dodd refused either to select his mode of punishment or to challenge his hanging sentence.

       Washington’s death penalty statute, Wash. Rev. Code 10.95.180(1) (1992), provides: “The punishment of death . . . shall be inflicted either by hanging by the neck or, at the election of the defendant, by [lethal injection].” For defendants like Campbell who are unwilling to select their mode of execution, Washington imposes death by hanging.

       Possible obstacles to review are the facts that petitioner’s habeas claim might constitute a new rule under Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989) (plurality opinion), and that no circuit conflict exists regarding whether hanging is cruel and unusual. Because the only two States that retain hanging are in the Ninth Circuit, a circuit conflict on this issue is unlikely to emerge. Though I respect that Members of this Court may disagree, I would not await a conflict in a capital case raising a fundamental constitutional question such as this.

       Hanging in South Africa also soon may be a thing of the past. Former President F. W. de Klerk imposed a moratorium on hanging in South Africa in 1990, and no one has been executed in that country since 1989. The African National Congress has campaigned to abolish the death penalty. See N. Y. Times, Apr. 27, 1994, section A, p. 9, col. 1.


text:
    No. 93-9278 (A-977).
    Nethery v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

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


text:
    May 31, 1994
    No. 92-1799.
    Visiting Homemaker & Health Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of NLRB v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America, ante, p. 571.


text:
    No. 93-1079.
    United States v. Price.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Custis v. United States, ante, p. 485.


text:
    No. 93-6045.
    Starkes 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 Staples v. United States, ante, p. 600.


text:
    No. 93-7816.
    Ross 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 Staples v. United States, ante, p. 600.


text:
    No. 93-892.
    NTA Graphics, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 510 U. S. 1162.] Motion of the Solicitor General to vacate and remand granted. Judgment vacated as moot, and case remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to remand the case to the National Labor Relations Board to vacate the Board’s order in case No. 8-CA-24277 and to vacate the certification of the Union on which that order was based. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39-40 (1950); A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States, 368 U. S. 324, 329-331 (1961); Board of Governors, FRS v. Security Bancorp, 454 U. S. 1118 (1981).


text:
    No.---.
    David v. Hudacs, Commissioner of Labor of New York.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No.---.
    Edmond v. Consumer Protection Division.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari with an appendix that does not comply with the Rules of this Court denied.


text:
    No. A-906.
    California v. Pimentel.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Application for stay of enforcement of judgment, addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-1094.
    In re Disbarment of Feige.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 503 U. S. 932.]


text:
    No. D-1374.
    In re Disbarment of Heitmann.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1002.]


text:
    No. D-1377.
    In re Disbarment of Spence.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1015.]


text:
    No. D-1378.
    In re Disbarment of Wade.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1015.]


text:
    No. D-1387.
    In re Disbarment of Chapman.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1028.]


text:
    No. D-1397.
    In re Disbarment of Cloutier.
   It is ordered that Edward H. Cloutier, of Livermore Falls, Me., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 93-1353.
    United States v. Simpson et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of respondents Molina and Simpson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.


text:
    No. 93-7927.
    Kyles v. Whitley, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1051.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that George W. Healy III, Esq., of New Orleans, La., be appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 93-8621.
    McDonald v. New Mexico et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Petitioner is allowed until June 21, 1994, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 93-9011.
    In re Hamilton; and In re Hunwardsen.
    No. 93-9015.
   Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 93-1647.
    No. 93-8212.
    In re Voinovich, Governor of Ohio, et al.; and In re Presley.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 93-1660.
    Arizona v. Evans.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without an affidavit of indigency executed by respondent granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 93-1196.
    De Maio v. Brown et al.
   Cir. Ct. Baltimore County, Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1307.
    Kansas Public Employees Retirement System v. Reimer & Koger Associates, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1365.
    Sammett Corp. v. Key Enterprises of Delaware, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1384.
    Downtown Frankfort, Inc., et al. v. Capital Area Right to Life, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1405.
    Parlavecchio v. United States (two cases).
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1407.
    Pearson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1436.
    Henry, Individually and on Behalf of Chanry Communications, Ltd. v. Wetzler, Commissioner, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1455.
    Hayes, as Administrator, Parent, and Next Friend of Hayes, Deceased, et al. v. Douglas Dynamics, Inc.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1473.
    Ternes v. Berchard, fka Ternes, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1532.
    Cox v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1556.
    Karatinos et al. v. Town of Juno Beach, Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1561.
    Collins et al. v. Thompson et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1565.
    Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development v. Wiedeman et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1566.
    Weaver v. California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1567.
    A. J. Industries, Inc. v. Hedges et al.
   Sup. Ct. Vt. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1568.
    Silstar Corporation of America, Inc. v. Shakespeare, Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1571.
    Qutb, Individually and as Next Friend of Qutb, et al. v. Bartlett, Mayor of the City of Dallas, Texas, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1573.
    Chamness et ux. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1579.
    Vaughan v. First National Bank of Shamrock, Texas, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1581.
    City of Seattle et al. v. Bascomb et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1583.
    Texas Commerce Bancshares, Inc. v. Grossman.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1585.
    Anonsen et al. v. Donahue et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1586.
    International Woodworkers of America, U. S., AFL-CIO, et al. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1589.
    Sears, Roebuck & Co. et al. v. Harris, Administratrix of the Estate of Simpson, Deceased, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1593.
    Hillary v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1594.
    Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1598.
    Steele v. State Bar of Montana.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1607.
    Brothers v. Brothers et al.
   Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1614.
    Hughes v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1618.
    Graham et al. v. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1619.
    Broyde et al. v. Gotham Tower, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1653.
    Miller v. Arkansas.
   Ct. App. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1658.
    Gilbert-Bey v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1693.
    Employers Underwriters, Inc., et al. v. Weaver et ux.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1699.
    Buracker, Sheriff, as Successor in Interest to Thompson, Administrator to the Estate of Nickelson, Deceased v. Wilt et ux.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1701.
    Davies v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1706.
    Crosetto et al. v. State Bar of Wisconsin et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1712.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1718.
    Uberoi v. University of Colorado et al.
   Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1721.
    Cobb County, Georgia v. Harvey et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1725.
    Gonzalez-Balderas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1727.
    Fassnacht v. City of Philadelphia.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1730.
    Miccio v. New Jersey Department of Community Affairs et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1731.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1733.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-5464.
    Roman v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-5562.
    Watt v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-5570.
    Elliott v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-6321.
    Day v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-6385.
    Byrd v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-6448.
    Bradshaw v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-6495.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-6600.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7213.
    Valenzuela-Lopez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7234.
    Trevizo-Ortiz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7514.
    Hernandez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7654.
    DuPont v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7851.
    Gay v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7881.
    Edsall v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7936.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8027.
    Navarette-Avendano v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8153.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8175.
    Rivas-Gaytan v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8188.
    Russell v. Shaker Heights Municipal Court et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8210.
    Nelson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8276.
    Dingle v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8319.
    Middleton v. Lockhart et al.
   Ct. App. Mo., Western Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8431.
    Almodovar v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8466.
    Webber v. Vandrew et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8577.
    Potillor v. Estelle, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8578.
    Merriweather v. Mitchell, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8601.
    Makin v. Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8603.
    Hamani, aka Clemons v. Morton, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8612.
    Godin v. New York.
   County Ct., Jefferson County, N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8613.
    Townley v. Jones, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8619.
    Lange v. Heitkamp et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8624.
    Williams v. Hawley, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8628.
    Taveras v. New York Department of Correctional Services et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8630.
    Sloan v. Guillory, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8634.
    Streeter v. Burton, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8635.
    Hollawell v. Stepanik, Superintendent, Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8641.
    Johnson, aka Razi-Bey v. Mann, Superintendent, Shawangunk Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8646.
    Trujillo-Garcia v. Rowland, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8650.
    Thandiwe v. Compton, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8651.
    Thandiwe v. Strahan et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8657.
    Doctor v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8659.
    Bain v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8662.
    Witt v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8664.
    Burnett v. Fairley et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8669.
    Hodge v. Idaho.
   Ct. App. Idaho. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8670.
    Gonzalez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8671.
    Flowers v. Gudmanson, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8673.
    Hill et al. v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8694.
    Cotner v. Cody, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8695.
    Carpenter et ux. v. Blankenship.
   Cir. Ct. Calhoun County, W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8699.
    King v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 8th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8701.
    Hett v. Madison Mutual Insurance Co., Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8702.
    Esnault v. Colorado et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8703.
    Gomez v. Gomez, Director, California Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8715.
    Desmond v. Haldane et al.
   App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8718.
    Fromal v. Robins et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8725.
    Choudhary v. Vermont Department of Public Service et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8767.
    Green v. Kuhlmann, Superintendent, Sullivan Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8774.
    Ayrs v. Prudential-LMI et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8782.
    Espinal v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8804.
    Martin v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8809.
    McFail v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8841.
    Munoz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8844.
    Munir v. Scott et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8869.
    Freeman v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8872.
    Zack v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8880.
    Alvarez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8881.
    Cardenas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8882.
    Armenta-Lopez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8884.
    Mahn v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8887.
    Rodreiquez v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8895.
    Clay v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8896.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8897.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8901.
    Grote v. Copeland, Warden.
   C: A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8905.
    Montes-Mercado v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8908.
    Richmond v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8912.
    Banks v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8913.
    Barrero v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    Ño. 93-8915.
    Carpenter v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8920.
    Hall v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8928.
    Byers v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8930.
    Colello et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9027.
    Conn v. Wells.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice O’Connor,

text:
    No. 93-1201.
    Capital Area Right to Life, Inc. v. Downtown Frankfort, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor,

dissenting.

Each year, Downtown Frankfort, Inc. (DFI), a nonprofit corporation established, to promote downtown revitalization in Frankfort, Kentucky, organizes a 1-day “Great Pumpkin Festival” on the city’s St. Clair Mall. Capital Area Right to Life, Inc. (CARTL), had a booth at the 1989 festival, where it, among other things, distributed plastic models of fetuses in little baskets. When many festivalgoers objected to this sort of political advocacy at the festival, DFI adopted a policy of denying booths to organizations that it deemed incompatible with the festival’s goals of “fun and entertainment.” Under this policy, DFI refused to give CARTL a booth at the 1990 festival; DFI’s president explicitly told CARTL representatives that this was because CARTL was a “controversial group.” DFI also denied booths to Kentucky NOW and the Kentucky Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, two political groups with a message opposed to that of CARTL. 862 S. W. 2d 297, 297-298 (Ky. 1993).

CARTL sued, claiming the policy violated its free speech rights. The Kentucky Supreme Court disagreed. It concluded DFI was a state actor, and thus subject to the strictures of the First Amendment, because (1) DFI is principally funded by state agencies, (2) DFI took over from the city the function of promoting downtown revitalization, and (3) the city temporarily delegated to DFI control over the St. Clair Mall by letting DFI conduct the festival and decide who gets booths. Id., at 299-300. But the court went on to hold that the festival’s policy was nonetheless “content neutral,” and therefore a valid time, place, and manner restriction. Id., at 300-301. The court interpreted the content-neutrality requirement as meaning that the restriction must be “neutral as to the type of message the restriction permits as well as being nondiscriminatory between messages of the same type, so long as there is a logical and legitimate reason for restricting the type of message.” Id., at 301. “It is a critical fact in this case,” the court said, “that CARTL’s counterparts, NOW and the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, were also denied booths in keeping with the festival’s theme.” Ibid.

This content-neutrality analysis is flatly inconsistent with our precedents. The restriction here is clearly not content neutral, and therefore cannot be a permissible time, place, and manner restriction, because it is indisputably justified with reference to the controversial content of the speech. See, e. g., Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 321 (1988). The fact that prochoice speakers were treated similarly under this regulation does not dispose of the content-neutrality analysis; we have time and again rejected the argument that viewpoint neutrality equals content neutrality. See, e. g., Burson v. Freeman, 504 U. S. 191, 197 (1992); Boos, supra, at 319; Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U. S. 221, 230 (1987); Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y, 447 U. S. 530, 537-538 (1980); Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 462, n. 6 (1980).

In fact, Heffron v. International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U. S. 640 (1981), the ease on which the opinion below relied, specifically said that, to be a valid time, place, and manner restriction, a regulation “‘may not be based upon either the content or subject matter of speech,’” id., at 648 (emphasis added). Perhaps there is some other reason why the restriction might be permissible; but to call it content neutral and to uphold it on that basis is a serious error and an unfortunate precedent.

I also think the Kentucky Supreme Court’s state action analysis raises an important and difficult question. Many private organizations — artists’ groups, private hospitals, private universities, organizations that educate the public on social matters, Presidential campaigns — get government subsidies. We have made clear that a state subsidy of a private organization, even a private organization that exercises functions which might otherwise be performed by the State, does not make that organization a state actor for First Amendment purposes. Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U. S. 830, 840-843 (1982) (dealing with a First Amendment claim based on the discharge of an employee by a private school for maladjusted high school students), That this case also involves the use of a traditional public forum probably should not change the analysis. Many of the groups mentioned above may put on events in public fora, and it is not clear that they should have any less right to exclude people from their events than any other public forum user would have to exclude others from its rally or parade.

We have recently granted certiorari in Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 511 U. S. 1105 (1994), to resolve a related state action question. While we cannot now tell to what extent the decision in Lebrón may bear on this case, I would hold this case pending that decision, and then either grant and remand in light of Lebrón, or, if Lebrón proves irrelevant, grant and summarily reverse on the content-neutrality point. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. 93-1488.
    New York v. Martinez.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1596.
    Alabama v. Watkins.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1578.
    Diocese of Colorado et al. v. Moses, nka Tenantry.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Motions of American Association of Pastoral Counselors, Colorado Catholic Conference et al., and Bear Valley Church of Christ et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1610.
    Collins Licensing v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 93-8622.
    Matthews v. South Carolina.
   Ct. Common Pleas of Charleston County, S. C. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 93-1314.
    No. 93-1344.
    No. 93-7028.
    No. 93-7288.
    No. 93-7736.
    No. 93-7757.
    No. 93-7810.
    No. 93-7938.
    No. 93-7985.
    Tauber v. Salomon Forex, Inc., et al., Fitzgerald v. Montana Department of Family Services et al., Nelson v. Jones, Boalbey v. Hawes et al., Tyler v. Purkett, Superintendent, Farmington Correctional Center, et al., Light v. Kirk, Judge, Snell v. City and County of Denver et al., Thompson v. United States, Taylor v. Strickland et al.,
   ante, p. 1031;

ante, p. 1032;

ante, p. 1020;

510 U. S. 1132;

ante, p. 1008;

ante, p. 1008;

510 U. S. 1203;

ante, p. 1038; and

ante, p. 1039. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 93-7530.
    Omoike v. Louisiana State University,
   510 U. S. 1199. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 3, 1994
    No. 93-1103.
    Dubuque Packing Co., Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union AFL-CIO, Local No. 150-A, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1016.] Writ of certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    June 6, 1994
    No. 93-8707.
    Mason v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Ashland County. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Stansbury v. California, ante, p. 318.


text:
    No.---.
    Garceau v. California.
   Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without an affidavit of indigency executed by petitioner granted.


text:
    No. A-984 (93-1904).
    Colorado v. Leftwich et al.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Application to recall and stay mandate, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-696.
    In re Disbarment of Hust.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 485 U. S. 985.]


text:
    No. D-1353.
    In re Disbarment of Conroy.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 510 U. S. 1069.]


text:
    No. D-1373.
    In re Disbarment of Swerdlow.
   Paul Swerdlow, of Media, Pa., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on March 21, 1994 [510 U. S. 1188], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-1398.
    In re Disbarment of Sloan.
   It is ordered that Leland Trickett Sloan, of St. Albans, W. Va., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1399.
    In re Disbarment of Agajanian.
   It is ordered that Roger James Agajanian, of Mission Viejo, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1400.
    In re Disbarment of Pegg.
   It is ordered that Joel T. Pegg, of Sacramento, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1401.
    In re Disbarment of Hunt.
   It is ordered that A. Thomas Hunt, of Culver City, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1402.
    In re Disbarment of Griffin.
   It is ordered that James H. Griffin, of Los Angeles, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1403.
    In re Disbarment of Mostman.
   It is ordered that Paul Ian Mostman, of Granada Hills, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1404.
    In re Disbarment of Yamada.
   It is ordered that Sunao T. A. Yamada, of New York, N. Y, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 93-714.
    U. S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 510 U. S. 1039.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 93-762.
    No. 93-1094.
    Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. et al.; and City of Chicago v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 510 U. S. 1108.] Motion of petitioner City of Chicago for divided argument granted to be divided as follows: petitioner Jerome B. Grubart, Inc., 15 minutes; petitioner City of Chicago, 15 minutes.


text:
    No. 93-1001.
    Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc., et al. v. Dobson et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. [Certiorari granted, 510 U. S. 1190.] Motion of American Arbitration Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 93-1789.
    No. 93-9072.
    In re Azen; and In re Henthorn.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 93-8341.
    In re Benitez.
   Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 93-1612.
    No. 93-1613.
    NationsBank of North Carolina, N. A., et al. v. Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. et al.; and Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency, et al. v. Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 93-1121.
    Plaut et al. v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Whether §27A(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. § 78aa-l, to the extent that it purports to require reinstatement of § 10(b) actions dismissed with prejudice pursuant to judgments that became final prior to the enactment of §27A(b), contravenes the separation-of-powers doctrine or the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.”


text:
    No. 92-1012.
    Simpson Paper (Vermont) Co. v. Department of Environmental Conservation et al.
   Sup. Ct. Vt. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1193.
    Owens v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1285.
    New York State Department of Environmental Conservation et al. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1363.
    Protect Key West, Inc., dba Last Stand v. Perry, Secretary of Defense, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1397.
    Tucker v. Georgia Department of Human Resources ex rel. Cassel.
   Super. Ct. Glynn County, Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1411.
    White v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1449.
    Methodist Hospital et al. v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1458.
    CBC, Inc., et al. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1513.
    Van Engel v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1588.
    Parkridge Investors Limited Partnership v. Farmers Home Administration.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1606.
    White et ux. v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1617.
    Vollrath Co. v. Sammi Corp. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1620.
    Rubens et al. v. Shine, Julianelle, Karp, Bozelko & Karazin, P. C.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1622.
    Gutierrez et al. v. United Foods, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1623.
    Suggs v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1624.
    Psarianos et al. v. United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Assn. (Bermuda), Ltd.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1628.
    Fortin et al. v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1640.
    Billings et al. v. Tavaglione.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1642.
    Davis v. Davis.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1649.
    Allstate Insurance Co. v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Assn. et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1655.
    McMaster, nka Hines v. Iowa Board of Psychology Examiners.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1661.
    Transamerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Zapata Partnership, Ltd.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1695.
    Travitz v. Northeast Department ILGWU Health and Welfare Fund et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1715.
    Jarmusik v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1751.
    Bray Terminals, Inc., et al. v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1752.
    Fairfax County School Board v. Fairfax Covenant Church.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-1763.
    Hall v. Melendez.
   Sup. Ct. P. R. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7580.
    Boggs v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7893.
    Hartsock v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-7923.
    Loomis v. Vernon et al.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8152.
    Shelton v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8234.
    Lewin v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8264.
    Durbin v. Durbin et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8324.
    Lupe v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8362.
    Garey v. Oh et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8384.
    Samuels v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8485.
    Jackson v. Department of the Treasury.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8510.
    Mark v. United States et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8516.
    Parris v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8564.
    Gerald, aka Jones v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8618.
    Price v. Department of the Navy.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8644.
    Van Winkle v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8663.
    Minh Trong v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8685.
    Wright v. Whitley, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8689.
    Van Haele v. Montana.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8691.
    Spencer v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8692.
    Singleton v. Carmichael, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8704.
    Flores-Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8706.
    Ruiz v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8710.
    Mitchell v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8716.
    Corugedo v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8719.
    Flowers v. Jordan, Administrator, Wisconsin Division of Probation and Parole.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8720.
    McKay v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8721.
    Rivera v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8724.
    Salter v. Whitley, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8727.
    Poole v. Holland, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8731.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8732.
    Martinez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8739.
    Steinbronn v. City of Philadelphia et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8757.
    Wolfe v. California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8778.
    Sei Young Choi v. Parmet et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8824.
    Floyd et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8842.
    Mackey v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8848.
    Senich v. Lambdin.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8851.
    Baker v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8858.
    Huffman v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8898.
    Gonzales v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8900.
    Howard v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8902.
    Johnson v. Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8911.
    Okor v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8916.
    Chahine v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8918.
    Stetter v. South Dakota.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8921.
    Herrera-Duran v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8932.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8934.
    Patterson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8936.
    Mendoza v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8938.
    Loudermilk v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8939.
    Leeper v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8940.
    Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8942.
    Villanueva v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8946.
    Harris v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8947.
    Fierro-Gaxiola v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8948.
    Hester v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8949.
    Frushon v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8952.
    No. 93-8963.
    Harris v. United States; and Harris v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8953.
    Klimas v. Department of the Treasury.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8955.
    West v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8960.
    Reynolds v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 19 F. 3d 1444.


text:
    No. 93-8961.
    Warner v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8964.
    Valdes-Puig v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8965.
    Valencia v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8966.
    Haynes v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8969.
    Netters v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8971.
    Montalvo v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8973.
    Mayfield v. Michigan Board of Law Examiners et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8974.
    Herrera v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8983.
    Cole v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. .Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8985.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8987.
    Cockrell v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8988.
    Clemons v. Arvonio, Superintendent, East Jersey State Prison, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8989.
    Franklin v. Lummis et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8993.
    Triplin v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8994.
    Paulk v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-8996.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9003.
    Ryskamp v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9005.
    Larner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9008.
    Hearron v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9010.
    Gutierrez-Amezquita, aka Lugo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9017.
    Ojeda Chang v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9022.
    Avery v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9024.
    Akech v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9029.
    Mata v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9030.
    Ritchie v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9032.
    Myers v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied;


text:
    No. 93-9034.
    Pace v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9038.
    Brower v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9047.
    Hess v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9050.
    Ogunde v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9053.
    Lyle v. Department of Corrections et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9057.
    Newkirk v. Smith, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 93-9069.
    Vela v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.