author: Justice Thomas, Justice Breyer,

text:
    No. 98-9741.
    No. 99-5291.
    Knight, aka Muhammad v. Florida. Moore v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Fla.; and

Sup. Ct. Neb. Certio-rari denied. Reported below: No. 98-9741, 721 So. 2d 287; No. 99-5291, 256 Neb. 553, 591 N.W. 2d 86.

Opinion of Justice Stevens respecting the denial of the petitions for writ of certiorari.

It seems appropriate to emphasize that the denial of these petitions for certiorari does not constitute a ruling on the merits. See, e. g., Barber v. Tennessee, 513 U. S. 1184 (1995) (opinion of Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari).

Justice Thomas,

concurring.

I write only to point out that I am unaware of any support in the American constitutional tradition or in this Court’s precedent for the proposition that a defendant can avail himself of the panoply of appellate and collateral procedures and then complain when his execution is delayed. Indeed, were there any such support in our own jurisprudence, it would be unnecessary for proponents of the claim to rely on the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, the Supreme Court of India, or the Privy Council.

It is worth noting, in addition, that, in most cases raising this novel claim, the delay in carrying out the prisoner’s execution stems from this Court’s Byzantine death penalty jurisprudence, e.g., Graham v. Collins, 506 U. S. 461, 478 (1998) (Thomas, J., concurring) (criticizing the Court’s holding in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989), that Texas special issues violated the Eighth Amendment by preventing the jury from giving effect to mitigating evidence); Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U. S. 272, 279 (1998) (opinion of Rehnquist, C. J.) (disagreeing with the view of five Members of this Court that procedural due process principles govern a clemency hearing in which the clemency decision is entrusted to executive discretion); Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, 178 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (disputing Court’s holding that due process compels a State to inform a sentencing jury of a capital defendant’s ineligibility for parole); Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U. S. 719, 739 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (disagreeing with the Court’s holding that the Sixth Amendment requires exclusion of a sentencing juror who would always impose the death penalty upon proof of the defendant’s guilt of a capital offense). In that sense, Justice Breyer is unmistakably correct when he notes that one cannot “justify lengthy delays [between conviction and sentence] by reference to [our] constitutional tradition.” Post, at 995. Consistency would seem to demand that those who accept our death penalty jurisprudence as a given also accept the lengthy delay between sentencing and execution as a necessary consequence. See Coleman v. Balkcom, 451 U. S. 949, 952 (1981) (Stevens, J., concurring in denial of certiorari) (“However critical one may be of . . . protracted post-trial procedures, it seems inevitable that there must be a significant period of incarceration on death row during the interval between sentencing and execution”). It is incongruous to arm capital defendants with an arsenal of “constitutional” claims with which they may delay their executions, and simultaneously to complain when executions are inevitably delayed. See Turner v. Jabe, 58 F. 3d 924, 933 (CA4) (Luttig, J., concurring), cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1136 (1995); Kozinski & Gallagher, Death: The Ultimate Run-On Sentence, 46 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1, 25 (1995).

Ironically, the neoteric Eighth Amendment claim proposed by Justice Breybr would further prolong collateral review by giving virtually every capital prisoner yet another ground on which to challenge and delay his execution. See U. S. Dept, of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Capital Punishment 1997, p. 12 (Dee. 1998) (for prisoners executed between 1977 and 1997, the average elapsed time on death row was 111 months from the last sentencing date). The claim might, in addition, provide reviewing courts a perverse incentive to give short shrift to a capital defendant’s legitimate claims so as to avoid violating the Eighth Amendment right suggested by Justice Breyer. Cf. United States v. Tateo, 377 U. S. 463, 466 (1964) (“Prom the standpoint of a defendant, it is at least doubtful that appellate courts would be as zealous as they now are in protecting against the effects of improprieties at the trial or pretrial stage if they knew that reversal of a conviction would put the accused irrevocably beyond the reach of further prosecution. In reality, therefore, the practice of retrial serves defendants’ rights as well as society’s interest”).

Five years ago, Justice Stevens issued an invitation to state and lower courts to serve as “laboratories” in which the viability of this claim could receive further study. Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045 (1995) (memorandum respecting denial of certiorari). These courts have resoundingly rejected the claim as meritless. See, e. g., People v. Frye, 18 Cal. 4th 894, 1030-1031, 959 P. 2d 183, 262 (1998); People v. Massie, 19 Cal. 4th 550, 574, 967 P. 2d 29, 44-45 (1998); Ex parte Bush, 695 So. 2d 138, 140 (Ala. 1997); State v. Schackart, 190 Ariz. 238, 259, 947 P. 2d 315, 336 (1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 862 (1998); Bell v. State, 938 S.W. 2d 35, 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U. S. 827 (1997); State v. Smith, 280 Mont. 158, 183-184, 931 P. 2d 1272, 1287-1288 (1996); White v. Johnson, 79 F. 3d 432, 439-440 (CA5), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 911 (1996); Stafford v. Ward, 59 F. 3d 1025, 1028 (CA10 1995). I submit that the Court should consider the experiment concluded.

Justice Breyer,

dissenting.

These petitions ask us to consider whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits as “cruel and unusual punishmen[t3” the execution of prisoners who have spent nearly 20 years or more on death row. Both of these cases involve astonishingly long delays flowing in significant part from constitutionally defective death penalty procedures. Where a delay, measured in decades, reflects the State’s own failure to comply with the Constitution’s demands, the claim that time has rendered the execution inhuman is a particularly strong one. I believe this Court should consider that claim now. See Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) (Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari); Elledge v. Florida, 525 U.S. 944 (1998) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).

The petitioner in Moore v. Nebraska was sentenced to death on June 20, 1980, more than 19 years ago. By mid-1982, Moore had invoked all his direct appellate remedies and lost. By mid-1984, he had invoked all state collateral remedies and lost. But in 1988 a Federal District Court agreed with Moore that Nebraska’s death sentence procedures violated the Constitution because its standards were too vague, permitting the death penalty’s arbitrary application. See Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972) (per curiam). The District Court issued a writ of habeas corpus. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. And in May 1992, this Court denied the State’s petition for certiorari, making final the lower federal court decision in Moore’s favor.

In April 1995, after modifying its death sentence procedures and 15 years after Moore’s first sentencing proceeding, the State held a new sentencing proceeding; Moore was again sentenced to death. By April 1997, Moore had invoked all direct appellate remedies and lost. He then invoked state collateral review and lost in the lower courts. See 210 Neb. 457, 316 N. W. 2d 33 (1982). He now seeks certiorari, asking us to review his claim of inordinate delay (among others) — 19 years and 4 months after he was first sentenced to death.

The petitioner in Knight v. Florida was sentenced to death on April 21, 1975, nearly 25 years ago. By mid-1976, Knight had invoked all his direct appellate remedies and lost. By mid-1983, he had invoked all state collateral remedies and lost. But Knight had also filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal court; and in December 1988, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that Florida’s death penalty sentencing procedure was constitutionally defective because it did not require the jury to take account of an unusually traumatic and abusive childhood as a potentially mitigating factor. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978). The Court of Appeals ordered a new sentencing proceeding.

In February 1996, the State held a new proceeding, and Knight was again sentenced to death. In November 1998, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. 721 So. 2d 287 (1998). Knight now seeks certiorari, asking us to review his claim of inordinate delay (among others) — 24 years and 6 months after he was first sentenced to death.

It is difficult to deny the suffering inherent in a prolonged wait for execution — a matter which courts and individual judges have long recognized. See Lackey, supra, at 1045-1047. More than a century ago, this Court described as “horrible” the “feelings” that accompany uncertainty about whether, or when, the execution will take place. In re Medley, 134 U. S. 160, 172 (1890). The California Supreme Court has referred to the “dehumanizing effects of. .. lengthy imprisonment prior to execution.” People v. Anderson, 6 Cal. 3d 628, 649, 493 P. 2d 880, 894 (1972). In Furman v. Georgia, supra, at 288-289 (concurring opinion), Justice Brennan wrote of the “inevitable long wait” that exacts “a frightful toll.” Justice Frankfurter noted that the “onset of insanity while awaiting execution of a death sentence is not a rare phenomenon.” Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U. S. 9, 14 (1950) (dissenting opinion). See Strafer, Volunteering for Execution, 74 J. Crim. L. & C. 860, 872, n. 44 (1983) (a study of Florida inmates showed that 35% of those confined on death row attempted suicide; 42% seriously considered suicide). And death row conditions of special isolation may well aggravate that suffering. See Connolly, Better Never Than Late, 23 New England J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 101, 121 (1997); Strafer, supra, at 870-871, n. 37.

At the same time, the longer the delay, the weaker the justification for imposing the death penalty in terms of punishment's basic retributive or deterrent purposes: Lackey, supra, at 1046. Nor can one justify lengthy delays by reference to constitutional tradition, for our Constitution was written at a time when delay between sentencing and execution could be measured in days or weeks, not decades. See Pratt v. Attorney General for Jamaica, [1994] 2 A. C. 1, 18, 4 All E. R. 769, 773 (P. C. 1993) (en banc) (Great Britain’s “Murder Act” of 1751 prescribed that execution take place on the next day but one after sentence).

A growing number of courts outside the United States — courts that accept or assume the lawfulness of the death penalty — have held that lengthy delay in administering a lawful death penalty renders ultimate execution inhuman, degrading, or unusually cruel. In Pratt v. Attorney General for Jamaica, supra, for example, the Privy Council considei'ed whether Jamaica lawfully could execute two prisoners held for 14 years after sentencing. The Council noted that Jamaican law authorized the death penalty and that the United Nations Committee on Human Rights has written that “‘capital punishment is not per se unlawful under the [Human Rights] Covenant.’” Id., at 26, 4 All E. R., at 780. But the Privy Council concluded that it was an “inhuman act to keep a man facing the agony of execution over a long extended period of time,” id., at 29, 4 All E. R., at 783, and the delay of 14 years was “shocking,” id., at 33, 4 All E. R., at 786. It held that the delay (and presumptively any delay of more than five years) was “‘inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment’” forbidden by Jamaica’s Constitution unless “due entirely to the fault of the accused.” Id., at 29, 4 All E. R., at 783.

The Supreme Court of India has held that an appellate court, which itself has authority to sentence, must take account of delay when deciding whether to impose a death penalty. Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 465. A condemned prisoner may ask whether it is “just and fair” to permit execution in instances of “[prolonged delay.” Id., at 470-471. The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, after surveying holdings of many foreign courts, concluded that delays of five and six years were “inordinate” and constituted “‘torture or . . . inhuman or degrading punishment or other such treatment.'” Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v. Attorney-General, [1993] 1 Zimb. L. R. 239, 240, 269 (S) (Aug. 4, 1999), http: //www.law.wits.ac.za/salr/catholic.html. And the European Court of Human Rights, interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights, noted the convention did not forbid capital punishment. But, in the court’s view, the convention nonetheless prohibited the United Kingdom from extraditing a potential defendant to the Commonwealth of Virginia — in large part because the 6- to 8-year delay that typically accompanied a death sentence amounts to “cruel, inhuman, [or] degrading treatment or punishment” forbidden by the convention. Soering v. United Kingdom, 11 Eur. Ct. H. R. (ser. A), pp. 439, 478, ¶111 (1989).

Not all foreign authority reaches the same conclusion. The Supreme Court of Canada, for example, held that Canadian constitutional standards, though roughly similar to those of the European Convention on Human Rights, did not bar extradition to the United States of a defendant facing the death penalty. Kindler v. Minister of Justice, [1991] 2 S. C. R. 779, 838 (joint opinion). And the United Nations Human Rights Committee has written that a delay of 10 years does not necessarily violate roughly similar standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Views adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, 44th Sess., Mar. 30, 1992, In re: Barrett v. Jamaica (Nos. 270/1988 and 271/1988) §8.4. Given the closeness of the Canadian Court’s decision (4 to 3) and language that the United Nations Human Rights Committee used to describe the 10-year delay (“disturbingly long”), one cannot be certain what position those bodies would take in respect to delays of 19 and 24 years.

Obviously this foreign authority does not bind us. After all, we are interpreting a “Constitution for the United States of America.” Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815, 868, n. 4 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). And indeed, after Soering, the United States Senate insisted on reservations to language imposing similar standards in various human rights treaties, specifying, for example, that the language in question did not “restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the ... Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.” 136 Cong. Rec. 36192-36199 (1990) (U. S. Senate Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment).

Nonetheless, the treaty reservations say nothing about whether a particular “period of confinement” is “constitutional.” And this Court has long considered as relevant and informative the way in which foreign courts have applied standards roughly comparable to our own constitutional standards in roughly comparable circumstances. In doing so, the Court has found particularly instructive opinions of former Commonwealth nations insofar as those opinions reflect a legal tradition that also underlies our own Eighth Amendment. Thompson v. Oklahoma, supra, at 830-831 (opinion of Stevens, J.) (considering practices of Anglo-American nations regarding executing juveniles); Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782, 796-797, n. 22 (1982) (noting that the doctrine of felony murder has been eliminated or restricted in England, India, Canada, and a “number of other Commonwealth countries”); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584, 596, n. 10 (1977) (observing that only 3 of 60 nations surveyed in 1965 retained the death penalty for rape); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 102-103 (1958) (noting that only 2 of 84 countries surveyed imposed denationalization as a penalty for desertion). See also Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 710, n. 8, and 718-719, n. 16 (1997) (surveying other nations' laws regarding assisted suicide); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U. S. 568, 583-584, n. 25, and 588 (1961) (considering English practice concerning police interrogation of suspects); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 183-189 (1881) (referring to the practices of Parliament in determining whether the House of Representatives has the power to hold a witness in contempt). Willingness to consider foreign judicial views in comparable cases is not surprising in a Nation that from its birth has given a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”

In these cases, the foreign courts I have mentioned have considered roughly comparable questions under roughly comparable legal standards. Each court has held or assumed that those standards permit application of the death penalty itself. Consequently, I believe their views are useful even though not binding.

Further, the force of the major countervailing argument is diminished in these two cases. That argument (as set out by the Human Rights Commission) recognizes that there must be an “element of delay between the lawful imposition of a sentence of death and the exhaustion of available remedies.” Barrett, supra, § 8.4. It claims that “even prolonged periods of detention under a severe custodial regime on death row cannot generally be considered to constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if the convicted person is merely availing himself of appellate remedies.” Ibid. As the Canadian Supreme Court noted, “a defendant is never forced to undergo the full appeal procedure, but the vast majority choose to do so. It would be ironic if delay caused by the appellant’s taking advantage of the full and generous avenue of the appeals available to him should be viewed as a violation of fundamental justice.” Kindler, supra, at 838; see also Richmond v. Lewis, 948 F. 2d 1473, 1491-1492 (CA9 1990).

The eases before us, however, involve delays which resulted in large part from the States’ failure to apply constitutionally sufficient procedures at the time of initial sentencing. They also involve extensive delays of close to two decades or more. Petitioners argue that the state-induced portion of the delay, perhaps up to 12 years in Moore’s ease, up to 15 years in Knight’s, should not be charged against them in any constitutional calculus. Cf. Pratt, 2 A. C., at 29, 4 All E. R., at 783 (counting against the prisoner only that portion of the delay caused by “escape ... or frivolous and time wasting resort to legal procedures”). Twenty years or more could not be necessary to provide a “reasonable time for appeal and consideration of reprieve.” Id., at 33, 4 All E. R., at 786. For these reasons, I think petitioners’ argument cannot be rejected out of hand.

Nor do I agree with Justice Thomas that the lower courts have “resoundingly rejected” petitioners’ claim. Ante, at 992. I have found about two dozen post-1995 lower court cases in which prisoners have raised Lackey claims. Most involve procedural failings that in part or in whole determined the outcome of the case. Of the eight cases (other than the two cases below) that decided Lackey claims solely on the merits, only four involve lengthy delays for which the State arguably bears responsibility. See Bell v. State, 938 S. W. 2d 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (20 years; conviction overturned once); Ex parte Bush, 695 So. 2d 138 (Ala. 1997) (16 years; conviction overturned twice); State v. Smith, 280 Mont. 158, 931 P. 2d 1272 (1996) (13 years; sentence overturned once); People v. Massie, 19 Cal. 4th 550, 967 P. 2d 29 (1998) (16 years; sentence overturned once). Neither the opinions in these four cases, nor those in any other of the lower court cases that I have found, discuss the potential significance of that state responsibility at any length. Thus, although the experiment may have begun, it is hardly evident that we “should consider the experiment concluded.” Ante, at 993.

Finally, the constitutional issue, even if limited to delays of close to 20 years or more, has considerable practical importance. Available statistics indicate that as of two years ago, December 1997, 24 prisoners sentenced to death had been on death row for more than 20 years. At that time 125 prisoners on death row had been sentenced in or before 1980 and therefore may now fall within the relevant category. U. S. Dept, of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Capital Punishment 1997, p. 13 (Dec. 1998). Given these figures and the nature of the question, despite the absence of a division among the lower federal courts, this Court should consider the issue.

I would grant the petitions for certiorari in these two eases.

       In support of his claim, petitioner Knight cites Blackstone, who remarked that “a delayed execution ‘affects the minds of the spectators rather as a terrible sight, than as the necessary consequence of transgression.’” Pet. for Cert. in No. 98-9741, p. 15 (quoting 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *397). Blackstone was speaking of the effect speedy execution would have on deterring crime: “[P]unishment should follow the crime as early as possible; that the prospect of gratification or advantage, which tempts a man to commit the crime, should instantly awake the attendant idea of punishment.” Ibid. In this regard, Blackstone observed that “throughout the kingdom, by statute 25 Geo. II. c. 37. it is enacted that, in case of murder, the judge shall in his sentence direct execution to be performed on the next day but one after sentence passed.” Ibid. I have no doubt that such a system, if reenacted, would have the deterrent effect that Justice Breyer finds lacking in the current system, but I am equally confident that such a procedure would find little support from this Court.

       See 623 U. S., at 288 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 290 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

       Furthermore, I observed prior to Congress’ adoption of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. 104-132, Tit. IV-B, 5413(f), 110 Stat. 1269, that this Court has radically expanded federal habeas corpus review for state prisoners, which until AEDPA had been delineated in scope by an unchanged statutory formulation. See Wright v. West, 505 U. S. 277, 285-287 (1992) (opinion of Thomas, J.) (tracing the expansion of federal habeas corpus relief from its original conception as a mechanism for prisoners to challenge the jurisdiction of the state court that had rendered judgment).

      Each of these cases rejected the claim on the merits. I am not aware of a single American court that has accepted such an Eighth Amendment claim. Some judges have dismissed the claim in the strongest of terms. See, e. g., Turner v. Jabe, 58 F. 3d 924, 933 (CA4 1995) (Luttig, J., concurring) (describing a similar claim as a “mockery of our system of justice, and an affront to lawabiding citizens”).


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 99-5258.
    Stojetz v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion of petitioner to strike the brief in opposition denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-1937.
    No. 98-8777.
    No. 98-9336.
    No. 98-9550.
    No. 98-9582.
    No. 98-9633.
    No. 98-9715.
    No. 98-9889.
    Vey v. Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al., Chester v. Louisiana, McBroom v. Techneglas, Inc., Lomax v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, Terio v. Kurtzman & Haspel, Trustee, et al., Washington v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Braun v. Flowers, Warden, et al., King v. Love et al., Wronke v. Madigan, Sheriff, Champaign County, Illinois, Bane v. Robinson et al.,
   ante, p. 818;

ante, p. 826;

ante, p. 832;

ante, p. 839;

ante, p. 840;

ante, p. 843;

ante, p. 849;

ante, p. 858;

No. 99-5026.

No. 99-5475.

ante, p. 881; and

ante, p. 906. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    November 9, 1999
    No. 99A393.
    Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Chambers.
   Application to vacate stay of execution of sentence of death entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on November 5, 1999, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 99-6840 (99A363).
    Royal v. Taylor, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    November 12, 1999
    No. 99A359.
    Reno, Attorney General, et al. v. Kim Ho Ma.
   D. C. W. D. Wash. Application for stay, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    November 15, 1999
    No. 99M15.
    No. 99M24.
    Powell v. Powell et al.; and Tarver v. Haley, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections.
   Motions of petitioners for reconsideration of order denying motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time [ante, pp. 802-803] denied.


text:
    No. 99M42.
    Rickard v. Sanchez et al.
   Motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis without an affidavit of indigency executed by petitioner denied.


text:
    No. 126,
    Orig.
    Kansas v. Nebraska et al.
   It is ordered that the Honorable Vincent L. MeKusick, Esq., of Portland, Me., be appointed Special Master in this case with authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings, and with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem it necessary to call for. The Special Master is directed to submit such reports as he may deem appropriate.

The compensation of the Special Master, the allowances to him, the compensation paid to his legal, technical, stenographic, and clerical assistants, the cost of printing his report, and all other proper expenses, including travel expenses, shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court may hereafter direct. Motion of Nebraska to dismiss the complaint is referred to the Special Master. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 527 U. S. 1020.]


text:
    No. 98-1811.
    Geier et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1063.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 98-7540.
    Carmell v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist. [Certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1002.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 98-1828.
    Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1034.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 99-56.
    Giles v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.,
   ante, p. 871. Motion of respondent for attorney’s fees denied without prejudice to filing in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.


text:
    No. 99-6033.
    In re Veneri.
   Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pawperis [ante, p. 926] denied.


text:
    No. 99-6433.
    Wright v. South Dakota.
   Ct. App. Colo. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until December 6,1999, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 38.1 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 99-6625.
    No. 99-6678.
    In re Nathan; and In re Johnson.
   Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 99-6161.
    No. 99-6180.
    No. 99-6200.
    No. 99-6225.
    In re Awofolu; In re Awofolu; In re Anderson; and In re Ioane.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 99-62.
    Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, Individually and as Next Friend for Her Minor Children, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Rutherford Institute for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Whether petitioner’s policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause?”


text:
    No. 99-244.
    No. 99-253.
    Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States; and Marathon Oil Co. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 177 F. 3d 1331.


text:
    No. 99-5739.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa 'pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Whether, in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and the interpretive rule that constitutionally doubtful constructions should be avoided, see Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988), 18 U. S. C. § 844(i) applies to the arson of a private residence; and if so, whether its application to the private residence in the present case is constitutional?”


text:
    No. 98-9545.
    Mason v. Westminster Investments et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9749.
    McFall v. Department of Agriculture.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9760.
    Boone v. Charlie Obaugh Pontiac Buick, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9785.
    Preston v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 98-9992.
    Sharif-Johnson v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-24.
    Orange County Department of Probation v. Warner.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-47.
    Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-97.
    Page v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-256.
    B. Willis, C. P. A., Inc. v. Public Service Company of Oklahoma et. al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-258.
    Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-259.
    Lozada Colon v. Department of State et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-262.
    Anker Energy Corp. et al. v. United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-265.
    Nakamura et al. v. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-274.
    Johnson et al. v. E. A. Miller, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-278.
    Ruiz Coronado v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-282.
    Blackfeet National Bank et al. v. Nelson, Florida Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-417.
    Epstein et al. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-420.
    Midwest Motor Express, Inc., et al. v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-428.
    Perdue v. Hunter et al.
   Ct. App. D. C. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-433.
    County of Orange et al. v. Wehrli
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-441.
    Kirkpatrick et ux. v. City of Bangor.
   Sup. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-442.
    International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO v. R. L. Coolsaet Construction Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-445.
    Oglesby et ux. v. General Motors Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-452.
    Torres v. Bonilla et al.; and Onossian et al. v. Block et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 185 F. 3d 869 (first judgment); 175 F. 3d 1169 (second judgment).


text:
    No. 99-459.
    Connick, District Attorney, Orleans Parish v. Hudson.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-481.
    Roe, Representing Unknown Employees of the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office v. Carter.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-486.
    Waring et al. v. UMLIC-Nine Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-495.
    In re Barkman.
   Coramw. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-499.
    Bandido’s, Inc. v. Journal-Gazette Co., Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-508.
    Haggerty v. City of Mountain View et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-515.
    Wojcik et al. v. Meek.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-530.
    C & C Building Co., Inc., et al. v. Michigan Department of Consumer and Industry Affairs, Bureau of Occupational and Professional Regulation.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-531.
    L. M. M. v. E. N. O.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-559.
    Moore et al. v. Owens-Corning et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-569.
    Gebman v. Pataki, Governor of New York, et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-577.
    Glover v. City of Memphis et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-584.
    Cavallaro v. Gallant, Administrator of the Estate of Cavallaro.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-593.
    Emerick v. United Technologies Corp.
   App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-599.
    Braver v. Parker Real Estate, Inc.
   Ct. Civ. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-618.
    Planned Parenthood of Mid-Missouri and Eastern Kansas, Inc. v. Missouri.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-627.
    Daniels v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-667.
    Leppo v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-670.
    Schachner v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lucas County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-675.
    Wahl v. San Diego Sheet Metal Works, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5213.
    Minnick v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5282.
    Gosier v. Page, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5301.
    Ladner v. City of New York et al.
   G. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5377.
    Garza v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5386.
    Wiley v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5676.
    Mack v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5743.
    Pruitt v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5851.
    Nagel v. Osborne et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5946.
    Thomas v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6037.
    Lee v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6106.
    Berrios Quinones v. New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6108.
    Scott v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6119.
    Jones v. Cheeks et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6121.
    Wilder v. United States et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6122.
    Votta v. Gnazzo et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6127.
    Turner v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6137.
    Sheldon v. Kitchell, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6140.
    Taylor v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6145.
    Corpuz v. Walter, Superintendent, Airway Heights Corrections Center.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6146.
    Beard v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6151.
    Hampton v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6153.
    Jones v. Hines et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Gertiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6164.
    Romney v. Disessa et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6165.
    Potts v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   Ct. App. Tex., 9th Dist. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6169.
    King v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6174.
    Kukes v. Calderon, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6175.
    Jackson v. Louisiana.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6176.
    Nieblas v. City of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6177.
    Martinez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6185.
    Saunders v. Taylor, Commissioner, Delaware Department of Correction, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6186.
    Ravesloot v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6187.
    Reedy v. Phillips, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6190.
    Krueger v. Carey, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6191.
    Jacobs v. Gammon, Superintendent, Moberly Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6194.
    McKee v. Stewart.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6202.
    Price v. Mazurkiewicz et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6203.
    Allah v. California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6211.
    Jordan v. Fanello, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6212.
    Wardell v. Ryden, Deputy Sheriff, Larimer County, Colorado, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6213.
    Seward v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6214.
    Sherrill v. Hargett, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6229.
    Gronquist v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6230.
    Carr v. Dormire, Superintendent, Jefferson City Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6246.
    Woods v. Securities and Exchange Commission et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6248.
    Killion v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6260.
    Lopez v. Udall, Attorney General of New Mexico.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6270.
    Deck v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6277.
    Dillard v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6284.
    Drake v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6291.
    Belei v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6321.
    Roberts v. Lee, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6334.
    Perelman v. Reno, Attorney General.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6336.
    Carlson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6350.
    McCarty v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Olda. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6355.
    Perelman v. Reno, Attorney General.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6359.
    Jones v. Corcoran, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6421.
    Faloni v. Freeh, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6427.
    Thurston v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6428.
    Weaver v. Gaskins.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6441.
    Shurn v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6445.
    Sellers v. Henry, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6462.
    Baker v. Toledo Board of Education.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6496.
    Young v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6499.
    Wallis v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6510.
    Monroe v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6524.
    Brown v. Thompson et al.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6525.
    del Pilar Marin v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6526.
    Keys v. Gonzalez, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6531.
    Leggett v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6533.
    Clemmons v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6534.
    Basket v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6537.
    Vargas-Mejias v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6539.
    Lester v. United States.
   G. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6541.
    Marshall v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6545.
    Slate v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6547.
    Padgett v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6548.
    Quintanilla v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6549.
    Sosa-Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6550.
    Peyton v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6552.
    Paniagua v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6554.
    Shorter v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6569.
    Gutierrez-Gonzalez v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6571.
    Garay v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6573.
    Da Ping Huang v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6580.
    Freeman v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6582.
    Elam, aka White v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6583.
    De Mendoza v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6585.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6586.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6600.
    Otero v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6602.
    McKinley v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6603.
    No. 99-6620.
    Nurse v. United States; and Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 189 F. 3d 483.


text:
    No. 99-6605.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6606.
    Miranda v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6608.
    Ratigan v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6612.
    Najiy v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6613.
    Kelly v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6614.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6617.
    Laszczynski v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6619.
    Cruz-Mendoza v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6624.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6632.
    Stephenson, aka McCurvin v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6697.
    Normington v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-414.
    Hatch, Attorney General of Minnesota v. Minnesota Twins Partnership et al.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Motion of Consumer Federation of America for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-455.
    Sons v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Motion of petitioner for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6149.
    Morrow v. Hvass, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Corrections.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Motion of petitioner to vacate judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6272 (99A309).
    Lamb v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 98-2032.
    No. 98-9387.
    No. 98-9422.
    McQueen v. United States, Cook v. United States, Weldon v. Wyoming, Thomas v. Caldera, Secretary of the Army, Franklin v. Bilbray et al.; and Franklin v. United States, Polyak v. Burson et al., Eells v. Dirnfeld & Zelner et al., Fermin, and on Behalf of the Estate of Fermin v. United States, Roy v. Brigano, Warden, Brooks v. Bunch et al., Valdes v. United States, Lee v. United States, Weldon v. Everett, Warden, Tyler v. Schriro, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, Tyler v. Schriro, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, Rucker v. Henderson, Postmaster General, Jennings v. United States, Langworthy v. Dean et al.,
   ante, p. 823;

ante, p. 833;

ante, p. 834;

No. 98-9682.

No. 98-9980.

No. 99-152.

No. 99-225.

No. 99-421.

No. 99-5020.

No. 99-5500.

No. 99-5537.

No. 99-5538.

No. 99-5605.

No. 99-5717.

No. 99-5718.

No. 99-5732.

No. 99-5816.

No. 99-6117.

ante, p. 846;

ante, p. 863;

ante, p. 875;

ante, p. 878;

ante, p. 933;

ante, p. 881;

ante, p. 908;

ante, p. 910;

ante, p. 910;

ante, p. 912;

ante, p. 915;

ante, p. 915;

ante, p. 916;

ante, p. 918; and

ante, p. 945. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    November 18, 1999
    No. 99-494.
    Chevron U. S. A. Inc. (Formerly Gulf Oil Corp.) v. OXY USA Inc. (Formerly Cities Service Co.).
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    No. 99-7065 (99A421).
    In re Brown, aka Muhammed.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 99-6841 (99A364).
    Brown, aka Muhammed v. North Carolina.
   Gen. Ct. Justice, Super. Ct. Div., Moore County, N. C. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    November 19, 1999
    No. 98-1828.
    Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1034.] The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: “Does a private person have standing under Article III to litigate claims of fraud upon the Government?” Briefs are to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Tuesday, November 30, 1999. Twenty copies of the briefs prepared under Rule 33.2 may be filed initially in order to meet the November 30 filing date. Rule 29.2 does not apply. Forty copies of the briefs prepared under Rule 33.1 are to be filed as soon as possible thereafter.


text:
    November 23, 1999
    No. 99A416 (99-7000).
    Ramdass v. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall continue pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.


text:
    November 24, 1999
    No. 98-1701.
    No. 98-1706.
    United States v. Locke, Governor of Washington, et al.; and International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko) v. Locke, Governor of Washington, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1063.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted. Motion of respondent/intervenor for divided argument denied.


text:
    November 29, 1999
    No. 99-613.
    George et ux. v. City of Morro Bay et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed as to Santa Lucia National Bank under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    No. 99-6310.
    Baba v. Japan Travel Bureau International, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proeeed in forma pau-peris denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

Justice Stevens dissents.

See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.


text:
    No. D-1961.
    In re Disbarment of Weisser.
   Motion for reconsideration of order of disbarment [ante, p. 801] denied.


text:
    No. D-2099.
    In re Disbarment of Hernandez.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 527 U. S. 1057.]


text:
    No. D-2102.
    In re Disbarment of Eagle.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 801.]


text:
    No. D-2122.
    In re Disbarment of Arnold.
   Robert R. Arnold, of Wichita, Kan., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 99M43.
    Metzenbaum v. Huntington National Bank.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. 98-1446.
    S & R Company of Kingston et al. v. Latona Trucking, Inc.
   G. A. 2d Cir. Motion of the parties to further defer consideration of petition for writ of certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 98-1856.
    Hill et al. v. Colorado et al.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. [Certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1068.] Motion of Alan Ernest to allow counsel to represent children unborn and born alive denied. Motion of Alan Ernest for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 98-1991.
    Public Lands Council et al. v. Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 926J Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 98-9384.
    No. 98-9922.
    Braun v. Department of Justice et al. Baba v. Warren Management Consultants, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir.; and

C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of petitioners for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed informa pauperis [ante, pp. 805-806] denied.


text:
    No. 98-9913.
    Brancato v. Gunn et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed informa pauperis [ante, p. 1] denied.


text:
    No. 99-729.
    City of West Haven et al. v. Thomas et al.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Motion of petitioners West Haven et al. to consolidate this case with No. 98-1288, Village of Willowbrook et al. v. Olech [certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1067], denied.


text:
    No. 99-6799.
    No. 99-6915.
    No. 99-6916.
    In re Edwards; In re Dorrough; and In re Harris.
   Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 99-6673.
    In re Tyler.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.


text:
    No. 99-6657.
    In re Taylor.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 99-6389.
    In re Stone.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied, and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.


text:
    No. 99-6532.
    In re Reidt.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied, and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

Justice Stevens dissents.

See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.


text:
    No. 99-6275.
    No. 99-6341.
    In re Lavertu; and In re Parker.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 99-391.
    Free et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 99-474.
    Natsios, Secretary of Administration and Finance of Massachusetts, et al. v. National Foreign Trade Council.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 99-478.
    Apprendi v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Cer-tiorari granted.


text:
    No. 99-502.
    Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc., et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 98-9537.
    Sims v. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 99-48.
    Lewis County et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-89.
    Bogan et al. v. Hodgkins.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-92.
    Hollingsworth & Vose Co. v. Ruckstuhl.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-219.
    Castillo et al. v. City of Round Rock et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-284.
    Papa v. Katy Industries, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-315.
    Cooper v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-340.
    Hossain v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-345.
    United States v. Cook County et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-368.
    Wilson v. Area Plan Commission of Evansville and Vanderburgh County et al.
   Ct. App. Ind. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-373.
    Shannon v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-463.
    Sullivan v. River Valley School Board et al.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-467.
    Trice v. Board of Trustees for Okolona Municipal Separate School District et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-469.
    Karavan Trailers, Inc. v. Midwest Industries, Inc.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-471.
    Sandage et ux. v. Bankhead Enterprises, Inc., dba Bankhead Transportation Equipment Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-476.
    Valence Technology, Inc., et al. v. Berry et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-483.
    Restaurant Row Associates et al. v. Horry County.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-488.
    Rodriguez v. Muhlenberg Hospital Center.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-490.
    Grider et al. v. City of Louisville.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-493.
    Green et ux. v. Levis Motors, Inc., dba Levis Mitsubishi, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-503.
    Herman et al. v. Blockbuster Entertainment Group et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-511.
    Sanders v. Village of Dixmoor.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-516.
    Wisdom v. Ward, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-518.
    Zahran et ux. v. Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-521.
    Fitzgerald et al. v. Stalder, Individually and in His Capacity as Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al.
   Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-524.
    Jiricko v. Moser & Marsalek, P. C.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-529.
    Talyansky v. Xerox Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-533.
    Parker v. United States Air Force et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-534.
    Montana Rail Link, Inc. v. Watts et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-539.
    Decker v. Urrutia et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-541.
    Omlin v. Ursetti.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lake County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-546.
    Horton et al. v. City of Houston et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-549.
    Allred’s Produce v. Department of Agriculture.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-550.
    Garcia Sanchez v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-552.
    Sun International North America, Inc. v. Lowenschuss, Trustee.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-553.
    Corcoran et al. v. Croixland Properties Limited Partnership.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-555.
    Fent et ux. v. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority (two judgments).
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-556.
    Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Baker, Personal Representative of the Estate of Baker, Deceased.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-562.
    Cunigan et al. v. Shamaeizadeh.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-563.
    Deering, Personal Representative of the Estate of Deering, Deceased v. Reich.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-564.
    Bado v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-578.
    Koster v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-580.
    Alston v. GTE Directories Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-583.
    Emerson v. Delta Airlines, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-586.
    North Broward Hospital District et al. v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-587.
    Glavan et ux. v. OMI Corp. et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N.Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-588.
    Victoria Independent School District et al. v. Harris et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-591.
    Avelar v. Idaho.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-594.
    Fisher et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-611.
    National Federation of the Blind, Inc., et al. v. Cross, Director, Division of Family Services of Missouri, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-654.
    Stanley v. University of Southern California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-659.
    Foster v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-682.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-690.
    Adams v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-707.
    Hightower v. Kendall Co., an Unincorporated Division of TYCO International (US) Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-712.
    Anderson v. United States.
   C. A. Armed Forces. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-725.
    Casso v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-780.
    Engle v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5060.
    McMahon v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5061.
    Nufio-Ortiz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5182.
    Tidwell v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5490.
    DeLozier v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Olda. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5628.
    Spaziano v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5745.
    Paul v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5792.
    Smith v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Term. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5867.
    Grimes, aka Greenwood v. Ghianda et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-5925.
    Henley v. State Bar of Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6227.
    Galloway v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6234.
    Flores Sanchez v. Stewart, Superintendent, McNeil Island Corrections Center.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6238.
    Gardner v. DuCharme, Superintendent, Washington State Reformatory.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6239.
    Gillard v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6241.
    Garcia v. Ylst, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6244.
    Preston v. Caruso, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6266.
    Perry v. Zaentz et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6271.
    Kimbrough v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6273.
    Jacobs v. Jacobs et al.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6274.
    Zubiate v. McCausland.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6289.
    Barlow v. Ballard, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Parole Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6290.
    Turrentine v. Northern Telecom Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6294.
    Zaetler v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6295.
    Robinson v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6297.
    Williams v. Jarvis et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6299.
    Warmsley v. West et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6300.
    Tellier v. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6301.
    Mackay v. Weiner.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6308.
    King v. MTA Bridges and Tunnels et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6312.
    Prestia v. O’Connor et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6314.
    Venegas v. Galaza, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6316.
    McKimble v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6318.
    Irving v. Gurney.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6325.
    McLaughlin v. North Carolina.
   Gen. Ct. Justice, Super. Ct. Div., Bladen County, N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6326.
    Newton v. Virginia.
   Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6332.
    Reed-Bey v. Hofbauer, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6333.
    Pennucci v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6338.
    Branch v. Minnesota et al.
   Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6343.
    Riddick v. Wright, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6354.
    Scott v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6356.
    Roll v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6361.
    Lenoir v. Kerley.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6362.
    Kendall v. Reid et al.
   Ct. App. Wash. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6371.
    Green v. Sommers et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6372.
    Gwynn v. Mazurkiewicz et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6381.
    Good v. Hilltop House et al.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6384.
    Fuentes v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6388.
    Thibodeaux v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6392.
    Smith v. Johnson, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6393.
    Stiver v. Pennsylvania et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6394.
    Scarbrough v. G A B Robins et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6400.
    White v. Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6404.
    Thomas v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N.Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6406.
    Bass v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6418.
    Edwards v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6432.
    Winchester v. Little.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6449.
    Clayton v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6451.
    Coulibaly v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6455.
    McWilliams v. Jones.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6475.
    Moore v. Anderson, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6493.
    Burton v. Hill, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6512.
    James v. Hanks, Superintendent, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6513.
    Bryan v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6516.
    Alford v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6523.
    Teacherson v. Office of Patents and Trademarks.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6535.
    Tisdale v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6551.
    Shockett v. Massachusetts.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6553.
    Resper v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6559.
    Luedtke v. United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6579.
    Lewis v. Grimmett.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6588.
    Cendejas v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6589.
    Burnette v. CACI, Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6592.
    Brown v. Diercks et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6593.
    Cox, aka Cook v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6604.
    Napier v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6609.
    Wade v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6611.
    Snyder v. Dobucki, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6618.
    Murray v. Cisar et al.
   Ct. App. Minn. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6627.
    Mendez-Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6628.
    Velazquez v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6630.
    Vargas-Molina v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6631.
    Waskom v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6635.
    Rivas v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6636.
    Peaks v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6637.
    Lopez-Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6638.
    Norred v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6640.
    Lineberger v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6642.
    Wheeler v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6643.
    Weir v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6645.
    Woods v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6647.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6651.
    Al-Muqsit v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6653.
    Vest v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6654.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6656.
    Wimbush v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6664.
    Carniglia v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6665.
    Pinet v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6666.
    Smith v. Brigano, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6669.
    Nelson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6670.
    Amerson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6674.
    Bonilla v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6676.
    Vineyard v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6679.
    Billman v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6682.
    Foster v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6685.
    Garcia-Acuna v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6686.
    Harris v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6687.
    Osorio de Escobar v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6689.
    Daniels v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6691.
    DeLeon v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6692.
    Gomez-Jaramillo v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6693.
    Hooks v. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6695.
    Eady v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6696.
    Avalos-Cervantes v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6701.
    Coalla v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6702.
    Velez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6703.
    Tal v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6706.
    Boulanger v. Cohen, Secretary of Defense.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6711.
    Ochoa v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6712.
    Sadeghi v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6713.
    Bulger v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6714.
    Barnes v. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6718.
    Bews v. Morgan, Superintendent, Clallam Bay Corrections Center.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6719.
    Reclusado v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6721.
    Bridgeforth v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6722.
    Brooks v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6726.
    Woods v. Henderson, Postmaster General.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6728.
    Osborne v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6733.
    Cadian v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6734.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6736.
    Zukowski v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6739.
    Tilmon v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6740.
    Mandina v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6742.
    Jacko v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6744.
    de Aza-Paez v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6745.
    Rangel-Rodriguez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6746.
    Sum v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6747.
    Rudd v. Bureau of Prisons et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6749.
    Long v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6751.
    Morgan v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6752.
    Betancour-Echeverry v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6754.
    Campbell v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6755.
    Carl v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6756.
    Perez-Ayon v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6759.
    Maydak, aka David, aka Maidak, aka Figg v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6760.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6761.
    Mathis v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6765.
    Wilhoite v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6769.
    Willis v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6770.
    Johnson v. Catoe, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6772.
    McCoy v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6778.
    Wood v. Social Security Administration.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6780.
    Arboleda v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6781.
    Baldwin v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6782.
    Gipson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6785.
    Goodson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6786.
    Hayes v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6787.
    Haynes v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6793.
    Quary v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6794.
    Ross v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6796.
    Stackhouse v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6798.
    Durham v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6803.
    Flucas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6806.
    Hilton, aka Montana v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6810.
    Bailey v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6812.
    Spearman v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6813.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6826.
    Castro v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6832.
    Pace v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6835.
    Johnston v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6842.
    Brummitt v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6843.
    Arroyo-Gorrostieta v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6845.
    Lopez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6848.
    John v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6860.
    Wooderts v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6863.
    Watkins v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6864.
    Velez-Velasquez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 99-6868.
    Chambers v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Scalia,

text:
    No. 98-9183.
    Marx v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Scalia,

with whom Justice Thomas joins,

dissenting.

The Court today forgoes the opportunity to prevent an expansion of the exception it recently created to the Sixth Amendment right of the defendant “[i]n all criminal prosecutions ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” In Maryland v. Craig, 497 U. S. 836 (1990), the Court held for the first time that the right “to be confronted” with a trial witness does not necessarily require that the witness testify in the defendant’s presence. It said that (a) as to the category of witnesses involved in that case, and (b) after the preliminary trial-court finding that the statute in that case required, the State could restrict the defendant to viewing the trial testimony over closed-circuit television. The witnesses at issue were the alleged child victim in a sexual abuse case, and other child victims testifying concerning their own abuse. The preliminary finding required was that testifying in the defendant’s presence would cause the child serious emotional trauma. Id., at 840-841.

I dissented in Craig, because I thought it subordinated the plain language of the Bill of Rights to the “tide of prevailing current opinion.” Id., at 860. See also Danner v. Kentucky, 525 U. S. 1010 (1998) (Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). I do not think the Court should ever depart from the plain meaning of the Bill of Rights. But when it does take such a step into the dark it has an obligation, it seems to me, to clarify as soon as possible the extent of its permitted departure. The present case represents an expansion of Craig both as to the category of witness covered and as to the finding required. First, it extends the holding of that ease to a child witness whose abuse is neither the subject of the prosecution nor will be the subject of her testimony. The only basis for excusing her from real confrontation with the defendant is that, according to the prosecution, she also was the subject of sexual abuse, on another occasion, by the same defendant. The State’s extension of our novel confrontation-via-TV jurisprudence to this situation should alone warrant our accepting this case for review.

But the case expands Craig even further with regard to the preliminary finding. The state statute at issue in Craig permitted confrontation-via-TV only when the trial court found that real confrontation would produce “'serious emotional distress such that the child cannot reasonably communicate,’ ” 497 U. S., at 856 (quoting Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 9-102(a)(l)(ii) (1989)). Our opinion left open the question of “the minimum showing of emotional trauma” constitutionally required. 497 U. S., at 856. If the lower court’s opinion in this case is in the ballpark, the “minimum showing” required is no showing at all, and in all abused-child-witness cases this Court’s exception has swallowed the constitutional rule.

The facts are as follows: Jeffrey Steven Marx was charged in separate indictments with sexually abusing B. J., a 13-year-old girl, and J. M., a 6-year-old girl. Before the trial concerning Marx’s abuse of B. J., the court held a hearing to determine whether to permit J. M. — who had witnessed the abuse — to testify via closed-circuit television as to what she had seen. At the hearing, the prosecutor asked J. M/s mother whether J. M. would suffer additional “emotional... and psychological trauma,” Tr. 68 (Apr. 17, 1995), were she to testify in Marx’s presence. J. M/s mother initially answered in the affirmative. After defense counsel clarified for J. M/s mother that her daughter’s testimony would deal only with the incidents between Marx and B. J., however, J. M/s mother indicated that her daughter would be “ready for that”:

“Q. Do you understand we’re talking about testifying just in the case that she’s a witness in, not in the ease in which she was allegedly abused in? Do you understand that?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Okay. And you understand all she’s going to be asked to testify to in this proceeding is what she allegedly saw through some window?
“A. Okay.
“Q. Okay. You understand the difference now?
“A. Okay. Well, that does make a difference.
“Q. Well, sure. All she’s going to be asked to testify to is what she—
“A. Okay. So this isn’t her case?
“Q. No.
“A. Okay. Well, that she’s okay with. I mean, she’s ready for that.
“Q. I mean, what she saw hasn’t caused her any kind of emotional distress or problems, what she allegedly saw through a window?
“A. No. She just — I mean, she could probably do it.” Id., at 69.

In addition, Dr. Anita June Calvert, who had examined J. M., engaged in the following colloquy with the prosecutor:

“Q. Okay. Doctor, do you feel like if she testifies in open court in the presence of Jeffrey Steven Marx, that she will— the result would cause further serious emotional and physical distress than what she has now?
“A. If no one was ugly to her, you know, made her feel really badly about it — I think [she] is more of a talker than most. She will probably come on and do it.
“Q. Of course, we can make her do that as you well know, but my concern is what would be the emotional and physical distress that would cause — that would be resulting from her testifying in open court in the presence of another.
“A. In the presence of Jeffrey?
“Q. Yes, ma’am.
“A. She tells me she wants to. So unless she gets more frightened than I expect, that little girl would probably testify okay.” Id., at 76.

In response to questions from the judge, Dr. Calvert reiterated her belief that J. M. would suffer no additional trauma as a result of testifying.

“Q. Do you feel like there would be any emotional or physical trauma if she were to be in confrontation with the defendant in the ordinary involvement in the courtroom trial?
“A. You mean if she had to go and interact with him or if she just—
“Q. If she had to sit there and testify from the witness stand.
“A. I can’t say for sure, but she says she wants to tell what happened, and she’s a very strong little girl, strong-willed child like that.
“Q. Do you think she would suffer any emotional or physical problems as a result of that confrontation?
“A. I couldn’t guarantee it, but I think — occasionally there’s a child who wants to tell their story.
“Q. Listen to my question.
“A. Okay.
“Q. Do you think that there would be any emotional or physical problems with her confronting — testifying from that witness stand and having to confront her uncle?
“A. Your Honor, I couldn’t say for sure that there would not be. I wouldn’t expect it.” Id., at 77-78.

Dr. Calvert subsequently testified that “if there was going to be any trauma to [J. M.]” from testifying in the presence of Marx, the risk of such trauma would of course be lessened if she were permitted to testify via closed-circuit television. Id., at 79 (emphasis added). The trial court, without any elaboration, granted the prosecution's motion to allow J. M. to testify outside of Marx’s presence. A divided Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed. 987 S. W. 2d 577 (1999) (en banc).

Quite unlike the child witnesses in Craig, who ‘“wouldn’t be able to communicate effectively/ ” or who “ ‘would probably stop talking and . . . would withdraw and curl up/ ” 497 U. S., at 842 (quoting Craig v. State, 316 Md. 551, 568-569, 560 A. 2d 1120, 1128-1129 (1989)), the witness exempted by the court below affirmatively “want[ed] to” testify, and by all accounts was “ready for that.” If the decision here is correct, the right to confrontation of allegedly abused child witnesses has not simply been, as I suggested in Danner, “water[ed] down,” 525 U. S., at 1012; it has been washed away.

I respectfully dissent.


text:
    No. 99-645.
    Luckey et al. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 99-692.
    Doe v. Marshall, Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for protective order denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 97-5401.
    No. 98-1810.
    No. 98-1881.
    No. 98-1894.
    No. 98-1924.
    Woolley v. Zimmerman, Superintendent, Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution at Waymart, et al., McGinnis v. Anchorage School District et al., Liu et ux. v. Silverman, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Liu, et ux., Buckley v. California Coastal Commission, Wojciechowski v. Montevideo Partnership et al., Wojciechowski v. Walt Disney Concert Hall No. 1 et al., Buggs et vir v. Tisdale et al., Lee v. Hawaii, Kahre et al. v. International Monetary Fund et al., Jefferson v. United States, Dittler v. Robey, In re Walker, Davis v. Murov et al., Martinez v. Texas, Beets v. Kautzky, Director, Iowa Department of Corrections, Johnson v. San Bernardino County et al., Chhim v. City of Houston et al., Vasquez del Rosario v. Radloff et al., Williams v. Schriro, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, et al., Coe v. Bell, Warden, Bishop v. Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al., Morris v. City of Buffalo, Mallett v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, Speed v. Georgia, Washington v. Davis, Warden, et al., Jackson v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Cupit v. United States, Chappell v. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, et al., Griffin v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, Ward v. United States, Winzy v. Lensing, Warden, Taylor v. Securities and Exchange Commission et al., Rainey Brothers Construction Co., Inc. v. Memphis and Shelby County Board of Adjustment et al., Frank v. Orange County Social Services Agency, Allender v. United States, Mulligan v. Associates Leasing, Inc., et al., Rosenthal v. United States et al., Dass v. Caplinger et al., Jackson v. Texas, Tiwari v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia et al., Young v. Montgomery City Council et al., Perry v. United States et al., Broadway v. Sinex et al., King v. Washington Adventist Hospital et al., Schwartz v. City of Pittsburgh et al., Alston v. Brown et al., Thomas v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al., Sears v. Georgia, Young v. United States, Filiaggi v. Ohio, King v. United States, Masuoka v. Hawaii et al., Rickerby v. Everett, Warden, White v. Alaska, Huettl v. Wisconsin, Battle v. Bruton, Warden, et al., Williams v. United States, Millis v. United States, Alston v. New York, McBroom v. Bob-Boyd Lincoln Mercury, Inc., Byrd v. Texas, Webb v. West, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Curro v. Kelly, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Workman v. Bell, Warden, Moreland v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Mason v. Corcoran, Warden, et al., Leslie v. Litscher, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Shemonsky v. United States, Allen v. United States, Ortiz v. United States,
   522 U. S. 892;

ante, p. 812;

ante, p. 815;

ante, p. 816;

ante, p. 817;

No. 98-1955.

No. 98-1975.

No. 98-1982.

No. 98-2031.

No. 98-2041.

No. 98-2047.

No. 98-2048.

No. 98-7567.

No. 98-8002.

No. 98-8551.

No. 98-9345.

No. 98-9444.

No. 98-9492.

No. 98-9585.

No. 98-9606.

No. 98-9642.

No. 98-9742.

No. 98-9789.

No. 98-9823.

No. 98-9886.

No. 98-9892.

No. 98-9920.

No. 98-9960.

No. 98-9972.

No. 98-10028.

No. 98-10035.

No. 98-10046.

ante, p. 819;

ante, p. 820;

ante, p. 821;

ante, p. 823;

ante, p. 824;

ante, p. 824;

ante, p. 808;

525 U. S. 1182;

ante, p. 825;

ante, p. 825;

ante, p. 832;

ante, p. 835;

ante, p. 837;

ante, p. 841;

ante, p. 842;

ante, p. 844;

ante, p. 850;

ante, p. 853;

ante, p. 855;

ante, p. 858;

ante, p. 858;

ante, p. 860;

ante, p. 862;

ante, p. 863;

ante, p. 866;

ante, p. 867;

ante, p. 867;

No. 99-60.

No. 99-68.

No. 99-103.

No. 99-132.

No. 99-173.

No. 99-176.

No. 99-245.

No. 99-276.

No. 99-281.

No. 99-310.

No. 99-316.

No. 99-385.

No. 99-5039.

No. 99-5056.

No. 99-5079.

No. 99-5137.

No. 99-5176.

No. 99-5196.

No. 99-5214.

No. 99-5275.

No. 99-5308.

No. 99-5317.

No. 99-5363.

No. 99-5402.

No. 99-5404.

No. 99-5422.

No. 99-5509.

No. 99-5540.

No. 99-5550.

ante, p. .871;

ante, p. 871;

ante, p. 873;

ante, p. 923;

ante, p. 876;

ante, p. 876;

ante, p. 930;

ante, p. 879;

ante, p. 879;

ante, p. 932;

ante, p. 932;

ante, p. 933;

ante, p. 882;

ante, p. 883;

ante, p. 884;

ante, p. 934;

ante, p. 890;

ante, p. 923;

ante, p. 892;

ante, p. 895;

ante, p. 897;

ante, p. 898;

ante, p. 900;

ante, p. 934;

ante, p. 902;

ante, p. 903;

ante, p. 908;

ante, p. 934;

ante, p. 910;

No. 99-5603.

No. 99-5618.

No. 99-5644.

No. 99-5658.

No. 99-5678.

No. 99-5782.

No. 99-5985.

No. 99-6043.

No. 99-6087.

ante, p. 912;

ante, p. 936;

ante, p. 913;

ante, p. 937;

ante, p. 914;

ante, p. 954;

ante, p. 956;

ante, p. 943; and

ante, p. 944. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 98-2038.
    Greene v. City of Montgomery,
   ante, p. 824. Motion of petitioner to present issues from prior related cases denied. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    November 30, 1999
    No. 99-714.
    Irvine et al. v. Murad Skin Research Laboratories, Inc.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    December 1, 1999
    No. 99-5489.
    Fiorentino v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    No. 99-7144 (99A434).
    In re Cooks.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Breyer, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    December 3, 1999
    No. 98-1904.
    United States et al. v. Weatherhead.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1063.] Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to order the vacation of the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington and to dismiss the ease as moot.

Justice Scalia dissents.


text:
    December 6, 1999
    No. 99-6491.
    Cousino v. Nowicki et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma •pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.


text:
    No. 99-6495.
    Baba v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.


text:
    No. 99-6705.
    Burgess v. Kitzhaber et al.
   Ct. App. Ore. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.


text:
    No. D-2103.
    In re Disbarment of Maney.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 801.]


text:
    No. D-2105.
    In re Disbarment of Warren.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 802.]


text:
    No. D-2107.
    In re Disbarment of Buckley.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 925.]


text:
    No. D-2123.
    In re Disbarment of Romm.
   Stuart A. Romm, of Brockton, Mass., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-2124.
    In re Disbarment of Kinane.
   Daniel Edward Kinane, Jr., of Dayton, Ohio, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-2125.
    In re Disbarment of Tesseyman.
   Francis William Tesseyman, Jr., of West Seneca, N. Y., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-2126.
    In re Disbarment of Hanbery.
   William Lee Hanbery, of Florence, Ala., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-2127.
    In re Disbarment of Thomas.
   Gregory LeeAndrew Thomas, of Washington, D. C., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-2128.
    In re Disbarment of Jackson.
   C. Michael Jackson, of Fort Myers, Fla., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 99M44.
    No. 99M45.
    No. 99M46.
    Randall v. Wass; Tolbert et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and Local 496, Laborers’ International Union of North America v. Alexander et al.
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. 98-1701.
    No. 98-1706.
    United States v. Locke, Governor of Washington, et al.; and International Association of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko) v. Locke, Governor of Washington, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1068.] Motion of Counties of Pierce, Mason, and Skagit to join brief amici curiae of Washington Counties of San Juan et al. denied.


text:
    No. 98-1828.
    Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1034.] Motions for leave to file briefs as amici curiae filed by the following are granted: Federation of American Health Systems, FMC Corp., Friends of the Earth et al., Chamber of Commerce of the United States et al., Project on Government Oversight, National Employment Lawyers Association, Taxpayers Against Fraud, American Petroleum Institute et al., American Clinical Laboratory Association, American Medical Association et al., and Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc.


text:
    No. 99-5.
    No. 99-29.
    United States v. Morrison et al.; and Brzonkala v. Morrison et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1068.] Motions of Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Equal Rights Advocates et al., Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law et al., and Association of Trial Lawyers of America for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 99-138.
    Troxel et vir v. Granville.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. [Certiorari granted, 527 U. S. 1069.] Motion of Grandparents United for Children’s Rights for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 99-6126.
    Minford v. Domalakes, Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Schuylkill County, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed informa -pauperis [ante, p. 949] denied.


text:
    No. 99-6444.
    Paveletz v. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until December 27,1999, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 99-6615.
    Williams v. Taylor, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 960.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Barbara L. Hartung, Esq., of Richmond, Va., be appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 99-6959.
    In re Neff.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 99-6430.
    In re Taylor.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 99-224.
    No. 99-582.
    Duckworth, Superintendent, Pendleton Correctional Facility, et al. v. French et al.; and United States v. French et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 178 F. 3d 437.


text:
    No. 99-5525.
    Dickerson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. Paul G. Cassell, Esq., of Salt Lake City, Utah, is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.