text:
    No. 00-5947.
    Hill v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 00-6525.
    Selsor v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Qkla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-6552.
    Fairchild v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-7169.
    Green v. Catoe, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-7603.
    Hannibal v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-7828.
    Thompson v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8023.
    Rice v. City of Oakland et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8545.
    Dennis v. Lowe, Assistant Warden, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8575.
    Tyson v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8583.
    Roller v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Southern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8967.
    Maggio v. Norm Reeves Honda et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8972.
    Waters v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8975.
    Schrader v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8981.
    Dutton v. Montgomery County Government et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8982.
    Ashanti v. Lockyer, Attorney General of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8985.
    Mendoza v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8989.
    Sonhouse v. NYNEX Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8991.
    Rodriguez v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8992.
    Cadoree v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8996.
    Miller v. North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8997.
    O’Keefe v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9007.
    James v. Alabama.
   Ct. Grim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9008.
    Starr v. Robinson et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9018.
    Gotcher v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9020.
    Kulas v. Mack et al.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9025.
    Pierce v. Garcia, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9027.
    Osborne v. Senkowski, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9028.
    Compel v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9029.
    Yonamine v. Artuz, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9030.
    Williams v. Anderson, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison.
   G. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9032.
    Bin Yang v. New Prime, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9033.
    Villegas v. Lindsey, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9034.
    Beharry v. M. T. A. New York City Transit Authority et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9039.
    Simmons v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9041.
    Shorter v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9043.
    Krause v. Otto Nemenz International, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9048.
    Clarke v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9067.
    Ruiz v. Williams, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9070.
    Soliz v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9071.
    Schexnider v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9121.
    Caudill v. Williams, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9138.
    McSheffrey v. Executive Office of the United States Attorneys et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9153.
    Romero v. Williams, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9163.
    Martin v. Terhune, Director, California Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9180.
    Hankins v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9187.
    Jackson v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9216.
    Guzman v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9221.
    Heckard v. Williams, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9222.
    Gearing v. Anderson, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9226.
    Hughes v. Deeds, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9229.
    Manning v. Smith, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9254.
    Winslow v. O’Neill, Secretary of the Treasury.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9266.
    Miller v. Cowan, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9267.
    Reger v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9271.
    Baldwin v. Pinchak, Administrator, East Jersey State Prison, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9274.
    Mockler v. Maritime & Northeast Pipeline, L. L. C.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9289.
    Jones v. Battle, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9313.
    Thomas v. New York State Executive Division of Parole.
   Ct. App. N.Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9327.
    Becker v. Ghee, Chair, Ohio Adult Parole Authority, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9333.
    Gary v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9344.
    Clark v. North Dakota.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9374.
    Fahle v. Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9393.
    Sanders v. Alford, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9394.
    Perrotte v. Terhune, Director, California Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9400.
    Oguaju v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9405.
    Carrillo-Quintero v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9406.
    Winfield v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9411.
    Bivens v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9427.
    Young v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9445.
    Pinque v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9447.
    Salazar v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9449.
    Saint-Brice v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9455.
    McElroy v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9464.
    Roberts v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9465.
    Martinez-Guevara v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9468.
    Spence v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9472.
    Tuck v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9474.
    Murphy v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9478.
    Hernandez-Alejandre v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9484.
    Hinson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9488.
    Latorre-Benavides v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9490.
    Shanu v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9495.
    Farrish v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9500.
    In re Prather.
   Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9505.
    Greene v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9511.
    Ibrahim, aka Anderson v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9513.
    Bobo v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9514.
    Osuna v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9516.
    Ray v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9517.
    Randles v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9519.
    Slaughter v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9527.
    Hinton v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9529.
    Florez-Granados v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9532.
    Mack v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9548.
    Blandon-Rojas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9550.
    Arias v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9553.
    Santiago v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9555.
    Lira v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9556.
    Owen v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9557.
    Urrabazo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9559.
    Carrera-Reyes v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Thomas,

text:
    No. 99-1946.
    Chen et al. v. City of Houston et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Thomas,

dissenting.

Petitioners, Houston residents, filed suit against the city of Houston and alleged that the city violated the Equal Protection Clause when it redrew its single-member city council districts in 1997. Petitioners argued that the city engaged in racial gerrymandering when it devised the 1997 plan and that the districts did not conform to the one-person, one-vote requirements articulated by this Court. The District Court granted summary judgment to the city, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Because petitioners present an important legal question over which Courts of Appeals disagree, I would grant certiorari.

When drawing its 1997 districting plan, the city faced the challenge of where to place the newly annexed Kingwood suburb, an overwhelmingly white community located in the northeastern most point of Houston. Had the city added Kingwood to the adjacent District B, the city would have been forced to move a number of persons out of District B into neighboring districts to avoid making District B disproportionately large. This shifting of people from one district to another allegedly would have jeopardized the strength of several “minority” districts, those districts containing primarily voters who are black or Hispanic. Instead, at least in part to avoid disrupting these minority districts, the city made Kingwood a part of District E, a predominantly white community located in the southeastern corner of Houston. Petitioners argue that this placement evidenced racial gerrymander-mg and that the city engaged in the systemic undersizing of “minority” districts. Simply put, petitioners contend that the city drew minority districts so that they would contain fewer people, and fewer voters, than would “majority” districts, comprising primarily voters who are white. According to petitioners, this un-dersizing was done .directly, by making minority districts smaller in terms of total population, and indirectly, by roughly equalizing district populations without regard to the citizen voting age population. Because each district would have a single representative in the city council, the alleged effect of this undersizing was to dilute the value of votes in districts with larger total populations and citizen voting age populations, i. e., districts that in this case comprised majority white populations.

I would grant certiorari on petitioners’ one-person, one-vote claim, which asks what measure of population should be used for determining whether the population is equally distributed among the districts. In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), this Court held that “the Equal Protection Clause requires that a State make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts, in both houses of its legislature, as nearly of equal population as is practicable.” Id., at 577; see Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968) (applying Reynolds’ one-person, one-vote holding to districting for the selection of local governmental representatives). Absolute parity of populations among districts has never been required. But “this Court has recognized that a state legislative apportionment scheme with a maximum population deviation exceeding 10% creates a prima facie case of discrimination.” Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 850 (1983) (O’Connor, J., concurring); see id., at 842-843 (opinion of the Court) (“Our decisions have established, as a general matter, that an apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation under 10% falls within this category of minor deviations. A plan with larger disparities in population, however, creates a prima facie case of discrimination and therefore must be justified by the State” (citations omitted)). Having read the Equal Protection Clause to include a “one-person, one-vote” requirement, and having prescribed population variance that, without additional evidence, often will satisfy the requirement, we have left a critical variable in the requirement undefined. We have never determined the relevant “population” that States and localities must equally distribute among their districts.

Such a determination might be dispositive of whether the city has violated the Equal Protection Clause. If “population” means “total population,” the districts in the city’s 1997 plan had a less than 10% population variance. If, however, it means “citizen voting age population,” the maximum deviation is allegedly anywhere from 20% to 32.5%. Pet. for Cert. 3, and n. 4. The Fifth Circuit in this case held that the decision as to which population figures to use was “a choice left to the political process.” 206 F. 3d 502, 523 (2000). Likewise, the Fourth Circuit has held that the decision whether to use total population or voting age population is a political choice generally not reviewable by courts. Daly v. Hunt, 93 F. 3d 1212, 1227 (1996) (“This is quintessentially a decision that should be made by the state, not the federal courts, in the inherently political and legislative process of apportionment”). In contrast, the Ninth Circuit has held that districting based on voting populations instead of the total population would have been unconstitutional. Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F. 2d 763, 773-776 (1991).

In other contexts, I might be inclined to wait for further conflict to develop among the courts of appeals. In this case, however, because every jurisdiction in the country will have to accommodate the 2000 census data in the near fiiture, it behooves us to address this question as soon as possible. The one-person, one-vote principle may, in the end, be of little consequence if we decide that each jurisdiction can choose its own measure of population. But as long as we sustain the one-person, one-vote principle, we have an obligation to explain to States and localities what it actually means.


text:
    No. 00-1454.
    Textron Funding Corp. et al. v. Bessette.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motions of American Financial Services Association and New England Legal Foundation for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1498.
    Sienkiewicz v. McDougall et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 00-1176.
    No. 00-6741.
    Obermeyer v. Alaska Bar Assn., Mitchell v. McDaniel, Warden, et al., Tolley v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al., Masko v. United States, Wood v. United States, Clark v. Witek, Warden, et al., Veale et al. v. United States et al., Cruz v. Deeds, Warden, Filipos v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Schaffer v. Halter, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, et al., Garcia Espinoza v. Ruiz et ux., Brown v. Mitchem, Thompson v. Prestera Center for Mental Health Services et al., Cockburn v. Dahlberg, Acting Secretary of the Army, Guinto v. Philip Morris, Inc., In re Burns,
   ante, p. 922;

531 U.S. 1086;

No. 00-6792.

No. 00-6977.

No. 00-7040.

No. 00-7740.

No. 00-7829.

No. 00-7887.

No. 00-7980.

No. 00-8060.

No. 00-8091.

No. 00-8121.

No. 00-8314.

No. 00-8572.

No. 00-8672.

No. 00-8910.

531 U.S. 1087;

ante, p. 958;

ante, p. 924;

531 U.S. 1174;

ante, p. 925;

ante, p. 927;

ante, p. 929;

ante, p. 981;

ante, p. 945;

ante, p. 946;

ante, p. 961;

ante, p. 951;

ante, p. 964; and

ante, p. 957. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 00-7649.
    Morrow v. Georgia,
   ante, p. 944. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    May 22, 2001
    No. 00-10165 (00A1029).
    Smith v. Luebbers, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Cer-tiorari denied.

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


text:
    May 24, 2001
    No. 00-1572.
    Seaboard Surety Co. et al. v. United States for the Use and Benefit of S & G Excavating, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.


text:
    May 25, 2001
    No. 00-10210 (00A1031).
    In re Johnson.
   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:
    May 29, 2001
    No. 99-1709.
    McDermott v. Boehner et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Bartnicki v. Vopper, ante, p. 514.


text:
    No. 00-1457.
    San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., Inc. v. Simon, dba Liberty Paper Co.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., ante, p. 424.


text:
    No. 00-8480.
    Boufford v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000).


text:
    No. 00A960.
    Eitel v. Washington Mutual Bank.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-2188.
    In re Disbarment of Tidwell.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 530 U. S. 1294.]


text:
    No. 00-1491.
    John Deere Insurance Co. v. Nueva et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of National Association of Independent Insurers and Trucking Industry Defense Association for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this ease expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 00-8721.
    Gyadu v. Frankl et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 969] denied.


text:
    No. 00-9620.
    In re Carter.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 00-1249.
    Thomas et al. v. Chicago Park District.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 00-455.
    Acker et al. v. Jefferson County, Alabama.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-691.
    No. 00-849.
    WFAA-TV, Inc., et al. v. Peavy et ux.; and Peavy et ux. v. WFAA-TV, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 221 F. 3d 158.


text:
    No. 00-1103.
    Strickland v. Pirie, Acting Secretary of the Navy, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1182.
    Gotchnik et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1314.
    Rodriguez, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Child, Kelly v. McLoughlin et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1335.
    Texas Committee on Natural Resources v. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1341.
    Smith et al. v. University of Washington Law School et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1342.
    Racal NCS, Inc., et al. v. Tidewater Marine International, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1359.
    New Horizon of New York LLC v. Jacobs et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1382.
    Cook et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1392.
    Shipp et al. v. McMahon, Sheriff of Webster Parish, Louisiana, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1482.
    Frisbey v. Freed.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1504.
    Hilger et ux. v. Lawrence et al.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1512.
    Won Ho Song v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1525.
    Duncan v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1559.
    Hittson v. Turpin, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1562.
    International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1574.
    Warthen et al. v. Smith.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1581.
    Clemens v. Gavin de Becker, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1586.
    Meister v. Texas Adjutant General’s Department et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1603.
    Schlund et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1613.
    Beasley v. Sodexho USA, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1638.
    Williams v. Untied States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-7542.
    Jones, aka Lee v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8129.
    Fountain v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8290.
    Escobar v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8455.
    Estes v. Supreme Court of Utah et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8587.
    Miller v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8601.
    Leybinsky v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8673.
    Alaniz v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8687.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8689.
    Chuong Duong Tong v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8725.
    Velasquez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8776.
    Dalton v. School Board of the City of Norfolk et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9055.
    Arnold v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9065.
    Owens v. Smiley.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9072.
    Shea v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9080.
    Jones v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9088.
    Ward v. Broyles, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9090.
    Leng Yu Vang v. Knowles, Acting Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9091.
    Calbert v. Yukins, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9092.
    Guzman v. Welborn, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9093.
    St. Hilare v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9101.
    Hennessey v. Hickman, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9113.
    Clark v. Keohane, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9114.
    Corona v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9117.
    Sears v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9118.
    Robbins v. Hargett, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9120.
    Dundas v. Hutchinson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9123.
    Saxton v. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9125.
    Reynolds v. Alabama.
   Ct. Grim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9128.
    Ephraim v. Neal, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9131.
    Jackson v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9134.
    Loften v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9135.
    Jeter v. Warden, Winn Correctional Center.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9142.
    Young v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. OMa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9143.
    Price v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9145.
    Taylor v. Sutton.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9146.
    Wojnicz v. Kapture, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9148.
    Elhaj-Chehade v. Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9154.
    Reese v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9157.
    Barksdale v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9170.
    West v. Michigan Department of Corrections.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9171.
    Zoglauer v. City of Wheaton et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9172.
    Wallace v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9208.
    Underkofler v. Community Health Care Plan, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9278.
    Thompson v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9339.
    Taran v. Carey, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9341.
    Banks v. Mid-States Electric.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9343.
    Singleton v. Dahlberg, Acting Secretary of the Army.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9376.
    Hall v. Clinton, Former President of the United States, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9401.
    Page v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9412.
    Sampson v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9414.
    Saulsgiver v. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9425.
    Jones v. Thompson, Warden.
   C. A. ilth Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9435.
    Pickard v. Roe, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9453.
    Dunlap v. Straub, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9457.
    Diaz v. Portuondo, Superintendent, Shawangunk Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9460.
    Smialek v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9477.
    Hoover v. Arkansas.
   Ct. App. Ark. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9489.
    Butler v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9499.
    Baptiste v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9503.
    Grundy v. Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9518.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9533.
    Keith v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9539.
    Grady v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9549.
    Harris v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9561.
    Arredondo-Hernandez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9563.
    Myrick v. Hawk Sawyer, Director, Federal bureau of Prisons, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9564.
    Owens v. North Dakota.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9567.
    Herrera v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9580.
    Montell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9582.
    Snyder v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9584.
    Martinez-Acosta v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9588.
    Chino v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9593.
    Wash v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9595.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9604.
    Richardson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9607.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9608.
    Monzione v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9611.
    Bolton v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9616.

    Thompson, aka Lnu v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9618.
    Day v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9655.
    Buhrman v. Carter, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9685.
    Matejka v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9687.
    Mills v. Corcoran, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1255.
    Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Vollor.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Motion of Alliance for Democracy et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curias granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Chief Justice Rehnquist,

text:
    No. 00-1407.
    City of Elkhart v. Books et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Statement of Justice Stevens respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari.

As I pointed out some years ago, one reason that dissents from the denial of certiorari should be disfavored is that they are seldom answered, and therefore may include a less than complete statement of the facts bearing on the question whether the case merits review. The dissent in this case illustrates my point because it omits one extremely significant fact and discounts another.

Even though the first two lines of the monument’s text appear in significantly larger font than the remainder, they are ignored by the dissenters. Those lines read: “The Ten Commandments — I AM the LORD thy God.” The graphic emphasis placed on those first lines is rather hard to square with the proposition that the monument expresses no particular religious preference — particularly when considered in conjunction with those facts that the dissent does acknowledge — namely, that the monument also depicts two Stars of David and a symbol composed of the Greek letters Chi and Rho superimposed on each other that represent Christ.

Moreover, the dissent also gives short shrift to relevant details about the monument’s origins. At the dedication ceremony, three of the principal speakers were a Catholic priest, a Protestant minister, and a Jewish rabbi. 235 F. 3d 292, 303 (CA7 2000). All three spoke not of the “‘“cross cultural . . . significance’”” of the Ten Commandments, post, at 1060 (opinion of Rehnquist, C. J.), but of the need for every citizen to adopt their precepts so as to obtain ‘“redemption from today’s strife and fear,’” 235 F. 3d, at 295. To dismiss that history in favor of a resolution issued by the Elkhart Common Council on the eve of litigation is puzzling indeed.

The reasons why this case is not one that merits certiorari are explained in detail in Judge Ripple’s thoughtful opinion for the Court of Appeals.

Chief Justice Rehnquist,

with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas join,

dissenting.

Since 1958, a 6-foot granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments has stood in front of the city of Elkhart's Municipal Building, on the northeast corner of a lawn shared with two commemorative structures. The specific text was developed by representatives of the Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant faiths who sought to create a nonseetarian version of the Commandments. In addition to the text, the monument depicts an eye within a pyramid similar to the one displayed on the one-dollar bill, an American eagle grasping the American flag, two small Stars of David, and a similarly sized symbol representing Christ: two Greek letters, Chi and Rho, superimposed on each other.

A juvenile court judge, seeking to provide troubled youth with a common code of conduct, was the original impetus behind the project. The Fraternal Order of Eagles, a service organization “dedicated to promoting liberty, truth, and justice,” financed the monument, and although it stands on public property, the city contributes no time, effort, or money to its maintenance. 235 F. 3d 292, 294-295 (CA7 2000). In a recent resolution, responding to a request that the monument be removed and to threat of litigation, the Elkhart Common Council recognized that the Ten Commandments “ ‘reflec[t] one of the earliest codes of human conduct.’” Id., at 297. The resolution stated that the monument’s symbols represent the “ ‘cross cultural and historical significance’ ” of the Commandments, which have had a “ ‘significant impact on the development of the fundamental legal principles of Western Civilization.’” Id., at 312, n. 1 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). It also noted that Elkhart’s Municipal Building is home to numerous other historical and cultural objects. Ibid.

Nonetheless, in 1998, 40 years after the monument’s erection, respondents, residents of Elkhart County, filed suit against the city under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that the monument’s presence violated the Establishment Clause. The District Court granted summary judgment for the city, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed.

That court, applying the oft-critidzed framework set out in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), first considered whether the dty’s display of the monument had a secular purpose. The court found that it did not. 235 F. 3d, at 301 (citing Lemon, supra, at 612-613). The court relied in part on Stone v. Graham, 449 U. S. 39 (1980) (per curiam), where we struck down a state statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schoolrooms, on the ground that the statute had no secular purpose. Stone's finding of an impermissible purpose is hardly controlling here. In Stone, the posting effectively induced schoolchildren to meditate upon the Commandments during the sehoolday. Id., at 42. We have been “particularly vigilant” in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in that context, where the State exerts “great authority and coercive power” over students through mandatory attendance requirements. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 583-584 (1987); County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 620, n. 69 (1989). Those concerns are absent here, where the Ten Commandments monument stands outside the city’s Municipal Building.

Stone’s unique setting may explain our reluctance to accept in that case the State’s view that its display of the Commandments had a secular purpose. But we have never determined, in Stone or elsewhere, that the Commandments lack a secular application. To be sure, the Ten Commandments are a “sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths,” concerning, in part, “the religious duties of believers.” 449 U. S., at 41-42. Undeniably, however, the Commandments have secular significance as well, because they have made a substantial contribution to our secular legal codes. Even Stone noted that “integrated into the school curriculum” the Commandments “may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, [or] ethics.” Id., at 42. And as the Court of Appeals recognized, “[t]he text of the Ten Commandments no doubt has played a role in the secular development of our society and can no doubt be presented by the government as playing such a role in our civic order.” 235 P. 3d, at 302.

The council’s resolution stated the city’s intent to display the Commandments in precisely that way — -to reflect their cultural, historical, and legal significance. We are “normally deferential” to “artieulation[s] of a secular purpose,” so long as they are “sincere and not a sham.” Aguillard, supra, at 586-587. There is no evidence of insincerity here, and thus no justification for the Court of Appeals’ refusal to credit the city’s stated purpose. That the city only recently articulated its aims for displaying the monument is of no moment, for it is only recently in its 40-year history that the monument has come under attack. That the monument bears religious symbols as well as secular ones, and that speeches by religious leaders accompanied its dedication, do not alter the analysis. Even assuming that these aspects of the monument’s appearance and history indicate that it has some religious meaning, the city is not bound to display only symbols that are wholly secular, or to convey solely secular messages. In determining whether a secular purpose exists, we have simply required that the displays not be “motivated wholly by religious considerations.” Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 680 (1984). The fact that the monument conveys some religious meaning does not cast doubt on the city’s valid secular purposes for its display.

Turning to the second prong of Lemon, the Court of Appeals concluded that “[e]ven if we were to ignore the primary purpose behind displaying the Ten Commandments monument, we would have to conclude that this particular display has the primary or principal effect of advancing religion.” 235 F. 3d, at 304 (citing Allegheny, supra, at 592). In Allegheny, and in Lynch, we recognized the importance of context in evaluating whether displays of symbols with religious meaning send an “unmistakable message” of government support for, or endorsement of, religion. Allegheny, supra, at 598-600; Lynch, supra, at 680.

Considering the Ten Commandments monument in the context in which it appears, it sends no such message. The city has displayed the monument outside the Municipal Building, which houses the local courts and local prosecutor’s office. This location emphasizes the foundational role of the Ten Commandments in secular, legal matters. Indeed, a carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, surrounded by representations of other historical legal figures, adorns the frieze on the south wall of our courtroom, and we have said that the carving “signals respect not for great proselytizers but for great lawgivers.” Allegheny, supra, at 652-653 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Similarly, the Ten Commandments monument and the surrounding structures convey that the monument is part of the city’s celebration of its cultural and historical roots, not a promotion of religious faith. To that end, the monument shares the lawn outside the Municipal Building with the Revolutionary War Monument, which honors the Revolutionary War soldiers buried in Elkhart County, and a structure called the “Freedom Monument.” 235 F. 3d, at 296. Above the entrance to the building is a bas-relief of an Elk’s head, and the words “DEDICATUM JUSTITIAM.” Id, at 295. Considered in that setting, the monument does not express the city’s preference for particular religions or religious belief in general. It simply reflects the Ten Commandments’ role in the development of our legal system, just as the war memorial and Freedom Monument reflect the history and culture of the city of Elkhart. Perhaps that is why, for four decades, no person has challenged the monument as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

I would grant certiorari to decide whether a monument which has stood for more than 40 years, and has at least as much civic significance as it does religious, must be physically removed from its place in front of the city’s Municipal Building.

      “One characteristic of all opinions dissenting from the denial of certio-rari is manifest. They are totally unnecessary. They are examples of the purest form of dicta, since they have even less legal significance than the orders of the entire Court which, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter reiterated again and again, have no precedential significance at all.
      “Another attribute of these opinions is that they are potentially misleading. Since the Court provides no explanation of the reasons for denying certiorari, the dissenter’s arguments in favor of a grant are not answered and therefore typically appear to be more persuasive than most other opinions. Moreover, since they often omit any reference to valid reasons for denying certiorari, they tend to imply that the Court has been unfaithful to its responsibilities or has implicitly reached a decision on the merits when, in fact, there is no basis for such an inference.” Singleton v. Commissioner, 439 U.S. 940, 944-945 (1978) (Stevens, J., opinion respecting denial of certiorari).

       In planning the monument, representatives of Judaism, Protestantism, and Catholicism developed a nonsectarian version of the Ten Commandments. MaMng a religious text nonsectarian, however, does not make it secular or strip it of its religious significance.


text:
    No. 00-1511.
    Perna v. ARCO Marine, Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed as a seaman granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1584.
    Seabold, Warden v. Vincent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1508.
    No. 00-7216.
    No. 00-7611.
    No. 00-7920.
    No. 00-8266.
    No. 00-8279.
    No. 00-8377.
    No. 00-8416.
    No. 00-8580.
    No. 00-8850.
    In re Vey, Wooden v. United States, Fink v. California et al., Spencer v. Robinson, Warden, Fain v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Ganey v. Chester, Superintendent, Craven Correctional Institution, et al., de Medeiros v. Lewis, Warden, Gandy v. Texas, Pogue v. Ratelle, Warden, DeVeaux v. Schriver, Superintendent, Wallkill Correctional Facility,
   ante, p. 993;

531 U.S. 1099;

531 U.S. 1171;

ante, p. 928;

ante, p. 911;

531 U.S. 1202;

ante, p. 962;

ante, p. 976;

ante, p. 964; and

ante, p. 984. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 98-9705.
    Aviles et al. v. United States,
   528 U. S. 848. Motion of Miguel Angel Barrenechea for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 4, 2001
    No. 00-434.
    Olinger v. United States Golf Assn.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of PGA TOUR, Inc. v. Martin, ante, p. 661.


text:
    No. 00-7917.
    Smith v. Washington et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pawperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Becker v. Montgomery, ante, p. 757.


text:
    No. 00M94.
    Bridges v. Bell, Chief Judge, Court of Appeals of Maryland, et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. 00-8429.
    Shabazz v. Keating, Governor of Oklahoma, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 969] denied.


text:
    No. 00-8727.
    McCarver v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 941.] Motion of respondent to supplement the record granted.


text:
    No. 00-8900.
    Nichols v. United States,
   ante, p. 985. The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a response to the petition for rehearing within 30 days.


text:
    No. 00-9852.
    No. 00-9853.
    No. 00-9915.
    No. 00-9919.
    No. 00-9947.
    In re Jackson; In re Terrazas; In re Greene; In re Gee; and In re Moore.
   Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 00-9921.
    In re Hawkins.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.


text:
    No. 00-9622.
    In re Oser.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 00-853.
    Porter et al. v. Nussle.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari granted.


text:
    No. 00-1514.
    Raygor et al. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota et al.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 00-1519.
    United States v. Arvizu.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 99-1918.
    Massey et al. v. Helman, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-75.
    Wade et al. v. Coughlin, Director, Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-360.
    United States v. Cyprus Amax Coal Co. et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-484.
    Harris et al. v. Garner, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-509.
    Arons et al. v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Delaware.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1241.
    Lewis et al. v. Johnson et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1242.
    Utility Solid Waste Activities Group et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1256.
    No. 00-8464.
    Reyes-Hernandez v. United States; Mojica-Baez v. United States; and Ramos-Cartagena v. United States.
    No. 00-8634.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 229 F. 3d 292.


text:
    No. 00-1376.
    Collins et al. v. Mac-Millan Bloedel, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1413.
    Ysleta del Sur Pueblo et al. v. Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1510.
    Duncan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1517.
    Moriarty v. Svec.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1520.
    McKenzie v. SETA Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1521.
    McAndrew v. Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission (Department of Community and Economic Development).
   Commw. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1522.
    Scott v. Indiana.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1524.
    Davis, Next Friend of Doe, et al. v. DeKalb County School District et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1535.
    American Medical Security, Inc. v. AAA Michigan.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1546.
    Rodriguez Arbelaez et al. v. Newcomb, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1547.
    Huertas Laboy et al. v. Puerto Rico et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1550.
    Bibbs et al. v. City of Lubbock et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1576.
    Crume, Personal Representative of the Estate of Hurley v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1591.
    Riddle v. Liz Claiborne et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1602.
    Scott v. Stout et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1612.
    Carmelo Torre v. Oregon.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1633.
    Crain et al. v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee for the Supreme Court of Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1645.
    Rosenblatt, as Applicant for AVW, Inc., dba Adult Video Megaplexxx v. City of Houston.
   Ct. App. Tex., 13th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1646.
    MacElvain v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1647.
    Dahmer et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-5263.
    Nicholas, by His Parents, Nicholas et ux., et al. v. Taylor County Board of Education et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-6212.
    Wells v. Townsend et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-6381.
    Wilson v. Jamrog et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-7100.
    McClain v. Horn et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-7967.
    Montoya v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8374.
    Houston v. Swanagin et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8381.
    Holmes v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8641.
    Soltero v. Ingle, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8655.
    Wheeler v. Jones, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8707.
    Vasta v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8710.
    Tucker v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8739.
    Page v. Schomig, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8770.
    Childs v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8783.
    Montgomery v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8829.
    Tiffany v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-8987.
    Jackson v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9099.
    Ford v. Head, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9177.
    Hunter v. Smith, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9178.
    Hernandez v. Pierson, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9179.
    Fuhr v. Kemna, Superintendent, Crossroads Correctional Center, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9181.
    Hall v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9183.
    Holleman v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9184.
    May v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9192.
    Sledge v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9196.
    Williams v. Booker, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9197.
    Wash v. Gilless, Sheriff, Shelby County, Tennessee, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9201.
    Kearney v. Oklahoma et al.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9202.
    Johnson v. Louisiana.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9211.
    Fryer v. Ayers, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9212.
    Farris v. Poppell, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9217.
    Fuller v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9220.
    Fowler v. Withrow, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9225.
    Fryer v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9230.
    Kassebaum v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9232.
    James v. Small, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9235.
    Jones v. McDowell et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9237.
    Li Ah v. Greiner, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9242.
    Bright v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9244.
    Bright v. Walter, Superintendent, Airway Heights Correctional Center.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9246.
    Pendleton v. Bell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9247.
    Mobley v. Anderson, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9249.
    Smith v. Shook et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9253.
    Montgomery v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9258.
    No. 00-9259.
    Zhang v. New York University et al.; and Zhang v. New York City Commission on Human Rights et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9261.
    Mitchell v. Anderson, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9264.
    Lua v. Albritton et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9265.
    Porter v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crira. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9272.
    Lomax v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9275.
    Wheat v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9276.
    Walls v. Bargery et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9277.
    Terry v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9312.
    Varona v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9324.
    Still v. Boone, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9328.
    Begay v. Williams, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9364.
    Calhoun v. Alabama et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9379.
    Bullock v. Torpey.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9387.
    Bowman v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9395.
    Sanchez v. Roe, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9439.
    Rivas v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9444.
    Padilla v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9461.
    Scott v. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9467.
    Rodriguez-Rodriguez v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9486.
    Daniels v. Dees, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9493.
    Harris v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9497.
    Hadley v. Ryan, Governor of Illinois, et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9501.
    Broder v. Stegall, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9510.
    Fitts v. Williams, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9530.
    Fuller v. Dillon et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9577.
    Baldwin v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9587.
    Graves v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9590.
    Adamson v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9600.
    Causor-Serrato v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9609.
    Bustillo v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9610.
    Burke v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9623.
    Jacob v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9630.
    Weeks v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9634.
    Garrott v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9637.
    Powell et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9640.
    Dadi v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9641.
    Charlesworth v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9643.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9648.
    Potts v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9651.
    Cook v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir; Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9658.
    Raines v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9663.
    Lathon v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9665.
    Meli v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9667.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9670.
    Reyes-Lugo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9671.
    Ramos v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill, 1st Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9674.
    Morales-Escobedo v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9684.
    Luna-Almaraz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9688.
    Quinones-Mondragon v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9689.
    Locascio v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9692.
    Pina-Cliville v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9694.
    Encarnacion v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9695.
    Duenas-Ochoa v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9696.
    Robinson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9700.
    Chapman v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9701.
    Martinez Campos v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9705.
    Harper v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9709.
    Houle v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9715.
    Melhem v. Pinchar, Administrator, East Jersey State Prison, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9716.
    Forbes, aka Gaskins v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9721.
    Guerrero v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9724.
    Wellbaum v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Champaign County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9725.
    Viramontes-Urguidi v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9727.
    Sampson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9732.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9735.
    Moreno-Cruz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9737.
    Antonio Cruz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th ■ Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9739.
    Nagy v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9740.
    Parker v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9750.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9751.
    Lambros v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9752.
    Theologis v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9753.
    Valle-Tovar v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9760.
    Deucher v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9766.
    Tutt v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9768.
    Mora-Hinojos v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9771.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9774.
    Tomas v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9777.
    Saunders v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-9877.
    Taylor v. Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1322.
    Woodford, Warden v. Morris.
   C. A. 9th Cir' Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pawperis granted. Motion of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1379.
    NGC Settlement Trust et al. v. National Gypsum Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Legal Representative For Unknown Asbestos Disease Claimants et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 00-1589.
    Sienkiewicz v. Hart et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 99-1864.
    No. 99-1865.
    No. 00-7280.
    No. 00-7856.
    No. 00-8547.
    No. 00-8563.
    No. 00-8653.
    No. 00-8796.
    Easley, Governor of North Carolina, et al. v. Cromartie et al., Smallwood et al. v. Cromartie et al., Murphy v. Duckworth, Warden, Phipps v. Washington, Lopez-Revi v. United States, Coleman v. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Smith v. Washington, McCall v. United States,
   ante, p. 234;

ante, p. 234;

ante, p. 944;

ante, p. 926;

ante, p. 950;

ante, p. 979;

ante, p. 981; and

ante, p. 982. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 00-8633.
    McSheffrey v. United States,
   ante, p. 952.

Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 10, 2001
    No. 00A1081.
    Minerd v. United States.
   Application for stay of the writ of mandamus issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, presented to Justice Souter, and by him referred to the Court, denied.