text:
    No. 03-334.
    No. 03-343.
    Rasul et al. v. Bush, President of the United States, et al.; and Al Odah et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Whether the United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba.” Cases consolidated, and a total of one hour alloted for oral argument. Reported below: 321 F. 3d 1134.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 02-572.
    Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.

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


text:
    No. 02-1843.
    Shepard v. Cavalieri, as Plenary Guardian of the Estate of Cavalieri, a Disabled Person.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-46.
    Global Relief Foundation, Inc. v. Snow, Secretary of the Treasury.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-136.
    Andrews v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-203.
    United Phosphorus, Ltd., et al. v. ANGUS Chemical Co. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-331.
    EIE Guam Corp. v. Long Term Credit Bank of Japan, Ltd., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-332.
    Dodge, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dodge, et al. v. Cotter Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-336.
    Sanchez v. Ward, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-338.
    Mese v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-340.
    Schmidt v. Ottawa Medical Center.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-348.
    Johnson v. Cambridge Industries, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-352.
    Yee v. Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners et al.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-353.
    Sauer, Individually, and as the Administrator of the Estate of Sauer v. Advocat, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-355.
    Spangenberg et al. v. City of San Jose, California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-356.
    Adams, Warden v. Lancaster.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-360.
    Major et al. v. Eller Media Co.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-361.
    Neibaur et al. v. Elliott et ux.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-363.
    McGee v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-367.
    Turner v. Houma Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-378.
    Fagerman et ux. v. Michigan Department of Transportation.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-386.
    Harrison v. Klem, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-393.
    Public Service Mutual Insurance Co. v. Peck.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-408.
    Daddario, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Daddario v. Cape Cod Commission.
   App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-413.
    Untalan v. Kapiolani Medical Center.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-424.
    Edwards v. Wilkinson et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-428.
    Pratt et al. v. City of Houston, Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-451.
    Schafler v. Spear.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-476.
    Benton v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-499.
    Smith v. Barrow.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-516.
    Pueschel v. Department of Transportation.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-519.
    Plunk v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-527.
    Jarrell v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-540.
    Moore v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5280.
    Jennings v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5293.
    Sundar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5459.
    Bethel v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5729.
    Watts v. Federal Express Corp. (two judgments).
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5752.
    Lightbourne v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6155.
    Krause v. George, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6229.
    Cushion v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6233.
    Robinson v. Stegall, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6237.
    Simpson v. BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6239.
    Esparaza v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6246.
    Magee v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6247.
    Jackson v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6251.
    Cuyler v. Georgia et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6253.
    Carlisle v. Herbert, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6254.
    Castillo v. Mantello, Superintendent, Coxsakie Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6258.
    Shiver v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6263.
    Jimmerson v. Hamlet, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6264.
    Knecht v. Weber, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6265.
    Jones v. Hearn et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6269.
    Morris v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6274.
    Rodriguez v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6276.
    Wade v. Kyler, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6277.
    Anderson v. Carey, Warden
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6280.
    Vargas v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6289.
    Barth v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6291.
    Duke v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6301.
    Thomas v. Kyler, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6305.
    Pendleton v. Nashville Metropolitan Police Department.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6332.
    Wilton v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6343.
    Zaldivar Pena v. Shannon, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Frackville, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6352.
    Drakes v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6364.
    Larkin v. Giurbino, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6367.
    Meyer v. Mugan, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6368.
    Jason R. v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6385.
    Tran v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Provincetown et al.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6389.
    Wiley v. McKee, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6419.
    Perez v. Vaughn, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6422.
    Prieto v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6436.
    Pineyro v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6443.
    Patterson v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6463.
    Alexander v. Castro, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6464.
    Adcock v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6467.
    Spotted Eagle v. Montana.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6472.
    Young v. Department of Justice.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6517.
    Morales v. Ayers, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6523.
    Nichols v. Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6526.
    Williams v. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6538.
    Wray v. Lacey et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6560.
    Anderson v. Massachusetts.
   App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6564.
    Miller v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6605.
    Flowers v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6611.
    Reed v. Reid, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6614.
    Horton v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6615.
    Faircloth v. Harkleroad, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6618.
    Hettler v. Petters et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6625.
    Watson v. Job Corp. et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6628.
    Plch v. New Hampshire.
   Sup. Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6633.
    Lavallee v. Parchue et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6637.
    Lee v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6654.
    Yancey v. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6668.
    Contraras-Flores, aka Aceves-Flores v. United States; and Palacios-Santoyo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 73 Fed. Appx. 82 (first judgment) and 83 (second judgment).


text:
    No. 03-6675.
    Barton v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6677.
    Charleston v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6702.
    Travis W. v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6704.
    Parker v. Sutton, Correctional Administrator I, Pasquotank Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6707.
    Thomas v. Castro, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6712.
    Carter v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6713.
    Coiner v. United States et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6721.
    Rashid v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6722.
    Legg v. Olivarez et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6733.
    Alexander v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6735.
    McCorkle v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6739.
    Estrada-Estrada v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6741.
    Exson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6746.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6749.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6753.
    McCullough v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6754.
    Zambrella v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6755.
    Hettler v. Stoebner.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6757.
    Gasanova et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6763.
    Casey v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6764.
    Deberry v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6766.
    Cruz-Dominguez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6767.
    Amaya-Caraveo v. United States; Orozco-Hernandez, aka Orozco, aka Hernandez, aka Sanchez v. United States; Jaimes-Arzate, aka Arzate Jaimes, aka Jaimes, aka James, aka Hernandez v. United States; Godines-Melendez v. United States; and Huerta-Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported 73 Fed. Appx. 82 (first, second, and fourth judgments) and 83 (third and fifth judgments).


text:
    No. 03-6775.
    Ponce-Ponce, aka Aguilar-Dominguez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6781.
    Kupaza v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6802.
    Evans, aka Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6813.
    Estrada v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6815.
    Carr v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6817.
    Azanon-Rodas v. United States Mercado-Vargas, aka Berrones Vargas, aka Perez v. United States Molina-Rodriguez v. United States Nunez-Villa v. United States Ortiz-Ramirez v. United States Pacheco-Herrera v. United States Ramirez-Bovadilla, aka Correa-Esquivel v. United States Segura-Carrera v. United States Cisneros-Perez v. United States Guardiola-Salas v. United States Jaramillo-Cervantes v. United States Maldonado-Lopez v. United States Martinez-Segovia v. United States Torres-Vasquez v. United States
   (Reported below: 73 Fed. Appx. 83);

(73 Fed. Appx. 82);

(73 Fed. Appx. 83);

(73 Fed. Appx. 83);

(73 Fed. Appx. 83);

(73 Fed. Appx. 83);

(73 Fed. Appx. 83);

(73 Fed. Appx. 83);

(73 Fed. Appx. 83);

(73 Fed. Appx. 83);

(73 Fed. Appx. 82);

(73 Fed. Appx. 82);

(73 Fed. Appx. 83); and

(73 Fed. Appx. 83). C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6819.
    Chapman v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-128.
    United Technologies Corp., Pratt & Whitney v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 03-160.
    Advocat, Inc., et al. v. Sauer, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Sauer.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Motions of Arkansas Insurance Department et al. and American Health Care Association et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-189.
    Lerner et al. v. Fleet Bank et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 03-199.
    Pike et al. v. Lucent Technologies.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 03-362.
    Woodford, Warden v. Bittaker.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 02-10659.
    No. 02-10763.
    No. 02-10898.
    No. 02-10930.
    No. 02-10931.
    No. 02-11110.
    No. 03-5592.
    In re Sedgwick, Sheridan v. Morganthau et al., Sepulvado v. Cain, Warden, et al., Smith v. Bushey et al., Savage v. District of Columbia, Sedgwick v. United States, Coleman v. Rollins, Warden, et al.,
   ante, p. 809;

ante, p. 836;

ante, p. 842;

ante, p. 843;

ante, p. 843;

ante, p. 855; and

ante, p. 918. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    November 17, 2003
    No. 03-411.
    Parker et al. v. Ohio et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. Ohio.


text:
    No. 03-6200.
    Walker v. True, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510 (2003).


text:
    No. 03-6273.
    Robinson v. Johnson, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.


text:
    No. 03-6423.
    Trice v. Smith, Warden.
   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. 03M13.
    Nakahara v. California.
   Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed informa pauperis without an affidavit of indigency executed by petitioner [ante, p. 805] denied.


text:
    No. 03M29.
    Woods v. United States.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. 132,
    Orig.
    Alabama et al. v. North Carolina.
   It is ordered that Bradford R. Clark, Esq., of Washington, D. C., be appointed as 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 reports, 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. [For earlier order herein, see 539 U. S. 925.]


text:
    No. 02-1016.
    Till et ux. v. SCS Credit Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 539 U. S. 925.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted. Motion of the Solicitor General to permit David B. Salmons to present oral argument pro hac vice granted.


text:
    No. 02-1205.
    Jones et al., on Behalf of Herself and a Class of Others Similarly Situated v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 538 U. S. 1030.] Motion of respondent and Alabama for leave to allow Alabama to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 02-1238.
    No. 02-1386.
    No. 02-1405.
    Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri v. Missouri Municipal League et al.; Federal Communications Commission et al. v. Missouri Municipal League et al.; and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L. P., fka Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Missouri Municipal League et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 539 U. S. 941.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 02-1580.
    Vieth et al. v. Jubelirer, President of the Pennsylvania Senate, et al.
   D. C. M. D. Pa. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 539 U. S. 957.] Motion of appellees Cortes and Accurti for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 02-1794.
    United States v. Flores-Montano.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 945.] Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 03-5630.
    Okoro v. Scibana, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 802] denied.


text:
    No. 03-5915.
    Sedgwick v. BankAtlantic et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 943] denied.


text:
    No. 03-6099.
    Mathison v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 802] denied.


text:
    No. 03-6383.
    Reimann v. Research Triangle Institute et al.
   Ct. App. N. C. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until December 8, 2003, 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. 03-6822.
    No. 03-7018.
    No. 03-7145.
    In re Nelson; In re Gray; and In re Evans.
   Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 03-7027.
    In re Graves.
   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. 03-473.
    No. 03-6919.
    In re Owen et ux.; and In re Paris.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 03-227.
    Vakharia v. Little Company of Mary Hospital & Health Care Centers et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-229.
    Otis Elevator Co. v. Mack et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-230.
    Moise et al. v. Bulger, Interim District Director, Florida Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-253.
    Old Person v. Brown, Secretary of State for the State of Montana, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-369.
    Morters v. Barr et al.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-370.
    Sibley v. Spears, Director, Miami-Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-371.
    Republican Caucus of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives v. Vieth et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-375.
    Illinois v. Bowman.
   App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-376.
    Putz v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-379.
    Ellis v. Heldman, Judge, Chancery Court of Tennessee, 21st Judicial District, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-380.
    Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-383.
    Hoohuli et al. v. Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-387.
    Fisher v. Bouchard, Sheriff, Oakland County, Michigan, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-392.
    Pataki, Governor of New York, et al. v. Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-394.
    AmBase Corp. v. City Investing Company Liquidating Trust et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-395.
    Sadlowski v. Benoit.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-399.
    Kentucky v. McManus et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-401.
    Tidwell v. Law Offices of Clay Ragsdale.
   Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-404.
    Jarrett v. Town of Yarmouth, Massachusetts, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-406.
    Caffey v. Alabama et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-422.
    Reid v. Capital One Financial Corp.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-430.
    Nyaga et al. v. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-449.
    Richardson Construction, Inc., et al. v. Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-456.
    Brozo v. Oracle Corp.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 03-471.
    Ohio v. Jones.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Summit County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-483.
    Longview Independent School District v. Coggin.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-486.
    Henrickson v. Potter, Postmaster General.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-522.
    Jones, Warden v. French.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-530.
    Wendt v. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-545.
    Scott v. State Bar of California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-572.
    Kozis v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-584.
    Cordo v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-591.
    Washburn v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-600.
    Mandacina v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5434.
    Leal-Rivera v. United States; Batalla-Sanchez v. United States; Galvan-Sanchez v. United States; Reyes-Bautista v. United States; Espinoza-Hernandez v. United States; Belalcazar-Solarte v. United States; Morales-Hernandez v. United States; and Rostro-Morales v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 67 Fed. Appx. 245 (third and fifth judgments) and 246 (first and sixth judgments); 73 Fed. Appx. 81 (second and eighth judgments) and 82 (fourth and seventh judgments).


text:
    No. 03-5534.
    Higuera-Cecena v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5585.
    West v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5825.
    Suarez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5929.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5945.
    Wolfe v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5974.
    McDonald v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6286.
    Barnes v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6287.
    Parra Soto v. White, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6293.
    Madura et ux. v. Full Spectrum Lending, Inc., et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6296.
    Baptisto v. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6297.
    Dean v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6298.
    Brignac v. United States District Court for the Central District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6299.
    Thurston v. Florida (two judgments).
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6300.
    Young v. Klem, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6306.
    Muniz v. Trujillo, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6308.
    Stoutmiles v. Jamrog, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6309.
    Washington v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6310.
    Parker v. Miller, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6311.
    Hayes v. Polotsky et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6312.
    Foote v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6314.
    Hambrick v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6322.
    Cox v. Bayer et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6328.
    Bromwell v. Dormire, Superintendent, Missouri State Penitentiary.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6329.
    Afflic v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6330.
    Keelen v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6338.
    Lewis v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6340.
    Walters v. Tugle et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6341.
    Treul v. Butler, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6345.
    Seeley v. Indiana.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6346.
    Shipp v. Yarborough, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6350.
    Noser v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6356.
    Haddad v. Higgins et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6360.
    Kimbrough v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6366.
    Murrieta v. Alameida, Director, California Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6374.
    Otworth v. Village of Lakewood Club, Michigan, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6375.
    Otworth v. Vanderploeg et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6377.
    Survilla v. Holiday Inn et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6380.
    Davis v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6381.
    Cepeda v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6384.
    Ben Yowel v. Washington, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6387.
    Finch v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6388.
    Pearlman v. Vigil-Giron, Secretary of State of New Mexico.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6390.
    Rice v. Champion, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6397.
    Barnes v. Virginia.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6401.
    Jackson v. Workman, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6403.
    Laurson v. Colorado.
   Ct. App. Colo. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6404.
    Bone v. Campbell, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6407.
    Nadasdy v. Domjan.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6411.
    Taylor v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6428.
    Wilson v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6435.
    Jaw-Shi Wang v. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6502.
    Scheidt v. Texas.
   Ct. Grim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6553.
    Dent v. McDaniel, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6572.
    Hearn v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6593.
    Chorney v. Republic Credit Corp. I.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6634.
    Brammer v. Garcia, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6640.
    Nanji v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6674.
    Mathis v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6698.
    Paul v. Department of the Navy.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6714.
    Elliott v. Suter, Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6717.
    Rincon v. Lockyer, Attorney General of California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6720.
    Brown v. Metts, Sheriff, Lexington County, South Carolina, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6736.
    White v. United States et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6738.
    White v. City of Murray, Utah, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6740.
    Darnell v. Johnson, Secretary of the Navy.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6742.
    Deorio v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6787.
    Morris v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6793.
    Pena v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6795.
    Salgado-Pena v. Fleming, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6797.
    Spencer v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6804.
    Sandusky v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6806.
    Muhammed v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6829.
    Goss v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6832.
    Marshall et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6833.
    Herring et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6835.
    Zakaria v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6837.
    Turner v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6839.
    Charles v. Williamson, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6840.
    Espinoza v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6841.
    Enigwe v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6845.
    King v. Nash, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6847.
    Lucas v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6852.
    Cruel v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6853.
    Rogers v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6854.
    Regalado v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6860.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6865.
    Arellano-Ramirez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6866.
    Morales-Franco v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6868.
    Vilan-Polier v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6869.
    No. 03-6963.
    Woods, aka Barnes v. United States; and Garcia, aka Bennett v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 335 F. 3d 993.


text:
    No. 03-6870.
    Carbin v. Johnson, Secretary of the Navy, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6872.
    Casillas v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6874.
    Pendergrass v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6877.
    Ramos-Quiroz v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6878.
    Shadwell v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6881.
    Drummond v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6885.
    LeClair v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6886.
    Martinez-Sanchez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6893.
    Patterson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6897.
    Miller v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6898.
    Munoz v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6899.
    Mickelson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6903.
    Chalmers v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6906.
    Zater v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6910.
    Robinson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6911.
    Stone v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6914.
    Ringold et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6917.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6918.
    Madera-Madera v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6922.
    Worstell v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6927.
    Reid v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6928.
    Abbott, aka King v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6929.
    Jemison, aka Mathis v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6938.
    Reynolds v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6940.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6941.
    Suggs v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6946.
    Barber v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6947.
    Richards v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6952.
    Vigil v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6955.
    Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6961.
    Gray v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6962.
    Flores v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6965.
    Garza v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6967.
    Nieves, v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6968.
    Polanco v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6974.
    Sexton v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6975.
    Slate v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6992.
    Evans-Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Scalia,

text:
    No. 02-1673.
    Concrete Works of Colorado, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, Colorado.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Scalia,

with whom The Chief Justice joins,

dissenting.

I dissent from denial of the petition for writ of certiorari. In this challenge to Denver’s use of racial preferences in public contracting, the Tenth Circuit, overturning the findings of the District Court, held that Denver had demonstrated a compelling interest in remedying racial discrimination in the Denver construction industry. The decision rests on an inference of racial discrimination from evidence that patently does not measure up to the standards set forth in Richmond v. J. A Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469 (1989). Coming on the heels of our decision last Term in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306 (2003), the Court’s decision to let this plain disregard of Croson stand invites speculation that that case has effectively been overruled.

I

Denver’s use of racial preferences began a generation ago, m 1977. In 1989, after this Court invalidated the city of Richmond’s 30% racial set-aside program for public contracting because the city had “failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in apportioning public contracting opportunities on the basis of race,” Croson, supra, at 505, Denver commissioned a study to assess the appropriateness of its program. The study was completed in June 1990, and a few months later Denver continued its system of racial preferences’ by passing City Ordinance No. 513, which established the scheme at issue in the present case.

Under the 1990 Ordinance, Denver’s City Council sets annual goals for the participation of minority business enterprises (MBEs) and woman-owned business enterprises in city contracting. The Mayor’s Office of Contract Compliance director then sets contract-specific goals for each covered contract. A prime contractor whose bid does not meet the goals will be disqualified, unless the prime contractor can show that it made a “good-faith effort” to do so — which requires satisfaction of 10 specific steps prescribed in the Ordinance.

To qualify as an MBE under the 1990 Ordinance, a firm must pass four threshold requirements, a 51% minority-ownership test, and a minority-control test. One of the threshold requirements is that the firm certify either (1) that it has been a.victim of past discrimination or (2) that it was in the city construction industry before June 1, 1990 (subsequently changed to Mar. 31, 1996)— in which latter case it is presumed to-have been a victim of discrimination.

II

The last-mentioned presumption, if it is to be a true indication of past vietimhood, must rest upon evidence not merely that there was some racial discrimination in the Denver construction industry prior to 1990 (or 1996), but that racial discrimination was so pervasive that it is reasonable to assume that it affected all minority-owned and controlled firms. Absent such evidence of pervasive discrimination, Denver’s seeming limitation of the set-asides to victims of racial discrimination is a sham, and the only function of the preferences is to channel a fixed percentage of city contracting dollars to firms identified by race.

The Tenth Circuit found that Denver’s evidence established that “discrimination was persistent in the local construction industry and that Denver was, at least, an indirect participant in that discrimination.” 321 F. 3d 950, 990 (2003). This conclusion contrasted sharply with the District Court’s conclusion that “what can be said about the statistical studies presented in evidence in this case is that the methodology was not designed to answer the relevant questions, the collection of data was flawed, important variables were not accounted for in the analyses and the conclusions were based on unreasonable assumptions.” 86 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1071 (Colo. 2000). The District Court and the Tenth Circuit derived such divergent conclusions from the same evidence because they analyzed that evidence with differing levels of scrutiny and skepticism about the city’s justifications. The first stage of the Tenth Circuit’s analysis was a determination that “the district court’s framework imposed a greater burden on Denver than that required by applicable law.” 321 F. 3d, at 974. In the second stage, the court filled the resulting gap by reweighing the evidence on its own, leading it to find “that Denver has demonstrated that a strong basis in evidence supported its conclusion that remedial action was necessary to remedy racial discrimination in the Denver construction industry.” Id., at 992. The Tenth Circuit departed from the principles enunciated by this Court at both stages.

A

Our Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence establishes that “whenever the government treats any person unequally because of his or her race, that person has suffered an injury that falls squarely within the language and spirit of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 229-230 (1995). It follows that a proper plaintiff challenging governmental use of racial preferences can state a prima facie case simply by pointing to this practice and showing that he or she was treated “unequally because of his or her race,” Ibid. Thereupon, the burden of sustaining the constitutionality of the use of racial preferences passes to the government, which must establish that it is remedying “identified discrimination” and that it “had a ‘strong basis in evidence’ to conclude that remedial action was necessary.” Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U. S. 899, 909-910 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Tenth Circuit interpreted the “strong basis in evidence” requirement in a miserly manner and ignored Croson’s requirement that the government prove that it is remedying identified discrimination. The District Court “believed Denver was required to prove the existence of discrimination.” 321 F. 3d, at 970. According to the Tenth Circuit, however, the District Court should only have asked “whether Denver had demonstrated strong evidence from which an inference of past or present discrimination could be drawn.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Instead of asking this easier question, the Tenth Circuit explained, the District Court was apparently misled by the plaintiff’s, “erroneous and unsupported statement... that Denver had the ‘burden of establishing by a preponderance that not only were there inferences of discrimination, but in fact that the inferences were correct.’ Denver, however, bore no such burden.” Ibid.

The District Court was correct, and the Tenth Circuit mistaken. “While the States and their subdivisions may take remedial action when they possess evidence that their own spending practices are exacerbating a pattern of prior discrimination, they must identify that discrimination, public or private, with some specificity before they may use race-conscious relief.” Croson, 488 U.S., at 504 (emphasis added). Quite obviously, “discrimination . . . identified] with some specificity” is discrimination that has been shown to have existed. It is inconsistent with Croson to permit racial preferences as a remedy for mere “might-have-been” racial discrimination, established by nothing more than evidence “from which an inference of past or present discrimination could be drawn.”

While holding Denver only to a watered-down “you don’t need to prove discrimination” standard, the Tenth Circuit simultaneously heightened the showing that the plaintiff contractor was required to make. According to the panel, “[o]nce Denver meets its burden, [the plaintiff] must introduce credible, particularized evidence to rebut [Denver’s] initial showing of the existence of a compelling interest.” 321 F. 3d, at 959 (internal quotation marks omitted). This is quite a daunting task, given how little Denver was required to show. Since Denver had to establish nothing more than the possibility of prior discrimination (evidence “from which an inference of past or present discrimination could be drawn”), the injured contractor was required to rebut the possibility of discrimination in the Denver construction industry.

With regard to the burden of proof, then, the Tenth Circuit got it exactly backwards. It is not enough for a discriminating governmental entity to identify statistical disparities, assume (because it is a possible inference from the evidence) that these disparities were in fact caused by racial discrimination, implement racial preferences in public contracting on the basis of that assumption, and then require an injured contractor to demonstrate that the assumption of discrimination was incorrect. Rather, when the injured contractor has established the government’s use of racial preferences (a point conceded here), these preferences are presumed unconstitutional, and it then becomes the government’s burden to prove that it is acting on the basis of a compelling interest in remedying racial discrimination. To be crystal clear: Denver cannot meet its burden without proving that there was pervasive racial discrimination in the Denver construction industry.

B

The Tenth Circuit’s analysis also rests upon at least two serious errors that infect the statistical evidence submitted by the city. Croson requires the discriminating municipality to show a “significant statistical disparity” between the number of contractors hired and “the number of qualified minority contractors willing and able” to do the jobs. 488 U. S., at 509 (emphasis added). The statistical studies submitted by Denver did not meet this requirement because they did not measure the availability of minority firms — neither by use of actual bidding data nor by adjusting the raw data showing the total number of minority firms by means of some variable that would serve as a workable proxy for qualification, willingness, and ability. Instead, the city’s studies assumed that minority firms were on average as qualified, willing, and able as others.

In opposing certiorari, Denver argues that the use of actual contract bidding data should not be required (as the plaintiff’s expert suggested) because a study based on such data would be difficult to carry out, converting Croson scrutiny into scrutiny that is “‘strict in theory, but fatal in fact.’” Adarand Constructors, supra, at 237. This argument should be rejected. The scrutiny required by Croson should be fatal in fact when the statistical analysis put forward by the governmental entity defending intentional racial discrimination simply does not support its claim that the purpose and effect of its action was to compensate the victims of prior discrimination. If Denver found the use of contract bidding data too onerous, then it should have employed some other measure to make the statistical analysis valid — which obviously requires, as Croson said, that comparison be made, not with all minority firms, but with those that are qualified, willing, and able to undertake city contracts.

Secondly, even if it had been proper to assume that all minority firms were just as qualified, willing, and able to enter city contracts as other firms, it would still not have been proper to assume that all these minority firms had chances of obtaining city contracts equivalent to the chances of the nonminority firms that obtained them. Firms that are large and more experienced in performing big jobs will have more success in obtaining government contracts, and the uncontroverted evidence showed that MBEs were, on average, smaller and less experienced than their nonpreferred counterparts. In such circumstances, the government should have been required to produce a regression analysis controlling for these factors if it wished to rely on statistical disparities. See, e. g., Engineering Contractors Assn. of South Fla., Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade Cty., 122 F. 3d 895, 917 (CA11 1997) (after regression analysis to control for firm size was conducted, “most of the unfavorable disparities became statistically insignificant”).

The Tenth Circuit accepted the city’s contention that there was no need to control for size and experience because those are not race-neutral variables. MBEs, the court said, “are generally smaller and less experienced because of industry discrimination.” 321 F. 3d, at 981. The argument fails because it rests on nothing but speculation. Little is known about the relationship between minority ownership and size-and-experience in the Denver construction industry; one of the defects of the city’s disparity studies is precisely that they did not address those variables.

Denver did introduce studies identifying racial disparities in business formation rates and in access to capital. But if disparities in those more general areas sufficed to render size and experience impermissible explanations of racial disparities in construction contracting, they would similarly invalidate those explanations (and permit racial preferences) in every field of enterprise. Croson spoke specifically to this point, pointing out that reliance upon such general societal discrimination “ ‘has no logical stopping point.’ . . . ‘Relief’ for such . . . ill-defined wrong[s] could extend until the percentage of public contracts awarded to MBE’s . . . mirrored the percentage of minorities in the population as a whole.” 488 U. S., at 498 (quoting Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 275 (1986)). Discrimination in access to capital can be remedied directly — for example, by “prohibiting] discrimination in the provision of credit ... by local suppliers and banks,” 488 U. S., at 510 — but does not give rise to a compelling state interest to discriminate by race in construction contracting. No more so than does the existence of other larger social forces, such as disparities in education, that may similarly have some indirect effect on construction contracting.

Ill

Apart from the questions this case raises about faithful application of Croson, the case is worthy of the Court’s review because it presents a clear Circuit split on the standard of appellate review for the “strong basis in evidence” requirement. The genesis of this requirement is Wygant, supra, at 277, an affirmative-action-in-employment case in which the Court stated that “the trial court must make a factual determination that the employer had a strong basis in evidence for its conclusion that remedial action was necessary.” Croson carried the “strong basis in evidence” standard over to the use of racial classifications in public contracting. See 488 U. S., at 510.

The Tenth Circuit and three other Courts of Appeals view the question whether a governmental unit has demonstrated a “strong basis in evidence” sufficient to support its use of racial classifications as a question of law to be reviewed de novo. See Rothe Development Corp. v. United States Dept. of Defense, 262 F. 3d 1306, 1322-1323 (CA Fed. 2001); Majeske v. Chicago, 218 F. 3d 816, 820 (CA7 2000); Contractors Assn. of Eastern Pa., Inc. v. Philadelphia, 91 F. 3d 586, 596 (CA3 1996); Concrete Works of Colo., Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 36 F. 3d 1513, 1522 (CA10 1994). The Eleventh Circuit, in contrast, draws on the “factual determination” language in Wygant to interpret the “strong basis in evidence” question as one of fact, whose disposition is to be reviewed for clear error. See Engineering Contractors Assn. of South Fla., Inc., supra, at 903.

The Court should resolve this significant and unsettled question. Any doubts about the question’s practical importance dissolve when one considers the manner in which the Tenth Circuit’s application of de novo review in this case permitted it to rule as it did notwithstanding the factual determinations made by the District Court after trial.

* * *

One of the primary functions of the requirement that governmental entities identify discrimination with specificity before using racial preferences is to implement the demand of the Equal Protection Clause “that the deviation from the norm of equal treatment of all racial and ethnic groups [be] a temporary matter.” Croson, supra, at 510. Governmental use of racial preferences must be “limited in time” because “racial classifications, however compelling their goals, are potentially so dangerous that they may be employed no more broadly than the interest demands.” Grutter, 539 U. S., at 342. Yet Denver has been using racial preferences in public contracting for á generation, and there is no indication that this will be anything other than business as usual for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps more than for any other reason, denial of certiorari in this case is important because of what it signals about this Court’s ongoing commitment to exacting judicial review of race-conscious policies. If the evidence relied upon by governmental units to justify their use of racial classifications can be as inconclusive as Denver’s evidence in this case, our former insistence upon a “strong basis in evidence” has been abandoned, to be replaced by what amounts to an “apparent-good-faith” requirement — that is, in the words of the Tenth Circuit, the existence of “evidence from which an inference of past or present discrimination could be drawn.” 321 F. 3d, at 970 (emphasis added). Some language in our recent radal-preferences-in-law-school-admissions case suggests a new willingness to rely upon good faith. See, e. g., Grutter, supra, at 343 (“We take the Law School at its word that it would ‘like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula’ and will terminate its race-conscious admissions program as soon as practicable”). We should grant certiorari to make clear that we stand by Croson’s insistence that “[rjadal classifications are suspect,” that “simple legislative assurances of good intention cannot suffice,” and that the courts will employ “searching judicial inquiry into the justification for such race-based measures ... to ‘smoke out’ illegitimate uses of race.” 488 U. S., at 500, 493.


text:
    No. 03-248.
    Arizona v. Finch.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-342.
    Arguello et al. v. Conoco, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motions of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Stevens Justice Breyer,

text:
    No. 03-5781.
    Torres v. Mullin, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Opinion of

Justice Stevens

respecting the denial of the petition for certiorari.

My dissent from the hastily crafted opinion in Breard v. Greene, 523 U. S. 371 (1998) (per curiam), rested on procedural grounds: The Court’s departure from its normal rules governing the processing of certiorari petitions deprived us of the briefing and argument necessary for the careful consideration of important issues. Id., at 379-380. I am now persuaded that my dissent should have been directed at the merits of the Court’s holding.

In Breard the Court refused to stay the imminent execution of a citizen of Paraguay. Breard’s federal habeas corpus application alleged that the Virginia authorities failed to advise Breard of his right under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, [1970] 21 U. S. T. 77, 100-101, T. I. A. S. No. 6820 (hereinafter Vienna Convention or Convention), to have the Paraguayan Consulate notified of his arrest and trial. This Court held that Breard procedurally defaulted his claim by failing to raise it in the Virginia state courts. 523 U. S., at 375-376. The opinion did not discuss the possibility that Breard may have failed to assert the treaty claim because he knew nothing about the treaty until after the state proceedings were concluded. It surely is reasonable to presume that most foreign nationals are unaware of the provisions of the Vienna Convention (as are, it seems, many local prosecutors). That is precisely why the Convention places the notice obligation on the governmental authorities.

There is obvious tension between the holding in Breará and the purpose of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. In its authoritative interpretation of Article 36 in the LaGrand Case (F. R. G. v. U.S.), 2001 I. C. J. No. 104, ¶¶ 90-91 (Judgment of June 27), http://212.153.43.18/iejwww/idocket/igus/igusjudgment/ igus_ijudgment_20010625.htm (as visited Oct. 24, 2003, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) explained:

“The problem arises when the procedural default rule does not allow the detained individual to challenge a conviction and sentence by claiming, in reliance on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that the competent national authorities failed to comply with their obligation to provide the requisite consular information ‘without delay,’ thus preventing the person from seeking and obtaining consular assistance from the sending State.
“... Under these circumstances, the procedural default rule had the effect of preventing ‘full effect [from being] given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this article are intended,’ and thus violated paragraph 2 of Article 36.”

Applying the procedural default rule to Article 36 claims is not only in direct violation of the Vienna Convention, but it is also manifestly unfair. The ICJ’s decision in LaGrand underscores that a foreign national who is presumptively ignorant of his right to notification should not be deemed to have waived the Article 36 protections simply because he failed to assert that right in a state criminal proceeding.

Article VI, cl. 2, of our Constitution provides that the “Laws of the United States,” expressly including “all Treaties made . . . under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” The Court was unfaithful to that command when it held that Congress may not require county employees to check the background of prospective handgun purchasers, Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898 (1997), that Congress may not exercise its Article I powers to abrogate a State’s common-law immunity from suit, Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 (1996), and that a State may not be required to provide its citizens with a remedy for its violation of their federal rights, Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706 (1999). The Court is equally unfaithful to that command when it permits state courts to disregard the Nation’s treaty obligations.

Justice Breyer,

dissenting.

Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (hereinafter Vienna Convention or Convention) requires United States authorities (1) to tell an arrested foreign national, without delay, that he may have his nation’s consul informed of the arrest, and (2) to tell the consul about the arrest (if the foreign national so desires). Apr. 24, 1963, Art. 36, ¶ 1(b), [1970] 21 U. S. T. 77, 101, T. I. A. S. No. 6820. This case raises important questions concerning the relation between, on the one hand, the domestic law of the United States, and, on the other, decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) interpreting the Convention. See LaGrand Case (F. R. G. v. U. S.), 2001 I. C. J. No. 104 (Judgment of June 27) (hereinafter LaGrand), http://212.153.43.18/icjwww/ idocket/igus/igusjudgment/igus_ijudgment_20010625.htm (all Internet materials as visited Oct. 24, 2003, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file); Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U S.), 2003 I. C. J. No. 128 (Order of Feb. 5) (Order in a case, concerning petitioner Osbaldo Torres, scheduled for hearing at the ICJ in December 2003) (hereinafter Provisional Measures Order), http://212.153.43.18/icjwww/idocket/imus/ imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205.PDF.

I

This case arises in the following circumstances: In July 1993, law enforcement authorities in Oklahoma arrested Osbaldo Torres, a Mexican national, and charged him with murder. An Oklahoma court convicted him and sentenced him to death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence and denied his various claims for postconviction relief. See Torres v. State, 962 P. 2d 3 (1998); Torres v. State, No. PC-98-213 (Okla. Crim. App., Aug. 4, 1998) (unpublished order); Torres v. State, 58 P. 3d 214 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).

In 1999, Torres filed a petition for habeas corpus in Federal District Court. He claimed, among other things, that the arresting authorities had failed to notify him of his Vienna Convention rights — and similarly had failed to notify Mexican consular officials of his arrest. The Federal District Court rejected this claim on the grounds that (1) Torres had not raised this claim in his state-court proceedings, thereby procedurally defaulting the claim under state law, and (2) Torres did not show that the Convention violation had prejudiced him. Torres v. Gibson, No. CIV-99-155-R (WD Okla., Aug. 23, 2000), p. 73 (unpublished memorandum opinion and order); cf. Breard v. Greene, 523 U. S. 371, 377 (1998) (per curiam). The District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit refused to issue a certificate of appeal-ability. Torres v. Gibson, No. CIV-99-155-R (WD Okla., Oct. 6, 2000); Torres v. Gibson, No. 00-6334 (CA10, Apr. 26, 2001) (unpublished order); 317 F. 3d 1145, 1148, n. 1 (CA10 2003) (case below). Torres petitions for certiorari, seeking our review of the Court of Appeals’ determination.

Torres argues that the Tenth Circuit’s determination conflicts with ICJ decisions, which, he. says, authoritatively interpret the Convention. He asks us to grant certiorari in light of the conflict. Mexico has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the petition. Mexico points out that it has brought a case before the ICJ in which it claims, among other things, that the United States, in convicting and sentencing Torres, has violated the Convention, which, in its view, must apply as part of our domestic law. Mexico asks us to defer consideration of this case until the ICJ decides that dispute.

II

Torres and Mexico are aware that this Court, in Breará, 523 U. S., at 375-376, held that the Vienna Convention itself permits both state and federal courts to apply ordinary “procedural default” rules in a case such as this one, thereby effectively barring a defendant from raising in federal court a Convention-violation claim that he failed to assert in the state courts in a timely fashion. The Court also said that a defendant claiming a violation would not likely prevail unless he also showed that “the violation had an effect on the trial.” Id., at 377. But, say Torres and Mexico, the ICJ, in its subsequent LaGrand decision, interpreted the Convention to the contrary. They add that this later ICJ decision authoritatively interprets the Convention, which in turn has become part of domestic law, and for that reason binds the Court.

For one thing, Article VI of the Constitution specifies that (along with the Constitution ¿nd federal laws) “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

For another, lower courts have held that the Convention is self-executing, at least in the sense that its provisions automatically become part of the law of the United States without additional congressional legislation. E. g., United States v. Torres-Del Muro, 58 F. Supp. 2d 931, 932 (CD Ill. 1999) (noting that “the treaty is ‘self-executing’ in the sense that there is no need for enabling legislation for the Convention to have the force of law”). Indeed, the United States itself has taken that position. See S. Exec. Rep. No. 91-9, App. p. 5 (1969) (statement of State Department Deputy Legal Adviser J. Edward Lyerly) (testifying at a Senate hearing prior to ratification that the treaty is “entirely self-executive and does not require any implementing or complementing legislation”).

Moreover, the ICJ in LaGrand held or stated the following: First, the Convention “creates individual rights.” And the “ ‘laws and regulations’” of the United States, including the rules of criminal law and procedure, “ ‘must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which’ ” those “ “rights’ ” of the arrested foreign national “‘are intended.’” 2001 1. C. J. No. 104, ¶¶77, 86-89 (rejecting the United States’ arguments to the contrary); Vienna Convention, Art. 36, ¶ 2.

Second, the Convention prohibits the United States from implementing a State’s “ ‘procedural default’ rule” if that rule prevents “the detained individual” from challenging “a conviction and sentence by claiming . . . that the competent national authorities failed to comply with their obligation to provide the requisite consular information “without delay.’” LaGrand, supra, ¶90. The courts of the United States, in relying upon such a rule in the LaGrand case, violated the Convention. ¶¶ 90-91; see also ¶ 60 (stating that the United States may not rely upon defendants’ failure to raise their Convention claim until the federal habeas proceeding, “as it was the United States itself which had failed to carry out its obligation under the Convention to inform” them).

Third, it “is immaterial for the purposes of the present case [i. e., LaGrand] whether” the defendants, had they been informed of their Convention rights, “would have sought consular assistance,” whether the foreign nation “would have rendered such assistance,” or even “whether a different verdict would have been rendered.” ¶ 74. Rather, it was “sufficient that the Convention conferred these rights,” and that a nation and its nationals “were in effect prevented by the breach of the United States from exercising [these rights], had they so chosen.” Ibid. In addition, “an apology is not sufficient . . . where foreign nationals have not been advised without delay of their rights . . . and have been . . . sentenced to severe penalties.” ¶ 123.

Finally, Article I of the Convention’s Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, which the United ■ States has signed, says that “[disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.” 21 U. S. T., at 326, T. I. A. S. No. 6820.

Torres and Mexico argue (1) that, in light of this last mentioned Protocol, the ICJ’s interpretation of the Convention is authoritative, including its determination that the Convention creates “individual rights”; (2) that, since the Convention is self-executing, the ICJ’s interpretation is part of the law of the United States; and (3) that, given the ICJ’s holdings in LaGrand, Torres can enforce his Vienna Convention rights by demanding an appropriate remedy, state-law procedural bars or lack of prejudice notwithstanding.

Ill

Torres and Mexico go on to point out that Mexico has asked the ICJ to determine whether the United States has violated the Convention in its treatment of Torres and certain other similarly situated criminal defendants. See Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.), 2003 I. C. J. No. 128 (Application of Jan. 9), http://212.153.43.18/ icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iappiication_20030109.PDF. They note that the ICJ, in a preliminary order in Mexico’s case, wrote that the International “Court, Unanimously, . . . Indicates the following provisional measures: (a) The United States of America shall take all measures necessary to ensure that . . . Mr. Osvaldo Torres Aguilera [sic] [is] not executed pending final judgment in these proceedings.” Provisional Measures Order ¶ 59 (emphasis in original). The ICJ held in LaGrand that such an order has “binding effect” and “create[s] a legal obligation for the United States.” 2001 I. C. J. No. 104, ¶¶ 109-110. Mexico and Torres contend that, since the Convention is self-executing, it has become part of domestic law and one that, for that reason and for reasons of comity, we should honor. And since Oklahoma might set an execution date within 60 days of our denying certio-rari, prior to a final decision by the ICJ, they ask us to defer consideration of Torres’ petition.

> ► — i

On the basis of the briefs so far filed in this case, Torres and Mexico's arguments seem substantial. Cf. ante, p. 1035 (opinion of Stevens, J.); Breard, 523 U. S., at 380-381 (Breyer, J., dissenting). If so, there is a realistic possibility that this is a case we should hear. I note, however, that the United States has not filed a brief directly addressing the issues Torres has raised in this case, nor has any group of individuals expert in the subject of international law. The United States has filed a brief in opposition in the related cases Ortiz v. United States, No. 02-11188, and Sinisterra v. United States, No. 03-5286, now pending before the Court [Reporter’s Note: See post, p. 1073], in which it argues, inter alia, that “the ICJ does not exercise any judicial power of the United States, which is vested exclusively by the Constitution in the United States federal courts.” Brief in Opposition 18. While this is undeniably correct as a general matter, it fails to address the question whether the ICJ has been granted the authority, by means of treaties to which the United States is a party, to interpret the rights conferred by the Vienna Convention. The answer to Lord Ellenborough’s famous rhetorical question, “Can the Island of Tobago pass a law to bind the rights of the whole world?” may well be yes, where the world has conferred such binding authority through treaty. See Buchanan v. Rucker, 9 East 192, 103 Eng. Rep. 546 (K. B. 1808). It is this kind of authority that Torres and Mexico argue the United States has granted to the ICJ when it comes to interpreting the rights and obligations set forth in the Vienna Convention.

Given the international implications of the issues raised, I believe further information, analysis, and consideration are necessary. Depending on how the ICJ decides Mexico’s related case against the United States, and subject to further briefing in light of that decision, I may well vote to grant certiorari in this case. Consequently I would defer consideration of this petition.

      The United States has consented to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice over Convention-related disputes. Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 24, 1963, Art. I, [1970] 21 U. S. T. 326, T. I. A. S. No. 6820.


text:
    No. 02-1564.
    No. 02-10658.
    No. 02-11350.
    No. 03-5307.
    No. 03-5388.
    No. 03-5394.
    No. 03-6016.
    No. 03-6053.
    Raney v. Raney, Sedgwick v. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Coward v. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Rowell v. Griegas, Warden, et al., Dockery v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Bruno v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Dean v. United States, Cole v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
   539 U. S. 959;

ante, p. 833;

ante, p. 870;

ante, p. 901;

ante, p. 906;

ante, p. 906;

ante, p. 934; and

ante, p. 935. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    November 28, 2003
    No. 03-6976.
    Slater v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    December 1, 2003
    No. 03M30.
    No. 03M31.
    No. 03M33.
    Chapparo v. Lindsey, Warden; Duque v. Yarborough, Warden; and Baosheng Zhou v. Pacific Medical Clinics.
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. 03M32.
    Feres v. United States.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.


text:
    No. 03M34.
    Vasquez-Hernandez v. Oregon.
   Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without an affidavit of indi-gency executed by petitioner denied.


text:
    No. 126,
    Orig.
    Kansas v. Nebraska et al.
   Motion of the Special Master for allowance of fees and disbursements granted, and the Special Master is awarded a total of $30,327.21 for the period April 16 through October 20, 2003, to be paid equally by the parties. Vincent McKusick, Esq., of Portland, Me., the Special Master in this case is hereby discharged with the thanks of the Court. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 964.]


text:
    No. 128,
    Orig.
    Alaska v. United States.
   Motion of the Special Master for allowance of fees and reimbursement granted, and the Special Master is awarded a total of $154,275.25 for the period April 17 through October 16, 2003, to be paid equally by the parties. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 538 U. S. 1055.]


text:
    No. 02-1196.
    Securities and Exchange Commission v. Edwards.
   C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 538 U. S. 976.] Motion of Finandal World Companies Inc. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 02-1624.
    Elk Grove Unified School District et al. v. Newdow et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 945.] Motion of respondent Michael A. Newdow for representation pro se, or (in the alternative) pro hoc vice granted. Motion of Americans United for Separation of Church and State for leave to partidpate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for additional time to present argument denied.

Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.


text:
    No. 02-1667.
    Tennessee v. Lane et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 539 U. S. 941] Motion of Richard Stevens for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 02-1684.
    Yarborough, Warden v. Alvarado.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 539 U. S. 986.] Motion of respondent for appointment of counsel granted, and Tara K. Allen, Esq., of Malibu, Cal., is appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 02-1794.
    United States v. Flores-Montano.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 945.] Motion of respondent for appointment of counsel granted, and Steven F. Hubachek, Esq., of San Diego, Cal., is appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 02-1824.
    Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division v. Haley.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 945.] Motion of respondent for appointment of counsel granted, and Eric M. Albritton, Esq., of Longview, Tex., is appointed to-serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 02-9065.
    Muhammad, aka Mease v. Close.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 539 U. S. 925.] Motion of respondent for leave to file a surreply brief granted.


text:
    No. 02-11034.
    Swint v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 803] denied.


text:
    No. 02-11356.
    Sivak v. Johnson et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 802] denied.


text:
    No. 03-5385.
    Nabelek v. Bradford et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 802] denied.


text:
    No. 03-5940.
    Eldridge v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 804] denied.


text:
    No. 03-6002.
    Rowell v. Nevada.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 963] denied.


text:
    No. 02-11062.
    Washington v. State Street Bank & Trust Co. et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 808] denied.

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


text:
    No. 03-107.
    United States v. Lara.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 539 U. S. 987.] Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 03-6944.
    Hanson-Hodge v. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until December 22, 2003, 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. 03-7155.
    In re Bruno.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 03-7170.
    In re Hazel et al.
   Motion of petitioner Bobby E. Hazel for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed as to petitioner Hazel. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied as to petitioner Ronald Mitchell.


text:
    No. 03-6546.
    No. 03-6607.
    In re Beck; and In re Townsend.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 03-6557.
    In re Dumont.
   Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 02-891.
    Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Heinz et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 03-339.
    No. 03-485.
    Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain et al.; and United States v. Alvarez-Machain et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 331 F. 3d 604.


text:
    No. 03-526.
    Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections v. Summerlin.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 03-6539.
    Johnson v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Whether to establish a prima facie case under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986), the objector must show that it is more likely than not the other party’s peremptory challenges, if unexplained, were based on impermissible group bias?”


text:
    No. 03-95.
    Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of Chamber of Commerce of the United States for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 03-6821.
    Nelson v. Campbell, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of Alabama Physicians, Laurie Dill, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Whether a complaint brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay, his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U. S. C. § 2254?”


text:
    No. 03-51.
    Silveira et al. v. Lockyer, Attorney General of Califonia, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-115.
    Danzell v. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-226.
    Whalen v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-228.
    Jones v. Keane, Superintendent, Woodbourne Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-254.
    Core Concepts of Florida, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-277.
    Brookens v. Federal Labor Relations Authority.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-283.
    Shell Petroleum Inc. et al. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-288.
    Bronx Legal Services et al. v. Legal Services Corporation et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-290.
    Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Campbell et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-298.
    Lewis v. Peterson, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-304.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-309.
    Blackburn v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-311.
    Minor v. Kmart Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 03-313.
    No. 03-481.
    Strata Heights International Corp. et al. v. Petroleo Brasileiro, S. A.; and Petroleo Brasileiro, S. A. v. Strata Heights International Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 67 Fed. Appx. 247.


text:
    No. 03-317.
    Vidtape, Inc., et al. v. Chao, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-416.
    Ostrander, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. City of Springfield, Massachusetts.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-421.
    Sudarsky v. City of New York, New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-423.
    Schafler v. Newsome.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 03-425.
    Keen v. Weaver, Independent Executrix of the Estates of Weaver et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-429.
    O'Connor v. Predick et al.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-435.
    Leonard v. University of Delaware et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-436.
    Eldridge v. Gibson et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-438.
    Van Alstine v. City of Palm Desert, California, et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-443.
    Allergan, Inc., et al. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-446.
    Lipin v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-448.
    Hilaire v. Jeff Bryan Remodeling, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-450.
    Rodriguez v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 13th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-452.
    Nwoke v. Bennewitz.
   C. A. 7th .Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-453.
    Vipperman v. Concha et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-455.
    Rahman v. Citterio U. S. A. Corp.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-457.
    Alameda Films, S. A., et al. v. Authors Rights Restoration Corp., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-460.
    Laudumiey et al. v. Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-462.
    Lempert v. Republic of Kazakhstan, Ministry of Justice.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-463.
    Beeler v. Rounsavall et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-465.
    Sabate S. A. et al. v. Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-467.
    Edwards, aka King, et al. v. Gerald et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-469.
    Barth v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-470.
    Merritt v. Merritt.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-474.
    Kaplan v. City of North Las Vegas, Nevada, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-477.
    Savage v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-479.
    Dionisio v. Vision Properties of Fairlawn I, LLC, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-480.
    Pouillon v. Michigan.
   Cir. Ct. Shiawassee County, Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-482.
    Victor C. et ux. v. San Mateo County Human Services Agency.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-484.
    Campus Communications, Inc. v. Earnhardt et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-491.
    Haltom et al. v. Midvale City Corp.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-493.
    Annis et al. v. Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement Board et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-496.
    Rogers v. Horseshoe Entertainment.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-497.
    Reid v. Holmes, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al.
   C. A, 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-498.
    Amelkin et al. v. McClure et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-508.
    Anderson v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-514.
    Moyer v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp.

   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-521.
    Khattak v. Ashcroft, Attorney General.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-528.
    Chandler v. Roche, Secretary of the Air Force, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-548.
    Rueth Development Co. et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-553.
    Forum Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. v. Stroock Stroock & Lavan, LLP.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-568.
    Eggert v. Remington et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-578.
    Gaines v. White River Environmental Partnership et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-581.
    Neaves et al. v. City of San Diego, California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-599.
    St. Louis University v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-602.
    Upchurch v. Bruce, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-614.
    No. 03-7013.
    Sutton v. United States; Fleming v. United States; and Brown v. United States.
    No. 03-7139.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 337 F. 3d 792.


text:
    No. 03-620.
    Armaly, aka Miller v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-628.
    Mangano v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-639.
    Singh v. Potter, Postmaster General.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-650.
    Devlin et al. v. Scardelletti et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-655.
    Wheeler v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5436.
    Edmond v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5567.
    McClure v. Belleque, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-5759.
    Thompson v. Bell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6044.
    Canales v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6047.
    No. 03-6658.
    Nuth v. California; and Menh v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6130.
    Ivy v. Pontesso.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6148.
    Quinones et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6268.
    Cox v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6426.
    Washington v. McGinnis.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6433.
    Moore v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lucas County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6434.
    Phillips v. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6438.
    Sutton v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6439.
    Schwindler v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6445.
    Jackson v. Caddo Correctional Center et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6446.
    Lindsey v. Benjamin et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6449.
    Collins v. Pliler, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6466.
    Cruz v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 7th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6468.
    Turner v. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6471.
    Mallory v. Ohio University et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6473.
    Keenan v. Woodford, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6475.
    Panetti v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6476.
    McAllister v. Small, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6484.
    Gregory-Bey v. Hanks, Superintendent, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6487.
    Ghaderi v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6491.
    Thorn v. Foytik et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6496.
    Graves v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6497.
    Alford v. Mississippi (two judgments).
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6499.
    Metzenbaum v. City of Mayfield Heights, Ohio, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6500.
    McWilliams v. Epps, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6503.
    Roose v. Supreme Court of Colorado.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6508.
    Ballard v. Price, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6509.
    Acres v. Mitchem, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6510.
    Conner v. Wolfe, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Albion.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6513.
    Castillo v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6516.
    Rivera v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6518.
    Thomas v. Smith, Superintendent, Pulaski Correctional Unit.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6519.
    Williams v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6520.
    McCaa v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6521.
    Mendoza v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6522.
    Belcher v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6527.
    Brumfield v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6529.
    Dubuc v. Oklahoma et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6530.
    Diaz v. Bann et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6531.
    Ellis v. Jarvis, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6534.
    Martinez v. Galaza, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6540.
    Kinney v. Jamrog, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6541.
    McPherson v. Lavan, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6547.
    Walker v. TigerDirect, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6549.
    Brooks v. Money, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6550.
    Patterson v. Jenkins, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6562.
    Andrus v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6565.
    Barnes v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6566.
    Lara v. Pennsylvania.
   Commw. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6567.
    Breton v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6568.
    Wang v. Hawaii Medical Service Assn.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6569.
    Wright v. Sacchet, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6571.
    Hang v. Morgan, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6575.
    Holliday v. Elliott, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6581.
    Hurley v. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6585.
    Garone v. Alameida, Director, California Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6588.
    Rondeau v. Rondeau et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6591.
    Sherkat v. Vano et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6594.
    Sias v. Yarborough, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6598.
    Foster v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6600.
    Garcia v. Alameida, Director, California Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6601.
    Gillespie v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6604.
    Hinkle v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6609.
    Sessions v. Freeman et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6610.
    Soto v. Runnels, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6617.
    Gaines v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6619.
    Fraticelli v. Gillis, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Coal Township.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6620.
    Green v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6621.
    Walker v. New York City Transit Authority.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6622.
    Mehdipour v. Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, Division Number One, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6623.
    Jameson v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 12th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6624.
    Rawls v. Zamora.
   Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6629.
    Ward v. Head, Warden.
   Super. Ct. Butts County, Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6631.
    Cleary v. Mullin, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6632.
    Charpentier v. Ortco Contractors, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6638.
    Kennedy v. Virginia State Bar.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6645.
    Reynolds v. Smith, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6646.
    Strickland v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6647.
    Allen v. Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Clark County.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6648.
    Jemison v. Robinson, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6650.
    Stallworth v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6656.
    Ramirez v. Carey, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6657.
    Nathan v. Smith et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6663.
    Rainey v. Rushton, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6665.
    Smith v. Seifert, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 03-6666.
    Shively v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.