text:
    No. 04-861.
    Underwood v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 11th Dist. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 04-862.
    Brown et vir v. Premiere Designs, Inc.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-863.
    Coatney v. King.
   App. Div., Super. Ct. Cal., County of San Francisco. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-864.
    Chilingirian v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-865.
    Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches et al. v. England, Secretary of the Navy, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-866.
    Kapoor v. Gonzales, Attorney General.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-868.
    Mendoza v. De Lima, Administrator, Adult Client Services Branch of the Second Circuit, Hawaii.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-871.
    Walker v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-876.
    Prohazka v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation et al.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-878.
    Canales, Judge, 79th District Court of Texas v. Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-879.
    Stefani v. Gonzales, Attorney General.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-880.
    Villasana v. Wilhoit et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-886.
    United States ex rel. Tingley et al. v. 900 Monroe L. L. C. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-891.
    Cotter v. City of Portland, Oregon.
   Ct. Ápp. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-893.
    Dardar v. Potter, Postmaster General, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-895.
    Edens v. Kennedy.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-904.
    Titterington v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-909.
    Schwartz v. Isaac.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-915.
    Ivory v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-925.
    Sturdy v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-956.
    Branch et al. v. Nix et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-958.
    Lange v. Department of the Interior.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-959.
    Harbuck v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-961.
    McMillan v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-967.
    McCorvey, fka Roe v. Hill, Dallas County District Attorney.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-5833.
    Williams v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6023.
    Hamilton v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6188.
    Miller v. Mullin, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6295.
    Maxwell v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6348.
    Mosley v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6390.
    Martinez-Jaramillo v. Gonzales, Attorney General.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6577.
    Gorrasi v. Massachusetts.
   App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6669.
    Barfield v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6679.
    Nwankwo v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6698.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6758.
    Richards v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6828.
    Cervantes-Morales v. United States; and Kane v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6830.
    Frye v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6878.
    Lewis v. Green et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6920.
    Woodall v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6989.
    Wingeart v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6999.
    Powers v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7054.
    Brown v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7056.
    Muresan v. Washington Department of Social and Health Services.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7060.
    Pridgen v. Shannon, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Frackville, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7093.
    Carter v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7120.
    Murdaugh v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7129.
    Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7137.
    Tsosie v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7154.
    Lynch v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7294.
    Grayson v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7298.
    Bell v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7382.
    Garcia v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7413.
    Allen v. Mullin, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7419.
    Holloway v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7427.
    Perez, aka Lopez v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7429.
    Davis v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7437.
    Anderson v. West Virginia.
   Cir. Ct. Wood County, W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7444.
    Longworth v. Ozmint, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7450.
    Woods v. Giurbino, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7451.
    McKeithan v. Lavan, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7453.
    Tucker, aka Mack v. New York.
   Sup. Ct. N. Y., Kings County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7460.
    Ash v. Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7464.
    Kroncke v. Hood et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7466.
    Johnson v. Harkleroad, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7470.
    Rodriguez v. Chandler, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7471.
    Reed v. Michelson Realty Co., dba Veranda Apartments, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7476.
    Tibbs v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7477.
    Ward v. Runnels, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7480.
    Potts v. Bagley, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7482.
    Saez-Machado v. Goddard, Attorney General of Arizona.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7485.
    Delegal v. Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7494.
    Shoyinka v. City of Santa Monica, California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7495.
    Smith v. California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7498.
    McKinnedy v. Ozmint, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7503.
    Young v. Vasbinder, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7515.
    Dean v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7517.
    Clark v. McLemore, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7519.
    Jurconi v. Glenhaven Lakes Club et al.
   Ct. App. Wash. • Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7522.
    Diana S. v. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7523.
    Richardson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7525.
    Boatman v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7530.
    Nwachukwu v. John Hancock Management Co.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7531.
    Murdock v. American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7538.
    Fuller v. Thomas, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7541.
    Griffin v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7542.
    Esparza v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7546.
    Sanchez v. Dankert et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7548.
    Lopez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7552.
    Vincent v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7554.
    Davenport v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7555.
    Covey v. Natural Foods, Inc.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lucas County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7557.
    Mayrides v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied..


text:
    No. 04-7558.
    Mayes v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7560.
    Cameron v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7561.
    Craig v. Louisiana.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7563.
    Miller v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7566.
    Bibbs v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7571.
    Byrd v. Eagles et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7572.
    Cardwell v. Hanks, Superintendent, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7573.
    Burrell v. Delaware.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7574.
    Steinbergin v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7576.
    Smith v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7577.
    Abdul-Malik v. Department of Homeland Security et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7579.
    Stills v. Carey, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7580.
    Gerber v. Camp Hope Children’s Bible Fellowship of New York, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7582.
    Edwards v. Jamrog, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7584.
    Potts v. Rose, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7585.
    Wilson v. Hurley, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7586.
    Chiles v. Jordan, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7587.
    Ciaprazi v. Nassau County, New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7588.
    Chapa v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7591.
    Bey v. Young, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7592.
    Alexander v. Crawford, Director, Nevada Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7594.
    Camacho v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7598.
    Martinez v. Ryan, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7599.
    Cox v. McDaniel, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7600.
    Duval v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7601.
    Turrentine v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7602.
    Violet v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7603.
    Wyche v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7604.
    Thomas v. Jones, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7606.
    Puckett v. Costello.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7608.
    Bells v. Maynard et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7611.
    Robinson v. Yarborough, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7615.
    Hessler v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7616.
    Haggerty v. American Airlines, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7617.
    Fowler v. Collier.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7624.
    Crane v. Hamilton et al.
   Ct. App. Ga. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7626.
    Peoples v. New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7627.
    Sloan v. Rudiano et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7629.
    Morris v. Minnesota.
   Ct. App. Minn. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7630.
    Shuler v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7631.
    Roberts v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7636.
    Warren v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7638.
    Mullins v. LaVigne, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7640.
    Wooten v. St. Francis Medical Center.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7643.
    Wubker v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7645.
    Keeling v. Kintzel et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7650.
    Ramirez v. Fairman, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7652.
    Johnson v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. III., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7654.
    Abdullah v. Kennet et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7657.
    Bayoud v. Bayoud et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7659.
    Myers v. Staten.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7660.
    Ott v. Carey, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7661.
    Phillips v. Mississippi.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7663.
    McGee v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7664.
    Bowers v. West Virginia.
   Cir. Ct. Marshall County, W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7669.
    Nicholson v. Connecticut.
   App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7670.
    Sanni v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7672.
    Barrera v. Superior Court of California, San Joaquin County.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7674.
    Reneau v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7678.
    Robles v. Wilson, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Cresson, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7679.
    Sanchez v. California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7680.
    Phi Quang Nguyen v. Boyette, Superintendent, Nash Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7682.
    Maharaj v. Ottenberg et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7685.
    Roy v. Jones, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7686.
    Wash v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7687.
    Tomoson v. Morgan, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7689.
    Anh Vu Nguyen v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7691.
    Collins v. Delaware.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7694.
    Caruso v. Trustee of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7695.
    Owen v. Mitchem, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7705.
    George v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7706.
    Mesays v. Hugel, Administrator, Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7708.
    Revels v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7709.
    Perkins v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7711.
    Reeves v. Morton, Warden.
   Super. Ct. Charlton County, Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7713.
    Kefauver v. Hogan et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7714.
    McGraw v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7715.
    Anderson v. Yarborough, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7716.
    Burnett v. Walker, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7717.
    Aslan v. Sheanan et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7719.
    Walton v. Humphrey, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7720.
    Sanchez Vasquez v. Giurbino, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7722.
    Terry v. Frederick, Warden.
   Cir. Ct. Boone County, W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7723.
    Vaughn v. Fifth Third Bank.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7726.
    Pizio v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7727.
    Fadael v. S & S Strand.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7732.
    Jeffries v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7733.
    Jabaay v. Jabaay et al.
   Ct. App. Ind. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7734.
    King v. Knowles, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7735.
    Johnson v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7736.
    McRae v. Maryland et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7738.
    Hoke v. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7743.
    Howze v. Yarborough, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7746.
    Harris v. Lewis, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7747.
    Hayes v. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7748.
    Roberson v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7749.
    Singleton v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7750.
    Snipes v. Beck, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7752.
    Ratcliff v. IndyMac Bank, F. S. B.
   Ct. App. Tex., 9th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7753.
    Simmons v. Malone et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7754.
    Valentine v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d • Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7755.
    Yarbough v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7756.
    Walter v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7763.
    Ferrara v. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7764.
    Feist v. Berg et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 12th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7765.
    Herbert v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7766.
    Fulton v. Booker, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7767.
    Giles v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7769.
    Hosford v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7770.
    Hernandez v. Berger et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7771.
    Holbrook v. Mississippi.
   Ct. App. Miss. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7772.
    Hutch v. Hawaii.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7781.
    Garza v. Pennell.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7782.
    Faniel v. Giurbino, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7783.
    Holloway v. Hamlet, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7785.
    Hopkins v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7787.
    Black v. Gordon, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7789.
    Angarita v. Goord, Commissioner, New York Department of Correctional Services.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7790.
    Rivas v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7792.
    Strange v. Woodford, Director, California Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari, denied.


text:
    No. 04-7794.
    Rutherford v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7796.
    Garrett v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7797.
    Fabian v. Conway, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7801.
    Hall et al. v. Hanscom Air Force Base et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7803.
    Toney v. Illinois Department of Corrections.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7826.
    Spero v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7828.
    Reed v. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7837.
    Morgan v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. 111. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7840.
    Langhorne v. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7846.
    Montgomery v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7849.
    Patterson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7850.
    Wicks v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7861.
    Alvarado-Rivera v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7863.
    Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7868.
    Gildon v. Bowen, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7870.
    Blankenship v. Baskerville, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7872.
    LaMar v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7874.
    Vernon v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7879.
    Razo v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7881.
    Perkins v. Waddington, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center.
   Ct. App. Wash. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7882.
    Poff et al. v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.'


text:
    No. 04-7886.
    Doret v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7890.
    Killins v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7892.
    Scible v. Haines, Warden.
   Cir. Ct. Pendleton County, W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7894.
    Rasmussen v. National Transportation Safety Board et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7895.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7898.
    Petit v. Yukins, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7902.
    Collins v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7905.
    Swafford v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7906.
    Negrete-Mendoza v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7908.
    Mendez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7909.
    McKee v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7911.
    Rivas-Gonzalez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7919.
    Begovic v. City of Dover, New Hampshire, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7920.
    Pardue v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7923.
    Matute-Galdamez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7926.
    Ewell v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7927.
    Demeree v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7929.
    Dominguez v. Woodford, Director, California Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7931.
    Lindell v. Frank, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7933.
    Morgan v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7934.
    Popoca-Anselmo v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7937.
    Staves v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7938.
    Reese v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7947.
    Marks v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7949.
    Matlock, aka Stratford v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7950.
    Lewis, aka Sheen v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7953.
    Loggins v. Kansas.
   Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7959.
    Del Toro Gudino, aka del Toro-Gudino v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7964.
    White v. Lamoutte, Bankruptcy Judge, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7966.
    Riddle v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7969.
    Sobrilski v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7971.
    Aguirre v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7973.
    McKenith v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7974.
    Murphy v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. 111., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7975.
    Cuevas Morales v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7978.
    Sanchez-Gonzalez v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7983.
    Okpala v. Gal, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7984.
    Gonzalez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7989.
    Gallardo v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7994.
    Martin v. Coplan, Warden.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7995.
    King v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7996.
    Garner v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7998.
    McHenry v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8007.
    Lindell v. McCaughtry, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8008.
    Conyers v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8010.
    Frier v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8011.
    Garcia-Dominguez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8012.
    Gelman v. Phillips, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8025.
    Johnson v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8029.
    Rios-Luna v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8031.
    Tamayo-Tapia v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8033.
    Brock v. Donnelly.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8037.
    Coe v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8042.
    Delacruz v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8044.
    Cruz v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8049.
    Chong, aka Lambert, aka Chung v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8054.
    Mendez-Morales v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8056.
    Wyatt v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8058.
    Allen v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8059.
    Lopez Bobadilla v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8060.
    Lefkowitz v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8061.
    Coleman-Bey v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8062.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8069.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8070.
    Moore v. Exxon Mobil Corp., fka Mobil Oil Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8077.
    Brown v. Illinois Labor Relations Board Panel et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8082.
    Allen v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8083.
    Boldt v. Newton.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8090.
    Dixon v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8092.
    Clay v. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8097.
    Russ v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8099.
    Sandles v. Scibana, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8101.
    Perea v. Bush, President of the United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8104.
    Vivar-Acosta, aka Vivar v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8106.
    Jacobs v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8110.
    Hasson, aka Galera v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8111.
    Keys v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8113.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8115.
    Villa Tellez, aka Villanueva-Garcia, aka Villa-Telles, aka Villa-Tellas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8118.
    Lashley v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8119.
    Gutierrez-Gonzales v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8120.
    Griffin v. United States et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8122.
    Harding v. Sternes, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8123.
    Hastings v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8139.
    Coplin v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8141.
    Forte v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8144.
    Fisher v. Copeland, Judge, Circuit Court of Missouri, 34th Circuit.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8148.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8149.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8150.
    Watts v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8155.
    Perilla v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8166.
    Gonzalez Lora v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8167.
    Babiar v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8174.
    Bailey v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8177.
    Tyson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8179.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8184.
    Port v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8185.
    Monsalve v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8202.
    Gricco v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8203.
    Hughes v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8204.
    Gibbs v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8206.
    Green v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8208.
    Holub v. United States District Court for the Central District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8209.
    Holmes v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8210.
    Minerd v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8211.
    Montes-Andino v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8214.
    Kenyon v. Wyoming.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8215.
    Mescual-Cruz v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8223.
    Norwood v. Smith, Warden.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8224.
    Pacheco v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8226.
    Keeper v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8227.
    Katoa v. United States.
   C. A, 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8228.
    Jones v. United States et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8231.
    Woodard v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8233.
    Tribble v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8237.
    Paster v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8244.
    Cruz-Cabrera v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8245.
    Cardoza-Lira v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8246.
    De La Rosa-Gonzalez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8247.
    Diaz-Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8250.
    Pickrell v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8252.
    Morales-Cera v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8271.
    Ramirez-Gomez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8272.
    Doshier v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8273.
    Mescual-Cruz v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8289.
    Anthony v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8294.
    McMillian v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8316.
    Duenas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8334.
    Villanueva v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8348.
    Word v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8362.
    Lopez-Hernandez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8365.
    Ruiz v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-753.
    Inversiones Errazuriz Limitada, fka Inversiones Errazuriz S. A., et al. v. State Street Bank & Trust Co.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 04-770.
    Louisiana v. Brown.
   Sup. Ct. La. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-778.
    Pan American Energy, LLC v. Candlewood Timber Group, LLC, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 04-792.
    Carter, Warden v. Clinkscale.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-844.
    New Mexico v. Johnson.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma patiperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-845.
    New Mexico v. Alvarez-Lopez.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-851.
    Aquamar S. A. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 04-954.
    Pimental v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 04-7454.
    Dunbar v. State Street Bank & Trust Co. (three judgments).
   App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 04-7507.
    Lewis v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

Justice Breyer would grant the petition for writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. 03-10445.
    No. 03-10447.
    No. 03-10509.
    No. 03-10995.
    No. 04-447.
    No. 04-638.
    No. 04-5244.
    No. 04-5755.
    No. 04-5794.
    No. 04-5866.
    No. 04-5951.
    No. 04-6008.
    No. 04-6070.
    No. 04-6168.
    No. 04-6208.
    Chapman v. Pennsylvania et al., Sonnier v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, In re Rivas, Howell v. United States, Clissuras v. Concord Village Owners, Inc., et al., Zavalidroga v. United States, Wagstaff v. Palakovich, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, et al., Coleman v. Nassau County, New York, Goldstein v. Harvard University, Spuck v. Desuta, Superintendent, State Regional Correctional Facility at Mercer, et al., Newman v. Rowley, Superintendent, Missouri Eastern Correctional Center, Strong v. Illinois Vocational Rehabilitation Program, Fisher v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Rodriguez v. Gailor et al., Spottsville v. Terry, Warden, Murray v. Perlow, Strong v. McCuskey, Judge, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Phillips v. Lansing School District et al., Adames v. Martinez et al., Monk v. Lafler, Warden, Lyles v. Seacor Marine, Inc., Recio-Vallejo v. United States, Strong v. Baker, Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Brooks v. United States, In re Barkclay, Blair v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al., In re Green, Cappa v. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security, Scott v. Wackenhut Corp. et al., Benson v. Home Depot U. S. A., Inc., Mathis v. United States, Lucas v. Adams, Warden, Cockrell v. Woodford, Director, California Department of Corrections, In re Smith, Graves v. Woodford, Director, California Department of Corrections, McQuiddy v. United States, Veilleux v. United States, Glasker v. Transamerica Financial Services, Inc., et al., Daniels v. United States, Parker v. Renico, Warden, Hammer v. Amazon.com, Lopez v. United States, Padgett v. United States, Thompson v. Brownlee, Acting Secretary of the Army, Baez-Leon v. United States; Garcia-Ramirez v. United States; Larios-Andrade v. United States; Yanez-Govea v. United States; Ramirez-Yanez v. United States; and Martinez-Martinez v. United States, Elizalde-Casares v. United States; Peque-Perez v. United States; Reyes-Mancias v. United States; Reyes-Pascual v. United States; Sierra-Madrigal v. United States; Diaz-Sanchez v. United States; Garcia-Lopez v. United States; Cobos-Perez v. United States; Gomez-Delgado v. United States; Herrera-Barajas v. United States; Jimenez Lopez v. United States; Quirino v. United States; Rodriguez-Medina v. United States; Olalde-Serna v. United States; Santos-Hernandez v. United States; Hernandez Rivera v. United States; Gomez-Vargas v. United States; and Estrada-Rodriguez v. United States,
   ante, p. 834;

ante, p. 834;

ante, p. 808;

ante, p. 862;

ante, p. 1021;

ante, p. 1035;

ante, p. 889;

ante, p. 933;

ante, p. 1035;

ante, p. 945;

ante, p. 947;

ante, p. 962;

ante, p. 963;

ante, p. 980;

ante, p. 989;

No. 04-6241.

No. 04-6246.

No. 04-6253.

No. 04-6349.

No. 04-6376.

No. 04-6388.

No. 04-6403.

No. 04-6405.

No. 04-6416.

No. 04-6579.

No. 04-6697.

No. 04-6721.

No. 04-6727.

No. 04-6731.

No. 04-6775.

No. 04-6776.

No. 04-6777.

No. 04-6821.

No. 04-6869.

No. 04-6916.

No. 04-6973.

No. 04-7019.

No. 04-7052.

No. 04-7086.

No. 04-7251.

No. 04-7272.

No. 04-7325.

No. 04-7375.

ante, p. 990;

ante, p. 966;

ante, p. 990;

ante, p. 1015;

ante, p. 1006;

ante, p. 1006;

ante, p. 1058;

ante, p. 969;

ante, p. 1058;

ante, p. 1020;

ante, p. 1027;

ante, p. 954;

ante, p. 1027;

ante, p. 1035;

ante, p. 1036;

ante, p. 993;

ante, p. 1027;

ante, p. 1036;

ante, p. 986;

ante, p. 1028;

ante, p. 1013;

ante, p. 1014;

ante, p. 1028;

ante, p. 1029;

ante, p. 1072;

ante, p. 1072;

ante, p. 1074;

ante, p. 1075;

No. 04-7425.

No. 04-7730.

No. 04-7786.

ante, p. 1076;

ante, p. 1128; and

ante, p. 1129. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 03-658.
    No. 03-10651.
    Deep v. Recording Industry Assn. of America, Inc., et al., Ward v. Office of Personnel Management,
   540 U. S. 1107; and

ante, p. 842. Motions of petitioners for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    February 28, 2005
    No. 04-414.
    No. 04-1004.
    Roach v. United States. Coll v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Reported below: 372 F. 3d 907; and

C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 120 Fed. Appx. 785. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, ante, p. 220.


text:
    No. 04-6302.
    No. 04-7175.
    No. 04-7290.
    No. 04-7798.
    Smith v. United States. Senn v. United States. Jimenez-Cid v. United States. Francis v. United States. Smith v. United States. Lewis v. United States. Deason v. United States. Mohr v. United States. Armstead, aka Woodson v. United States. Mandile v. United States. Burnette v. United States. Walker v. United States. Gutierrez v. United States. Gore v. United States. Guzman-Reyes v. United States. Villanueva v. United States. Evans v. United States. Edwards v. United States. Mendoza-Mesa v. United States. Johnson v. United States. Marshek v. United States. Lowe v. United States. Rodriguez v. United States. Bowens v. United States. Aaron v. United States. Ross v. United States. Harris v. United States. Solleder v. United States. Hudson v. United States. Holt v. United States. Simpson v. United States. Sanchez-Carrasco v. United States. Jackson v. United States. Juaregui-Villareal v. United States. Bowker v. United States. Smith v. United States. Delarosa Civil, aka Delarosa Martinez v. United States. Hoang Van Nguyen v. United States. Loredo-Torres, aka Vega Perez v. United States. Martinez v. United States. Batten v. United States. Arias-Hernandez et al. v. United States; Aviles-Jaimes v. United States; Cortez-Espinoza v. United States; Gonzalez-Trejo v. United States; Mendez-Marroquin v. United States; Macias Ortiz v. United States; and Perez-Rodriguez v. United States. Martinez Alfaro et al. v. United States Avila-Fernandez v. United States Cano-Robledo v. United States Castor-Lozano v. United States Contreras-Terrazas v. United States Frausto-Garcia v. United States Garcia v. United States Hernandez-De La Torre v. United States Jaquez-Tenorio v. United States Marrufo-Gutierrez v. United States Miranda Moya v. United States Sanchez-Morales v. United States Navarro-Molina v. United States Herrera Nunez v. United States Nunez-Retama v. United States Ramirez-Viruete v. United States Robles-Vertiz v. United States Rodriguez-Medina v. United States Villalobos-Lopez v. United States Gonzalez-Amaro et al. v. United States; and Rios-Martinez v. United States. Cantu-Marichalar v. United States. Paghense v. United States. Hackworth v. United States. Garcia v. United States; and Brooks v. United States. Gray v. United States. De La Ossa v. United States. Ramos-Birrueta v. United States; Ceniceros-Flores v. United States; Chavez-Cruz v. United States Espino-Mercado v. United States; Granados-Moreno v. United States; Hernandez-Hernandez v. United States Labra-Valladares v. United States Mendez-Mejia v. United States; Orosco Rios v. United States; Tabares-Rivera v. United States Vega-Leon v. United States. Saunders v. United States. Alpert v. United States. Perez v. United States. Pierce v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 100 Fed. Appx. 524;

C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 116 Fed. Appx. 247;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 104 Fed. Appx. 436;

C. A. 8th Cir. Reported below: 367 F. 3d 805;

No. 04-7844.

No. 04-7888.

No. 04-7903.

No. 04-7907.

No. 04-7917.

No. 04-7921.

No. 04-7942.

No. 04-7957.

No. 04-7985.

No. 04-7986.

No. 04-7991.

No. 04-8030.

No. 04-8041.

No. 04-8065.

No. 04-8071.

No. 04-8073.

No. 04-8074.

No. 04-8075.

No. 04-8114.

No. 04-8128.

No. 04-8130.

C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 385 F. 3d 1342;

C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below. Ill Fed. Appx. 876;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 124 Fed! Appx. 222;

C. A. 8th Cir. Reported below: 382 F. 3d 857;

C. A. 3d Cir. Reported below: 117 Fed. Appx. 182;

C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 122 Fed. Appx. 986;

C. A. 1st Cir. Reported below: 375 F. 3d 10;

C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 125 Fed. Appx. 977;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 110 Fed. Appx. 407;

C. A. 4th Cir. Reported below: 102 Fed. Appx. 292;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 113 Fed. Appx. 607;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 111 Fed. Appx. 312;

C. A. 1st Cir.;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 107 Fed. Appx. 420;

C. A. 8th Cir. Reported below: 384 F. 3d 951;

C. A. 4th Cir. Reported below: 112 Fed. Appx. 266;

C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 116 Fed. Appx. 248;

C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 110 Fed. Appx. 574;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 112 Fed. Appx. 335;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 108 Fed. Appx. 945;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 110 Fed. Appx. 421;

No. 04-8162.

No. 04-8173.

No. 04-8187.

No. 04-8189.

No. 04-8207.

No. 04-8216.

No. 04-8217.

No. 04-8238.

No. 04-8255.

No. 04-8262.

No. 04-8274.

No. 04-8275.

No. 04-8296.

No. 04-8298.

No. 04-8299.

No. 04-8301.

No. 04-8303.

C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 128 Fed. Appx. 386;

C. A. 4th Cir. Reported below: 110 Fed. Appx. 356;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 111 Fed. Appx. 738;

C. A. 4th Cir. Reported below: 97 Fed. Appx. 427;

C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 106 Fed. Appx. 976;

C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 116 Fed. Appx. 736;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 115 Fed. Appx. 756;

C. A. 4th Cir. Reported below: 109 Fed. Appx. 550;

C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 111 Fed. Appx. 520;

C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 372 F. 3d 365;

C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 110 Fed. Appx. 559;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 112 Fed. Appx. 968;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 115 Fed. Appx. 239;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 110 Fed. Appx. 445;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 115 Fed. Appx. 285;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 112 Fed. Appx. 345;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 110 Fed. Appx. 427 (sixth judgment) and 460 (fourth judgment); 111 Fed. Appx. 336 (seventh judgment), 337 (third judgment), 744 (first judgment), and 745 (fifth judgment); 112 Fed. Appx. 341 (second judgment);

No. 04-8304.

No. 04-8305.

No. 04-8315.

No. 04-8318.

No. 04-8328.

No. 04-8355.

No. 04-8356.

No. 04-8359.

No. 04-8380.

(Reported below: 110 Fed. Appx. 430);

(111 Fed. Appx. 328);

(110 Fed. Appx. 429);

(111 Fed. Appx. 317);

(110 Fed. Appx. 450);

(111 Fed. Appx. 319);

(111 Fed. Appx. 318);

(111 Fed. Appx. 316);

(111 Fed. Appx. 318);

(110 Fed. Appx. 432);

(110 Fed. Appx. 429);

(111 Fed. Appx. 316);

(111 Fed. Appx. 321);

(110 Fed. Appx. 428);

(110 Fed. Appx. 465);

(111 Fed. Appx. 320);

(110 Fed. Appx. 428);

(111 Fed. Appx. 329); and

(110 Fed. Appx. 464). C. A. 5th Cir.;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 110 Fed. Appx. 464 (first judgment); 111 Fed. Appx. 749 (second judgment);

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 111 Fed. Appx. 323;

C. A. 2d Cir. Reported below: 110 Fed. Appx. 168;

C. A. 5th Cir.;

C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 110 Fed. Appx. 434 (first judgment); 111 Fed. Appx. 323 (second judgment);

C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 123 Fed. Appx. 387;

C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 124 Fed. Appx. 642;

(Reported below: 114 Fed. Appx. 347);

No. 04-8389.

No. 04-8401.

No. 04-8431.

No. 04-8442.

(387 F. 3d 799);

(114 Fed. Appx. 348);

(113 Fed. Appx. 763); and

C. A. 9th Cir.;

C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 124 Fed. Appx. 642;

C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 116 Fed. Appx. 248;

C. A. 11th Cir.; and

C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 112 Fed. Appx. 4. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, ante, p. 220.


text:
    No. 04-7804.
    Vang v. Minnesota.
   Ct. App. Minn. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Smith v. Massachusetts, ante, p. 462.


text:
    No. 04-7869.
    Aranda v. Stewart 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. 04-8332.
    Owens-El v. Hood, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.


text:
    No. 04M50.
    Johnson v. Cain, Warden.
   Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without an affidavit of indigency executed by petitioner denied.


text:
    No. 04M51.
    No. 04M52.
    No. 04M53.
    No. 04M54.
    Brennan v. Mercedes Benz USA et al.; Wilson v. Bartos, Warden, et al.; Meadows v. Oklahoma et al.; Henderson v. Yarborough, Warden, et al.; and Leon C. Baker P. C. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
    No. 04M55.
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. 04M56.
    Hamrick v. Bush, President of the United States, et al.
   Motion for leave to proceed as a seaman denied.


text:
    No. 03-9877.
    Cutter et al. v. Wilkinson, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 924.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 04-277.
    No. 04-281.
    National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. et al. v. Brand X Internet Services et al.; and Federal Communications Commission et al. v. Brand X Internet Services et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certio-rari granted, ante, p. 1018.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 04-278.
    Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, Individually and as Next Best Friend of Her Deceased Minor Children, Gonzales et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 955.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 04-607.
    Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, dba LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States limited to the following question:. “Respondent's patent claims a method for detecting a form of vitamin B deficiency, which focuses upon a correlation in the human body between elevated levels of certain amino acids and deficient levels of vitamin B. The method consists of the following: First, measure the level of the relevant amino acids using any device, whether the device is, or is not, patented; second, notice whether the amino acid level is elevated and, if so, conclude that a vitamin B deficiency exists. Is the patent invalid because one cannot patent ‘laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas’? Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 185 (1981).”


text:
    No. 04-7036.
    Ventimiglia v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 1048] denied.


text:
    No. 04-7799.
    No. 04-7854.
    No. 04-8325.
    Jalil v. Avdel Corp. et al. Tsabbar v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc. High et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir.;

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept.; and

C. A. 11th Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until March 21, 2005, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    No. 04-8566.
    In re Bowling.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 04-473.
    Garcetti et al. v. Ceballos.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of California State Association of Counties for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 04-597.
    Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., dba ConAgra Refrigerated Foods.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Whether, and to what extent, a court of appeals may review the sufficiency of evidence supporting a civil jury verdict where the party requesting review made a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before submission of the case to the jury, but neither renewed that motion under Rule 50(b) after the jury’s verdict, nor moved for a new trial under Rule 59?”


text:
    No. 04-631.
    Wagnon, Secretary, Kansas Department of Revenue v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 04-712.
    Lincoln Property Co. et al. v. Roche et ux.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 04-450.
    Tsolainos v. Louisiana.
   Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-489.
    Broward Yachts, Inc. v. Seagrove Trading, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-536.
    City of New Orleans, Louisiana v. Municipal Administrative Services, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-570.
    Martin v. Boyd Gaming Corp., dba M/V Treasure Chest Casino, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-624.
    Hammond et al., in Their Official Capacity as Commissioners of the Idaho State Tax Commission v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-668.
    McBride et al. v. Ortiz.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-705.
    Bryan v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-718.
    Williams et al. v. Consolidated City of Jacksonville, Florida, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-819.
    Swift-Eckrich, Inc., dba ConAgra Refrigerated Foods v. Unitherm Food Systems, Inc.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-867.
    Rodriguez v. Vander Jagt et al.; and Rodriguez v. HFP, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-884.
    Miller v. Firstar Bank N. A.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-887.
    Soeth et vir v. Gonzales, Attorney General.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-890.
    De La Vega-Navarro et al. v. Gonzales, Attorney General.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-907.
    Appolo Fuels, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-960.
    Spurgeon v. Fleming, Superintendent, Monroe Correctional Complex.
   C. A. 9th Cir. 'Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-987.
    Zimmer et al. v. Fiserv Services, Inc., as Successor to Fiserv Correspondent Services, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-1003.
    Dowty v. United States.
   C. A. Armed Forces. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-1007.
    Mercer v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-1013.
    Wallace v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-1019.
    Dhinsa v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6030.
    Adams v. Gillis, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6444.
    Andrews v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6524.
    Ogrod v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6711.
    Oviedo v. Myers, fka Oviedo.
   Super. Ct. Gwinnett County, Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-6713.
    Nunes v. Gonzales, Attorney General.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7040.
    Barajas-Avalos v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7094.
    Dixon v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 9th Dist. Cer-. tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7227.
    Brown v. Luebbers, Superintendent, Farmington Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7369.
    Ramirez v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7430.
    Conner v. McBride, Superintendent, Maximum Control Facility.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7441.
    Lanzilotta-Dicks v. Thomas More College.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7448.
    Workman v. Summers, Attorney General of Tennessee, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7688.
    Richmond v. Polk, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7757.
    Wagatha v. Satellite Beach Police Department.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7814.
    Robinson v. DiGuglielmo, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7822.
    Martinez v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7831.
    Marshall v. Law Offices of Richard Tanzer, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7835.
    Bishop v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7852.
    J. W., a Minor v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7853.
    Zimmerman v. Ortiz, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, et al.
   Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7857.
    Sloan v. Graham et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7858.
    Sloan v. Knapp et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7859.
    Sinquefield v. Mosely, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7862.
    Mullen v. Lavan, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7864.
    Lee v. Miller, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7865.
    Martin v. Yarborough, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7867.
    Sokolsky v. Los Angeles County, California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7873.
    Kang v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7878.
    Omuna v. Fisher et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7883.
    DuBose v. Kelly et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7891.
    Adi v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7897.
    Pruitt v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7900.
    Clark v. Gonzales, Attorney General.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7925.
    Carter v. Giurbino, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7930.
    Lancaster v. Mississippi.
   Ct. App. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7936.
    Omuna v. Garcia, Acting Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7952.
    Luczak v. Mote, Warden.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-7980.
    Hampton v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8002.
    Valle v. Georgia Department of Corrections.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8019.
    Catalano v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8027.
    Stevenson v. Lewis, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8057.
    Adams v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8132.
    Watts v. Florida Commission on Human Relations.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8151.
    Wilkinson v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8180.
    Woodberry v. McKune, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8229.
    Liedtke v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8241.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8249.
    Sorrells v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8291.
    Bell v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8300.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8313.
    Elizondo-Rodriguez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8327.
    Griffin v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8333.
    McLean v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8336.
    Todd v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8337.
    Washington v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8347.
    Vega-Cosme et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8351.
    Rutherford v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8354.
    Hartley v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8366.
    Reid v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8375.
    Ventrice v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8383.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8387.
    Clay v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8388.
    Stewart v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8393.
    Oriakhi v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8398.
    Taylor v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8400.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8403.
    Britt v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8421.
    Guerrero v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8427.
    Estrada-Soto v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8428.
    Dade v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8434.
    Burse v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari, denied.


text:
    No. 04-704.
    Trawinski v. United Technologies Carrier Corp. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 03-10875.
    No. 04-5708.
    No. 04-6345.
    No. 04-6557.
    No. 04-6708.
    No. 04-6818.
    No. 04-7003.
    No. 04-7127.
    No. 04-7287.
    No. 04-7300.
    No. 04-7318.
    Mendoza v. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security, Cedano-Medina v. United States, Jackson v. Cambra, Warden, et al., Pruitt v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Bansal v. Lamar University et al., Richburg v. United States, In re Vovak, Pesci v. Gansheimer, Warden, Rohn v. United States, In re Vovak, Castro-Balderas, aka Medina-Telfino, aka Luna v. United States; Arvizo-Enriquez v. United States; Chavez-Martinez v. United States; Moreno-Amaya, aka Garcia, aka Moreno, aka Guadalupe Moreno v. United States; Rodriguez-Lopez v. United States; and Soto-Vaquera, aka Soto, aka Vaguerra Soto, aka Soto Vaguerra v. United States, Cisneros-Muniz v. United States; and Navarette-Morales, aka Valerano-Vasquez v. United States, Aguilar-Garcia v. United States; Bracero-Lemus v. United States; Centeno-Sanchez v. United States; Esparza-Robles v. United States; Gonzalez-Vallejo v. United States; Mendieta-Gomez v. United States; Nava-Alvarez v. United States; Delgado-Perez v. United States; Torres-Pesina v. United States; Rodriguez-Puente v. United States; Santos-Salinas v. United States; and Carreon-Suarez v. United States, Townsend v. United States, McKenzie v. United States, Spry v. United States, Green v. United States,
   ante, p. 855;

ante, p. 1035;

ante, p. 1005;

ante, p. 1023;

ante, p. 1027;

ante, p. 994;

ante, p. 1048;

ante, p. 1068;

ante, p. 1072;

ante, p. 1049;

No. 04-7323.

No. 04-7324.

No. 04-7424.

No. 04-7436.

No. 04-7479.

No. 04-7535.

ante, p. 1073;

ante, p. 1073;

ante, p. 1073;

ante, p. 1076;

ante, p. 1077;

ante, p. 1077; and

ante, p. 1079. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 03-10956.
    Eckardt v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections,
   ante, p. 860. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    March 1, 2005
    No. 04-8900 (04A746).
    Mobley v. Nix, Chairman, Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 04-8901 (04A747).
    Mobley v. Schofield, Warden (two judgments).
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Stevens, Circuit Justice.

text:
    SPENCER et al. v. PUGH et al.
    No. 04A360.
    Decided November 2, 2004

      Together with No. 04A364, Summit County Democratic Central and Executive Committee et al. v. Heider et al., also on application to vacate stay.

   Justice Stevens, Circuit Justice.

In two suits brought in the Federal District Courts of Ohio, plaintiffs allege that Ohio Republicans plan to send hundreds of challengers into predominantly African-American neighborhoods to mount indiscriminate challenges at polling places, which they claim will cause voter intimidation and inordinate delays in voting.

After taking evidence, the District Courts granted partial relief, reasoning that the severe burden that these challengers would place on the rights of voters was not justified by the State’s interest in preventing fraud. The courts, however, refused to enjoin the challenge process completely; instead, and consistently with a memorandum issued by the secretary of state, one court ordered the challengers to stay out of polling places while the other court ordered them to remain in polling places only as witnesses.

While the secretary of state — the official charged with administering the State’s election code — did not appeal the District Courts’ orders, various Republican voters, who intervened in the District Court proceedings, sought relief from the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Over a dissent, the Court of Appeals granted their motions for an emergency stay. Summit Cty. Democratic Central and Executive Comm. v. Blackwell, 388 F. 3d 547 (2004). With just several hours left before the first voters will make their way to the polls, the plaintiffs have applied to me in my capacity as Circuit Justice to enter an order reinstating the District Courts’ injunctions. While I have the power to grant the relief requested, I decline to do so for prudential reasons. Cf. Socialist Labor Party v. Rhodes, 89 S. Ct. 3, 21 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1968) (Stewart, J., in chambers).

Although the hour is late and time is short, I have reviewed the District Court opinions and the opinions of the Circuit Judges. That reasonable judges can disagree about the issues is clear enough.

The allegations of abuse made by the plaintiffs are undoubtedly serious — the threat of voter intimidation is not new to our electoral system — but on the record before me it is impossible to determine with any certainty the ultimate validity of the plaintiffs’ claims.

Practical considerations, such as the difficulty of digesting all of the relevant filings and cases, and the challenge of properly reviewing all of the parties’ submissions as a full Court in the limited timeframe available, weigh heavily against granting the extraordinary type of relief requested here. Moreover, I have faith that the elected officials and numerous election volunteers on the ground will carry out their responsibilities in a way that will enable qualified voters to cast their ballots.

Because of the importance of providing the parties with a prompt decision, I am simply denying the applications to vacate stays without referring them to the full Court.

It is so ordered.


author: Justice Souter, Circuit Justice.

text:
    DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE et al. v. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE et al. MALONE, intervenor
    No. 04A378.
    Decided November 2, 2004
   Justice Souter, Circuit Justice.

The individual Ohio voter who intervened in this case claimed that the Republican National Committee threatened to violate a consent decree, by challenging Ohio voters named on a list of 35,000 individual names compiled by Republican officials in Ohio in cooperation with the Republican National Committee. She alleged that her right to vote and that of other minority voters would be jeopardized by the anticipated challenges from the Republican side. Yesterday, the District Court found such a threatened violation and issued the injunction requested, a stay of which was denied by a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit late last night. Following the action that was subject to Justice Stevens’s opinion in chambers earlier today in Spencer v. Pugh, ante, p. 1301, the Republican National Committee moved for rehearing or rehearing en banc, the latter of which was granted this afternoon by order staying the injunction. No. 04-4186, 2004 U. S. App. LEXIS 22689 (CA3, Nov. 2, 2004).. The intervenor alone has now applied to me in my capacity as Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit for a stay of the en banc order itself, which would effectively reinstate the injunction. Since making the application, she has filed a further pleading disclosing that she has already voted without challenge. Under the circumstances, I have decided against referring the application to the full Court and now deny it.

It is so ordered.


author: CHIEF Justice Rehnquist Justice Stevens, Justice Scalia,

text:
    TENET et al. v. DOE et ux.
    No. 03-1395.
    Argued January 11, 2005
    Decided March 2, 2005

      Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined, post, p. 11. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 12.

      Acting Solicitor General Clement argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Assistant Attorney General Keisler, Deputy Assistant Attorney General

      Katsas, Lisa S. Blatt, Barbara L. Herwig, and H. Thomas Byron III.

      David J. Burman argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Steven W. Hale, Elizabeth A. Alaniz, and Marie Aglion.

   CHIEF Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105 (1876), we held that public policy forbade a self-styled Civil War spy from suing the United States to enforce its obligations under their secret espionage agreement. Respondents here, alleged former Cold War spies, filed suit against the United States and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), asserting estoppel and due process claims for the CIA’s alleged failure to provide respondents with the assistance it had promised in return for their espionage services. Finding that Totten did not bar respondents’ suit, the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the case could proceed. We reverse because this holding contravenes the longstanding rule, announced more than a century ago in Totten, prohibiting suits against the Government based on covert espionage agreements.

Respondents, a husband and wife who use the fictitious names John and Jane Doe, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. According to respondents, they were formerly citizens of a foreign country that at the time was considered to be an enemy of the United States, and John Doe was a high-ranking diplomat for the country. After respondents expressed interest in defecting to the United States, CIA agents persuaded them to remain at their posts and conduct espionage for the United States for a specified period of time, promising in return that the Government “would arrange for travel to the United States and ensure financial and personal security for life.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 122a. After “carrying out their end of the bargain” by completing years of purportedly high-risk, valuable espionage services, id., at 123a, respondents defected (under new names and false backgrounds) and became United States citizens, with the Government’s help. The CIA designated respondents with “PL-110” status and began providing financial assistance and personal security.

With the CIA’s help, respondent John Doe obtained employment in the State of Washington. As his salary increased, the CIA decreased his living stipend until, at some point, he agreed to a discontinuation of benefits while he was working. Years later, in 1997, John Doe was laid off after a corporate merger. Because John Doe was unable to find new employment as a result of CIA restrictions on the type of jobs he could hold, respondents contacted the CIA for financial assistance. Denied such assistance by the CIA, they claim they are unable to properly provide for themselves. Thus, they are faced with the prospect of either returning to their home country (where they say they face extreme sanctions), or remaining in the United States in their present circumstances.

Respondents assert, among other things, that the CIA violated their procedural and substantive due process rights by denying them support and by failing to provide them with a fair internal process for reviewing their claims. They seek injunctive relief ordering the CIA to resume monthly financial support pending further agency review. They also request a declaratory judgment stating that the CIA failed to provide a constitutionally adequate review process, and detailing the minimal process the agency must provide. Finally, respondents seek a mandamus order requiring the CIA to adopt agency procedures, to give them fair review, and to provide them with security and financial assistance.

The Government moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), principally on the ground that Totten bars respondents’ suit. The District Court dismissed some of respondents’ claims but denied the Government’s Totten objection, ruling that the due process claims could proceed. 99 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1289-1294 (WD Wash. 2000). After minimal discovery, the Government renewed its motion to dismiss based on Totten, and it moved for summary judgment on respondents’ due process claims. Apparently construing the complaint as also raising an estoppel claim, the District Court denied the Government’s motions, ruled again that Totten did not bar respondents’ claims, and found there were genuine issues of material fact warranting a trial on respondents’ due process and es-toppel claims. App. to Pet. for Cert. 85a-94a. The District Court certified an order for interlocutory appeal and stayed further proceedings pending appeal. Id., at 79a-88a.

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in relevant part. 329 F. 3d 1135 (2003). It reasoned that Totten posed no bar to reviewing some of respondents’ claims and thus that the case could proceed to trial, subject to the Government’s asserting the evidentiary state secrets privilege and the District Court’s resolving that issue. 329 F. 3d, at 1145-1155. Over dissent, the Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing en banc. 353 F. 3d 1141 (CA9 2004). The Government sought review, and we granted certiorari. 542 U. S. 936 (2004).

In Totten, the administrator of William A. Lloyd’s estate brought suit against the United States to recover compensation for services that Lloyd allegedly rendered as a spy during the Civil War. 92 U. S. 105. Lloyd purportedly entered into a contract with President Lincoln in July 1861 to spy behind Confederate lines on troop placement and fort plans, for which he was to be paid $200 a month. Id., at 105-106. The lower court had found that Lloyd performed on the contract but did not receive full compensation. Id., at 106. After concluding with “no difficulty,” ibid., that the President had the authority to bind the United States to contracts with secret agents, we observed that the very essence of the alleged contract between Lloyd and the Government was that it was secret, and had to remain so:

“The service stipulated by the contract was a secret service; the information sought was to be obtained clandestinely, and was to be communicated privately; the employment and the service were to be equally concealed. Both employer and agent must have under- . stood that the lips of the other were to be for ever sealed respecting the relation of either to the matter. This condition of the engagement was implied from the nature of the employment, and is implied in all secret employments of the government in time of war, or upon matters affecting our foreign relations, where a disclosure of the service might compromise or embarrass our government in its public duties, or endanger the person or injure the character of the agent.” Ibid.

Thus, we thought it entirely incompatible with the nature of such a contract that a former spy could bring suit to enforce it. Id., at 106-107.

We think the Court of Appeals was quite wrong in holding that Totten doe's not require dismissal of respondents’ claims. That court, and respondents here, reasoned first that Totten developed merely a contract rule, prohibiting breach-of-contract claims seeking to enforce the terms of espionage agreements but not barring claims based on due process or estoppel theories. In fact, Totten was not so limited: “[P]ub-lic policy forbids the maintenance of any suit in a court of justice, the trial of which would inevitably lead to the disclosure of matters which the law itself regards as confidential.” Id., at 107 (emphasis added); see also ibid. (“The secrecy which such contracts impose precludes any action for their enforcement” (emphasis added)). No matter the clothing in which alleged spies dress their claims, Totten precludes judicial review in cases such as respondents’ where success depends upon the existence of their secret espionage relationship with the Government.

Relying mainly on United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1 (1953), the Court of Appeals also claimed that Totten has been recast simply as an early expression of the evidentiary “state secrets” privilege, rather than a categorical bar to their claims. Reynolds involved a wrongful-death action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1346, by the widows of three civilians who died in the crash of a military B-29 aircraft. 345 U. S., at 2-3. In the course of discovery, the plaintiffs sought certain investigation-related documents, which the Government said contained “‘highly secret/” privileged military information. Id., at 3-4. We recognized “the privilege against revealing military secrets, a privilege which is well established in the law of evidence,” id., at 6-7, and we set out a balancing approach for courts to apply in resolving Government claims of privilege, id., at 7-11. We ultimately concluded that the Government was entitled to the privilege in that case. Id., at 10-12.

When invoking the “well established” state secrets privilege, we indeed looked to Totten. Reynolds, supra, at 7, n. 11 (citing Totten, supra, at 107). See also Brief for United States in United States v. Reynolds, O. T. 1952, No. 21, pp. 36, 42 (citing Totten in support of a military secrets privilege). But that in no way signaled our retreat from Totten’s broader holding that lawsuits premised on alleged espionage agreements are altogether forbidden. Indeed, our opinion in Reynolds refutes this very suggestion: Citing Totten as a case “where the very subject matter of the action, a contract to perform espionage, was a matter of state secret,” we declared that such a case was to be “dismissed on the pleadings without ever reaching the question of evidence, since it was so obvious that the action should never prevail over the privilege.” 345 U. S., at 11, n. 26 (emphasis added).

In a later case, we again credited the more sweeping holding in Totten, thus confirming its continued validity. See Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Haw./Peace Ed. Project, 454 U. S. 139, 146-147 (1981) (citing Totten in holding that “whether or not the Navy has complied with [§ 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 853, 42 U. S. C. § 4332(2)(C)] ‘to the fullest extent possible’ is beyond judicial scrutiny in this case,” where, “[d]ue to national security reasons,” the Navy could “neither admit nor deny” the fact that was central to the suit, i. e., “that it propose[d] to store nuclear weapons” at a facility). Reynolds therefore cannot plausibly be read to have replaced the categorical Totten bar with the balancing of the state secrets evidentiary-privilege in the distinct class of cases that depend upon clandestine spy relationships.

Nor does Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592 (1988), support respondents’ claim. There, we held that § 102(c) of the National Security Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 498, 50 U. S. C. § 403(c), may not be read to exclude judicial review of the constitutional claims made by a former CIA employee for alleged discrimination. 486 U. S., at 603. In reaching that conclusion, we noted the “‘serious constitutional question’ that would arise if a federal statute were construed to deny any judicial forum for a colorable constitutional claim.” Ibid. But there is an obvious difference, for purposes of Totten, between a suit brought by an acknowledged (though covert) employee of the CIA and one filed by an alleged former spy. Only in the latter scenario is Totten’s, core concern implicated: preventing the existence of the plaintiff’s relationship with the Government from being revealed. That is why the CIA regularly entertains Title VII claims concerning the hiring and promotion of its employees, as we noted in Webster, supra, at 604, yet Totten has long barred suits such as respondents’.

There is, in short, no basis for respondents’ and the Court of Appeals’ view that the Totten bar has been reduced to an example of the state secrets privilege. In a far closer case than this, we observed that if the “precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477, 484 (1989).

We adhere to Totten. The state secrets privilege and the more frequent use of in camera judicial proceedings simply cannot provide the absolute protection we found necessary in enunciating the Totten rule. The possibility that a suit may proceed and an espionage relationship may be revealed, if the state secrets privilege is found not to apply, is unacceptable: “Even a small chance that some court will order disclosure of a source’s identity could well impair intelligence gathering and cause sources to ‘close up like a clam.’” CIA v. Sims, 471 U. S. 159, 175 (1985); Forcing the Government to litigate these claims would also make it vulnerable to “graymail,” i. e., individual lawsuits brought to induce the CIA to settle a case (or prevent its filing) out of fear that any effort to litigate the action would reveal classified information that may undermine ongoing covert operations. And requiring the Government to invoke the privilege on a case-by-case basis risks the perception that it is either confirming or denying relationships with individual plaintiffs.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, concurring.

In Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105 (1876), the Court held that an alleged oral agreement between a deceased spy and President Lincoln was unenforceable. There may be situations in which the national interest would be well served by a rule that permitted similar commitments made by less senior officers to be enforced in court, subject to procedures designed to protect sensitive information. If that be so, Congress can modify the federal common-law rule announced in Totten. For the purposes of today’s decision, which I join, the doctrine of stare decisis provides a sufficient justification for concluding that the complaint is without merit. The Court wisely decides that the absence of an enforceable agreement requires that respondents’ constitutional and other claims be dismissed without first answering an arguably antecedent jurisdictional question. See ante, at 6-7, n. 4; see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 117-123 (1998) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).

Justice Scalia,

concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion because I do not agree with Justice Stevens’s concurrence, painting today’s action as a vindication of his opinion concurring in the judgment in Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 112 (1998), in which he would have held that a jurisdictional bar does not prevent the resolution of a merits issue. When today’s opinion refers to the issue in Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105 (1876), as “the sort of ‘threshold question’ we have recognized may be resolved before addressing jurisdiction,” ante, at 7, n. 4, it is surely not referring to the run-of-the-mill, nonthreshold merits question whether a cause of action exists. And when it describes “the unique and categorical nature of the Totten bar — a rule designed not merely to defeat the asserted claims, but to preclude judicial inquiry,” ibid., it is assuredly not describing the mere everyday absence of a cause of action. As applied today, the bar of Totten is a jurisdictional one.

Of course even if it were not, given the squarely applicable precedent of Totten, the absence of a cause of action is so clear that respondents’ claims are frivolous — establishing another jurisdictional ground for dismissal that the Steel Co. majority opinion acknowledges. See 523 U. S., at 89.

       The Government has neither confirmed nor denied any of respondents’ allegations. We therefore describe the facts as asserted in respondents’ second amended complaint. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 128a-136a. They are, of course, no more than allegations.

       While the Government neither confirms nor denies that respondents •are part of any “PL-110” program, the parties agree this reference is to 50 U. S. C. § 403h, a provision enacted as part of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, § 8, 68 Stat. 212 (renumbered § 7, 72 Stat. 337). This provision allows a limited number of aliens and members of their immediate families per year to be admitted to the United States for permanent residence, regardless of their admissibility under the immigration laws, upon a determination by the Director of the CIA, the Attorney General, and the Commissioner of Immigration that admission of the particular alien “is in the interest of national security or essential to the furtherance of the national intelligence mission.” §403h. However, nothing in this statute, nor anything in the redacted CIA regulations and related materials respondents cite, see Brief for Respondents 41-43; App. to Brief in Opposition 41-50, represents an enforceable legal commitment by the CIA to provide support to spies that may be admitted into the United States under §403h. See also App. to Pet. for Cert. 145a (decl. of William McNair ¶ 5 (Information Review Officer for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations) (stating, based on his search of regulations and internal CIA policies, that he “can inform the court unequivocally that there are no Agency or other US federal regulations that require the CIA to provide lifetime subsistence assistance to individuals brought into the United States under the authority of PL-110” (emphasis in original))).

       Respondents document their alleged series of contacts with the CIA. See id., at 128a-136a (Second Amended Complaint). For instance, respondents allegedly received a letter from the CIA in June 1997, expressing regret that the agency no longer had funds available to provide assistance. Id., at 128a. Later, respondents claim they were told the agency determined “the benefits previously provided were adequate for the services rendered.” Id., at 129a. Although the CIA apparently did not disclose to respondents the agency’s appeals process, respondents were permitted to appeal the initial determination both to the Director of the CIA and to a panel of former agency officials called the Helms Panel; both appeals were denied. Id., at 129a-132a.

       Preliminarily, we must address whether Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83 (1998), prevents us from resolving this ease based on the Totten issue. In Steel Co., we adhered to the requirement that a court address questions pertaining to its or a lower court’s jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits. 523 U. S., at 94-95. In the lower courts, in addition to relying on Totten, the Government argued that the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1), required that respondents’ claims be brought in the Court of Federal Claims, rather than in the District Court. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and the Government did not seek review on this question in its petition for certiorari. Pet. for Cert. 8, n. 2.
      We may assume for purposes of argument that this Tucker Act question is the kind of jurisdictional issue that Steel Co. directs must be resolved before addressing the merits of a claim. Cf. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 212, 215 (1983) (holding that “the Tucker Act effects a waiver of sovereign immunity” and observing that “the existence of consent [to be sued] is a prerequisite for jurisdiction”). Nevertheless, application of the Totten rule of dismissal, like the abstention doctrine of Younger v.
        Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), or the prudential standing doctrine, represents the sort of “threshold question” we have recognized may be resolved before addressing jurisdiction. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U. S. 574, 585 (1999) (“It is hardly novel for a federal court to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits”); see also Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U. S. 125, 129 (2004) (assuming Article III standing in order to “address the alternative threshold question whether” attorneys had third-party standing); Steel Co., supra, at 100, n. 3 (approving a decision resolving Younger abstention before addressing subject-matter jurisdiction). It would be inconsistent with the unique and categorical nature of the Totten bar — a rule designed not merely to defeat the asserted claims, but to preclude judicial inquiry — to first allow discovery or other proceedings in order to resolve the jurisdictional question. Thus, whether or not the Government was permitted to waive the Tucker Act question, we may dismiss respondents’ cause of action on the ground that it is barred by Totten.

       The Court of Appeals apparently believed that the plaintiff’s relationship with the CIA was secret in Webster, just as in this case. See 329 F. 3d 1135, 1153 (CA9 2003). It is true that the plaintiff in Webster proceeded under a pseudonym because “his status as a CIA employee cannot be publicly acknowledged.” Brief for United States in Webster v. Doe, O. T. 1987, No. 86-1294, p. 3, n. 1. But the fact that the plaintiff in Webster kept his identity secret did not mean that the employment relationship between him and the CIA was not known and admitted by the CIA.