text:
    No. 72-6695.
    Galardi v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 72-6696.
    Guffey v. North Carolina et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6697.
    Williams et al. v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6698.
    Burton v. Haskins, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6700.
    Mullins v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6701.
    Grissam v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6702.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6703.
    Jensen v. Reeploeg et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6704.
    Dillard v. New York City Transit Authority.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6705.
    Beasley v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6706.
    Cross et al. v. Stanford University.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6707.
    Harrington v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6708.
    Davis v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6709.
    Hayes v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6716.
    Ingram v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6717.
    Moreno v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6718.
    Gray v. Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6719.
    Deaton v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6722.
    Kaminer et al. v. Franklin Life Insurance Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6724.
    Domenech v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6728.
    Cooper v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6729.
    Proger, aka Prager v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6730.
    Riley v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6731.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6732.
    Flores v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6733.
    Kearns v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6735.
    Johnson v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6736.
    Havel v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6737.
    Rodrigues v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6739.
    Gallardo v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6740.
    Balsley v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6741.
    Grass v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6743.
    Kindred v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6751.
    Mangabat v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6752.
    Casas et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6754.
    Starnes v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6755.
    Bartlett v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6759.
    Gay v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6760.
    Kennedy v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6761.
    Johnson v. Wainwright, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6762.
    Smilgus v. Bergman et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6763.
    Albright v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6765.
    Rico v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6766.
    Carlton v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6767.
    Cole v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6768.
    Allen v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6769.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6775.
    No. 72-6827.
    Vitta v. United States; and Cangiano v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6776.
    Hamilton v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6779.
    Bangor v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6780.
    Ferrari v. Henderson, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6781.
    Lassiter v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6782.
    Harper v. Tegtmeyer, Acting Commissioner of Patents, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6783.
    Clayton v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6786.
    Sacasas v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6788.
    Wilkins v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6789.
    Gomez v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6790.
    Smilgus v. Letts, Judge.
   C. A. 6th (hr. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6792.
    Eckert v. United States Department of the Treasury et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6793.
    Richardson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6795.
    Butler v. Craven, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6796.
    Hawks v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6797.
    Kosky v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6798.
    Gernand v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6801.
    Bleckley v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6802.
    Porter v. Bloomsburg State College et al.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6803.
    Porter v. Nossen.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6804.
    Kerr v. Borthwick.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6805.
    White v. Cardwell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6806.
    Puco v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6807.
    Polk v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6809.
    Hammonds v. Missouri.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6810.
    Dulles et al. v. Fiduciary Trust Co.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6811.
    Edmunson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6813.
    Spires v. South Carolina et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6814.
    Glasgow v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6815.
    Poe v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6816.
    Stith v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6817.
    Fountain v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6819.
    Kaye v. Vincent, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6824.
    No. 72-6825.
    Allen v. United States; and O’Brien v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6826.
    Nyhan v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6828.
    Luna v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6829.
    McMinn v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6830.
    Pace v. Campbell et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6831.
    Crawford v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6833.
    Tidd et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6835.
    Blasetti v. Gagliardi et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6837.
    Joseph v. Henderson, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6838.
    Wise v. Britton, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6841.
    Perez-Alvarez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6842.
    Johnson v. Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6843.
    Brager v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6844.
    Jenkins v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6845.
    Peterson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6848.
    Brown v. Montanye, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6849.
    Light et al. v. United States
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6850.
    Little v. Twomey, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6852.
    Kelly v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6853.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6854.
    Phillips v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6855.
    Chan Kam-Shu v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6860.
    Collingwood v. Meacham, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6861.
    Redford v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6862.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6863.
    Lindsey v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6864.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6866.
    Ketola v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6867.
    Harrelson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6868.
    Williams v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6869.
    Simpson v. Alabama et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6870.
    Arnold v. Buffat et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6873.
    Newell v. Harris, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6875.
    Olden v. McCarthy, Men’s Colony Superintendent.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6876.
    Larkin v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6877.
    Serrano-Bugarin v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6878.
    Perkins v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6884.
    Lynch v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6885.
    Payton v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6887.
    Rollins v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6888.
    Boatner v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6889.
    Nelson et al. v. Jamaica Buses, Inc.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6891.
    Shinder v. Esmiol.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of San Francisco. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6893.
    Bailey v. Tennessee et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6894.
    Endres v. Swenson, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6896.
    Jeffers v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6898.
    Schartner v. Pizzo, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6899.
    Creighton v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6901.
    Polk v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal. 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6903.
    Moss v. Hocker, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6904.
    Frogge v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6907.
    Young v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6909.
    Bilello v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6910.
    Haley v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6911.
    Wall v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6912.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6913.
    Whiteside v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6920.
    Collins v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6922.
    LaRuea v. Martha Washington Associates et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6923.
    Miller v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6926.
    Ross v. Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6928.
    Hart v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6935.
    Whited v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6936.
    Farkas v. Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6937.
    Feroldi v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6938.
    India v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6939.
    Johnston v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6940.
    Hunt, aka Reed v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6942.
    Dun Leavay v. Lutz Appellate Printers, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6943.
    Dixon v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6944.
    Hardwick v. Durden et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6945.
    Harris et al. v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6946.
    Sherman v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6948.
    Jarrett v. Scott, Governor of North Carolina, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6949.
    Ames v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6953.
    Miller v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6954.
    Averitt v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6955.
    Coppola v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6957.
    Grills v. Tennessee.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6958.
    Gardner v. New Mexico.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6959.
    Watkins v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6960.
    Thundershield v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6961.
    Gammon v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6962.
    McCarthney v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6963.
    Scarpa v. Henderson, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6964.
    Clark v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6965.
    Sloan v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6966.
    Morris, aka Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6968.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6969.
    Mendes v. REA Express, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6970.
    Denman et al. v. Berkman.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6972.
    Cimmino v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6973.
    Soots et ux. v. Conner.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6974.
    Watson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6975.
    Hester v. Veterans’ Administration Center et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6977.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6978.
    Torres v. Florida.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6980.
    Harper v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6981.
    No. 73-5018.
    De Leon v. United States; and De Leon v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 462 F. 2d 170 and 474 F. 2d 790.


text:
    No. 72-6982.
    McCray v. Alabama.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6983.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6985.
    Reed v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6986.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6987.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6989.
    Wright v. Smith, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6990.
    Hern v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6993.
    Kelly v. Perini, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6997.
    Howell v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board of California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6998.
    Diaz-Aguilar et al. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6999.
    Carroll v. City of Miami et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2.
    Kaehni et al. v. Diffraction Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-12.
    Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-17.
    Mogulnicki v. Connecticut.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-18.
    Arlington Hotel Co., Inc. v. Reed.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-20.
    Aronson et al. v. Ambrose et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-21.
    Grubbs, dba T. R. Grubbs Tire & Appliance v. General Electric Credit Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-22.
    Sterling Oil of Oklahoma, Inc., et al. v. Chamberlain et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-23.
    Flynn v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-24.
    Greenwald v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-27.
    Murray et ux. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-30.
    Solomon v. Pennsylvania.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-31.
    Yeager, Principal Keeper v. Macon.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-35.
    Fair Lawn Education Assn. v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-36.
    Freehold Regional High School Education Assn. v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-43.
    Sobiek v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-45.
    Wilson Building, Inc. v. Brennan, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-48.
    Kaiser v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-49.
    Sullivan et al. v. Brinegar, Secretary of Transportation, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-53.
    LaSorsa et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-54.
    Donelon et al. v. New Orleans Terminal Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-57.
    Blakeway et al. v. Southern National Bank of Houston.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 14th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-58.
    Senak v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-59.
    American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Luke et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-60.
    P. G. Berland Paint City, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 73-63.
    Young v. Clear Lake Yacht Basin, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-68.
    New Jersey v. Kaiser et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-70.
    Montana v. Glick et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-71.
    Warren v. Rosenthal, Executrix.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-77.

    Rothberg v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-83.
    Galardi et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-84.
    Walker v. Brennan, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-86.
    Powers v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-92.
    Cohen et al., Executors v. Franchard Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-95.
    Satkin v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-97.
    De Ibern v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-99.
    In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions (Joseph B. Kauffman, Petitioner).
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-100.
    J. O. Johnson, Inc. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-101.
    Hunter v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-105.
    Superior Pine Products Co. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-106.
    Hansen v. United California Bank.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-108.
    Stassi v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-111.
    General American Life Insurance Co. v. Lohman et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-113.
    Buttolph v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-114.
    Armstrong v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-117.
    Ikard et al. v. Estate of Wyche et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-119.
    Trustees of Beck Industries, Inc. v. Feldman et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-124.
    Alkire et al. v. Cashman et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-125.
    Albert et al. v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-129.
    Grinnell Corp. v. Hackett, Director, Department of Employment Security of Rhode Island, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-132.
    Franklin et ux. v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-135.
    King Nut Co. v. Beer Nuts, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-137.
    Rice et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-139.
    Chevron Chemical Company, Oronite Division v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-141.
    Southland Manufacturing Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-158.
    St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Duncan.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-159.
    Griffin et al. v. Pacific Maritime Assn. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-160.
    Reeder, dba Nutrifoods Co. v. H & J Foods, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-167.
    Graff Vending Co. et al. v. Hampton, dba Hampton Vending Supply.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-176.
    Arthree, Inc., et al. v. Kaskel et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-189.
    Smith v. Kentucky State Bar Assn.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-194.
    Fuhrman, Administratrix, et al. v. United States Steel Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-207.
    Wahl et al. v. Vibranetics, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-209.
    Desmarais et al. v. Wachusett Regional School District et al.
   Ct. App. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-218.
    Indiana War Memorials Commission v. Indiana Civil Liberties Union, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-223.
    S. E. Nichols Shillington Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-239.
    Smith v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-243.
    Trap Rock Industries, Inc. v. Kohl, Commissioner of Transportation.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-246.
    Makens et al. v. Fairfield Products, Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-281.
    Baron v. Baron.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5001.
    Medlin v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5003.
    Byrd v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5006.
    Jacobs v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5008.
    Francisco v. Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5010.
    McGrath v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5014.
    Birch v. Vincent, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5017.
    Bradley v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5020.
    Brown v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5022.
    Rivera v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5026.
    Herrera v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5027.
    Chavarri-Alva v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5030.
    Cobbs v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5031.
    Oniskor v. Utah.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5033.
    White v. Padgett et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5034.
    Lane v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5036.
    Moore v. McClellan, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5064.
    Rodriguez v. Gray, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5067.
    Williams v. Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5070.
    Ross v. Blackledge, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5071.
    Holley v. Lawrence.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5076.
    Brown v. LaVallee, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5081.
    Hogan v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5084.
    Dixon v. Caldwell, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5086.
    Whetton v. Turner, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5088.
    Cox v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5099.
    Shipp v. Tennessee.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5109.
    Spiers v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5112.
    Saunders v. Municipal Court, City and County of San Francisco.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5122.
    Tinsley v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5125.
    Mahone v. Hubbart et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5133.
    Martinez v. Oswald, Commissioner of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5138.
    Howard v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5153.
    Sanders v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5156.
    Leventhal v. Forte et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5157.
    Roots v. Koon, Deputy Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5161.
    Webb v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5163.
    Creason v. North Carolina Department of Corrections et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5168.
    Randolph v. Arizona Board of Regents.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5173.
    Hanks v. Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5178.
    Dotsey by Johnson, Executor v. Macias et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5180.
    Stuck v. Lash, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5185.
    Ferguson v. Tucker, Judge.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1002.
    California v. Taylor.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion to dispense with printing respondent’s brief granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1201.
    100 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Marin County, California, Drake’s Beach Estates, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1213.
    No. 72-1356.
    No. 72-6535.
    No. 72-6538.
    Butler v. United States; Butler v. United States; Rodriguez v. United States; and Arias v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.

Reported below: 472 F. 2d 1.


text:
    No. 72-1301.
    Smith v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1307.
    Gervato v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1333.
    Corson et al. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1378.
    Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1453.
    Beilenson v. Treasurer of the United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1458.
    Clement et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1472.
    Nooter Corp. v. Wilson et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1488.
    Eberhardt et al. v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1496.
    Madera v. Brooklyn Bar Assn.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1512.
    Johnson v. Gartlan et ux.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1521.
    Sicilia v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1536.
    Brunner & Lay, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1546.
    Moore v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1561.
    Paradise Palms Community Assn. v. Paradise Homes et al.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1562.
    Buras et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1584.
    Dowdy v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1592.
    Biddy v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1606.
    Miceli v. United States et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1615.
    Brennan, Secretary of Labor v. Robert Hall Clothes, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1625.
    All et al. v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1638.
    Craven v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1664.
    Abiodun et al. v. Martin Oil Service, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1665.
    Jenkins v. United States Post Office et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1703.
    Tortorello v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1707.
    International Wire v. Local 38, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1711.
    Bassett v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1712.
    In re Horowitz.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1715.
    Deaktor et al. v. Fox Grocery Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1717.
    Rizzo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1724.
    Karnap v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6208.
    Wright v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6342.
    Hamblen v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6414.
    Ridings et al. v. Kerr, Chairman, California Adult Authority, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6470.
    Ellingburg v. Henley, Chief Judge, U. S. District Court.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6475.
    Grant v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6500.
    Lee v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6518.
    Slabaugh v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6549.
    Kerr v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6554.
    Cook v. Belden Concrete Products, Inc., Division of Rockwin Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorai denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6556.
    Brummel v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6567.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6573.
    Elam et al. v. Henderson, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6583.
    Farmer v. Caldwell, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6586.
    Rulnick v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6589.
    Disbrow v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6606.
    Braswell v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6613.
    Sandoval v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6618.
    Cristancho-Puerto v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6619.
    Preciado v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6630.
    Bynum v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6636.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6638.
    Cox v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6642.
    King v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6644.
    Agnes v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6657.
    Dupre v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6661.
    Wright v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6668.
    Palma v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6669.
    Emma v. Armstrong et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6677.
    Ross v. Chase et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6679.
    Sanders v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6684.
    Correa-Negron v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6688.
    Penta v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6711.
    Hines v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6712.
    Oliver v. Thoms, Acting Prison Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6713.
    Marks v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6714.
    Miley v. Delta Marine Drilling Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6715.
    Hanna v. Cardwell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6721.
    Bussy v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6723.
    Ferrada v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6726.
    Thomas v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6727.
    Orr v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6734.
    Christian v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6738.
    Parrott v. Government of the Virgin Islands.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6742.
    Quevedo v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6745.
    Arnold v. Kirby et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6758.
    McDade v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6777.
    Rosenberg v. Martin.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6787.
    Weathers v. Gaffney, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6834.
    Cunningham v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6856.
    No. 72-6857.
    Daughtery v. Harris, Warden; and Piper v. Harris, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.

Reported below: 476 F. 2d 292.


text:
    No. 72-6858.
    Ford v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6871.
    Bell v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6872.
    Conte v. Cardwell, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6879.
    Bailey v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant cértiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6908.
    Gascoigne v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6924.
    Simpson v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6941.
    Thunder v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6967.
    Pitman v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-3.
    Goldstein et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-11.
    Associated Students of Western Kentucky University et al. v. Downing et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-14.
    Arca et ux. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-16.
    Mogulnicki v. Keller et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-32.
    Financial Industrial Fund, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-41.
    Fabrycki et al. v. Trustees of Indiana University et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-42.
    Muhlethaler v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-52.
    Vestal v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-87.
    Potter v. State Personnel Board of Review.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-89.
    Wachtel et ux. v. West et ux.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-131.
    Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-136.
    Santana v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-143.
    Theodories v. Peterson Marine Services, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-144.
    Local 7-210, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. Union Tank Car Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-195.
    Zicarelli v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5004.
    Essex v. Elliott.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5015.
    Garcia et al. v. Jones, Director, State Division of Family Services.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5023.
    Lassiter v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5032.
    Lomax et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5039.
    Johnson v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5048.
    Turk v. Mitchell.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lucas County. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5055.
    Caine et al. v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5119.
    Farmer et vir v. Toledo Edison Co.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Ottawa County. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5134.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5146.
    Sheffield v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5195.
    Sluder v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5226.
    Archuleta v. New Mexico.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-5259.
    Martin v. Rose, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1386.
    Erdos v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1420.
    No. 72-1422.
    PepsiCo, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission et al.; and Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Corvallis, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Reported below: 472 F. 2d 179.


text:
    No. 72-1504.
    Coca-Cola Co. et al. v. Federal Trade Commission.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 72-1440.
    Olenz v. Marovitz, U. S. District Judge, et al.
   C. A. 7th. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1572.
    Binkley v. Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1604.
    Hewlett v. Hewlett.
   Ct. Civ. App. Tex., 10th Sup. Jud. Dist. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1642.
    Brown v. Tennessee Real Estate Commission.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1669.
    Continental Development Corp., Inc. v. Vines et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1720.
    Johnson v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1741.
    Randolph v. School District 201 et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-47.
    Lambert et vir v. Supreme Court of Colorado.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-183.
    Bradley v. Doherty et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-192.
    Perrello v. Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1508.
    New Jersey et al. v. Thomas.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1614.
    MacDougall, Correction Commissioner, et al. v. LaReau.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1653.
    Dooling, U. S. District Judge v. Hilbert.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1714.
    Patterson, Warden v. Johnson.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-126.
    Pennsylvania v. Pierce.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pau peris granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1540.
    Taylor et vir v. Jones.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Motions to dispense with printing petition and respondent’s briefs granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1621.
    Peluso, Administrator, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1622.
    Anderson et al. v. Salt Lake City Corp. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1631.
    Socialist Workers Party v. Klassen, Postmaster General, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1679.
    Hackett, Director, Department of Employment Security of Rhode Island, et al. v. Grinnell Corp.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant, certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1.
    Florida v. Andersen.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-1688.
    In re Time Sales Finance Corp. (Blank, Rome, Klaus & Comisky, Real Party in Interest).
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion to defer consideration and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6576.
    Dawn, dba Game Co. v. Sterling Drug, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion to defer consideration and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-147.
    Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd., et al. v. Martin Marietta Corp. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion to defer consideration and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-1716.
    In re Taylor.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Motion to dispense with printing petition granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 72-6905.
    Reid v. Wisconsin.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner to add County of Milwaukee Civil Service Agency et al. as parties respondent and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-74.
    Hoffa v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 73-112.
    Murphy et al. v. Sullivan et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 73-145.
    No. 73-204.
    Union Bank of Los Angeles v. Nolan; and Judicial Council of the Third Circuit v. Nolan et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.

Reported below: 481 F. 2d 41.


text:
    No. 73-149.
    Taylor v. Tennessee et al.
   Sup. Ct. Term. Motion to correct errors in petition granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5194.
    Akulicz v. Wolke, Sheriff.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 70-35.
    No. 70-43.
    No. 70-73.
    No. 71-599.
    No. 71-1051.
    No. 71-1315.
    No. 71-1517.
    No. 72-357.
    No. 72-419.
    No. 72-459.
    No. 72-649.
    No. 72-1108.
    No. 72-1166.
    Austin et al. v. Meyer et al., Miller et al. v. United States, Miller v. California, Motion Picture Film Entitled “Vixen” et al. v. Ohio ex rel. Keating, Paris Adult Theatre I et al. v. Slaton, District Attorney, et al., Alexander et al. v. Virginia, Miller v. United States, Price v. Virginia, Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations et al., Sloan, Treasurer of Pennsylvania v. Lemon et al., Corpus Christi Independent School District et al. v. Cisneros et al., Mobil Oil Corp. v. Federal Power Commission, Wright v. United States,
   413 U. S. 905;

413 U. S. 913;

413 U. S. 15;

413 U. S. 905;

413 U. S. 49;

413 U. S. 836;

413 U. S. 913;

413 U. S. 912;

413 U. S. 376;

413 U. S. 825;

413 U. S. 922;

412 U. S. 931; and

412 U. S. 938. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-1187.
    No. 72-1221.
    No. 72-1235.
    No. 72-1247.
    No. 72-1313.
    No. 72-1349.
    No. 72-1376.
    No. 72-1396.
    No. 72-1413.
    No. 72-5348.
    No. 72-6115.
    No. 72-6221.
    No. 72-6224.
    No. 72-6293.
    No. 72-6295.
    No. 72-6468.
    No. 72-6481.
    Combs, Superintendent, Grand Prairie Independent School District, et al. v. Johnson et al., Gulf States Theatres of Louisiana, Inc., et al. v. Louisiana et al., Whitman Center, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corp., Two v. United States et al., Silverton v. California, Freeman v. Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (Bay Farm Island Reclamation District No. 2105 et al., Real Parties in Interest), Permian Corp. et al. v. Coffee, Fausner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Itz et ux. v. Penick et al., Cooley v. Strickland Transportation Co. et al., Jackson v. Zelker, Correctional Superintendent, Sayles v. Albert Mirman & Associates, Inc., Berkley v. United States, Gemmill et al. v. California, Boysaw v. Ohio, Laughlin v. United States, Hamilton v. United States,
   413 U. S. 922;

413 U. S. 913;

412 U. S. 938;

412 U. S. 931;

412 U. S. 901;

412 U. S. 909;

412 U. S. 920;

413 U. S. 838;

412 U. S. 925;

413 U. S. 923;

412 U. S. 950;

412 U. S. 925;

412 U. S. 920;

412 U. S. 925;

412 U. S. 920;

412 U. S. 941; and

412 U. S. 942. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-6493.
    No. 72-6506.
    No. 72-6641.
    No. 72-6673.
    Bonafini v. New Jersey et al., Smith v. California, Crenshaw v. James et al., Oakes v. Black, Reformatory Superintendent,
   412 U. S. 908;

412 U. S. 915;

412 U. S. 952; and

412 U. S. 952. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-507.
    Keyes et al. v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, et al.,
   413 U. S. 189. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 71-1192.
    Goldstein et al. v. California,
   412 U. S. 546. Motion of International Tape Manufacturers Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae out of time granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-1422.
    Kaplan v. California,
   413 U. S. 115. Motions of Association of American Publishers, Inc., et al., American Library Assn., and Authors League of America for leave to file briefs as amici curiae in support of rehearing granted. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-1599.
    No. 72-761.
    No. 72-1415.
    No. 72-5588.
    No. 72-6436.
    No. 72-6543.
    Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Byrd et al., United States v. McGrath, Richter et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, McCray v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, Savage v. United States, Oliver v. Shapp, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al.,
   409 U. S. 848;

412 U. S. 936;

412 U. S. 925;

409 U. S. 1112;

412 U. S. 930; and

412 U. S. 930. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 71-5856.
    Cacavas v. General Motors Corp., et al.,
   405 U. S. 993. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 72-549.
    No. 72-550.
    School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia, et al. v. State Board of Education of Virginia et al., Bradley et al. v. State Board of Education of Virginia et al.,
   412 U. S. 92; and

412 U. S. 92. Petitions for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


text:
    No. 72-804.
    Fri, Acting Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency v. Sierra Club et al.,
   412 U. S. 541. Motions of State of Utah and Utah Power & Light Co. for leave to file petitions for rehearing as amici curiae denied.

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


text:
    No. 72-1259.
    Teitelbaum v. California,
   412 U. S. 946. Motion to dispense with printing petition for rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-1352.
    In re Baker,
   412 U. S. 919. Motion to dispense with printing petition for rehearing granted. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 72-6197.
    Shoemaker v. Dwyer et al.,
   412 U. S. 902, 963. Motion for leave to file second petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    October 10, 1973
    No. 72-1701.
    Shapiro v. Ferrandina, U. S. Marshal.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.


text:
    October 15, 1973

      No. 73-94.
    United States Steel Corp. v. Trustees of Penn Central Transportation Co.
   Affirmed on appeal from C. A. 3d Cir.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. 72-1681.
    Hampton v. Ditty.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ky. It appearing that appellant, who sought to enjoin a state criminal proceeding pending against him, died on January 20, 1973, the appeal is dismissed. Gersewitz v. New York, 326 U. S. 687 (1945); Pennsylvania v. Linde, 409 U. S. 1031 (1972). See Durham v. United States, 401 U. S. 481, 482 (1971).

Mr. Justice Douglas,

concurring.

If this were a case where appellant had been convicted under a state statute which he claimed to be unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution, our procedure arguably should not be a mere dismissal of the appeal. For that appeal would bring here a federal question as a matter of right and then the appellant would not have had the benefit of the final constitutional adjudication to which he was entitled — a distinction that my Brother Blackmun noted in his dissent in Durham v. United States, 401 U. S. 481, 484 (1971). In that case the formula of Durham — vacating and remanding for dismissal of the judgment — might be the most appropriate remedy in both state and federal cases, saving cases here on certiorari from state courts to be dismissed, since certiorari is in our discretion. But here there was no criminal conviction; the suit in the state court merely involved an attempt to enjoin a criminal prosecution; and there are no ongoing penalties or disabilities adhering in a judgment entered before the federal question had been finally resolved. Hence I concur in the judgment of this Court.


text:
    No. 72-1718.
    Gaskin et al. v. Tennessee.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Tenn. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-69.
    Haulcomb et al. v. South Carolina.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. S. C. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


author: Mr. Justice Brennan,

text:
    No. 72-1736.
    White v. Georgia.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ga. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall concur,

dissenting.

On the basis of Turner v. Fouche, 396 U. S. 346 (1970), I concur in the dismissal of appellant’s facial attack on Georgia’s jury selection statutes. However, I would treat the jurisdictional statement as a petition for certiorari in respect of the second question presented, see 28 U. S. C. § 2103; Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502, 512 (1966), and to that extent set the case for oral argument.

Appellant alleges that the application by the jury commissioners of Coweta County of the Georgia jury selection statutes violated the Fourteenth Amendment in that such application resulted in blacks, women, and young adults age 18-30 being underrepresented on the venire from which his grand and petit juries were impaneled. The relevant Georgia statutes, Ga. Code Ann. §§ 59-106, 59-201, require the county board of jury commissioners, at least biennially, to compile a jury list of “intelligent and upright citizens,” who represent a fair cross section of the county, to serve as petit jurors. From this list, the commissioners are required to select the “most experienced, intelligent, and upright citizens,” not exceeding two-fifths of the whole number, to serve as grand jurors.

Appellant, a white male 24 years of age, challenged the array of the grand and petit juries which indicted and convicted him, on the ground that the jury list composing the venire was compiled in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The jury commissioners testified that a juror was not selected for either grand or petit jury service unless the juror was known personally by at least one commissioner. Appellant argues that this selection procedure permits the jury commissioners to know the race, sex, and approximate age of every juror before the venire is selected, and that as a consequence, a clear and ready opportunity for discrimination inheres in the selection procedure. Appellant buttresses this conclusion with uncontroverted statistical evidence that the population of Coweta County is composed of 28.3% eligible blacks, 53.3% eligible women, and 26.2% eligible young adults aged 18-30. Yet, the 2,138 names placed on the petit jury list included only 10.85% blacks, 16.23% women, and 3.09% young adults. Of the 400 persons found to be the “most experienced” and placed on the grand jury list, only 14.25%' were blacks, 4.5% were women, and 1.25% were young adults.

Nevertheless, the Georgia Supreme Court held that:

“With respect to the contention of de facto discrimination by the jury commissioners in the selection of individuals to be placed on the jury list, it is sufficient to say that appellant did not introduce evidence demanding the conclusion of de facto discrimination.” 230 Ga. 327, 331, 196 S. E. 2d 849, 853 (1973).

Although a defendant in a criminal case does not have a constitutional right to grand and petit jury arrays that represent the community in exact, mathematical proportions, the selection procedure employed must provide “a fair possibility for obtaining a representative cross-section of the community.” Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78, 100 (1970). “[A] State cannot, consistent with due process, subject a defendant to indictment or trial by a jury that has been selected in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Peters v. Kiff, 407 U. S. 493, 502 (1972) (opinion of Marshall, J.).

Appellant’s challenge to the racial composition of the venire appears to me to require application of the principles that guided our judgment in Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U. S. 625 (1972). In Alexander petitioner introduced statistical evidence that blacks composed 21.06% of the population, but only 6.75% of the grand jury panels, demonstrating an underrepresentation of 67.9%. In addition, petitioner introduced evidence that the jury commissioners used information cards which designated the race of each potential juror. We held that petitioner’s statistical evidence establishing that blacks were underrepresented, together with the evidence that the selection procedures themselves were not racially neutral, established a prima facie case of invidious racial discrimination, and thus shifted the burden of proof to the State “to rebut the presumption of unconstitutional action by showing that permissible racially neutral selection criteria and procedures have produced the monochromatic result. Turner v. Fouche, 396 U. S. 346, 361 (1970); Eubanks v. Louisiana, 356 U. S. 584, 587 (1958).” Id., at 632. Since the State failed to meet its burden of proof, we set aside Alexander’s conviction.

Similarly, appellant’s statistics here demonstrate substantial underrepresentation of blacks on the grand and petit jury venires, 49.5% and 61.7% respectively. Furthermore, there inheres in the selection procedures employed by the Coweta County jury commissioners the same fatal defect we found in the procedures employed in Alexander, i. e., the procedures assure that the jury commissioner shall learn the race of every potential juror before the list is compiled. See Avery v. Georgia, 345 U. S. 559 (1953); Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 545 (1967). Thus, appellant in this case also seems to have established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, which under Alexander shifted to the State the burden of proof to rebut the presumption of unconstitutional action. Under Alexander also, the State’s evidence in the form of the testimony of the jury commissioners that they made no conscious effort to exclude anyone on the basis of race, sex, or age would not appear to suffice to rebut the presumption. For in Alexander we held that “affirmations of good faith in making individual selections are insufficient to dispel a prima facie case of systematic exclusion. Turner v. Fouche, supra, at 361; Jones v. Georgia, 389 U. S. 24, 25 (1967); Sims v. Georgia, 389 U. S. 404, 407 (1967).” 405 U. S., at 632.

Appellant also contends that women and young adults age 18-30 were systematically and purposefully excluded from the venire from which the grand and petit jury lists were compiled. The statistical evidence indicates that women were underrepresented by 91.6% on the grand jury list, and 70.6% on the petit jury list. Young adults were underrepresented by 95.2%' on the grand jury list, and 88.2% on the petit jury list. Though Alexander involved racial discrimination, appellant’s contention certainly presents a substantial question whether the principles of that decision should apply where any large, identifiable segment of the community is arbitrarily or discriminatorily underrepresented on the jury venire. Therefore, I would set this case for oral argument to consider both appellant’s racial claims and his claims that a selection procedure which enables jury commissioners to know the sex and approximate age of potential jurors also constitutes a prima facie case of sex or age discrimination.

      “Does systematic, intentional and discriminatory exclusion of Negroes, women and young adults age 18 to 30, from jury service, violate Appellant's rights of Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and does disproportionate under-representation of these groups in the jury pools constitute a prima facie case of discrimination?”


author: Mr Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. 72-6629.
    Thompson et al. v. Mississippi.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Miss, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Mr Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

Appellants were part of a group of 25 to 60 blacks congregating about the center of a small Mississippi town. A local police officer approached the crowd and asked them to disperse. The crowd was not interfering with trafile; the officer had received no complaints; and the only person he knew to be bothered by the crowd was himself. The officer attempted to arrest appellant A. B. Thompson for disturbing the peace after A. B. cursed and acted “real tough.” The officer testified that the crowd “started around” him and he pulled his gun. He left the crowd and returned with two more officers, again attempting to arrest A. B. after the youth “hurled a vile obscenity” at him. A. B. resisted and in the resulting scuffle was shot. Along with his brother Leon who entered the scuffle when A. B. was shot and Davis Stewart who was “riling up the crowd,” A. B. was convicted of riot under a statute the constitutionality of which is here challenged. Mississippi Code Ann. of 1942, § 2361.5-01, subd. A, provides:

“A ‘riot’ is any use of force or violence disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use such force and violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two (2) or more persons acting together and without authority of law.”

Appellants complain of the vagueness and overbreadth in the phrase “disturbing the public peace.”

According to the court below, the “riot” was underway when the officer returned and attempted to arrest A. B., the officer’s actions being referred to as an attempt to “quell a riot that had been instigated and encouraged by this appellant’s cursing and using obscene language to excite the crowd.” 269 So. 2d 641, 644. Since appellants challenge the facial constitutionality of a statute which, according to the Mississippi Supreme Court, defines the congregation of blacks in this case as a “riot,” the fact that A. B. and Leon Thompson forcefully resisted the police intervention does not end the case. The fact that their action might fall within the statute if it were constitutionally narrowed, does not negate their ability to challenge the statute. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 521.

Any statute which classifies the congregation of blacks in this case as a riot raises serious constitutional questions. The state court places no limiting construction upon the statute. It first notes that the statute is similar to the federal riot control statute, then discusses whether other Mississippi statutes are constitutional, and finally concludes that the challenged statute “sufficiently informed the defendants of the essential elements of the offense.” 269 So. 2d, at 644. The challenged statute is not like its federal counterpart. Title 18 U. S. C. § 2102, unlike the Mississippi statute, necessitates a clear and present danger of property damage or personal injury. The conclusory statement that these defendants were sufficiently informed of the essential elements, is not an answer to the matter of overbreadth.

I would note probable jurisdiction.

      There was further testimony that he pointed the gun at A. B.’s chest and said: "You don’t believe I will shoot you.” R. 149, 162. There is a great deal of conflicting testimony, but the record strongly suggests that the officer’s provocative conduct engendered the crowd mumbling and “rambling” which the court below held a “riot,” This merely underscores the desirability of our hearing appellants’ claim.
      “Because a claim of constitutionally protected right is involved, it ‘remains our duty in a case such as this to make an independent examination of the whole record.’ Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 235; Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U. S. 199, 205 n. 5; Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331, 335; Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380, 385-386.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 545 n. 8.


text:
    No. 72-6634.
    Smith v. Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for .writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6659.
    Smith v. Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 72-6822.
    Alers v. Soto, Judge.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. P. R. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-79.
    Jennings v. Canott.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Iowa. Motion to dispense with printing jurisdictional statement granted. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5046.
    Stokes v. Bruce et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 6th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom The Chief Justice concurs,

dissenting.

Petitioner, a 50-year-old inmate in the Kentucky prison system, brought a pro se action for damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that prison officials had violated his civil rights. Petitioner alleged that on two separate occasions, Kentucky prison officials notified him of a transfer from one institution to another at 2:30 or 3 p. m., and that he was moved later on the same day. On the occasion of the first of these transfers on short notice (apparently on October 8, 1970, from the Kentucky State Reformatory in LaGrange to the Kentucky State Penitentiary in Eddyville), officers allegedly refused to give petitioner time to recover two books on auto mechanics which he had been compiling for two years. On the occasion of the second of these transfers (apparently on August 14, 1972, back to the reformatory), prison officials did not allow petitioner to recover a book in which he had alphabetized legal cases, laboring on weekends for a year.

Petitioner contends that the First Amendment gives bim the right “to read and write. To think and to put it on paper.” He argues, also, that the action of the prison officials violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, which are applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The District Court dismissed petitioner’s action and deemed any appeal “frivolous” on the ground that alleged loss of property could not establish jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act. We put such reasoning to rest in Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U. S. 538. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, on the ground that “the petitioner-appellant voluntarily relinquished possession of the personal property in question.”

The assertion that petitioner voluntarily abandoned books on which he had labored for two years not only defies belief, but it is also unsupported by the record. The respondent prison officials do not contest petitioner’s factual allegations, but rather state lamely that it is “clear from the facts” that petitioner voluntarily gave up his property. And even if he did not, respondents argue that:

“The question presented is whether the administrative policies at the Kentucky State Penitentiary at Eddyville, Kentucky, and the administrative policies at the Kentucky State Reformatory at LaGrange in transferring him on short notice requiring him to abandon, give away, or mail home various personal items . . . are violative of his constitutional rights, or of the rights of inmates generally.
“Allegations made by the appellant in this appeal as heretofore set out utterly fail to state a violation of his civil rights. . . . [T] he transferring of appellant from one prison to the other, as well as the fact that in any such move certain procedures must be followed with regard to the transfer of properties, are proper regulatory functions prescribed and administered by the prison officials and not violative of any civil rights.”

I cannot agree. This case may to some seem picayune. But basically it presents the substantial question of whether senseless, medieval practices of state officials can be “immunized” from the reach of the Civil Rights Act simply because they occur within the walls of prisons. See Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F. 2d 178 (CA2 1971). I would grant certiorari.

       Since there is no jurisdiction for an appeal, this action should be treated as a petition for certiorari. 28 U. S. C. § 2103.

       Apparently also on the occasion of the second transfer, petitioner was required by prison regulations to mail his personal belongings to somebody on the outside, who could then mail the items back to him after his transfer to the new institution. Coupled with a prison regulation which permits inmates to receive books only from publishing houses, this served to work a particular hardship on petitioner. He was forced to mail a book, which he had purchased from a publishing house while at the penitentiary, to a friend on the outside, but the friend was not able to mail it back to him at the reformatory.


text:
    No. 72-1519.
    Dunlavey, Deputy Corrections Director, et al. v. Berenguer et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Del. Judgment vacated and case remanded with directions to dismiss case as moot.


text:
    No. 72-1721.
    Wainwright, Corrections Director v. Cottle.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973).

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom Mr. Justice Black-mun concurs,

dissenting.

In Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778, this Court was presented with the question whether an indigent probationer or parolee has a due process right to appointed counsel at revocation hearings. Noting that “due process is not so rigid as to require that the significant interests in informality, flexibility, and economy must always be sacrificed” by judicializing the revocation process with the presence of attorneys, a case-by-case analysis was held necessary for that determination. Id., at 788. The Court today remands for such an analysis. But the only issue in this case is whether the court below was correct in holding that the Equal Protection Clause requires the right to appointed counsel at parole revocation hearings in cases where, unlike Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, a solvent parolee has a statutory right to the presence of retained counsel. Gagnon is inapposite. The State of Florida has already determined by statute that any interest in flexibility and informality derived from the absence of attorneys will always be sacrificed when a parolee of means desires the assistance of counsel. Whether in such cases the Equal Protection Clause demands that indigent parolees be afforded the same representation rights was not answered in Gagnon. I would take this case in order to decide it here.


text:
    No. 72-6566.
    Chambers v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973).


text:
    No. 73-163.
    Lucas et al. v. Rivers.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing respondent’s brief and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for consideration of question of mootness in light of People v. McMiller, 389 Mich. 425, 208 N. W. 2d 451 (1973).


text:
    No. 73-5028.
    Miller v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973).


text:
    No. 73-5029.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Upon representation of the Solicitor General set forth in his memorandum for the United States filed September 8, 1973, judgment vacated and case remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for reconsideration in light of the position presently asserted by the Government.


text:
    No. 73-5007.
    Connolly v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed. Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U. S. 365 (1970).


text:
    No. A-228 (73-5213).
    Fawcett et al. v. United States
   C. A. 7th Cir. Application by petitioner Manuel for stay presented to Me. Justice Maeshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-331 (73-392).
    Daly v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Application for bail presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-344 (73-640, sub nom. Geduldig v. Aiello).

    Hansen, Director, Department of Human Resources Development v. Aiello et al.
   D. C. N. D. Cal. Application for stay presented to Me. Justice Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending further order of the Court.


text:
    No. A-335.
    Heutsche v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Application for bail presented to Mr. Justice Rehnquist, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

Mr. Justice Holmes in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 470 (dissenting), called wiretapping "dirty business.” That decision was rendered in 1928. Since that time “dirty business” has become the apt phrase describing the regime under which we now live. The warrant requirement which this Court imposed as a condition to that kind of surveillance, Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41, and the Act of Congress which implemented that decision, 18 U. S. C. §§2510-2520; United States v. U. S. District Court, 407 U. S. 297, have been flouted. We who live in the District of Columbia know that electronic surveillance is commonplace. I am indeed morally certain that the Conference Room of this Court has been “bugged”; and President Johnson during his term in the White House asserted to me that even his phone was tapped.

We deal with a disease that has permeated our society. Certainly Ms. Heutsche is an “aggrieved” person within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. § 3504 (a)(1). That section does not restrict its protection to conversations of an accused. It should be liberally construed as it deals with the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The conversation of one’s lawyer over the telephone may be as helpful to Big Brother as the conversation of the accused herself. The lawyer preparing the defense may in his telephone conversations reveal concessions made by the accused or his trial strategy or clues to the defense which will be proffered that may be extremely helpful to the prosecution. If electronic surveillance were strictly employed by the Executive Branch, we might be chary of enlarging its duties as requested here. But since we live in a regime where the “dirty business” of wiretapping runs rampant, I would apply the statute liberally to check the disease which almost every newspaper tells us has poisoned our body politic.

We are told that in this case the applicant’s lawyers did discuss her case with persons other than herself over the telephone. Is Big Brother to have a ringside seat where he can listen to all the confidences of lawyers who defend an accused? If so, what happens to the valued right of counsel protected by the Sixth Amendment?

On June 26, 1972, Margaret Heutsche, the applicant herein, was arrested by the FBI on charges relating to the removal and destruction of Government property from a Selective Service System office. Although a preliminary hearing resulted in a finding of probable cause, she remained free on her own recognizance and heard nothing further on the case until called to testify before a federal grand jury nearly a year later. When she invoked her constitutional right to refrain from testifying, the Government obtained a grant of use immunity pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 6002 and an order from the District Court compelling the applicant to testify. The applicant again refused to testify and sought reconsideration of the District Court order, claiming that the subpoena and the questions propounded by the grand jury were the product of illegal electronic surveillance of her and that the Government had not properly affirmed or denied that claim as required by 18 U. S. C. § 3504. She claims that the same barrier extends to her lawyer. The applicant also moved for a disclosure of any electronic surveillance of her attorneys and their consultants, and for an evidentiary hearing on the sufficiency of the disclosure.

In response to the motions, the Government filed the affidavit of a high Justice Department official to the effect that, based on an inquiry addressed to seven federal agencies:

“[T]here has been no electronic surveillance occurring on premises known to have been owned, leased or licensed by Margaret Ann[e] Heutsche.
“The deponent further states that there was no electronic surveillance directed against Margaret Ann[e] Heutsche, per se, and there have been no known overhearings by electronic surveillance,, at any location, of conversations to which Margaret Ann[e] Heutsche was a party.”

The applicant maintained that the surveillance denial was inadequate for, inter alia, failing to deny electronic surveillance of her attorneys and their associates and consultants which may have yielded conversations concerning her case. The applicant submitted affidavits from several attorneys and consultants who swore that they discussed her case among themselves over phone lines on which all had been experiencing strange and suspicious problems. On the basis of these affidavits the applicant requested an evidentiary hearing as to illegal electronic surveillance. The District Court denied relief and, upon the applicant’s further refusal to testify, the Government moved that she be adjudged in contempt and ordered committed. Applicant submitted further affidavits and moved to cross-examine the Justice Department official who denied the existence of electronic surveillance.

The District Court again denied her motions and held applicant in contempt, ordering her submitted to the custody of the United States Marshal. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the applicant had made no showing which would require the Government to make an investigation of electronic surveillance of her attorneys. The case is before this Court on the application of Ms. Heutsche to be released from custody pending review here of the decision of the Court of Appeals. The applicable standard for the relief sought is found in 28 U. S. C. § 1826 (b), which directs denial only if the issues are frivolous or the appeal is taken for purposes of delay.

I cannot agree that the applicant’s showing is not sufficient at least to entitle her to an evidentiary hearing. In a country where the Government overhears over 500,000 conversations a year pursuant to court authorized wiretaps alone, it is difficult to gainsay anyone’s fear of the intrusion of Big Brother’s ear. The daily news brings fresh evidence to make a reality of Mr. Chief Justice Warren’s warning that the “fantastic advances in the field of electronic communication constitute a great danger to the privacy of the individual . ...” In such circumstances the Govern-merit’s claim that it should not be put to the task of searching its files for evidence of specific surveillance cannot be treated lightly. I take cognizance of the fact that the mass of aggregate data on the citizenry yielded in this Orwellian era may indeed make the task a difficult one.

But the difficulty which should concern us is that faced by the victim of illegal surveillance. How is the applicant in this case to establish the existence of such clandestine activity so expertly carried on by the Executive Branch? She has introduced sworn statements that her attorneys — themselves likely subjects of Government surveillance — discussed her case over phone lines fraught with indicia of intrusion. She has introduced further sworn statements that electronic tests reveal a likelihood of such intrusion. Yet the court below held this insufficient even to require the Government to check its records on specific phone lines identified by the applicant.

The victims of illegal governmental surveillance are thus apparently faced with the insurmountable task of proving such surveillance before the Government will be asked to respond to allegations of its existence or participate in an evidentiary hearing to decide the matter. In seeking review of that holding the applicant raises serious issues of constitutional magnitude. She has alleged Government misconduct interfering not only with her right to privacy but with her right to the effective assistance of counsel by destroying her attorneys’ ability to discuss her case in confidence. Having shown all anyone will ever be able to show in this area prior to a Government response, she further questions how those constitutional rights have any meaning, when more is required before the victim of illegal surveillance is even entitled to a hearing. These are serious questions of broad impact in an area not yet expounded upon by this Court. In denying the requested interim relief, can the Court possibly hold that the attempt to raise those questions is frivolous? I would grant bail, expedite the grant of certiorari, and put the case down for early argument and decision.

       “§ 3504. (a) In any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States—
      “(1) upon a claim by a party aggrieved that evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act or because it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act, the opponent of the claim shall affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful act

       See n. 1, supra.

       The widespread use of electronic surveillance is demonstrated by the list of agencies consulted before making the denial: FBI; Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs; Secret Service; IRS; Customs; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and the Postal Service.

       At various times the affiants had difficulty placing calls, heard clicking noises over the lines, and heard strange voices and the sound of tape recorders in the background. In addition, a consultant with a Ph. D. in physics conducted relative field strength tests on the phone line of one of the attorneys and stated his belief that a radio frequency monitoring system had been applied to the line.

       Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Report on Applications for Orders Authorizing or Approving the Interception of Wire or Oral Communications, Table 4 (1972).
      In 1954 I stated that:
      “During 1952, there were in New York City alone at least 58,000 orders issued which allowed wiretapping — over 150 a day every day in the year. The New York system has in practice been oppressive; it has been used as the means whereby police have obtained guarded confidences of people and used the information for corrupt purposes.” W. Douglas, An Almanac of Liberty 355 (1954).
      After reading this statement District Attorney Edward Silver of New York attempted to obtain wiretap data from District Attorneys and police. He reported to the House Judiciary Committee that the total was only 480. Hearings on H. R. 762 before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 99 (1955). The Committee called Sidney Davis, former Law Clerk for Mr. Justice Black and the New York attorney who had helped me on the study. He testified as to a misunderstanding between us: there were not 58,000 orders but 58,000 taps, including illegal taps. Id,., at 203. District Attorney Frank Hogan of New York testified that claims of illegal wiretapping of such magnitude were “the cries of alarmists . . . who are inclined to . . . inflate incidents and conditions in order to sustain their arguments.” Id., at 322. But the “cries of alarm” proved realistic. In 1959, Samuel Dash, on the basis of extrapolations from man-hour statistics on policemen admittedly engaged in wiretapping activity, concludes that my estimates of that activity were “closer to the truth than the figures submitted by the police to [Edward Silver].” S. Dash, The Eavesdroppers 68-69 (1959).

         Lopez v. United States, 373 U. S. 427, 441 (1963) (concurring).

       Her attorneys include members of the San Francisco chapter of the National Lawyers Guild and an organization in Chicago known as the “Peoples Law Office.” Peoples is a firm almost exclusively devoted to the criminal defense of “militants” and “radicals,” including Chairman Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party and Bernadine Dohrn and Marc Rudd of the Weatherman faction of the SDS.


text:
    No. 36,
    Orig.
    Texas v. Louisiana.
    [For earlier orders herein, see, e. g., 413 U. S. 918.]
   Application for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and other relief referred to Special Master. Report of Special Master on Louisiana’s motion to enlarge reference to Special Master to include establishment of Louisiana’s lateral boundary with Texas in the Gulf of Mexico, including briefing schedule contained therein, received and ordered filed and adopted.


text:
    No. 72-397.
    Bonelli Cattle Co. et al. v. Arizona et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. [Certiorari granted, 410 U. S. 908.] Motion of Cocopak Tribe of Indians for leave to file an untimely brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 72-403.
    Sampson, Administrator, General Services Administration, et al. v. Murray.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, sub nom. Kunzig v. Murray, 410 U. S. 981.] Motion of respondent to permit Thomas J. McGrew, Esquire, to argue pro hoc vice granted.


text:
    No. 72-777.
    No. 72-1129.
    Cleveland Board of Education et al. v. LaFleur et al. Cohen v. Chesterfield County School Board et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir.; and

C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 411 U. S. 947.] Motion of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States for leave to file an untimely brief as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 72-782.
    Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 410 U. S. 953.] Motion of Frederick McAllister et al. for leave to file an untimely brief as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 72-822.
    Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 410 U. S. 907.] Motion of Sears, Roebuck & Co. for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 72-851.
    Oneida Indian Nation of New York et al. v. County of Oneida, New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 412 U. S. 927.] Motion of State of New York for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in support of respondents granted and State of New York to confine oral argument to questions presented. Motion for additional time to present oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 72-1162.
    Federal Power Commission v. New England Power Co. et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 411 U. S. 981.] Motion of respondents for additional time for oral argument granted and 15 minutes allotted for that purpose. Petitioner also allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 72-1180.
    Old Dominion Branch No. 496, National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Austin et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Va. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 412 U. S. 917.] Motion of appellants for additional time for oral argument denied. Motion of appellees for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 72-1188.
    Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, sub nom. Richardson v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 411 U. S. 947.] Motion of the Solicitor General for additional time for oral argument granted and 15 additional minutes allotted for that purpose. Respondents also allotted 15 additional minutes for oral argument.


text:
    No. 72-1318.
    Krause, Administrator, et al. v. Rhodes, Governor of Ohio, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 413 U. S. 919.] Motion of petitioners for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 72-5847.
    Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 410 U. S. 925.] Motion of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 72-6580.
    Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Union Local 685, AFL-CIO v. Texaco Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied without prejudice to file printed petition in conformity with Rule 39 of the Rules of this Court and to pay the Clerk's costs on or before November 14, 1973.


text:
    No. 73-40.
    Wallace, Acting Warden v. Smith.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition denied with leave to file printed petition in conformity with Rule 39 of the Rules of this Court on or before November 14, 1973.


text:
    No. 73-5072.
    Matthews v. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 73-5186.
    Moore v. United States.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant the motion.


text:
    No. 73-191.
    Village of Belle Terre et al. v. Boraas et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 2d Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 73-38.
    United States v. Marine Bancorporation, Inc., et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Wash. Motions to advance oral argument denied. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 72-1517.
    Gilmore et al. v. City of Montgomery, Alabama, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-1597.
    Beasley et al. v. Food Fair of North Carolina, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-190.
    Bellis v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 72-6902.
    Gooding v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.