author: Mr. Justice Blackmun,

text:
    No. 73-1724.
    Miller et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun,

with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan join,

dissenting.

On August 25, 1972, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida returned a 12-count indictment against the petitioners. In eight of the 12 counts petitioners were charged with income tax fraud, in violation of § 7206 (1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. §7206 (l). The indictment alleged that the acts that were the subject of four of the fraud counts (counts II-V, inclusive) were committed on July 18 and 21, 1966, respectively.

Section 6531 of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 6531, provides a 6-year period of limitations for offenses under §7206 (1). The indictment, obviously, was returned after the expiration of the 6-year period and, without more, would be subject to dismissal as out of time. See Benes v. United States, 276 F. 2d 99, 107-109 (CA6 1960).

Section 6531, however, has as its penultimate sentence the following:

“Where a complaint is instituted before a commissioner of the United States within the period above limited, the time shall be extended until the date which is 9 months after the date of the making of the complaint before the commissioner of the United States.”

With respect to the alleged offenses of July 18 and 21, 1966, a complaint was filed by the Government with a commissioner of the United States on July 17, 1972, just within the 6-year period. The record contains an acknowledgment, and discloses, that the Government’s case had been prepared a week or 10 days before the expiration of the 6-year period; that there was time for the prosecution to have presented the case to a grand jury within that period; that a grand jury had been empaneled in the district; that, in fact, a grand jury of the district had sat in July 1972, including, specifically, the 13th and 20th days of that month; and that the situation was not one where a grand jury of the district was not in session during the closing days of the limitation period.

A defense motion to dismiss the four counts was granted by the District Court. The Court of Appeals reversed. 491 F. 2d 638, 644-646 (CA5 1974).

In Jaben v. United States, 381 U. S. 214 (1965), § 6531 was construed to apply to a situation where the Government had developed its case within the time period prescribed by the statute of limitations, but was unable to obtain an indictment because a grand jury was not in session. Mr. Justice Harlan, in speaking for the Court, observed:

“More basically, the evident statutory purpose of the nine-month extension provision is to afford the Government an opportunity to indict criminal tax offenders in the event that a grand jury is not in session at the end of the normal limitation period. This is confirmed by the immediate precursor of the present section which provided for an extension ‘until the discharge of the grand jury at its next session within the district.’ I. R. C. 1939, § 3748 (a). Clearly the statute was not meant to grant the Government greater time in which to make its case (a result which could have been accomplished simply by making the normal period of limitation six years and nine months), but rather was intended to deal with the situation in which the Government has its case made within the normal limitation period but cannot obtain an indictment because of the grand jury schedule.” Id., at 219-220. (Footnote omitted.)

Mr. Justice Goldberg, in a separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, and joined by Mr. Chief Justice Warren and Mb. Justice Douglas, echoed this conclusion:

“I agree with the Court that the purpose of the tolling provision in the statute of limitations before us, as evidenced by its language and its legislative history, is to avoid penalizing the Government when a criminal defendant cannot be indicted merely because no grand jury is sitting at the time the limitation period expires. In keeping with this purpose, the Government ought to be allowed to present a case prepared before the expiration of the limitation period to the grand jury when it next convenes, but it ought not to be allowed to take advantage of a nine-month extension to prepare a case which was not ready for submission before the end.of the statutory period.” Id., at 226.

This analysis of the purpose of the significant sentence of §6531, although not determinative of the issues in Jaben, remains as this Court’s primary interpretation of the statute.

The Government’s position, however, as expressed in its memorandum in opposition to the petition for certi-orari, is essentially that the 6-year limitation period for an offense under §7206 (1) is automatically extended and converted into a 6-year-and-9-month period, at the Government’s option, by its mere filing of an appropriate complaint with a commissioner of the United States before the expiration of the 6-year period.

The Government, possibly, is right, but its position, under the circumstances of this case, appears to me to be not entirely consistent with what was said in the respective opinions in Jaben by Justices Harlan and Goldberg. I therefore would grant the petition for certiorari and test the Government’s position only upon full briefing and argument.

       “§ 7206. Fraud and False statements.
      “Any person who—
      “(1) Declaration under penalties of perjury.
      “Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter
      “shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”

       “§ 6531. Periods of limitation on criminal prosecutions.
      “No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any of the various offenses arising under the internal revenue laws unless the indictment is found or the information instituted within 3 years next after the commission of the offense, except that the period of limitation shall be 6 years—
      “(5) for offenses described in sections 7206 (1) and 7207 (relating to false statements and fraudulent documents).”

       “The statute simply permits the filing of a complaint prior to


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 73-1780.
    Ditlow et al. v. Brinegar, Secretary of Transportation, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion to defer consideration and certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


author: Mr. Justice Brennan,

text:
    No. 73-1811.
    No. 73-1818.
    Bryant et al. v. North Carolina; and Horn v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regulation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 508 (Douglas, J., dissenting) ; Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 42-47 (Douglas, J., dissenting); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 70-73 (Douglas, J., dissenting), would grant certio-rari and summarily reverse the judgment. Reported below: No. 73-1811, 285 N. C. 27, 203 S. E. 2d 27; No. 73-1818, 285 N. C. 82, 203 N. E. 2d 36.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join,

dissenting.

Petitioners Bryant and Floyd were convicted in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County of exhibiting allegedly obscene motion pictures in violation of North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 14-190.1 (Cum. Supp. 1971). Petitioner Horn was convicted in the Superior Court of New Hanover County of selling allegedly obscene magazines in violation of the same statute. Section 14-190.1 provided in pertinent part at the times of the alleged offenses as follows:

“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to intentionally disseminate obscenity in any public place. A person, firm or corporation disseminates obscenity within the meaning of this Article if he or it:
“(1) Sells . . . any obscene writing, picture, record or other representation or embodiment of the obscene; or
“(4) Exhibits . . . any obscene still or motion picture, film, filmstrip,... or any matter or material... which is a representation, embodiment, performance, or publication of the obscene.
“(b) For purposes of this Article any material is obscene if:
“(1) The dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex; and,
“(2) The material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary national community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and,
“(3) The material is utterly without redeeming social value.”

Petitioners Bryant and Floyd appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina, which affirmed. The Supreme Court of North Carolina dismissed an appeal and denied a petition for writ of certi-orari. This Court then granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973), and companion cases. 413 U. S. 913. On remand, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of North Carolina both again affirmed the convictions.

Petitioner Horn’s conviction was affirmed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of North Carolina also affirmed, in an opinion rendered after Miller was decided.

It is my view that “at least in the absence of distribution to juveniles or obtrusive exposure to unconsenting adults, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the State and Federal .Governments from attempting wholly to suppress sexually oriented materials on the basis of their allegedly ‘obscene’ contents.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 113 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). It is clear that, tested by that constitutional standard, § 14-190.1 was constitutionally overbroad and therefore invalid on its face. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, supra, at 47, I would therefore grant certiorari and, since the judgments of the Supreme Court of North Carolina were rendered after Miller, reverse. In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the other questions presented merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 494 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

Further, it does not appear from the petition and response that the obscenity of the disputed materials in these cases was adjudged by applying local community standards. Based on my dissent in Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 141 (1974), I believe that, consistent with the Due Process Clause, petitioners must be given an opportunity to have their cases decided on, and to introduce evidence relevant to, the legal standard upon which their convictions have ultimately come to depend. Thus, even on its own terms, the Court should vacate the judgments below and remand for a determination whether petitioners should be afforded a new trial under local community standards.

       Although four of us would grant certiorari and reverse the judgments, the Justices who join this opinion do not insist that the cases be decided on the merits.


text:
    No. 73-1992.
    Hall, Correction Commissioner v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of respondents Lopez et al. for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6443.
    Greene et al. v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 73-6629.
    Pryor v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 73-6936.
    Helms v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Mr. Justice Douglas,

text:
    No. 73-6809.
    Falkner v. Blanton, Judge.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion to strike respondent’s brief in opposition and certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

The petitioner brought this lawsuit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, for damages, an injunction, and declaratory relief against a Florida probate judge, alleging that the latter had refused to award property clearly due the petitioner under a will. The District Court dismissed the complaint sua sponte on the ground that the judge was immune from suit. Thé Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion.

By its language, § 1983 applies to “every person” acting under color of state authority. In Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967), the Court placed a judicial gloss on that language when it held that Congress did not thereby create liability of judges for damages. Pierson should not control here, for equitable relief as well as damages were sought. I assume that subjecting judges to damage liability would discourage vigor and independence of the bench, yet there need be no fear that subjecting judges to equitable relief in § 1983 cases will inhibit desirable judicial behavior. Two Courts of Appeals have concluded that the reasons for immunity in damage actions are inapplicable when injunctions or declaratory judgments are sought and accordingly have distinguished Pierson. See Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F. 2d 389 (CA7 1972), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974); Koen v. Long, 302 F. Supp. 1383 (ED Mo. 1969), aff’d per curiam, 428 F. 2d 876 (CA8 1970). See also Erdmann v. Stevens, 458 F. 2d 1205 (CA2 1972); Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 299 F. Supp. 117 (SDNY 1969) (three-judge court) (Friendly, J.), aff’d on other grounds, 401 U. S. 154 (1971).

Nothing in our cases compels the result below. City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U. S. 507 (1973), held that municipalities could not be sued under § 1983 even for equitable relief, but the holding was based on the inability to read “municipality” within the meaning of “person” as used in the statute. To read “every person” as including judges places no strain on the words; on the contrary, it is the judicial gloss Pierson v. Ray placed upon the plain language that causes mischief. Judicial narrowing of this broad remedial statute should proceed no further. I would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment below.


text:
    No. 73-6810.
    Gentile v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

with whom Mr. Justice Marshall concurs,

dissenting.

Petitioner was questioned by Texas police officers in connection with the burglary of a store. After receiving Miranda warnings, petitioner admitted participation in the robbery and disclosed that certain stolen articles could be found in his apartment. The police decided to search the apartment for the stolen goods. Instead of obtaining a warrant, however, the police officers presented petitioner with a “consent form,” which he signed. By signing the form he authorized the police “to take from my premises and property, any letters, papers, materials or any other property or things which they desire as evidence for criminal prosecution in the case or cases under investigation.”

The police then went to petitioner’s apartment in search of four boxes of gum and a small radio, goods known to have been taken in the store burglary. In the course of searching for these items, one of the searching officers found a check lying on a bureau. The check was partly obscured by an article of clothing, but the officer testified that a protruding stub allowed him to determine that the payee was a person other than petitioner. The officers seized the check, and subsequent investigation revealed that it had been stolen. The officer’s discovery formed the basis for petitioner’s prosecution in the District Court for mail theft, 18 U. S. C. § 1708. Prior to trial, petitioner unsuccessfully moved to suppress the stolen check as evidence, asserting that the seizure of it violated the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner’s conviction followed and the denial of the motion to suppress was held proper on the ground that petitioner had consented to the search of his apartment.

Since there is no contention that the police could otherwise have searched petitioner’s apartment without first obtaining a warrant, the lawfulness of their search turns on whether petitioner’s signing of the consent form relieved the police of this obligation. If this consent form has any validity, seizure of the stolen check from petitioner’s residence is outside its scope. The form signified consent to seizure of property “as evidence ... in the case or cases under investigation.” At the time petitioner signed the form he had been questioned and charged with the burglary of a particular store. Thus his reasonable expectations, which must govern construction of the document, were that he was authorizing the police to search his residence for evidence in connection with the only crime for which he was then a suspect.

Wholly apart from the question of the scope of consent, I would grant certiorari to consider whether the record adequately demonstrates that petitioner gave an informed consent to search. Although petitioner had received Miranda warnings, the record is silent as to whether petitioner knew, prior to signing the consent form, that he had a right to refuse and require the police to obtain a warrant. Since in my view waiver of Fourth Amendment protections requires an “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege,” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938), I would require an affirmative showing in the record that petitioner knew he had a right to refuse. While I need not here decide whether a warning would be required in every case, I note that the surest method of demonstrating that the accused had waived a known right is a showing that the officers advised him of it by a statement patterned on the warning mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966).

In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (1973), the Court held that the absence of a warning did not vitiate consent to a search in a noncustodial setting, spe-cificially reserving the question of the significance of custodial conditions, id., at 247 n. 36. The Court believed that warning the subject of his right to refuse would be “impractical” under the “informal and unstructured conditions” of a roadside search. Id., at 231-232. Yet the circumstances under which an arrestee in police custody meets with his captors are hardly “unstructured.” When a suspect is in custody the situation is in control of the police. The pace of events will not somehow deny them an opportunity to give a warning, as the Court apparently feared would happen in noncustodial settings. Moreover, the custodial setting will permit easy documentation of both the giving of a warning and the arrestee’s response.

The giving of a warning does not, of course, rule out the possibility that coercive tactics may be used to secure consent. But an affirmative communication that a right to refuse consent will be respected may serve to fortify the accused against the coercion inherent in the custodial setting. See Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at 468. These considerations are especially compelling where, as here, the police procurement of consent is an outgrowth of custodial interrogation. Before signing the consent form the petitioner had been in custody seven hours, and subjected to interrogation that eventually resulted in a confession.

By proceeding on the basis of a “consent” form the police circumvent three important protections of the warrant procedure. First, they avoid submitting to a magistrate’s independent assessment of probable cause. Second, they are spared the necessity of making a record, in the form of an affidavit sworn to prior to the search, that guards against the possibility that an ex post facto justification will be based upon what the search turns up. Finally, to the extent the police use, as they did here, a boilerplate consent form, they are relieved of the particularity requirement of the warrant.

Efforts by the police to proceed outside the warrant procedure by procuring consent from persons in police custody should be viewed carefully and critically. I would grant certiorari.

       The Government argues that the seizure can nevertheless be justified under the “plain view” doctrine. But under our decisions, the “plain view” doctrine permits a seizure only where officers already searching under lawful authority make an unanticipated discovery of an object whose incriminating character is immediately apparent. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 464-471 (1971). These requirements are not met in this case. When the police entered petitioner’s house they had no' reason to believe that a piece of paper on his bureau, only partially in view, was the fruit of another crime. There was nothing incriminating about a slip of paper protruding from a piece of clothing on petitioner’s bureau. The carefully confined “plain view” exception discussed in Coolidge, if extended to cover this ease, would likewise validate the seizure of a book, not covered by the warrant, but later determined to be obscene.

       The Fourth Amendment provides in part that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In contrast to the requirement of particularity is the wording of the “consent” form in this case, authorizing seizure of “any letters, papers, material or any other property or things which [the police] desire as evidence for criminal prosecution in the case or cases under investigation.”


text:
    No. 73-6874.
    Spady et vir v. Mount Vernon Housing Authority.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas,

dissenting.

Petitioners Linda and Vincent Spady applied for public housing in Mount Vernon, N. Y., in early 1971. Their application was accepted, and in early July they were told that they were eligible for low-income public housing accommodations. On July 9, 1971, petitioners signed a lease, paid one month’s rent plus a security deposit, and were assigned to a specific apartment which would be available to them on July 15, 1971. On or before that date, however, the respondent Housing Authority learned from other tenants that Vincent Spady had previously used the name of Vincent Bentley, and that he had compiled a criminal record under that name. Investigation disclosed that Vincent had been árrested once on burglary charges,' which were dismissed when the complaining witnesses failed to appear before the grand jury, and had been arrested again on robbery charges, which were dismissed when he was certified for treatment as a narcotics addict. Since those arrests, he had undergone treatment for his narcotics addiction, had been released as rehabilitated, and was enrolled in a methadone maintenance program.

Upon learning these details, the Housing Authority revoked petitioners’ eligibility and removed them from its housing list, on the grounds that their application had been "untruthful” and had failed to reveal Vincent’s prior arrests and certification as a narcotics addict. Petitioners requested an evidentiary hearing to contest the revocation, but the Housing Authority declined to grant a hearing. Petitioners then brought suit in the New York Supreme Court, which ordered the Authority to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether petitioners met applicable desirability standards for public housing eligibility. A divided Appellate Division reversed, holding that petitioners were not entitled to a hearing because they were not tenants in possession, and that the Authority’s revocation of petitioners’ eligibility had a rational basis. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed on the memorandum of the Appellate Division.

Petitioners contend that they were entitled to an evi-dentiary hearing before they could be deprived of their eligibility for public housing; they further contend that the reasons advanced by the Authority in support of that revocation are so arbitrary and so lacking in any rational basis as to constitute a denial of due process of law and of the equal protection of the laws.

Our decisions in recent years have identified a wide range of important interests which the State may not trample upon without a prior hearing. Thus we have required hearings prior to termination of welfare benefits, Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970); revocation of a driver’s license, Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535 (1971); revocation of parole, Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972), or probation, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973); and, under certain circumstances, termination of a teaching position at a state college or university, Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972), and Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972).

Eligibility for public housing, under the circumstances presented here, arguably merits comparable protection. The long waiting lists maintained for low-income housing projects are ample proof of the pressing demand. An applicant who has been certified as eligible and has spent many months on a waiting list has a substantial interest in maintaining that place and a substantial expectancy of obtaining housing. Summary removal from an eligibility list just prior to occupancy can work serious injury, since the applicant may be relegated to the end of another growing line.

Today’s mounting bureaucracy, both at the state and federal levels, promises to be suffocating and repressive unless it is put into the harness of procedural due process. One who need not explain the reasons for his actions can operate beyond the law. One who need not even hear a complaint from the citizen can turn sheer power into an arbitrary force. Bureaucrats who can, without hearings, ride herd on the people they are supposed to serve, are able to dispense with the concept of equal protection and make their ipse dixit the law. Of course not every agency action should be put down for a hearing lest the work of government be paralyzed. Yet one who has no interest that can be called an entitlement may still have an expectancy on which plans are built and living arrangements made. If, as in Spady’s case, he is suddenly cast into the outer darkness and placed on the State’s blacklist for housing, he may suffer greatly. The unexamined inferences of this agency and the whispered rumors of Spady’s former employer may make him and his family pariahs, so far as housing is concerned.

What the decision on the merits should be is arguable. But I would grant the petition for certiorari and set the case for argument.

      His full name at birth was Vincent Spady, but he took the name of Bentley for several years when his mother remarried under that name.

       It is undisputed that the application form used by the Authority did not expressly request any information concerning aliases, prior arrests, or drug addiction. The claim of untruthfulness in the application is, therefore, simply untenable.

       Petitioners argue that prior arrests, standing alone, have virtually no probative value in establishing actual misconduct or criminal propensities. They further argue that it is wholly- irrational to discriminate against a rehabilitated addict on the basis of his prior addiction or on the basis of criminal acts committed during the period of such addiction, and that such discrimination is fundamentally inconsistent with the nature and purposes of narcotics rehabilitation programs. In the absence of a more specific eviden-tiary record concerning the circumstances of Vincent’s prior arrests and the extent of his rehabilitation, it is impossible to evaluate these arguments as applied to him.

         As stated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 170 (1951):
      “The heart of the matter is that democracy implies respect for the elementary rights of men, however suspect or unworthy; a democratic government must therefore practice fairness; and fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights.” (Concurring opinion.)


text:
    No. 74-21.
    No. 74-31.
    Mid-Florida Television Corp. v. TV 9, Inc., et al.; and Federal Communications Commission v. TV 9, Inc., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.

Reported below: 161 U. S. App. D. C. 349, 495 F. 2d 929.


text:
    No. 74-28.
    O’Bryan v. Chandler, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 74-77.
    Andrews v. City of Los Angeles et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-141.
    Smith, Correctional Superintendent v. Chennault.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certi-orari denied.


text:
    No. 74-169.
    Drake-Henne, Inc., et al. v. City of Wahpeton.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    November 6, 1974
    No. 74-101.
    Falley v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 60.


text:
    November 7, 1974
    No. 74-268.
    Household Goods Carriers’ Bureau v. Terrell.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 60.


text:
    November 11, 1974
    No. 73-1929.
    McDonald et al. v. McLucas, Acting Secretary of the Air Force, et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. S. D. N. Y.


text:
    No. 73-7089.
    Wright et al. v. Malloy, Commissioner, Department of Motor Vehicles.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. Vt.


text:
    No. 73-1890.
    Thompson et ux. v. Clark, Treasurer of DuPage County, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5187.
    Smith v. California.
   Appeal from App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Alameda, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6884.
    Hunter v. General Motors Corp., Buick Motor Division.
   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 Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    No. 73-6899.
    Stokes v. Buchignani et al.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Ky. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 74-200.
    Barnett v. Gordon.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio dismissed for want of substantial federal ques-

tion.


text:
    No. 74-224.
    Beacon Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Columbus.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 74-315.
    Hoogasian v. Regional Transportation Authority et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-1882.
    Burns, Commissioner, Department of Social Services, et al. v. Hein.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Iowa. Motion of appellee for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for reconsideration in light of the revision of regulations of the Department of Agriculture. (See 7 CFR § 271.3 (c)(1) (in) (f), 39 Fed. Reg. 26002.)


text:
    No. 74-5021.
    Grier v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (but not the judgment of conviction) are vacated and case remanded to the District Court for reconsideration in light of Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U. S. 424 (1974).


text:
    No. A-290 (74-5492).
    Snider v. United States.
   Application for stay of execution and enforcement of judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-348 (74-5496).
    Bartlett v. Toledo Bar Assn.
   Application for stay of execution and enforcement of judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-361.
    Baylor v. Hess, Judge.
   Application for writ of mandamus, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 9,
    Orig.
    United States v. Louisiana et al.
   (Louisiana Boundary Case). Joint motion for additional time for oral argument granted and a total of two hours allotted for that purpose.

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


text:
    No. 73-820.
    United States v. Guana-Sanchez.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 417 U. S. 967.] Motion of respondent to dismiss writ on account of mootness denied.


text:
    No. 73-848.
    Fusari, Commissioner of Labor v. Steinberg et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Conn. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 415 U. S. 912.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that John M. Creane, Esquire, of Milford, Conn., a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for appellees in this case.


text:
    No. 73-1106.
    Cousins et al. v. Wigoda et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. [Certiorari granted, 415 U. S. 956.] Motion of petitioners for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 73-1346.
    McLucas, Secretary of the Air Force, et al. v. DeChamplain.
   Appeal from D. C. D. C. [Probable jurisdiction postponed, 418 U. S. 904.] Motion of appellee for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Motion of appellees for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 73-1377.
    No. 73-1378.
    Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency v. City of New York et al. Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency v. Campaign Clean Water, Inc.
   C. A. D. C. Cir.; and

C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 416 U. S. 969.] Motion of petitioner for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 73-1446.
    Roe et al. v. Doe.
   Ct. App. N. Y. [Certiorari granted, 417 U. S. 907.] Motion of Authors League of America for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae denied. Motion of American Psychiatric Assn, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae denied.


text:
    No. 73-1462.
    White, Secretary of State of Texas, et al. v. Regester et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Tex. . [Probable jurisdiction noted, 417 U. S. 906.] Motion of appellees for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 73-1471.
    United States et al. v. New Jersey State Lottery Commission.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 417 U. S. 907.] Motion of petitioners to defer oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 74-8.
    O’Connor v. Donaldson.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 894.] Motion of Daniel S. Dearing, Esquire, to permit Raymond W. Gearey, Esquire, to present oral argument pro hac vice on behalf of petitioner granted.


text:
    No. 74-70.
    Goldfarb et ux. v. Virginia State Bar et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 963.] Motion of Virginia State Bar to be dismissed as a party respondent denied.

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


text:
    No. 73-6721.
    No. 74-318.
    Tyler et al. v. Regan, U. S. District Judge; and Scarrella et al. v. Spannaus, Attorney General of Minnesota, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. A-199 (74-170).
    Andrino v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Application for bail, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 74-518.
    Levy v. Parker, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Application [A-362] for stay of execution and enforcement of mandate, presented to Mr. Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Mr. Justice Douglas would grant stay pending decision of this Court in No. 73-1346, McLucas v. DeChamplain. Motions to expedite and consolidate with No. 73-1346 for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 74-214.
    Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al. v. Salfi et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Cal. Motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 73-1908.
    Cort et al. v. Ash.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 74-124.
    Blue Chip Stamps et al. v. Manor Drug Stores.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 74-215.
    United States v. Park.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 73-1924.
    Muniz et al. v. Hoffman, Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 3 and 4 presented by the petition which read as follows:

“3. Whether petitioners, charged with criminal contempt for an alleged violation of an injunction issued under the National Labor Relations Act, are entitled to a trial by jury under 18 U. S. C. § 3692, which provides that alleged contemnors are entitled to a jury trial in all contempt cases ‘arising under the laws of the United States governing the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute.’
“4. Whether Article III, Section 2 and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution mandate a jury trial where a penalty of $25,000.00 is assessed against a labor organization in a criminal contempt proceeding.”


text:
    No. 73-2000.
    United States v. Peltier.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Case set for oral argument with No. 73-2050, United States v. Ortiz, ante, p. 824; No. 73-6848, Bowen v. United States, ante, p. 824; and No. 74-114, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, ante, p. 824.


text:
    No. 73-1683.
    Mooring et al. v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1813.
    International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, Local No. 10 v. Hoffman, Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1919.
    No. 73-6934.
    Willis v. United States; and Harris v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 494 F. 2d 1273.


text:
    No. 73-1931.
    National Dynamics Corp. et al. v. Federal Trade Commission.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1979.
    Sullivan v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1985.
    Newell v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2004.
    Washington et al. v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2011.
    Ramsey v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2040.
    Manson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2043.
    Lewis, dba Airco Engineers v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2053.
    Ridland v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2068.
    Bartemio v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6042.
    Hight v. Belgrade State Bank et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6759.
    Valenzuela v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6828.
    Strader v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6835.
    No. 73-7075.
    Ford v. United States; and Ford et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 494 F. 2d 1295.


text:
    No. 73-6861.
    Handy v. Nelson, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6896.
    Perkins v. Garrison, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6917.
    Fitzgerald et al. v. Boslow, Institution Director, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6992.
    Pennywell v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6997.
    Walker v. Hunt et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7039.
    Gloria v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7045.
    Romero et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7049.
    Reyes v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7050.
    Holland v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7061.
    Reed v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7069.
    Brown v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7084.
    Kibert v. Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7099.
    Godin v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7101.
    Joyner v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7108.
    Card v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7118.
    Hill v. Pace, Sheriff.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-3.
    Anderson et al. v. Trimble, District Attorney of Cleveland County, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-11.
    Freeman v. United States et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-15.
    Reicin v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-17.
    Bibler, Administratrix, et al. v. Young et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-71.
    King’s Garden, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-76.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-88.
    Phillips et al. v. Klassen, Postmaster General, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-122.
    Packerland Packing Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-136.
    Rushton & Mercier Woodworking Co., Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-160.
    Wiles et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-197.
    Studer v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-198.
    Yates v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-207.
    Akron Presform Mold Co. v. McNeil Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-208.
    Great Lakes Steel Division, National Steel Corp., et al. v. Michie et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-212.
    Hanzimanolis v. Murphy, Police Commissioner, City of New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-221.
    Gooch et al. v. Skelly Oil Co. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-227.
    Lecci et al. v. Levitt, Comptroller of New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-230.
    Rafter v. Fairfield County Trust Co.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-231.
    Adamszewski et al. v. Local Lodge 1487, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-236.
    Haldeman v. Sirica, U. S. District Judge.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-237.
    Teamsters Local Union 377 v. Scott.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-239.
    Tucker v. Maher et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-244.
    Booze et al. v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-248.
    United States Gypsum Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-249.
    Perini, Correctional Superintendent v. Brooks.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-257.
    Pyne et al. v. Green.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-259.
    Gardner v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-263.
    Libbey-Owens-Ford Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-264.
    Banco Do Brasil v. Venore Transportation Co. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-282.
    Generes v. Superior Court of California for the County of Shasta et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-290.
    Siegferth, Guardian, et al. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-291.
    Aanestad, Administratrix v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-292.
    Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. et al. v. Meyerhofer et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-297.
    Butcher et ux. v. Burton Abstract & Title Co.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-303.
    Kinee et al. v. Abraham Lincoln Federal Savings & Loan Assn, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-306.
    Passaic Valley Water Commission v. New Jersey ex rel. Department of Health et al.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-308.
    Riley et al. v. Howell et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-309.
    Treasure Valley Potato Bargaining Assn, et al. v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5026.
    Tyler v. Wyrick, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5028.
    Hedden v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Summit County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5039.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5040.
    Meyer v. Boyle, Judge.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5041.
    Caldwell v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5042.
    Hale v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5044.
    Hammonds v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5046.
    Kryder v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5047.
    Brewer v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5048.
    Rogers v. Lea County, New Mexico, Prosecutors et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5050.
    Yedor v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5051.
    Jones v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5053.
    Roundtree v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5055.
    Wright v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5059.
    Berardelli v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5061.
    Falk v. California Adult Authority.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5064.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5065.
    Short v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5066.
    Burton v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5068.
    Parker v. Walters.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5069.
    Love v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5070.
    Sommer v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5071.
    Bruno v. Daggett et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5075.
    Dulles v. Secretary of the Treasury et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5077.
    Brown v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5079.
    Benanti v. Vincent, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5082.
    Williams v. Johnson, Correctional Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5083.
    Bruno v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5087.
    Canton, aka Combes v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5090.
    Tate v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5093.
    Fletcher et al. v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5094.
    Chaney v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5095.
    Rosario v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5098.
    Steigler v. Anderson, Warden.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5104.
    Samuels, aka LeBlanc v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5105.
    Proffitt v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5112.
    Stapleton v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5115.
    Johnson v. Camden County Prosecutor.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5124.
    Joiner v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5125.
    Rainey v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5126.
    Barnes v. Gray, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5129.
    Starks v. Henderson, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5130.
    Crane v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5132.
    Young v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5141.
    Woody v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5143.
    Bey, aka Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5150.
    Bowen v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5153.
    Lee v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5171.
    Landis v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5173.
    Robinson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5179.
    Theriault et al. v. Carlson, Director, Bureau, of Prisons, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5184.
    Flowers v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5186.
    Koblein, aka Buttons v. United States.
   C. A. 5th. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5193.
    Haymes v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5195.
    Parle v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5203.
    Jones v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5205.
    Garcia, aka Garcia-Quesada v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5222.
    No. 74-5226.
    Coleman v. United States; and Simmons v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 500 F. 2d 1403.


text:
    No. 74-5232.
    Chesney v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5251.
    Scagliola v. Scagliola.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5252.
    Green et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5257.
    McDonald v. Arkansas.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5263.
    Rossilli v. LaVallee, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5313.
    Miller v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1823.
    Van Gundy et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regulation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 508 (1957) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 42-47 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 70-73 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting), would grant certiorari and summarily reverse the judgment.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join,

dissenting.

■Petitioners were convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana of receiving allegedly obscene material which had been shipped by common carrier in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1462, which provides in pertinent part:

“Whoever . . . knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier, for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce [of]—
“(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; or
“Whoever knowingly takes from such express company or other common carrier any matter ór thing the carriage of which is herein made unlawful— “Shall be fined not more than $6,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both . . .

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, 490 F. 2d 76 (1974).

I adhere to my dissent in United States v. Orito, 413 U. S. 139, 147 (1973), in which, speaking of 18 U. S. C. § 1462, I expressed the view that “[w]hatever the extent of the Federal Government’s power to bar the distribution of allegedly obscene material to juveniles or the offensive exposure of such material to unconsenting adults, the statute before us is clearly overbroad and unconstitutional on its face.” 413 U. S., at 147-148. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 47 (1973), I would therefore grant certiorari, and, since the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was rendered after Orito, reverse. In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the other questions presented merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 494 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

Finally, it does not appear from the petition and response that the obscenity of the disputed materials was adjudged by applying local community standards. Based on my dissent in Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 141 (1974), I believe that, consistent with, the Due Process Clause, petitioners must be given an opportunity to have their case decided on, and to introduce evidence relevant to, the legal standard upon which their convictions have ultimately come to depend. Thus, even on its own terms, the Court should vacate the judgments below and remand for a determination whether petitioners should be afforded a new trial under local community standards.

      Although four of us would grant certiorari and reverse the judgments, the Justices who join this opinion do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.


text:
    No. 73-1842.
    Adams et al. v. Southern California First National Bank et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Ford Motor Credit Co. et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1897.
    Nowlin et ux. v. Professional Auto Sales, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1824.
    New Orleans Book Mart, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regulation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 508 (1957) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 42-47 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 70-73 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting), would grant certiorari and summarily reverse the judgment.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join,

dissenting.

Petitioners were convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana of transporting allegedly obscene materials in interstate commerce for the purpose of sale in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1465, which provides in pertinent part:

“Whoever knowingly transports in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of sale or distribution any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph recording, electrical transcription or other article capable of producing sound or any other matter of indecent or immoral character, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, 490 F. 2d 73 (1974).

I adhere to my dissent in United States v. Orito, 413 U. S. 139, 147 (1973), in which, speaking of 18 U. S. C. § 1462, which is similar in scope to § 1465, I expressed the view that “[wjhatever the extent of the Federal Government’s power to bar the distribution of allegedly obscene material to juveniles or the offensive exposure of such material to unconsenting adults, the statute before us is clearly overbroad and unconstitutional on its face.” 413 U. S., at 147-148. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 47 (1973), I would grant certiorari, and, since the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was rendered after Orito, reverse. In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the other questions presented merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 494 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

Finally, it does not appear from the petition and response that the obscenity of the disputed materials was adjudged by applying local community standards. Based on my dissent in Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 141 (1974), I believe that, consistent with the Due Process Clause, petitioners must be given an opportunity to have their case decided on, and to introduce evidence relevant to, the legal standard upon which their convictions have ultimately come to depend. Thus, even on its own terms, the Court should vacate the judgment below and remand for a determination whether petitioners should be afforded a new trial under local community standards.

      Although four of us would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment, the Justices who join this opinion do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.


text:
    No. 73-1855.
    Sisca et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-2023.
    County of San Diego et al. v. Rincon Band of Mission Indians.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-2039.
    Petty v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-2042.
    Ficorelli v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-7074.
    Rollins v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-85.
    Oakland Raiders v. Office of Emergency Preparedness et al.
   Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-123.
    Izaak Walton League of America et al. v. St. Clair et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-265.
    De Loraine v. MEBA Pension Trust et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr, Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-286.
    Bates v. Prudential-Grace Lines, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5045.
    Mason v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5091.
    Shirley v. State National Bank of Connecticut.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5096.
    Bridges v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5159.
    Crowder v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5190.
    Castillo-Burgos v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5207.
    Mabe et al. v. Clinchfield Coal Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ya. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5220.
    Fell v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles et al.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5304.
    Christian v. New York.
   County Court N. Y., Monroe County. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-1932.
    Groner, dba Lucky Distributors v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regulation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 508 (1957) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 42-47 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 70-73 (1973) (Douglas, J., dissenting), would grant certiorari and summarily reverse the judgment.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join,

dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas of using a common carrier in interstate commerce for carriage of allegedly obscene matter in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1462, which provides in pertinent part as follows:

“Whoever . . . knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier, for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce [of]—
“(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character
“Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both . . .

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction, 479 F. 2d 577 (1973) (en banc), and this Court vacated the judgment of that court and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973), and companion cases. 414 U. S. 969. On remand, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed the conviction. 494 F. 2d 499 (1974).

I adhere to my dissent in United States v. Orito, 413 U. S. 139, 147 (1973), in which, speaking of 18 U. S. C. § 1462, I expressed the view that “[wjhatever the extent of the Federal Government’s power to bar the distribution of allegedly obscene material to juveniles or the offensive exposure of such material to unconsenting adults, the statute before us is clearly overbroad and unconstitutional on its face.” 413 U. S., at 147-148. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Miller v. California, supra, at 47, I would therefore grant certiorari, and since the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was rendered after Orito, reverse. In that circumstance, I have no occasion to consider whether the other questions presented merit plenary review. See Heller v. New York, 413 U. S. 483, 494 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

Finally, it does not appear from the petition and response that the obscenity of the disputed materials was adjudged by applying local community standards. Based on my dissent in Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 141 (1974), I believe that, consistent with the Due Process Clause, petitioner must be given an opportunity to have his case decided on, and to introduce evidence relevant to, the legal standard upon which his conviction has ultimately come to depend. Thus, even on its own terms, the Court should vacate the judgment below and remand for a determination whether petitioner should be afforded a new trial under local community standards.

       Although four of us would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment, the Justices who join this opinion do not insist that the case be decided on the merits.


text:
    No. 73-2027.
    No. 73-7066.
    Brewer, Warden, et al. v. Remmers et al.; and Remmers et al. v. Brewer, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of respondents in No. 73-2027 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari in No. 73-7066.

Reported below: 494 F. 2d 1277.


text:
    No. 73-7067.
    Fannon v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 74-14.
    Gissel, Executrix, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Association of Ship’s Brokers & Agents (USA), Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-95.
    No. 74-5137.
    New York v. Goggins; and Brown v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Motion of respondent in No. 74-95 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 34 N. Y. 2d 163, 313 N. E. 2d 41.


text:
    No. 74-99.
    Amato v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Donald Lambert to join in petition and certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 74-119.
    Washington v. Odom.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-161.
    Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Heater.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 74-240.
    Simon v. Dixon et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 74-5015.
    Darrow v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of Cecil Dale Pierce to join in petition and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5078.
    Forrow v. Estelle, Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied as untimely filed.


text:
    No. 74-5110.
    Bell v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied as untimely filed.


text:
    No. 74-5262.
    Morgan v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied as untimely filed.


text:
    No. 74-5302.
    Morgan v. Clark, Sheriff.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied as untimely filed.


text:
    No. 73-831.
    Warden, Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero,
   417 U. S. 653. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    November 18, 1974
    No. 74-155.
    Dennis v. Oklahoma.
   Appeal from Ct. Grim. App. Okla. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 74-341.
    Wheeler et al. v. Monroe et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. M. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 74-5327.
    Robinowitz v. Sargent, Governor of Massachusetts, et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 1st Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5372.
    Thalasinos v. Dolcino et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. H. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-218.
    Divine, Sheriff v. Amato.
   Appeal

from C. A. 7th Cir. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87 (1974), and the decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in State ex rel. Chobot v. Circuit Court, 61 Wis. 2d 354, 212 N. W. 2d 690 (1973). Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the view that any state or federal ban on, or regulation of, obscenity is prohibited by the Constitution, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 508-514 (Douglas, J., dissenting); Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 42-47 (Douglas, J., dissenting); Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 70-73 (Douglas, J., dissenting), and that the Constitution prohibits retroactive application of judicially improvised obscenity standards, Miller v. California, supra, at 37-42, would affirm the judgment below.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Marshall would affirm the judgment.


text:
    No. 74-108.
    Regan, Chairman, New York State Board of Parole, et al. v. Johnson.
   C. A. 2d Cir.

Motion of respondent for. leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded to the United States District Court for the-Eastern District of New York with directions to dismiss cause as moot.


text:
    No. A-340.
    Calley v. Callaway, Secretary of the Army, et al.
   Application to vacate stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on September 26, 1974, presented to Mr. Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, denied as moot.


text:
    No. A-386.
    Republic of Vietnam v. Pfizer, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Application for injunction, presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-392.
    Reamer v. Beall, U. S. Attorney, et al.
   Application for stay of judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending further order of the Court.


text:
    No. D-24.
    In re Disbarment of Nitsberg.
   It is ordered that Michael B. Nitsberg, of New York, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue returnable within 40 days requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-27.
    In re Disbarment of McDermott.
   It is ordered that Francis X. McDermott, of New York, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue returnable within 40 days requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-28.
    In re Disbarment of Buttles.
   It is ordered that Robert S. Buttles, of New York, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue returnable within 40 days requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-29.
    In re Disbarment of Osborne.
   It is ordered that George R. Osborne, of New York, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue returnable within 40 days requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-30.
    In re Disbarment of Tarr.
   It is ordered that Leonard N. Tarr, of New York, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue returnable within 40 days requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 73-689.
    Maness v. Meters, Judge.
   169th Jud. Dist. Ct. Tex., Bell County. [Certiorari granted, 416 U. S. 934.] Motion of respondent for leave to file supplemental brief after argument granted.


text:
    No. 73-1309.
    Bigelow v. Virginia.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Va. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 418 U. S. 909.] Motion for divided argument on behalf of appellant granted.


text:
    No. 73-2050.
    United States v. Ortiz.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 824.] Motions to dispense with printing appendix and for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that John J. Cleary, Esquire, of San Diego, Cal., a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 73-6848.
    Bowen v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 824.] Motion of petitioner for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Michael D. Nasatir, Esquire, of Beverly Hills, Cal., a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 74-13.
    Mullaney, Warden, et al. v. Wilbur.
   C. A. 1st Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 823.] Motions of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that Peter J. Rubin, Esquire, of Portland, Me., a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 74-114.
    United States v. Brignoni-Ponce.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 824.] Motion of respondent. for appointment of counsel granted. It is ordered that John J. Cleary, Esquire, of San Diego, Cal., a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 74-175.
    No. 74-5176.
    Middendorf, Secretary of the Navy, et al. v. Henry et al.; and Henry et al. v. Middendorf, Secretary of the Navy, et al.
   [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 895.] Motion to dispense with printing appendix and to proceed on original record granted.


text:
    No. 74-5216.
    Reeder, aka Blackrose v. Supreme Court of Wyoming et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 74-5081.
    No. 74-5247.
    Myers v. Myers et al.; and Reeder v. Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Wyoming, et al.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 74-5287.
    Williams v. Albert et al.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 74-156.
    Hicks, District Attorney of Orange County, et al. v. Miranda, dba Walnut Properties, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. C. D. Cal. Further consideration of question of jurisdiction postponed to hearing of case on merits.


text:
    No. 73-1734.
    Gurley, dba Gurley Oil Co. v. Rhoden, Chairman, Tax Commission of Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 74-304.
    Gordon v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 74-363.
    United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 74-80.
    No. 74-277.
    Kugler, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al. v. Helfant; and Helfant v. Kugler, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion to strike certain portions of petition in No. 74-80 and answer to the cross-petition in No. 74-277 denied. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.

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

Reported below: 500 F. 2d 1188.


text:
    No. 73-1575.
    Callahan et al. v. Kimball et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1802.
    Pennington v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1946.
    Scata v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1997.
    Harrison v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1999.
    Poole v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2051.
    Bombacino v. Bensinger.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6847.
    Cousino v. Cousino.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6894.
    Sheppard v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6959.
    Pratt v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-6996.
    Kele v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7026.
    Rosenberg v. Mancusi, Correctional Superintendent, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7037.
    Marker v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7040.
    Olivares-Vega v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7051.
    McWhirt v. Fearnow et al.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7059.
    Clements v. Hopper, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7107.
    Cook v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7115.
    Richardson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-25.
    United States v. American Renaissance Lines, Inc.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-26.
    McNeal v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-40.
    No. 73-6891.
    Jackson et al. v. United States; and Tantillo v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 161 U. S. App. D. C. 88, 494 F. 2d 1007.


text:
    No. 74-63.
    Matthews Co. et al. v. Williams.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-92.
    Miles v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-150.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-171.
    No. 74-181.
    Louisiana v. Sawhill, Administrator, Federal Energy Office, et al.; and California, by and through the State Lands Commission v. Sawhill, Administrator, Federal Energy Office, et al.
   Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 504 F. 2d 430.


text:
    No. 74-172.
    Groendyke Transport, Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-174.
    Goldman et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-195.
    Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-199.
    Barton v. Morton, Secretary of the Interior.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-209.
    Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community et al. v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-217.
    Sutton, Executor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-246.
    Monarch Insurance Company of Ohio v. District of Columbia et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certi-orari denied.


text:
    No. 74-262.
    Ricci v. County of Riverside et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-269.
    Brian, Secretary, Human Relations Agency, et al. v. California Welfare Rights Organization et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-270.
    Kelley, Director of Department of Conservation of Alabama, et al. v. Mobil Oil Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-288.
    Local 1426, International Longshoremen’s Assn., AFL-CIO v. Wilmington Shipping Co. et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-295.
    Fur Information & Fashion Council, Inc., et al. v. E. F. Timme & Son, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-302.
    Tjaden v. Tjaden.
   Ct. App. La., 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-305.
    Coniglio v. Highwood Services, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-311.
    Swoap, Director, Department of Social Welfare, et al. v. Cooper et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 74-312.
    Swoap, Director, Department of Social Welfare, et al. v. Waits et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 74-319.
    Marshall et al. v. City of Seattle.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-329.
    Pat Ryan & Associates, Inc. v. Occidental Life Insurance Company of North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-330.
    Tucker v. Threlkeld.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-331.
    Tucker v. Crikelair.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-334.
    Yorty v. Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District (City Council of Los Angeles, Real Party in Interest).
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-349.
    Husman Express Co. v. Bryan Truck Line, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-356.
    Brooklyn Heights Presbyterian Church et al. v. United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-359.
    Thibodeau et al. v. Minnesota State Bar Assn.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-367.
    Chisholm Brothers Farm Equipment Co. v. International Harvester Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-381.
    Napper et ux. v. Anderson, Henley, Shields, Bradford & Pritchard et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5011.
    Hamlin, aka Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5037.
    Ferri v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5088.
    Gregorio v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5100.
    Quiroz-Santi v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74—5111.
    Miller v. Virginia.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5147.
    Smith v. Central Los Angeles Health Project.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certi-orari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5151.
    Jefferson v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5152.
    Smith v. Keller, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5156.
    Hurd v. Marshal of Riverside County et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5158.
    Monroe v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5165.
    Steinberg v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5168.
    Williams v. Dana Corp.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5169.
    Warren v. Aaron, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5170.
    Basalyga v. Asch.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5175.
    Saladin v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5181.
    Handy v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5192.
    Rooney v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5199.
    Wedra v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5204.
    Wall v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5208.
    Morrow et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5215.
    Ballard v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5227.
    Washington v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5236.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5259.
    Ethridge v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5309.
    Mulcahy v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5323.
    Flint v. Mullen, Warden.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5353.
    Sander v. Ohio.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-5354.
    Collier v. Cowan, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2025.
    No. 73-2028.
    Junior Chamber of Commerce of Rochester, Inc., et al. v. United States Jaycees et al.; and Junior Chamber of Commerce of Philadelphia et al. v. United States Jaycees et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.

Reported below: 495 F. 2d 883.


text:
    No. 74-187.
    First American Bank & Trust Co. et al. v. Ellwein, State Examiner and Commissioner, Department of Banking and Financial Institutions, et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5049.
    Daniels v. Alabama.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5056.
    Trudeau v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5149.
    New v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5167.
    Williams v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5183.
    Sanney v. Smith, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 74-5277.
    Valle-Rojas v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 73-7003.
    Arnold v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari on the wiretap issue.


text:
    No. 74-296.
    Williams v. Matthews Co. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 74-320.
    Dade County et al. v. Marine Exhibition Corp.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Motion to defer consideration and certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-383.
    River Farms, Inc. v. Fountain et al.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari. Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 73-6425.
    No. 73-6467.
    No. 73-6873.
    No. 73-6988.
    No. 74-68.
    Chambers v. Delaney et al., Goodwin v. Iowa, Bonner et al. v. Marks et al., Santana v. New York et al., Clarion Corp. v. American Home Products Corp. et al.,
   ante, p. 876;

ante, p. 846;

ante, p. 863;

ante, p. 866; and

ante, p. 870. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 74-5018.
    No. 74-5139.
    Rando v. Estelle, Corrections Director, Dillingham v. Florida,
   ante, p. 820; and

ante, p. 871. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 1863,
    No. 73-1524.
    Misc.,
    October Term, 1968.
    Mike v. New York, Hallmark Industry v. Reynolds Metals Co. et al.,
   395 U. S. 948; and

417 U. S. 932. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    November 25, 1974
    No. 73-1626.
    Weaver, Director, Department of Public Aid of Illinois, et al. v. Randle et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ill. Motion of appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Judgment affirmed.


text:
    No. 74-5349.
    Skufca v. Pennsylvania.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 73-1982.
    No. 73-2056.
    No. 73-2057.
    United Theatres of Florida, Inc., dba United Mini-Adult Theatre, et al. v. Gerstein; United Theatres of Florida, Inc., dba United Mini-Adult Theatre, et al. v. Gerstein; and United Theatres of Florida, Inc., dba United Mini-Adult Theatre, et al. v. Gerstein.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Little Beaver Theatre, Inc. v. Tobin, 258 So. 2d 30 (Fla. App. 1972). Reported below: No. 73-1982, 259 So. 2d 215; Nos. 73-2056 and 73-2057, 259 So. 2d 210.


text:
    No. 74-5189.
    Yeager v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Upon representation of the Solicitor General set forth in his brief for the United States filed November 1, 1974, judgment vacated and case remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma directing that court to hold a hearing and make appropriate findings of fact.


text:
    No. -.
    Graves et al. v. Lynn, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition denied.


text:
    No. -.
    Dellinger et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing portions of appendix to petition granted.


text:
    No. A-360 (74-439).
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Order entered by Mr. Justice Douglas on November 2, 1974, releasing applicant from custody upon his own recognizance, continued pending final disposition of petition for writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. A-385.
    Kaplan v. United States Postal Service et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Application for stay presented to Mr. Justice Douglas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-392.
    Reamer v. Beall, U. S. Attorney, et al.
   Order entered by the Court on November 18, 1974 [ante, p. 1015], staying judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland is continued conditioned upon thé filing of a petition for writ of certiorari on or before December 24, 1974. Should such a petition be so filed on or before December 24, 1974, this order is to continue pending this Court’s action on the petition. If the petition for writ of certiorari is denied, this order is to terminate automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this order is to remain in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.


text:
    No. A-414.
    Roemer et al. v. Board of Public Works of Maryland et al.
   D. C. Md. Application for an injunction pending appeal presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant the injunction. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.


text:
    No. 73-1256.
    Connell Construction Co., Inc. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 100, United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certi-orari granted, 416 U. S. 981.] Motion of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States for leave to file a reply brief as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 73-1543.
    Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 417 U. S. 929.] Motion of respondents for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 73-6642.
    Crosby et al. v. Middendorf, Secretary of the Navy.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion to consolidate this case with Nos. 74-175 and 74-5176 [Middendorf v. Henry and Henry v. Middendorf, certiorari granted, ante, p. 895] denied.'


text:
    No. 73-7031.
    Fowler v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 963.] Motion of Richard A. Heim for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. A-325 (74-5567).
    Alers v. Municipality of San Juan.
   Appeal from C. A. 1st Cir. Application for stay presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 74-5107.
    Williams v. Comstock, Men’s Colony Superintendent.
   Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 74-5043.
    No. 74-5237.
    No. 74-5239.
    Fontaine v. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Myers v. Carrico et al.; and Begun v. Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 73-1894.
    Flaxman v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-1947.
    No. 73-1980.
    Joyce v. United States; and Wallace v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 499 F. 2d 9.


text:
    No. 73-1983.
    Wilcox County Board of Education et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2007.
    Quick Shop Markets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2030.
    Hedden v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2063.
    Lue v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-2064.
    DiBella v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-7054
    Rawls v. Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent DePaul, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-4.
    Washington v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-7.
    McRae v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-23.
    Pomares et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-115.
    Powell v. Rogers, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Employees’ Compensation, U. S. Department of Labor, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 74-152.
    Rice v. United States.
   C. C. P. A. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-203.
    Rosenblatt v. United States.
   Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-252.
    Bieski et al. v. Eastern Automobile Forwarding Co., Inc., et al.
   . C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-275.
    Jones et ux. v. Jones et ux.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-278.
    McCain et al. v. Lybrand et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-299.
    Premier Industrial Corp. v. Marlow et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-347.
    Bierman, Administratrix v. Progressive Finance Co.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-351.
    Savannah Sugar Refining Corp. v. Baxter.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-357.
    Sanders Brine Shrimp Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 74-358.
    Jno. McCall Coal Co., Inc., et al. v. Culbertson, Executrix.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-361.
    Scott v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-366.
    Fisher et al. v. Copeland Refrigeration Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-369.
    Weidinger Chevrolet, Inc. v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-371.
    Cordle v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-376.
    Susquehanna Valley Teachers’ Assn, et al. v. Central School District No. 1 of Town of Conklin et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-379.
    Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-393.
    Brantley et al. v. Union Bank & Trust Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-397.
    Forgy v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-398.
    Plan for Arcadia, Inc. v. Anita Associates et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-400.
    Ballas v. McKiernan et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-401.
    Vulcan Forging Co. v. Dahlberg, Simon, Jayne, Woolfenden & Gawne.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 73-462.
    Cappadona v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5004.
    No. 74-5038.
    Crawley v. United States; and Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 498 F. 2d 1398.


text:
    No. 74-5006.
    Proffitt v. Becker, Chief Judge, U. S. District Court, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5022.
    Ruark, aka Thatcher v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5025.
    Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5089.
    Kennedy v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5097.
    Benson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5101.
    Blackshear v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5102.
    Soboleski v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5127.
    Curry v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5133.
    Kreutz v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5135.
    Allen v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5161.
    Gaskins v. Titeflex Employees Collective Bargaining Assn.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5162.
    Flammia v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5180.
    Ellis v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5200.
    Holsey v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5206.
    Foster et al. v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5212.
    Young v. Texas Department of Corrections.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5217.
    In re Kunkle.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5219.
    Barcenas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5221.
    Whisnant v. Davis.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5224.
    Wells v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5228.
    Vandygrift v. Patton, Judge.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied:


text:
    No. 74-5234.
    O’Brien v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5242.
    Lonquest v. Meacham, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5244.
    Feaster v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5254.
    Whitlow v. Wainwright , Corrections Director.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5255.
    Lombardi v. Follette, Correctional Superintendent.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5256.
    Benevides v. Craven, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5260.
    Jones v. McCarthy, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5264.
    Erwin v. Leeke, Corrections Director, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5269.
    Qadir v. County of Santa Clara et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5270.
    Perkins v. Oklahoma.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 74-5271.
    Graham v. Hales et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.