author: Justice White,

text:
    No. 83-741.
    Falcone v. Internal Revenue Service.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

dissenting.

Petitioner, a tax attorney, requested information from the Internal Revenue Service under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C. § 552. When the IRS denied the request, petitioner filed an action in Federal District Court under 5 U. S. C. § 552(a)(4)(B). The District Court ordered that certain requested documents be released, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed at the IRS’s request.

Petitioner then filed a motion for attorney’s fees under 5 U. S. C. § 552(a)(4)(E), which provides for an award of “reasonable attorney fees” to a plaintiff who has “substantially prevailed” in an FOIA case. The District Court denied the motion, finding that although petitioner had prevailed, the IRS had not acted unreasonably in refusing to release the documents. 535 F. Supp. 1313 (ED Mich. 1982). The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that ruling but on a different ground, concluding that § 552(a)(4)(E) does not authorize an attorney’s fees award for pro se attorney plaintiffs. 714 F. 2d 646 (1983).

Most Courts of Appeals, including the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, have concluded that a nonattorney plaintiff proceeding pro se is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees under § 552(a)(4)(E) or similar attorney’s fees provisions. See, e. g., Wolfel v. United States, 711 F. 2d 66, 68 (CA6 1983); Clarkson v. IRS, 678 F. 2d 1368, 1371 (CA11 1982); Cunningham v. FBI, 664 F. 2d 383, 388 (CA3 1981); Barrett v. Bureau of Customs, 651 F. 2d 1087, 1090 (CA5 1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 950 (1982); Crooker v. United States Department of Justice, 632 F. 2d 916 (CA1 1980); Burke v. United States Department of Justice, 559 F. 2d 1182 (CA10 1977), aff’g 432 F. Supp. 251 (Kan. 1976); but see Cox v. United States Department of Justice, 195 U. S. App. D. C. 189, 193-194, 601 F. 2d 1, 5-6 (1979). However, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that, unlike their nonattorney counterparts, FOIA plaintiffs who are attorneys are not precluded from recovering attorney’s fees by virtue of their pro se status. Cazalas v. United States Department of Justice, 709 F. 2d 1051, 1055-1057 (1983). The decision of the Court of Appeals in this case is in direct conflict with that holding. I would grant the petition for certiorari in order to resolve the conflict.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 83-1056.
    General Motors Corp. v. Oklahoma County Board of Equalization et al.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Motions of Oklahoma Industries Authority and Bunte Candies, Inc., et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1286.
    Director, Illinois Department of Corrections v. Gray.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 83-5940.
    No. 83-6184.
    King v. Florida; and Williams v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-rari denied. Reported below: No. 83-5940, 436 So. 2d 50; No. 83-6184, 437 So. 2d 133.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 83-5764.
    No. 83-6004.
    No. 83-6021.
    No. 83-6111.
    Fleming v. Staller et al., Davis et al. v. Central Intelligence Agency et al., Rogers v. Farquar, In re Bers,
   465 U. S. 1031;

465 U. S. 1035;

465 U. S. 1015; and

465 U. S. 1064. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    March 28, 1984
    No. A-770.
    Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et al. v. Valteau et al.
   Application for stay of the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, entered March 21, 1984, pending appeal, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


author: Justice Stevens, Justice Brennan,

text:
    March 30, 1984
    No. A-740 (83-1526).
    Karcher, Speaker, New Jersey Assembly, et al. v. Daggett et al.
   D. C. N. J. Application for stay, presented to Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Justice Stevens,

concurring.

In Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725 (1983), we held that the reapportionment plan which had been adopted by New Jersey after the 1980 census was unconstitutional. On remand, the parties, by stipulation, asked the three-judge District Court to select which of a number of proposed redistricting plans should be employed in place of the plan which had been adjudicated unconstitutional. The District Court rejected the “Senate Plan,” and selected the “Forsythe Plan.” The District Court chose the For-sythe Plan because it achieved lower population deviations and more compact districts than the Senate Plan. Appellants claim that the District Court was obligated to accept the Senate Plan because it most closely conformed to the State’s original plan while eliminating unconstitutional population variances. They have, accordingly, filed an application for a stay of the District Court’s order, as well as an appeal. Since there is currently no apportionment plan in effect in New Jersey and elections are imminent, what appellants really seek is an injunction from this Court ordering use of the Senate Plan pending disposition of the appeal.

Once a constitutional violation has been found, a district court has broad discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy. E. g., Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267, 280-288 (1977). I do not believe there is a sufficient likelihood that the District Court abused that discretion by selecting the Forsythe Plan to justify the relief appellants seek. Because the Forsythe Plan contained lower population variances, it more completely redressed the constitutional violation. Nor was it an abuse of discretion to consider the fact that the Forsythe Plan created more compact districts; our previous opinion acknowledged that this is a legitimate consideration in reapportionment. See 462 U. S., at 740. We also stated that efforts to inhibit gerrymandering are a legitimate part of the reapportionment process, see id., at 734-735, n. 6; here the District Court found that the plan advocated by appellants constituted “an intentional gerrymander in favor of certain Democratic representatives.” Daggett v. Kimmelman, 580 F. Supp. 1259, 1262 (NJ 1984). While a district court should not unnecessarily ignore state policies when fashioning a remedy, White v. Weiser, 412 U. S. 783, 795-797 (1973), there the District Court rejected a plan implementing “decisions] made by the legislature in pursuit of what were deemed important state interests,” id., at 796, and did not explain why the plan it had rejected was “unconstitutional or even undesirable.” Id., at 797. Here the District Court identified legitimate considerations justifying its choice, and appellants have identified no state policy to which the District Court should have deferred that justifies the bizarre district lines in the original reapportionment plan. See 462 U. S., at 742-744, and n. 12.

Accordingly, I concur in the Court’s decision to deny the application for stay.

Justice Brennan,

with whom Justice White and Justice Marshall join,

dissenting.

Before the Court is an application seeking to stay an order of a three-judge District Court pending final disposition of an appeal to this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1253. The challenged order directs the State of New Jersey to conduct upcoming elections for Members of the House of Representatives pursuant to a reapportionment plan adopted by the District Court as a remedy for the constitutional violation found in New Jersey’s 1982 reapportionment plan. See Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725 (1983), aff’g 535 F. Supp. 978 (NJ 1982). Because I believe that the District Court has acted beyond the scope of its authority in correcting the relevant constitutional violation, I would grant the application for stay and remand the case to the District Court for implementation of an alternative plan. I therefore dissent.

I

Following the 1980 decennial census, the State of New Jersey was required to decrease its membership in the United States House of Representatives from 15 to 14. To satisfy this requirement, the State enacted a congressional reapportionment scheme in January 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Feldman Plan) that eliminated one of the State’s congressional districts and substantially changed the geographical boundaries used to define the re-malning districts. Although the Feldman Plan contained the requisite 14 districts, it suffered from significant numerical inequalities in population between each of those districts. In particular, given an “ideal” district population of 526,059, the average deviation from the norm was 0.1384%, or 726 people. Moreover, the difference between the largest district and the smallest district was 3,674 people, or 0.6984% of the average district.

The Feldman Plan was challenged by several interested parties and, primarily because of these population variances, was declared unconstitutional by the District Court. Daggett v. Kimmelman, 535 F. Supp. 978 (NJ 1982). That order was stayed pending appeal to this Court, Karcher v. Daggett, 455 U. S. 1303 (1982) (Brennan, J., in chambers), leaving the plan in effect during the 1982 congressional elections. We noted probable jurisdiction, 457 U. S. 1131 (1982), and subsequently affirmed the decision and order of the District Court, Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S. 725 (1983).

In Karcher, this Court reaffirmed that Art. I, §2, of the Constitution “ ‘permits only the limited population variances which are unavoidable despite a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown.”’ Id., at 730 (quoting Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U. S. 526, 531 (1969)); see White v. Weiser, 412 U. S. 783, 790 (1973). Applying that standard to the Feldman Plan, we concluded that the numerical variances described above, when combined with evidence that alternative plans available to the State contained smaller maximum deviations, demonstrated that New Jersey had not come “as nearly as practicable” to population equality among districts. 462 U. S., at 730, 739-740; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, 7-8, 18 (1964). Nor was the State able to prove that each significant variance among its districts was necessary to achieve some legitimate state objective. 462 U. S., at 740-744. We therefore concluded that the population inequalities existing under the Feldman Plan were both constitutionally significant and unjustified by legitimate state goals. Accordingly, we affirmed the District Court’s holding that the plan was unconstitutional.

On remand from our decision, the three-judge District Court allowed the State until February 3, 1984, to enact another redistricting plan that would meet constitutional requirements. Although the state legislature adopted an alternative plan (Senate Bill 3564, hereinafter referred to as the Senate Plan), it was vetoed by the Governor and had insufficient support for reenactment over that veto. Given this failure by the State’s political process, the District Court convened a hearing on February 7, 1984, to choose a proper remedy for the uncorrected constitutional violation. See Daggett v. Kimmelman, 580 F. Supp. 1259 (NJ 1984). At that hearing, all parties agreed that the court should select a redistricting plan from among several alternatives offered by interested parties rather than allow the upcoming congressional elections to proceed on an at-large basis. Id., at 1261. Cf. 2 U. S. C. § 2a(c).

At least six separate redistricting proposals were advanced by various parties before the District Court. Most important for present purposes were the Senate Plan and a plan submitted by various Republican congressional candidates who were the original plaintiffs in this litigation (hereinafter referred to as the Forsythe Plan). In its discussion of the Senate Plan, the court first noted that its districts “are virtually identical” to those included in the unconstitutional Feldman Plan. Slight geographical changes had been made, however, resulting in an average deviation from the ideal district of less than 12 people and a maximum variation between the largest and smallest districts of only 67 people. Despite this apparent success in eliminating numerical inequalities, the court refused to accept the Senate Plan as a remedy for the constitutional violation we found last Term in Karcher v. Daggett, supra. In particular, the court found that the plan not only failed to “achieve as small an overall or mean deviation as other plans,” but also retained the “most glaring defects in the Feldman Plan,” including “an obvious absence of compactness, and an intentional gerrymander in favor of certain Democratic representatives.” 580 F. Supp., at 1262.

In contrast, the Forsythe Plan produced a maximum variation of only 25 people. And, although the plan required the splitting of two municipalities, its “two great advantages . . . over any of the others, are the achievement of smaller population deviations, and the creation of more compact districts.” Id., at 1264. Thus, the court concluded, the Forsythe Plan “most nearly fits the appropriate criteria for a court considering a congressional reapportionment plan as a remedy for an unconstitutional reapportionment statute.” Id., at 1264-1265. See infra, this page and 915.

In sum, the District Court acknowledged that each of the submitted plans improved substantially on the numerical disparities that led us to conclude last Term that the Feldman Plan was unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the District Court chose the Forsythe Plan as the appropriate replacement for the unconstitutional Feldman Plan because it “creat[ed] more compact districts” than the Senate Plan and there was “no evidence” that “it is designed to achieve partisan advantage.” 580 F. Supp., at 1264.

II

Before choosing among these alternative plans, the District Court explicitly stated the legal principles that it believed should control its remedial decision. The court first summarized the constitutional standard reaffirmed by this Court in Karcher v. Daggett, see supra, at 912, and then specifically noted that our opinion in Karcher had “declin[ed] to rely, as a constitutional violation, on the obviously partisan purposes behind the Feldman Plan.” 580 F. Supp., at 1261. The court nonetheless refused to limit its analysis to the numerical inequalities that triggered our constitutional holding; instead, the court examined the alternative plans using the following principle:

“While Karcher v. Daggett considers what interests may be taken into account by state legislatures in justifying deviations from the ideal of district population equality based on the decennial census, it also provides useful instruction to district courts faced, as we are, with selecting a districting plan because of a failure in the legislative process. We may take into account at least those factors which the Court has recognized as legitimate, namely: making districts compact, preserving municipal boundaries, preserving cores of prior districts, avoiding contests between incumbents, and inhibiting gerrymandering. With those factors in mind we turn to the several plans which have been proposed.” Id., at 1261-1262.

In my view, the District Court’s responsibility in remedying the constitutional violation we found last Term in Karcher does not reach that far. Although two Justices wrote separately to note that the political gerrymandering evident from the geographical boundaries included in the Feldman Plan might be worthy of constitutional challenge, see 462 U. S., at 744 (Stevens, J., concurring); id., at 784 (Powell, J., dissenting), the Court’s finding of a constitutional violation was premised exclusively on numerical inequalities between congressional districts. Once these population disparities are eliminated, our prior cases make clear that the District Court is charged with selecting an alternative plan that accords deference to the policies and preferences that have been expressed previously by the State.

This was precisely the situation presented by White v. Weiser, 412 U. S. 783 (1973). After finding that the State’s reapportionment plan was unconstitutional because of significant, yet avoidable, population variances between districts, the District Court had to choose among several remedial plans proffered by interested parties. More specifically,

“[t]he District Court properly rejected S. B. 1 [the unconstitutional state plan], but it had before it both Plan B and Plan C, and there remains the question whether the court correctly chose to implement the latter. Plan B adhered to the basic district configurations found in S. B. 1, but adjusted the district lines, where necessary, in order to achieve maximum population equality among districts. Each district in Plan B contained generally the same counties as the equivalent district in S. B. 1. Plan C, on the other hand, was based entirely upon population considerations and made no attempt to adhere to the district configurations found in S. B. 1. . . . After deciding that S. B. 1 was unacceptable, the District Court ordered the implementation of Plan C.” Id., at 793-794 (footnotes omitted).

Although the appellees in White v. Weiser defended the lower court’s selection of Plan C because it was “significantly more compact and contiguous than either S. B. 1 or Plan B” and because its selection was “an exercise of the remedial discretion of the District Court,” id., at 794, we rejected the lower court’s remedial choice and remanded for further proceedings. When fashioning a constitutional remedy in this context, we explained, the District Court must defer to any state policies that are “consistent with constitutional norms and . . . not [themselves] vulnerable to legal challenge.” Id., at 797.

“From the beginning, we have recognized that ‘reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination, and that judicial relief becomes appropriate only when a legislature fails to reapportion according to federal constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so.’ ... We have adhered to the view that state legislatures have ‘primary jurisdiction’ over legislative reapportionment. . . . Just as a federal district court, in the context of legislative reapportionment, should follow the policies and preferences of the State, as expressed in statutory and constitutional provisions or in the reapportionment plans proposed by the state legislature, whenever adherence to state policy does not detract from the requirements of the Federal Constitution, we hold that a district court should similarly honor state policies in the context of congressional reapportionment. In fashioning a reapportionment plan or in choosing among plans, a district court should not pre-empt the legislative task nor ‘intrude upon state policy any more than necessary.’” Id., at 794-795 (citations omitted).

See also Upham v. Seamon, 456 U. S. 37, 41-43 (1982) (per curiam).

Pursuant to these standards, the Court in White v. Weiser reversed the lower court’s selection of a reapportionment plan, and remanded for the imposition of another plan. This was necessary because the District Court had not chosen that plan which, while eliminating the constitutional violation, would be most in accord with the State’s policy preferences. See 412 U. S., at 796 (the District Court “should have implemented [the plan] which most clearly approximated the reapportionment plan of the state legislature, while satisfying constitutional requirements”); Upham v. Seamon, supra, at 42-43. Significantly, it was irrelevant to our analysis that the last state plan formally adopted to implement those policy judgments had itself been declared unconstitutional. See 412 U. S., at 796 (“even if the districts in [the plan chosen by the lower court] can be called more compact, the District Court’s preferences do not override whatever state goals were embodied in [the unconstitutional plan]”).

Application of these principles to the situation presented by this stay application is relatively straightforward. Given the status of New Jersey’s redistricting after the 1980 census, the last formal declaration of the State’s policy preferences in congressional reapportionment is contained in the Feldman Plan that we declared unconstitutional last Term. Once the constitutional infirmity in that plan — the unjustified numerical inequality between congressional districts — is remedied, the District Court must choose the alternative plan that remains most faithful to those state policies. We have never concluded, nor in my view should we conclude, that the existence of noncompact or gerrymandered districts is by itself a constitutional violation. Cf. Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U. S. 735, 752-754, and n. 18 (1973). Therefore, absent unconstitutional population variances, or other findings of unconstitutionality such as discrimination on racial or religious lines, the District Court should implement the alternative plan that is most faithful to the districts included in the most recent plan enacted by the State.

In this case, it is clear that the Senate Plan corrects the constitutional violation we found last Term by reducing the numerical inequality to a maximum deviation between districts of 67 people. Cf. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S., at 739-740, n. 10; Simon v. Davis, 463 U. S. 1219 (1983), summarily aff’g In re Pennsylvania Congressional Districts Reapportionment Cases, 567 F. Supp. 1507 (MD Pa. 1982). Moreover, the District Court found, and all parties agree, that the geographical boundaries included in the Senate Plan are closer than those of any alternative plan to the boundaries contained in the unconstitutional Feldman Plan. See 580 F. Supp., at 1262 (the Senate Plan had districts that were “virtually identical” to the districts included in the Feldman Plan); id., at 1264 (districts in another plan were “considerably more compact than those in the Feldman Plan, and thus also more compact than those in [the] Senate [Plan]”). See also Letter from State Attorney General to District Court, p. 1 (Mar. 9, 1984) (“It is quite true . . . that all the parties agree that [the Senate Plan is closer to the Feldman Plan] than any of the proposed alternatives”). Indeed, the Senate Plan would require less than 10% of New Jersey’s residents to change their congressional districts from the 1982 election conducted under the Feldman Plan, whereas the Forsythe Plan adopted by the District Court will require that 31.7% of the State’s residents change districts. Under these circumstances, I believe the District Court erred when it adopted the Forsythe Plan under the mistaken belief that it “owe[d] no deference to an unconstitutional state statute.” 580 F. Supp., at 1263.

Accordingly, I would grant the application for a stay. Moreover, given the imminence of New Jersey’s primary elections, I would remand the case to the three-judge District Court for implementation of the Senate Plan, absent any finding that the Senate Plan, on its own terms, is unconstitutional.

       Also before the court were two plans submitted by the Taxpayers Political Action Committee and two plans submitted by representatives of the State’s executive branch. The former plans were considered only briefly by the District Court, and were rejected because their district population variances were “larger than any which would occur in the plans proposed by other parties.” See Daggett v. Kimmelman, 580 F. Supp. 1259, 1262 (NJ 1984). The two plans introduced by the executive branch were considered more extensively, but they too were ultimately rejected. See id., at 1263-1264. None of these plans is currently being pressed for consideration by any party before the Court.

       Thus, the factors we noted in Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U. S., at 740 (“making districts compact, respecting municipal boundaries, preserving the cores of prior districts, and avoiding contests between incumbent Representatives”), should be considered only to the extent that a State might rely on them to justify population variances between districts. Indeed, nothing in our opinion last Term was intended to suggest that these factors would necessarily be relevant to the constitutionality of a State’s congressional reapportionment plan in the absence of numerical inequalities that themselves violate the Constitution. If only for this reason, the District Court committed legal error when it adopted these factors as its selection criteria for choosing among alternative remedial plans. Cf. supra, at 914-915.

       Hence the District Court also erred when it tried to distinguish this case from White v. Weiser, 412 U. S. 783 (1973), on the ground that “[t]he policy dispute in White v. Weiser among the competing plans was over the district court’s rejection of a state policy of avoiding contests among incumbents,” whereas in this case the Feldman Plan was “designed to produce contests among certain Republican incumbents.” 580 F. Supp., at 1263. As I have noted, n. 2, supra, our finding last Term that the Feldman Plan violated Art. I, §2, of the Constitution was premised on the population disparities found among its districts, and was not intended to suggest that we would reject any of the partisan advantages that may have resulted if the plan were implemented.


text:
    No. A-786.
    No. A-787.
    O’Bryan v. McKaskle, Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections; and O’Bryan v. McKaskle, Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   Applications for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the applications.


text:
    No. A-791.
    O’Bryan v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   Application for emergency relief, with respect to the order of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, dated this day, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the application.


text:
    April 2, 1984
    No. 83-1323.
    Cox et al. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ky. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-1387.
    Holt v. County of Tioga, New York.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-1335.
    Konig v. Abbott.
   Appeal from App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Los Angeles, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1352.
    Bischoff et al. v. City of Austin.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Tex., 3d Sup. Jud. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6264.
    Chapman v. Michigan National Bank of Detroit.
   Appeal from D. C. E. D. Mich, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1787.
    Buckingham Corp. v. Odom Corp., dba Arizona Distributing Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U. S. 752 (1984).


text:
    No. 82-2061.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Roadway Express, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc., 465 U. S. 822 (1984).


text:
    No.-.
    Cuyler, Superintendent, Graterford Prison v. Sullivan.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari with an appendix that does not comply with the Rules of this Court denied.


text:
    No.-.
    Wardell v. Holler et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari that does not comply with the Rules of this Court and is out of time denied.


text:
    No.-.
    Gaulmon v. United States.
   Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without filing an affidavit of indigency required by Rule 46 of the Rules of this Court denied.


text:
    No. A-709.
    L. C. v. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Application for stay, addressed to JUSTICE Blackmun and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-739.
    Porter v. United States.
   Application for bail, addressed to Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-766.
    Mississippi Republican Executive Committee v. Brooks et al.
   D. C. N. D. Miss. Application for stay pending appeal, addressed to Justice Stevens and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-772 (83-6453).
    Parks v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death set for April 13, 1984, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, is granted pending final disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. A-773 (83-6125).
    Stafford v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death set for April 3, 1984, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, is granted pending final disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. D-416.
    In re Disbarment of Roundtree.
   It is ordered that Dovey J. Roundtree, of Washington, D. C., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-417.
    In re Disbarment of Friedland.
   It is ordered that Jacob Friedland, of Jersey City, N. J., 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.


author: Chief Justice Burger,

text:
    No. 86,
    Orig.
    Louisiana v. Mississippi et al.
   Application of the Special Master for compensation in the amount of $64,829.50 is hereby granted. One-half of this amount shall be paid to the Special Master by the plaintiff and one-half by the defendants. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 464 U. S. 888.]

Chief Justice Burger,

dissenting in part.

The Special Master has applied for $64,829.50 covering fees for himself and six persons who assisted him, only two of whom were lawyers. The total amount requested can be broken down as follows:

Special Master 143.6 hrs. @ $200 $28,720.00
Mr. Witt (assoc. 4 yrs. +) 240.9 hrs. @ 125 30,112.50
Mr. Amber (1st yr. assoc.) 11.6 hrs. @ 70 812.00
Others (summer law clerks) 103.7 hrs. @ 50 5,185.00
$64,829.50

A Special Master of this Court is a surrogate of the Court and in that sense the service performed is an important public duty of high order in much the same way as is serving in the Judiciary. I do not suggest that Special Masters should serve without compensation, as for example, Senior Federal Judges have done for a number of years in such cases, but I believe the public service aspect of the appointment is a factor that is not to be wholly ignored in determining the reasonableness of fees charged in a case like this.

The parties apparently agreed with the Special Master as to a rate of $200 per hour for his services; hence no question as to his charge is before the Court. The private defendants and Mississippi have questioned the rates at which the two lawyer associates, and the four nonlawyer assistants were billed, and the total number of hours charged for their services. Mississippi, for example, stated that it has “no objection to the allowance and payment of such fees as this Honorable Court may find equitable . . . taking into consideration the three-day trial and the fact that the legal principles involved in this case have long since been settled by prior decisions of this Court.”

I question:

(1) the $125-per-hour charge for assistance of a four-year associate;
(2) the $70-per-hour charge for a one-year associate; and
(3) the $50-per-hour charge for a “summer law clerk.”

I assume that the latter is a law student working under the supervision of a member of the Bar. In my view, there is no basis to charge $50 per hour for a student assistant; it is obviously far more than such a student would be paid.

The associate lawyers, unburdened by the managerial or administrative aspects of group law practice, as partners in a large firm often are, should record 1,600 to 2,000 billable hours a year. At the rates charged here for the “four-year” lawyer, taking the mean figure, 1,800 hours at $125 per hour would total $225,000. There is no evidence before us to justify the rate charged. On the same basis, i. e., $70 per hour, the total for the one-year associate, would be $126,000.

I am not unaware of the heavy overhead expenses of a modem law firm: office rental, support staff salaries, computer and other equipment, libraries, insurance, all burden the gross income from the firm’s practice. In my view, however, even given these expenses, the rates charged for these associates, absent proof, do not appear to be reasonable.

Absent supporting evidence, there may well be questions as to the total number of hours necessarily devoted to this case by the “associates” and the summer law clerks. I do not doubt that those hours were spent, but the need for them is challenged by the States and possibly some supporting evidence is called for.

More than $5,000 is requested for 100 hours of work by four student clerks. The record shows that almost 60 hours were spent by one law clerk researching a motion to intervene; this appears to me to be excessive. It might take a law student that long to understand fully all the problems associated with intervention, but it is not reasonable for the client to be charged that price for this sort of research which, in a sense, is education of the student involved.

The fees and expenses charged by a Special Master when allowed by this Court, represent our assurance to the parties that the charges are reasonable and proper. In light of the obvious concern that the defendants have over the fees and hours, and my own reservations about the rates charged for the hours logged by the staff assistants, I am unwilling to have the record show, sub silentio, that I approve all of these charges.

I emphasize that I have no question about the professional quality of the Special Master’s services but absent evidence, I cannot approve rates charge for staff assistants which I consider to be excessive.

Justice Blackmun dissents. He would allow the Special Master a total fee of $40,000.


text:
    No. 83-558.
    Irving Independent School District v. Tatro et ux., Individually, and as Next Friends of Tatro, a Minor.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 464 U. S. 1007.] Motions of New York State Commission on the Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled, Protection and Advocacy System; Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps et al.; and New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 83-710.
    Berkemer, Sheriff of Franklin County, Ohio v. McCarty.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 464 U. S. 1038.] Motion of respondent for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 83-751.
    Securities and Exchange Commission et al. v. Jerry T. O’Brien, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 464 U. S. 1038.] Motion of respondents for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 83-1096.
    Gomez-Hermanos, Inc. v. Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. P. R. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 83-1526.
    Karcher, Speaker, New Jersey Assembly, et al. v. Daggett et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. J. Motion of appellants to expedite consideration of the statement as to jurisdiction denied.


text:
    No. 83-6229.
    In re Mueller.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until April 23, 1984, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in Brown v. Herald Co., 464 U. S. 928 (1983), we would deny the petition for writ of mandamus without reaching the merits of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.


text:
    No. 83-1395.
    In re Raineri.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


author: Justice Stevens,

text:
    No. 83-812.
    No. 83-929.
    Wallace, Governor of Alabama, et al. v. Jaffree et al.; and Smith et al. v. Jaffree et al.
   Appeals from C. A. 11th Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted limited to Question 1 in the jurisdictional statements, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. The judgment with respect to the other issues presented by the appeals is affirmed. Reported below: 705 F. 2d 1526 and 713 F. 2d 614.

Justice Stevens,

concurring.

In their amended complaint in this litigation, appellees sought (1) a judgment holding three statutory provisions, Ala. Code §§ 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1,16-1-20.2 (Supp. 1983), and certain allegedly state-sanctioned, though not statutorily sanctioned, school prayer practices invalid under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) an injunction against the enforcement of these statutory provisions and nonstatutory practices. The District Court dismissed the amended complaint. 554 F. Supp. 1104 (SD Ala. 1983). The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s judgment in relevant part. 705 F. 2d 1526 (CA11 1983). It held the challenged statutory provisions and nonstatutory practices unconstitutional and ordered the District Court to enter an injunction. Appellants invoke this Court’s appellate jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2) regarding the Court of Appeals’ judgments on the statutory provisions.

As I understand it, the order this Court enters today is a holding that Ala. Code § 16-1-20.2 (Supp. 1983) is invalid as repugnant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the Court’s order also affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it directed the District Court to enjoin the appellants from enforcing § 16-1-20.2. The judgment of the Court of Appeals concerning the nonstatutory school prayer practices is not within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and is challenged in a petition for a writ of certiorari in Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile County v. Jaffree, No. 83-804. The Court denies that petition, post, p. 926.

The Court’s order noting probable jurisdiction is thus limited to the judgment of the Court of Appeals concerning the constitutionality of § 16-1-20.1. Appellants frame the constitutional questions presented by that provision as follows:

“Whether a state statute which permits, but does not require, teachers in public schools to observe up to a minute of non-activity for meditation or silent prayer has the predominant effect of advancing students’ liberty of religion and of mind rather than any effect of establishing a religion.” Juris. Statement in No. 83-812, p. i.
“Does a moment of silence for individual silent ‘prayer or meditation’ at the beginning of each school day in a public school classroom violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as interpreted by its language, framers’ intent, and history?” Juris. Statement in No. 83-929, p. i.

On the understanding that the Court has limited argument to the question whether §16-1-20.1 is invalid as repugnant to the Establishment Clause, applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, I join the Court’s order.


text:
    No. 83-1007.
    Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc., et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-1325.
    Air Line Pilots Assn., International v. Thurston et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, case consolidated with No. 83-997, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston [certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1065], and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 83-1045.
    No. 83-5878.
    United States Department of Justice et al. v. Provenzano. Shapiro et al. v. Drug Enforcement Administration.
   C. A. 3d Cir.; and

C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioners in No. 83-5878 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: No. 83-1045, 717 F. 2d 799; No. 83-5878, 721 F. 2d 215.


text:
    No. 83-6061.
    Garcia et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 82-1909.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Scooba Manufacturing Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-395.
    Denberg et al. v. United States Railroad Retirement Board et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-412.
    Roesch, Inc., et al. v. Star Cooler Corp. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-610.
    Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-804.
    Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama, et al. v. Jaffree et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-915.
    Brookins et al. v. South Bend Community School Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-943.
    No. 83-1030.
    No. 83-1119.
    American Trucking Assns., Inc., et al. v. United States et al.; Ryder/PIE Nationwide, Inc. v. United States et al.; and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. United States et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 716 F. 2d 1369.


text:
    No. 83-946.
    Keene et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-954.
    Conference of State Bank Supervisors et al. v. Conover, Comptroller of the Currency of the United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1000.
    J. D. Court, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1014.
    Blumenthal v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1090.
    Painters & Decorators Joint Committee East Bay Counties, Inc. v. Painting & Decorating Contractors Association of Sacramento, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1091.
    No. 83-1094.
    Capaci v. Katz & Besthoff, Inc., et al.; and Katz & Besthoff, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied. Reported below: 711 F. 2d 647.


text:
    No. 83-1121.
    Gray v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1134.
    Lurch v. United States et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1209.
    Angora Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Cole et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1294.
    American Motors Corp. et al. v. Lord, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (two cases).
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1304.
    Paul v. Haley et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1314.
    Galvin v. Heritage First National Bank of Lockport, Illinois, Executor of the Estate of Grabow, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1322.
    O’Bannon v. Azar.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1328.
    Moore v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1331.
    Pine et al. v. Credithrift of America, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1333.
    American Dredging Co. v. Berkley Curtis Bay Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1344.
    Ingram Manufacturing Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1347.
    Unigard Insurance Co. v. Formica Corp. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1348.
    County of St. Louis, Minnesota, et al. v. Federal Land Bank of St. Paul.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1349.
    Magnisea Fisheries, Inc. v. Oregon Oyster Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1359.
    Landfried et al. v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1361.
    United Home Rentals, Inc., et al. v. Texas Real Estate Commission et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1383.
    Krieg v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1462.
    International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1471.
    Wirtz, Trustee, et al. v. Norris.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5671.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5761.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5831.
    Soberal-Perez et al. v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5870.
    Dawson v. Smith, Attorney General of the United States, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5913.
    Etlin et al. v. Horan, Commonwealth’s Attorney.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5928.
    Seifuddin v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5941.
    Cox v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5974.
    Jones v. Israel, Superintendent, Waupun Correctional Institution, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6041.
    Russotto v. Smith, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6214.
    Brooks v. Alford, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6232.
    Rush v. Spears, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6234.
    Sanabria v. Zimmerman, Warden.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6242.
    Kizziar v. McKaskle, Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6245.
    Howard v. Wyrick, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6246.
    Cannon v. Department of Elections for New Castle County et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6250.
    Wadsworth v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6253.
    Storms v. Cooke et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6257.
    Waits v. Carter et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6262.
    Brown v. McKaskle, Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6273.
    Tarkowski v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6280.
    Fulton v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6290.
    Kirk v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6311.
    Aponte v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6331.
    Minor v. Veterans Administration et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6332.
    Schramm v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6357.
    Wagoner v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6359.
    Fields v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6365.
    McKoy v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6372.
    Di Silvestro v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6376.
    Lopez-Salazar v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-848.
    Service Merchandise Co., Inc. v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-431.
    Battle et al. v. Lubrizol Corp. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-1327.
    Cherry et al. v. Steiner et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-1301.
    Milgo Electronic Corp. v. Codex Corp. et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of Jackson, Jones & Price for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae out of time denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1316.
    Florida v. Burwick.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6258.
    Sawyer v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    No. 83-5549.
    No. 83-5783.
    No. 83-5799.
    No. 83-5872.
    No. 83-5975.
    No. 83-6018.
    Cantrell v. Florida, Simpson v. Isringhausen, Russell v. Texas, Gates v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Senti v. Sharma et al., White v. Toppitzer,
   464 U. S. 1047;

464 U. S. 1072;

465 U. S. 1073;

465 U. S. 1031;

465 U. S. 1034; and

465 U. S. 1035. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    April 4, 1984
    No. 83-6138.
    Flasman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    No. 83-6532 (A-803).
    Goode v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

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

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant the application for stay, grant certiorari, and vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    No. 83-6533 (A-804).
    Sonnier v. Maggio, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

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

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 158, 227, 281 (1976), we would grant the application for stay, grant certiorari, and vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    April 16, 1984
    No. 83-1422.
    City of Pleasanton et al. v. Smith et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. W. D. Tex.


text:
    No. 83-985.
    Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California et al.; and Southern Pacific Transportation Co. et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of California et al.
   Appeals from Sup. Ct. Cal. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-1251.
    No. 83-1264.
    National Liberty Life Insurance Co. v. State Board of Equalization; and Illinois Commercial Men’s Assn. v. State Board of Equalization.
   Appeals from Sup. Ct. Cal. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Reported below: 34 Cal. 3d 839, 671 P. 2d 349.


text:
    No. 83-1397.
    Minneapolis Police Relief Assn. et al. v. Sundquist, Commissioner of Employee Relations of Minnesota, et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-1472.
    Horne v. Chafin et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. C. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-1371.
    Perati v. Cutter.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1409.
    Bergen Pines County Hospital v. New Jersey Department of Human Services et al.
   Appeal from Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1423.
    Pointon v. Donovan, Secretary of Labor.
   Appeal from C. A. 10th 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. 83-6297.
    Underwood v. Ohio.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6268.
    Horine v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari dismissed for want of a final judgment.


text:
    No.-.
    No.-.
    No.-.
    No.-.
    No.-.
    Eubank v. Lee Lumber Co., Ltd., et al.; Givens et al. v. United States Railroad Retirement Board; Libertarian Party of Louisiana v. Brown, Secretary of State of Louisiana, et al.; M. W. Zack Metal Co. v. Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, et al.; and Sandusky Real Estate, Inc., dba Real Estate One, et al. v. McDonald et ux.
   Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari that do not comply with the Rules of this Court denied.


text:
    No.-.
    Talamini, Administratrix of the Estate of Talamini v. Allstate Insurance Co.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file a jurisdictional statement that does not comply with the Rules of this Court denied.


text:
    No.-.
    Cuthbertson et al. v. Biggers Brothers, Inc.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of cer-tiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. A-790.
    Polin et ux. v. Jews for Jesus et al.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Application for stay of mandate, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-418.
    In re Disbarment of Anderson.
   It is ordered that Floyd Witherspoon Anderson, of Washington, D. C., 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. 82-2113.
    Richardson v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 464 U. S. 890.] Motion of petitioner for leave to file a supplemental brief after argument granted.


text:
    No. 83-614.
    Securities Industry Assn. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1004.] Motion of Legal Foundation of America for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 83-1368.
    Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 83-1378.
    Kavanaugh, Superintendent, Blackburn Correctional Complex, et al. v. Lucey.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.


text:
    No. 83-1274.
    Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al. v. Ward et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ala. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 83-1032.
    No. 83-1122.
    Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee et al.; and Democratic Party of the United States et al. v. National Conservative Political Action Committee et al.
   Appeals from D. C. E. D. Pa. Motion of Gulf & Great Plains Legal Foundation et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Probable jurisdiction noted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 578 F. Supp. 797.


text:
    No. 83-1334.
    Winston, Sheriff, et al. v. Lee.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-1360.
    Webb v. County Board of Education of Dyer County, Tennessee, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 82-837.
    Arthur Young & Co. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-401.
    A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-625.
    Griffin, Mayor of Buffalo, et al. v. Board of Education of the City of Buffalo, New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-663.
    New York et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-874.
    Poe v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-960.
    Galahad v. Weinshienk, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-981.
    Spencer et al. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-984.
    V. N. A. of Greater Tift County, Inc. v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-998.
    Foley Construction Co. v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1040.
    Seaboard System Railroad, Inc., et al. v. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1053.
    Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1068.
    Spencer et al. v. Logan.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1145.
    Singer v. Gates, Sheriff-Coroner, County of Orange, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1148.
    Vittorio v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1178.
    American Air Parcel Forwarding Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1182.
    Ensign-Bickford Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1184.
    Tennessee Water Quality Control Board et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1191.
    Graziano v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1198.
    Stone Boat Yard v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1201.
    Todd Shipyards Corp. et al. v. Black et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1226.
    No. 83-1227.
    Garrett v. United States; and Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 716 F. 2d 257.


text:
    No. 83-1255.
    Hacker v. Fifth Third Bank.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1263.
    Conway v. Consolidated Rail Corporation.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1353.
    Harlan v. First Interstate Bank of Utah.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1364.
    Zilg v. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1375.
    Akin et al. v. Dahl.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1379.
    Diamond M Drilling Co. et al. v. Cason.
   Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1380.
    O’Quinn v. Whitney National Bank of New Orleans.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1390.
    Brown v. Brown.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1399.
    Pecina v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1408.
    Toner, Judge, Juvenile Court v. Ohio ex rel. Cody.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1410.
    No. 83-1425.
    No. 83-1428.
    No. 83-1530.
    Olivera-Chirino et al. v. United States; Marino v. United States; Valdes v. United States; and Mule-Vasquez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 721 F. 2d 311.


text:
    No. 83-1411.
    Lunati et al. v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1412.
    City of Cambridge, Massachusetts v. Meserve et al., Reorganization Trustees of the Boston & Maine Corp.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1424.
    Brock v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1436.
    White v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1483.
    Shepherd v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1458.
    Ferreira et al. v. L&M Professional Consultants, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1461.
    Gargallo v. Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1484.
    Barboa v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1487.
    Sawyer v. DuPont Glore Forgan, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1502.
    Graham v. Three or More Members of the Army Reserve General Officer Selection Board of 30 November 1979 et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1504.
    McLean v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1507.
    Dreher et ux. v. Morrison et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1512.
    Iglesias-Uranga v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1523.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1546.
    Anderberg, Individually, and as Conservatrix of the Estate of Stichler v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1549.
    Park Corp. v. National Savings & Trust Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5384.
    Boylan v. United States Postal Service.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5733.
    Norman v. Lucas, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5856.
    Mowery v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5866.
    Kajfasz v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5961.
    Broughton v. North Carolina et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5967.
    No. 83-5972.
    No. 83-6026.
    Green v. United States; Bey v. United States; and Bey v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied. Reported below: 723 F. 2d 899.


text:
    No. 83-5971.
    Boykins v. Blackburn, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5982.
    Rhodes v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6010.
    Eden v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6070.
    Nichols v. Gagnon, Superintendent, Fox Lake Correctional Institution, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6075.
    McCoy v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6102.
    Good v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6139.
    Jermosen v. Smith, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6206.
    Southworth v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6241.
    Lucien v. ILLINOIS.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6247.
    Ayers v. Maine.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6276.
    Nevels v. Tohey et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6279.
    Smith v. Perini, Superintendent, Marion Correctional Institute.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6283.
    Coleman v. Sussex County et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6284.
    Coleman v. Millsboro Township.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6287.
    Herrington v. Met Coal & Coke Co., Inc.
   Cir. Ct. W. Va., Monongalia County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6291.
    Scarselli v. Fiduciary Trust Company of New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6292.
    Rothschild v. Y. M. C. A.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6293.
    Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6294.
    Webster v. Rees, Superintendent, Kentucky State Reformatory, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6295.
    Queen v. Easley.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6296.
    Robinson v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6302.
    Taylor v. Devereaux.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6305.
    Zygadlo v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6306.
    Woodberry et al. v. Pierce, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6307.
    Young v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6309.
    Moore v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6310.
    Romeri v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6314.
    Brown v. Callahan, Associate Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6316.
    Dixon v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6324.
    Thomas v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6325.
    Wright v. Cooke et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6328.
    Norton v. Utah.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6329.
    Sceifers v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6335.
    Lowe et al. v. Continental Insurance Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6338.
    Fort v. Henry et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6349.
    McGlocklin v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6351.
    Lee v. Winston, Sheriff, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6354.
    Wright v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6368.
    Rothschild v. Lockwood et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6379.
    Cerveny v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6382.
    Pizarro et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6383.
    Atherton v. Circuit Court of Loudoun County et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6385.
    Cote v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6393.
    Chanya v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6394.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6398.
    Birges v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6403.
    Miller v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6408.
    Sinn v. Owens.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6414.
    DiGiovanni v. National Transportation Safety Board et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6415.
    Conyers v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6416.
    Broadway v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6418.
    Crites v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6426.
    Young v. Mrock et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6439.
    Hawkins v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6445.
    Allen v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-716.
    El Paso Co. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Powell would grant cer-tiorari.


text:
    No. 83-977.
    Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections v. Hudgins.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1116.
    Hunt et al. v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the petition for writ of certiorari and reverse the judgments of conviction.


text:
    No. 83-1180.
    No. 83-1377.
    No. 83-1391.
    McDonald v. United Air Lines, Inc., et al.; Barr v. United Air Lines, Inc., et al.; and United Air Lines, Inc. v. McDonald et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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

Reported below: 717 F. 2d 1140.


text:
    No. 83-1222 (A-544).
    California v. Wilson.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Application for stay, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1310.
    Young et al. v. Southwestern Colorado Water Conservation District et al.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certio-rari denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-1336.
    Jones et al. v. Amalgamated Warbasse Houses, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1369.
    Bryson v. Macfield Texturing, Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 83-1372.
    C & H Transportation Co., Inc. v. Jensen & Reynolds Construction Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondent Par Industries, Inc., for damages denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6141.
    No. 83-6215.
    No. 83-6231.
    No. 83-6281.
    No. 83-6285.
    No. 83-6318.
    Cheadle v. New Mexico. Godfrey v. Francis, Warden. Meanes v. Texas. Daugherty v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections. Gilmore v. Missouri. Flowers v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. N. M.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Sup. Ct. Mo.; and

Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 83-6141, 101 N. M. 282, 681 P. 2d 708; No. 83-6215, 251 Ga. 652, 308 S. E. 2d 806; No. 83-6231, 668 S. W. 2d 366; No. 83-6281, 443 So. 2d 979; No. 83-6285, 661 S. W. 2d 519; No. 83-6318, 441 So. 2d 707.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 82-827.
    No. 82-1041.
    No. 82-1845.
    No. 82-1888.
    No. 83-926.
    No. 83-1106.
    No. 83-5352.
    Minnesota v. Murphy, Dickman et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Colorado v. Nunez, Volkswagenwerk A. G. v. Falzon et al., Individually and as Next Friends of Falzon et al., Kleiboemer et al. v. District of Columbia, C’est La Place v. Groner Apartments, Murphy v. Kentucky,
   465 U. S. 420;

465 U. S. 330;

465 U. S. 324;

465 U. S. 1014;

465 U. S. 1024;

465 U. S. 1015; and

465 U. S. 1072. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 83-5662.
    No. 83-5679.
    No. 83-5772.
    No. 83-5883.
    No. 83-5910.
    No. 83-6033.
    No. 83-6088.
    Phillips v. Kentucky, Hornick v. Noyes et al., McQueen v. Ramsey, Warden, Keenan v. Elo et al., Caylor v. Mississippi, Tugman et al. v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Christensen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
   465 U. S. 1072;

465 U. S. 1031;

465 U. S. 1067;

465 U. S. 1032;

465 U. S. 1032;

465 U. S. 1036; and

465 U. S. 1037. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 83-6122.
    No. 83-6220.
    Khabiri v. Wallace et al., Darnell v. United States,
   465 U. S. 1082; and

465 U. S. 1083. Petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    April 23, 1984
    No. 83-1193.
    Ford et al. v. Department of Revenue of Florida et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1434.
    Williams et al. v. Wyche.
   Appeal from Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1454.
    Condict et al. v. County of San Luis Obispo.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1456.
    Duggins et ux. v. Town of Walnut Cove.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. C. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-1465.
    Farmer v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Tenn. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-1478.
    Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Board of Public Utilities of New Jersey.
   Appeal from Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-6226.
    Spann v. South Carolina.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. S. C. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    No.-.
    International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 675 v. Odom et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No.-.
    Leighton v. Dubowski et al.
   Motion of respondent Dubowski to direct the Clerk not to file the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Request to impose sanctions denied.


text:
    No.-.
    Shelby County Sheriff’s Department v. Ruiz.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file the petition for writ of certiorari that does not comply with the Rules of this Court denied.


text:
    No. A-757.
    Ashby v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-812.
    LaRouche et al. v. North Carolina State Board of Elections et al.
   Application to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, addressed to Justice Stevens and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-390.
    In re Disbarment of Nagel.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 464 U. S. 1014.]


text:
    No. D-399.
    In re Disbarment of Lesesne.
   Thomas Peti-gru Lesesne III, of Charleston, S. C., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on February 21, 1984 [465 U. S. 1017], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-419.
    In re Disbarment of Stevens.
   It is ordered that Mitchell Lee Stevens, of Lombard, Ill., 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-420.
    In re Disbarment of Brownlow.
   It is ordered that Jerry D. Brownlow, of Grand Prairie, Tex., 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. 94,
    Orig.
    South Carolina v. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury.
   It is ordered that Honorable Samuel J. Roberts, of Erie, Pa., be appointed Special Master in this case with authority to fix the time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings and to direct subsequent proceedings, and with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he may deem necessary to call for. The Special Master is directed to submit such reports as he may deem appropriate.

The compensation of the Special Master, the compensation paid to his technical, stenographic, clerical, and legal assistants, the cost of printing his report, and all other proper expenses shall be charged against and be borne by the parties in such proportion as the Court may hereafter direct. [For earlier decision herein, see, e. g., 465 U. S. 367.]


text:
    No. 82-1253.
    Solem, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, et al. v. Bartlett,
   465 U. S. 463. Application of Counties of Dewey et al. to direct the Clerk to file a petition for rehearing submitted by amici curiae denied.


text:
    No. 83-5907.
    Iseley v. Pennsylvania.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. Motion of appellant for leave to proceed informa paupe-ris denied. Appellant is allowed until May 14, 1984, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a statement as to jurisdiction in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens would dismiss the appeal.

Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U. S. 365 (1970).


text:
    No. 83-6342.
    In re Fenton.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 83-1466.
    Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper.
   Appeal from C. A. 1st Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 83-1378.
    Kavanaugh, Superintendent, Blackburn Correctional Complex, et al. v. Lucey.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-1437.
    Marek et al. v. Chesny, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Chesny.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-910.
    General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 249 v. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1080.
    Iowa Power & Light Co. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1117.
    Lawson v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1144.
    Garmon et al. v. Galvan.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1176.
    Demarest v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1203.
    Allison et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1204.
    Cultee et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1241.
    Davis v. United States et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1258.
    Michigan Department of Mental Health v. Rasimas.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1272.
    Lee v. City of Knoxville, Tennessee.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1282.
    Shuttleworth et ux. v. Catholic Family Services et al.
   Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1285.
    Fitzgerald v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1289.
    Howell v. State Bar of Texas et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1342.
    Allen, dba Willie F. Allen Janitorial Service v. Greenville County.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1358.
    Doran et al. v. Houle et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1392.
    No. 83-1403.
    Logiudice v. Georgia; and Karlovich et al. v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 83-1392, 164 Ga. App. 709, 297 S. E. 2d 499; No. 83-1403, 165 Ga. App. 761, 302 S. E. 2d 396.


text:
    No. 83-1439.
    Henderson v. Katz et al.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1448.
    Seatrain Lines, Inc., et al. v. Carcich et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1453.
    Board of Review of Will County et al. v. Beverly Bank, Trustee, et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1460.
    Harvey v. Carponelli et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1469.
    Schwartz v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1474.
    Harris-Teeter Super Markets, Inc. v. Lilly et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1482.
    Weil v. McClough et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1514.
    Couch v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1524.
    Cordova Gonzalez v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1543.
    Cunningham v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1579.
    Fiumara v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1586.
    Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5899.
    Williams v. Maggio, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6177.
    Guzman et al. v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6190.
    Talley v. United States Postal Service.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6193.
    Gant v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6265.
    Aaron v. Hanrahan et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6308.
    McPeek et al. v. Green et al.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6315.
    Jamison v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6327.
    Martin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6333.
    Melchior v. Jago, Superintendent, London Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6341.
    Deletto v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6345.
    Green v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6355.
    Stevenson v. Alford, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6356.
    Richardson v. Maggio, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6360.
    Gaylor v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6362.
    Rochon v. McManus.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6363.
    Wallace v. Sea Land Service et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6364.
    Jackson v. Pulley, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6367.
    Rothschild v. City of Fort Lauderdale.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6373.
    Belton v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6374.
    Attwell et ux. v. Heritage Bank of Mount Pleasant et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6375.
    Holsey v. Inmate Grievance Commission.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6386.
    Archie v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6396.
    Ward v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6422.
    Price v. Washington Department of Fisheries.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6429.
    Register v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6437.
    Joseph v. Government of the Virgin Islands.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6446.
    Lynk v. Laporte Superior Court et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6471.
    Hayes v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6508.
    Brookins v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1341.
    Western Coal Traffic League et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 83-1444.
    McDermott Inc. et al. v. Exxon Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-1533.
    No. 83-5995.
    No. 83-6334.
    No. 83-6350.
    Tomlin v. Alabama. Williams v. Texas. Putman v. Georgia. McCorquodale v. Balkcom, Warden, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.; and

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 83-1533, 443 So. 2d 59; No. 83-5995, 668 S. W. 2d 692; No. 83-6334, 251 Ga. 605, 308 S. E. 2d 145; No. 83-6350, 721 F. 2d 1493.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 83-833.
    No. 83-958.
    No. 83-994.
    No. 83-5959.
    No. 83-6187.
    Trans-Canada Enterprises, Ltd., et al. v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe et al., Port of Tacoma v. Puyallup Indian Tribe, Mollnow v. Carlton et al., Fahey v. Codo et al., Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells et al.,
   465 U. S. 1049;

465 U. S. 1049;

465 U. S. 1100;

465 U. S. 1033; and

465 U. S. 1107. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 83-949.
    Stepney v. Connecticut,
   465 U. S. 1084. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    April 30, 1984
    No. 83-1089.
    Rack & Ball Club, Inc. v. Korean Presbyterian South Church of New York.
   Appeal from App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d and 11th Jud. Dists., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-5494.
    In re Stephens.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-6337.
    Corrado v. Gifford.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. R. I. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1061.
    Catalytic, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted, the judgment, insofar as it pertains to Samuel Thrach, is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions that the case be remanded to the National Labor Relations Board for further consideration in light of Clear Pine Mouldings, Inc., 268 N. L. R. B. 1044 (1984).


text:
    No. A-707.
    Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Lopez et al.
   Application for stay, presented to Justice Rehnquist, and by him referred to the Court, is denied, insofar as it relates to the claims of respondent class members whose benefits were terminated on or after December 6, 1982, or who completed the administrative appeal process on or after December 6, 1982. As to all other members of the respondent class, the application for stay of judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is granted, pending the timely filing and final disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. A-799.
    Gaunce v. National Transportation Safety Board et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Application for stay of mandate, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-396.
    In re Disbarment of McMorris.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 465 U. S. 1002.]


text:
    No. D-406.
    In re Disbarment of Goldstein.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 465 U. S. 1063.]


text:
    No. D-413.
    In re Disbarment of Goldstein.
   Charles H. Goldstein, of West Islip, N. Y., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on March 19, 1984 [465 U. S. 1096], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-421.
    In re Disbarment of Taylor.
   It is ordered that Lloyd Earl Taylor, of Stapleton, Ala., 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-422.
    In re Disbarment of Harden.
   It is ordered that Claude McEuen Harden, Jr., of Lakeland, Fla., 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-423.
    In re Disbarment of Hedicke.
   It is ordered that Robert Edward Hedicke, of El Paso, Tex., 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-424.
    In re Disbarment of Stewart.
   It is ordered that Bobby R. Stewart, of Houston, Tex., 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-425.
    In re Disbarment of Denend.
   It is ordered that William Leonard Denend, of Port Orchard, Wash., 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-426.
    In re Disbarment of Peckron.
   It is ordered that Harold Stephen Peckron, of Houston, Tex., 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. 9,
    Orig.
    United States v. Louisiana et al.
   Report of the Special Master received and ordered filed. Exceptions to the Report, with supporting briefs, may be filed by the parties within 45 days. Replies thereto, with supporting briefs, may be filed by the parties within 30 days.

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

[For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 464 U. S. 927.]


text:
    No. 83-1032.
    No. 83-1122.
    Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee et al.; and Democratic Party of the United States et al. v. National Conservative Political Action Committee et al.
   D. C. E. D. Pa. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 935.] Motion of appellants in No. 83-1122 for expedited briefing and oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 83-1170.
    United States v. 50 Acres of Land et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1098.] Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 83-1307.
    United States v. Powell.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pawperis granted.


text:
    No. 83-6404.
    In re McDonald.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 82-5920.
    Shea v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-1013.
    No. 83-1373.
    Chemical Manufacturers Assn. et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.; and United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of Chamber of Commerce of the United States for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 719 F. 2d 624.


text:
    No. 83-1427.
    Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections v. Witt.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 82-976.
    California v. Howard.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-6957.
    Walton et al. v. Tennessee.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1047.
    Jefferson v. Marsh, Secretary of the Army, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1074.
    Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction v. Walker.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1169.
    Holloman et al. v. Clark, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1186.
    University of Arkansas Board of Trustees et al. v. Greer et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1235.
    June Oil & Gas, Inc., et al. v. Clark, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1236.
    Grynberg et al. v. Clark, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1259.
    City of Fairmont v. Pitrolo Pontiac-Cadillac Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1284.
    American Hospital Assn. v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1312.
    Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Seven Bar Flying Service, Inc.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1357.
    American Distributing Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1446.
    McMorris v. State Bar of California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1449.
    District 1199C, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, Division of RWDSU, AFL-CIO
      v. Saunders House, aka Old Man’s Home of Philadelphia.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1464.
    West v. National Trust Co.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1473.
    Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., et al. v. DeMilia.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1475.
    Kiraly v. Clark.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1486.
    Radiofone, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1489.
    Johnson et al. v. City of Glencoe et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1491.
    Sikes et al. v. Boone et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1494.
    Montesano v. Donrey Media Group, dba Las Vegas Review Journal, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1497.
    Barrow v. Kansas.
   Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1516.
    C & H Transportation Co., Inc. v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1531.
    Donrey Communications Co., Inc., dba Donrey Outdoor Advertising Co. v. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1542.
    Potts v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1553.
    Flinn v. Virginia et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1582.
    U. S. Industries, Inc. v. Gregg.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1583.
    Graham v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1592.
    Tranowski v. United States Secret Service et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1601.
    Meyer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1609.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1610.
    Gross et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1612.
    Gibson v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5835.
    Steele v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6161.
    Sales v. Marshall, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6216.
    French v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6227.
    Perkins v. Thompson, Governor of Illinois.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6235.
    Parks v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6238.
    Verner v. Colorado.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6313.
    Carswell v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6319.
    Lipscomb v. First Independence National Bank.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6347.
    Hayes v. Peachtree Plaza Hotel et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6366.
    Miller v. Forester.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.