text:
    No. 83-5490.
    Silva v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 83-5493.
    Haynes v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5495.
    Birchfield v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
   Ct. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5497.
    Kish v. Benedek et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5498.
    Smart v. Raup et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5507.
    Wilson v. Dunn, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5510.
    Serio v. Maggio, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5516.
    Turner v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5526.
    Davis v. McKaskle, Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5534.
    Filipas v. Akron General Hospital et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5539.
    Arruda v. Fair, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Correction, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5545.
    Graves v. Stockley, Clerk of Circuit Court of LaSalle County, Illinois.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5548.
    Kendricks v. Mount Sinai Hospital Medical Center of Chicago.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5550.
    Filipas v. Krause, Administrator, Workmen’s Compensation, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5552.
    Taylor v. Curry, Warden.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5559.
    Wald v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Council No. 42, Local 357.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5561.
    Neal v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5562.
    Owens v. Morder.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5564.
    Herships v. MacClaren et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5568.
    Davis v. Clymer, Deputy Superintendent, Camp Hill, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5569.
    Long v. Kirk et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5574.
    Udell v. State Department of Massachusetts et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5576.
    Hensley v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5577.
    Knights v. Wolff, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5582.
    Brown v. Hopper.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5585.
    Odom v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    N.o. 83-5588.
    Polk v. Kramarsky, Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5600.
    Quero v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5618.
    Forsyth v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5619.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5637.
    Rodman v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5639.
    Schafer v. Sharp, United States District Court Judge, Northern District of Indiana.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5640.
    McCrae v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5645.
    Barragan-Cepeda v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5648.
    Corricelli v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5652.
    Conley v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5653.
    Chernack v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5654.
    Crosby v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5669.
    Winpenny v. Montemuro, Administrative Judge of the Philadelphia Domestic Relations Court.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5673.
    Illsley v. United States Parole Commission et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5674.
    McMahon v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5681.
    Goodman v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 82-6729.
    Davis v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari and for other relief denied. 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. 83-113.
    Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections v. Proffitt.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-200.
    McKaskle, Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections v. Tarpley.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Cer-

tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-514.
    Hall v. United States et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-539.
    No. 83-548.
    Arthur Andersen & Co. et al. v. Schacht, Acting Director of Insurance of Illinois and Liquidator of Reserve Insurance Co.; and Brown et al. v. Schacht, Acting Director of Insurance of Illinois and Liquidator of Reserve Insurance Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 83-539 granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 711 F. 2d 1343.


text:
    No. 83-547.
    Ohio-Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Co. et al. v. Sealy, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-583.
    Joyner v. Mofford, Secretary of State of Arizona, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-594.
    Pitts v. GAF Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-5509.
    No. 83-5530.
    No. 83-5533.
    No. 83-5544.
    No. 83-5644.
    Proffitt v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections. Schiro v. Indiana. Laney v. Tennessee. Smith v. Kemp, Superintendent, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center. Antone v. Strickland, Superintendent, Florida State Prison, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Ind.;

Sup. Ct. Tenn.;

C. A. 11th Cir.; and

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 83-5509, 685 F. 2d 1227 and 706 F. 2d 311; No. 83-5530, 451 N. E. 2d 1047; No. 83-5533, 654 S. W. 2d 383; No. 83-5544, 715 F. 2d 1459; No. 83-5644, 706 F. 2d 1534.

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. 82-1390.
    No. 82-1633.
    No. 82-1914.
    No. 82-1947.
    No. 82-2044.
    No. 82-2106.
    No. 82-2125.
    No. 82-2142.
    No. 82-6487.
    No. 82-6785.
    Ashley et al. v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, et al., Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital et al., Falkowski v. Perry et al., Koker et ux. v. Betts et al., Western Food Equipment Co. v. Foss America, Inc., Lampkin v. North American Finance Co., Metropolitan Package Store Assn., Inc., et al. v. Koch, Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Yee v. Yee et al., Gadomski v. United States Steel Corp., Roman v. Briggs et al.,
   ante, p. 900;

ante, p. 904;

ante, p. 819;

ante, p. 803;

ante, p. 825;

ante, p. 828;

ante, p. 802;

ante, p. 829;

461 U. S. 946; and

ante, p. 836. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 82-6822.
    No. 82-6849.
    No. 82-6852.
    No. 82-6872.
    No. 82-6881.
    No. 82-6897.
    No. 82-6898.
    No. 82-6943.
    No. 82-6944.
    No. 82-6973.
    No. 82-6979.
    No. 82-6982.
    No. 82-6990.
    No. 83-34.
    No. 83-99.
    No. 83-148.
    No. 83-152.
    No. 83-155.
    No. 83-156.
    No. 83-157.
    No. 83-167.
    No. 83-178.
    No. 83-187.
    No. 83-192.
    No. 83-267.
    No. 83-5038.
    No. 83-5046.
    No. 83-5051.
    No. 83-5085.
    V. J. S. v. Illinois, Reese v. Alabama, Wilson v. Georgia, Bridges v. Texas, Free v. Illinois, Holcomb v. California et al., Williams v. United States, Engel v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board et al., Engel v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board et al., Lindsey v. Louisiana, LaRette v. Missouri, Narcisse v. Louisiana, Peterson v. Virginia, Stouffer Corp. v. Prudential Insurance Company of America et al., Varkonyi, Individually, and dba Metal Recycling Co. v. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, Johnson v. District School Board of Hernando County, Florida, Karapinka v. Union Carbide Corp. et al., Veenkant v. Gurn et al., Veenkant v. Blake et al.; and Veenkant v. Corsiglia et al., Veenkant v. Wesler et al., Pfister v. American Airlines, Inc., et al., Western Company of North America v. United States, Tsanos et al. v. Division of Administration, Florida Department of Transportation, Bouclin v. United States, Brownfield v. City of Laguna Beach et al., Bruce v. Upper East Tennessee Human Development Agency, Inc., et al., Gaston v. United States, Williams v. North Carolina, Piatkowska v. Vons Foodmarkets,
   ante, p. 837;

ante, p. 838;

ante, p. 865;

ante, p. 838;

ante, p. 865;

ante, p. 840;

ante, p. 840;

ante, p. 841;

ante, p. 841;

ante, p. 908;

ante, p. 908;

ante, p. 865;

ante, p. 865;

ante, p. 846;

ante, p. 849;

ante, p. 851;

ante, p. 892;

ante, p. 851;

ante, p. 874;

ante, p. 851;

ante, p. 874;

ante, p. 892;

ante, p. 852;

ante, p. 852;

ante, p. 894;

ante, p. 854;

ante, p. 854;

ante, p. 865; and

ante, p. 856. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 83-5095.
    No. 83-5147.
    No. 83-5207.
    No. 83-5248.
    No. 83-5279.
    No. 83-5299.
    No. 83-5355.
    No. 83-5366.
    Conner v. Georgia, Graham v. New York, Mulligan v. Arizona, Wheeling v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, Attwell et al. v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority et al., Flores et al. v. Aranguren, Minye v. University of Michigan et al., James v. Louisiana,
   ante, p. 865;

ante, p. 896;

ante, p. 860;

ante, p. 862;

ante, p. 897;

ante, p. 898;

ante, p. 899; and

ante, p. 908. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    December 5,1983
    No. 83-334.
    Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama, et al. v. Brown et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from C. A. 11th Cir.


text:
    No. 83-280.
    Utility Trailer Sales Co. v. Machinists Automotive Trades District Lodge No. 190 of Northern California et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. A-394.
    In re Dawson.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Application for certificate of probable cause to appeal, presented to Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-408.
    Chase Manhattan Bank (National Assn.) v. Sand, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York.
   Application for stay of an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, presented to Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 82-792.
    Grove City College et al. v. Bell, Secretary of Education, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 459 U. S. 1199.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to file a supplemental brief after argument granted.


text:
    No. 82-1330.
    Thigpen, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al. v. Roberts.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 461 U. S. 956.] It appearing that respondent is not represented by a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that Rhesa H. Barksdale, Esquire, of Jackson, Miss., is invited to present oral argument as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below. Oral argument in this case, presently scheduled for January 18, 1984, is postponed and the case of New York v. Uplinger, No. 82-1724 [certiorari granted, ante, p. 812], is set for oral argument in its stead.


text:
    No. 82-1577.
    Michigan Canners & Freezers Assn., Inc., et al. v. Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Board et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 912.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 83-240.
    No. 83-592.
    No. 83-610.
    No. 83-640.
    Lawrence County et al. v. Lead-Deadwood School District No. 40-1. Ostrosky et al. v. Alaska. Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe et al. Texas v. KVUE-TV, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. S. D.;

Sup. Ct. Alaska;

C. A. 9th Cir.; and

C. A. 5th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 83-455.
    Meachum, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, et al. v. Battle et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied.-


text:
    No. 83-5634.
    In re Brown.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 83-576.
    No. 83-5589.
    No. 83-5590.
    In re American Broadcasting Cos., Inc.; In re Griffith; and In re Canion.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 83-276.
    Selective Service System et al. v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Minn. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 83-630.
    Bernal v. Fainter, Secretary of State of Texas, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-218.
    Reed et al. v. Ross.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-620.
    United States v. Rodgers.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


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. Motion of National School Boards Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Cer-tiorari granted.


text:
    No. 82-979.
    Federal Labor Relations Authority v. United States Department of Agriculture et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1021.
    Federal Labor Relations Authority v. Division of Military and Naval Affairs of the State of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1970.
    Federal Labor Relations Authority v. Florida National Guard et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-7030.
    Newman v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-4.
    Porter v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-124.
    Fusaro v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-256.
    No. 83-5108.
    Williams v. United States; and Feinberg v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 705 F. 2d 603.


text:
    No. 83-286.
    Killough v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-293.
    Conway et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-378.
    Big Spring Independent School District et al. v. Griffen.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-379.
    Estate of Gryder et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-399.
    Loveday et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-400.
    J. H. Rutter Rex Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-415.
    Hiller v. Alaska.
   Super. Ct. Alaska, 3d Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-427.
    Hall v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-495.
    Carroll v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-523.
    Cuyahoga Valley Homeowners & Residents Assn. et al. v. Secretary of the Interior et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-563.
    Henry S. Branscome, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-587.
    Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Bennett et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-590.
    Baxter v. Indiana.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-591.
    Dalton et al. v. R. W. T. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-597.
    Dallas County Commissioners Court et al. v. Richardson et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-603.
    Kirks v. Kirks.
   Super. Ct. N. C., Wake County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-611.
    Schaefer v. Stone, Trustee.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., County of San Diego. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-612.
    Haynes v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-635.
    Veenkant v. Cook et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-639.
    Belnap v. Chang, Director, Department of Social Services and Housing of Hawaii, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-652.
    Peterson v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-653.
    Leatherby Insurance Co., aka Western Employers Insurance Co. v. Merit Insurance Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-682.
    Harris v. City of Norfolk, Virginia, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-709.
    Walton v. Small Business Administration.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-742.
    Bradshaw v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-744.
    Fuentes v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-764.
    Rivera v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5021.
    Davis v. McKaskle, Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5308.
    Salkil v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Southern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5311.
    Noggle v. Marshall, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5336.
    Correa-De Jesus v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5351.
    Quinn v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5368.
    Odom v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5371.
    Stanley v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5376.
    Marshall v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5411.
    Banks v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5413.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5453.
    Cardillo v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5502.
    Feliciano v. Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5513.
    Stinson v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5571.
    Tolk v. Weinsten et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5572.
    McMillan v. Hester et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5578.
    Harris v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5583.
    Ashworth v. Los Angeles County, California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5591.
    Mitchell v. Nocera et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5593.
    Johnson v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5594.
    Johnson v. Henry.
   App. Sess., Super. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5597.
    Spradlin et al. v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5599.
    Medina-Reyes v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5605.
    Cutts v. Wyrick, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5607.
    King v. McEvers et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5617.
    Smith-Bey v. Sabo, Judge, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5624.
    Morvay v. Maghielse Tool & Die Co., Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5642.
    Marks v. United States Postal Service.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5647.
    Greathouse v. Marshall, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5658.
    Hampton v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5661.
    Rhodes v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5666.
    Srubar et ux. v. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5685.
    LeMaire v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5688.
    McDaniel v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5708.
    Rojas v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5709.
    Pruitt v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5710.
    Towns v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-438.
    Henderson v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Cer-tiorari 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. 83-572.
    Baldwin et al. v. City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-586.
    Shell Petroleum N.V. v. Franchetti et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of Belgium et al. and Unitary Tax Campaign Limited for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-617.
    Wachsman et al. v. City of Dallas et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 83-629.
    Hasbro Industries, Inc., et al. v. A/S Garonne-Glittre et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-5260.
    Washington v. New York City Board of Estimate.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 83-5273.
    Delegal v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No.-.
    No. 82-1718.
    No. 82-6865.
    No. 83-302.
    No. 83-311.
    P Stone, Inc. v. Koppers Co., Inc., et al., Randall Book Corp. v. Maryland, Muhammad v. Florida, Avedisian v. May et al., Strassner v. Strassner,
   ante, p. 879;

ante, p. 919;

ante, p. 865;

ante, p. 909; and

ante, p. 936.

Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    December 12, 1983
    No. 83-737.
    No. 83-738.
    California et al. v. United States et al.; and New York State Department of Public Service v. United States et al.
   Affirmed on appeals from D. C. D. C. Reported below: 569 F. Supp. 1057.


text:
    No. 82-1848.
    Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Washington Department of Revenue.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Wash, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-655.
    Crowder v. Texas.
   Appeal from Ct. Crim. App. Tex. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-662.
    Gaines v. Merchants National Bank & Trust Co.
   Appeal from C. A. 7th 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. 88-5620.
    Dean v. United States.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ga. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 82-1711.
    Colorado v. Quintero.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. [Cer-tiorari granted, 463 U. S. 1206.] Motion of petitioner to proceed with oral argument and decision denied. The writ of certiorari is dismissed, it appearing that respondent died on November 27, 1983.


text:
    No. D-389.
    In re Disbarment of Cohen.
   It is ordered that Ray Jeffrey Cohen, of Chicago, 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-390.
    In re Disbarment of Nagel.
   It is ordered that Edward A. Nagel, of Maitland, 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. 82-1295.
    Escambia County, Florida, et al. v. McMillan et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 460 U. S. 1080.] Further consideration of the notice of substitution of party appellants and motion of certain appellants to dismiss the appeal is deferred to hearing of the case on the merits on January 10, 1984.


text:
    No. 82-1474.
    Hoover et al. v. Ronwin et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 461 U. S. 926.] Motion of respondent Ronwin for reconsideration of order granting divided argument [ante, p. 989] denied.

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


text:
    No. 82-1565.
    Bacchus Imports, Ltd., et al. v. Freitas, Director of Taxation of Hawaii, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 462 U. S. 1130.] Motion of appellee George Freitas, Director of Taxation of the State of Hawaii, to dismiss the appeal or remand the case denied.

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


text:
    No. 82-1579.
    Hayfield Northern Railroad Co., Inc., et al. v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 812.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 82-1724.
    New York v. Uplinger et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 812.] Motion of respondent Butler for divided argument denied.

Justice Marshall would grant this motion.


text:
    No. 82-1766.
    Securities Industry Assn. et al. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 812.] Motion of petitioners for divided argument denied.

Justice Marshall would grant this motion.


text:
    No. 82-1771.
    United States v. Leon et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 463 U. S. 1206.] Motion of respondents Sanchez et al. for modification of order granting divided argument [ante, p. 889] denied.


text:
    No. 82-1795.
    Capital Cities Cable, Inc., et al. v. Crisp, Director, Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 813.] Motion of petitioners for divided argument denied. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 82-1860.
    No. 82-1862.
    Schneider Moving & Storage Co. v. Robbins et al.; and Prosser’s Moving & Storage Co. v. Robbins et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 813.] Motion of petitioners in No. 82-1860 for divided argument granted. Motion of petitioners in No. 82-1862 for divided argument granted. Requests for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 82-1998.
    Clark, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Community for Creative Non-Violence et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted sub nom. Watt v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, ante, p. 812.] Motion of respondents for leave to file supplemental joint appendix not in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33 denied.

Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens would grant this motion.


text:
    No. 82-6956.
    Cross v. Secretary of State,
   ante, p. 928. Motion of appellant for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed informa pauperis denied.


text:
    No. 83-623.
    James et al. v. Clark, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5040.
    Eno et al. v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development et al.,
   ante, p. 928. Motion of petitioners for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed informa pauperis denied.


text:
    No. 83-5611.
    Windsor v. The Tennessean et al.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until January 3, 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, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in Brown v. Herald Co., ante, p. 928, we would deny the petition for certiorari in this case without reaching the merits of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.


text:
    No. 83-5601.
    In re Williams.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 83-297.
    Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, Tax Commissioner of West Virginia.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 83-490.
    Davis et al. v. Scherer.
   Appeal from C. A. 11th Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 82-2140.
    Hobby v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 3 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 83-328.
    Mabry, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correction v. Johnson.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 82-7014.
    Thompson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-295.
    Costa v. Markey et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-320.
    Anderson County, Tennessee, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-359.
    Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe v. Clark, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-484.
    No. 83-485.
    Slevin et al. v. City of New York et al.; and Barry et al. v. City of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 712 F. 2d 1554.


text:
    No. 83-588.
    Berger v. McMonagle, Judge, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-647.
    Lui Su Nai-Chao, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lui Cho-Pon, et al. v. Boeing Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-657.
    Unger v. Consolidated Foods Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-660.
    Keasler v. Granat.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-666.
    Herring v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-668.
    Pace v. Southern Railway Co.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-670.
    Gunter v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-675.
    Mitlo v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-784.
    Buffalo Forge Co. et al. v. Ogden Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-792.
    Caldevilla v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-800.
    Cicconi v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-813.
    Allen et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5306.
    Finch v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5332.
    Williamson v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5410.
    Mills v. County of Monroe.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5420.
    Ingraham v. McCarthy et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5465.
    Kincaid v. Eberle.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5540.
    Evans v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5543.
    Gentsch v. Lowe, Clerk, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5604.
    Johnson v. Tennessee Department of Employment Security et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5608.
    Beadle v. McKaskle, Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5610.
    Payne v. Janasz, Chief Probation Officer, Cuyahoga County.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5616.
    Igoe v. Jones, dba G & L Investments, Inc.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5627.
    Brown v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5628.
    Chylicka et al. v. United States Catholic Conference “Caritas” et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5633.
    Brown v. Rice et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5638.
    Skaggs et al. v. Crawford County, Ohio, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5649.
    Chavez v. Bernalillo County District Court.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5668.
    Neal v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5683.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5693.
    Miller et al. v. Union State Bank.
   Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5704.
    Esgate v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5726.
    VanDyke v. Wawrzaszek, Administrator, Arizona State Prison.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5727.
    Williams v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5741.
    Lewis v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5754.
    Piscanio v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5758.
    Forbes v. American Telephone & Telegraph et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-473 (A-220).
    Orofino v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Application for bail and/or stay, addressed to Justice White and referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-624.
    Mashpee Tribe et al. v. Clark, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of Center for Constitutional Rights et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 83-5106.
    Fields v. Wyrick, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Last Term, this Court summarily reversed a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which ruled that petitioner’s 1975 Missouri rape conviction was based on an involuntary statement taken in violation of petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights. Wyrick v. Fields, 459 U. S. 42 (1982), rev’g 682 F. 2d 154. I dissented from that summary reversal because I do not believe this Court should decide unsettled questions of constitutional law without plenary review. 459 U. S., at 50. In my dissent, I noted that, even if petitioner’s statement were voluntary under the Fifth Amendment, the interrogation that produced petitioner’s statement might nevertheless have violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Id., at 52-55. On remand, the Eighth Circuit considered this issue and concluded that petitioner had knowingly and intelligently waived his Sixth Amendment right to have counsel present during the interrogation. 706 F. 2d 879 (1983). Because I disagree with the manner in which the Eighth Circuit analyzed petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claim, I would grant certiorari and set the case for oral argument.

Petitioner, a soldier undergoing basic training in Missouri, was charged with rape. After consulting with counsel, petitioner told his company commander that he wanted to take a polygraph test. Petitioner was under the impression that if he “passed” a polygraph test, the charges against him would be dropped, and he would be permitted to graduate from basic training on schedule. 682 F. 2d, at 160, n. 10. Petitioner’s counsel shared this impression and later testified that he thought “‘the polygraph would have merely shown deceit or non-deceit and would have been used for the purposes of a possible pretrial negotiation.’” Id., at 160. Accordingly petitioner’s counsel advised him to take the test.'

Days later when the test was given, petitioner’s counsel was not notified. The military officer in charge of the examination simply informed petitioner of his rights to refuse to answer any questions or to have counsel present, and petitioner signed a document waiving those rights. See State v. Fields, 538 S. W. 2d 348 (Mo. App. 1976). Throughout the polygraph examination, petitioner professed his innocence. After the examination was over, however, the officer administering the test informed petitioner that the machine revealed “some deceit” and asked petitioner for an explanation. The officer did not tell petitioner that the results of polygraph tests were inadmissible in Missouri courts, nor did the officer remind petitioner of his right to have counsel present during this postexamination interrogation. Petitioner then said that he had had consensual sexual relations with the rape victim on the day of the alleged rape. The officer immediately summoned the local Chief of Police. After receiving a Miranda warning from the Police Chief, petitioner repeated his statement. At trial, this statement was the heart of the State’s successful prosecution.

On remand from this Court’s previous decision, the Eighth Circuit acknowledged the difference between the policies underlying the Fifth Amendment right to counsel and those informing the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, but asserted that “where the Defendant had previously invoked his right to counsel, it is relatively clear that the validity of any subsequent waiver of either the fifth or sixth amendment right to counsel is judged by essentially the same standard.” 706 F. 2d, at 881 (emphasis in original). Relying on this Court’s finding that petitioner’s preexamination waiver of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel covered his postexamination interrogation, the Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner had simultaneously waived any Sixth Amendment right to counsel during the interrogation. Ibid.

As I discussed in my dissent last year, a number of courts have come to accept the view that waivers based solely on unembel-lished Miranda warnings do not necessarily satisfy “‘the higher standard with respect to waiver of the right to counsel that applies when the Sixth Amendment [right to counsel] has attached.’ ” 459 U. S., at 55 (quoting United States v. Massimo, 432 F. 2d 324, 327 (CA2 1970) (Friendly, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 1022 (1971); see, e. g., United States v. Mohabir, 624 F. 2d 1140, 1151 (CA2 1980) (Government must show defendant “understood the nature and the importance of the Sixth Amendment right he was giving up”). But see Blasingame v. Estelle, 604 F. 2d 893 (CA5 1979); Moore v. Wolff, 495 F. 2d 35 (CA8 1974). In our own opinions, we have strongly intimated that waivers of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel should be measured by a stricter standard. See United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264, 272-273 (1980); Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, 404 (1977); Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806, 835 (1975).

While acknowledging this widely held view of the Sixth Amendment waiver, the Eighth Circuit determined that the higher standard of Sixth Amendment waiver applies only until a defendant has obtained counsel. The Court of Appeals provided no explanation of why the Sixth Amendment waiver standard should decline once counsel is appointed, and I can see no justification in law or in practice for its ruling. Certainly, the mere appointment of counsel does not significantly affect a criminal defendant’s capacity to make an informed choice about waiving the right to counsel. One or two conferences with counsel rarely make a criminal defendant more sophisticated about the importance of obtaining legal advice during the skirmishing antecedent to a criminal prosecution.

In my view, the Eighth Circuit erred in ruling that a criminal defendant waives his Sixth Amendment right to counsel simply by answering questions after being given a Miranda warning. Had the Eighth Circuit applied the higher standard of Sixth Amendment waiver endorsed by the Second Circuit in United States v. Mohabir, supra, at 1150, there is a substantial probability that the government would not have been able to show petitioner’s implied waiver to be a valid relinquishment based on a full comprehension of the consequences. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938). Since the Eighth Circuit’s decision is inconsistent with the views of several other Circuits and since this inconsistency may have been dispositive in petitioner’s case, I would grant the petition.

       Though not identical, the document followed closely the Fifth Amendment waiver form endorsed by this Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966).

       See also Note, Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel: Standards for Knowing and Intelligent Pretrial Waivers, 60 B. U. L. Rev. 738 (1980); Note, Proposed Requirements for Waiver of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, 82 Colum. L. Rev. 363, 365-370 (1982).

       Indeed, the Seventh Circuit has concluded that “there is a higher standard imposed to show waiver of the presence of counsel once counsel has been appointed.” United States v. Springer, 460 F. 2d 1344, 1362, cert. denied, 409 U. S. 873 (1972); see also United States v. Patman, 557 F. 2d 1181, 1182, n. 1 (CA6 1977).


text:
    No. 83-5547.
    Adams v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is under all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, I would vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina insofar as it left undisturbed the death sentence imposed in this case. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting). However, even if I believed that the death penalty could be imposed constitutionally under certain circumstances, I nevertheless would grant certiorari because this petition presents an important issue of federal constitutional law, upon which State Supreme Courts and a Federc Court of Appeals are divided.

At petitioner’s trial, the judge made the following comments o the reasonable-doubt standard:

“If upon the whole case you have a reasonable doubt as to th guilt of the defendant, he’s entitled to that doubt and woul be entitled to an acquittal. ... Now I do not mean, ladi< and gentlemen, by the term reasonable doubt that it is sort whimsical o[r] imaginary doubt. It is not a weak doubt, it not a slight doubt. It is a substantial doubt, a doubt f< which you give a reason. It is a substantial doubt arising o of the testimony or lack of testimony in the case for which person honestly seeking to find the truth can give a reaso If you have such a doubt in your mind as to whether the Sta has proven this defendant guilty, you should resolve th doubt in his favor and write a verdict of not guilty and acqi him.
“. . . I would tell you that the two phrases reasonable doi and proof to a moral certainty are synonymous and the le| equivalent of each other. These phrases connote, however degree of proof distinguished from an absolute certain The reasonable doubt that the law gives the accused is no weak or a slight doubt, but a strong and well-founded doi as to the truth of the charge.”

These instructions guided the jury when it found petitioner gui of murder and again at the sentencing hearing when it found yond a reasonable doubt the existence of two statutory aggra\ ing circumstances.

Petitioner objected to the reasonable-doubt instruction at t: and sought to challenge its constitutionality on appeal to South Carolina Supreme Court. Having recently upheld sim easonable-doubt instructions in capital cases, see, e. g., State v. Copeland, 278 S. C. 572, 300 S. E. 2d 63 (1982); State v. Butler, 77 S. C. 452, 290 S. E. 2d 1, cert. denied, 455 U. S. 945 (1982), ¡he South Carolina Supreme Court denied petitioner an opportuity to brief or argue the issue, and the court’s decision affirming etitioner’s convictions and death sentence summarily disposed of etitioner’s challenge to the trial court’s reasonable-doubt instruc-on. 279 S. C. 228, 306 S. E. 2d 208 (1983).

Last Term, in Butler v. South Carolina, 459 U. S. 932 (1982) lissenting from denial of certioriari), I outlined my objections to hat apparently has become the standard instruction on reason-)le doubt in South Carolina. I continue to believe that trial rnrts err when they instruct juries that a reasonable doubt eans “a substantial doubt” or “a strong and well-founded doubt” • “a doubt for which you give a reason.” The Fourteenth Amend-ent requires prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt ery element of a crime. In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970). hen a criminal defendant is convicted by proof beyond a strong substantial doubt, that defendant has not been afforded the full otections of the Federal Constitution. Moreover, when a jury told that a reasonable doubt is a doubt that can be articulated, e prosecutor’s burden of proof is unconstitutionally eased.

For substantially these reasons, the First Circuit struck down a isonable-doubt instruction virtually identical to the one given by 3 trial court in this case. Dunn v. Perrin, 570 F. 2d 21, cert. denied, 437 U. S. 910 (1978); see also United States v. Flannery, L F. 2d 880, 883 (CA1 1971). The First Circuit noted:

“Th[e] definition of reasonable doubt was the exact inverse of what it should have been. . . . Instead of requiring the government to prove guilt, it called upon petitioners to establish doubt in the jurors’ minds. That is an inescapable violation of In re Winship . . . .” 570 F. 2d, at 24 (footnote and citations omitted).

Though reviewing a state conviction on collateral review, the Dunn panel concluded that the defect in the trial court’s instruction was of sufficient magnitude to warrant a retrial. Id., at 25.

The First Circuit’s analysis of the reasonable-doubt instructions in Dunn directly conflicts with rulings of the South Carolina Supreme Court applied in this case as well as recent decisions of several other State Supreme Courts. Since this conflict is the culmination of chronic disagreement over the correct definition of reasonable doubt,1 find this petition an appropriate candidate for review. See this Court’s Rule 17.1(b).

I would grant the petition.

       The State argues that petitioner waived his right to object to reasonable-doubt instruction because, following petitioner’s initial objecl the trial court issued a supplementary instruction to which petitioner faile file a second objection. I discount this argument because South Carolina < not strictly enforce its contemporaneous-objection rule to assignment of 1 error in capital cases. See State v. Adams, 277 S. C. 115, 288 S. E. 2d (1981). Indeed, the court in this case ignored petitioner’s failure to obje the trial court’s supplementary instruction, and dealt with the claim or cits. Under these circumstances, I see no barrier to reviewing South •olina’s disposition of this federal issue.

       The instruction at issue in Dunn read as follows:
      The term reasonable doubt, as I use it, means just what those words ordi-ily imply. It is a doubt which is reasonable and excludes a doubt which is easonable. It is such a doubt as for the existence of which a reasonable son can give or suggest a good and sufficient reason. It does not mean a ial or a frivolous or a fanciful doubt nor one which can be readily or easily lained away, but rather such a strong and abiding conviction as still re-ns after careful consideration of all the facts and arguments against it and Id cause a fair-minded person to refrain from acting in regard to some saction of importance and seriousness equal to this case.” 570 F. 2d, at a. 1.
      .ough the trial court in Dunn, unlike the court at petitioner’s trial, likened onable doubt to the degree of uncertainty that would cause a prudent person to hesitate before making an important personal decision, the First Circuit made clear in its decision that the constitutionally defective portion of the Dunn instruction was the equation of a reasonable doubt to a substantial and articulable doubt. Id., at 24-25. In these two respects, the Dunn instruction and the instruction given at petitioner’s trial are identical. As the instruction in petitioner’s case equated reasonable doubt with “a strong and well-founded doubt,” the trial court in Dunn defined reasonable doubt to be “a strong and abiding conviction.”. Where petitioner’s instruction likened a reasonable doubt to “a doubt for which you can give a reason,” the Dunn instruction referred to a reasonable doubt as a “doubt as for the existence of which a reasonable person can give or suggest a good and sufficient reason.”

       See, e. g., State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 169-171 434 A. 2d 356, 367-368 (1980); Stirparo v. State, 287 A. 2d 394 (Del. 1972); State v. Osbey, 213 Kan. 564, 571-573, 517 P. 2d 141, 148 (1973); State v. Davis, 482 S. W. 2d 486, 489 (Mo. 1972).

       Throughout this century, both federal and state courts have criticized reasonable-doubt instructions similar to the South Carolina charge given in this case. See, e. g., Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U. S. 478, 488 (1978); Pettine v. Territory of New Mexico, 201 F. 489, 495-497 (CA8 1912); Laird v. State, 251 Ark. 1074, 476 S. W. 2d 811, 813 (1972); State v. Davis, supra, at 490 (Seiler, J., concurring); Frazier v. State, 117 Tenn. 430, 459-467, 100 S. W. 94, 102-103 (1907); Owens v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 689, 704-706, 43 S. E. 2d 895, 902 (1947); State v. McDonald, 89 Wash. 2d 256, 273-274, 571 P. 2d 930, 940 (1977).


text:
    No. 83-5833.
    Weber v. Stony Brook Hospital et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Motion of petitioner to expedite consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5902 (A-450).
    Williams v. King, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the application for stay.

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. 82-2116.
    No. 83-5026.
    No. 83-5104.
    No. 83-5369.
    No. 83-5375.
    No. 83-5481.
    Dalgety Foods, Inc. v. Avina, Jackson v. Butterworth, Sheriff of Broward County, Florida, Torpy v. United States, Donnell v. Freeman et al., Chapman v. Bank of the Commonwealth et al., Castro v. Federal Deposit Isurance Corporation, Receiver for Banco Credito y Ahorro Ponceno, et al.,
   ante, p. 801;

ante, p. 916;

ante, p. 856;

ante, p. 941;

ante, p. 923; and ante, p. 964. Petitions for rehearing denied.


author: rsTiCE Powell,

text:
    December 13, 1983
    No. A-455.
    Stephens v. Kemp, Superintendent, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center.
   Application for stay :ecution of sentence of death set for Wednesday, December .983, presented to Justice Powell, and by him referred to 3ourt, is granted pending the decision of the United States •t of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Spencer v. Zant, 715 1562 (1983), rehearing en banc granted, id,., at 1583, or until íer order of this Court.

rsTiCE Powell,

with whom The Chief Justice, Justice :nquist, and Justice O’Connor join,

dissenting,

lis is another capital case in the now familiar process in which pplication for a stay is filed here -within the shadow of the date time set for execution.

s summarized by the Court of Appeals the relevant facts are:

“After escaping from county jail, petitioner was interrupted committing a burglary in Twiggs County by his victim whom he and an accomplice robbed, kidnapped, drove into Bleckley County and brutally killed; he was caught the next morning with the murder weapon in his possession. . . . [H]e confessed and pleaded guilty in Twiggs County to armed robbery, kidnapping with bodily injury, and the theft of a motor vehicle_” 721 F. 2d 1300, 1304 (CA11 1983).

ury convicted applicant of murder and sentenced him to death early 1975. In the nearly nine years that since have tran-ced, Stephens has repetitively moved between state and federal rts in pursuing postconviction remedies. His direct and eollat-1 attacks have taken his case through the state court system ee times and through the federal system twice. This Court , considered Stephens’ case four times excluding his present iceedings. See Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862 (1983); Sterns v. Zant, 454 U. S. 1035 (1981); Stephens v. Hopper, 439 U. S. 991 (1978); Stephens v. Georgia, 429 U. S. 986 (1976).

The case before us today commenced with the filing of a federal Deas petition on November 15, 1983, in the United States Dis-ct Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The State an-ered the petition and pleaded that Stephens’ petition for a writ habeas corpus was an abuse of the writ. On November 16, 33, the District Court held a hearing on the abuse question and e days later, on November 21, 1983, the District Court denied ief. 578 F. Supp. 103. It filed a full opinion in which it con-ided that “the claims raised by petitioner in his successive peti->n under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 constitute an abuse of the writ under Rule 9(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the Ur States District Courts,[] and are hereby DISMISSED in their tirety.” Id., at 108. On December 9, 1983, a panel of the C of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considered Stephens’ er gency application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal a stay of execution. Also in a full opinion, the panel found the District Court had not erred in finding an abuse of the v 721 F. 2d 1300 (1983).

Today, the Court of Appeals denied Stephens’ request for a hearing en banc by an evenly divided vote. 722 F. 2d 627. six judges who dissented from the denial of rehearing filed a b opinion expressing the view that Stephens had presented a cl that warranted a stay of his execution. The dissent reasoned 1 Stephens’ claim that the Georgia death penalty statute is being plied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner is identical to issue in Spencer v. Zant, 715 F. 2d 1562 (CA11 1983). The C( of Appeals — apparently also today — granted a rehearing en b in Spencer and the dissent argued that Stephens should rece like treatment. It was suggested that Stephens had not abu the writ with respect to this issue because the statistical study which he bases his claim did not become available until after had filed his first federal habeas petition. The fact that 6 of 12 active judges of the Court of Appeals wished to defer action Stephens’ case prompted this Court to grant Stephens’ request a stay. I dissent from this action.

The Court and the judges in dissent in the Court of Appeals ; parently misconstrue, as I view it, the posture of this case. 1 should now be concerned, as was the panel of the Court of I peals, with whether the District Court erred in its finding tl Stephens is guilty of having abused the writ of habeas corpus. Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1 (1963), this Court observ that the “abuse of the writ” doctrine should be governed by “t uitable principles.” Id., at 17. The Court noted that considc ation of abuse normally is left to the “discretion of federal tr judges. Theirs is the major responsibility for the just and sound administration of the federal collateral remedies, and theirs must be the judgment as to whether a second or successive application shall be denied without consideration of the merits.” Id., at 18.

In determining whether the District Court properly exercised its discretion in finding an abuse we should look not to the merits of a petitioner’s claims but to the petitioner’s reasons for not having raised the claims in his first habeas proceeding. As the Court of Appeals noted, “[t]here is no disagreement among the parties as to the standard applicable to second and subsequent petitions for habeas corpus which present wholly new issues. In order to constitute abuse, presentation of such issues must result from (1) the intentional withholding or intentional abandonment of those issues on the initial petition or (2) inexcusable neglect.” 721 F. 2d, at 1303. Under this analysis, it is clear that the District Court properly dismissed Stephens’ claim of discriminatory application of the Georgia death penalty without holding an evidentiary hearing on the merits of that claim.

Apparently Stephens concedes that the equal protection issue is being raised for the first time, but he alleges that a 1980 study by a Dr. David Baldus supports the claim that Georgia’s death penalty statute is discriminatorily administered against black citizens. As his excuse for not having raised this issue in his first habeas petition, Stephens states that the study was not made available to the public until 1982.

Stephens’ argument sidesteps the crucial issue. The State having alleged that he had abused the writ, the burden rests on Stephens to explain why he did not raise the constitutionality of the application of the death penalty statute in his earlier petition. See Stephens v. Zant, 631 F. 2d 397 (CA5 1980), modified on rehearing, 648 F. 2d 446 (1981). He did not satisfy this burden in the District Court, in the Court of Appeals, or here. Although it is possible that Stephens did not know about the Baldus study even though it was published in 1982, this does not explain his failure to raise his equal protection claim at all. The availability of such a claim is illustrated by the procedural history in Spencer v. Zant, supra. In Spencer, the defendant raised this constitutional challenge to the application of the Georgia death penalty statute in 1978 in his state habeas proceeding and pursued that claim in his first federal habeas petition. Id., at 1579. See also Ross v. Hopper, 538 F. Supp. 105, 107 (SD Ga. 1982), rev’d and remanded, 716 F. 2d 1528 (CA11 1983).

Stephens simply failed to explain his failure to raise his claim in his first federal habeas petition, and therefore his case comes squarely within Rule 9(b). In addition, Stephens made no factual showing to the District Court that the statistics contained in the Baldus study supported his allegation of particularized discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty in Georgia.

This Court has now stayed Stephens’ execution until the Court of Appeals has decided Spencer. In my view, for the reasons noted below, I am satisified that the Court will conclude that Spencer — however it may come out — will not control this case. It should be apparent from the decisions of this Court since Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976), was decided that claims based merely on general statistics are likely to have little or no merit under statutes such as that in Georgia.

That Stephens is innocent of the brutal, execution-style murder, after kidnaping and robbing his victim, is not seriously argued. This is a contest over the application of capital punishment — a punishment repeatedly declared to be constitutional by this Court. In the nearly nine years of repetitive litigation by state and federal courts there has been no suggestion that the death sentence would not be appropriate in this case. Indeed, if on the facts here it was not appropriate, it is not easy to think of a case in which it would be so viewed. Once again, as I indicated at the outset, a typically “last minute” flurry of activity is resulting in additional delay of the imposition of a sentence imposed almost a decade ago. This sort of procedure undermines public confidence in the courts and in the laws we are required to follow.

In conclusion, I reiterate what the Court said in the concluding paragraph in our recent per curiam in Sullivan v. Wainwright, ante, at 112: We recognize, of course, as do state and other federal courts, that the death sentence is qualitatively different from all other sentences, and therefore special care is exercised in judicial review. In this case, it is perfectly clear to me that this care has been exercised in abundance. Accordingly, I would deny the application for a stay.

       Rule 9(b) provides:
      “Successive petitions. A second or successive petition may be dismissed the judge finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief a the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grounds a alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the petitioner to assert tho grounds in a prior petition constituted an abuse of the writ.”

       The Baldus study, relied upon by Stephens, has not been presented to us. It was made in 1980 and apparently has been available at least since 1982. Although characterized by the judges of the Court of Appeals who dissented from the denial of hearing en banc as a “particularized statistical study” claimed to show “intentional race discrimination,” no one has suggested that the study focused on this case. A “particularized” showing would require — as I understand it — that there was intentional race discrimination in indicting, trying, and convicting Stephens, and presumably in the state appellate and state collateral review that several times followed the trial. If the Baldus study is similar to the several studies filed with us in Sullivan v. Wainwright, ante, p. 109, the statistics in studies of this kind, many of which date as far back as 1948, are merely general statistical surveys that are hardly particularized with respect to any alleged “intentional” racial discrimination. Surely, no contention can be made that the entire Georgia judicial system, at all levels, operates to discriminate in all cases. Arguments to this effect may have been directed to the type of statutes addressed in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972). As our subsequent cases make clear, such arguments cannot be taken seriously under statutes approved in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976).

       With all respect, I disagree with the judges on the Court of Appeals who say that this case presents the “identical issue” to be considered in Spencer. That ease is readily distinguishable. As noted above, the discriminatory application of capital punishment — the equal protection issue — was raised in the first habeas petition in Spencer, and has been pressed at all subsequent stages. In this case, it was not raised until last month. In a fundamental sense, therefore, there could have been no abuse of writ issue in Spencer. There are other distinguishing factors, but these need not be stated here.


text:
    December 14, 1983
    No. 83-836.
    Glassey v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


author:
Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,
      Justice Stevens,

text:
    No. 83-5544 (A-461).
    Smith v. Kemp, Superintendent, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center,
   ante, p. 1003. Petition for rehearing denied. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death pending disposition of a petition for rehearing, presented to Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, 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 the application for stay of execution, grant the petition for rehearing, and vacate the death sentence in this case.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

In my opinion all executions in Georgia should be postponed until the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit renders its en banc decision in Spencer v. Zant, 715 F. 2d 1562 (1983). See Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1, 15-17 (1963). The “ends of justice would not be served” by the execution of this petitioner while the Court of Appeals is deciding the merits of the claim he asserts. I therefore would grant the stay application.


text:
    January 4, 1984
    No. 83-704.
    Franklin Computer Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    January 6, 1984
    No. 82-2042.
    Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Vaughn et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 913.] Writ of certiorari dismissed as to respondent Marion Gee under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    January 9, 1984
    No. 83-524.
    Wynmoor Limited Partnership et al. v. Coconut Creek Cable T.V., Inc., et al.
   Appeal from Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-694.
    Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance of California (California et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Cal. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-715.
    Rio Vista Non-Profit Housing Corp. v. County of Ramsey.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-5517.
    Blatchford v. Winans, Warden.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. M. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No.-.
    Davis v. United States et al.
   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-377.
    Meadows v. Redman.
   Application for bail, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-485.
    Scioto Trails Co. et al. v. Ohio Department of Liquor Control et al.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Application for continuation of stay, addressed to Justice Stevens and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-486.
    Webb v. Hutto.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-490 (83-5958).
    Keefe, as Guardian ad Litem and Next Friend of Three Juveniles v. Massachusetts.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Blackmun and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-369.
    In re Disbarment of Cantagallo.
   Phillip John Cantagallo, of Ashtabula, Ohio, 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 October 17, 1983 [ante, p. 911], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. 96,
    Orig.
    Puerto Rico v. Iowa.
   Motion for leave to file bill of complaint denied.


text:
    No. 82-963.
    Massachusetts v. Sheppard.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. [Certiorari granted, 463 U. S. 1205.] Motion of respondent to strike the brief of Illinois State Bar Association as amicus curiae denied.


text:
    No. 82-1608.
    South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. LeResche, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources of Alaska, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 890.] Motion of Pacific Rim Trade Association et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 82-1724.
    New York v. Uplinger et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 812.] Motions for leave to file briefs as amici curiae by the following were granted: American Psychological Association et al., Center for Constitutional Rights et al., American Civil Liberties Union et al., Committees on Sex and Law et al. of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, American Association for Personal Privacy et al., Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., and National Association of Business Councils et al.


text:
    No. 82-1734.
    Palmore v. Sidoti.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 913.] Motion of Leigh Earls et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 82-1913.
    No. 82-1951.
    Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority et al.; and Donovan, Secretary of Labor v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority et al.
   D. C. W. D. Tex. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 812.] Motion of ap-pellees for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 83-128.
    United States v. Gouveia et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 913.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Joseph F. Walsh, Esquire, of Los Angeles, Cal., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent Robert Ramirez in this case. Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Joel Levine, Esquire, of Los Angeles, Cal., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent Philip Segura in this case. Motion of respondent William Gouveia for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Michael J. Treman, Esquire, of Santa Barbara, Cal., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent William Gouveia in this case. Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Charles P. Diamond, Esquire, of Los Angeles, Cal, be appointed to serve as counsel for respondents Robert E. Mills and Richard Raymond Pierce in this case. Motion of respondents Robert E. Mills and Richard Raymond Pierce for divided argument granted. Motion of respondents William Gouveia et al. for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 83-218.
    Reed et al. v. Ross.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certio-rari granted, ante, p. 1007.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Barry Nakell, Esquire, of Boulder, Colo., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 83-346.
    United States v. Yermian.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 991.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Stephen J. Hillman, Esquire, of Los Angeles, Cal., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 83-595.
    Snow et al. v. Quinault Indian Nation, aka Quinault Tribe, et al.
   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. 83-630.
    Bernal v. Fainter, Secretary of State of Texas, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1007.] Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 83-778.
    Wambheim et al. v. J. C. Penney Co., Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.


text:
    No. 83-5711.
    No. 83-5725.
    Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P. A., et al. Sweetman v. Township of Pennsauken, New Jersey.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist.; and

Sup. Ct. N. J. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until January 30, 1984, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in Brown v. Herald Co., ante, p. 928, we would deny the petitions for certiorari in these cases without reaching the merits of the motions to proceed in forma pauperis.


text:
    No. 83-5730.
    Mann v. Koob.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until January 30, 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, Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in Brown v. Herald Co., ante, p. 928, we would deny the petition for certiorari in this case without reaching the merits of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.


text:
    No. 83-5742.
    In re Jackson et al.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 83-788.
    In re Florida.
   Motion of respondent Earl Enmund for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 83-372.
    Franchise Tax Board of California v. United States Postal Service.
   Appeal from C. A. 9th Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 83-724.
    Gomez-Bethke, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human Rights, et al. v. United States Jaycees.
   Appeal from C. A. 8th Cir. Motions of Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. and National Organization for Women et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 83-305.
    California v. Trombetta et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-491.
    Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-710.
    Berkemer, Sheriff of Franklin County, Ohio v. McCarty.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-751.
    Securities and Exchange Commission et al. v. Jerry T. O’Brien, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-226.
    Arizona v. Rumsey.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-5596.
    Spaziano v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 82-6991.
    Reed v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-324.
    Michael Construction Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-356.
    Rey v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-385.
    Clark v. Dole, Secretary of Transportation.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-403.
    Sasscer v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-411.
    Gulf Oil Corp. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-413.
    Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Zimmerman, Trustee of Ludwig Honold Manufacturing Co., Debtor.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-419.
    Boulin v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-424.
    Presley v. Geophysical Service, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-442.
    Hill v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-446.
    Al Bryant, Inc., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-447.
    Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Akermanis.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-450.
    Hull v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-464.
    Lee v. Monsen, Deputy Chief of the Elmhurst Police Department, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-476.
    No. 83-636.
    Iavarone v. United States; and Battisti v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 83-476, 720 F. 2d 668; No. 83-636, 720 F. 2d 667.


text:
    No. 83-479.
    Kan v. Landon.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-492.
    Mobile Home Estates, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-493.
    Amerada Hess Corp. et al. v. Green.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-496.
    Wilford et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-497.
    Kaly v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-504.
    Field Container Corp. v. Interstate Commerce Commission et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-525.
    Jones et al. v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-530.
    Thompson v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-537.
    No. 83-693.
    Massachusetts Laborers District Council et al. v. Abreen Corp. et al.; and Laborers’ International Union of North America, AFL-CIO v. Abreen Corp. et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 709 F. 2d 748.


text:
    No. 83-542.
    Langford et al. v. James et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-546.
    Clayco Petroleum Corp. et al. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-551.
    Bratton et al. v. City of Detroit et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-553.
    Arnold et al. v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-559.
    Master Printers Assn., a Division of Printing Industry of Illinois v. Donovan, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-565.
    Inglis v. Feinerman et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-578.
    Alaska Land Title Assn. et al. v. Alaska et al.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-580.
    Brislawn v. Brislawn.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-598.
    Mazzola et al. v. Donovan, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-601.
    Katsougrakis et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-602.
    Briggs et al. v. Goodwin.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-606.
    City of Mission, South Dakota, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-607.
    Idaho v. Bradley.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-618.
    Schmidt v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-621.
    Constant v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-633.
    Robert K. Bell Enterprises, Inc. v. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-638.
    Alcan Aluminum Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Board of California et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-648.
    Alaska Northern Development, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-649.
    Tamilio v. Fogg, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-656.
    Caribe Tugboat Corp. et al. v. Duffy.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-659.
    Paul et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-677.
    Superior Oil Co. v. Pioneer Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-686.
    Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Ewing, Cole, Erdman & Eubank.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-687.
    Ernst v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-688.
    Greene v. Whirlpool Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-689.
    South Dakota et al. v. Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-698.
    Burroughs Corp. v. A. B. Dick Co.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-700.
    International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Pawlak et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-701.
    Laredo Junior College et al. v. Perez.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-705.
    Diron v. City of Eastlake et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-708.
    Quinault Pacific Corp. v. Barclays American/Business Credit, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-716.
    Caton v. Caton.
   Ct. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-720.
    Humphreys (Cayman), Ltd., et al. v. Lehman, Executrix of the Estate of Lehman.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-721.
    Davidson v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-726.
    First American Title Company of South Dakota et al. v. South Dakota Land Title Assn. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-729.
    Hansen v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-731.
    Kizas et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-732.
    Boyd v. Lehman, Secretary of the Navy.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-733.
    Environmental Designs, Ltd., et al. v. Union Oil Company of California et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-735.
    Longe v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-739.
    Thompson, Administratrix of the Estate of Thompson v. International Harvester Co. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-743.
    Arizona Public Service Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-745.
    Richards v. Howard University et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-746.
    Richards v. Howard University et al.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-749.
    Fairdale Farms, Inc. v. Yankee Milk, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-750.
    Carter, dba Carter Enterprises of Denver v. Small Business Administration et al.
   Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-752.
    Transocean Contractors, Inc., et al. v. Reed.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-753.
    Fontana v. Barham et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-754.
    McKay, Executrix of the Estate of McKay, et al. v. Rockwell International Corp.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-756.
    Blevins v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-757.
    McCann v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-759.
    Hurley et al. v. Albuquerque Title Co., Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-761.
    Harris et al. v. Fenn et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-762.
    LaFalce v. Houston et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-765.
    Durham County Board of Alcoholic Control v. Wells.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-771.
    Ohio-Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Co. et al. v. Sealy, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-775.
    Gustine v. Gustine.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-776.
    Oziemkiewicz v. Washington, Mayor of Chicago, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-777.
    Clark Equipment Co. v. Keller et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-780.
    Dantzler v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-782.
    Dale v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-785.
    Creel, Trustee v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-787.
    Ginsburg v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-794.
    Erftmier v. Rowan Cos., Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-811.
    Brimm v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-815.
    Grimm et al. v. Rizk et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 14th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-816.
    Meraz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-820.
    Personnel Board of Jefferson County, Alabama v. Morgado.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-828.
    No. 83-829.
    Shell Oil Co. v. Olsen et al.; and Movible Offshore, Inc. v. Olsen et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 708 F. 2d 976.


text:
    No. 83-834.
    Sack v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-855.
    White v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-865.
    Cannon v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-872.
    Crosby v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-891.
    Creason, dba Kansas Cartage v. Mo-Kan Teamsters Pension Fund et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-901.
    Russo v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5100.
    Linfield v. Board of Higher Education of the City of New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5140.
    Smith v. Heeringa et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5188.
    Washington v. New York State Commissioner of Correctional Services et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5216.
    Santiago v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5282.
    Byers v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5289.
    Lambertis v. Virgin Islands.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5317.
    Owens v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5338.
    Anderson v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5341.
    Greene v. Massey, Superintendent, Union Correctional Institute.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5357.
    Cash v. Bachtell, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5364.
    Hamid v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5386.
    Turel v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5390.
    Green v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5400.
    Sellner v. Hudnall et al.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5437.
    Clayton et al. v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5442.
    Rogers v. Rulo et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5448.
    Williams v. Pierce, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5470.
    Weathersby v. Morris, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5508.
    Patterson v. Koehler, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5511.
    No. 83-5565.
    Walker v. United States; and Stearns v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 707 F. 2d 391.


text:
    No. 83-5514.
    Margolis v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5523.
    Duncan v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5524.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5536.
    Kajevic v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5549.
    Cantrell v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5551.
    Ward v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5566.
    Euge v. United States et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5570.
    Thoma v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5603.
    Kelly v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5612.
    Robinson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5622.
    Godek v. United States.
   Sup. Ct. N. Y., Suffolk County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5623.
    Chapin v. Marshall, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5631.
    LeGrand v. Marshall, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5632.
    Mallory v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5635.
    Kemp v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5641.
    Sydnor v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5643.
    Neely v. Israel, Superintendent, Waupun Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5646.
    Waters v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5651.
    Daye v. Attorney General of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5656.
    Johnson v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5660.
    Sloan v. McKaskle, Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5664.
    Sikorski v. Den Norske Amerikalinje et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5665.
    Souza v. Ellerthorpe, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5667.
    Manis et al. v. Chief Judge, Circuit Court of Greene County, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5672.
    Baker v. McKaskle, Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5675.
    Kemp et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5676.
    Gant v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5677.
    McQueen v. Dixon et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5682.
    Aldrich v. National Society for Children and Adults With Autism et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5684.
    Harris v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5686.
    Ingram v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5687.
    McCrary v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5690.
    Wilson v. Maryland.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5691.
    Campbell v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5692.
    Bujol v. Cain, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5694.
    Aiken v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5698.
    Conti v. Ingersoll Rand Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5700.
    Molasky v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5702.
    Barnett v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5707.
    Gambles v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5712.
    Roberson v. McKaskle, Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5715.
    Fleshman v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5719.
    Conger v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5721.
    Fordham v. National Bank of Boyertown.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5722.
    Hall v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5724.
    Baltsavias v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5731.
    Sumrall v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5732.
    Vann v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5734.
    Martel et al. v. New Hampshire et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5738.
    De Nobili et al. v. Cunningham & O’Connor Mortuary et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5740.
    Lampkins v. Gagnon, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5743.
    Slay v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5745.
    Thezan v. Maritime Overseas Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5746.
    Ward v. Owens et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5747.
    Veneri v. Brackman, Judge, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5748.
    Thompson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5752.
    Vella v. United States Federal Bureau of Investigation of Tampa, Florida, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5753.
    Thomas v. Maggio, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5756.
    Reiner v. Bidlack et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5757.
    Campbell v. Guy et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5759.
    Graham v. East Orange C. E. T. A.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5760.
    Hillie v. Maggio, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5762.
    Lilley v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5763.
    Gomez-Diaz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5766.
    Gentsch v. Clark et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5769.
    Long v. Rison, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5775.
    O’Brien v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5777.
    Anderson v. District Court, in and for the County of Jefferson, Colorado.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5779.
    Theisen v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5781.
    Smith v. United States Civil Service Commission et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5786.
    Ruff v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5798.
    Arnold v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5800.
    McKnight v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5801.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5803.
    Talbert v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5805.
    Hawkins v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5812.
    Foster v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5817.
    Bender v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5822.
    Blanco v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5828.
    Sowards v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5834.
    Quintana-Samaniego v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5839.
    Godwin v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-207.
    Ariyoshi, Governor of Hawaii, et al. v. Pekarsky et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 83-783.
    Davis v. Gladstone et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 83-243.
    Brown & Root, Inc., et al. v. Thornton et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motions of respondents Billy Thornton and James Broussard for leave to proceed in forma 'pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-382.
    Rush v. United States Agency for International Development et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-459.
    Washington State Charterboat Assn. v. Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Quileute Indian Tribe et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.