text:
    No. 85-1076.
    Lyons, Guardian of the Person and Estate of Whittington, a Minor v. Bute, Conservator of the Estate of Whittington, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 85-1078.
    Bernstein v. Portland Savings & Loan Assn.
   Ct. App. Tex., 13th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1086.
    Rodriguez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1087.
    Holmes v. Drummond.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1089.
    Gallo v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1101.
    Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Baker et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal; Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1102.
    Mann v. Warden, Eglin Air Force Base.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1103.
    Chaluissant v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1106.
    Shandloff et al. v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1107.
    International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18, et al. v. Murphy.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1108.
    Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., et al. v. Ashland Oil, Inc.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1110.
    Carralero v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1111.
    Powell Pressed Steel Co. v. Policy et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1112.
    Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Trinity Carton Co., Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1114.
    Earnest v. Louisiana.
   15th Jud. Dist. Ct. La., Lafayette Parish. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1115.
    Moats v. Wick, Director, United States Information Agency, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1119.
    Markowski v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1123.
    Taylor v. United States et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1124.
    Christensen v. United States (two cases).
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1125.
    Pryor v. Pryor.
   Ct. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1127.
    King v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1128.
    Hale et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1130.
    Hamilton et al. v. Aldag, Town Clerk for Los Gatos (Ferrito et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1132.
    Rosenthal & Rosenthal Inc. et al. v. New York State Urban Development Corporation et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1134.
    First United Fund, Ltd. v. Brockton Savings Bank.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1135.
    Floyd v. Haig et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1136.
    Winslow v. Board of County Commissioners of Morgan County, Colorado.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1137.
    Elston et al. v. Board of Levee Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District et al.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1139.
    American Velodur Metal, Inc. v. Schinabeck.
   App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1143.
    Wallace v. Department of the Army.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1144.
    Sistrunk et al. v. Circle Bar Drilling Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1147.
    Radiation Technology, Inc. v. Neutron Products, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1149.
    Brodka v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1156.
    Spallato, Administrator of the Estate of Spallato v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1157.
    Hilltop Realty, Inc. v. City of Cleveland Heights et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1160.
    Sinicropi v. Bennett, Deputy Director of Probation of the County of Nassau, et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1161.
    Daniels v. Los Angeles Unified School District et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1162.
    Daniels v. Los Angeles Unified School District et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1163.
    Sample et al. v. Johnson, Deputy Commissioner for the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs for District 14, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1175.
    Reece v. Tennessee Civil Service Commission.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1214.
    Langella v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1242.
    Halter v. Secretary of the Treasury et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1254.
    Ferguson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5277.
    O’Driscoll v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5354.
    North v. West Virginia Board of Regents.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5431.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5554.
    Preer v. Johnson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5595.
    Duemmel v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5599.
    Barkley v. Fulcomer, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5661.
    Guloy v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5676.
    Barkley v. Fulcomer, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5688.
    Jones v. American Postal Workers Union et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5698.
    Marrera v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5708.
    Davis v. Wyrick, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5711.
    Hughes v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5714.
    Sweetwine v. Maryland et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5737.
    Clausen v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5739.
    Hallahan v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5744.
    Anderson et al. v. Miller, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5760.
    Schuster v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5762.
    Newton v. McCotter Motors, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5774.
    Broadway v. Hull, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5780.
    Woodard v. Rasmussen, Warden.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5787.
    Anderson v. Colorado.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5790.
    Velasquez v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5792.
    Westfall v. Hedrick, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5794.
    Polk v. Henderson, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5803.
    Frederick v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5805.
    Farrugia et al. v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5818.
    Beamon v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5819.
    Clay v. Vose, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Norfolk.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5822.
    Sharlow v. Young, Superintendent, Waupun Correctional Institution, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5829.
    Mark v. McCotter, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5859.
    Glenn v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5865.
    Howard v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5874.
    Marquez-Medina et al. v. Meese, Attorney General, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5902.
    No. 85-5918.
    Lucien v. Chrans, Warden; and Lucien v. Chrans, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5906.
    Adams v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5907.
    Lumbert v. DeRobertis, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5912.
    Price v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5914.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5919.
    Crawford v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5922.
    Puta v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5927.
    Dennis v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5932.
    Bagley v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5934.
    Sullivan v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5937.
    Depree v. Social Security Administration et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5943.
    Kirk v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5944.
    Evans v. District of Columbia.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5948.
    Bryant v. Warden, Metropolitan Correctional Center of New York City, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5950.
    Tripati v. Brown.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5952.
    Gisriel v. Board of Appeals, Maryland Department of Employment and Training.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5953.
    Burton v. Sargent, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5954.
    Carr v. Woods et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5955.
    Essix v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5958.
    Parris v. Hollohan, Warden, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5960.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5962.
    Miller v. Campoy, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5964.
    Leventhal v. United States Department of Labor et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5966.
    Harding v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5969.
    Kopp v. Social Security Administration.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5970.
    Gay v. Hernandez-Cuebas.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5974.
    Troutman v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5975.
    Moore v. United States et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5976.
    Howard v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5977.
    Isley v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5978.
    Clark v. State Treasurer’s Office Employer et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5980.
    Hoelker v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5981.
    Haase v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5982.
    DePree v. Roberts, Commissioner of Labor of the City of New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5984.
    Callahan v. Johnson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5985.
    Kapp v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5992.
    Rubin v. Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities (Western Illinois University).
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5993.
    Simmons v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5994.
    Seward v. San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5995.
    Villareal v. Stagner, Superintendent, Correctional Training Facility.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5996.
    Rosberg v. Deutsche Credit Corp.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5997.
    Spencer v. Devoe & Reynolds Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5998.
    Runnels v. Kingston et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5999.
    Stryker v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6003.
    Hurley v. Hongisto et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6007.
    Krumpelman v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6008.
    Brancewicz v. Lambiris et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6012.
    Muza v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6013.
    Wells v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6014.
    Rosberg v. Deutsche Credit Corp.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6015.
    White v. Blackburn, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6016.
    Flittie v. Solem, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6017.
    Daly v. Bailey.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6018.
    Glover v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6020.
    Demoura v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6021.
    Draper v. Virginia Department of Corrections et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6023.
    Turner v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6025.
    Welch v. Woodard et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6028.
    Marks v. Johnson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6029.
    Shook v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6030.
    Holmes v. Hardy et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6031.
    Reed v. Manson, Commissioner of Corrections of Connecticut, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6032.
    Niven v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6036.
    Haase v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6040.
    Richards et ux. v. Swinebroad & Denton Auctioneers et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6041.
    Spence v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6042.
    Verse v. Foltz, Regional Administrator, Michigan Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6043.
    Melvin v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6046.
    Hans v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6047.
    Brown v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6052.
    Augustyniak v. City of New York et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6053.
    Sayre v. Indiana.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6054.
    Sanderson v. Rice, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6056.
    Keller v. Salton.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6059.
    Glick v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6061.
    Gillard v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6062.
    Raysor v. Port Authority of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6066.
    Weser v. Carlin, Governor of Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6067.
    Sallee v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6068.
    Freeman v. McNamara, Director, North Carolina Division of Prisons, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6070.
    Fields v. Simmons et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6071.
    Blevins v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6075.
    McDonald v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6076.
    Fletcher v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6078.
    Muza v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6079.
    Smith v. Wenzelman et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6081.
    Lucero v. Snyder.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6087.
    Pool v. Brackman, Judge, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6088.
    Aleem v. Carr et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6093.
    Georgevich v. Strauss.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6097.
    Wallace v. Tate, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institute.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6099.
    Rodman v. Tate, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institute, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6105.
    Lewiel v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6106.
    Anthony v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6107.
    Wycoff v. Menke.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6110.
    Walter v. Torres et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6112.
    Ofarril v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6113.
    Baker, aka Walker v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6115.
    Butler v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6116.
    Palafox v. Edwards, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6121.
    Winterhalder v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6129.
    Thomas v. McCotter, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6131.
    Barcena v. Washington, Mayor of City of Chicago, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6132.
    Boynton v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6133.
    Graf v. City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6143.
    Johnston v. Wilkins et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6148.
    Granger v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6157.
    Lawson v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6161.
    Mosquera et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6162.
    Castro v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6176.
    Gipson v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6178.
    Randazzo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6179.
    Shack v. Superintendent, State Correctional Institution and Correctional Diagnostic and Classification Center at Graterford.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6180.
    Sharp v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6182.
    Cruzen v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6188.
    Murray v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6189.
    Galvin-Morejon v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6190.
    Nabors v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6191.
    Bryant v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6195.
    Adu v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6202.
    Beard v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6203.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6205.
    Droege v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6232.
    Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6238.
    Ward v. United States et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6241.
    Carter v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6243.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6245.
    Pugh v. United States Parole Commission.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6251.
    Echeverri-Jaramillo v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6258.
    Giangrosso v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6261.
    Speckin v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6265.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 84-6108.
    No. 84-6971.
    No. 85-5702.
    No. 85-5741.
    No. 85-5784.
    No. 85-5933.
    No. 85-5935.
    No. 85-5987.
    No. 85-6009.
    No. 85-6072.
    No. 85-6089.
    No. 85-6098.
    No. 85-6102.
    No. 85-6103.
    No. 85-6123.
    No. 85-6146.
    Bush v. Florida. Stevens v. Kemp, Warden. Bird v. Texas. Snow v. Nevada. Franklin v. Texas. Miranda v. Nevada. Smith v. South Carolina. Horsley v. Alabama. Boggs v. Virginia. Gore v. Florida. Paster v. Texas. Duncan v. Tennessee. Thomas v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections. Bieghler v. Indiana. Mills v. Florida. Funchess v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Sup. Ct. Ga.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Sup. Ct. Nev.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Sup. Ct. Nev.;

Sup. Ct. S. C.;

Sup. Ct. Ala.;

Sup. Ct. Ala.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.;

Sup. Ct. Tenn.;

C. A. 11th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Ind.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.; and

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 84-6108, 461 So. 2d 936; No. 84-6971, 254 Ga. 228, 327 S. E. 2d 185; No. 85-5702, 692 S. W. 2d 65; No. 85-5741, 101 Nev. 439, 705 P. 2d 632; No. 85-5784, 693 S. W. 2d 420; No. 85-5933, 101 Nev. 562, 707 P. 2d 1121; No. 85-5935, 286 S. C. 406, 334 S. E. 2d 277; No. 85-5987, 476 So. 2d 626; No. 85-6009, 229 Va. 501, 331 S. E. 2d 407; No. 85-6072, 475 So. 2d 1205; No. 85-6089, 701 S. W. 2d 843; No. 85-6098, 698 S. W. 2d 63; No. 85-6102, 767 F. 2d 738; No. 85-6103, 481 N. E. 2d 78; No. 85-6123, 476 So. 2d 172; No. 85-6146, 772 F. 2d 683.

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 eases.


text:
    No. 85-400.
    Florida v. Romero, aka Mascara.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-968.
    Armontrout, Warden v. Moore.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1005.
    Duckworth, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison v. Webster.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice O’Connor,

text:
    No. 85-459.
    Mellon Bank, N. A., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor,

with whom Justice Blackmun and Justice Powell join,

dissenting.

The Internal Revenue Code allows a deduction from the taxable estate of bequests “to or for the use of any corporation organized and operated exclusively for . . . charitable . . . purposes.” 26 U. S. C. § 2055(a)(2). This petition presents the question whether a bequest to a nonprofit cemetery association qualifies for a deduction pursuant to this section.

A. Leon Davis died testate on December 6, 1976. His will provided that the residue of his estate was to be distributed to the Verona Cemetery in Oakmont, Pennsylvania. The cemetery was established by nearby residents in 1881 as a nonstock, nonprofit corporation for the purpose of providing burial space to any person regardless of religion or race. Davis’ executors filed a federal estate tax return, paid the tax, and then submitted a claim asserting a charitable deduction of $370,901.74, the total amount distributed to the cemetery. The Internal Revenue Service disallowed the deduction and denied the accompanying claim for a refund. After exhausting administrative remedies, the executors instituted the present refund action in Federal District Court. Concluding that Verona Cemetery was a “corporation organized and operated exclusively for . . . charitable . . . purposes,” 590 F. Supp. 160, 162, n. 1 (WD Pa. 1984), the District Court held that the bequest qualified for a deduction under § 2055(a)(2). In reaching that conclusion, the court observed that the cemetery was exempt from federal income taxes, that the bequest had already been held exempt from Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax and, more generally, that bequests to public nonprofit cemetery associations traditionally had been considered charitable under the common law of trusts.

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. 762 F. 2d 283 (1985). It acknowledged the “anomaly” of treating nonprofit cemetery associations differently for federal estate and income tax purposes. It believed, however, that this asymmetry was compelled by the language and history of the relevant provisions of the Code. Employing language that closely parallels § 2055(a)(2), § 501(c)(3) exempts from federal income taxes “[corporations . . . organized and operated exclusively for . . . charitable . . . purposes.” Since 1913, the Code has included a separate exemption for “[cjemetery companies owned and operated exclusively for the benefit of their members or which are not operated for profit.” 26 U. S. C. § 501(c)(13). In 1954, as part of the general revision of the Code, Congress enacted § 170(c)(5), which permits deductions of contributions to any cemetery company that meets a standard virtually identical to that set out in § 501(e)(13). After examining this history, the Court of Appeals concluded that nonprofit cemetery companies did not qualify as a “charitable” corporation under § 2055(a)(2). Because Congress had thought it necessary to enact a special provision for 'cemeteries on the income tax side, the court reasoned, it must have believed that such entities were not within the general deduction for “charitable” contributions. 26 U. S. C. § 170 (c)(2)(B). Thus, the court concluded, the failure to adopt a parallel provision on the estate tax side foreclosed petitioners’ contention that cerne-tery associations qualified as “charitable” within the meaning of § 2055(a)(2).

This reasoning is far from inevitable. That Congress explicitly provided for nonprofit cemetery associations in §501(c)(13) and § 170(c)(5) does not lead inescapably to the conclusion that many such associations are not within the more general exemption for “charitable” corporations. Some family cemetery corporations, for example, are covered by §501(c)(13) but almost certainly would not qualify as “charitable” within the more general language of § 501(c)(3). See John D. Rockefeller Family Cemetery Corp. v. Commissioner, 63 T. C. 355 (1974). Congress clearly intended to confer on these private cemetery associations an exemption from federal income taxation. Ibid. The nearly identical language of § 170(c)(5) suggests that Congress also intended that contributions to such associations be tax deductible. But it does not inevitably follow that public organizations that already qualified as “charitable” suddenly ceased to be so by virtue of a decision to afford a tax benefit to some organizations that could not meet this more restrictive requirement. This construction is especially unlikely in light of the virtually uniform consensus under state common and statutory law that nonprofit, public cemetery associations are “charitable” and that bequests to such organizations are therefore exempt from inheritance taxes. See, e. g., In re Estate of Edwards, 88 Cal. App. 3d 383, 151 Cal. Rptr. 770 (1979). See also Restatement (Second) of Trusts §374, Comment h (1959).

I recognize that the Court of Appeals’ analysis conforms with that of other federal courts that have considered the issue. See, e. g., Child v. United States, 540 F. 2d 579, 584 (CA2 1976). I recognize also, in the words of the dissenting judge below, that “[t]he Republic will stand” regardless of how this issue is resolved. 762 F. 2d, at 287. Nonetheless, because the Court of Appeals’ construction of the Code will have a significant impact on the financial vitality of these organizations and because I am unconvinced that this anomalous construction is justified by the language and history of the relevant provisions of the Code, I would grant the petition for certiorari.


author: Justice White,

text:
    No. 85-633.
    AMREP Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

dissenting.

The Federal Trade Commission ordered petitioner to cease various unfair trade practices in selling land, and required, among other things, that petitioner send all customers still under land sale contracts with it a letter disclosing that the Commission had brought an action against petitioner and explaining possible courses of action the customers might take. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the Commission’s order over petitioner’s objection that the notification order was not within the Commission’s remedial authority under § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 719, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 45. 768 F. 2d 1171 (1985). The Tenth Circuit’s decision is at odds with decisions of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits holding that §5 authorizes only cease-and-desist orders, and not notification orders. See Barrett Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Comm’n, 635 F. 2d 299 (CA4 1980); Congoleum Industries, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Comm’n, 602 F. 2d 220 (CA9 1979). I would grant certiorari to resolve this apparent conflict.

      The decisions in Barrett and Congoleum are interpretations of the powers of the Consumer Product Safety Commission under the Flammable Fabrics Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1191 et seq. Since 15 U. S. C. § 1194 incorporates § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by reference, Barrett and Congoleum are effectively interpretations of the scope of § 5.


text:
    No. 85-769.
    Orum v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Powell would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-786.
    Bellissimo v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-849.
    Presidio Valley Farmers Assn. et al. v. Calderon et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-926.
    Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of Old-Time Gospel Hour et al. for leave to file out-of-time brief in support of petition denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-960.
    Colson v. Maine.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-974.
    Hess v. Treece.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-961.
    Holding v. Sovran Bank et al.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 85-1020.
    Gellert v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 85-1098.
    Vevoda et al. v. Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees Union, Teamsters Local 302.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-1173.
    Spang & Co. v. Grecco.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White and Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-5928.
    Leon v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 85-5972.
    Schiro v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

The trial judge in this case rejected a unanimous jury decision that petitioner’s life should be spared, and sentenced him to die. Petitioner’s allegations, which call into question the reliability of the judge’s sentencing determination, further illustrate why a judge should not have the awesome power to reject a jury recommendation of life. Moreover, a serious inadequacy in the Indiana capital sentencing procedure dramatically distinguishes it from the jury-override procedure that this Court upheld in Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447 (1984). I must dissent from the Court’s decision not to consider petitioner’s substantial claims.

I

Thomas N. Schiro was convicted of murder in the course of a rape and, following a hearing on the appropriateness of sentencing him to die, the jury recommended a life sentence. The trial judge, however, rejected the jury’s decision and imposed a sentence of death. Upon direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Indiana found that the trial court’s findings pertaining to the sentencing did not set out clearly and properly the court’s reasons for imposing the death penalty. Schiro v. State, 451 N. E. 2d 1047, 1056 (Schiro I), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 1003 (1983). That court ordered that the trial court make written findings setting out the aggravating circumstance proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the mitigating circumstances, if any, as listed in the state statute. 451 N. E. 2d, at 1056.

In response, the trial court specified one aggravating circumstance, that the jury had convicted petitioner of murder in the course of a rape; it then stated that it found no mitigating circumstances, listing and rejecting each of the statutory mitigating circumstances, even though several were suggested by the evidence. With regard to the mitigating factor concerning a defendant’s mental or emotional condition and the impairment of his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his acts, the court found as follows:

“This Court personally observed the Defendant, while the jury was present, making continual rocking motions, which did not stop throughout the trial except when the jury left the Courtroom. In the Court’s outer chambers, out of the presence of the jury, in the eight days of trial, the Court frequently observed the Defendant sitting calmly and not rocking. It is apparent to the Court that this may well have influenced and misled the jury in its recommendation.”

On the basis of his own suspicions, not subject to evidentiary requirements or ^tested by cross-examination, the judge decided that a unanimous jury was wrong and that petitioner should die. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the sentence of death. 479 N. E. 2d 556 (1985).

II

In Spaziano v. Florida, supra, this Court sustained a scheme that gave the judge the power to override the jury’s decision to impose a life sentence, provided that the judge could make certain specified findings. The Court relied, in part, on the Florida Supreme Court’s anticipated adherence to the so-called “Tedder standard.” Under Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla.1975), a Florida trial judge may not reject a jury decision of life imprisonment unless the evidence favoring death is “so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ.” Ibid. This Court believed Tedder to be a “significant safeguard,” Spaziano, 468 U. S., at 465, and was satisfied that “the Florida Supreme Court takes that standard seriously.” Ibid.

In contrast, the State of Indiana has not committed itself to any comparable safeguard to protect against the arbitrary rejection of a life sentence. On the contrary, the rules governing the scope of appellate review of sentences provide that the appellate court “will not revise a sentence authorized by statute except where such sentence is manifestly unreasonable,” and a “sentence is not manifestly unreasonable unless no reasonable person could find such sentence appropriate . . . .” Indiana Rules Appellate Review of Sentences 1, 2 (emphasis added). Applying these rules to death sentences, the Supreme Court of Indiana specifically declared that it “will not engage in a different standard of review where jury and trial court disagree” concerning the appropriateness of the death sentence. Schiro I, supra, at 1058. Thus, while the Tedder standard accords the jury’s recommendation a presumption of correctness by requiring “clear and convincing” evidence to justify overriding it, the Indiana Supreme Court accords a similar presumption to the judge’s sentence, whether it was imposed pursuant to the recommendation of the jury or against it.

This Court has emphasized that a sentence of death must reflect an ethical judgment about the “moral guilt” of the defendant. See Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782, 800-801 (1982). “Moral guilt” is a determination that a jury, as representative of the community, is peculiarly well suited to render. But if a prosecutor, even with the substantial tools available to him, see, e. g., Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S. 412 (1985); Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1968), is unable to persuade the conscience of the community that death is the appropriate punishment for a particular offense, then that expression on the question of “moral guilt” is entitled to at least some weight. By according no significance at all to the jury’s assessment of the crime and the defendant, either at the sentencing itself or on appeal, Indiana’s procedure derogates the historic role of the jury. “Furman [v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972),] and its progeny provide no warrant for — indeed do not tolerate — the exclusion from the capital sentencing process of the jury and the critical contribution only it can make toward linking the administration of capital punishment to community values.” Spaziano, supra, at 489-490 (Stevens, J., joined by Brennan and Marshall, JJ., dissenting in part).

Moreover, the disregard of jury determinations injects a “level of uncertainty and unreliability into the factfinding process that cannot be tolerated in a capital case.” Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625, 643 (1980). In this case, for example, the judge speculated that the jury’s recommendation of life “may well have” resulted from petitioner’s propensity to rock back and forth in the presence of the jury. Indiana law does not require the jury to set forth its reasons for recommending a life sentence, so the court could not have known whether the rocking motion had anything to do with the jury’s verdict; the court’s decision was necessarily speculative. The reliability that this Court has demanded from capital sentencing decisions is totally lacking here, and the “manifestly unreasonable” standard adopted by the Supreme Court of Indiana effectively insulates the sentence from meaningful review.

Because I understand the Eighth Amendment to require, at the very least, that a jury’s considered recommendation of a life sentence rather than death not be ignored without some showing that it was unreasonable, I would grant the petition to review Indiana’s method of bringing to execution those whose juries believed that they should live.


author: Justice Brennan,

text:
    No. 85-6010.
    Waters v. Kemp, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall and Justice Blackmun would grant the petition for writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand the case for farther consideration in light of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320 (1985).

Justice Brennan,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view 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 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    No. 84-1855.
    No. 84-6051.
    No. 85-654.
    No. 85-753.
    No. 85-5155.
    No. 85-5337.
    No. 85-5525.
    No. 85-5633.
    No. 85-5642.
    No. 85-5663.
    No. 85-5695.
    No. 85-5725.
    No. 85-5777.
    No. 85-5810.
    No. 85-5867.
    Steines v. Rock Island Arsenal Department of Army et al., Allen v. Georgia, Hurvitz v. Division of Medical Quality, Board of Medical Quality Assurance, Department of Consumer Affairs of California, Pennington, Administrator for the Estate of Torres v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S.A., et al., McKinney v. Ellis et al., Scheppf v. King, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Corrections, et al., Veale et al. v. Veale et al., Calpin v. United States, Hance v. Georgia, Conklin v. Georgia, Frazier v. Placer Savings & Loan Assn. et al., Gentsch v. Roberson et al., Parker v. Fairman, Warden, et al., Hooks v. Phelps, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Corrections, Martin v. Ohio,
   474 U. S. 822;

470 U. S. 1059;

474 U. S. 1081;

474 U. S. 1057;

474 U. S. 1022;

474 U. S. 1035;

474 U. S. 1010;

474 U. S. 1084;

474 U. S. 1038;

474 U. S. 1038;

474 U. S. 1035;

474 U. S. 1065;

474 U. S. 1066;

474 U. S. 1068; and

474 U. S. 1073. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 85-5165.
    No. 85-5405.
    No. 85-5433.
    Brown v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority et al., Ames v. Alaska et al., Sanchez v. Roth et al.,
   474 U. S. 858;

474 U. S. 951; and

474 U. S. 982. Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    February 26, 1986
    No. 85-1003.
    Pereira v. Utah Transport, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    No. A-651 (85-6276).
    Bundy v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, scheduled for Tuesday, March 4, 1986, presented to Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, is granted pending the disposition by this Court of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the issuance of the mandate of this Court. Motion for leave to supplement the petition for writ of certiorari is granted. Supplement is to be filed on or before March 28, 1986. Response to the supplement shall be filed on or before April 11, 1986. Motion to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari is granted pending receipt of the supplement to the petition and the response thereto.


text:
    February 28, 1986
    No. A-653.
    Adams v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens would grant the application for stay.

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 in order to give the applicant time to file a petition for writ of certiorari, and would grant the petition and vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    March 1, 1986
    No. A-653.
    Adams v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.,
   ante this page. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    March 3, 1986
    No. 85-1213.
    Packaging Service Corporation of Kentucky et al. v. Gayner.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ky. dismissed

under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    No. 85-987.
    Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union International, AFL-CIO, et al.
   Appeal from C. A. D. C. Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 85-6026.
    Names v. California.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist., dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6144.
    Acuff v. Henry et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Tex. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 85-1116.
    City of Whittier et al. v. Walnut Properties, Inc., et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 9th Cir. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., ante, p. 41.


text:
    No. - - -.
    Grace v. Heartland Transportation Inc.
   Motion of petitioner seeking leave to proceed as a seaman and to be relieved from printing the petition for writ of certiorari and the petition for writ of mandamus in compliance with Rule 33 denied.

Justice Stevens would grant the motion.


text:
    No. A-625 (85-1429).
    American General Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Miller et al.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Application for stay pending appeal, addressed to Justice Powell and referred to the Court, denied.

Justice Blackmun dissents.


text:
    No. D-512.
    In re Disbarment of Meisner.
    [For earlier order herein, see 473 U. S. 930.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-529.
    In re Disbarment of Mendell.
    [For earlier order herein, see 474 U. S. 941.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-534.
    In re Disbarment of Pesner.
    [For earlier order herein, see 474 U. S. 1016.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-537.
    In re Disbarment of Kidwell.
    [For earlier order herein, see 474 U. S. 1030.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. 84-1979.
    Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted sub nom. PSFS Savings Bank v. Vinson, 474 U. S. 815.] Motion of Women’s Legal Defense Fund et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 85-227.
    Smalis et al. v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. [Certiorari granted, 474 U. S. 944.] Motion of National District Attorneys 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. 85-766.
    Tashjian, Secretary of State of Connecticut v. Republican Party of Connecticut et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 474 U. S. 1049.] Motion of appellant to schedule oral argument during April Session denied.

Justice Rehnquist, Justice Stevens, and Justice O’Connor would grant this motion.


text:
    No. 85-905.
    Salisbury v. James River Corp. et al.,
   474 U. S. 1061. Motion of respondent James River Corp. for damages and fees denied.


text:
    No. 85-998.
    United States v. Dunn.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of the Solicitor General to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-1258.
    Brown et al. v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent to expedite consideration of the petition for certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6083.
    Shah v. Kern County, California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 24, 1986, 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., 464 U. S. 928 (1983), we would deny the petition for writ of certiorari without reaching the merits of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.


text:
    No. 85-6150.
    In re Nelson.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 85-6126.
    No. 85-6183.
    In re Lartey; and In re May.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 85-693.
    Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County (Cheng Shin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd., Real Party in Interest).
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-781.
    Burke, Acting Archivist of the United States, et al. v. Barnes et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-920.
    Alaska Airlines, Inc., et al. v. Brock, Secretary of Labor, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-971.
    No. 85-972.
    Clarke, Comptroller of the Currency v. Securities Industry Assn.; and Security Pacific National Bank v. Securities Industry Assn.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 244 U. S. App. D. C. 419, 758 F. 2d 739, and 247 U. S. App. D. C. 42, 765 F. 2d 1196.


text:
    No. 84-1747.
    Shoultz v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-489.
    Jacques v. Aldrich, United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-569.
    Dravo Basic Materials Co. et al. v. Louisiana et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-615.
    No. 85-639.
    California Department of Transportation v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company of California, Inc., et al.; and Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company of California, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 38 Cal. 3d 509, 698 P. 2d 150.


text:
    No. 85-645.
    Law & Technology Press v. Ladd, Register of Copyrights.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-750.
    Rose, Individually and as Superintendent of the Calloway County Schools, et al. v. Littlejohn.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-799.
    Monroe v. United States Department of the Treasury.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-879.
    Thomas International Ltd. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-900.
    Illinois v. Crilly, Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-914.
    Jureczki v. City of Seabrook, Texas, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-922.
    Inexco Oil Co. v. United States Department of Energy et al.
   Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-965.
    No. 85-966.
    Loomis v. United States; and Vermouth v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 F. 2d 915.


text:
    No. 85-973.
    Hansen v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-977.
    Copeland v. Rodriguez et al.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-988.
    Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union International, AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-990.
    American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. United States Postal Service.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-994.
    Pflaumer v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1012.
    Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1045.
    Sprynczynatyk et al. v. General Motors Corp.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1064.
    Faith Center, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1077.
    Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Ingersoll-Rand Financial Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1081.
    Bourke v. East Bay Regional Park District et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1121.
    Richard A. Plehn, Inc., et al. v. Imperial Bancorp et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1126.
    International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Interstate Commerce Commission et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1131.
    Whittaker Corp. v. Wilder.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1133.
    Abbot et al. v. Hagner Management Corp.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1138.
    Kent v. Sanborn Cooperative Grain Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1148.
    Morris v. Board of Professional Responsibility for the District of Columbia.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1151.
    LaRouche et al. v. Crowell, Secretary of State of Tennessee.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1152.
    Bandai America Inc. et al. v. Bally Midway Mfg. Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1153.
    Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. Phuc Huu Nguyen et ux.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1154.
    Ellsworth et al. v. City of Racine, Wisconsin.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1159.
    Exxon Shipping Co. v. Cook, Personal Representative of the Estate of Cook.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1164.
    Texas Energy Investment Corp. et al. v. Nimrod Marketing (Overseas) Ltd. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1168.
    City of Cleveland et al. v. Hawley et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1172.
    Mitchell v. Pepsi-Cola Bottlers, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1174.
    Wyatt v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1179.
    Sonderegger v. E. F. Hutton & Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1205.
    Rosenthal et al. v. Day et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1221.
    Foster v. Arcata Associates, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1269.
    Howard et al. v. Deerbrook State Bank.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1284.
    Montemayor v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1328.
    Bonomo et al. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5680.
    Campbell v. Morris, Superintendent, Southeastern Ohio Training Center, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5742.
    Reed v. Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5771.
    Bowlding v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5812.
    Via v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5824.
    Miller v. Stagner, Superintendent, Correctional Training Facility.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5872.
    Woodley v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5908.
    Crump v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5923.
    Hellwarth v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5967.
    Dryden v. Safeco Insurance Company of America.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5988.
    Blocker v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5991.
    Munoz v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6000.
    Deanes v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6024.
    Williams v. Rees, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6034.
    Belasco v. Morris, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6039.
    Tripati v. Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6044.
    Boyd v. Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6050.
    Gonzalez v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6055.
    Lama v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6057.
    Freeman v. Stagner, Superintendent, Correctional Training Facility, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6058.
    Lackhouse v. Merit Systems Protection Board et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6060.
    Brown v. Bryant et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6065.
    Ariza-Fuentas v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6069.
    Copley v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6077.
    Tillis v. Davis, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6084.
    Munguia et al. v. Chevron Co., U. S. A., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6085.
    Barber v. Ponte, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6086.
    Garris v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6096.
    Jeffries v. Chicago Transit Authority.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6101.
    Willis v. Newsome, Superintendent, Georgia State Prison.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6111.
    Webster v. Board of Trustees of School District No. 25, Bannock County, Pocatello, Idaho.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6114.
    Smith v. Monsanto Chemical Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6117.
    Seevers v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6118.
    Martin v. Little, Brown & Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6125.
    Brown v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6130.
    Presgraves v. Hedrick, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6134.
    Robinson v. Cowley, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6135.
    Perkins v. Alesi et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6136.
    Sparks v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6137.
    Rivera v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6139.
    Reeder v. Morris, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6140.
    Borrman v. Maggio, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6149.
    Okot v. Hammersley et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6152.
    Burgess v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6153.
    Cicala v. Buttercreek Investment Corp.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6154.
    Kelly v. City of Wautoma, Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6156.
    Dabon v. Blackburn, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6159.
    Raske v. Fallon et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6160.
    Smothermon v. McCotter, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6163.
    Haase v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6165.
    Graf v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6169.
    Lloyd v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6172.
    Meshulam v. Meshulam et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6173.
    Tompkins v. Wyoming.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6174.
    Palow v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6175.
    Floyd v. General Motors Corp. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6177.
    Kirksey-Bey v. Young et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6181.
    Villanueva v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6184.
    Mitchell v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6185.
    Galloway v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6193.
    Colatriano v. Cave et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6199.
    Garrett v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6204.
    Kidd v. United Virginia Bank of Lynchburg, Virginia, N. A., et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6210.
    Fairfax v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6216.
    Peterson v. New Mexico.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6220.
    Gaddis v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6225.
    Deloria v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6226.
    Goldston v. Arizona et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6235.
    Wardy v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6244.
    Jones v. DeRobertis, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6248.
    Stephens v. Montana.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6262.
    D’Arco v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6295.
    Ward v. Blevins, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6300.
    Arocena v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6309.
    Hubble v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-539.
    Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al. v. Enoch et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Rehnquist join,

dissenting.

For the reasons I have twice before stated, Smith v. Jago, 470 U. S. 1060 (1985) (dissenting), Taliaferro v. Maryland, 461 U. S. 948 (1983) (dissenting), I dissent from the Court’s refusal to resolve the important question, which has divided the lower courts, of when, if ever, a State may exclude a defense witness on account of a criminal defendant’s failure to comply with a discovery rule.


text:
    No. 85-727.
    Missouri Farmers Assn., Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

dissenting.

In this case the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a federal regulation provides the appropriate rule for deciding whether the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) retains a continuing security interest in collateral to whose sale the FmHA allegedly consented. 764 F. 2d 488 (1985). The question presented is whether, under United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U. S. 715 (1979), the Eighth Circuit erred in looking to federal regulations rather than state law for the rule of decision.

In Kimbell Foods this Court determined that although federal law should determine the priority of liens stemming from federal lending programs, a national rule is not necessary to protect the federal interests underlying the loan programs of the Small Business Administration and FmHA. Thus, we held that “absent a congressional directive, the relative priority of private liens and consensual liens arising from these Government lending programs is to be determined under nondiscriminatory state laws.” Id., at 740 (emphasis added).

I find it difficult to reconcile the Court of Appeals’ decision with Kimbell Foods. A federal regulation is not a congressional directive, and although Kimbell Foods involves a question of lien priority while the present case concerns the extinguishment of a federal lien, that distinction is tenuous at best.

Besides being in obvious tension with Kimbell Foods, the Court of Appeals’ decision conflicts with the decision in United States v. Tugwell, 779 F. 2d 5 (CA4 1985), which holds that under Kimbell Foods the question whether a FmHA lien is extinguished upon sale of the collateral must be resolved by looking to state law. I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict among the Courts of Appeals.

      The regulation on which the Eighth Circuit relied is 7 CFR § 1962.18(b) (1985), which at the time the case was decided provided in relevant part:
      “When borrowers [from the FmHA] sell security, the sale will be made subject to the FmHA lien. The property and proceeds will remain subject to the lien until the lien is released or the sale is approved by the County Supervisor and the proceeds are used for one or more of the purposes stated in § 1962.17.”
      This regulation has since been rewritten: 50 Fed. Reg. 45787 (1985) (proposed 7 CFR § 1962.17(a)), which provides that “[w]hen the borrower sells security, the property and proceeds remain subject to the lien until the lien is released by the County Supervisor.” This change in wording is immaterial to the issues presented in this case.


text:
    No. 85-757.
    Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al. v. Reed.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1061.
    Owens, Superintendent, Indiana State Reformatory v. Riner.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-785.
    No. 85-800.
    River Road Alliance, Inc., et al. v. Corps of Engineers of the United States Army et al.; and Illinois v. Corps of Engineers of the United States Army et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 F. 2d 445.

Justice White,

dissenting.

In 1980, respondent National Marine Service applied to respondent Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to construct a temporary barge-fleeting facility on the Mississippi River. After holding a public hearing on the environmental effects of the proposed facility, the Corps issued a brief “environmental assessment” concluding that the facility would have no significant environmental effects. Based on this conclusion, the Corps determined that it was not required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed project, since such an EIS is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 83 Stat. 853, 42 U. S. C. §4332(2)(C), only for projects that will “significantly affec[t] the quality of the human environment.” Thus, the Corps issued the permit sought.

Petitioners, the State of Illinois and others including River Road Alliance, Inc., brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, challenging the issuance of the permit and the Corps’ underlying finding of no significant environmental effects. On petitioners’ motion for summary judgment, the District Court found that “[w]hile paying lip service to [NEPA], the Corps has failed to take the ‘hard look’ required to support its conclusions, and has failed to document that ‘hard look’ in the Environmental Assessment . . . .” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 85-800, p. 33. Based on this conclusion, the District Court held that the Corps’ action was arbitrary and capricious and entered judgment in favor of petitioners.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 764 F. 2d 445 (1985). While observing that that court had previously held that an agency’s decision not to prepare an EIS is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion, see, e. g., Wisconsin v. Weinberger, 745 F. 2d 412, 417 (CA7 1984), the Court of Appeals in this case acknowledged that other Courts of Appeals have held that such decisions are reviewed for reasonableness. 764 F. 2d, at 449. Having noted these differing formulations, the Court of Appeals expressed its doubt as to the “practical difference” between the two standards: “There is plenary review and there is deferential review, and whether it is fruitful to attempt fine gradations within the second category may be doubted, though there is no need to resolve our doubt here.” Ibid. The court then declined to substitute its judgment for the Corps’ and reversed the decision of the District Court.

Although the precise contours of the Court of Appeals’ review in this case are somewhat unclear, the decision below again presents to this Court the unresolved question of the standard of review to be applied by courts reviewing an agency decision not to prepare an EIS. I have noted before the divergent standards of review invoked by the various Courts of Appeals in this context, see Gee v. Boyd, 471 U. S. 1058, 1059 (1985) (dissenting from denial of certiorari), and I will not again detail the alignment of the lower courts here. I reiterate, however, my previously expressed view that “[t]his conflict is not merely semantic or academic”: The courts that invoke the abuse-of-discretion or arbitrary-and-capricious standard emphasize that the decision is committed to the agency’s discretion and expertise; the courts that invoke the reasonableness standard, in contrast, stress the non-discretionary nature of NEPA’s language. Id., at 1060. Because this conflict among the Circuits raises a significant question as to the proper interpretation of a federal statute, because this question recurs regularly, and because I believe that the issue is not merely one of semantics, I would grant certiorari to resolve the issue.


text:
    No. 85-798.
    Petty Motor Co. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

with whom The Chief Justice joins,

dissenting.

In this case the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that as a matter of federal law a United States Marshal’s conducting a judicial foreclosure sale constitutes “seizing or levying” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1921. As the Government concedes, this decision conflicts with the decisions of three Courts of Appeals that have held that costs could not be taxed under §1921 in cases involving judicial foreclosure sales. See Travelers Insurance Co. v. Lawrence, 509 F. 2d 83 (CA9 1974); James T. Barnes & Co. v. United States, 593 F. 2d 352 (CA8 1979); Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Hassler, 595 F. 2d 356 (CA6 1979). I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict.

      Title 28 U. S. C. § 1921 provides in relevant part:
      “Only the following fees of United States marshals shall be collected and taxed as costs, except as otherwise provided:

      “For seizing or levying on property (including seizures in admiralty), disposing of the same by sale, setoff, or otherwise and receiving and paying over money, commissions of 3 per centum on the first $1,000 of the amounts collected and 1V2 per centum on the excess of any sum over $1,000.”


text:
    No. 85-844.
    Davis v. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

dissenting.

The question presented is what statute of limitations to borrow in this suit against a union for an alleged violation of a former member’s rights under §101 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U. S. C. § 411. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that in light of DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U. S. 151 (1983), the appropriate source from which to borrow a limitations period is not state law but § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 160(b). 765 F. 2d 1510 (1985). Although not without support in other Circuits, see, e. g., Local Union 1397 v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, 748 F. 2d 180 (CA3 1984), the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in this case conflicts with Doty v. Sewall, 784 F. 2d 1 (CA1 1986). Doty explicitly rejects the analysis of this case and Local Union 1397, supra, and holds that the usual practice of borrowing statutes of limitations from state law should be followed in a suit like this one. I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict.


text:
    No. 85-863.
    Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v. Canfield, Bankruptcy Trustee for Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 85-991.
    In re Martin-Trigona.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Petition for writ of certiorari and/or mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 85-1053.
    Craft v. Metromedia, Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-1183.
    P. B. C. v. D. H.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


author: Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 85-5386.
    Fleming v. Kemp, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view 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 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

I would grant certiorari in this case because petitioner was not represented by counsel at a critical stage of a criminal proceeding, and is therefore entitled to reversal of his conviction. See United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648, 659, and n. 25 (1984); Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U. S. 475, 489 (1978).

Petitioner was convicted of murdering a police officer and sentenced to death. After exhausting state remedies, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court. Petitioner contended that he had been denied counsel at a commitment hearing, a device used under Georgia law to determine the existence of probable cause to detain a suspect, Ga. Code Ann. § 17-7-23 (1982), and one that the Georgia Supreme Court has held to be a critical stage of the prosecution, State v. Houston, 234 Ga. 721, 218 S. E. 2d 13 (1975); cf. Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1 (1970). The District Court held that the hearing that took place in this case had not been a “commitment hearing” as contemplated by state law, and that in any event petitioner had been represented by an attorney, Millard Farmer. 560 F. Supp. 525 (MD Ga. 1983). Viewing the latter question as one of fact and the District Court’s resolution as not clearly erroneous, a divided Court of Appeals affirmed without considering the nature of the hearing. 748 F. 2d 1435 (CA11 1984).

Assuming for the sake of argument that the District Court’s determination that attorney Farmer represented petitioner is a pure issue of fact, but see Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335, 342 (1980) (whether counsel engaged in multiple representation is mixed question of law and fact), I would not hesitate to hold that finding clearly erroneous. See 748 F. 2d, at 1456 (Tuttle, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Petitioner, Son Fleming, was arrested along with Henry Willis and Larry Fleming, who is petitioner’s nephew. Petitioner and his two codefendants requested and received separate appointed counsel. Larry Fleming’s appointed counsel induced Farmer, an experienced full-time criminal attorney, to represent both Larry Fleming and Henry Willis. Farmer then requested a commitment hearing for his two clients, who, like petitioner, had been indicted for kidnaping but not yet for murder. Petitioner’s counsel, who had been appointed on the kidnaping charge but not the murder charge, chose not to participate. Nevertheless, the prosecutor required petitioner to be at the hearing, at which the State introduced testimony on the kidnaping and murder charges, and permitted Farmer an opportunity to cross-examine.

The District Court found that Farmer had represented all three defendants at the hearing. It based this conclusion on the facts that the transcript showed Farmer appearing “for the defendants,” id., at 1444, and that the prosecutor had referred to Farmer as “counsel for the defendants,” ibid. The District Court also gave weight to Farmer’s failure to inform the court during the hearing that he was not representing all three defendants, and to his cross-examination of the State’s witnesses, which related to the conduct of all three defendants.

These facts are simply insufficient to support the conclusion that Farmer represented petitioner in the face of direct evidence to the contrary. Farmer, whom the District Court characterized as an experienced criminal attorney, 560 F. Supp., at 529, testified under oath at the habeas hearing that he had not represented petitioner at the “commitment” hearing, id., at 533. Petitioner’s appointed attorney also believed that Farmer had not represented petitioner at the hearing. 748 F. 2d, at 1460 (Tuttle, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Finally, it is undisputed that the prosecutor knew before the hearing that Farmer did not represent petitioner. Id., at 1459; 560 F. Supp., at 529-580.

Most importantly, Farmer could not possibly have represented petitioner without incurring an actual and substantial conflict of interest. At the time of the hearing, none of the defendants had been indicted for the murder. Petitioner had told the police that he had not participated in the killing, but instead had begged his codefendants to spare the victim’s life. Id., at 529. According to Larry Fleming, however, petitioner and Willis had shot the victim. 748 F. 2d, at 1460. No extended discussion is necessary to demonstrate that Farmer could not represent both petitioner and Larry Fleming under those circumstances. Petitioner thus had either no counsel or counsel who “actively represented conflicting interests,” Cuyler, supra, at 350. In either event, reversal is automatic. Holloway, supra, at 489; Cuyler, supra, at 349-350.

The District Court’s determination that the hearing in this case was not a critical stage is even less persuasive. The District Court concluded that there had been no need for a commitment hearing because all three defendants could legally have been detained on the kidnaping charges. Moreover, the Justice of the Peace had made no probable-cause determination, as he presumably would have following a commitment hearing. The District Court therefore chose to characterize the hearing as “an agreed upon discovery conference.” 560 F. Supp., at 533. Sixth Amendment rights, however, do not turn upon how a proceeding is characterized for purposes of state law, or indeed upon whether state law expressly mandates such a proceeding. Coleman v. Alabama, supra, at 8 (plurality opinion). The critical inquiry is whether “counsel’s absence might derogate from the accused’s right to a fair trial.” United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218, 226 (1967) (footnote omitted).

The hearing in this case was unquestionably a critical stage within the meaning of Wade and Coleman. As Judge Tuttle ob-served, the hearing was petitioner’s first opportunity to cross-examine the State’s witnesses. 748 F. 2d, at 1457. Thus the plurality’s observations in Coleman, supra, at 9, are equally relevant here:

“[T]he skilled interrogation of witnesses by an experienced lawyer can fashion a vital impeachment tool for use in cross-examination of the State’s witnesses at the trial, or preserve testimony favorable to the accused of a witness who does not appear at the trial. . . . [T]rained counsel can more effectively discover the case the State has against his client and make possible the preparation of a proper defense to meet that case at the trial.”

Petitioner therefore had a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at the hearing, no matter what that hearing was called or why Farmer requested it. The District Court’s determination that Farmer represented petitioner is either contrary to law or clearly erroneous. I would grant the petition for certiorari and set the case for hearing on the merits.


text:
    No. 85-6166.
    Cuppay v. Blackburn, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-1361.
    No. 85-613.
    No. 85-787.
    No. 85-813.
    No. 85-820.
    No. 85-5372.
    No. 85-5380.
    No. 85-5439.
    No. 85-5679.
    United States v. Loud Hawk et al., Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc. v. Travelers Insurance Cos. et al., Daves v. State Bar of Texas, Minnesota Timber Producers Assn., Inc. v. American Mutual Insurance Company of Boston, Norwood v. INA Life Insurance Co. et al., Levitt v. Monroe et al., Jackson v. General Dynamics, Inc., Johnson v. Manson, Commissioner of Corrections of Connecticut, Paskuly v. Marshall Field & Co.,
   474 U. S. 302;

474 U. S. 1056;

474 U. S. 1043;

474 U. S. 1059;

474 U. S. 1059;

474 U. S. 1034;

474 U. S. 1063;

474 U. S. 1063; and

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


text:
    No. 85-5738.
    No. 85-5764.
    No. 85-5839.
    No. 85-5889.
    Cossett et al. v. Ledford, Trustee, Sellner v. Maryland, Gray v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Rispoli v. United States et al.,
   474 U. S. 1065;

474 U. S. 1066;

474 U. S. 1069; and

474 U. S. 1069. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 85-773.
    Atlantic Richfield Co. et al. v. Alaska et al.,
   474 U. S. 1043. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    March 6, 1986
    No. A-653 (85-6448).
    Adams v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. The order of February 28, 1986 [ante, p. 1041], is vacated. The application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, is granted until March 25, 1986, or until the disposition by this Court of the petition for writ of certiorari, whichever is earlier, unless otherwise extended by the Court.

Justice Rehnquist and Justice O’Connor would deny the application for stay.


text:
    March 10, 1986

    No. 85-353.
    Michigan Diversified Business Products, Inc., et al. v. City of Warren et al.

       Justice BRENNAN took no part in the consideration or decision of the orders announced on this date with the exception of No. 85-6333, Egger v. Casey, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, et al., infra, p. 1064.

   Appeal from Ct. App. Mich, dismissed for want of properly presented federal question.

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


text:
    No. 85-1185.
    Wheaton v. City of Oklahoma City et al.
   Appeal from Ct. Crim. App. Okla. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 85-1211.
    Rajaram v. A. S. Abell Publishing Co.
   Appeal from Ct. Sp. App. Md. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6206.
    Gaydos v. Strelecki et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 3d Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of cer-tiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-498.
    Abernathy et al. v. San Jose Teachers Assn.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Teachers v. Hudson, ante, p. 292.


text:
    No. 85-298.
    Connolly v. Burt.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 474 U. S. 1004.] Judgment vacated and case remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions that it instruct the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to dismiss the complaint as moot.


text:
    No. - - -.
    Elmwood-Utica Houses, Inc. v. Buffalo Sewer Authority.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. D-547.
    In re Disbarment of Magruder.
   It is ordered that R. Jack Magruder III, of Little Rock, Ark., 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. 85-701.
    Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.
   C. A. 1st Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 474 U. S. 1049.] Motion of Common Cause for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 85-782.
    Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1009.] Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 85-6124.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner to consolidate this case with No. 85-5189, McLaughlin v. United States [certiorari granted, 474 U. S. 944], denied.


text:
    No. 85-6333.
    Egger v. Casey, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 31, 1986, 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., 464 U. S. 928 (1983), we would deny the petition for writ of certiorari ■without reaching the merits of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.


text:
    No. 85-6236.
    In re Tucker.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 85-1217.
    City of Springfield, Massachusetts v. Kibbe, Administratrix of the Estate of Thurston.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 84-6050.
    Curtis v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-542.
    Roth et al. v. City of Vallejo.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-697.
    Waggoner et al. v. Dallaire, dba A-Jay Excavating Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-855.
    Arkla, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-891.
    Smith, as Personal Representative of the Estates of Austin et al. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (United States, Real Party in Interest); and Smith, as Personal Representative of the Estates of Austin et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-951.
    Robinson et al. v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1036.
    No. 85-1037.
    Rutgers State University of New Jersey et al. v. Galda et al.; and New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Galda et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 F. 2d 1060.


text:
    No. 85-1052.
    Kupferstein v. New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1145.
    No. 85-1203.
    Williams et al. v. Wolfenbarger, dba Shady Sam’s Pawn Shop; and Tannery et al. v. Wolfenbarger, dba Shady Sam’s Pawn Shop.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 F. 2d 358.


text:
    No. 85-1178.
    Chattem, Inc. v. Bailey.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1182.
    Humble Exploration Co., Inc., et al. v. Browning et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 5th Sup. Jud. Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1193.
    Magee, Individually and t/a Collegiate Research Systems v. Ruvoldt, Prosecutor of Hudson County.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1202.
    Bradford, as Executrix of the Estate of Bradford v. Blue Pearl Music Corp.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1204.
    Terry v. Stone et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1212.
    Olen v. Purdue et al.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1215.
    Gates v. Spinks et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1216.
    O’Connell v. Maryland Steel Erectors, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1220.
    Hugh Knoell Builders, Inc. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Assn.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1241.
    Lubbock County, Texas, et al. v. Stewart et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1258.
    Brown et al. v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1330.
    Williams Rock Mining Co., Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5623.
    Wolfe v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5879.
    Ungar v. Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6037.
    Ames v. New York State Division of Parole.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6120.
    Powell v. Dugger, Superintendent, Florida State Prison.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6151.
    Girdner v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6186.
    Tucker et al. v. Maschner, Warden, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6192.
    Taylor v. Booker, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6194.
    Rodman v. Reed et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6196.
    Parker v. California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6197.
    Smith v. DeBartoli.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6201.
    Prantil v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6208.
    Borge v. Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6211.
    Moore v. Wells, Superintendent, Muskegon Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6212.
    Smiga v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6215.
    Brennan v. Habershaw et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6218.
    Gaspard v. Transworld Drilling Co.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6231.
    Sommer v. Clinton County Supreme Court et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6237.
    Tomas et al. v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6239.
    Roberts v. Dill.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6242.
    Howard v. Davis, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6246.
    Williams v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lawrence County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6247.
    McGee v. Screw Conveyor Corporation of Winona, Mississippi.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6249.
    Midwife v. Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6255.
    Bartley v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6267.
    Grant v. Abshire, Superintendent, Riverside Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6298.
    Huggard v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6328.
    Rivera v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6331.
    Carothers v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6336.
    Bero v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6339.
    Agilar v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6353.
    Dennis v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6358.
    Jenks et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6370.
    Aguirre v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.