text:
    No.-.
    Fernandez v. Kiner et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari that does not comply with the Rules of this Court denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No.-.
    Hill v. Watts et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file the petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. A-959.
    Mayoral et al. v. Jeffco American Baptist Residences, Inc., et al.
   The order entered by Justice White on May 25, 1984, is vacated, and the application for stay of mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is denied.


text:
    No. D-411.
    In re Disbarment of Sheehy.
    [For earlier order herein, see 465 U. S. 1096.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-416.
    In re Disbarment of Roundtree.
   Dovey J. Roundtree, of Washington, D. C., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that her name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on April 2, 1984 [466 U. S. 921], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-434.
    In re Disbarment of Schettino.
   It is ordered that John C. Schettino, of Bedford Hills, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 83-997.
    No. 83-1325.
    Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston et al. Air Line Pilots Assn., International v. Thurston et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1065]; and

C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 466 U. S. 926.] Motion of Equal Employment Advisory Council for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted. Motion of Trans World Airlines, Inc., for divided argument granted, and a total of 15 minutes allotted for that purpose. Motion of Air Line Pilots Association for divided argument granted, and a total of 15 minutes allotted for that purpose.


text:
    No. 83-1020.
    Ohio v. Kovacs, dba B & W Enterprises et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1078.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted. Motion of Council of State Governments et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 83-1158.
    Estate of Thornton et al. v. Caldor, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1078.] Motion of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 83-1386.
    No. 83-1721.
    No. 83-1838.
    Leggett, Collector of Revenue in the City of St. Louis, et al. v. Liddell et al.; Missouri et al. v. Liddell et al.; and North St. Louis Parents and Citizens for Quality Education et al. v. Liddell et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioners in No. 83-1386 and respondents Leggett et al. in Nos. 83-1721 and 83-1838 to expedite consideration of the petitions for writs of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1569.
    No. 83-1733.
    Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.; and Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.
   C. A. 1st Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 83-6577.
    No. 83-6592.
    In re Sommer; and In re Seitu.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 83-1394.
    United States et al. v. Locke et al.
   Appeal from D. C. Nev. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 83-1590.
    Francis, Warden v. Franklin.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-422.
    Group Health Inc. v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1128.
    Seay, aka Derringer v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1273.
    Lewis Service Center, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1374.
    Cody v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1406.
    Vance v. Whirlpool Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1413.
    Lemire et al. v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1438.
    Selman, Executrix of the Estate of Selman, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1501.
    Faust, Administratrix of the Estate of Faust, et al. v. South Carolina State Highway Department et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1572.
    Flannery v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1581.
    Ward v. Sentry Title Co., Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1640.
    Templeton et ux. v. Arsenal Savings Assn. et al.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1653.
    Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. v. Embers Supper Club, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1661.
    Brooklyn Psychosocial Rehabilitation Institute, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1664.
    Baird et al. v. Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1666.
    Turner v. Maryland et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1676.
    Saunders v. Marsh, Secretary of the Army.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1682.
    Martin Steel Corp. et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Owatonna Elevator Co. et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1686.
    Eastern Bancorporation v. Former Officers and Directors of Eastern Bancorporation.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1761.
    Corwin et al. v. Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1768.
    Thomas et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1772.
    Woolard v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1775.
    Becker et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1780.
    Zimmerman v. Grievance Committee of the Fifth Judicial District of New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1806.
    McAnlis v. United States et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1809.
    Rhodes v. Hogan.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1824.
    Jennings v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6252.
    Carter v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6282.
    Mothershed v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6303.
    Johnston v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6358.
    Worthing v. Israel, Superintendent, Waupun Correctional Institution, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6387.
    Howell v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6391.
    Lacoste v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6427.
    Thoma v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6447.
    Hall v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6480.
    Jones v. Mabry et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6502.
    London v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6548.
    Palmer v. Perko, Deputy Director, Colorado Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6550.
    Pires v. Grumman Aerospace Co.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6556.
    Buchman v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6558.
    Gormon v. Frey.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6559.
    Sanford v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6560.
    Munoz v. McKaskle, Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6561.
    Rothschild v. Letts et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6562.
    Schmidt v. Schmidt.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6564.
    Salcedo v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6569.
    Koehler v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6571.
    Coleman v. Spears, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6572.
    Holland v. Agriculture Federal Credit Union et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6576.
    Molasky v. Westfall et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6578.
    Palmer v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6585.
    Antonelli v. Illinois et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6586.
    Bailey v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6597.
    Jermosen v. Smith, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6598.
    Crutchfield v. Fitzgerald et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6605.
    Noll v. Keohane, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6619.
    Smith v. Bradford et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6627.
    Alers v. Puerto Rico et al.
   Sup. Ct. P. R. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6632.
    Barham v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6655.
    Darden v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6657.
    Landis et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6659.
    Kageler et al. v. Keohane, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6667.
    Hill v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6677.
    Hanson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6678.
    Hutchinson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6681.
    Rangel v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6684.
    Zullo v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6686.
    Morrow v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6687.
    Kele v. Hanberry, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6692.
    Rutledge v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-1758.
    Rhinehart et al. v. The Seattle Times et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-802.
    Burlington Northern Railroad Co. et al. v. Lennen, Secretary of Revenue of Kansas, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-1662.
    Lewis v. Brown & Root, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondent for damages denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1671.
    Braswell et al. v. Flintkote Mines, Ltd., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 82-1186.
    No. 82-1465.
    No. 83-181.
    No. 83-1375.
    No. 83-6215.
    No. 83-6283.
    No. 83-6284.
    No. 83-6287.
    No. 83-6307.
    No. 83-6308.
    No. 83-6393.
    Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp. et al., Franklin Mint Corp. et al. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, Akin et al. v. Dahl, Godfrey v. Francis, Warden, Coleman v. Sussex County et al., Coleman v. Millsboro Township, Herrington v. Met Coal & Coke Co., Inc., Young v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, McPeek et al. v. Green et al., Chanya v. United States,
   466 U. S. 243;

466 U. S. 243;

466 U. S. 147;

466 U. S. 938:

466 U. S. 945;

466 U. S. 941;

466 U. S. 941;

466 U. S. 941;

466 U. S. 942;

466 U. S. 952; and

466 U. S. 943. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 82-708.
    Summa Corp. v. California ex rel. State Lands Commission et al.,
   466 U. S. 198. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-243.
    Brown & Root, Inc., et al. v. Thornton et al.,
   464 U. S. 1052. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 7, 1984
    No. A-974.
    Wisconsin Elections Board et al. v. Republican Party of Wisconsin et al.
   Application for stay of the mandate of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, presented to Justice Stevens, and by him referred to the Court, is granted pending the timely docketing and final disposition of the appeal.


author: Chief Justice Burger,

text:
    June 11, 1984
    No. 83-1021.
    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Allstate Insurance Co.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. Miss, dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Chief Justice Burger,

with whom Justice O’Connor joins,

dissenting.

Without explanation, the Court holds today that we lack appellate jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1252 to review a judgment of a Federal District Court holding an entire Act of Congress unconstitutional as long as the party seeking review merely purports to challenge only the remedy ordered by the District Court even though the remedy sought on appeal would necessarily require a reversal of the District Court holding that the Act is unconstitutional. The practical effect of this holding is that by merely addressing a challenge only to the remedy provided by the District Court, a direct appeal to this Court from a decision of a Federal District Court holding an Act of Congress unconstitutional can be frustrated. Notwithstanding the burdens on the Court — which have more than doubled in three decades — I am unwilling to say on the basis of the scánt information- before us that Congress intended our appellate jurisdiction under § 1252 to be so easily circumvented. Because of the significance of not only the jurisdictional but the underlying substantive issues presented by this appeal, I would set the case for argument, and postpone resolution of the jurisdictional question until argument on the merits.

A brief recitation of the procedural history of this case is necessary to put the Court’s holding in perspective. In 1963, Congress passed § 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U. S. C. § 206(d), known as the Equal Pay Act. The Act vested enforcement authority for the Equal Pay Act in the Secretary of Labor. However, in 1978, as part of an overall effort to centralize authority for enforcement of the various sex discrimination statutes, the Secretary’s enforcement authority was transferred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 3 CFR 321 (1979). The Reorganization Plan was implemented pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1977, 5 U. S. C. §901 et seq., which conferred on the President authority to reorganize Executive. departments and agencies subject to certain specified congressional limitations. The Reorganization Act required the President to transmit any proposed reorganization plan to both Houses of Congress. §903. Pursuant to 5 U. S. C. § 906(a), any plan submitted by the President became “effective” at the end of 60 days of continuous session of the Congress unless during that time either House passed a resolution of disapproval or its equivalent.

Reorganization Plan No. 1 was submitted to both Houses of Congress as required by the Reorganization Act. The House roundly rejected a resolution of disapproval. H. R. Res. 1049, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978); 124 Cong. Rec. 11336-11337 (1978). Although a resolution of disapproval was not brought to a vote in the Senate, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs unanimously recommended against passage of a resolution of disapproval. S. Res. 404, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978); S. Rep. No. 95-750, pp. 6, 10 (1978). Because neither House of Congress vetoed the Reorganization Plan, the Plan and the transfer of enforcement authority to appellant, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, became effective.

In April 1982, appellant filed a complaint against appellee in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging that appellee was violating the Equal Pay Act by paying lower wages to female unit supervisors and underwriters than to males performing the same duties. Appellee moved for summary judgment, contending that the transfer of enforcement authority to appellant under Reorganization Plan No. 1 was invalid because the legislative veto provision in the Reorganization Act was unconstitutional. Appellee maintained that the legislative veto provision was not severable from the balance of the Act and, thus, that the entire Act was invalid; that the transfer of enforcement authority to appellant pursuant to the Act was therefore invalid; and that, as a result, appellant was without authority to enforce the Equal Pay Act.

The District Court granted appellee’s summary judgment motion and dismissed appellant’s enforcement action. 570 F. Supp. 1224 (1988). The court first held that the one-House veto provision in the Reorganization Act, even though not exercised here, was unconstitutional under INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919 (1983). 570 F. Supp., at 1229. After a brief inquiry into the legislative history of the Reorganization Act, the court determined that “Congress intended the one-house veto provision to be an integral and inseparable part of the entire Act such that it would limit the power of the President to propose and enact reorganization plans.” Id., at 1282. It then concluded that since the legislative veto provision was unconstitutional, “the entire Act must be held unconstitutional,” ibid.:

“[Tjhis court must conclude that the Reorganization Act of 1977 is unconstitutional. It necessarily follows that the Reorganization Plan 1 of 1978, which contains the provision allowing the EEOC to enforce the Equal Pay Act, is unconstitutional since the plan was adopted pursuant to the Act.” Id., at 1234 (emphasis added).

Last, applying the standards set forth by this Court in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (1971), the District Court decided that its decision should be given retroactive effect.

On September 16, 1983, appellant filed in the District Court a notice of appeal to this Court. One month later, appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, invoking that court’s jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1291. On November 23, 1983, appellee filed a motion in the Fifth Circuit to dismiss appellant’s § 1291 appeal. Appellant filed a memorandum in opposition contending, as the Solicitor General did in Heckler v. Edwards, 465 U. S. 870 (1984), that a direct appeal to this Court does not lie where the appellant challenges only the relief provided in the district court, not that court’s holding that a particular Act of Congress is unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit denied appellant’s motion to dismiss, but it stayed the appeal pending resolution of the jurisdictional issue by this Court. We in turn held the case pending disposition of Heckler v. Edwards, supra, in which we held that a direct appeal to this Court under § 1252 does not lie when the appellant challenges only the relief granted, not the district court’s holding that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional.

The Solicitor General argues on behalf of appellant that appellant challenges only the relief ordered — dismissal of the enforcement action — not the District Court’s holding that the legislative veto provision is unconstitutional. He thus contends, and the Court accepts the argument, that under Heckler v. Edwards, supra, the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. I agree that appellant does not challenge the District Court’s holding that the legislative veto provision is unconstitutional. But this is not the question. The controlling question is whether appellant is in fact challenging the District Court’s holding that the entire Act — not just the legislative veto provision — is unconstitutional.

I see no alternative to the conclusion that appellant is necessarily challenging the constitutional holding. Appellant cannot possibly challenge the dismissal of the enforcement action without at the same time challenging the District Court’s holding that the Act in its entirety is unconstitutional. The dismissal and the constitutional holding are inextricably linked; the Act was held unconstitutional, as a result of which appellant was held to be without enforcement authority, and therefore the complaint was dismissed. If the District Court’s dismissal is to be overturned, the appellate court must overturn the holding that the Act in its entirety is unconstitutional. In the words of Heckler v. Edwards, supra, at 880, “the issue on appeal is the holding of statutory unconstitutionality.”

The Court purports to rely upon our recent decision in Heckler to support its dismissal. However, it is plain that that case is quite different from this one in the most critical respect. In Heckler, the Government conceded that it was not challenging the only constitutional holding of the District Court in that case. Here, in contrast, while the Government accepts the holding that the legislative veto provision is unconstitutional, it does not concede the correctness of the District Court’s holding that the entire Act is unconstitutional. This is precisely the holding it seeks to have reviewed on appeal. Given the obvious difference between this case and Heckler, at the very least I am unprepared to say here, without briefing and argument, that jurisdiction does not lie to this Court.

The underlying problem that the Solicitor General’s argument is designed to circumvent — and the issue that the Court’s unexplained dismissal fails to come to grips with — is that the District Court’s invalidation of the Act in its entirety probably could have been — and perhaps should have been — on a statutory, not a constitutional basis. See INS v. Chadha, supra, at 931-932. The District Court’s holding indeed amounts to nothing more than a determination of congressional intent, and it appears to acknowledge as much. 570 F. Supp., at 1230. Had the District Court simply determined, as a matter of statutory construction, that appellant cannot exercise the authority to enforce the Equal Pay Act because Congress did not wish the Act to be operative absent the veto provision, I would agree that dismissal would clearly be compelled under Heckler v. Edwards: Under these circumstances, it would be clear, as in Heckler, that appellant was not challenging the constitutional holding of the District Court since it concedes the validity of the court’s holding on the legislative veto provision. But this is not the holding of the District Court. And the mere assertion now by the Solicitor General, and implicitly by the Court, that the holding was in reality one of statutory construction cannot change the fact that the District Court explicitly and unambiguously held the entire Act unconstitutional.

I find the Court’s readiness to dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction disturbing particularly in light of the importance of the underlying substantive issues. An entire Act of Congress has been held unconstitutional, which itself raises a question of import. There is the question whether the District Court was correct in its finding that the legislative veto provision is nonseverable. There apparently are also lingering questions after Chadha on what a court is to do once it finds a legislative veto provision unconstitutional and nonseverable. Finally, there are the substantial questions whether Chadha should be applied retroactively, given that the Reorganization Plan was not vetoed by either House and was implemented before Chadha was decided, and whether Congress has in any event ratified the transfer of enforcement authority to the EEOC through appropriations and other statutes validly passed. These matters are appropriate for resolution by this Court.

      Section 1252 provides in relevant part that
      “[a]ny party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory or final judgment, decree or order of any court of the United States . . . holding any Act of Congress unconstitutional in any civil action, suit, or proceeding to which the United States or any of its agencies, or any officer or employee thereof ... is a party.”


text:
    No. 83-1700.
    Blum et al. v. Rosewell, Treasurer of Cook County, Illinois.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-1711.
    Albrecht, Inc., et al. v. Village of Hudson.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-6591.
    Pershe v. Irizarry et al.
   Appeal from Super. Ct. P. R. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 82-707.
    No. 82-804.
    Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Co. et al. v. United States et al.; and National Motor Freight Traffic Assn., Inc. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of ICC v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., ante, p. 354. Reported below: 682 F. 2d 1092.


text:
    No. D-412.
    In re Disbarment of Spitznagel.
    [For earlier order herein, see 465 U. S. 1096.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-418.
    In re Disbarment of Anderson.
    [For earlier order herein, see 466 U. S. 934.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-435.
    In re Disbarment of Mann.
   It is ordered that William Davis Mann, of Akron, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-436.
    In re Disbarment of Howard.
   It is ordered that Charles P. Howard, Jr., of Baltimore, Md., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-437.
    In re Disbarment of Feinberg.
   It is ordered that Alexander Feinberg, of Haddonfield, N. J., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-438.
    In re Disbarment of Guardino.
   It is ordered that Joseph Richard Guardino, of East Williston, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-439.
    In re Disbarment of Gerzof.
   It is ordered that Julius M. Gerzof, of Freeport, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 65,
    Orig.
    Texas v. New Mexico.
    [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 465 U. S. 1063.]
   Motion of New Mexico to remand the case to the Special Master denied. Exception of New Mexico to the Report of the Special Master overruled. Report and Recommendation of the Special Master approved.


text:
    No. 82-5920.
    Shea v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. [Certiorari granted, 466 U. S. 957.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Frances Baker Jack, of Shreveport, La., be appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 83-727.
    Alexander, Governor of Tennessee, et al. v. Jennings et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1021.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 83-990.
    School District of the City of Grand Rapids et al. v. Ball et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1064.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 83-997.
    No. 83-1325.
    Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston et al. Air Line Pilots Assn., International v. Thurston et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1065]; and

C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 466 U. S. 926.] Motion of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 83-1013.
    No. 83-1373.
    Chemical Manufacturers Assn. et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.; and United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 466 U. S. 957.] Motion of the parties to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 83-1158.
    Estate of Thornton et al. v. Caldor, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1078.] Motions of Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, Seventh-Day Adventist Church, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 83-1307.
    United States v. Powell.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1203.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that John J. Cleary, Esquire, of San Diego, Cal., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 83-5424.
    Ake v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1099.] Motions of New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, American Psychiatric Association, and American Psychological Association et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 83-6035.
    No. 83-6628.
    Taylor v. United States. Lyons v. U. S. Air Force et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir.; and

C. A. Fed. Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed informa paupe-ris denied. Petitioners are allowed until July 2, 1984, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in Brown v. Herald Co., 464 U. S. 928 (1983), we would deny the petitions for writs of certiorari without reaching the merits of the motions to proceed in forma pauperis.


text:
    No. 83-6061.
    Garcia et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 466 U. S. 926.] Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 82-1832.
    Town of Hallie et al. v. City of Eau Claire.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 82-1922.
    Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari granted.


text:
    No. 83-1708.
    Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-1249.
    Sims et al. v. Central Intelligence Agency et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, case consolidated with No. 83-1075, CIA v. Sims [certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1078], and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 82-1827.
    American Trucking Assns., Inc., et al. v. Interstate Commerce Commission et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-154.
    Title Insurance Rating Bureau of Arizona, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1351.
    Alonso v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1430.
    No. 83-1683.
    No. 83-1725.
    J. Baranello & Sons v. City of Paterson et al.; Consolidated Precast, Inc. v. City of Paterson et al.; and Independent Electrical Co., Inc. v. City of Paterson et al.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1463.
    No. 83-1578.
    Ledesma v. Georgia; and Merritt v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 251 Ga. 885, 311 S. E. 2d 427.


text:
    No. 83-1520.
    Local 222, International Ladies' Garment Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1539.
    Carroll v. United States et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1577.
    DeFiore v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1599.
    Holder v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1652.
    Papago Tribal Utility Authority v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1663.
    Schafer v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1668.
    Moskowitz et al. v. Saul J. Morgan Enterprises, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1670.
    American Motors Corp. v. Hanna.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1680.
    Lawless v. Pierce et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1681.
    Caron v. Bangor Publishing Co.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1684.
    Bryner et al. v. Security Pacific National Bank et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1689.
    Brown, Administratrix of the Estate of Brown, et al. v. Brown et al.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1690.
    Gustafson v. Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1698.
    D. E. Rogers Associates, Inc., et al. v. Gardner-Denver Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1705.
    Pekarski et al. v. Abraham.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1707.
    Rothmann et al. v. M.V. Resolute et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1709.
    Stein v. Gagliardo.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1717.
    Alabama Surface Mining Reclamation Commission v. Commercial Standard Insurance Co.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1720.
    Korn et al. v. Rabbinical Council of California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1724.
    Griffis v. Delta Family-Care Disability and Survivorship Plan et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1730.
    Sea-Hire Service, S. A. v. Trinidad Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1742.
    Scott et al. v. Siebel, Executrix of the Estate of Siebel, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1769.
    Burche v. Walters et al.
   Ct. App. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1773.
    Eilerson et al. v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Hamilton County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1787.
    Robinson et vir v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1795.
    Todd Pacific Shipyards et al. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1802.
    Daniel et al. v. Pettway et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1808.
    Ninety-Two Point Seven Broadcasting, Inc., et al. v. Hanover Radio, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1810.
    Miller v. Port of Ilwaco et al.
   Ct. App.

Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1821.
    Levenson v. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1828.
    Sperling v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1857.
    Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Parson.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1861.
    Allegheny Mutual Casualty Co. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1866.
    Erkins et al. v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5286.
    Mills v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6237.
    Walker v. United States Parole Commission et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6263.
    Hood v. United States Parole Commission.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6270.
    Hayes v. Mignano.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6353.
    Bury v. Macaluso et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6384.
    Cherry v. Marshall, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Center.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6409.
    Ramos v. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6424.
    Atalig v. Northern Mariana Islands.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6438.
    Fant v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6463.
    Rizzio v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6476.
    Girdler v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6594.
    Viccarone v. North Olmstead Police Department.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6603.
    Sena v. Winans, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6609.
    Gee v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6612.
    Dawson v. Maggio, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6614.
    Tillis v. Cooke et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6615.
    Hernandez v. Spencer et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6618.
    Smith v. Carroll.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6621.
    Remson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6630.
    Lipscomb v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6643.
    Reilly v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6664.
    Berry v. Foltz, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6669.
    Bartels v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6682.
    Parker v. Petrovsky, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6691.
    Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6700.
    Lee v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6701.
    LaRoche v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6703.
    Hildebrand v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6705.
    Burris v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6710.
    Stinson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6711.
    McKiness v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6719.
    Blake v. Goldman et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6720.
    King v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6721.
    Carlucci v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6725.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6726.
    Palmer v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6729.
    Browning v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6730.
    Hines v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6731.
    Jourdan v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6734.
    Antonelli v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1309.
    Doe v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice Brennan would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 83-1468.
    Durant v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan would grant certiorari.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 83-6589.
    No. 83-6736.
    Robison v. Oklahoma. Sims v. Florida.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla.; and

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 83-6589, 677 P. 2d 1080; No. 83-6736, 444 So. 2d 922.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 83-998.
    No. 83-1465.
    No. 83-5995.
    No. 83-6297.
    No. 83-6397.
    No. 83-6416.
    Foley Construction Co. v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers et al., Farmer v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Williams v. Texas, Underwood v. Ohio, Hyman v. South Carolina, Broadway v. United States,
   466 U. S. 936;

466 U. S. 946;

466 U. S. 954;

466 U. S. 934;

466 U. S. 963; and

466 U. S. 943. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 83-6485.
    No. 83-6498.
    Acharya v. Young et al., Flick v. United States,
   466 U. S. 961; and

466 U. S. 962. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 13, 1984
    No. 82-1074.
    American Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. Pettway et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s


text:
    June 18, 1984
    No. 83-930.
    Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. The Vessel Bay Ridge et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under

this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    No. 83-1096.
    Gomez-Hermanos, Inc. v. Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. P. R. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Reported below:-P. R. R.-.

Justice White, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Rehnquist would postpone further consideration of the question of jurisdiction until a hearing of the case on the merits.


text:
    No. 83-1196.
    American Trucking Assns., Inc., et al. v. New York State Tax Commission et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-1764.
    L. D. Butler, Inc. v. Ashley, dba Phil Ashley Trucking.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 83-1540.
    Lester et al. v. McGill.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Idaho dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6339.
    Hanson v. Illinois.
   Appeal from App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist., 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.-.
    Amidon et al. v. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari that does not comply with the Rules of this Court denied.


text:
    No.-.
    Chevron U. S. A., Inc. v. Hammond et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file the petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. A-971 (83-6828).
    Pepper v. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (California, Real Party in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 82-976.
    California v. Howard,
   466 U. S. 957. Respondent is requested to file a response to the petition for rehearing within 30 days.


text:
    No. 83-240.
    Lawrence County et al. v. Lead-Deadwood School District No. 40-1.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 466 U. S. 903.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 83-727.
    Alexander, Governor of Tennessee, et al. v. Jennings et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1021.] Motion of respondents to substitute Hershel Choate for Rosier Jennings, now deceased, is granted.


text:
    No. 83-1394.
    United States et al. v. Locke et al.
   D. C. Nev. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 1225.] Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 83-1429.
    Alabama Power Co. et al. v. Sierra Club et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motions of Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co., Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., et al., Associated Industries of Alabama, Inc., National Coal Association, and Ohio Mining and Reclamation Association for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.

Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.


text:
    No. 83-1620.
    First National Bank of Atlanta, as Successor in Interest to First National Bank of Cartersville, Georgia v. Bartow County Board of Tax Assessors et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 1214.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 83-1747 (A-935).
    Tate, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institute v. Rose.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion to vacate the stay entered by Justice O’Connor [466 U. S. 1301] denied.


text:
    No. 83-1840.
    Berthelot v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner to compel the transmission of presentence report denied.


text:
    No. 83-1959.
    No. 83-1961.
    Eklund v. United States; and Martin v. United States. Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir.; and

C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of petitioners to expedite consideration of the petitions for writs of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5424.
    Ake v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1099.] Motions of Office of the Public Defender of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, et al. and National Legal Aid and Defender Association et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 83-6634.
    Dawn et al. v. H. Rex Greene, M. D., Inc., et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Motion of appellants for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Appellants are allowed until July 9, 1984, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a statement as to jurisdiction in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in Brown v. Herald Co., 464 U. S. 928 (1983), we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and, treating the papers whereon the appeal would be taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, we would deny certiorari without reaching the merits of the motion to proceed informa pauperis.


text:
    No. 83-6676.
    Garcia v. Ingram.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner to consolidate this case with No. 83-1360, Webb v. County Board of Education of Dyer County, Tennessee [certiorari granted, 466 U. S. 935], denied.


text:
    No. 83-6631.
    No. 83-6652.
    In re Dohm; and In re Yates.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 83-1015.
    National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al. v. Hampton County Election Commission et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. C. Probable jurisdiction noted.

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


text:
    No. 82-2157.
    Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund et al. v. Central Transport, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-529.
    United States v. Sharpe et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-1623.
    Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-1625.
    United States v. Johns et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-1660.
    No. 83-6381.
    Atkins, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare v. Parker et al.; and Parker et al. v. Block, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motions of Gill Parker et al. for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 722 F. 2d 933.


text:
    No. 83-1878.
    Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Chaney et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 83-5954.
    Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management.


text:
    No. 82-1699.
    Oakland Scavenger Co. v. Bonilla et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1398.
    Crockett, Member, United States House of Representatives, et al. v. Reagan, President of the United States, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1450.
    Cunningham et al. v. Donovan, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1477.
    Nezowy v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1485.
    Moller et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1496.
    Shippers National Freight Claim Council, Inc., et al. v. Interstate Commerce Commission et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1503.
    Cockrell v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1510.
    Ferguson et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1527.
    Hall v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1528.
    Lane v. Arkansas Valley Publishing Co. et al.
   Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1573.
    No. 83-1657.
    No. 83-1801.
    Calandra v. United States; Licavoli v. United States; and Liberatore v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 725 F. 2d 1040.


text:
    No. 83-1596.
    Valenta v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1614.
    Gottfried et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1636.
    Proud, Individually, and as Next Friend of Proud, a Minor v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1719.
    Cusmano v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1728.
    Home Box Office, Inc., et al. v. Crimpers Promotions Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1734.
    Balelo et al. v. Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1735.
    Oregon v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1740.
    Senn Trucking Co. v. Wasson et al.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1749.
    Heinrich Schmidt Reederei v. Byrd, as Administratrix of the Estate of Byrd.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1765.
    Bray et al. v. Michigan et al.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1774.
    Raymark Industries, Inc. v. Clay et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1784.
    Port Houston Marine, Inc. v. Dockside Terminal Services, Inc.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1786.
    Aarsvold et al. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1794.
    Regan v. Town of Brookhaven.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1804.
    Sandusky Real Estate, Inc., dba Real Estate One, et al. v. McDonald et ux.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1825.
    Cord v. Neuhoff et al., Co-Executors of the Estate of Cord.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1837.
    Watkins v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1859.
    Fothergill v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1881.
    M & K Farms, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1883.
    Doamarel v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-5846.
    Lee v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6277.
    Handy v. Peck.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6352.
    Goldade v. Wyoming.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6457.
    Lee v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6466.
    Wolf v. Gardner, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6469.
    Hastings v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6475.
    Castello v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6516.
    Scoble v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6617.
    Powell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6626.
    Collins v. Western Electric Co., Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6638.
    Koenig v. New Jersey.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6641.
    Wells v. Israel, Superintendent, Waupun Correctional Institution, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6642.
    Sanders v. Fair, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6645.
    Phillips v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6648.
    Richardson v. Sheriff of Johnston County et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6649.
    Slater v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6651.
    Naff v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6658.
    Farley v. Saunders et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6724.
    Wabbington v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6728.
    Alley v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6735.
    Pablo-Lugones v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6737.
    Threat v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6739.
    Ponce de Leon v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6743.
    Cooper v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6744.
    Russell v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6745.
    McKinney v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6747.
    Odom v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6750.
    Hill v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6754.
    Rusk v. Maryland.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6762.
    Evans v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6764.
    Garcia-Array v. United States.
   C. A. 11th

Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-778.
    Wambheim et al. v. J. C. Penney Co., Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-1498.
    Black Citizens for a Fair Media et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C.

Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-1509.
    No. 83-1515.
    Murphy Oil Corp. v. Naph-Sol Refining Co.; and Mobil Oil Corp. et al. v. United States Department of Energy et al.
   Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. Certio-rari denied. Reported below: 728 F. 2d 1477.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


text:
    No. 83-1555.
    No. 83-1638.
    Hoopa Valley Tribe of Indians v. Short et al.; and Eddy et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Motion of Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in No. 83-1555 granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 719 F. 2d 1133.


text:
    No. 83-1558.
    Zant, Warden v. Willis.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1615.
    O’Rourke v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6425.
    Wayment v. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1752.
    Humphrey, Attorney General of Minnesota, et al. v. Northern States Power Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Motion of National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6260.
    No. 83-6266.
    No. 83-6452.
    No. 83-6500.
    No. 83-6608.
    No. 83-6636.
    Travaglia v. Pennsylvania. Lesko v. Pennsylvania. Tokman v. Mississippi. Dutton v. Oklahoma. Willis v. Zant, Warden. Guzman v. New Mexico.
   Sup. Ct. Pa.;

Sup. Ct. Pa.;

Sup. Ct. Miss.;

Ct. Crim. App. Okla.;

C. A. 11th Cir.; and

Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied. Reported below: Nos. 83-6260 and 83-6266, 502 Pa. 474, 467 A. 2d 288; No. 83-6452, 435 So. 2d 664; No. 83-6500, 674 P. 2d 1134; No. 83-6608, 720 F. 2d 1212; No. 83-6636, 100 N. M. 756, 676 P. 2d 1321.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 83-122.
    No. 83-1159.
    No. 83-6145.
    No. 83-6227.
    No. 83-6494.
    No. 83-6513.
    No. 83-6530.
    Hydrokinetics, Inc. v. Alaska Mechanical, Inc., Kuntz v. Winters National Bank & Trust Co. et al., Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., Perkins v. Thompson, Governor of Illinois, Rettig v. Kent City School District et al., McDonald v. Leech, Attorney General of Tennessee, et al., Bonner v. Philadelphia International Records et al.,
   466 U. S. 962;

465 U. S. 1080;

465 U. S. 1070;

466 U. S. 960;

ante, p. 1201;

ante, p. 1208; and

466 U. S. 977. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 19, 1984
    No. A-1030.
    Shriner v. Wainwright, Director, Florida Department of Corrections.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, is denied for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 735 F. 2d 1236 (1984).

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the application. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.


text:
    June 25, 1984
    No. 83-507.
    Carpenters Pension Trust for Southern California v. Shelter Framing Corp. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R. A. Gray & Co., ante, p. 717.


text:
    No. A-1019.
    Holderman v. United States.
   D. C. Conn. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-409.
    In re Disbarment of Maier.
    [For earlier order herein, see 465 U. S. 1096.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-410.
    In re Disbarment of Pacor.
    [For earlier order herein, see 465 U. S. 1096.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-417.
    In re Disbarment of Friedland.
    [For earlier order herein, see 466 U. S. 921.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. 83-240.
    Lawrence County et al. v. Lead-Deadwood School District No. 40-1.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 466 U. S. 903.] Motion of National Association of Counties et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 83-728.
    Herb’s Welding, Inc., et al. v. Gray et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1098.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 83-1158.
    Estate of Thornton et al. v. Caldor, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. [Certiorari granted, 465 U. S. 1078.] Motion of Connecticut for divided argument granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 83-1234.
    No. 83-1248.
    No. 83-1278.
    Ashland Oil, Inc., et al. v. Good et al.; Mobil Oil Corp. et al. v. Batchelder et al.; and Cities Service Oil Co. et al. v. Matzen et al.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Motions of the parties to defer consideration of the petitions for writs of certiorari granted.

Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.


text:
    No. 83-1427.
    Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections v. Witt.
   C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 466 U. S. 957.] Motion of Texas District and County-Attorneys Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 83-1452.
    Marrese et al. v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1, 2, and 3 presented by the petition.

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


text:
    No. 82-1649.
    Marroquin-Manriguez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-541.
    Republic Industries, Inc. v. Teamsters Joint Council No. 83 of Virginia Pension Fund.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-702.
    G & R Roofing Co. v. Carpenters Pension Trust for Southern California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. ■ Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1221.
    No. 83-1244.
    Dunagin et al. v. City of Oxford, Mississippi, et al.; and Lamar Outdoor Advertising, Inc., et al. v. Mississippi State Tax Commission et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 718 F. 2d 738.


text:
    No. 83-1246.
    Peick et al. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-1646.
    Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co., a Division of Associated Dry Goods Corp. v. Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers International Union of America, AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6410.
    Patterson v. Heffron et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-6467.
    Miner et al. v. Brackney.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 83-665.
    Buffalo Teachers Federation et al. v. Arthur et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 83-5933.
    Garcia v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. III. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

Petitioner was charged with committing a variety of crimes with an accomplice, including four murders. He was convicted, sentenced to death, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Illinois. 97 Ill. 2d 58, 454 N. E. 2d. 274 (1983).

According to the Supreme Court of Illinois, the jurors were instructed that they could return guilty verdicts on the charges against petitioner “if they found that [he] had actually commited the crimes, or, alternatively, if they found that he was legally responsible for the conduct of the perpetrator under the Illinois accountability statute.” Id., at 83, 454 N. E. 2d, at 284. The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the general verdict returned by the jury failed “to reveal whether the jury found him guilty of actually killing anyone or whether he was convicted on the basis of accountability.” Id., at 84, 454 N. E. 2d, at 284. The Illinois Supreme Court held, however, that “[e]ven if we were to assume that [petitioner’s] murder convictions rested in part or completely on a theory of accountability, the imposition of the death sentence under the circumstances present here was permissible.” Ibid. The death sentence would be permissible because, in the eyes of the Illinois Supreme Court, “the uncontroverted evidence presented at trial concerning [petitioner’s] conduct . . . clearly demonstrates that [petitioner] intended that lethal force would be employed.” Id., at 85, 454 N. E. 2d, at 285.

The Illinois Supreme Court was compelled to make this finding in order to preserve the State’s imposition of the death penalty upon petitioner. The compulsion derived from this Court’s decision in Emnund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782 (1982). In Enmund this Court recognized “[society’s rejection of the death penalty for accomplice liability in felony murders,” id., at 794, by holding that the Eighth Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from imposing the death penalty in the absence of a finding that a participant in a felony murder either killed, or attempted to kill, or intended that a killing take place or that lethal force be employed. Id., at 797. Here, the jury made no explicit finding that petitioner engaged in the conduct or possessed the intent which, under Enmund, is required for a valid death sentence. Rather, the Illinois Supreme Court supplied this finding.

The action taken by the Illinois Supreme Court contradicts this Court’s insistence, articulated in Enmund, that capital punishment be tailored to a defendant’s own personal responsibility and moral guilt. That tailoring was forsaken here when the jury returned a general verdict that failed to reveal whether petitioner had been convicted for murders he had actually committed himself or whether he had been convicted solely on the basis of his vicarious responsibility for the crimes of his accomplice. The “remedy” the Illinois Supreme Court created to address the ambiguity of the jury’s verdict — setting itself up as a finder of fact on the issue of intent — contravenes a related tenet of this Court’s death penalty jurisprudence: that the uniquely harsh consequence entailed by capital punishment demands the greatest possible exactitude in the factfinding process. See, e. g., Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625 (1980); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980). The ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court mocks this standard by attempting to derive from a cold paper record a subtle factual determination best left in the hands of juries or trial courts that have had the opportunity to view witness demeanor and other delicate nuances that cannot be captured by written transcipts. Confronted with “a level of uncertainty [in] the factfinding process that cannot be tolerated in a capital case,” Beck v. Alabama, supra, at 643, this Court should either vacate petitioner’s sentence and remand with instructions that he be resentenced in a fashion that excludes the imposition of capital punishment or grant certiorari and give plenary consideration to petitioner’s claim. I therefore respectfully dissent.

      See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶¶ 5-1 through 5-3 (1983).


text:
    No. 83-6211.
    Harris v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan- joins,

dissenting.

A grand jury in Harris County, Tex., indicted petitioner for the sexual assault of a white woman. Petitioner, a Negro with no previous criminal record, denied the charge and maintained that he was at home at the time of the crime. There were no witnesses to the assault, and no physical evidence linking petitioner to the offense. From the nature of the State’s case, it was clear that petitioner’s fate would turn on whether the jury accepted the identification of the white victim or believed the sworn denial of a Negro defendant. After an extensive voir dire and for-cause challenges, eight Negroes were left in the jury panel. The prosecution then used eight peremptory challenges to remove these Negroes. With its two remaining peremptories, the prosecution removed the two members of the venire with Hispanic surnames. Over defense counsel’s objection, an all-white jury proceeded to convict petitioner of the offense charged. Petitioner was sentenced to 12 years in the Texas Department of Corrections.

This petition presents what I consider to be a prima facie violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Petitioner’s defense rested entirely on the jury’s assessment of the credibility of two witnesess, one Negro and one white. Under these circumstances, when the prosecution challenges every Negro member of the venire, the inescapable implication is that the prosecutor proceeded on the assumption that Negro jurors would be more likely than white jurors to believe a Negro defendant’s version of the facts. In Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522, 528 (1975), the Court held that criminal defendants are entitled to a jury drawn from a “representative cross section of the community.” When the prosecution employs its peremptory challenges to remove from jury participation all Negro jurors, the right guaranteed in Taylor is denied just as effectively as it would be had Negroes not been included on the jury rolls in the first place.

Over the past year, I have repeatedly urged my colleagues to grant certiorari in similar cases in which state prosecutors have blatantly employed peremptory challenges to remove Negro jurors. See Williams v. Illinois, 466 U. S. 981 (1984) (Marshall, J., dissenting); Gilliard v. Mississippi, 464 U. S. 867 (1983) (Marshall, J., dissenting); McCray v. New York, 461 U. S. 961, 963 (1983) (Marshall, J., dissenting). The Court, however, remains satisfied that Swain v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202 (1965), adequately protects criminal defendants against prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges. As the facts of this case reveal, the Court’s reliance on Swain is grossly misplaced. If Swain protects anyone, it is the prosecution.

Under Swain it is presumed that prosecutors use peremptory challenges to obtain a fair and impartial jury. Id., at 222. That a prosecutor excludes all Negro jurors in a particular case does hot rebut this presumption. To establish a Swain violation, a criminal defendant must demonstrate that the State has systematically excluded Negro jurors in case after case over an extended period of time. Id., at 223-224. In this case, petitioner’s attorney gamely attempted to satisfy Swain’s burden of proof. Defense counsel set out to show that prosecutors in Harris County routinely employ peremptory challenges to exclude Negro jurors in cases involving the credibility of a white complainant and a Negro defendant. At a hearing held before the trial court, Judge Joseph Guarino, a Texas District Judge with 28 years of experience in the county’s criminal justice system, testified on behalf of petitioner. Judge Guarino stated he could not recall a single instance in which a Negro juror sat on a petit jury in a criminal case in which the complainant was white and the defendant Negro. Judge Miron Love, another judge from the county, agreed that in “most of those cases” the prosecution “‘would eliminate most of the black jurors’ through the exercise of peremptory challenges.” The testimony of Judge Guarino and Judge Love was corroborated by a variety of informed witnesses. Craig Washington, a defense attorney in the county, testified that in the past decade he had participated in roughly 140 criminal cases in which the complaining witness was white and the defendant Negro. In only two of these cases did Negroes ultimately sit on the jury, and in these cases it was only because the prosecution ran out of peremptory challenges. Jacquelyn Miles, a court reporter in Harris County, stated that over the last four years she had transcribed testimony in 20 to 25 criminal cases with white complaining witnesses and Negro defendants, and she could not recollect a single case in which a prospective Negro juror had been empaneled. Other witnesses for petitioner, including lawyers who had served under the county’s District Attorney, confirmed that in this class of cases, the exclusion of Negro jurors was “the general rule.”

In the face of this well-marshaled evidence, the county brazenly denied that it had a policy of excluding Negro jurors. A supervising attorney for the County District Attorney claimed that he had never advised prosecutors to exclude Negro jurors. In support of the county’s claim, several Assistant District Attorneys testified under oath as to trials in which Negroes had served on the jury |;ven though the case involved Negro defendants and white complainants. A judge testifying on behalf of the county recalled numerous occasions on which Negroes had served on juries. The f;hrust of the county’s rebuttal was that petitioner’s witnesses rere familiar with only a sampling of the county’s criminal docket ¡whereas the county’s witnesses were exposed to the District At-Itorney’s entire docket. Apparently, the trial judge found this line ¡of argument convincing because he ruled that petitioner had failed |to establish a constitutional violation under Swain v. Alabama.

The lesson to be drawn from petitioner’s case is that Swain is an ¡insurmountable hurdle for criminal defendants. The prosecution ¡will always be able to claim that it has greater familiarity with (prosecutorial practices than defense counsel, and the prosecution will always deny that it has a policy of excluding Negro jurors. In even the most discriminatory jurisdictions, there will always be I cases in which Negro jurors have at one time or another served on I jury panels. If, therefore, an official denial of prosecutorial mis-1 use buttressed by vague recollections of a few Negro jurors who have actually been empaneled is enough to rebut evidence of the quality presented by petitioner in this case, then as a practical matter it is impossible to satisfy the Swain standard. Cf. United States v. Childress, 715 F. 2d 1313, 1316 (CA8 1983) (en banc) (finding only two reported cases in which defendants had prevailed under Swain since 1965), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 1063 (1984).

In the 19 years since Swain was handed down, prosecutorial abuse of peremptory challenges has grown to epidemic proportions in certain regions of the country. See also. Williams v. Illinois, supra. I respectfully dissent.


text:
    No. 83-6213.
    No. 83-6419.
    Evans v. Mississippi. Delap v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Miss.; and

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 83-6213, 441 So. 2d 520; No. 83-6419, 440 So. 2d 1242.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


author: Justice White,

text:
    No. 83-6454.
    Sanson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

dissenting.

In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56 (1980), the Court held that th( introduction of hearsay statements against a criminal defendanl will not violate the Confrontation Clause if two requirements arc satisfied. First, the prosecution must ordinarily demonstrate the unavailability of the declarant; second, the statements must beai sufficient “indicia of reliability.” Id., at 65-66. The Court noted that “[r]eliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” Id., at 66. The question presented in this case is whether statements that satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), which provides for the admissibility of statements of co-conspirators, necessarily satisfy the requirements of the Confrontation Clause.

The Circuits are divided on the question whether co-conspirator statements fall within the “firmly rooted hearsay exception” language of Roberts or whether, instead, a case-by-case inquiry into reliability is required. In this case, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in an unpublished order held that Rule 801(d)(2)(E) provides adequate assurances of reliability. Likewise, the First, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits have also held that the Rule 801(d)(2)(E) requirements are identical to the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. See Ottomano v. United States, 468 F. 2d 269, 273 (CA1 1972), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1128 (1973); United States v. Lurz, 666 F. 2d 69, 80-81 (CA4 1981), cert. denied, 455 U. S. 1005 (1982); United States v. Peacock, 654 F. 2d 339, 349-350 (CA5 1981), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 965 (1983). On the other hand, the Second, Third, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have held that the requirements are not identical and that courts must assess the circumstances of each case to determine whether the statements carry with them sufficient indicia of reliability. See United States v. Wright, 588 F. 2d 31, 37-38 (CA2 1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 917 (1979); United States v. Ammar, 714 F. 2d 238, 254-257 (CA3), cert. denied sub nom. Stillman v. United States, 464 U. S. 936 (1983); United States v. Kelley, 526 F. 2d 615, 620-621 (CA8 1975), cert. denied, 424 U. S. 971 (1976); United States v. Perez, 658 F. 2d 654, 660, and n. 5 (CA9 1981).

Because of the substantial confusion surrounding this frequently recurring issue, I would grant certiorari to resolve the conflict.


text:
    No. 83-6567.
    No. 83-6575.
    Arnold v. South Carolina; and Plath v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 281 S. C. 1, 313 S. E. 2d 619.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

iissenting.

Petitioners were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, the convictions were affirmed but the sentences were reversed due to an improper argument the prosecution made to the jury at the sentencing hearing. 277 S. C. 126, 284 S. E. 2d 221 (1981). On remand, petitioners were again sentenced to death. They challenge that sentence on the ground that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to view the site of the murder without the presence of either the defense or the prosecution attorneys and also by making no arrangements to record what transpired at the jury-viewing. Petitioners claim that the trial court’s action denied them their right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 835 (1963).

In rejecting petitioners’ claim, the Supreme Court of South Carolina principally relied upon Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97 (1934). In Snyder this Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated by excluding a defendant from an on-site inspection by a jury. Snyder, however, is inapposite to the case at bar. First, Snyder involved whether a defendant had the right to be present at an on-site inspection by a jury. Here, the issue is whether a defendant had the right to have his attorney present at such a viewing. Second, and more importantly, in Snyder the defendant’s attorney was present and participated, along with the prosecutor, in directing the jury’s attention to various aspects of the location under inspection by the jury. Id., at 103-104. Here, all attorneys were excluded. Third, in Snyder, “everything that was said or done was taken by the stenographer and made part of the record of the trial.” Id., at 123-124 (Roberts, J., dissenting). Here, no record was made of what transpired at the inspection. The importance of a record is clearly indicated in that portion of the Snyder opinion in which the Court criticized the trial judge for having made an improper comment to the jury during the inspection. Id., at 118. Although this Court excused the trial judge’s impropriety as harmless, the pertinent point is that the Court was at least able in Snyder to detect the trial judge’s error and measure its severity. By contrast, in this case the trial court’s failure to preserve a record has effectively nullified any sort of informed appellate review of the jury inspection.

It is doubtful, then, whether the trial court’s actions in this case would even have satisfied the standards prevailing at the time of Snyder, over 50 years ago. Far more doubtful is whether the trial court’s neglectful failures can satisfy present constitutional standards. By excluding petitioners’ attorneys from the jury inspection, the trial court violated petitioners’ right to counsel at every critical stage of the proceedings against them. See, e. g., Estelle v. Smith, 451 U. S. 454 (1981) (pretrial psychiatric examination); Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U. S. 128 (1967) (sentencing); United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967) (pretrial identification procedure). Furthermore, the trial judge’s failure to keep a record of the jury inspection contravenes this Court’s insistence that the unique nature of the death penalty demands uniquely stringent policing of the factfinding process. See Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625 (1980); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976).

Because petitioners have raised substantial federal constitutional issues that take on added urgency in light of the death sentences pending against them, I dissent from the Court’s denial of certiorari.

      The State claims that petitioners’ attorneys failed properly to object at trial to their exclusion from the jury inspection. Although petitioners’ attorneys do appear to have adequately objected, the South Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling on the merits of the federal constitutional issue posed by petitioners removes any procedural bar that might have existed even if counsel had failed to object. See, e. g., Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U. S. 35, 37, n. 3 (1967) (ruling by state court on merits of federal constitutional issue preserves issue for federal appellate review); Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 303 U. S. 95, 98 (1938).


text:
    No. 82-1246.
    No. 82-1554.
    No. 82-2056.
    No. 83-1521.
    Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., Strickland, Superintendent, Florida State Prison, et al. v. Washington, Escondido Mutual Water Co. et al. v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians et al., Weiss v. Employer-Sheet Metal Workers Local 544 Pension Trust Plan et al.,
   466 U. S. 485;

466 U. S. 668;

466 U. S. 765; and

466 U. S. 972. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 83-1547.
    No. 83-1574.
    No. 83-1627.
    No. 83-1701.
    No. 83-5785.
    No. 83-5808.
    No. 83-5855.
    No. 83-6249.
    No. 83-6346.
    No. 83-6430.
    No. 83-6583.
    No. 83-6604.
    Novel v. Louisiana Exposition et al., City of Perryton, Texas v. Jacks et ux., Safir v. Dole, Secretary of Transportation, et al., Boston v. United States, Williams v. Illinois, Porter v. McKaskle, Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Moss v. United States, Mileski v. Maryland, Tichnell v. Maryland; and Calhoun v. Maryland, Henry v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Foster v. Strickland, Warden, et al., Venkatesan v. International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local Union 545-D,
   466 U. S. 973; 466

U. S. 973;

ante, p. 1206;

466 U. S. 974;

466 U. S. 981;

466 U. S. 984;

ante, p. 1207;

ante, p. 1207;

466 U. S. 993;

466 U. S. 993;

466 U. S. 993; and

ante, p. 1218. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 82-1474.
    Hoover et al. v. Ronwin et al.,
   466 U. S. 558. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 82-6840.
    No. 83-1288.
    James v. Kentucky, Crim v. Hunter, United States Attorney for the Northern District of California,
   466 U. S. 341; and

465 U. S. 1080. Petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 83-5432 (A-1022).
    Baldwin v. Maggio, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary,
   ante, p. 1220. Application to suspend the effect of the order denying certiorari, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the application. Petition for rehearing denied. Justice Brennan would grant rehearing.


text:
    No. 83-6296.
    Robinson v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
   466 U. S. 941. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 26, 1984
    No. 83-1874.
    MacDonald v. Superior Court of California, Marin County (Mountanos, Real Party in Interest).
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.