text:
    No. 85-1529.
    No. 85-1623.
    Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. Shaw. Islamic Republic of Iran et al. v. Boeing Co. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir.; and

C. A. 9th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 85-6823.
    In re Thaper.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 85-1208.
    Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-1347.
    Pennsylvania v. Ritchie.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-1384.
    Turner et al. v. Safley et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-1589.
    Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaPlante et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-1259.
    Tull v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 85-1613.
    United States v. John Doe, Inc. I, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioners in No. 85-1840, Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. et al. v. United States, for contemporaneous consideration denied. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-5348.
    Buchanan v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 84-6590.
    Rowan v. Owens, Superintendent, Indiana State Reformatory.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-6854.
    Beck v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-7000.
    Colson v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-949.
    St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, New York v. Brock, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1109.
    Milwaukee County, Wisconsin v. Brock, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1167.
    Mayor’s Office of Employment and Training, City of Chicago, et al. v. United States Department of Labor.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1304.
    Spang & Co. v. DelGrosso et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1319.
    Butts v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1430.
    Garth v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1448.
    Local 560 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1463.
    Marques v. United States Department of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1545.
    Baca, Commissioner of Public Lands of the State of New Mexico, et al. v. Roe et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1569.
    Dameron v. Washington Magazine, Inc., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1599.
    City of San Diego et al. v. Sports Arenas Properties et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1611.
    Arnebergh v. E. F. Hutton & Co., Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1616.
    Trans Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Hertz Corp. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1618.
    Slatton v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1621.
    Hon Yip, aka Yip Hon v. Pagano.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1622.
    Anderson, fka Jenkins v. Minnesota.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1640.
    Dineen v. Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1643.
    Stroh Container Co. v. Delphi Industries, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1655.
    Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. v. Superior Court of California, County of San Deigo (San Diego Asbestos Litigation Plaintiffs, Real Parties in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1687.
    Home Insurance Co. v. Taylor.
   C. A. 4th

Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1697.
    Day v. Seabold, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1698.
    Guthrie v. International Dairy Queen, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1720.
    Vitteck et ux. v. Washington Federal Savings & Loan Assn.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1738.
    Ganoe et al. v. Neff, Independent Executor of the Estate of Lummis, et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1739.
    Hunter v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1747.
    McClain v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1749.
    Hartsel et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1767.
    Caggiano v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1768.
    Reale v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1785.
    Carley v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6278.
    Browning v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6465.
    Kimberlin v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6472.
    Mendoza v. Miller, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6481.
    Frazier v. Board of Trustees of Northwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6623.
    Brown v. Jefferson.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6634.
    Connel v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6636.
    Koff v. California.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., Nevada County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6639.
    Tornero v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6640.
    Vick v. Long.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6641.
    Hall v. Rogers.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6644.
    Holland v. Butterworth, Sheriff, Broward County, Florida, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6647.
    Davidson v. Davis, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6658.
    Novel v. Picariello, Judge, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6659.
    Marks v. Lee Way Motor Freight et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6661.
    Bonvillain v. Blackburn, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6662.
    Becktel v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6663.
    Boyt v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6677.
    Trawick v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6683.
    Harrod v. Halford et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6712.
    Gibson v. Scroggy, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6730.
    Ortiz v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6754.
    Al-Azzawy v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6757.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6759.
    Coronel v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6763.
    Lamp v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6765.
    Cary v. McCotter, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6772.
    Markus v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6776.
    Assaad v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6780.
    Kelly v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6782.
    No. 85-6794.
    Cheikh v. United States; and Farran v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6801.
    Batuoli v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6802.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6803.
    Fisherman v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6806.
    Nolan v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6813.
    Scott et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6822.
    Koryto v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6829.
    Paradiso v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 84-6187.
    Keeten et al. v. Garrison, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting as to petitioner Larry Darnell Williams.

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


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 84-6667.
    Monroe v. Blackburn, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

I would grant certiorari in this case to resolve the serious questions it raises concerning the scope of a defendant’s rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), during the period following his conviction. While lower courts here have adhered to our precedents in finding petitioner’s Brady rights to have been violated, the remedy ordered impermissibly dilutes those rights even as it recognizes them.

I

In 1980, after a previous conviction had been overturned, petitioner was brought to trial in New Orleans, once again charged with the 1978 murder of Lenora Collins, a neighbor. The State’s case consisted of eyewitness identifications by the victim’s two children, both of whom were present when the assailant broke into their mother’s bedroom. State v. Monroe, 397 So. 2d 1258, 1268 (La. 1981). Accepting the testimony of the two children, who at the time of the murder were aged 12 and 11, the jury rejected petitioner’s alibi, found him guilty of first-degree murder, and unanimously recommended the death sentence.

Six months after petitioner’s conviction, but while his appeal was still pending, the New Orleans Police Department was contacted by Detective Joseph Gallardo of the Pontiac, Michigan, Police Department. In the course of investigating one George Stinson’s murder of his common-law wife in Michigan, Gallardo had received information suggesting that Stinson may also have murdered his previous wife, three years earlier in New Orleans. His previous wife was Lenora Collins, for whose murder petitioner has been sentenced to die. Two months later, Detective Gallardo again called the New Orleans police. This time, he related to Sergeant John McKenzie the substance of an interview he had had with Stinson’s cellmate during which the cellmate had quoted Stinson as first confessing to the Michigan murder and then saying that “the same thing happened” to his first wife, Lenora Collins. Noting that a second source had corroborated this admission, Detective Gallardo also reported having received information that Stinson had threatened Lenora Collins’ two children into identifying petitioner as their mother’s killer.

All this information was carefully recorded by Sergeant McKenzie, who then dispatched his notes to the detectives who had been involved in the Collins investigation. These notes did not trigger further police inquiries. Neither was their existence ever disclosed to petitioner, who under Louisiana law, could have sought the remand of his case so that he might move in the trial court for a new trial. See State v. Spell, 388 So. 2d 754 (La. 1980). Indeed, it was not until late 1983 that independent investigation by petitioner’s counsel led him to Detective Gallardo, who told of Stinson’s incriminating admissions and of the fact that the New Orleans police had long before known of the new evidence. Petitioner thereupon filed a motion in New Orleans Criminal District Court seeking a new trial or, in the alternative, postconviction relief, and also a stay of his execution, then scheduled for January 4, 1984. In this motion, petitioner claimed that the State had unconstitutionally suppressed material, exculpatory evidence. While petitioner was still unaware of the existence of Sergeant McKenzie’s actual notes, his counsel’s independent efforts in Pontiac enabled him to present the Criminal District Court with all of the information contained in the notes.

The day before petitioner’s scheduled date of execution, the Criminal District Court denied petitioner’s motion without an evidentiary hearing. Weighing the eyewitness testimony of the victim’s children against the affidavit of Stinson’s cellmate, the court found that the new evidence was not “so material that it ought to produce a different result then [sic] the verdict reached.” The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed hours later, State ex rel Monroe v. Maggio, 444 So. 2d 606 (1984), although two justices would have granted a stay and ordered a “full evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered evidence issue.” The two noted: “Because the death penalty is so final, surely no harm would come from continuing this matter one month to allow the defense to produce witnesses from Michigan, and having the trial court evaluate this evidence.” Ibid.

After the state court denied relief, the Federal District Court acted upon a habeas petition filed several days earlier, and stayed petitioner’s execution. After a hearing in which he heard testimony from Detective Gallardo and Stinson, a Magistrate held that the information allowed to sit undisturbed in New Orleans police files was both improperly suppressed and clearly favorable to petitioner. He recommended that the writ be granted.

The District Court adopted the Magistrate’s report, agreeing that the information received from Detective Gallardo was material, exculpatory information that under United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976), should have been disclosed to petitioner. The District Court noted that, when coupled with the absence of physical evidence linking petitioner to the murder, the possibility that the eyewitness testimony of the victim’s children may have been coerced, and testimony by petitioner’s mother placing Stinson at the victim’s house on the day of the murder, the suppressed evidence “makes the assertion that Stinson committed the murder plausible.” Finding the evidence to “creat[e] a reasonable doubt as to Monroe’s guilt that did not previously exist,” the court issued the writ. However, having concluded that petitioner’s due process rights under Brady had been violated, the court did not order that he be released or retried. Rather, it ordered Louisiana

“to grant to Petitioner whatever he was entitled to by way of post-conviction relief during the limitation period provided by Louisiana law for a request for a new trial based on the exculpatory material which the State courts did not have an opportunity to consider, so that Petitioner may fully and effectively exercise and exhaust his post-conviction rights under Louisiana law.”

The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s choice of remedy. 748 F. 2d 958, 960 (CA5 1984).

II

In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), this Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Id., at 87. In United States v. Agurs, supra, we recognized that

“there are situations in which evidence is obviously of such substantial value to the defense that elementary fairness requires it to be disclosed even without a specific request. For though the attorney for the sovereign must prosecute the accused with earnestness and vigor, he must always be faithful to his client’s overriding interest that ‘justice shall be done.’” Id., at 110-111 (footnote omitted).

The message of Brady and its progeny is that a trial is not a mere “sporting event”; it is a quest for truth in which the prosecutor, by virtue of his office, must seek truth even as he seeks victory. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667, 675 (1985) (Brady rule to “ensure that a miscarriage of justice does not occur”).

The quest for truth may not terminate with a defendant’s conviction. In Louisiana, a convicted defendant must receive a new trial whenever

“[n]ew and material evidence that, notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant, was not discovered before or during the trial, is available, and if the evidence had been introduced at the trial it would probably have changed the verdict or judgment of guilty.” La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 851(3) (West 1984).

When the sovereign has decided that justice will be best served by qualifying the finality of a conviction so that a convicted defendant may yet prove his innocence, its attorney is not free to choose otherwise. And until factfinding proceedings, or the possibility of them, is terminated, the State remains bound by the rules of simple fairness that Brady held to be of constitutional dimension. It would hardly make sense to hold the State to a special duty to disclose exculpatory evidence in any adversarial proceeding and then permit the State to avoid this obligation by suppressing the very evidence that would enable a defendant to trigger such proceedings.

In this case there can be no doubt that petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the State’s failure to disclose to him the information that Detective Gallardo related to the New Orleans police. That the information lay undisturbed in the files of the police and not those of the prosecutor should make no difference. The police files that so readily provided the State with the incriminating material to convict a defendant cannot be turned into a dead-letter repository where evidence of innocence is concerned. See Moore v. Illinois, 408 U. S. 786, 810 (1972) (Marshall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Smith v. Florida, 410 F. 2d 1349, 1351 (CA5 1969). If by now police are not fully aware of their constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence even in the absence of a specific request by the prosecutor or defense counsel, this Court should seize this case as a chance to educate them.

This is certainly not a case in which the failure, whether intentional or inadvertent, of the police to alert petitioner to the new information can be attributed to their failure to understand the complexities of the Brady rule. At the time the evidence was suppressed, Agurs obliged the State to disclose evidence that created “a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist” as to defendant’s guilt. 427 U. S., at 112. And though the District Court here quite properly made a careful examination of the transcripts from petitioner’s second trial before holding the information from Detective Gallardo to be “material” under the Agurs standard, I cannot believe that either an examination of the record or a law degree is needed to appreciate that admissions by a wife-killer incriminating himself in the murder of a former wife cannot be dismissed as idle gossip.

Ill

While it was correct to find a Brady violation, the District Court appears to have believed that because the Louisiana courts were not given an opportunity to consider the evidence that petitioner was able to develop in the course of his federal habeas proceeding — to wit, Sergeant McKenzie’s actual notes of his conversations with Detective Gallardo and the testimony of Detective Gallardo at the habeas hearing — they should now be allowed to decide whether they were a bit hasty in denying petitioner’s new trial motion on the eve of his execution. However, the only reason why the state courts never considered this evidence was that they dismissed petitioner’s motion without an evidentiary hearing. It was only after the Federal District Court gave petitioner the chance to subpoena the evidence that it came to light. Moreover, as the Court of Appeals observed, the state courts were presented with the “same underlying information” as that contained in Sergeant McKenzie’s notes. Having adequately asserted in state courts the basis for his Brady claim, petitioner plainly satisfied the exhaustion requirement of federal habeas corpus.

Sending petitioner back to state court with his already exhausted claim is particularly inappropriate here because of the nature of the constitutional violation. If the police had not improperly suppressed the exculpatory information, petitioner would have been able to seek a new trial under Art. 851(3). To require petitioner now to pursue this same remedy is thus to treat the suppressed information just as if it had been “found in a neutral source” and therefore to ignore the “special significance” of the police’s obligation to serve the cause of justice. United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S., at 111. The remedy ordered here removes from the State any incentive to make timely disclosure of material, exculpatory evidence and trivializes the constitutional right recognized in Brady and its progeny. The only way this right can be guaranteed is to grant petitioner the remedy that until now has always followed a determination that the Brady rule has been violated: He must be released or retried. Because I do not believe this Court should stand by in the face of the dilution of the due process rights of an individual who may not even be guilty of the crime for which he stands under death sentence, I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.

       Because in this case, the State suppressed exculpatory evidence while petitioner could still have sought postconviction relief under state law, we need not consider whether the State also deprived petitioner of a federal right to seek habeas relief on the basis of evidence that undermines the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. See Dobbert v. Wainwright, 468 U. S. 1231, 1234 (1984) (Brennan, J., dissenting from denial of stay and certiorari); Wright & Sofaer, Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners, 75 Yale L. J. 895, 958, n. 223 (1966).

       It is clear that this evidence would also be material under the standard established by this Court in United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985).


author: Justice White,

text:
    No. 85-1262.
    Texas Association of Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

Petitioner Texas Association of Concerned Taxpayers challenges the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, 96 Stat. 324 (TEFRA), on the ground that it was enacted in violation of the Origination Clause of the United States Constitution, which provides that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” Art. I, §7, cl. 1. Specifically, petitioner asserts that when the bill originated in the House of Representatives, it was not a “bill for raising revenue” within the meaning of the Origination Clause because the net effect of the bill would have been to reduce the amount of revenue collected.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that this issue was a nonjusticiable political question. 772 F. 2d 163, 165-167 (1985). This holding conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s explicit holding with respect to an identical challenge to TEFRA that the Origination Clause issue was in fact justiciable. See Armstrong v. United States, 759 F. 2d 1378, 1381-1382 (1985). See also Wardell v. United States, 757 F. 2d 203 (CA8 1985) (per curiam) (adjudicating same claim on the merits); Heitman v. United States, 753 F. 2d 33 (CA6 1984) (per curiam) (same). The Fifth Circuit’s holding is also in tension with this Court’s decision in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 142-143 (1911), in which we also adjudicated an Origination Clause challenge to a statute. To resolve this conflict among the Circuits, I would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-1321.
    Ramirez v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

with whom Justice Brennan and Justice Powell join,

dissenting.

Petitioner Rudy Ramirez is currently serving a prison term imposed by the State of California for a crime committed before January 1, 1983. As of that date, a new plan for awarding sentence reduction credits and their forfeiture became effective. See Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§2931, 2932 (West Supp. 1986). Ramirez was charged in January 1983 with altering the paperwork relating to a television set. This resulted in a loss under the new plan of 95 days of behavior credits, which was later reduced to 48 days. Under the old plan, Ramirez would have forfeited at most 15 days.

Ramirez then filed a habeas corpus petition in the California state courts, challenging the application to him of the new system on the ground that such application violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Art. I, §10. A divided California Supreme Court upheld the new system, as applied to Ramirez, applying the two-part test set forth in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U. S. 24, 29 (1981), and concluding that the new provisions were not unconstitutionally retrospective because the increased sanctions were imposed only for misconduct occurring after the changes became effective. In re Ramirez, 39 Cal. 3d 931, 705 P. 2d 897 (1985).

The decision of the California Supreme Court conflicts with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Beebe v. Phelps, 650 F. 2d 774 (1981). In Beebe, the Fifth Circuit held that the application of new .provisions for revoking previously earned credits for parole violations to a prisoner who had been incarcerated before the new provisions became effective violated the Ex Post Facto Clause even where the parole violations occurred after the effective date of the new provisions. The decision of the California Supreme Court also is in tension with our decision in Weaver, supra, in which we held that the application to a prisoner of a new system for earning good-time credits, which system reduced the credits that could be earned, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. See also Greenfield v. Scafati, 277 F. Supp. 644 (Mass. 1967), summarily aff’d, 390 U. S. 713 (1968). In Weaver, we analyzed the question of retrospectivity according to whether the new rule “substantially alters the consequences attached to a crime already completed,” 450 U. S., at 33, and the California Supreme Court’s distinction here between the ability to earn good-time credits, at issue in Weaver, and the forfeiture of such credits, at issue here, does not seem immediately relevant to this analysis. To resolve the conflict with Beebe and the tension with Greenfield and Weaver, I would grant certiorari and set the case for argument.


text:
    No. 85-1646.
    Kemp, Warden v. Wilson.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1752.
    Kairys v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 85-5022.
    No. 85-5082.
    No. 85-6308.
    No. 85-6551.
    No. 85-6584.
    No. 85-6643.
    No. 85-6665.
    No. 85-6668.
    No. 85-6675.
    Rushing v. Louisiana. Watson v. Blackburn, Warden. Lowenfield v. Louisiana. Brock v. McCotter, Director, Texas Department of Corrections. Kordenbrock v. Kentucky. Beam v. Idaho. Barnes v. Tennessee. Harbison v. Tennessee. Byrd v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. La.;

C. A. 5th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. La.;

C. A. 5th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Ky.;

Sup. Ct. Idaho;

Sup. Ct. Tenn.;

Sup. Ct. Tenn.; and

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 85-301.
    Amey, Inc., et al. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., et al.,
   475 U. S. 1107. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 85-6432.
    Jackson v. Newsome, Warden,
   475 U. S. 1126. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 85-531.
    City of Los Angeles et al. v. Heller,
   475 U. S. 796. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    June 2, 1986
    No. 85-1344.
    Taylor v. Mooney, Superintendent, West Virginia Department of Public Safety, et al.
   Appeal from Cir. Ct. W. Va., Kanawha County, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1823.
    Stroom v. Carter, Former President of the United States, 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 certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6669.
    Keane v. Ambach.
   Appeal from C. A. 2d Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6670.
    D’Arezzo v. Estate of Christy et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. R. I. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6709.
    Arnold v. South Dakota.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. S. D. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1714.
    Payne et ux. v. Mount, Sheriff of Whatcom County, Washington, et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Wash, dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 85-6521.
    Campbell v. Griffin, District Judge, First Judicial District Court of Nevada, Carson City.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Nev. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 85-6687.
    Acen et al. v. Massachusetts.
   Appeal from Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No.---.
    Manrique-Fernandez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file the petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No.---.
    Grace v. Heartland Transportation Inc.,
   475 U. S. 1042. Motion for reconsideration of order of Court entered March 3, 1986, denied.


text:
    No. D-546.
    In re Disbarment of August.
   Irving A. August, of Birmingham, Mich., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on February 24, 1986 [475 U. S. 1004], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-549.
    In re Disbarment of Duke.
   Charles Louis Duke, of Houston, Tex., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court. The rule to show cause, heretofore issued on March 24, 1986 [475 U. S. 1079], is hereby discharged.


text:
    No. D-552.
    In re Disbarment of Plaza.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 475 U. S. 1106.]


text:
    No. 84-2022.
    324 Liquor Corp., dba Yorkshire Wine & Spirits v. McLaughlin et al.
   Ct. App. N. Y. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 475 U. S. 1080.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 85-495.
    Ansonia Board of Education et al. v. Philbrook et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 474 U. S. 1080.] Motion of respondents Ansonia Federation of Teachers et al. for divided argument 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, 475 U. S. 1044.] Motion of Legal Foundation of America for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 85-1027.
    Arizona v. Hicks.
   Ct. App. Ariz. [Certiorari granted, 475 U. S. 1107.] Motion of Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 85-1233.
    International Paper Co. v. Ouellette et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 475 U. S. 1081.] Motion of Mid-America Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 85-1388.
    Rose v. Arkansas State Police.
   Ct. App. Ark. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 85-6698.
    No. 85-6768.
    No. 85-6769.
    Cappiello v. Cappiello. Ramirez v. United States. McNeair v. Georgetown University Hospital.
   Ct. App. N. Y.;

Ct. Mil. App.; and

C. A. D. C. Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until June 23, 1986, 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, Justice Blackmun, 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. 85-5957.
    In re Shewchun.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 85-1658.
    No. 85-1660.
    Federal Communications Commission et al. v. Florida Power Corp. et al.; and Group W Cable, Inc., et al. v. Florida Power Corp. et al.
   Appeals from C. A. 11th Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 85-1736.
    Jersey Shore State Bank v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-184.
    Stringfellow et al. v. Concerned Neighbors in Action et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 85-1222.
    No. 85-1267.
    Interstate Commerce Commission v. Texas et al.; and Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. et al. v. Texas et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 85-1239.
    No. 85-1406.
    Amoco Production Co. et al. v. Village of Gambell et al.; and Hodel, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Village of Gambell et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 85-1563.
    California v. Brown.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 85-5221.
    Griffith v. Kentucky.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari is granted limited to the following question: “In cases pending on direct appeal, should the holding in Batson v. Kentucky, ante, p. 79, be given retroactive effect?” Case is set for oral argument in tandem with No. 85-5731, Brown v. United States, immediately infra.


text:
    No. 85-5731.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari is granted limited to the following question: “In cases pending on direct appeal, should the holding in Batson v. Kentucky, ante, p. 79, be given retroactive effect?” Case is set for oral argument in tandem with No. 85-5221, Griffith v. Kentucky, immediately supra.


text:
    No. 85-112.
    Little Crow Milling Co., Inc., et al. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1229.
    Russell et al. v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1279.
    No. 85-1280.
    No. 85-6404.
    United Nuclear Corp. et al. v. Thomas, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (two cases); American Mining Congress v. Thomas, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al. (two cases); and Kepford v. Thomas, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1291.
    Levine et al. v. United States District Court for the Central District of California (United States, Real Party in Interest).
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1339.
    Cohen et al. v. New Mexico.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1386.
    No. 85-1391.
    Holloway v. United States; and Sullivan v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1410.
    Malone & Hyde, Inc. v. Tandy Corp.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1431.
    Bolton et al., dba Pryor & Glen Coal Co. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1486.
    Local 32, International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. Pacific Maritime Assn. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1505.
    Turnbull Cone Baking Company of Tennessee v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1538.
    Katz v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1541.
    Battaglia et al. v. Berger et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1555.
    Rose v. Town of Harwich.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1642.
    Cunningham v. Safeway Trails, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1661.
    Cooney v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1662.
    Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1669.
    Findlay v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1670.
    Campbell, Trustee v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1671.
    Aquamarine Operators, Inc. v. Downer.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1677.
    Johnson v. Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1679.
    Daley v. Frank et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1680.
    E. B. v. Burlington County Welfare Agency.
   Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1711.
    Grimes v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1724.
    Underwood v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1725.
    Kennedy v. General Services Administration.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1729.
    Meads et al. v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1756.
    Pool v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1758.
    Turner v. Parsons.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1783.
    Ardito v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1784.
    Bonansinga v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1787.
    Wisniewski v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1795.
    Hoffman v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1800.
    Freeman v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1810.
    Schreiber, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ross v. Chase Federal Savings & Loan Assn.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1833.
    Stanger v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-5990.
    Montgomery v. Seiter et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6330.
    Fuentes-Jimenez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6356.
    Butler v. Johnson et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6498.
    Cardinal v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6510.
    Jenkins et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6518.
    Glover v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6538.
    Hall v. Kentucky.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6672.
    Coleman v. Abacus Corp. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6673.
    Froneberger v. North Carolina.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6681.
    Hurtado v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6682.
    Parkhurst v. Quarles, Warden, et al.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6684.
    Randall v. United States District Court for the Central District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6689.
    Nabozny v. Morris, Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6697.
    Lofton v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6700.
    Rosberg v. Commercial State Bank of Wausa, Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6703.
    Walker v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6706.
    Day v. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 85-6741.
    Stratton v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6743.
    Lipsman v. Anderson et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6747.
    Cochran v. United States Postal Service.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6751.
    Therrien v. Vose, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6766.
    Larkin v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6785.
    Mayberry v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6792.
    Corley v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6799.
    Spano, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Spano v. Onondaga County, New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6807.
    Sauers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6812.
    Davidson v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6827.
    Anderson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6838.
    Waletzki v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6841.
    Orgera v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6858.
    Garza-Pacheco v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6860.
    Butler et al. v. Brooklyn Union Gas et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6861.
    Hyde v. Pittman, Attorney General of Mississippi, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6865.
    Fritts v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1349.
    Intake Water Co. v. Yellowstone River Compact Commission et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Yellowstone Pipeline Co. Inc. et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1439.
    Franklin and Marshall College v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

with whom Justice Blackmun joins,

dissenting.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is investigating petitioner on a charge of discriminating on the basis of national origin in denying tenure to a former assistant professor. In the course of its investigation, the EEOC issued a subpoena duces tecum for evaluations submitted by petitioner’s faculty in all cases in which tenure was granted or denied from 1977 to the present. The EEOC offered to accept the subpoenaed materials with names and identifying characteristics deleted. Petitioner resisted the subpoena, asserting a privilege against the compelled production of confidential peer review materials absent a showing of facts supporting an inference of discrimination. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the asserted privilege, 775 F. 2d 110 (1985), which has been accepted by another Court of Appeals, see EEOC v. University of Notre Dame du Lac, 715 F. 2d 331, 337, n. 4 (CA7 1983). I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict.


text:
    No. 85-1631.
    Randolph v. Supreme Court of New Jersey et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan, Justice White, and Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-1649.
    Midwest Communications, Inc. v. Minnesota Twins, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 85-1652.
    Kemp, Warden v. Coleman; and Kemp, Warden v. Isaacs et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motions of respondents Coleman, Dungee, and Isaacs for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-1673.
    Miller v. South Carolina.
   Ct. Gen. Sess. S. C., Horry County. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-5394.
    Jenkins v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


author: Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 85-5446.
    Berry v. King, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 5th 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.

This is yet another capital case in which defense counsel failed to present any mitigation evidence whatsoever during the sentencing phase of a defendant’s trial. I believe that, except perhaps in the extraordinary case, counsel’s failure even to attempt to give the jury some reason for believing a defendant is not deserving of death denies defendant his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. And I have yet to see that extraordinary case. I would grant the petition for certiorari and vacate the sentence.


text:
    No. 85-5466.
    No. 85-5491.
    No. 85-5564.
    No. 85-5607.
    No. 85-5640.
    Celestine v. Blackburn, Warden. Houston v. Tennessee. Cabello v. Mississippi. Bowden v. Kemp, Warden. Liles v. Oklahoma. McDowell v. North Carolina. Malone v. Missouri. Neal v. Illinois. Brown v. North Carolina.
   C. A. 5th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Tenn.;

Sup. Ct. Miss.;

C. A. 11th Cir.;

Ct. Crim. App. Okla.;

No. 85-5736.

No. 85-5852.

No. 85-6676.

No. 85-6692.

Super. Ct. N. C., Lee County;

Sup. Ct. Mo.;

Sup. Ct. 111.; and

Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 85-1343.
    No. 85-6501.
    No. 85-6579.
    Humphrey et al., dba Humphrey & Haas v. Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Assn., Robinson v. United States, Volino v. United States,
   475 U. S. 1114;

475 U. S. 1134; and

475 U. S. 1128. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 85-6052.
    Augustyniak v. City of New York et al.,
   475 U. S. 1027. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 8, 1986
    No. A-950.
    Esquivel v. McCotter, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

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:
    June 9, 1986
    No. 84-623.
    Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion of GTE Service Corp. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

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


text:
    No. 84-870.
    Louisiana Public Service Commission et al. v. South Central Bell Telephone Co.
   Appeal from C. A. 5th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Public Service Comm’n v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., ante, p. 445.

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


text:
    No. 85-132.
    Hemme et al. v. United States et al.
   Appeal from D. C. S. D. 111. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


text:
    No. 85-1644.
    Briehler v. Poseidon Venture, Inc., et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. R. I. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6727.
    Valway et al. v. Burlingame.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. H. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1689.
    Ginocchi v. Burrell School District.
   Appeal from Pa. Commw. Ct. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 85-6742.
    Johnston v. Perrott.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Vt. dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.


text:
    No. 84-483.
    Arkansas Public Service Commission et al. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and casé remanded for further consideration in light of Public Service Comm’n v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., ante, p. 445.

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


text:
    No. 85-55.
    Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Polaski et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Bowen v. City of New York, ante, p. 467.


text:
    No. 85-474.
    Hyatt et al. v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Bowen v. City of New York, ante, p. 467.


text:
    No. 85-6553.
    Gibson et al. v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Motion of petitioner Norman Bonds for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. The petition for writ of certiorari as to Norman Bonds is granted, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Lee v. Illinois, ante, p. 530. The petition for writ of certiorari as to Sammy Gibson is denied.


text:
    No. A-901.
    Carter et al. v. Farm Bureau Services, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-907.
    Hoffart v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 14th Sup. Jud. Dist. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-919.
    Miller v. Idaho.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-542.
    In re Disbarment of Bowles.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 474 U. S. 1079.]'


text:
    No. D-548.
    In re Disbarment of Marble.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 475 U. S. 1079.]


text:
    No. 85-99.
    Messerschmitt Bolkow Blohm, GmbH. v. Walker et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. The order entered April 21, 1986, granting the petition for writ of certiorari is vacated.


text:
    No. 85-6836.
    Gutierrez v. Office of Personnel Management.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until June 30, 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, Justice Blackmun, 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. 85-1708.
    California et al. v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 9th Cir. Further consideration of question of jurisdiction postponed to hearing of case on the merits.


text:
    No. 85-1695.
    Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale et al. v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-1433.
    Richardson, Warden v. Marsh.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-5939.
    Cruz v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis and certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-6756.
    Hitchcock v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Questions I, II, and IV presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 85-239.
    Hoffman et al. v. Sylva.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-502.
    National Association of Broadcasters et al. v. Quincy Cable TV, Inc., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1372.
    Ohio v. Thomas, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1382.
    Rose v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1405.
    MacKenzie et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1441.
    Washington et al. v. Hawaii et al.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1546.
    Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1561.
    Organized Fishermen of Florida et al. v. Hodel, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1591.
    Schwanecke et al. v. Ali et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1600.
    Board of County Commissioners of Bernalillo County et al. v. Friedman.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1602.
    Texas v. Van Guilder.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1625.
    Pearl Investment Co. v. City and County of San Francisco.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1665.
    Probe et al. v. California State Teachers’ Retirement System et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1667.
    Rhode v. San Jacinto County, Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1684.
    Colletti et al. v. County of Prince William, Virginia.
   Cir. Ct. Prince William County, Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1686.
    Bussanich et al. v. United States Lines, Inc.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1692.
    Lovelace v. Ametek, Inc.
   App. Div.., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1699.
    LaSalle National Bank of Chicago, Trustee, et al. v. County of DuPage et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1700.
    First Fidelity Bancorporation et al. v. Parell, Commissioner of Banking of the State of New Jersey, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1701.
    Powell v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1705.
    Felder v. Seafarers’ International Union of North America et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1706.
    Clark v. Indiana Department of Public Welfare et al.
   Ct..App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1709.
    Cross v. General Motors Corp. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1712.
    Wilsmann v. Upjohn Co. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1715.
    City Hospital of Bellaire v. DelGuzzo, Executrix of the Estate of DelGuzzo.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Belmont County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1718.
    Morgan v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1719.
    Owens et al. v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1734.
    Connor et al. v. Phillips et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1744.
    Essner v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1753.
    Unruh v. Colorado.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1760.
    Papalini et al. v. Fithian.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1774.
    Levin v. Guest.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1777.
    Farley v. ITT Life Insurance Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1794.
    Sagermark v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1807.
    Zlotnicki v. Harsco Corp.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1830.
    Kadin Corp. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1832.
    Head v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1841.
    Robinson, by his Guardian ad Litem, Young v. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1850.
    Yaris et al., on Their Own Behalf and as Next Friends of Yaris, et al. v. Mallory et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6519.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6536.
    Ferri v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6540.
    Andrews v. Bechtel Corp. et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6620.
    Castaldi v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6699.
    McCafferty v. South Dakota.
   Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6705.
    Sellers v. Stein et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6710.
    Koenig v. Fosheim et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6713.
    Carey v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6716.
    Sutton v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6717.
    Obolensky v. Potter et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6718.
    Williams v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6724.
    Mayorga v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6726.
    Allen v. Gilmore et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6729.
    Gordon v. Nucci et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6731.
    Wright v. Collins et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6733.
    Johnson v. Onion et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6734.
    Wahid v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6737.
    Randolph v. Muncy, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6738.
    Rappuhn v. Davis, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6739.
    Smith v. Abshire, Superintendent, Riverside Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6744.
    Kinder v. Keith.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6745.
    Day v. Attwell et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6746.
    Day v. Allstate Insurance Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6750.
    Reed v. Stanton Correctional Center et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6758.
    Jackson v. South Dakota et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6798.
    Martin v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6820.
    Andrez v. Department of the Air Force.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6864.
    Burke v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6867.
    Crawford et al. v. Metropolitan Impex, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6875.
    Jackson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6876.
    Littlehales v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6885.
    Steele v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6887.
    Cruz v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-900.
    New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Maine et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Powell and Justice O’Con-nor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 85-1544.
    Burlington Northern Inc. v. Anderson.
   Sup. Ct. Mont. Motion of Association of American Railroads et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1629.
    International Molders & Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Howard et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 85-1641.
    Mulligan v. Hazard et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

with whom Justice Marshall joins,

dissenting.

In Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U. S. 261 (1985), we held that an action brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 should be considered a personal injury action for purposes of borrowing an appropriate state statute of limitations. Since our decision in that case, the Courts of Appeals have differed on whether Wilson should be given retroactive effect. In the present case, the Sixth Circuit held, without qualification, that Wilson should be given retroactive effect. 777 F. 2d 340 (1985). The Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have reached similar results. Gates v. Spinks, 771 F. 2d 916 (CA5 1985), cert. denied, 475 U. S. 1065 (1986); Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, 763 F. 2d 1250 (CA11 1985), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 1105 (1986). Two other Courts of Appeals, however, have determined that when retroactive application would shorten the statute of limitations, Wilson merits only prospective relief. Gibson v. United States, 781 F. 2d 1334 (CA9 1986); Jackson v. City of Bloomfield, 731 F. 2d 652 (CA10 1984). Although the Third and Eighth Circuits have applied Wilson retroactively in certain cases, it is unclear whether their holdings are designed to have universal application. See Wycoff v. Menke, 773 F. 2d 983, 986-987 (CA8 1985); Fitzgerald v. Larson, 769 F. 2d 160, 162-164 (CA3 1985); Smith v. City of Pittsburgh, 764 F. 2d 188, 194-196 (CA3 1985).

In addition, the Courts of Appeals also have reached conflicting results concerning what should be done when more than one state statute of limitations applies to personal injury actions. In Hamilton v. City of Overton Park, 730 F. 2d 613 (1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 471 U. S. 1052 (1985), and Mismash v. Murray City, 730 F. 2d 1366 (1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 471 U. S. 1052 (1985), the Tenth Circuit rejected, for § 1983 purposes, the state statute of limitations for intentional torts, and chose instead a State’s residual statute of limitations. See generally Preuit & Mauldin v. Jones, 474 U. S. 1105, 1106-1107 (1986) (White, J. dissenting from denial of certiorari). The Eleventh Circuit in Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, supra, the Fifth Circuit in Gates v. Spinks, supra, and the Sixth Circuit in the present case, however, follow a different rule, and select the state statute of limitations governing intentional torts.

The Court’s decision not to review the instant case marks the third time this Term that it has refused to address these differences that exist between the Courts of Appeals; differences that are not likely to disappear without guidance from this Court. Given the square conflicts among the Circuits, and the frequency with which these cases arise, I would grant the petition for certiorari in this case.


text:
    No. 85-1710.
    Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Bennett et al.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Motions of Syncor International Corp., American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine et al., and American College of Nuclear Physicians for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice White, Justice Marshall, and Justice O’Con-nor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-5555.
    Moore v. Blackburn, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

The petitioner in this case was sentenced to death by a jury that was “led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of [his] death rests elsewhere,” Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320, 329 (1985). Under our recent decision in Caldwell, petitioner’s sentence cannot stand unless this error “had no effect on the sentencing decision,” id., at 341, a point the courts below did not consider and the State does not contest here. I would therefore grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the District Court’s judgment, and remand for reconsideration in light of Caldwell.

At the penalty phase of petitioner’s trial, the prosecutor argued:

“And it’s a tough thing to ask, but there is only one penalty really available for this type of crime and that is the death penalty. This is where it will begin. From the next point forward it goes through the court system to be thoroughly reviewed and checked, through every court in this land. But it has to begin here, right here with the jury.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 10; State v. Moore, 414 So. 2d 340, 347 (La. 1982).

On direct appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, petitioner argued that these statements had injected passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary factors into the sentencing determination. That court, while admitting that the prosecutor’s argument was “close to reversible error,” ibid., concluded that the argument had not diminished the jury’s sense of responsibility for its sentencing decision. The Fifth Circuit, reviewing the District Court’s rejection of the same claim in petitioner’s first federal habeas petition, reached the same conclusion. Moore v. Maggio, 740 F. 2d 308, 320 (1984). Subsequently, this Court decided Caldwell, and petitioner filed a second habeas petition claiming that the prosecutor’s argument violated the Eighth Amendment as construed in our decision in that case.

The District Court denied this petition, and the Court of Appeals denied a certificate of probable cause. 774 F. 2d 97 (1985). The latter court held that the Caldwell claim had been raised in petitioner’s first application, and was therefore barred by Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and by the principles enunciated in Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1 (1963). The court also concluded that its prior determination that the prosecutor’s argument had not diminished the jury’s sense of responsibility, see 740 F. 2d, at 320, was “consistent with the rule set forth in Caldwell.” 774 F. 2d, at 98. Even had the Caldwell claim not been raised previously, the court held, it would have denied that claim as an abuse of the writ, because a competent lawyer would have been aware of the possibility of such a claim.

The Court of Appeals was mistaken in believing that its prior pronouncement that the jury’s sense of responsibility was not diminished disposed of the Caldwell claim. The prosecutor’s argument in this case is essentially identical to the argument held unconstitutional in Caldwell. The lesson of Caldwell, at a minimum, is that a misleading or incomplete statement concerning appellate review of a death sentence necessarily diminishes the jury’s sense of responsibility. In the present case, no less than in Caldwell, the jury may have “harbor[ed] misconceptions about the power of state appellate courts or, for that matter, this Court to override a jury’s sentence of death.” 472 U. S., at 342 (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Under those circumstances, we cannot be confident that the jury did not conclude that the ultimate responsibility for petitioner’s fate rested elsewhere.

This case, then, falls squarely within the “ends of justice” exception to the general rule forbidding successive assertions of the same claim on habeas, see Sanders, supra, at 16-17. In Sanders, this Court held that “[i]f purely legal questions are involved, the applicant may be entitled to a new hearing upon showing an intervening change in the law.” 373 U. S., at 17. Caldwell constitutes an intervening change in the law concerning the precise argument used by the prosecutor in this case — a change that requires reexamination of the Court of Appeals’ earlier conclusion about the effect of that argument on the jury. The clear import of Sanders is that petitioner is entitled to present his claim to the federal courts, and I therefore dissent from the denial of certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-5868.
    No. 85-5886.
    No. 85-5979.
    No. 85-5986.
    No. 85-6048.
    No. 85-6389.
    No. 85-6390.
    No. 85-6456.
    No. 85-6547.
    No. 85-6771.
    No. 85-6932.
    Mapes v. Ohio. Rault v. Louisiana. Harper v. Kentucky. Jones v. Louisiana. Gilmore v. Missouri. Foster, aka Lee v. Missouri. Cave v. Florida. Kirkpatrick v. Blackburn, Warden. Harich v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al. Suarez v. Florida. Evans v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio;

C. A. 5th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Ky.;

Sup. Ct. La.;

Sup. Ct. Mo.;

Sup. Ct. Mo.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

C. A. 5th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.; and

Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 85-6707.
    Golub v. Ernst & Ernst (Whinney) et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 85-6721.
    Toney-El v. Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 84-1288.
    No. 85-1095.
    No. 85-1407.
    No. 85-1478.
    No. 85-6431.
    No. 85-6499.
    Evans, Governor of Idaho, et al. v. Jeff D. et al., Minors, by and Through Their Next Friend, Johnson, et al., Aamodt et ux. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission et al., Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., et al. v. Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Boyce v. Ridgely et al., Personal Representatives of the Estate of Boyce, Dale v. South Dakota, Staradumsky v. Rhode Island,
   475 U. S. 717;

475 U. S. 1082;

475 U. S. 1114;

475 U. S. 1123;

475 U. S. 1126; and

475 U. S. 1114. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 85-6003.
    Hurley v. Hongisto et al.,
   475 U. S. 1025. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 10, 1986
    No. A-959.
    Kemp, Warden v. Collins.
   Application of the Attorney General of Georgia for an order to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, presented to Justice Powell, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    June 16, 1986
    No. 85-1852.
    Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari before judgment dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    No. 84-1724.
    Snider et al. v. Virginia.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Va. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 85-1459.
    Powell v. Powell.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Tex., 10th Sup. Jud. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Justice White would postpone further consideration of question of jurisdiction to a hearing of the case on the merits.


text:
    No. 85-1754.
    Bober et al. v. Walgreen Co. et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ill. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Justice Brennan would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.

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


text:
    No. 85-279.
    American Petrofina Company of Texas v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union Local No. 4-23 et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U. S. 643 (1986).


text:
    No.---.
    Comsia v. Morris, Judge.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. A-925 (85-1962).
    Riddick et al. v. School Board of City of Norfolk et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for an injunction, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Justice Marshall and Justice Black-mun would grant the application. Justice Stevens would expedite consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari and postpone action on the application pending such consideration.


text:
    No. A-934 (85-7008).
    Lesko v. Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Brennan, and by him referred to the Court, is granted pending the disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. 84-1904.
    United States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. Galioto.
   D. C. N. J. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 474 U. S. 943.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to file a supplemental brief after argument granted.


text:
    No. 85-1233.
    International Paper Co. v. Ouellette et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 475 U. S. 1081.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 85-1773.
    Oberly, Attorney General of Delaware, et al. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. et al.
   Appeal from C. A. 3d Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 85-6878.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 7, 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. 85-6775.
    In re Ayers.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 85-6789.
    In re Hosey.
   Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 85-1385.
    United States v. General Dynamics Corp. et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-1581.
    Solorio v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-1630.
    Hewitt et al. v. Helms.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 85-372.
    Christensen et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1380.
    Woodhouse v. United States Bureau of Indian Affairs et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1401.
    Temple University v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1411.
    McCallum v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1415.
    Wolfenbarger et al. v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crina. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1453.
    Colorado Flying Academy, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1483.
    Maikovskis v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1559.
    Posner v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1560.
    Rubio v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1605.
    Rhodes et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1651.
    WNEV-TV, New England Television Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1228, AFL-CIO.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1685.
    Herbert v. Lando et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1732.
    Takahashi v. Board of Trustees of Livingston Union School District et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1733.
    McAninch, Executor of the Estate of McAninch, et al. v. Traders National Bank of Kansas City.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1740.
    Kananen et ux. v. Sun Bank Okeechobee, fka Commercial Bank Okeechobee, Florida, et al.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1746.
    Margulis v. Miller et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1757.
    Azima v. Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1764.
    Buck v. Kansas.
   Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1769.
    Proctor et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1771.
    LeCount v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1775.
    Macurdy v. Dauer et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1776.
    Holding v. Sovran Bank.
   Cir. Ct. Powhatan County, Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1781.
    Fotland et al. v. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1812.
    Deutsch v. New Mexico.
   Ct. App. N. M. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1836.
    Chehade v. Shehade.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1872.
    Cook v. Peter Kiewit Son’s Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1879.
    Murphy v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1880.
    Keplinger et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-1909.
    Mosley v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6388.
    Maggitt v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6417.
    Napue v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6527.
    Gray v. Cody, Attorney General of Tennessee, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6562.
    Baxter v. Federal Communications Commission.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6599.
    Highighi v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6600.
    Wood v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6633.
    Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6655.
    Mormon v. Illinois.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6664.
    Owens v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6695.
    Remington v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6760.
    Watson v. McCotter.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6764.
    Leecan v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6774.
    Judd v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6779.
    Stevens v. Fulcomer, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6784.
    Samples v. Keeney, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6786.
    Richardson v. Louisiana State Parole Board et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6787.
    Russo v. Hartigan, Attorney General of Illinois.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6788.
    Pendleton v. New York State Department of Correctional Services.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6795.
    Yarborough v. Yarborough.
   Fam. Ct. of Darlington County, S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6800.
    Tarkowski v. Wolff et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6804.
    Love v. Young, Superintendent, Waupun Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6805.
    Greene v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6808.
    Wright v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6809.
    Martinez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6810.
    Herships v. Founders Title Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6811.
    Diebold v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6814.
    Smith v. Newsome, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6830.
    McCreary v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6849.
    Smith v. Maryland.
   Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6852.
    Sheward v. Indiana.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6879.
    Goldsmith v. Johnson, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6913.
    Daniel v. Office of Personnel Management.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6923.
    Morse v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6924.
    Larson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6927.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 85-6931.
    Terrovona v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 84-2023.
    Independent Bankers Association of New York State, Inc., et al. v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-1479.
    Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. v. Lindley et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-1316.
    No. 85-1547.
    Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al. v. Little Rock School District et al.; and Arkansas State Board of Education et al. v. Little Rock School District et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Powell would grant certiorari.


author: Chief Justice Burger,

text:
    No. 85-1593.
    Coughlin et ux. v. Westinghouse Broadcasting & Cable, Inc.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Chief Justice Burger,

with whom Justice Rehnquist joins,

dissenting.

In Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749, 764 (1985) (Burger, C. J., concurring in judgment), I wrote to express my agreement with Justice White that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964), should be reexamined. Petitioners in this petition ask this Court for such a reconsideration. I dissent from the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari and give plenary attention to this important issue.

Respondent conducted an investigation into the alleged failure of Philadelphia police to enforce state liquor laws against an “after hours” bar. In the course of that investigation, they hid a camera across the street from the bar and videotaped police officers entering and leaving the bar. Respondent ultimately broadcast a videotape of petitioner leaving a bar on October 11, 1981. The videotape stated that “the only paperwork we saw [petitioner] doing was carrying this envelope out of the Club less than a minute after he went in.” A freeze frame with a circle around an object in petitioner’s hand was used to emphasize the point. The announcer went on to say that the officer had difficulty finding the proper key to start his patrol car and that he was not wearing his uniform jacket or hat, “all standard items officers on patrol are required to have.” The clear implication ofthe broadcast was that petitioner had accepted a bribe. Respondent made no attempt to obtain petitioner’s explanation for these events other than an “ambush” interview four months after the fact. In this “interview,” a reporter for respondent approached petitioner with cameras whirling as he came off of his all-night shift and asked what he had been doing four months earlier on the night of October 11, 1981. Petitioner said “this here is harassment” and declined to answer questions at that time.

Petitioner and his wife filed a libel suit in District Court. He alleged that even a minimal investigation of the events of that evening would have revealed that he was a rookie policeman, patrolling alone for the first time on October 11, 1981; that early in his shift, he was ordered to investigate a vandalism complaint at the bar; that after talking to the bar’s steward, he returned to the patrol car and filled out his incident report book; and that he was not required to wear his jacket or hat while on patrol. Petitioner further alleged that the purported “envelope” was in fact nothing other than his incident report book. The District Court concluded that petitioner had raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning the truth of the allegedly defamatory statements and that the broadcast was capable of a defamatory interpretation. 603 F. Supp. 377 (ED Pa. 1985). Applying our decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, the District Court concluded that petitioner had not introduced sufficient evidence of “actual malice” on the part of respondent to withstand a motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the District Court had properly evaluated petitioner’s evidence of actual malice. 780 F. 2d 340 (CA3 1985). One judge concurred, observing that “[t]he New York Times standard makes it hard enough for a public figure to win a libel suit, even when faced, as here, with what any fair observer must agree is egregious conduct on the part of the media.” Id., at 349 (Becker, J.).

Petitioner has raised an important federal question that we should review. He has been accused of accepting a bribe on the basis of a cursory investigation, yet his libel suit to clear his name has been found to be constitutionally barred. The District Court observed: “An issue . . . exists as to whether [respondent], with a minimum of effort, could have discovered the truth. The Supreme Court’s mandate, however, is clear: ‘reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing.’” 603 F. Supp., at 388 (quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U. S. 727, 731 (1968)). I would grant certiorari and set this case for argument to determine whether the Court’s “mandate” remains an appropriate one.


text:
    No. 85-1750.
    S/S Salvador et al. v. Berisford Metals Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of Inter-American Freight Conference, Star Shipping A/S, and American President Lines, Ltd., for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 85-6474.
    No. 85-6773.
    Buxton v. Texas. Wisehart v. Indiana.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; and

Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 85-1447.
    No. 85-1509.
    No. 85-5925.
    No. 85-5977.
    No. 85-6325.
    No. 85-6364.
    No. 85-6494.
    No. 85-6517.
    No. 85-6524.
    Cabriolet Porsche + Audi, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Vintilla et al. v. United States Steel Corporation Plan for Employee Pension Benefits, Brewer v. Garner, Warden, Isley v. United States, Johnson v. Mississippi, In re May, Hakim v. Wolverine Packing Co., In re Frazier, Washington v. Angelone, Warden, et al.,
   475 U. S. 1122;

475 U. S. 1141;

475 U. S. 1141;

475 U. S. 1024;

ante, p. 1109;

475 U. S. 1140;

475 U. S. 1142;

475 U. S. 1139; and

ante, p. 1107. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 85-882.
    Lovshin v. Department of the Navy,
   475 U. S. 1111. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed further herein informa pauperis granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


author: Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.

text:
    CALIFORNIA v. HAMILTON
    No. A-805.
    Decided May 6, 1986
   Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.

Applicant, the State of California, asks that I stay pending disposition of its petition for certiorari the enforcement of the judgment of the California Supreme Court, which invalidated the death sentence imposed on respondent Hamilton for the 1979 murder of a woman near San Diego. 41 Cal. 3d 408, 710 P. 2d 981 (1985). The jury was not instructed that it was required, as a matter of state law under Carlos v. Superior Court, 35 Cal. 3d 131, 672 P. 2d 862 (1983), to find that Hamilton intended to kill his victim before it could impose the death penalty. The California Supreme Court held that this failure to properly instruct the jury on the issue of intent violated Hamilton’s right to due process under this Court’s decision in Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979). 41 Cal. 3d, at 431, 710 P. 2d, at 995. The court also held that such Sandstrom error was not harmless under the four-part test for harmlessness set forth in People v. Garcia, 36 Cal. 3d 539, 554-557, 684 P. 2d 826, 835-837 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1229 (1985). In particular, the court concluded that the fourth part of the Garcia test, under which a Sandstrom error may be found harmless if “the record not only establishes the necessary intent as a matter of law but shows the contrary evidence not worthy of consideration,” Garcia, supra, at 556, 684 P. 2d, at 835, did not apply to the instant case. 41 Cal. 3d, at 432, 710 P. 2d, at 995-996.

The State requests a stay so that it can petition for certiorari, raising the following question: “What is the proper standard of prejudice under the United States Constitution for errors in jury instructions regarding intent to kill in capital cases?” The State argues that the California Supreme Court misconstrued this Court’s decision in Connecticut v. Johnson, 460 U. S. 73 (1983), when it set up in Garcia its four-part harmlessness test for Sandstrom errors, and that under a proper test the Sandstrom error in the instant case would be found harmless. The State also points out that, under California law, it will be forced to begin a new trial on the issue of Hamilton’s sentence by May 12, 1986, or be forever barred from seeking the death penalty. See Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 1382(2) (West 1982). On the other hand, since the California Supreme Court affirmed Hamilton’s murder conviction, he will remain confined whether or not a stay is granted.

This Court currently has before it the case of Rose v. Clark, No. 84-1974, which involves the question whether a Sandstrom error may ever be found harmless and, if so, under what circumstances. Our decision in Rose v. Clark may well affect the outcome of the instant case. For this reason, I believe that a majority of this Court would not want to dispose of the petition for certiorari in this case before a decision is rendered in Rose v. Clark. I therefore stay the enforcement of the judgment of the California Supreme Court pending further action by me or by the Court.