text:
    No. D-1010.
    In re Disbarment of Bolton.
   It is ordered that George J. Bolton, of North Miami Beach, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. D-1011.
    In re Disbarment of Thompson.
   It is ordered that Beverly Kay Thompson, of Cherry Hill, N. J., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1012.
    In re Disbarment of Lukas.
   It is ordered that Thomas James Lukas, of Long Island City, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1013.
    In re Disbarment of Miller.
   It is ordered that Michael Albert Miller, of Tualatin, Ore., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 112, Orig.
    Wyoming v. Oklahoma.
   Motion of Wyoming Mining Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Exceptions to Report of the Special Master filed by Wyoming and Brief on the Merits filed by Oklahoma are set for oral argument in due course. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 499 U. S. 903.]


text:
    No. 90-681.
    Hafer v. Melo et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 498 U. S. 1118.] Motions of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and Kenneth W. Fultz for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 90-1014.
    Lee et al. v. Weisman, Personally and as Next Friend of Weisman.
   C. A. 1st Cir. [Certiorari granted, 499 U. S. 918.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument, granted.


text:
    No. 90-5844.
    Foucha v. Louisiana.
   Sup. Ct. La. [Certio-rari granted, 499 U. S. 946.] Motions of American Psychiatric Association and American Orthopsychiatric Association et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.


author: Justice Marshall and Justice Stevens,

text:
    No. 90-7740.
    Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 8, 1991, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

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. 90-7728.
    In re Moore.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 90-7647.
    In re Schmidt.
   Petition for writ of prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 90-1629.
    United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-1029.
    Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-1150.
    Willy v. Coastal Corp. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 90-834.
    Home State Bank v. Johnson.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-984.
    Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Kansas State Corporation Commission et al.
   Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1311.
    Smith v. City of Chicago.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1416.
    Wolak v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1441.
    Pinkney v. Keane, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1445.
    Ivy et ux. v. Myers.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1451.
    Wilson v. United States; and Green et al. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1483.
    No. 90-1634.
    Barton et al. v. Smith et al.; and Smith et al. v. Barton et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1497.
    Ashkenazy Property Management Corp., dba L’Ermitage Hotel, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1509.
    Vasquez v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1518.
    Heerdink v. Amoco Oil Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1521.
    Coiro v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1533.
    Cardilli v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1622.
    Fant v. Stephens.
   Ct. App. Tex., 12th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1632.
    Meaige v. Hartley Marine Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1635.
    Bhaya et al. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1636.
    Duluth-Superior ILA Marine Association Restated Pension Plan et al. v. Seaway Port Authority of Duluth.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1642.
    No. 90-1680.
    Borough of Roselle et al. v. Brown, Administratrix and Administratrix ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Evans; and Brown, Administratrix and Administratrix ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Evans v. Grabowski et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1644.
    Wheeler v. Wheeler.
   Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1646.
    Connell v. Bank of Boston et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1650.
    Dennison v. County of Frederick, Virginia, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1658.
    HBA East Ltd. et al. v. JEA Boxing Co. et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1660.
    Schaefer v. Superior Court of San Diego County (McCann, Real Party in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1664.
    Philbrook v. Ansonia Board of Education et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1665.
    Kidder, Peabody & Co. Inc. v. Maxus Energy Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1691.
    Alton & Southern Railway Co. v. Grimming.
   App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1702.
    Gregg Potato Sales, Inc. v. Landis Brothers.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1734.
    Malone v. Gilman Paper Co.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1756.
    Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1767.
    Fannin v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6767.
    Fierer v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6799.
    Wagner v. Seely et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6959.
    Layton v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7218.
    Payne v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7290.
    Dunn v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7294.
    Cianciola v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7358.
    Fells v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7476.
    Washington v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7578.
    Santiago-Rivera v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7596.
    Alexander v. Connecticut.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7635.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7762.
    Schmidt v. Jenkins et al.
   Dist. Ct. Salt Lake County, Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7788.
    Ballantyne v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7791.
    McNamara v. Borg, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7792.
    Martinez v. Sullivan, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7794.
    Lemrick v. Oregon Court System et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7795.
    Muhammad, aka Elliot v. Shabazz et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7797.
    Martin v. Thompson et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7801.
    Douglas v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7802.
    Zatko v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7803.
    Rosnow v. Rasmussen et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7804.
    Andrews v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7805.
    Zani v. Glanz et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7811.
    McGrew v. Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7813.
    Jones v. Eastman Kodak Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7820.
    Davenport v. Duckworth, Superintendent, Indiana State Reformatory.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7821.
    Rodgers v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7823.
    Smith v. United States; Davis v. United States; Smith v. United States; Jon v. United States; Coke v. United States; and Howell v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7824.
    Smith v. McKaskle et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7835.
    McGarry v. Internal Revenue Service et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7839.
    Buelow v. Baker, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7840.
    Demos v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7841.
    Demos v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7854.
    Bradley v. Meachum, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7881.
    Kuns v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Montgomery County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7887.
    Williams v. City of Atlanta, Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7891.
    Schmidt v. Cutler et al.
   Dist. Ct. Salt Lake County, Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7927.
    Schmidt v. Utah et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7938.
    Thompson v. Wigginton et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7944.
    Pletten v. Marsh, Secretary of the Army, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7945.
    Gedson, aka Kerr v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7966.
    Ray v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7970.
    Bramble v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8007.
    Davie v. Muncy et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8036.
    Pinochet v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8038.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8040.
    Lincoln, aka Omer v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8042.
    Crosby v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8049.
    Snow v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8057.
    Sturdy v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8064.
    Bohanan v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8065.
    Daniels v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-872.
    Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639 et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-1643.
    Kehr Packages, Inc., et al. v. Fidelcor, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-1463.
    Warner Cable Communications, Inc. v. City of Niceville.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motions of Florida Cable Television Association et al., National Cable Television Association, Inc., Community Antenna Television Association, and Cable-vision Systems Corp. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1544.
    Hatchett v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of Federal Criminal Defense Association of Michigan et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-1627.
    Commissioner of Revenue Services of Connecticut v. SFA Folio Collections, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied. Justice White and Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-7483.
    D’Amario v. Butler Hospital et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of petitioner to strike Brief in Opposition and for sanctions denied. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 90-7506.
    No. 90-7767.
    Riley v. Delaware. McDougall v. Dixon, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. Del.; and C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

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, 231 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 90-8052.
    Perez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8331 (A-945).
    Bird v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

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, 231 (1976), I would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for writ of certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    No. 90-8332 (A-946).
    Bird v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

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, 231 (1976), I would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for writ of certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    No. 88-6833.
    No. 89-7024.
    No. 90-1226.
    No. 90-1265.
    No. 90-1332.
    No. 90-1442.
    No. 90-1519.
    No. 90-5946.
    No. 90-6756.
    No. 90-6933.
    No. 90-7044.
    No. 90-7107.
    No. 90-7120.
    Moon v. Georgia, McCleskey v. Zant, Superintendent, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Hope v. United States, Oshatz v. United States, Cohen v. Berger, Bush et ux. v. Water Pollution Control Authority for the Town of Waterford, Camoscio v. Hodder et al., Hinchey v. Arizona, Sceifers v. Duckworth, Warden, Mathis v. Wayne County Friend of the Court et al., Delbridge et al. v. New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services, Read et ux. v. Duck et al., Pope v. Department of the Army, Whigham v. Foltz, Warden, Smith v. Calgon Carbon Corp. et al., Le Blanc v. University of Michigan, aka Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Malone v. Missouri, Smith v. New York State Workers’ Compensation Board,
   499 U. S. 982; 499 U. S. 467; 499 U. S. 983; 500 U. S. 910; 499 U. S. 962; 500 U. S. 906; 500 U. S. 906; 499 U. S. 963; 499 U. S. 978; 499 U. S. 928; 499 U. S. 940; 499 U. S. 964; 499 U. S. 978; 499 U. S. 942; 499 U. S. 966; 500 U. S. 908; 500 U. S. 929; and 500 U. S. 926. Petitions for rehearing denied.

No. 90-7192.

No. 90-7194.

No. 90-7337.

No. 90-7509.

No. 90-7615.


text:
    No. 90-992.
    Nevada et al. v. Watkins, Secretary of Energy, et al.,
   499 U. S. 906. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 18, 1991
    No. 90-1780.
    H & M Construction Co., Inc., et al. v. Tell City Chair Co., Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    June 19, 1991
    No. 90-949.
    Ward v. Attridge, Magistrate, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    June 20, 1991
    No. A-953.
    Feinstein et al. v. United States et al.
   Application for partial stay of an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, presented to Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    June 24, 1991
    No. 90-1167.
    Board of Public Education and Orphanage for Bibb County et al. v. Lucas et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appeals for clarification of the jurisdictional issue presented by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States as amicus curiae filed June 4, 1991.


text:
    No. 90-1433.
    Florida v. Trody.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa paupe-ris granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of McNeil v. Wisconsin, ante, p. 171.


text:
    No. 90-5849.
    Williams v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Burns v. United States, ante, p. 129.


text:
    No. 90-5999.
    Hill v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Burns v. United States, ante, p. 129.


text:
    No. -.
    In re Karapinka.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of mandamus that does not comply with the Rules of this Court denied.


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


text:
    No. A-916.
    Moore v. Jarvis, Sheriff of DeKalb County, Georgia.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Application for recall and stay of mandate, addressed to Justice White and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-927.
    Abramo v. Worcester Division of the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court of Massachusetts.
   Application for stay of trial proceedings, addressed to Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-936.
    United States Department of Justice et al. v. Rosenfeld.
   Application for stay, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, granted, and it is ordered that the order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case Nos. C-85-1709 and C-85-2247, filed March 29, 1991, be and the same is hereby stayed pending final disposition of the appeal of that order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit following the District Court’s action on the Government’s motion for reconsideration filed April 16, 1991.


text:
    No. A-971.
    Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections v. Francis.
   Application 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 Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, granted provided that the stay shall remain in effect until 7 a.m. Tuesday, June 25,1991, in order to allow for further consideration by the Court of Appeals in light of Coleman v. Thompson, ante, p. 722. Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens would deny the application.

Justice Marshall,

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, 231 (1976), I would deny the application to vacate the stay of execution.


text:
    No. D-963.
    In re Disbarment of Henderson.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 498 U. S. 1044.]


text:
    No. D-965.
    In re Disbarment of Lackey.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 498 U. S. 1064.]


text:
    No. D-977.
    In re Disbarment of Zaharia.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 499 U. S. 902.]


text:
    No. D-983.
    In re Disbarment of Stitt.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 499 U. S. 916.]


text:
    No. D-993.
    In re Disbarment of Berger.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 499 U. S. 957.]


text:
    No. D-996.
    In re Disbarment of Bergmann.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 499 U. S. 973.]


text:
    No. D-1014.
    In re Disbarment of Bennett.
   It is ordered that R. Jerry Bennett, of Colorado Springs, Colo., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1015.
    In re Disbarment of Burke.
   It is ordered that Robert B. Burke, of Philadelphia, Pa., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1016.
    In re Disbarment of Gamer.
   It is ordered that Harold M. Gamer, of Los Angeles, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1017.
    In re Disbarment of Caronna.
   It is ordered that Anthony S. Caronna, of Brooklyn, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1018.
    In re Disbarment of Hayden.
   It is ordered that John J. Hayden, of Goshen, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1019.
    In re Disbarment of Turner.
   It is ordered that James Henry Turner, of St. Petersburg, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 111, Orig.
    Delaware v. New York.
   Motion of Georgia and Maine for leave to file a complaint in intervention referred to the Special Master. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 498 U. S. 979.]


text:
    No. 90-1205.
    No. 90-6588.
    United States v. Mabus, Governor of Mississippi, et al.; and Ayers et al. v. Mabus, Governor of Mississippi, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 499 U. S. 958.] Motion of National Bar Association et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 90-1262.
    No. 90-1266.
    Arkansas et al. v. Oklahoma et al.; and Environmental Protection Agency v. Oklahoma et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 499 U. S. 946.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 90-1372.
    Main Hurdman v. Fine et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of the parties to further defer consideration of petition for writ of certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-1676.
    No. 90-1712.
    Gade, Director, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn. North Carolina v. Smith.
   C. A. 7th Cir.; and Sup. Ct. N. C. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 90-1904.
    International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner to expedite consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6105.
    Evans v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 500 U. S. 951.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that C. Michael Abbott, Esq., of Atlanta, Ga., be appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 90-1647.
    No. 90-7645.
    No. 90-7899.
    In re Louisiana ex rel. Guste, Attorney General; In re Reidt; and In re Gay.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 90-7901.
    In re Elledge.
   Motions of National Legal Aid and Defender Association and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 90-1577.
    United States v. R. L. C.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-1194.
    Maine Public Utilities Commission v. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1423.
    Massillon Board of Education v. Farber.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1460.
    Tarassoum v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1506.
    Globus v. Skinner, Secretary of Transportation, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1508.
    City of El Centro, California v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1541.
    Washington State Department of Transportation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1542.
    Rivieccio v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1550.
    Hudson et al. v. Chicago Teachers Union, Local 1, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1563.
    McEvoy v. New York.
   App. Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st and 12th Jud. Dists. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1593.
    Paramount Pictures Corp. et al. v. The Movie 1 & 2.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1601.
    Hall et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1610.
    Hwang Jung Joo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1621.
    Knight et al. v. Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1640.
    Church v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1652.
    Dale v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, International, AFL-CIO.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1653.
    Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership v. City of St. Paul et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1655.
    Gordon v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1659.
    Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1662.
    Bairstow et al. v. Bairstow et al.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1663.
    Sachs v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1669.
    Dixon v. Hubert et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1673.
    Columbia Oldsmobile, Inc. v. City of Montgomery, Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1675.
    Reichelt et al. v. Emhart Corp. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1679.
    Kile v. North Pacific Construction Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1681.
    Hodory v. Hamilton.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1682.
    Cathey et ux. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1687.
    Miramar Hotel Corp. v. Santa Monica Culinary Welfare Fund et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1690.
    Bond et ux. v. Octagon Process, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1693.
    Brown v. Wong et al.
   Sup. Ct. Haw. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1696.
    Lester v. Borgert, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1710.
    Texas v. Gribble.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1711.
    Gridley v. Cleveland Pneumatic Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1716.
    Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1732.
    Nicols v. Nicols.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1741.
    Bayerische Hypotheken-und Wechsel-Bank AG et al. v. Gorg, as Trustee in Bankruptcy for the Estate of Kaussen, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1742.
    Hooper v. Alabama.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1746.
    Troen v. Oregon.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1770.
    Amernational Industries, Inc. v. Electroexportimport.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1799.
    Pruessman v. McDonald et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1812.
    Darboven v. Nickolopoulos et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5586.
    Janssen v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5706.
    Hall v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6710.
    Jackson v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7185.
    Palmer v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7227.
    Segarra-Palmer v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7246.
    Maldonado-Rivera v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7283.
    Deases v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7297.
    Turner v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7338.
    Laff v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7351.
    Williams v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7370.
    Will v. Will.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7371.
    Wallace v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7394.
    Dougall v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7470.
    Duenas-Zaragoza, aka Meno v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7491.
    Scott v. Delo et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7539.
    Horton v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7562.
    Manning v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7563.
    No. 90-7591.
    Hickey v. United States; and Kavanagh v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7566.
    Novey v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7626.
    Bibo-Rodriguez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7629.
    Hardison v. Braxton, Colonel, United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7665.
    Chavira v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7678.
    Price v. Willis, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7687.
    Paitsel v. Mississippi et al.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7717.
    Sanders v. District of Columbia et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7726.
    Hendricks v. Department of the Treasury.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7807.
    Wilson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7849.
    Thomas v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7859.
    Clemons v. Armontrout, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7862.
    Donati v. Morris et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7867.
    Henson-El v. Rogers et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7868.
    Mink v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7872.
    Matthews, aka Brown v. Jolly et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7874.
    Holbrook v. Hurt, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7875.
    Ramos, a Minor, Represented by her Mother, Keech, et al. v. City of York, Pennsylvania, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7876.
    Broyles v. Armontrout, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7877.
    Segovia v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7878.
    Billings v. Secretary of Labor et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7879.
    Robinson v. Stiftel et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7883.
    Leonard v. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7886.
    Shows v. NCNB National Bank of North Carolina et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7889.
    Zatko v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7890.
    Cross v. Griffin et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7892.
    Wilson v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7893.
    Perry v. Michigan et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7895.
    Bay v. Louisiana.
   Ct. App. La., 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7897.
    Marteny v. Murray et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7907.
    Cosner v. Beatty, Judge, Circuit Court of Henry County.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7917.
    Wesson v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7919.
    Vernon v. Hatfield et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7921.
    Miller v. Toombs et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7925.
    Roden v. Howell et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7926.
    Boyd v. South Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7946.
    McCabe v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7947.
    Mercado v. Block et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7953.
    Crane v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7971.
    Lockhart v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7986.
    Ruiz-Valdez v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7989.
    Johnson v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7993.
    Caudle v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7995.
    Johnson v. Attorney General of Alabama et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8005.
    Demos v. Supreme Court of Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8025.
    Murphy v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8053.
    Boudreaux v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8058.
    Carney v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8068.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8071.
    No. 90-8087.
    Beverly et al. v. United States; and Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8074.
    Reuvelta v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8077.
    Reyes-Vasquez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8089.
    Smallwood v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8090.
    Rollins et ux. v. Kramer et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8096.
    Washington v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8106.
    Lomax v. Wood, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8112.
    Gonzales v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8115.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8116.
    Fuller v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8119.
    Schiff v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8170.
    Ortiz v. LeFevre, Superintendent, Franklin Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1520.
    Aqua-Chem, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-1587.
    Capeletti Bros., Inc., et al. v. Broward County, Florida, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of Washington Legal Foundation et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1616.
    Ohio v. Williams.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1678.
    Colorado v. Galimanis.
   Ct. App. Colo. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1684.
    Brewer, Natural Guardian and Duly-Appointed Next Friend of Brewer v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of National Depressive and Manic Depressive Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5950.
    No. 90-8175.
    Spence v. Texas. Williams v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; and Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

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, 231 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 90-7755.
    Rector v. Bryant, Attorney General of Arkansas, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

In Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399 (1986), this Court recognized that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from carrying out a sentence of death upon a prisoner who is insane.” Id., at 409-410. The full Court, however, did not attempt a comprehensive definition of insanity or incompetence in this setting. See id., at 407-408, 409-410; id., at 418 (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). This petition presents the question whether a prisoner whose mental incapacity renders him unable to recognize or communicate facts that would make his sentence unlawful or unjust is nonetheless competent to be executed. Because Ford leaves this question unanswered, and because this is an important and recurring issue in the administration of the death penalty, I would grant the petition.

I

After shooting and killing a police officer sent to investigate petitioner’s involvement in another homicide, petitioner attempted to end his own life by shooting himself in the head. The gunshot did not kill petitioner. However, it did sever a three-inch section of petitioner’s brain, resulting in a frontal lobotomy. See 923 F. 2d 570, 571, and n. 2 (CA8 1991). The trial court rejected petitioner’s claim that he was incompetent to stand trial for murder of the police officer. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence of death were affirmed on appeal.

Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, arguing that his deteriorated mental condition rendered him incompetent to be executed. The District Court ordered a mental evaluation of petitioner to be conducted by the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners. The examiners reached two conclusions. First, the examiners determined “that no mental illness or defect prevents [petitioner] from being aware of his impending execution and the reason for it.” Id., at 572. Second, applying the competency standard adopted by the American Bar Association in its Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards, the examiners reported that

“[petitioner] would have considerable difficulty due to his organic deficits in being able to work in a collaborative, cooperative effort with an attorney. In our opinions it appears that he would not be able to recognize or understand facts which might be related to his case which might make his punishment unjust or unlawful.” Ibid, (emphasis added).

The District Court concluded that, for purposes of Ford v. Wainwright, supra, petitioner’s competency to be executed turned solely on his appreciation of the nature of his punishment. Consequently, the court denied the writ. See 727 F. Supp. 1285, 1292 (ED Ark. 1990).

Petitioner appealed this determination to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Like the District Court, the Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner’s inability to recognize or communicate facts that might make his punishment unlawful or unjust was of no legal consequence. See 923 F. 2d, at 572-573. Purporting to draw on the majority opinion in Ford and on Justice Powell’s concurring opinion, the Court of Appeals concluded that the only considerations relevant to petitioner’s competency were “(1) whether petitioner understands that he is to be punished by execution; and (2) whether petitioner understands why he is being punished.” Id., at 572 (emphasis added). Because the medical examiners had determined that petitioner was competent to be executed by these criteria, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s denial of habeas relief.

The lower courts clearly erred in viewing Ford as settling the issue whether a prisoner can be deemed competent to be executed notwithstanding his inability to recognize or communicate facts showing his sentence to be unlawful or unjust. Although the Court in Ford did emphasize the injustice “of executing a person who has no comprehension of why he has been singled out and stripped of his fundamental right to life,” 477 U. S., at 409, the Court stressed that this was just one of many conditions that were treated as rendering a prisoner incompetent (or insane) at common law, see id., at 407-408, 409-410. Indeed, the Court quoted with approval Blackstone’s discussion of this topic, which clearly treats as a bar to execution a prisoner’s inability to recognize grounds for avoiding the sentence:

“ ‘[I]f, after judgment, [a capital prisoner] becomes of nonsane memory, execution shall be stayed: for peradventure, says the humanity of the English law, had the prisoner been of sound memory, he might have alleged something in stay of judgment or execution.’” Id., at 407 (emphasis added), quoting 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *24-*25 (1769).

It is true, as the Court of Appeals noted-, that Justice Powell addressed and rejected this definition of incompetence in his concurring opinion. See 477 U. S., at 419-421. But even he recognized that the full Court left the issue open. See id., at 418 (noting that Court does not resolve “the meaning of insanity in this context”).

In my view, a strong argument can. be made that Justice Powell’s answer to this open question is the wrong one. As we have emphasized, the Eighth Amendment prohibits any punishment considered cruel and unusual at common law as well as any punishment contrary to “the ‘evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’” Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 330-331 (1989), quoting Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion); accord, Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361, 368-369 (1989); Ford v. Wainwright, supra, at 405-406. The common law’s hostility to putting a man to death under such circumstances is documented not only by Blackstone, see 4 W. Blackstone, supra, *24-*25, *888-*389, but also by other commentators on English common law, see 1 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 35 (1736), and by numerous early American decisions, see State v. Helm, 69 Ark. 167, 171-173, 61 S. W. 915, 916-917 (1901); People v. Geary, 298 Ill. 236, 245, 131 N. E. 652, 655-656 (1921); Barker v. State, 75 Neb. 289, 292-293, 106 N. W. 450, 451 (1905); In re Smith, 25 N. M. 48, 59-60, 176 Pac. 819, 823 (1918); Freeman v. People, 4 Denio (N. Y.) 9, 20, 47 Am. Dec. 216, 219-220 (1847). See generally Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U. S. 9, 20, n. 3 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting); 1 J. Chitty, The Criminal Law *761 (5th ed. 1847); 1 W. Russell, Crimes and Misdemeanors 14 (8th ed. 1857); L. Shelford, The Law Concerning Lunatics, Idiots and Persons of Unsound Mind 295 (1833); Annot., 3 A. L. R. 94, 97-99 (1919). Objective indicia of contemporary mores likewise condemn execution of a prisoner afflicted with a “mental disease or defect [depriving him of the] capacity to understand . . . matters in extenuation, arguments for executive clemency or reasons why the sentence should not be carried out.” Mo. Ann. Stat. § 552.060.1 (Supp. 1991); accord, Miss. Code Ann. § 99—19—57(2)(b) (Supp. 1990); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1001 (1990); ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards 7-5.6(b) (1989).

The issue in this case is not only unsettled, but is also recurring and important. The stark realities are that many death row inmates were afflicted with serious mental impairments before they committed their crimes and that many more develop such impairments during the excruciating interval between sentencing and execution. See Lewis, Pincus, Feldman, Jackson & Bard, Psychiatric, Neurological, and Psychoeducational Characteristics of 15 Death Row Inmates in the United States, 143 Am. J. Psychiatry 838, 840-841 (1986); Johnson, Under Sentence of Death: The Psychology of Death Row Confinement, 5 Law & Psychology Rev. 141, 176-181 (1979); Gallemore & Panton, Inmate Responses to Lengthy Death Row Confinement, 129 Am. J. Psychiatry 167, 168, 169 (1972). Unavoidably, then, the question whether such persons can be put to death once the deterioration of their faculties has rendered them unable even to appeal to the law or the compassion of the society that has condemned them is central to the administration of the death penalty in this Nation. I would therefore grant the petition for certiorari in order to resolve now the questions left unanswered by our decision in Ford v. Wainwright.

II

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, 231 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting), I would grant the petition and vacate the death sentence even if I did not view the issue in this case as being independently worthy of this Court’s plenary review.

       ABA Standard 7-5.6(b) provides:
      “A convict is incompetent to be executed if, as a result of mental illness or mental retardation, the convict cannot understand the nature of the pending proceedings, what he or she was tried for, the reason for the punishment, or the nature of the punishment. A convict is also incompetent if, as a result of mental illness or mental retardation, the convict lacks sufficient capacity to recognize or understand any fact which might exist which would make the punishment unjust or unlawful, or lacks the ability to convey such information to counsel or to the court.” ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards 7 — 5.6(b) (1989) (emphasis added).

       Justice Powell did not dispute the established status of this definition of incompetence at common law. See Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 419 (1986) (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). Instead, he reasoned that the advent of increased opportunities for direct and collateral review of criminal convictions had so reduced the possibility of undiscovered error as to render this conception obsolete. See id., at 420-421. This view strikes me not only as inconsistent with the established principle “that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment embraces, at a minimum, those modes or acts of punishment that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time that the Bill of Rights was adopted,” id., at 405 (emphasis added); accord, Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 330 (1989), but also as somewhat question begging. For if a prisoner is incapable of recognizing or communicating facts that would facilitate collateral review, there is no reason to assume that collateral review in his case has rooted out all trial errors. In addition, Justice Powell’s argument seems to miss at least half the point of the common law conception of incompetence. This definition focuses not only on the prisoner's capacity to recognize and communicate facts showing that his sentence is unlawful, but also on his capacity to recognize and communicate facts showing that his sentence is unjust. Absent this capacity, the prisoner is unable to participate in efforts to seek executive clemency, see, e. g., Mo. Ann. Stat. § 552.060.1 (Supp. 1991), the appropriateness of which will not necessarily be disclosed in the course of direct or collateral review of the prisoner’s conviction. Ultimately, then, the common law conception of incompetence embodies the principle that it is inhumane to put a man to death when he has been rendered incapable of appealing to the mercy of the society that has condemned him.


text:
    No. 90-7861.
    Ben-Moshe v. Martinez, Former Governor of Florida, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 90-1340.
    No. 90-1391.
    No. 90-1512.
    No. 90-7091.
    No. 90-7104.
    No. 90-7156.
    No. 90-7279.
    No. 90-7306.
    No. 90-7320.
    No. 90-7407.
    No. 90-7424.
    No. 90-7555.
    No. 90-7597.
    Simpson v. Simpson et al., Hejl v. City of Austin et al., Penn et ux. v. Parke State Bank, Guerrero v. United States, Teter v. Jones, Superintendent, Moberly Correctional Center, Venkatesan v. White et al., Davis v. Beard, Warden, et al., Burns v. Burns et al., Watkins v. Weiss, Fleming v. Colorado, Kiskila et ux. v. Superior Court of California, County of Riverside (Business Exchange, Inc., et al., Real Parties in Interest), Rutherford v. United States, Germano et ux. v. Blevins, Judge, District Court for the Seventh Judicial District of Oklahoma,
   500 U. S. 932; 500 U. S. 905; 500 U. S. 918; 500 U. S. 920; 500 U. S. 955; 499 U. S. 965; 500 U. S. 907; 500 U. S. 907; 500 U. S. 907; 500 U. S. 921; 500 U. S. 922; 500 U. S. 925; and 500 U. S. 925. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 89-1217.
    Lehnert et al. v. Ferris Faculty Assn. et al.,
   500 U. S. 507. Petition for limited rehearing and other relief denied.


text:
    June 25, 1991
    No. 90-8449 (A-976).
    Francis v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

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, 231 (1976), I would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for writ of certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    No. 90-8450 (A-977).
    Francis v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

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, 231 (1976), I would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for writ of certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    June 28, 1991
    No. 90-1603.
    R. H. Macy & Co., Inc., et al. v. Contra Costa County, California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. [Certiorari granted, 500 U. S. 951.] Writ of certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    No. 90-1187.
    Hunter v. McKeithen, Secretary of State of Louisiana, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. La. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Houston Lawyers’ Assn. v. Attorney General of Tex., ante, p. 419, and Clark v. Roemer, 500 U. S. 646 (1991).


text:
    No. 89-1696.
    Peabody Coal Co. et al. v. Martin, Personal Representative of the Estate of Taylor, Deceased, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., ante, p. 680. Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


text:
    No. 90-172.
    Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Robinette.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., ante, p. 680.


text:
    No. 90-382.
    Village of Milford, Michigan v. Professional Lawn Care Assn.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, ante, p. 597.


text:
    No. 90-473.
    Arizona v. Bartlett.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Harmelin v. Michigan, ante, p. 957.


text:
    No. 90-645.
    Norwest Bank Duluth, N. A. v. James, Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, ante, p. 529.


text:
    No. 90-673.
    Bass et al. v. South Carolina et al.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, ante, p. 529.


text:
    No. 90-898.
    Clark et al. v. Roemer, Governor of Louisiana, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari before judgment granted, judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana vacated, and case remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Chisom v. Roemer, ante, p. 380.


text:
    No. 90-1137.
    Parke, Warden v. Gillenwater.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Ylst v. Nunnemaker, ante, p. 797.


text:
    No. 90-1432.
    Clarke, Warden v. Ross.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded with directions to dismiss. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).


text:
    No. 90-1569.
    Fleming Landfill, Inc., et al. v. Garnes et ux.
   Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. 1 (1991).


text:
    No. 90-1597.
    National Private Truck Council, Inc., et al. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission et al.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U. S. 439 (1991).


text:
    No. 90-1625.
    Northwest Savings Bank, PaSA, et al. v. Welch et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, ante, p. 529, and Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, ante, p. 350.


text:
    No. 90-1685.
    No. 90-1772.
    Harper et al. v. Virginia Department of Taxation; and Lewy et al. v. Virginia Department of Taxation.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, ante, p. 529.


text:
    No. 90-7713.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Braxton v. United States, 500 U. S. 344 (1991).


text:
    No. -.
    Cook et al. v. Centel Cable Television Company of Ohio, Inc., et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. A-968.
    Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al. v. City of New York et al.
   Application for injunction, presented to Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-971.
    In re Disbarment of Crane.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 498 U. S. 1118.]


text:
    No. D-1020.
    In re Disbarment of Della-Donna.
   It is ordered that Alphonse Della-Donna, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1021.
    In re Disbarment of Duva.
   It is ordered that Anthony William Duva, of Gainesville, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 118, Orig.
    United States v. Alaska.
   It has been suggested that the United States and Alaska are in agreement on the facts relevant to a decision in this action. If this is the case, the parties are invited to file a stipulation of facts in this Court on or before 60 days from the date of this order. If such a stipulation is not timely filed, a Special Master will be appointed and the case will proceed in the usual manner. If such a stipulation is filed, the parties shall then brief the legal issues. The brief of the United States shall be filed no later than 45 days after the filing of the stipulation of facts. Alaska’s brief shall be filed within 30 days thereafter, after which the United States may promptly file a reply brief. The case will then be orally argued. [For earlier order herein, see 499 U. S. 946.]


text:
    No. 87-1095.
    Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Broyles et al.,
   488 U. S. 105. Motion of respondents Charlie Broyles and Lisa Kay Colley for award of attorney’s fees and expenses denied without prejudice to refiling in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.


text:
    No. 89-7401.
    Clarke v. West Virginia Board of Regents et al.,
   497 U. S. 1023. Motion of petitioner to reinstate case on docket denied.


text:
    No. 90-1124.
    Jacobson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 499 U. S. 974.] Motion of Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 90-1126.
    No. 90-1435.
    Norman et al. v. Reed et al.; and Cook County Officers Electoral Board et al. v. Reed et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. [Certiorari granted, 500 U. S. 931.] Motion of petitioners Cook County Officers Electoral Board et al. to expedite oral argument granted.


text:
    No. 90-6113.
    White v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. [Certiorari granted, 500 U. S. 904.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 90-8229.
    In re Robinson.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 90-7975.
    In re Lee.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 90-1596.
    Robertson, Chief, United States Forest Service, et al. v. Seattle Audubon Society et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-7477.
    Smith v. Barry et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 89-6960.
    Young v. Miller, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-7296.
    Lopez-Pena et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-7539.
    Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-293.
    Wherehouse Entertainment, Inc., et al. v. McMahan & Co. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-341.
    Rosenberg et al. v. City of Lorain, Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lorain County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-513.
    Musacchia v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-526.
    Short v. Belleville Shoe Manufacturing Co. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-625.
    Hoy et al. v. Reed.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1122.
    Golochowicz v. Grayson, Warden, Charles Egeler Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1247.
    City of Spokane et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1281.
    Gleicher et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1456.
    Levin v. Florida Bar.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1457.
    Littles v. Area Health Development Board et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1486.
    Long et al. v. Florida et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1502.
    Prather v. Dayton Power & Light Co.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1555.
    Maynard v. United States District Court for the Central District of California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1594.
    Lundblad v. Celeste et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1595.
    Makah Indian Tribe v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1607.
    Manatt v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1613.
    Lakeview Development Corp. v. City of South Lake Tahoe et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1619.
    Pinehurst Area Realty, Inc. v. Village of Pinehurst.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1683.
    Hartness et al. v. Bush, President of the United States, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1694.
    Lingerfelt v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1699.
    Chi-Sen Li v. Ruiz, Judge, Municipal Court of East Los Angeles, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1700.
    Wrenn v. Ohio et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1701.
    Bird, Trustee of the Frank L. Bird Profit Sharing Trust, et al. v. Shearson Lehman/American Express, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1705.
    Mirzoeff v. Namdar.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1708.
    Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1714.
    Regional Airline Pilot Assn. et al. v. Wings West Airlines, Inc., dba American Eagle.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1717.
    Taylor v. Carr, United States Magistrate for the Northern District of Ohio.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1719.
    Mattia v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1720.
    Grossmont Union High School District v. Davies.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1723.
    Brown et al. v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1726.
    Kuntz v. Shawmut Bank of Boston et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1729.
    Matuska v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1735.
    Levinson v. Budd Foods, Inc.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1737.
    Fulton County, Georgia v. S. J. Groves & Sons Co. et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1739.
    Fuqua Industries, Inc., et al. v. Jandrucko.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1750.
    Guardsmark, Inc. v. Pinkerton’s, Inc.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1754.
    Deeds v. Johnson et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1758.
    Best Buy Warehouse v. Best Buy Co., Inc.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1785.
    Ta-Chun Wang v. Chun Wong et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1810.
    Hickey v. Connecticut.
   App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1813.
    Dutridge et al. v. City of Toledo, Division of Building Inspection.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lucas County. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1820.
    Spear v. Rockwell International Corp. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1823.
    Watson v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1847.
    Camoscio v. Hodder et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1867.
    Clay v. Exchange Mutual Insurance Co.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5181.
    Whitney v. Mississippi.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5426.
    Sawyers v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6221.
    Bedonie v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6337.
    Flowers v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6488.
    Crosson v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Delaware County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6539.
    Goodwin v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6607.
    Pitts v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7097.
    Paitsel v. Black et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7109.
    Hernandez v. Wooten, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7131.
    Castle v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7204.
    Allen v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7264.
    DeCanzio v. Quinlan, Director, Bureau of Prisons, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7304.
    Miller v. Federal Bureau of Investigation.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7365.
    Murphy v. Mescher.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7393.
    Wickham v. Bowersox, Superintendent, Ozark Correctional Center.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7397.
    Grayer v. Puckett, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7408.
    Bout v. Kent County et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7485.
    Adefuye v. Carlson, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7662.
    Bumgarner v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7664.
    D’Agnillo v. Department of Housing and Urban Development et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7696.
    Stewart v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7838.
    Chicano v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7869.
    Hatch v. United States Department of Agriculture et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7912.
    Hite, Individually and as Trustee for Hite, aka Heydt v. Board of Adjustments-Zoning for the City and County of Denver et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7931.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7932.
    Stephens v. Scully, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7939.
    Reed v. Ft. Worth Independent School District et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7951.
    Muth v. Carroll et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7954.
    Baxter v. Clark, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7956.
    Parker v. American National Red Cross.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7957.
    Zatko v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7958.
    Savage v. Estelle, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7959.
    Zatko v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7960.
    Zatko v. Marshall.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7962.
    Veneri v. Fulcomer, Deputy Commissioner, Western Region, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7964.
    Laboy v. Kelly et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7968.
    Ricketts v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7969.
    Wolfenbarger v. Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7974.
    Koh v. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7978.
    Owens v. Jacobs, Chairman, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7984.
    Wightman v. Morales, Attorney General of Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7985.
    Twyman v. Giddens.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7990.
    Anderson v. Lehr et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8013.
    Edgemon v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8015.
    Zatko v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8024.
    Jost v. Oregon et al. (two cases).
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8029.
    Porter v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8030.
    Johnson v. Longview Independent School District et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8043.
    Humphrey v. Tate, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8045.
    Gray v. DeAnda, Judge, United States District Court, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8047.
    Cook v. Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools et al.
   Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8048.
    Fuhrman v. City of Dayton.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Montgomery County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8056.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8062.
    Anderson v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8088.
    Foster v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8097.
    Adams v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8099.
    Coleman v. Pung, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8105.
    Mason v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8131.
    Winston v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8132.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8137.
    Bozeman v. United States Parole Commission et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8140.
    Figueroa v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8142.
    Borroto v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8148.
    Whitten v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8151.
    Wilson v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8155.
    Terlecky v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8156.
    Terpak v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8159.
    Price v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8162.
    Bandali v. Maryland et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8167.
    Little v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8168.
    Micolta-Bravo, aka Lozano v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8172.
    Jarrett et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8182.
    Owens v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8191.
    Malbrough v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8194.
    Izquierdo v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8198.
    Graham v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8200.
    Cardona-Martinez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8208.
    Avila-Cruz v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8211.
    De la Cruz v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8212.
    Sutter v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8221.
    Hunter v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8225.
    Nunez v. Costello, Superintendent, Mid-State Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8227.
    Laurelez v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8230.
    Syder v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8231.
    Smith, aka House v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8233.
    Bonilla v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-7679.
    No. 90-5512.
    No. 90-5726.
    No. 90-6029.
    No. 90-6758.
    No. 90-6819.
    No. 90-6939.
    No. 90-7018.
    No. 90-7067.
    No. 90-7449.
    No. 90-7499.
    No. 90-7557.
    No. 90-7560.
    No. 90-7570.
    No. 90-7756.
    No. 90-7830.
    No. 90-7871.
    No. 90-7905.
    No. 90-7916.
    No. 90-7973.
    No. 90-8023.
    No. 90-8093.
    Russell v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Haliburton v. Florida. Kills on Top v. Montana. Freeman v. Florida. LaGrand v. Arizona. Woods v. Indiana. Paz v. Idaho. LaGrand v. Arizona. Griffin v. Missouri. Floyd v. Florida. Coleman v. Indiana. DeBlanc v. Texas. Hammond v. Texas. Goodwin v. Texas. Atkins v. South Carolina. Miller v. Georgia. Newsted v. Oklahoma. Powell v. Missouri. Tennard v. Texas. Lewis v. Florida. Johnson v. Texas. James v. Texas.
   C. A. 5th Cir.; Sup. Ct. Fla.; Sup. Ct. Mont.; Sup. Ct. Fla.; Super. Ct. Ariz., Pima County; Sup. Ct. Ind.; Sup. Ct. Idaho; Super. Ct. Ariz., Pima County; Sup. Ct. Mo.; Sup. Ct. Fla.; Sup. Ct. Ind.; Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; Sup. Ct. S. C.; Sup. Ct. Ga.; Ct. Crim. App. Okla.; Sup. Ct. Mo.; Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; Sup. Ct. Fla.; Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; and Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.

denied.

Justice Marshall,

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, 231 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.


text:
    No. 90-817.
    Michigan v. Nash.
   Ct. App. Mich. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1370.
    Rolfs, Superintendent, Twin Rivers Corrections Center v. Russell.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1730.
    Snow, Chairman, Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles v. Akins et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-891.
    White et al. v. Daniel et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1458.
    Williams Cos., Inc., et al. v. Director of Revenue of Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied. Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-1461.
    Carter et al. v. South Central Bell.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 90-1697.
    Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 90-1503.
    Ordway et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 90-1743.
    National Advertising Co. v. Village of Downers Grove, Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


author: Justice White,

text:
    No. 90-1671.
    Hull v. Shuck et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

with whom Justice Marshall joins, dissenting.

One of the questions presented in this case is whether the “intracorporate conspiracy” rule, which holds that employees of a single entity cannot conspire with each other, applies to claims brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1985(3). We expressly left open that issue in Great American Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Novotny, 442 U. S. 366, 372, n. 11 (1979).

Here, petitioner alleged that several school district officials engaged in a racially motivated conspiracy to deprive her of her constitutional rights, in violation of § 1985(3). In affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the officials, the Court of Appeals applied the intracorporate conspiracy rule, reasoning that “[s]ince all of the defendants are members of the same collective entity, there are not two separate ‘people’ to form a conspiracy.” 926 F. 2d 505, 510 (1991).

As respondents admit, see Brief in Opposition 6, the decision below conflicts with the decisions of at least two other Courts of Appeals. See Stathos v. Bowden, 728 F. 2d 15, 20-21 (CA1 1984); Novotny v. Great American Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 584 F. 2d 1235, 1259, and n. 125 (CA3 1978) (en banc), vacated on other grounds, 442 U. S. 366 (1979). I would grant certiorari on question 1 presented in the petition to resolve the conflict.


text:
    No. 90-1749.
    Trailer Marine Transport Corp. v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner to strike respondent’s supplemental brief denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-7928.
    Feltrop v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

In Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738 (1990), this Court held that, once a defendant is sentenced to death by an erroneously instructed jury, a reviewing court can resentence the defendant to death only if it clearly and expressly engages in either harmless-error analysis or reweighing of permissible aggravating and mitigating circumstances. See id., at 741, 752, 754. It is conceded that the petitioner in this case was sentenced to death by an erroneously instructed jury. Nonetheless, the Missouri Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s summary denial of petitioner’s motion to set aside the jury sentence constituted a constitutionally adequate resentencing. Because Clemons does not permit us to infer from the trial court’s silence that it engaged in the requisite re weighing or harmless-error analysis, I would grant the petition for certiorari.

I

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder. At the conclusion of the penalty phase of his trial, the jury determined that the murder “‘involved depravity of mind and that as a result thereof it was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman.’” 803 S. W. 2d 1, 14 (Mo. en banc 1991). On the basis of this single aggravating factor, the jury sentenced petitioner to death. Id., at 6. Petitioner thereafter filed a motion to reduce his sentence, arguing, inter alia, that the “depravity of mind” aggravating factor was unconstitutionally vague under this Court’s precedents. The trial court denied the motion, stating from the bench that it “ ‘has listened attentively to [petitioner’s argument] and has recalled the testimony and the evidence in this cause, and the Court will overrule the Motion for Reduction of Sentence.’” Id., at 16.

The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. The court acknowledged that the “depravity of mind” aggravating factor was unconstitutionally vague under this Court’s decision in Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980). See 803 S. W. 2d, at 14. See generally Shell v. Mississippi, 498 U. S. 1 (1990) (per curiam); Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738 (1990); Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U. S. 356 (1988). It also acknowledged that the trial court had erred in not instructing the jury to apply the limiting construction fashioned by the Missouri Supreme Court in order to save the “depravity of mind” factor from unconstitutionality. See 803 S. W. 2d, at 14, citing State v. Preston, 673 S. W. 2d 1, 11 (Mo. en banc), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 893 (1984). Nonetheless, relying on Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639 (1990), the Missouri Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s summary denial of petitioner’s postsentence motion sufficed to cure any error in the jury’s sentencing verdict. In Walton, this Court held that, where the death sentence is imposed by a trial judge, the trial judge need not expressly state that he has relied upon a constitutionally necessary limiting construction, because “[tjrial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.” Id., at 653. The Missouri Supreme Court in this case reasoned that it could likewise “presum[e] that the trial judge knew and applied the relevant factors enunciated in State v. Preston when he evaluated and ruled on [petitioner’s] motion for reduction of sentence.” 803 S. W. 2d, at 16.

In my view, the Missouri Supreme Court’s reliance on Walton was clearly misplaced. As used in 'Walton, the “presumption” that a trial court has followed the law stands only for the proposition that error cannot be inferred where a trial court, acting as the initial sentencer, fails expressly to articulate its reliance on a limiting construction of what would otherwise be an unconstitutional aggravating factor. However, this presumption is clearly rebutted when, as here, the trial court erroneously instructs a sentencing jury by omitting any reference to the necessary limiting construction. Under such circumstances, the question is no longer whether error can be inferred from what the trial court has not said; error is manifest in what the court has said to the jury. See Shell v. Mississippi, supra; Walton v. Arizona, supra, at 653; Clemons v. Mississippi, supra, at 741; Maynard v. Cartwright, supra, at 363-364; Godfrey v. Georgia, supra, at 427-429 (plurality opinion). Thus, the question at that stage is whether a reviewing court has taken the steps necessary to correct sentencing error. In holding that the trial court’s summary denial of petitioner’s postsentence motion sufficed to cure the trial court’s erroneous jury instructions in this case, the Missouri Supreme Court established a “presumption” that a reviewing court perceives and corrects all errors when it resentences a defendant to death.

This presumption is completely at odds with this Court’s decision in Clemons v. Mississippi, supra. As in this case, the trial court in Clemons erred by failing to instruct the jury on a necessary limiting construction of a facially vague aggravating factor. This Court held that under such circumstances a reviewing court may itself resentence the defendant to death either by engaging in harmless error analysis or by reweighing the properly defined aggravating and mitigating circumstances. See id., at 744-750, 752-753. Nonetheless, because it was “unclear whether [the reviewing court] correctly employed either of these methods,” this Court vacated the sentence and remanded. Id., at 741; see id., at 752, 754. In particular, because the reviewing court’s opinion was “virtually silent” on whether fresh consideration had been given to the mitigating evidence proffered by the defendant, this Court declined to infer that the reviewing court had correctly perceived the requirements of its resentencing function. Id., at 752.

Under Clemons, there can be no question that the trial court’s summary denial of petitioner’s postsentence motion does not constitute a constitutionally adequate resentencing. Nothing in the trial court’s brief remarks from the bench even remotely suggested that it had engaged in reweighing or harmless error analysis. The record in this case is not “virtually silent” on whether the reviewing court understood the nature of the original sentencing error; it is completely silent. Indeed, because the reviewing court in this case was the very court responsible for injecting the error into the sentencing process, there is every reason to believe that it was completely oblivious to the very necessity for re-sentencing. To apply a “presumption” that the trial court understood and applied the law under these circumstances is to turn a defendant’s right to error-free resentencing into a meaningless fiction.

The Missouri courts have failed to rectify the clear constitutional defect that has infected petitioner’s death sentence. I believe that this Court is likewise remiss in its responsibilities when it permits a life-threatening error of this nature to go uncorrected.

II

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, 231 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting), I would grant the petition and vacate petitioner’s death sentence even if I did not view the issue in this case as being independently worthy of this Court’s plenary review.

       Under the Missouri Supreme Court’s narrowing construction of the “depravity of mind” aggravating circumstance, the sentencer is to consider the following factors: “mental state of defendant; infliction of physical or psychological torture upon the victim as when victim has a substantial period of time before death to anticipate and reflect upon it; brutality of defendant’s conduct; mutilation of the body after death; absence of any substantive motive; absence of defendant’s remorse and the nature of the crime.” State v. Preston, 673 S. W. 2d 1, 11 (Mo. en banc), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 893 (1984).


text:
    No. 90-96.
    No. 90-1320.
    No. 90-1496.
    No. 90-7340.
    No. 90-7344.
    No. 90-7418.
    No. 90-7447.
    No. 90-7490.
    No. 90-7525.
    No. 90-7534.
    No. 90-7565.
    No. 90-7595.
    No. 90-7598.
    No. 90-7648.
    No. 90-7700.
    Siegert v. Gilley, Craig et al. v. United States, Steeg et ux. v. City of Dearborn Heights, Michigan, et al., Nichols v. Illinois Department of Public Health et al., Williams v. Arizona, Delbridge et al. v. New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services, In re Alston, Bridges v. Spiller-Bridges, Vinik v. Middlesex County Probation Department et al., In re Preuss, 500 U. S. 914; McCone v. Sagebrush Properties, Inc., et al., Reese v. Hill, Warden, Agha v. Secretary of the Army, Morrison v. Lee et al., Martin v. United States Postal Service, Curiale v. Alaska,
   500 U. S. 226; 500 U. S. 917; 500 U. S. 942; 500 U. S. 908; 500 U. S. 929; 500 U. S. 921; 500 U. S. 941; 500 U. S. 923; 500 U. S. 935; 500 U. S. 944; 500 U. S. 945; 500 U. S. 925; 500 U. S. 956; 500 U. S. 936; and 500 U. S. 945. Petitions for rehearing denied.

No. 90-7734.


text:
    No. 90-7503.
    Szoke v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., Inc.,
   500 U. S. 929. Petition for rehearing denied. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    June 30, 1991
    No. A-4.
    Hopkins, Warden, et al. v. Otey.
   Application for an order to vacate the temporary stay of execution of sentence of death entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, presented to Justice Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.


text:
    July 1, 1991
    No. A-4.
    Hopkins, Warden, et al. v. Otey.
   Motion for reconsideration of order of June 30, 1991 [ante this page], denied.


text:
    July 12, 1991
    No. 90-1165.
    National Labor Relations Board v. Nabors Trailers, Inc., nka Steego Transportation Equipment Centers, Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 500 U. S. 903.] Writ of certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    July 21, 1991
    No. 91-5193 (A-66).
    Jones v. Whitley, Warden.
   Sup. Ct. La. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

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, 231 (1976), I would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for writ of certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    No. 91-5194 (A-67).
    Jones v. Whitley, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens would grant the application.

Justice Marshall,

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, 231 (1976), I would grant the application for stay of execution and the petition for writ of certiorari and would vacate the death sentence in this case.


text:
    July 24, 1991
    No. A-957 (90-1913).
    Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    August 2, 1991
    No. 91-19.
    David L. Threlkeld & Co., Inc. v. Metallgesellschaft Ltd. (London) et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    No. A-68.
    Shoreham-Wading River Central School District et al. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission et al.
   Application for stay, addressed to Justice Stevens and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-86.
    Smerdon et al. v. Smerdon et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-982.
    In re Disbarment of Pearson.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 499 U. S. 916.]


text:
    No. D-985.
    In re Disbarment of Rogers.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 499 U. S. 934.]


text:
    No. D-988.
    In re Disbarment of Anderson.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 499 U. S. 945.]


text:
    No. D-991.
    In re Disbarment of LeLouis.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 499 U. S. 957.]


text:
    No. D-992.
    In re Disbarment of Crowley.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 499 U. S. 957.]


text:
    No. D-998.
    In re Disbarment of Susskind.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 500 U. S. 931.]


text:
    No. D-999.
    In re Disbarment of Coleman.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 500 U. S. 931.]


text:
    No. D-1000.
    In re Disbarment of Youmans.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 500 U. S. 931.]


text:
    No. D-1002.
    In re Disbarment of Brazil.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 500 U. S. 950.]


text:
    No. D-1003.
    In re Disbarment of Campbell.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 500 U. S. 950.]


text:
    No. D-1015.
    In re Disbarment of Burke.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1228.]


text:
    No. D-1022.
    In re Disbarment of Gelman.
   It is ordered that Stanley Bernard Gelman, of Jacksonville, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1023.
    In re Disbarment of Matney.
   It is ordered that Harold V. Matney, Jr., of Gardner, Kan., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1024.
    In re Disbarment of Moorcones.
   It is ordered that John Joseph Moorcones, of Sterling, Va., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1025.
    In re Disbarment of Boxer.
   It is ordered that Harry Boxer, of Lomita, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1026.
    In re Disbarment of Gallagher.
   It is ordered that Dennis William Gallagher, of New Rochelle, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1027.
    In re Disbarment of Sagen.
   It is ordered that Burt H. Sagen, of Parma, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1028.
    In re Disbarment of Weber.
   It is ordered that John Anthony Weber, Jr., of Westwood, Mass., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 90-256.
    No. 90-1272.
    No. 90-1534.
    No. 90-1605.
    No. 90-5193.
    No. 90-6633.
    No. 90-7259.
    No. 90-7284.
    No. 90-7435.
    No. 90-7469.
    Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., Bullard v. Madigan, Secretary of Agriculture, Hollingsworth v. Texas et al., Young v. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mu’Min v. Virginia, Hope v. Illinois, Sanders v. California, Chambers v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, Spencer v. Georgia, Gaskins v. McKellar, Warden, et al., Horton v. United States, Thomas v. Nebraska, Busch v. Jeffes et al., Farrell v. O’Bannon et al., Watson v. Puckett, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary, Hendricks v. Department of the Treasury, Powell v. Roberts et al., Whitt v. California, Dempsey v. White, Frank v. California, Austin et ux. v. Washington et al., Castor v. Clark, Warden, et al., Jones v. Eastman Kodak Co., Shows v. NCNB National Bank of North Carolina et al., Parker v. American National Red Cross, Moscony v. United States, Smith v. United States,
   ante, p. 32; 500 U. S. 916; 500 U. S. 942; ante, p. 1206; 500 U. S. 415; ante, p. 1202; 500 U. S. 948; 500 U. S. 944; 500 U. S. 960; 500 U. S. 961; ante, p. 1234; 500 U. S. 944; 500 U. S. 936; 500 U. S. 955; ante, p. 1208; ante, p. 1234; ante, p. 1208; ante, p. 1213; ante, p. 1208; ante, p. 1213; 500 U. S. 957; 500 U. S. 960; ante, p. 1220; ante, p. 1236; ante, p. 1255; ante, p. 1211; and ante, p. 1237. Petitions for rehearing denied.

No. 90-7539.

No. 90-7558.

No. 90-7609.

No. 90-7612.

No. 90-7697.

No. 90-7726.

No. 90-7741.

No. 90-7745.

No. 90-7754.

No. 90-7770.

No. 90-7783.

No. 90-7786.

No. 90-7813.

No. 90-7886.

No. 90-7956.

No. 90-7979.

No. 90-8068.