text:
    No. 90-295.
    No. 90-430.
    No. 90-475.
    No. 90-5380.
    No. 90-5472.
    No. 90-5574.
    No. 90-5580.
    No. 90-5585.
    No. 90-5614.
    No. 90-5643.
    No. 90-5660.
    No. 90-5695.
    No. 90-5703.
    No. 90-5727.
    No. 90-5732.
    No. 90-5760.
    No. 90-5784.
    No. 90-5786.
    No. 90-5795.
    No. 90-5799.
    No. 90-5809.
    No. 90-5834.
    No. 90-5858.
    No. 90-5866.
    No. 90-5878.
    No. 90-5880.
    Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., Shelton v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Falkner et ux. v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Edwards v. United States, In re May, Dabish v. Chrysler Corp., Carvalho v. Public Employees Federation et al., Jarallah v. Pickett Hotel Co., dba Pickett Suite Hotel, et al., Coombs v. N. L. Chemicals, Inc., et al., In re Alston, Watts v. Cullinane et al., Watkins v. Department of the Treasury et al., Amodeo v. Columbia Broadcasting System et al., Jones v. Mendenhall et al., Cox v. Carroll, Warden, Stepler v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority et al., Schlicher v. Davies et al., Hirsch v. Oregon, Young v. United States, Searcy v. Houston Lighting & Power Co. et al., McColpin v. Foulston, Van Leeuwen et al. v. McCorkindale, Circuit Judge, Arkansas, et al., Ford v. United States, Marshburn v. Richardson, Weber v. California State Bar et al., Ganey v. Johnson et al., Sindram v. Moran et al.,
   ante, p. 5;

ante, p. 941;

ante, p. 959;

ante, p. 969;

ante, p. 944;

ante, p. 944;

ante, p. 944;

ante, p. 945;

ante, p. 945;

ante, p. 957;

ante, p. 946;

ante, p. 969;

ante, p. 960;

ante, p. 969;

ante, p. 960;

ante, p. 970;

ante, p. 970;

ante, p. 949;

ante, p. 961;

ante, p. 970;

ante, p. 971;

ante, p. 987;

ante, p. 961;

ante, p. 987;

ante, p. 971;

ante, p. 988; and

No. 90-5885.

ante, p. 988. Petitions for rehearing denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 89-7502.
    No. 89-7534.
    No. 89-7702.
    No. 89-7839.
    No. 90-5015.
    No. 90-5145.
    No. 90-5190.
    No. 90-5250.
    No. 90-5279.
    Abbott v. Claiborne Parish School Board, McRae v. Maryland, Liffiton v. United States, Thompson v. California, Gary v. Georgia, Hewlett v. Beard et al., Myers v. Martinez, Warden, Berman v. Griffiths et al., Gordon v. Bowers,
   ante, p. 829;

ante, p. 830;

ante, p. 821;

ante, p. 881;

ante, p. 881;

ante, p. 863;

ante, p. 865;

ante, p. 868; and

ante, p. 869. Petitions for rehearing denied

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


text:
    No. 90-93.
    Langenkamp, Successor Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estates of Republic Trust & Savings Co. et al. v. Culp et al.,
   ante, p. 42. Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    January 10, 1991
    No. 90-342.
    DeSmidt v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    January 14, 1991
    No. 90-142.
    Dunkel v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Cheek v. United States, ante, p. 192.


text:
    No. A-474.
    Williams v. Faucett et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Application for stay, addressed to Justice O’Connor and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-516.
    Hughes v. Washington Post Co.
   Application for further stay of mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari. If the petition for writ of certiorari is denied, this order is to terminate automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this order is to remain in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.


text:
    No. D-960.
    In re Disbarment of Broadhurst.
   It is ordered that Kenneth Lynn Broadhurst, of Englewood, 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-961.
    In re Disbarment of Miller.
   It is ordered that Theodore A. Miller, of Green Bay, Wis., 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-962.
    In re Disbarment of Rubin.
   It is ordered that Leonard Rubin, of Watchung, N. J., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-963.
    In re Disbarment of Henderson.
   It is ordered that Paul Gordon Henderson, of Baltimore, Md., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-964.
    In re Disbarment of Levine.
   It is ordered that Howard Alan Levine, of Oklahoma City, Okla., 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. 89-1714.
    No. 90-113.
    Pauley, Survivor of Pauley v. Beth-Energy Mines, Inc., et al. Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, et al. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 937];

No. 90-114.

C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 937]; and

C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 937.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted. Request of the claimants to be designated as respondents for purposes of oral argument granted.

Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.


text:
    No. 89-1944.
    Ohio v. Huertas.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 807.] Motion of National Jury Project for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 90-285.
    Litton Financial Printing Division, a Division of Litton Business Systems, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 966.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 90-644.
    Ledbetter, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Human Resources v. Turner et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 90-5744.
    Chapman et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1011.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that T. Christopher Kelly, Esq., of Madison, Wis., be appointed to serve as counsel for petitioners in this case.


text:
    No. 90-6156.
    In re England et al.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 89-1905.
    Wisconsin Public Intervenor et al. v. Mortier et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-34.
    Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-906.
    Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority et al. v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-769.
    Renne, San Francisco City Attorney, et al. v. Geary et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of California Judges Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Cer-tiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-6282.
    Touby et ux. v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 89-6214.
    Socorro Pardo et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-7332.
    Mitzel v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Trumbull County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-205.
    Gerstin et al. v. Spann et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-435.
    Hammond v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-453.
    No. 90-466.
    Doremus v. United States; and Doremus v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 888 F. 2d 630.


text:
    No. 90-486.
    Saylor et al. v. Oregon et al.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-493.
    Conger et al. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 199, AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-504.
    Fleet Factors Corp. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-563.
    Swan et vir v. Washington.
   Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-581.
    Thompson et al. v. British Airways, Inc., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-600.
    Farmer v. Higgins, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-636.
    Davis v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-717.
    Jackson v. General Dynamics Corp.
   Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-730.
    Ladner v. Johnson et al.
   Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-752.
    Winchester v. County of San Diego et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-758.
    Enix et al. v. Dayton Women’s Health Center, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-765.
    Lexington Herald-Leader Co. et al. v. Warford.
   Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-766.
    Guess v. North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-771.
    Claypool et al. v. Boyd, Individually and as Warden, Stevenson Correctional Institution, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-773.
    South Ridge Baptist Church v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-776.
    Cornett v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-777.
    Harvey v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-779.
    Breen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-780.
    DeSantis et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-784.
    Kennedy v. County of Los Angeles et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-789.
    Hegedus v. Limbach, Ohio Tax Commissioner.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-790.
    Setera v. Temme et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-794.
    Najarro et al. v. Frame et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-796.
    Pocono Green, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Kidder Township (Carbon County), Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-800.
    Blackshire v. Blackshire.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-801.
    Person v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-804.
    Feingold v. Disciplinary Board of Pennsylvania.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-814.
    Elliott v. Mercury Marine.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-820.
    Whitehorn et ux. v. Murphy et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-837.
    Lagos v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-852.
    Asher v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-860.
    Aiello v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-861.
    Wiginton v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-876.
    Alayon v. Minnesota.
   Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-930.
    Bartels v. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-938.
    Gunn et al. v. Palmieri et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5621.
    Capps v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5701.
    Arnolie v. Secretary of the Navy.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5769.
    McMullin v. Nix, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5923.
    Cardona v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5947.
    Hatcher et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5952.
    Sutton v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5982.
    Levy v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6022.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6090.
    Drummond v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6153.
    Bout v. Harrison et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6173.
    Bienville v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6189.
    Srubar v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6202.
    Murray v. Mississippi Department of Corrections et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6205.
    Scott v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6210.
    Barroga v. United States Patent and Trademark Office.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6232.
    Moore v. Green, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir.' Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6235.
    Oswald v. Supreme Court of Michigan.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6239.
    Brown v. Bi-State Development Agency et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6242.
    Vukadinovich v. Krawczyk et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6243.
    Lund v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6245.
    Varvaris v. Kountouris et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6248.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6251.
    Gaytan v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6254.
    Ziegler v. Champion, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6255.
    Welch v. Jolley et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6257.
    Rupe v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6262.
    Chase v. F. William Honsowetz, P. C.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6268.
    Meneses v. Stephens, Administrator, Northern State Prison, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6271.
    Race v. Pung, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6274.
    Demos v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6277.
    Sanders v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6278.
    Revere v. Estate of Revere.
   Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6280.
    Young v. Johnson, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6281.
    Parez v. Lopez et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6283.
    Smith et al. v. Mohs, Assistant Superintendent, Minnesota Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6285.
    Frost v. California et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6293.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6330.
    Hurd v. Desert Hospital et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6338.
    Armstrong v. St. Petersburg Times et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6358.
    Guedel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6359.
    Muth v. Central Bucks School District et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6362.
    Groholski v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6366.
    Pieper v. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6376.
    Fletcher v. Memphis Police Department et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6419.
    Hansen v. United States Parole Commission.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6431.
    Groholski v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6436.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6437.
    Baker v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6438.
    Edwards v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6439.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6442.
    Montalvo v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6447.
    Beverly v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6454.
    Hindman v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6458.
    Nolen v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6459.
    Hernandez-Avila v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-609.
    Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 515, Affiliated With the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motions of Capital Associated Industries, Inc., and Carpet & Rug Institute for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-618.
    Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo Typographical Union No. 63 et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to intervene in order to file petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-761.
    Chopin Associates et al. v. Smith, Trustee, Bank of New York, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-933.
    Nationalist Movement v. City of Cumming et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5961.
    Pletten v. Merit Systems Protection Board et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied. Motion of petitioner to strike brief in opposition denied. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 90-6047.
    Turner v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted in California state court of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, he argued that application of the death penalty in this case was arbitrary because it was excessive when compared with penalties imposed in similar cases. The California Supreme Court noted that petitioner “presented] an elaborate survey of published [California] Court of Appeal decisions to demonstrate the hypothesis that many first degree murderers of equal or greater culpability have received sentences less than death.” 50 Cal. 3d 668, 718, 789 P. 2d 887, 916 (1990). However, the State Supreme Court refused to review petitioner’s submissions, declaring that “[cjomparative proportionality review is not constitutionally required.” Ibid. Although the court cited its own prior decisions for that conclusion, ibid., those precedents ultimately derive from this Court’s opinion in Pulley v. Harris, 465 U. S. 37 (1984). See People v. Rodriguez, 42 Cal. 3d 730, 778, 726 P. 2d 113, 143-144 (1986) (relying on Pulley in rejecting proportionality review). In Pulley, the Court sustained California’s capital punishment statute against Eighth Amendment attack, rejecting the claim that the “Eighth Amendment . . . requires a state appellate court, before it affirms a death sentence, to compare the sentence in the case before it with the penalties imposed in similar cases if requested to do so by the prisoner.” 465 U. S., at 43-44.

I dissented from the decision in Pulley, and I continue to believe that it was wrongly decided. The singling out of particular defendants for the death penalty when their crimes are no more aggravated than those committed by numerous other defendants given lesser sentences is unacceptable. As Justice Brennan pointed out in his dissent in Pulley, comparative proportionality review, at the very least, “serves to eliminate some of the irrationality that currently surrounds imposition of a death sentence” and “can be administered without much difficulty by a court of statewide jurisdiction.” 465 U. S., at 71. In the present case, petitioner has not merely “requested” review for comparative proportionality, cf. id., at 44, but has (in the lower court’s own words) “present[ed] an elaborate survey of published Court of Appeal decisions,” allegedly showing that “many first degree murderers of equal and greater culpability have received sentences less than death.” 50 Cal. 3d, at 718, 789 P. 2d, at 916. I cannot understand how this Court can reconcile a refusal to review such evidence with our capital jurisprudence.

As we have often recognized, “[bjecause of the uniqueness of the death penalty, ... it [cannot] be imposed under sentencing procedures that creat[e] a substantial risk that it would be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 188 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). Indeed, we have “insiste[d] that capital punishment be imposed fairly, and with reasonable consistency, or not at all.” Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 112 (1982). The allegation in this petition, accompanied by a proffer of significant evidence, is that the death sentence imposed upon petitioner was not “fair” precisely because it was not “consistent.” The refusal even to consider petitioner’s evidence surely “creates a substantial risk” that “arbitrary and capricious” capital punishment will result. I would hope that the Court would reexamine its views on this matter. This petition should be granted and the case remanded for an examination of petitioner’s submissions.

Even if I did not believe that failure to consider petitioner’s evidence on the issue of proportionality violated the Eighth Amendment, I would grant the petition and vacate the sentence below, 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, supra, at 231 (Marshall, J., dissenting).


text:
    No. 90-6077.
    No. 90-6119.
    No. 90-6228.
    Oxford v. Missouri. Antwine v. Missouri. May v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   Sup. Ct. Mo.;

Sup. Ct. Mo.; and

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 90-6077, 791 S. W. 2d 896; No. 90-6119, 791 S. W. 2d 403; No. 90-6228, 904 F. 2d 228.

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. 90-6371 (A-275).
    Rodriguez v. Colorado.
   Sup. Ct. Colo. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

In both Mills v. Maryland, 486 U. S. 367 (1988), and McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U. S. 433 (1990), we vacated death sentences based on jury instructions that, reasonably construed, prevented the respective juries from considering any mitigating factors they did not unanimously find to exist. Because I believe that the in-struetions delivered to the jury in this case cannot be squared with Mills and McKoy, I would grant the application for stay and the petition for certiorari.

I

Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. At the penalty phase of petitioner’s trial, the trial court instructed the jury that any aggravating factors found to exist should be weighed against any mitigating factors found to exist. Instruction No. 21 explained in pertinent part:

“If in the first two steps of your deliberations you have made unanimous findings that the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more aggravating factors exist and that no mitigating factors exist, or that a mitigating factor or factors exist, you must now decide whether the prosecution has proven that any factors in mitigation do not outweigh the aggravating factor or factors.” 794 P. 2d 965, 997 (Colo. 1990) (emphasis added).

In Mills v. Maryland, supra, we addressed the constitutionality of instructions requiring juror unanimity on mitigating factors. We concluded that such instructions violate the cardinal principle of our capital jurisprudence that “ ‘the sentencer may not ... be precluded from considering “any relevant mitigating evidence.’”” 486 U. S., at 374-375, quoting Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U. S. 1, 4 (1986), in turn quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 114 (1982). In Mills, an impermissible juror unanimity requirement was imposed by a jury verdict form stating: “‘Based upon the evidence we unanimously find that each of the following mitigating circumstances which is marked “yes” has been proven to exist . . . .’” 486 U. S., at 387. McKoy v. North Carolina, supra, presented a similar situation. In McKoy, the jury had been instructed both orally and in writing that it had to make unanimous findings on the existence of mitigating factors before proceeding to consider them. 494 U. S., at 436. Applying Mills, we vacated McKoy’s death sentence.

Instruction No. 21 in the present case suffers from the infirmity condemned in Mills and McKoy. As noted, Instruction No. 21 directed the jury that if it “made unanimous findings . . . that one or more aggravating factors exist and that no mitigating factors exist, or that a mitigating factor or factors exist,” it should proceed to weigh the aggravating factors against the mitigating factors. The phrase “unanimous findings” can be read only to have modified both “aggravating factors” and “mitigating factors.” For the instruction to have been constitutional, the jury would have to have read the pertinent language in Instruction No. 21 as permitting it to weigh mitigating factors if it made nonunanimous “findings . . . that a mitigating factor or factors exist.” Instruction No. 21 clearly does not say this.

The Colorado Supreme Court, however, refused to vacate petitioner’s death sentence. Relying on Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370 (1990), the Colorado Supreme Court reasoned that “there was no reasonable likelihood” that the jury would have interpreted the instruction to require juror unanimity on mitigating factors. 794 P. 2d, at 982. I cannot accept that our decision in Boyde affects the invalidity of Instruction No. 21 under Mills and McKoy.

In Boyde, this Court examined whether instructions at the penalty phase of Boyde’s capital proceeding impermissibly limited consideration of mitigating evidence pertaining to Boyde’s character and background. The trial court instructed the jury that, in addition to 10 specific factors to be considered in determining the penalty, the jury could consider “ ‘[a]ny other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime.’” Boyde v. California, supra, at 381.

The Court concluded in Boyde that even though the instructions did not identify Boyde’s deprived background and emotional troubles as relevant considerations, there was no “reasonable likelihood” that the jury felt precluded from considering these factors. Noting the view, “long held by this society,” that such factors “would counsel imposition of a sentence less than death,” the Court found it unlikely that the jury would have understood the instructions to prevent consideration of such evidence. See 494 U. S., at 382. Additionally, the Court concluded that the context of the proceeding, in which Boyde introduced without objection four days of testimony concerning his background and character, “would have led reasonable jurors to believe that evidence of petitioner’s background and character could be considered in mitigation.” Id., at 383.

The facts in Boyde offer little assistance in resolving this case. Unlike the jury in Boyde, the jury in this case could not have been guided either by the evidence introduced or by any “long held” societal views in attempting to comprehend Instruction No. 21. That instruction indicates that the jury is required to find the existence of mitigating factors unanimously. Clearly, there is no “long held” societal view as to procedural rules of this sort. Rather, the jury’s sole source of direction as to the meaning of Instruction No. 21 was the instruction itself. For the reasons I have indicated, there clearly was a “reasonable likelihood” that the jury viewed the direction to make “unanimous findings” as applying not only to aggravating factors but also to mitigating factors.

The Colorado Supreme Court reasoned that the jury would not have understood Instruction No. 21 in this way in light of the instructions on aggravating factors. These instructions stated on several occasions that any aggravating factors must be found unanimously, and one instruction required the jury to vote to determine the existence of particular aggravating factors. The court reasoned that the absence of similar repetition in the instructions on mitigating factors and the absence of provisions for voting upon the existence of mitigating factors precluded the jurors from inferring that unanimity was necessary for mitigating factors. 794 P. 2d, at 981-982.

In my view, this assumption is unrealistic. As a matter of convention, we presume that jurors follow jury instructions. See McKoy v. North Carolina, supra, at 454 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment). Instruction No. 21 required unanimity as to the existence of mitigating circumstances. It is difficult to imagine, then, that the jury would have inferred from the instructions setting forth the unanimity requirement with respect to aggravating factors a signal to disavow the clear import of Instruction No. 21.

Nor am I convinced that anything the instructions otherwise said about mitigating factors would have prompted the jury to disregard the link between “unanimous findings” and “mitigating factors” in Instruction No. 21. The Colorado Supreme Court suggested that the defect in Instruction No. 21 was cured by “a theme” running through the instructions “that the individual jurors could disagree with respect to the effect they gave to mitigating factors.” 794 P. 2d, at 982 (citing Instruction Nos. 15, 21, and 22). However, this “theme” in the jury charge addressed only the juror’s individual autonomy in deciding what weight to attach to a particular mitigating factor. The instructions said nothing to upset the indication in Instruction No. 21 that a juror could weigh a mitigating factor only after it had been unanimously found to exist. Indeed, Instruction No. 21 expressly directed the jury that it first had to find the existence of mitigating factors before weighing could take place. Instruction No. 21 explained that in the first two steps of its deliberations the jury was to make “unanimous findings” with respect to aggravating and mitigating factors, and it was not until “the third step of [the] deliberations” that the jury was to weigh the aggravating factors against the mitigating factors. Id., at 997 (quoting Instruction No. 21).

A “commonsense understanding” of the instructions in this case, Boyde v. California, 494 U. S., at 381, confirms that the jury would have attached an unconstitutional meaning to Instruction No. 21. By its plain and natural meaning, Instruction No. 21 imposed a jury unanimity requirement that is incompatible with Mills and McKoy. As nothing else in the instructions can support the Colorado Supreme Court’s intuitive judgment that the jury did not attach that unconstitutional meaning to Instruction No. 21, the instructions are not saved by the Boyde test. Because I believe that petitioner’s death sentence is constitutionally defective, I would grant the application for stay and the petition for certiorari.

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 application for stay and the petition for certiorari and vacate petitioner’s death sentence even if I did not believe this case otherwise merited review.

      Instruction No. 15 stated: “If one or more jurors finds sufficient mitigating factor or factors exist that outweigh a specified aggravating factor or factors, then the result is a sentence of life imprisonment.” 794 P. 2d 965, 995 (Colo. 1990). This direction was repeated in Instruction No. 21. See id,., at 997. Instruction No. 22 added:
      “Each of you must also decide for yourself what weight to give each mitigating circumstance that you find exists. Your decision as to what weight to give any mitigating circumstance does not have to be unanimous. You do not have to take the decisions, opinions or feelings of any other juror into account, although you may do so if you wish.” Ibid.

       also reject the Colorado Supreme Court’s suggestion that the infirmity in the instructions might have been cured by defense counsel’s plea in closing argument that the jurors “can rely on any factor you wish to return a life sentence . . . [and] [y]ou don’t have to be unanimous on those factors.” Id., at 982, n. 13 (emphasis omitted). Statements of counsel “are usually billed in advance to the jury as matters of argument” and “generally carry less weight with a jury than do instructions from the court.” Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 384 (1990). Of course, in some instances an improper argument from counsel may negate a jury instruction that correctly explains to a jury the standards governing its inquiry. Cf. ibid. But it is an entirely different matter to presume the contrary: that an argument from counsel properly stating the law to the jury can save a jury instruction that does not.


text:
    No. 90-5140.
    No. 90-5906.
    No. 90-5910.
    No. 90-5916.
    No. 90-5983.
    Price v. Hardy, Schlicher v. Munoz et al., Harper v. Bumpers et al., Johnson v. Mack, Martin v. United States Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration Office of Workers’ Compensation,
   ante, p. 985;

ante, p. 1001;

ante, p. 989;

ante, p. 989; and

ante, p. 1014. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    January 18, 1991
    No. 90-952.
    Clark et al. v. Roemer, Governor of Louisiana, et al.
   Appeal from D. C. M. D. La. Motion of appellants to expedite consideration of statement as to jurisdiction granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 90-368.
    Toibb v. Radloff.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-757.
    No. 90-1032.
    Chisom et al. v. Roemer, Governor of Louisiana, et al.; and United States v. Roemer, Governor of Louisiana, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioners in No. 90-757 to expedite consideration of petition for writ of certiorari in No. 90-757 granted. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 917 F. 2d 187.


text:
    No. 90-813.
    Houston Lawyers’ Assn. et al. v. Attorney General of Texas et al.; and League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Attorney General of Texas et al.
    No. 90-974.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 914 F. 2d 620.


text:
    January 22, 1991
    No. 89-954.
    Montedoro-Whitney Corp. v. Marsh-McBirney, Inc.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co., ante, p. 269.


author: Chief Justice Rehnquist,

text:
    No. 90-552.
    Diaz-Albertini v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of the position presently asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States filed December 12, 1990, and asserted in his brief for the United States filed February 27, 1990, in No. 89-1040, Chappell v. United States, 494 U. S. 1075 (1990).

Chief Justice Rehnquist,

with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy join,

dissenting.

The Court vacates the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and remands for “further consideration in light of the position presently asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States filed December 12, 1990, and asserted in his brief for the United States filed February 27, 1990, in No. 89-1040, Chappell v. United States.” The Solicitor General, however, has taken the position that the judgment and reasoning of the Court of Appeals were correct and that certiorari should be denied. The Court’s disposition fails to provide the Court of Appeals with any useful guidance on remand, leaving that court with the task of spending scarce judicial resources trying to divine what we mean. I therefore dissent.

Petitioner filed a motion under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 seeking to vacate a sentence previously imposed on the ground that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel’s failure to raise a juror-bias claim until after the trial.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s denial of relief, holding that petitioner was procedurally barred from raising his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on collateral attack. App. to Pet. for Cert. A1-A6. The court reasoned that the claim should have been raised on direct appeal because petitioner was represented by new counsel on direct appeal and because appellate counsel had “all the information available to him necessary to frame a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id., at A5. Because petitioner had not shown “cause” for his failure to raise the issue on direct appeal, the court concluded that he was barred from raising it under § 2255.

Petitioner then filed a petition for rehearing, arguing that the panel should reconsider its decision in light of this Court’s disposition of the certiorari petition in Chappell v. United States, 494 U. S. 1075 (1990). In Chappell, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had held that the defendant was barred from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a § 2255 motion because he had been represented by new counsel on direct appeal and therefore could have raised the claim at that time. Chappell v. United States, 878 F. 2d 384 (1989) (judgt. order). In response to the petition for certiorari, the Solicitor General submitted a brief on behalf of the United States which stated that it was the position of the United States that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel ordinarily should be raised for the first time on collateral attack under § 2255 rather than on direct appeal. The Solicitor General further stated that where claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are to be raised in a § 2255 motion, a failure to raise such a claim should not constitute procedural default. The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Chappell, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded to that court for further consideration in light of the position taken by the United States in its brief.

In this case, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for rehearing without requesting a response from the United States. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that we should grant the petition, vacate the judgment of the Tenth Circuit, and remand for further consideration in light of the position taken by the United States in Chappell. However, in his brief for the United States in opposition, the Solicitor General recommended that the Court deny the petition. The Solicitor General asserted that this case was distinguishable from Chappell because “[h]ere, a hearing was held in the district court, in connection with petitioner’s motion for a new trial, on the circumstances surrounding the actions of trial counsel that form the basis for petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and the record therefore would have enabled petitioner’s new counsel to raise the issue on direct appeal.” Brief in Opposition 9. The Solicitor General concluded that “[bjecause the record that was developed in the district court apparently would have been adequate for the court of appeals to address the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim if petitioner had raised it on direct appeal, and because there was no impediment to petitioner’s doing so (since he was represented by new counsel on appeal), the holding by the court below that petitioner is barred from raising his Sixth Amendment claim on collateral attack in the particular circumstances of this case is neither unreasonable nor unfair.” Id., at 13.

I have previously questioned the wisdom of automatically vacating a Court of Appeals judgment favorable to the Government when the Solicitor General confesses error in this Court, see Mariscal v. United States, 449 U. S. 405, 406 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting), or of vacating a Court of Appeals’ judgment in favor of the Government when the Solicitor General concedes that the analysis of the Court of Appeals may have been wrong but considers the result correct. See Alvarado v. United States, 497 U. S. 543, 545 (1990) (Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting). Today the Court carries these unfortunate practices to new lengths: The Solicitor General has neither confessed error nor questioned the reasoning of the court below, but instead has taken the position that the reasoning and judgment of the Court of Appeals were correct and that certiorari should be denied.

I am at a loss to understand what purpose is served by the Court’s decision today. If the Court means what it says, it will have wasted the time of the litigants in the Court of Appeals; the Solicitor General takes the position that this case is distinguishable from Chappell and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals was therefore correct. If the Court means something else, it should say so expressly, rather than leaving it to judges who are just as busy as we are to do what can best be described as read tea leaves.


text:
    No. A-506.
    Finley v. South Carolina.
   Ct. Gen. Sess., Greenville County, S. C. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-540.
    Carnival Cruise Lines v. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Williams et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   Application to stay proceedings in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, case Nos. SOC 96347 and SOC 96301, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, granted pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this order is to terminate automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this order is to remain in effect pending the issuance of the mandate of this Court to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Nos. B050142 and B050255.


text:
    No. A-541.
    City of Yonkers v. United States et al.
   Application for injunction or stay of orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, presented to Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-988.
    In re Disbarment of Ireland.
    [For earlier order herein, see 497 U. S. 1057.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-939.
    In re Disbarment of Mazzocone.
    [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 917.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-941.
    In re Disbarment of Ausburn.
    [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 917.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-942.
    In re Disbarment of Logan.
    [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 917.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-943.
    In re Disbarment of Fraser.
    [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 917.].
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-950.
    In re Disbarment of Bie.
    [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 956.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. D-965.
    In re Disbarment of Lackey.
   It is ordered that Hal I. Lackey, of Silver Spring, Md., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-966.
    In re Disbarment of Thompson.
   It is ordered that Raymond Bamidele Thompson, of Washington, D. C., 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-967.
    In re Disbarment of Costigan.
   It is ordered that Robert W. Costigan, 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-968.
    In re Disbarment of Cannon.
   It is ordered that James Cannon, Jr., of New Castle, Ala., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 65,
    Orig.
    Texas v. New Mexico.
    [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 1010.]
   Motion of the River Master for approval of fees and expenses granted, and the River Master is awarded $4,451.32 for the period October 1 through December 31, 1990, to be paid equally by the parties.


text:
    No. 106,
    Orig.
    Illinois v. Kentucky.
    [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 803.]
   Exceptions to Report of the Special Master are set for oral argument in due course.


text:
    No. 89-7645.
    Hernandez v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 894.] Motion of U. S. English, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae denied.


text:
    No. 90-368.
    Toibb v. Radloff.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1060.] James Hamilton, Esq., of Washington, D. C., a member of the Bar of this Court, is invited to brief and argue this case as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below.


text:
    No. 90-5319.
    McNeil v. Wisconsin.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. [Certio-rari granted, ante, p. 937.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 90-6608.
    In re Bright.
   Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 90-6421.
    In re Hunziker et al.
   Petition for writ of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 90-6354.
    In re Mulville; and In re Mulville.
    No. 90-6355.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 90-6393.
    In re Rubins.
   Petition for writ of prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 90-693.
    Johnson v. Home State Bank.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-615.
    Peretz v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari granted limited to the following questions:

“1. Does 28 U. S. C. § 636 permit a magistrate to conduct the voir dire in a felony trial if the defendant consents?
“2. If 28 U. S. C. § 636 permits a magistrate to conduct a felony trial voir dire provided that the defendant consents, is the statute consistent with Article III?
“3. If the magistrate’s supervision of the voir dire in petitioner’s trial was error, did the conduct of petitioner and his attorney constitute a waiver of the right to raise this error on appeal?” Reported below: 904 F. 2d 34.


text:
    No. 90-762.
    Freytag et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted. In addition to the questions presented by the petition the parties are requested to brief and argue the following question: “Does a party’s consent to have its case heard by a special tax judge constitute a waiver of any right to challenge the appointment of that judge on the basis of the Appointments Clause, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2?”


text:
    No. 90-95.
    Public Utilities Commission of Ohio et al. v. CSX Transportation, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-389.
    Braen v. Laganella et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-507.
    Bailey et ux. v. East Texas Production Credit Assoc. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-535.
    Yun v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-539.
    Sonnenberg et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-646.
    Legg v. Smith, Trustee.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-656.
    Brewer v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-666.
    Feldman et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-768.
    Peter v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-791.
    Easter House v. Felder et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-793.
    Munoz v. Rice, Secretary of the Air Force.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-799.
    Houston v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-805.
    Western States Petroleum Assn. et al. v. Sonoma County et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-812.
    California State Board of Equalization v. Taxel, Trustee in Bankruptcy.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-815.
    Blaine v. Marmor et ux.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-821.
    Halas v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-822.
    Greene et ux. v. Balaber-Strauss, as Trustee, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-828.
    Kurr v. Village of Buffalo Grove, Illinois, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-831.
    Cawley v. Muller et al.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-835.
    Smith, Administratrix of the Estate of Smith, Deceased v. City of Berkeley et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-839.
    County of Kern, California v. Abshire et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-840.
    Fraser v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-846.
    Uberoi v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-850.
    Rogers et al. v. Wilcox et al.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-851.
    Carroll v. Insurance Company of North America.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-864.
    Fillion v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-865.
    Independent School District, No. I-3, Noble County, Oklahoma, et al. v. Rankin.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-879.
    Fields v. Durham et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-882.
    Phelan et al. v. Taylor et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-883.
    Johnson et al. v. Rineck et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-896.
    Garner v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-916.
    Castiello v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-920.
    Anderson v. State Bar of California et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-922.
    Scholberg et al. v. Lifchez et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-932.
    Schreier et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-945.
    White et al. v. General Motors Corp., Inc. (two cases).
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-951.
    Upton County, Texas v. Turner, aka Hind.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1013.
    Stem v. Ahearn et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5728.
    Ehrlich v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5729.
    Green v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5740.
    Anton v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5756.
    Nam Ping Hon v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5758.
    Quinones v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5766.
    Clark v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5781.
    Richardson v. Henry et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5801.
    Henning v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5803.
    Perez v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5837.
    Lucero-Romero v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5860.
    Jones v. Evitts, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5900.
    Ellis v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5917.
    Newman v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5926.
    Blake et al. v. Heard et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5933.
    Oliver v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5967.
    D. H. v. Vermont Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.
   Sup. Ct. Vt. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6001.
    Medrano-Veloja v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6007.
    Kucik v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6050.
    Payne v. Middleton et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6061.
    Villa v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6083.
    Greene v. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6118.
    Desmond v. Department of Defense.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6169.
    Woods v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6201.
    Gray v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6276.
    Ward v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6287.
    Dickinson v. Community Bank et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6289.
    Armstrong v. Frank, Postmaster General.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6296.
    Satterwhite v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6301.
    Shaw v. Peters, Warden.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6302.
    Sandlin v. Ellis.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6304.
    Rickabaugh v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6313.
    Ganey v. Wilson et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6314.
    Sherrills v. Kerek et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6320.
    Vargas v. Mull et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6322.
    Sparks v. Smith et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6323.
    Diaz v. Miles, Superintendent, Elmira Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6326.
    Henthorn v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6336.
    Veale et al. v. New Hampshire.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6339.
    Johnson v. Lane et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6344.
    Dodson v. Pennsylvania et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6347.
    Massey v. Grand Union Co., dba Big Star Food Stores, et al.
   Super. Ct. Ga., Fulton County. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6353.
    Barrientos v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6357.
    Sandlin v. Allen et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6364.
    Mort v. Ohio Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6368.
    Danielson v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6373.
    Richards et al. v. Medical Center of Delaware, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6374.
    Buyna v. Casey et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6377.
    Carbray v. Champion, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6379.
    Carter v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6380.
    Harvey v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6381.
    Monroe v. Skinner, Secretary of Transportation.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6385.
    Abiff v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6386.
    Bailey v. Colorado.
   Ct. App. Colo. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6389.
    Harris v. Murray et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6390.
    Hayes v. Genovese et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6395.
    Wright v. New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6414.
    Mattox v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6420.
    Hunziker et al. v. German-American State Bank et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6426.
    King v. Puckett, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6552.
    Moniz v. Storie.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-515.
    Lockheed Shipbuilding Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent Wilborn Stevens for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-575 (A-451).
    Tiger Inn v. Frank et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Application for stay of mandate, presented to Justice Souter, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-631.
    American Special Risk Insurance Co. et al. v. Rohm & Haas Co. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-647.
    Grimes v. Centerior Energy Corp.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of United Shareholders Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-720.
    DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White and Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 90-5836.
    No. 90-5851.
    No. 90-6072.
    No. 90-6318.
    Burrell v. Louisiana. Truesdale v. South Carolina. Guinan v. Armontrout, Warden. Boyd v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. La.;

Sup. Ct. S. C.;

C. A. 8th Cir.; and

Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 90-5836, 561 So. 2d 692; No. 90-5851, 301 S. C. 546, 393 S. E. 2d 168; No. 90-6072, 909 F. 2d 1224; No. 90-6318, 797 S. W. 2d 589.

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. 90-6227.
    Benitez Guzman v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 90-6265.
    Vontsteen v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-354.
    No. 90-521.
    No. 90-541.
    No. 90-613.
    No. 90-651.
    No. 90-665.
    Frey et al. v. Reilly, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Comora et ux. v. Radell et al., Rupert v. Gravlee et al., Black Crystal Co., Inc. v. First National Bank of Louisville, Plunkett et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Receiver of First Interstate Bank of Alaska, et al., Benefit Trust Life Insurance Co. v. Kunin, Christensen v. Ward et al., Ford v. Louisiana, Johl v. Peters et al., Brown v. McCotter, Secretary, Department of Corrections of New Mexico, et al., Hertel et al. v. Federal Land Bank of St. Louis, Parker v. Fairman, Warden, et al., Sellers v. Delgado College et al., McGee v. Randall Division of Textron, Inc., of Grenada, Mississippi, In re Douglass,
   ante, p. 981;

ante, p. 981;

ante, p. 982;

ante, p. 999;

ante, p. 985;

ante, p. 1013;

No. 90-671.

No. 90-5100.

No. 90-5544:

No. 90-5691.

No. 90-5755.

No. 90-5848.

No. 90-5855.

No. 90-6037.

No. 90-6085.

ante, p. 999;

ante, p. 992;

ante, p. 986;

ante, p. 1000;

ante, p. 987;

ante, p. 987;

ante, p. 987;

ante, p. 1015; and

ante, p. 979. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 89-1283.
    No. 89-5120.
    No. 89-5867.
    No. 89-7584.
    No. 89-7822.
    Arcadia, Ohio, et al. v. Ohio Power Co. et al., Perry v. Louisiana, Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs et al., Cook v. United States, Green et al. v. Law Firm of Wiseman, Blackburn, Futrell & Cohen et al.,
   ante, p. 73;

ante, p. 38;

ante, p. 89;

ante, p. 832; and

ante, p. 842. Petitions for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    January 24, 1991
    No. 90-257.
    No. 90-558.
    National Coal Assn. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.; and Alabama Power Co. et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46. Reported below: 284 U. S. App. D. C. 136, 902 F. 2d 962.


text:
    January 31, 1991
    No. 90-724.
    Esposito v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    February 4, 1991
    No. 90-1091.
    In re Jacobs.
   Petition for writ of mandamus dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    February 8, 1991
    No. 90-868.
    Archem, Inc. v. Simo.
   Ct. App. Ind. Certio-rari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


author: Justice Stevens,

text:
    February 15, 1991
    No. 90-5721.
    Payne v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted. In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties are requested to brief and argue whether Booth v. Maryland, 482 U. S. 496 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U. S. 805 (1989), should be overruled. Petitioner’s opening brief is to be served and filed with the Clerk on or before March 18, 1991. Respondent’s brief is to be served and filed with the Clerk on or before April 8, 1991. The case is set for oral argument during the April session.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Marshall and Justice Blackmun join,

dissenting.

In my opinion, the Court’s decision to expedite the consideration of this case and to ask the parties to address whether we should overrule Booth v. Maryland, 482 U. S. 496 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U. S. 805 (1989), a question presented neither in the petition for certiorari nor in the response, is both unwise and unnecessary. Cf. Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 485 U. S. 617, 622-623 (1988) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Moreover, the Court’s decision to review the alleged Booth error in this case would be inappropriate in any event because the decision below rested alternatively on the ground that any Booth violation that might have occurred was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

See 791 S. W. 2d 10, 19 (Tenn. 1990).

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.


text:
    February 19, 1991
    No. 90-459.
    Schmidt et vir v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, ante, p. 89.


text:
    No. 90-729.
    Communications Workers of America v. Montano.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded with directions to dismiss. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).


text:
    No. 90-605.
    Department of Transportation et al. v. Air Transport Association of America et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1023.] Judgment vacated and case remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider the question of mootness.


text:
    No. 90-1028.
    Michigan v. Ambers.
   Ct. App. Mich. It appearing that respondent died September 12, 1989, certiorari dismissed.


text:
    No.-.
    Stankewitz v. California.
   Motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis without an affidavit of indigency executed by petitioner granted. Motion to seal the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.


text:
    No. A-562.
    Chen v. United States.
   Application for release or for bail, addressed to Justice Kennedy and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-587.
    Pelullo v. Gerardi et al.
   D. C. N. J. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Stevens and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. A-605.
    Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A. v. Pires et ux.
   Application for supersedeas bond or stay of execution of judgment of the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, presented to Justice Marshall, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-951.
    In re Disbarment of Jones.
   A response to the rule to show cause having been filed, it is ordered that the rule to show cause is hereby discharged, and the order heretofore entered November 5, 1990 [ante, p. 956], suspending respondent from the practice of law in this Court is vacated.


text:
    No. D-955.
    In re Disbarment of Bruce.
    [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1010.]
   Motion to defer granted.


text:
    No. D-957.
    In re Disbarment of Pennisi.
    [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1010.]
   Disbarment entered.


text:
    No. 9,
    Orig.
    United States v. Louisiana et al.
    [For earlier decision herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 9.]
   Motion of the Special Master for compensation and reimbursement of expenses granted, and the Special Master is allowed a total of $5,721.01, one-half to be paid by .the United States and one-half to be paid by Mississippi. Request of the Special Master to be discharged granted, and Walter P. Armstrong, Jr., is hereby discharged with the thanks of the Court.

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


text:
    No. 65,
    Orig.
    Texas v. New Mexico.
    [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 1065.]
   Second motion of the Special Master for compensation and reimbursement of expenses granted, and the Special Master is allowed a total of $30,391.20 for the period September 1, 1989, through January 23, 1991, to be paid equally by the parties. Request of the Special Master to be discharged granted, and Monte Pasco is hereby discharged with the thanks of the Court.


text:
    No. 109,
    Orig.
    Oklahoma et al. v. New Mexico.
    [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 1021.]
   Exceptions to the Report of the Special Master set for oral argument in due course.


text:
    No. 113,
    Orig.
    Mississippi v. United States.
    [For earlier decision herein, see, e. g., ante, p. 16.]
   Motion of the Special Master for compensation and reimbursement of expenses granted, and the Special Master is allowed a total of $20,518.71 to be paid equally by the parties. Request of the Special Master to be discharged granted, and Walter P. Armstrong, Jr., is hereby discharged with the thanks of the Court.


text:
    No. 89-1821.
    Stevens v. Department of the Treasury et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 957.] Motion of the Solicitor General to permit Amy L. Wax, Esq., to present oral argument pro hac vice granted.


text:
    No. 89-1905.
    Wisconsin Public Intervenor et al. v. Mortier et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wis. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1045.] Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 89-7662.
    Coleman v. Thompson, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 937.] Further consideration of motion of petitioner to strike nonrecord material deferred to hearing of case on the merits.


text:
    No. 90-18.
    Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 809.] Motion of respondent for leave to file a supplemental brief after argument granted.


text:
    No. 90-50.
    Gregory et al., Judges v. Ashcroft, Governor of Missouri.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 979.] Motion of John W. Keefe for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 90-149.
    Michigan v. Lucas.
   Ct. App. Mich. [Certio-rari granted, ante, p. 980.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 90-516.
    Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 997.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 90-622.
    Florida v. Jimeno et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. [Cer-tiorari granted, ante, p. 997.] Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 90-762.
    Freytag et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1066.] Motion of Erwin N. Griswold for leave to appear as amicus curiae granted. Motion of Erwin N. Griswold for leave to file amicus curiae brief at the time the brief for respondent is filed denied. Motion of Erwin N. Griswold for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument denied.


text:
    No. 90-870.
    No. 90-872.
    No. 90-891.
    No. 90-918.
    No. 90-1029.
    Society National Bank et al. v. Warren et ux. Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639 et al. White et al. v. Daniel et al. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools et al. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir.;

C. A. D. C. Cir.;

C. A. 4th Cir.;

C. A. 11th Cir.; and

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


text:
    No. 90-5721.
    Payne v. Tennessee.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. The order entered February 15, 1991 [ante, p. 1076], is amended as follows: Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma paupe-ris granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 2 presented by the petition. In addition to Question 2 presented by the petition, the parties are requested to brief and argue whether Booth v. Maryland, 482 U. S. 496 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U. S. 805 (1989), should be overruled. Petitioner’s opening brief is to be served and filed with the Clerk on or before March 18, 1991. Respondent’s brief is to be served and filed with the Clerk on or before April 8, 1991. The case is set for oral argument during the April session.


text:
    No. 90-6951.
    Comer v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Motion of petitioner to consolidate this case with No. 90-5551, Schad v. Arizona [certiorari granted, ante, p. 894], denied.


text:
    No. 90-6650.
    No. 90-6681.
    In re Proffitt; In re Miller; In re Sassower; and In re Haygood.
    No. 90-6688.
    No. 90-6770.
   Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 90-1135.
    No. 90-6413.
    No. 90-6592.
    No. 90-6702.
    No. 90-6762.
    In re Amend; In re May; In re Miller; In re Shelton; and In re Cozzetti.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 90-1054.
    No. 90-6658.
    In re McDonald; and In re Sassower.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 90-6634.
    In re Kleinschmidt.
   Petition for writ of prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 89-1290.
    Freeman et al. v. Pitts et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-741.
    Dewsnup v. Timm et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-848.
    Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Commission.
   Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-889.
    King v. St. Vincent’s Hospital.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-925.
    Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Doherty.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-1059.
    Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-954.
    No. 90-1004.
    Rufo, Sheriff of Suffolk County, et al. v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail et al.; and Vose, Commissioner of Correction of Massachusetts v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 915 F. 2d 1557.


text:
    No. 90-967.
    Wooddell v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 71, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition.


text:
    No. 90-6352.
    Griffin v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 89-1698.
    School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, et al. v. Keyes et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 89-1772.
    Galceran et al. v. Harding.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-497.
    Williams v. Chrans, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-529.
    Miller et al. v. Rice, Secretary of the Air Force, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-559.
    American Iron & Steel Institute v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-578.
    Alta Verde Industries, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-594.
    North Bay Development Disabilities Services, Inc., dba North Bay Regional Center v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-620.
    Massillon Board of Education v. Farber.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-652.
    O’Connor v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-664.
    Quality Inns International, Inc., et al. v. L. B. H. Associates Limited Partnership et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-669.
    Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn. v. Local 1291, International Longshoremen’s Assn., AFL-CIO, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-675.
    Cinema Blue of Charlotte, Inc., et al. v. North Carolina.
   Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-678.
    Barth v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-692.
    Rogers et al. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for First RepublicBank Houston, N. A., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-705.
    Clipper City Lodge No. 516 v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-718.
    Duckworth, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, et al. v. Bernard.
   C. A. 7th Cir. .Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-735.
    Bluestein et al. v. Skinner, Secretary of Transportation, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-740.
    Dakota Cheese, Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-744.
    Gonzales v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-745.
    Tarpeh-Doe, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Tarpeh-Doe, et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-748.
    Vogt v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-759.
    Crayton et al. v. Prichard Housing Authority et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-760.
    McNutt v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-763.
    Frey et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-770.
    No. 90-1061.
    Kozera et al. v. Westchester-Fairfield Chapter of National Electrical Contractors Assn., Inc., et al.; and Local Union No. 501 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO v. Westchester-Fairfield Chapter of National Electrical Contractors Assn., Inc., et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 909 F. 2d 48.


text:
    No. 90-774.
    Linkous v. Stovall et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-797.
    Gas Spring Co. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-798.
    Thompson v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-806.
    City of Willcox, Arizona, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-816.
    Kayser-Roth Corp. v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-819.
    Carr et al. v. Pacific Maritime Assn. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-826.
    Marquez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-832.
    Kurowski v. City of Bridgeport, Connecticut, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-833.
    Kurowski v. City of Bridgeport, Connecticut, et al.
   App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-842.
    Air Wisconsin Pilots Protection Committee et al. v. Sanderson, Trustee, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-844.
    Howard Electrical & Mechanical, Inc., et al. v. Trustees of the Colorado Pipe Industry Pension Trust.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-847.
    Pymm et al. v. New York.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-855.
    Lumbermen’s Underwriting Alliance v. Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-856.
    Kunz et al. v. Utah Power & Light Co.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-869.
    Mayercheck v. Woods.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-874.
    Schering-Plough Corp. et al. v. Albano.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-880.
    Snap-on Tools Corp. et al. v. Boyer et ux.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-884.
    Kunkle et al. v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-888.
    Morgan v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-895.
    Turner v. Jones et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-897.
    Cade, t/a G & G Towing, et al. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, et al.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-901.
    Alexander v. Evans & Dixon Law Firm et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-902.
    Lampl v. Four D Manufacturing Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-903.
    Evans et al. v. Twin Falls County et al.
   Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-908.
    Christensen v. Internal Revenue Service.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-912.
    Farris v. Office of Personnel Management.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-915.
    Richards v. Suburban Trust Co. et al.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-919.
    Reel et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-923.
    Lamb et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-924.
    Ramos v. Brady, Secretary of the Treasury.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-927.
    County of Los Angeles v. Bratt et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-928.
    Steil v. Lieberman et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-934.
    Hernandez v. Rice, Secretary of the Air Force.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-936.
    Bardunias et al. v. County of Westchester et al.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-939.
    Nayak v. MCA, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-941.
    Town of Sunnyvale, Texas v. Mayhew et al.
   Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-942.
    Rosenthal v. Broussard, Acting Chief Justice, Supreme Court of California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-943.
    Clark v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-946.
    S & M Investment Co. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-948.
    McCarthy v. Prince.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-950.
    Roth v. Stussie, Judge, St. Louis County Circuit Court, et al.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-957.
    Negron v. Banco de Ponce.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-958.
    Nonnette et al. v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-960.
    Cathey et ux. v. Dow Chemical Company Medical Care Program.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-961.
    Madden v. ITT Long Term Disability Plan for Salaried Employees et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-963.
    Walsh, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Jewell v. Bank of America, N. T. & S. A.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-969.
    Phelps v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-973.
    Sidwell Co. v. Real Estate Data, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-975.
    Mid-County Motors, Inc. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-977.
    RPM Management Co., Inc., et al. v. Chowning et al.
   Ct. App. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-979.
    Garrison v. City of Indianapolis et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-981.
    Securities Management & Research, Inc., et al. v. Swift et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-982.
    Sahni v. Harbor Insurance Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-986.
    Armco Export Sales Corp. et al. v. Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland.
   Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-989.
    Caldor, Inc. v. Heslin, Commissioner of Consumer Protection, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-995.
    Wright v. Arlington County Department of Social Services.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-999.
    Jacobs v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1001.
    Westmoreland v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1005.
    Baker v. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1007.
    Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn. v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (Walters, Real Party in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1009.
    Bagg et al. v. New York Department of Environmental Conservation.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1016.
    Consolidated City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida v. Nash.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1017.
    Basin Electric Power Cooperative v. Crum & Forster Managers Corporation of New York, dba International Insurance Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1018.
    International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California, Inc., et al. v. Board of Equalization of California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1021.
    Sugar et al. v. Diamond Mortgage Corporation of Illinois et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1022.
    Connecticut v. Hope.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1023.
    Kuntz v. Society Bank, N. A.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Montgomery County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1024.
    Vidakovich v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1026.
    Evonuk v. Oregon.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1030.
    Kozel v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1031.
    Haller v. Borror et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1033.
    Bradley et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1034.
    Cooksey v. Cohen, Assistant General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1035.
    Quansah v. City of San Jose, California, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1036.
    Atkinson et al. v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., aka Intermountain Health Care Hospitals, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1048.
    Malick v. Sandia Corp.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1051.
    Tristani et al. v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1053.
    Medical Protective Co. v. Bell.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1057.
    McIntire v. Minnesota et al.
   Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1060.
    Holliday v. Consolidated Rail Corporation.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1082.
    Minnicks, Executrix of the Succession of Mistich v. Mistich et al.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1085.
    Giuffrida v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1100.
    Heldstab v. Liska et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1103.
    Beaucoudray et vir, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, Kelty v. Green et al.
   Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1110.
    Britt v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1116.
    Krain v. George et al.; and Krain v. University of Michigan Hospital et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1138.
    Moreno v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1161.
    Sikes v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1170.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1172.
    Stuckey v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1180.
    Camoscio v. Board of Registration in Podiatry.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1183.
    Boatner v. United States et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5590.
    No. 90-5771.
    No. 90-5824.
    No. 90-6082.
    Watson v. United States; Curry v. United States; Howard v. United States; and Hayes v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 902 F. 2d 912.


text:
    No. 90-5663.
    Steeley v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5723.
    Steeley v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5737.
    Tinsley v. Borg, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5783.
    Callis v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5804.
    Black v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5807.
    Red Bear v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5819.
    Bell v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5850.
    Shedelbower v. Estelle, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5907.
    Stanley v. Pennsylvania.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5924.
    Clark v. Nichols et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5936.
    Santos Hernandez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5959.
    Perez-Morales v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5968.
    Marshall v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-5978.
    Gomez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6002.
    MacKenzie v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6027.
    Prieto v. Gluch, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6034.
    Sanders v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6043.
    Leon v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6048.
    Ware v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6064.
    Payne v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6071.
    Bullard v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6076.
    Lane v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6089.
    Blitstein v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6096.
    Pearson v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6097.
    Gibson-Bey v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6114.
    Thorpe v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6120.
    Maryland v. Huffman, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6124.
    Brice v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6126.
    Sample v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6135.
    Cattalo v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6138.
    Martin v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6144.
    Guizar v. Meyers, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6148.
    Golden v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6150.
    Fair et vir v. Steele et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6174.
    Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6184.
    Harrison v. Arizona.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6187.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6191.
    Curry v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6192.
    Miller v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6213.
    Whitaker v. Wells Fargo National Assn. et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6222.
    Grove v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6224.
    Arcilla-Gomez v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6225.
    Dall v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6229.
    Martin v. Supreme Court of Delaware.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6250.
    Peters v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6261.
    Sassower v. Brieant et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6263.
    Sassower v. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6270.
    Michaels v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6275.
    Palacio v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6290.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6294.
    Johnston v. Mizell, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6311.
    Doggett v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6324.
    Horton v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6329.
    Keller v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6332.
    Oxendine et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6334.
    Alexander v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6340.
    Barber v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6345.
    Ellzey v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6370.
    Garcia v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6372.
    Gleason v. Huckabee, Judge, Harris County, Texas, District Court, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6375.
    Hale v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6392.
    Van Aernam v. Burkhart, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6397.
    Bradley v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6399.
    Niculescu v. Chrysler Motors Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6400.
    Four Hundred v. Howe et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6401.
    Green v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6403.
    Burgess v. Washington County et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6408.
    Anderson v. Supreme Court of the State of Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6410.
    Whisenant v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6411.
    Sindram v. McKenna et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6415.
    Himmelein v. Michigan.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6416.
    Lynch v. Cuomo et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6418.
    Lopez v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6422.
    Lepiscopo v. Knapp et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6424.
    Obremski v. Maass, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6428.
    Powell v. Owens, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6430.
    Wages v. Internal Revenue Service et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6435.
    Young v. Wireman, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6440.
    Lovelace v. Virginia.
   Ct. App. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6441.
    Martin v. Brown et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6443.
    Dunkley v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6446.
    Andrews v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6449.
    Cooper v. Stallman et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6450.
    Vaughn et al. v. Griffith.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6452.
    Hincapie v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6455.
    Parson v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6462.
    James v. Wyoming.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6466.
    Carrao v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6467.
    Drake v. City of Los Angeles, Personnel Department.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6476.
    Gideon v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6477.
    Entel v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6478.
    Cruickshank v. American Honda.
   Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6479.
    Berkelbaugh v. Petsock et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6481.
    Wheat v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6482.
    Calo v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6483.
    Ellis v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-6484.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.