author: Per Curiam. Justice Scalia,

text:
    ESPINOSA v. FLORIDA
    No. 91-7390.
    Decided June 29, 1992
   Per Curiam.

Under Florida law, after a defendant is found guilty of a capital felony, a separate sentencing proceeding is conducted to determine whether the sentence should be life imprisonment or death. Fla. Stat. § 921.141(1) (1991). At the close of a hearing at which the prosecution and the defense may present evidence and argument in favor of and against the death penalty, ibid., the trial judge charges the jurors to consider “[w]hether sufficient aggravating circumstances exist,” “[wjhether sufficient mitigating circumstances exist which outweigh the aggravating circumstances,” and “[b]ased on these considerations, whether the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment or death.” §921.141(2). The verdict does not include specific findings of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, but states only the jury’s sentencing recommendation. “Notwithstanding the recommendation of a majority of the jury,” the trial court itself must then “weig[h] the aggravating and mitigating circumstances” to determine finally whether the sentence will be life or death. § 921.141(3). If the trial court fixes punishment at death, the court must issue a written statement of the circumstances found and weighed. Ibid.

A Florida jury found petitioner Henry Jose Espinosa guilty of first-degree murder. At the close of the evidence in the penalty hearing, the trial court instructed the jury on aggravating factors. One of the instructions informed the jury that it was entitled to find as an aggravating factor that the murder of which it had found Espinosa guilty was “especially wicked, evil, atrocious or cruel.” See § 921.141(h). The jury recommended that the trial court impose death, and the court, finding four aggravating and two mitigating factors, did so. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida, petitioner argued that the “wicked, evil, atrocious or cruel” instruction was vague and therefore left the jury with insufficient guidance when to find the existence of the aggravating factor. The court rejected this argument and affirmed, saying: “We reject Espinosa’s complaint with respect to the text of the jury instruction on the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating factor upon the rationale of Smalley v. State, 546 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1989).” 589 So. 2d 887, 894 (1991).

Our cases establish that, in a State where the sentencer weighs aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the weighing of an invalid aggravating circumstance violates the Eighth Amendment. See Sochor v. Florida, 504 U. S. 527, 532 (1992); Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S. 222, 232 (1992); Parker v. Dugger, 498 U. S. 308, 319-321 (1991); Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738, 752 (1990). Our cases further establish that an aggravating circumstance is invalid in this sense if its description is so vague as to leave the sentencer without sufficient guidance for determining the presence or absence of the factor. See Stringer, supra, at 235. We have held instructions more specific and elaborate than the one given in the instant case unconstitutionally vague. See Shell v. Mississippi, 498 U. S. 1 (1990); Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U. S. 356 (1988); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980).

The State here does not argue that the “especially wicked, evil, atrocious or cruel” instruction given in this case was any less vague than the instructions we found lacking in Shell, Cartwright, or Godfrey. Instead, echoing the State Supreme Court’s reasoning in Smalley v. State, 546 So. 2d, at 722, the State argues that there was no need to instruct the jury with the specificity our cases have required where the jury was the final sentencing authority, because, in the Florida scheme, the jury is not “the sentencer” for Eighth Amendment purposes. This is true, the State argues, because the trial court is not bound by the jury’s sentencing recommendation; rather, the court must independently determine which aggravating and mitigating circumstances exist, and, after weighing the circumstances, enter a sentence “[njotwithstanding the recommendation of a majority of the jury,” Fla. Stat. § 921.141(3).

Our examination of Florida case law indicates, however, that a Florida trial court is required to pay deference to a jury’s sentencing recommendation, in that the trial court must give “great weight” to the jury’s recommendation, whether that recommendation be life, see Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1975), or death, see Smith v. State, 515 So. 2d 182, 185 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 971 (1988); Grossman v. State, 525 So. 2d 833, 839, n. 1 (Fla. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U. S. 1071 (1989). Thus, Florida has essentially split the weighing process in two. Initially, the jury weighs aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the result of that weighing process is then in turn weighed within the trial court’s process of weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

It is true that, in this ease, the trial court did not directly weigh any invalid aggravating circumstances. But, we must presume that the jury did so, see Mills v. Maryland, 486 U. S. 367, 376-377 (1988), just as we must further presume that the trial court followed Florida law, cf. Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, 653 (1990), and'gave “great weight” to the resultant recommendation. By giving “great weight” to the jury recommendation, the trial court indirectly weighed the invalid aggravating factor that we must presume the jury found. This kind of indirect weighing of an invalid aggravating factor creates the same potential for arbitrariness as the direct weighing of an invalid aggravating factor, cf. Baldwin v. Alabama, 472 U. S. 372, 382 (1985), and the result, therefore, was error.

We have often recognized that there are many constitutionally permissible ways in which States may choose to allocate capital sentencing authority. See id., at 389; Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 464 (1984). Today’s decision in no way signals a retreat from that position. We merely hold that, if a weighing State decides to place capital sentencing authority in two actors rather than one, neither actor must be permitted to weigh invalid aggravating circumstances.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed. We remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

The ChieF Justice and Justice White dissent and would grant certiorari and set the ease down for oral argument.

Justice Scalia,

dissenting.

For the reasons given in my opinion in Sochor v. Florida, 504 U. S. 527, 553 (1992), I dissent from the Court’s summary reversal of Espinosa’s death sentence. Since the Florida courts found several constitutionally sound aggravating factors in this case, Espinosa’s death sentence unquestionably comports with the “narrowing” requirement of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972). Compliance with that requirement is the only special capital sentencing procedure that the Eighth Amendment demands. See Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, 669-673 (1990) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). I would deny the petition.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam. Justice Stevens,

license: Public Domain

text:
    BENTEN et al. v. KESSLER, COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, et al.
    No. A-40.
    Decided July 17, 1992
   Per Curiam.

Petitioner Leona Benten wants to use RU-486, a drug not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to induce a nonsurgieal abortion. She tried to import a single dosage of the drug for that purpose, but respondent federal officials confiscated her supply at airport customs. Petitioners filed suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York in order to compel the immediate return of the drug to Benten. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction granting this remedy. Respondents appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stayed the injunction pending the appeal. Petitioners have filed an application to vacate the Court of Appeals’ stay. We deny the application.

Petitioners contend that Benten is entitled to the return of her RU-486 because an administrative document instructing enforcement officials to seize that drug was promulgated without notice-and-comment procedures assertedly required under both the Administrative Procedure Act and FDA regulations. We conclude that petitioners have failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of these claims. Justice Stevens contends that the Government’s holding the drug would constitute an undue burden upon Benten’s constitutionally protected abortion rights. See post this page and 1086. We express no view on the merits of this assertion. The claim under which Justice Stevens would grant relief was addressed neither by the District Court nor by the Court of Appeals nor by petitioners’ filings in this Court. Accordingly, we conclude that it is not properly before us.

Petitioners’ application- to vacate the Court of Appeals’ July 15, 1992, stay pending respondents’ appeal, presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court, is denied.

It is so ordered.

Justice Blackmun dissents and would grant the application to vacate the stay.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

Whether an undue burden has been imposed on the exercise of a constitutional right depends on the relative significance of the burden, on the one hand, and the governmental interest at stake, on the other.

In this case, applicant Benten’s constitutionally protected interest in liberty has two components — her decision to terminate the pregnancy and her decision concerning the method of doing so. The Government does not assert any interest in, or right to, burden the former decision. The Government does, however, assert an interest in the latter by protecting Benten from taking medication under the supervision of her doctor instead of undergoing an invasive surgical procedure. In view of the Government’s “personal use exception” policy, expressed in the Federal Drug Administration’s February 1,1989, revision of its Regulatory Procedures Manual, the only legitimate governmental interest that is now relevant is the interest in avoiding any “significant health risk” associated with the use of this medication when prescribed by a competent physician. There is no evidence in this record that Benten faces any such risk; indeed, on the specific facts of this case, the Government’s purported interest actually supports her position. In all events, I am persuaded that the relevant legitimate federal interest is not sufficient to justify the burdensome consequence of this seizure.

Accordingly, I would grant the application.

      The Regulatory Procedures Manual provides in pertinent part as follows:
      “In deciding whether to exercise discretion to allow personal shipments of drugs or devices, FDA personnel should consider a more permissive policy in the following situations:
      “when the intended use is appropriately identified, such use is not for treatment of a serious condition, and the product is not known to represent a significant health risk.” Ch. 9-71-30(C).


text:
    June 20, 1992
    No. A-954.
    Reynolds v. International Amateur Athletic Federation et al.
   Motion of Athletics Congress of the U. S. A., Inc., to vacate the stay entered by Justice Stevens [post, p. 1301] denied.


text:
    June 22, 1992
    No. 91-962.
    Harris v. City of Birmingham et al.
   Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ala. Judgment vacated and case remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal as moot. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).


text:
    No. 91-505.
    West v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Upon consideration of petition for rehearing, the order entered June 8, 1992 [504 U. S. 972], denying the petition for writ of certiorari is vacated. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U. S. 374 (1992).


text:
    No. 91-670.
    United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U. S. 655 (1992).


text:
    No. 91-1269.
    U. S. Metroline Services, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of FTC v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 504 U. S. 621 (1992).

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


text:
    No. 91-1527.
    Ohio Public Employees Deferred Compensation Program v. Sicherman, Trustee.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U. S. 753 (1992).


text:
    No. D-1112.
    In re Disbarment of White.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 503 U. S. 980.]


text:
    No. D-1113.
    In re Disbarment of Davis.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 503 U. S. 980.]


text:
    No. D-1141.
    In re Disbarment of Ellis.
   It is ordered that Robert M. Ellis, of Wilmette, Ill., 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. 119,
    Orig.
    Connecticut et al. v. New Hampshire.
   Motion of Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co. for leave to participate as amicus curiae in this case granted.

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

[For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 504 U. S. 983.]


text:
    No. 91-535.
    Burdick v. Takushi, Director of Elections of Hawaii, et al.,
   504 U. S. 428. Motion of respondents for taxation of respondents’ costs in printing joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 91-7358.
    Brecht v. Abrahamson, Superintendent, Dodge Correctional Institution.
   C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 504 U. S. 972.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Allen E. Shoenberger, Esq., of Chicago, III., be appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


text:
    No. 91-7873.
    Fex v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. [Certiorari granted, 504 U. S. 908.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that John B. Payne, Jr., Esq., of Dear-born, Mich., be appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in this case.


author: Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens,

text:
    No. 91-8092.
    Doerr v. Doerr.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 13, 1992, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 91-8173.
    Martin v. Delaware.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Petitioner is allowed until July 13, 1992, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens would deny the petition for writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. 91-1353.
    Conroy v. Aniskoff et al.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 91-1657.
    Leatherman et al. v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 91-1826.
    Barr, Attorney General, et al. v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 91-610.
    Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund et al. v. Demisay et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans and Central States et al for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 91-1600.
    Hazen Paper Co. et al. v. Biggins.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of National Association of Manufacturers et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 91-7804.
    Bufferd v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 91-689.
    Citibank, N. A. v. Wells Fargo Asia Ltd.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-884.
    Farm Credit Services v. Morter, dba Swinengineering, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1122.
    Mostoller, Trustee v. Messing.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1133.
    Silets v. United States Department of Justice.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1412.
    Gladwell, Trustee v. Harline.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1416.
    MacDonald, in his Official Capacity as Labor Commissioner of Nevada v. Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1418.
    Abroms v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1549.
    New York State Department of Health v. Andrulonis, Individually and as Conservator of the Property of Andrulonis, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1569.
    Hill et al. v. Texas Education Agency (Lubbock Independent School District) et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1577.
    Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation et al. v. Martin, Secretary of Labor.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1589.
    Swamp et al. v. Kennedy, Executive Director, Wisconsin State Board of Elections, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1592.
    H. G. A. Cinema Trust, Kanter, Trustee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1674.
    Star Market Co. v. United States et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1690.
    Brennan v. Abbott Laboratories et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1692.
    K & S Partnership et al. v. Continental Bank, N. A.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1703.
    Hall v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1704.
    Overseas Motors, Inc. v. Mitkovski et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1706.
    Smith et al. v. Hammon et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1719.
    Charbonnet et al. v. Lee, Sheriff of Jefferson Parish, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1723.
    Clines v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-. tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1727.
    Bezanson, Trustee for Medomak Canning Co., Inc. v. Metropolitan Insurance & Annuity Co.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1730.
    Perfetti v. First National Bank of Chicago.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1735.
    Scheerer v. Rose State College et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1737.
    Shiseido Cosmetics (America) Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Board of California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1739.
    Ground et al. v. Barlow.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1745.
    Elks National Foundation et al. v. Weber et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1749.
    Tarabishi v. McAlester Regional Hospital, aka McAlester Regional Health Center Authority Public Trust Status, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1750.
    Alabama v. Matthews.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1751.
    Karst v. Woods.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1752.
    Wood v. Freedman et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1755.
    Murdock et ux., for Themselves and as Parents and Next Friends of Murdock v. United States et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1758.
    Perez v. BMG Music et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1762.
    Regional Construction Co. et al. v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services et al.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1763.
    Ottaway Newspapers, Inc., dba Ashland Publishing Co., et al. v. Osborne et al.
   Ct. App. Ky. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1765.
    Austin v. Berryman et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1767.
    DeAndino v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1775.
    Gordon v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Southern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1788.
    Bruno v. City of Crown Point, Indiana, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1789.
    Pecora, Senator, 44th Pennsylvania Senatorial District v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1790.
    Parkhill et al. v. Aduddell.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1796.
    Cook v. Department of the Navy.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1834.
    Bunge Edible Oil Corp. v. Canadian Pacific (Bermuda) Ltd. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1886.
    Freas v. New Jersey.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7529.
    Curtis v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7537.
    Christopher v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7693.
    Peltier v. Kansas.
   Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7708.
    Ceasar v. Hamilton, on Behalf of Ceasar, a Minor.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7777.
    Slezak v. Cannon et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7818.
    McGee v. Screw Conveyor Corporation of Winona, Mississippi.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7887.
    Tillman v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8037.
    Young v. United States et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8083.
    Hurd v. United States District Court for the Central District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8086.
    Troxell v. Seabold, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8091.
    Williams v. Fauver et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir.. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8095.
    McCreadie v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8097.
    Saunders v. Neal, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8099.
    Palmer v. Florida Bar.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8102.
    Williams v. Chrans, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8103.
    Williams v. Burton et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8110.
    Crowhorn v. Smith et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8115.
    Mitchell v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8116.
    Martin v. Missouri.
   Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8117.
    Whitaker v. Pascarella et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8124.
    Woodson v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8126.
    Wickham v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8128.
    Austin v. Ryan, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Dallas.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8130.
    Fanti v. Mitchell, Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8137.
    Dandridge v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8140.
    Zabrani v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8141.
    Alwine v. Pennsylvania.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8142.
    McGee v. McMackin, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8143.
    Cotton v. Puckett et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8144.
    Dempsey v. Massachusetts.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8146.
    Smith v. Kaiser, Warden.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8152.
    Prince v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8153.
    McInerney v. Hargett, Superintendent, Mississippi State Penitentiary, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8154.
    Prayso v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8160.
    Kulka v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8171.
    Trent v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8184.
    Stanley v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8187.
    Glass v. Grijalva, Deputy Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8192.
    Weimer et al. v. Liebner et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8239.
    Swensky v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8270.
    Watts v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8271.
    Sloan v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8273.
    Szymanski v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8287.
    Barrozo Espinoza v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8291.
    Salim v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8300.
    No. 91-8301.
    Sharp v. United States; and Taylor v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 953 F. 2d 1312.


text:
    No. 91-8305.
    Valencia v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8306.
    Sellars v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8313.
    Roberts v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8314.
    Ewing v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8316.
    Keagle v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8318.
    Erdman v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8342.
    Acosta v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8347.
    Sparrow v. Internal Revenue Service.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8352.
    Tajeddini v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8354.
    Akinkoutu, aka Babalola v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8355.
    Chan Chun-Yin, aka Ah Wai v. United States.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8357.
    Clark v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8362.
    Ramirez v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8363.
    Mayers v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8364.
    Lee v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8370.
    Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8371.
    Mitchell v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8373.
    Roa v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8377.
    Geraldo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8383.
    Olvera v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8392.
    Andrews v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8394.
    Smith v. Taylor, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8396.
    Borromeo v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8399.
    Clincy v. Toombs, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8402.
    Johnson v. Virginia.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8403.
    Emanuel v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-4.
    International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 12, AFL-CIO v. Wilson et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 91-1641.
    Federal Bureau of Investigation et al. v. Wiener.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 91-356.
    Mead Corp. v. Tilley et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of American Academy of Actuaries et al. for leave to file supplemental brief as amici curiae denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-545.
    Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of Reservation Telephone Cooperative and Association of American Railroads for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Motion of California et al. for leave to file supplemental brief as amici curiae denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 91-680.
    No. 91-681.
    Fairway Spring Co., Inc., et al. v. Sovran Bank/Maryland; and Chemung Canal Trust Co., as Trustee of the Fairway Spring Co., Inc., Restated Pension Plan v. Sovran Bank/Maryland.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White, Justice Blackmun, and Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 91-707.
    Lennes, Commissioner, Department of Labor and Industry of Minnesota, et al. v. Boise Cascade Corp. et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of Mechanical Contractors Association of America for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1586.
    Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 91-1607.
    Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc., fka Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Pearl Brewing Co. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of Credit Managers Association of California for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1732.
    Michigan v. Sammons; and Michigan v. Stone.
   Ct. App. Mich. Motions of respondents Martin Howard Sammons and Alan Michael Stone for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1754.
    Illinois v. Freeman.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1780.
    Colorado v. Gaskins.
   Ct. App. Colo. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1792.
    Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al. v. Adamson.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8131.
    Jones v. Gunter, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of petition for certio-rari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-734.
    No. 91-7225.
    No. 91-7232.
    No. 91-7472.
    No. 91-7495.
    No. 91-7496.
    No. 91-7523.
    No. 91-7541.
    No. 91-7561.
    No. 91-7851.
    No. 91-7893.
    No. 91-7924.
    No. 91-7926.
    No. 91-7941.
    No. 91-7970.
    Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. West, Ruggles v. City of Riverside, Hofmann v. Pressman Toy Corp. et al., In re Ballard, Romero v. Caldwell et al., Mabery v. Rodriguez et al., Gill v. Virginia, Gray v. Silva et al., Scott v. Veterans Administration et al., Cofield v. Office of Personnel Management, Stoianoff v. Francis et al., Taylor v. Duckworth, Warden, et al., In re Thomas, Henthorn v. United States, Kelley v. United States,
   504 U. S. 968;

503 U. S. 947;

503 U. S. 963;

504 U. S. 907;

503 U. S. 993;

503 U. S. 993;

503 U. S. 1008;

503 U. S. 1008;

504 U. S. 918;

504 U. S. 959;

504 U. S. 959;

504 U. S. 960;

504 U. S. 954;

504 U. S. 928; and

504 U. S. 929. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 91-6917.
    No. 91-7371.
    Lane v. Parris et al., Lane v. Starr, Judge, and Lane v. Tunnell et al., Crawford v. District of Columbia Board of Parole,
   502 U. S. 1116; and

503 U. S. 990. Motions of petitioners for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    June 23, 1992
    No. 91-8500.
    Blackshire v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    June 29, 1992
    No. 91-1270.
    Richards, Governor of Texas, et al. v. Terrazas et al.
   Affirmed on appeal from D. C. W. D. Tex.


text:
    No. 91-1571.
    Massachusetts et al. v. Franklin, Secretary of Commerce, et al.
   Cross-appeal from D. C. Mass, dismissed.


text:
    No. 90-1473.
    Kotler, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Kotler v. American Tobacco Co. et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., ante, p. 504.


text:
    No. 90-1837.
    Papas et ux. v. Zoecon Corp.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., ante, p. 504.


text:
    No. 91-310.
    Jones et al. v. Clear Creek Independent School District.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Lee v. Weisman, ante, p. 577.


text:
    No. 91-1646.
    Antares Aircraft L. P. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and ease remanded for further consideration in light of Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U. S. 607 (1992).


text:
    No. 91-5450.
    Hitchcock v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Petition for rehearing granted, and order entered October 15, 1991 [502 U. S. 912], denying petition for writ of certiorari vacated. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma, pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Espinosa v. Florida, ante, p. 1079.

Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.


text:
    No. 91-6076.
    Beltran-Lopez v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and ease remanded for further consideration in light of Espinosa v. Florida, ante, p. 1079.


text:
    No. 91-6887.
    Aguirre v. United States.
   C.A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Doggett v. United States, ante, p. 647.


text:
    No. 91-7170.
    Henry v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Cer-tiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Espinosa v. Florida, ante, p. 1079, and Sochor v. Florida, 504 U. S. 527 (1992).


text:
    No. 91-7273.
    Davis v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Cer-tiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in .light of Espinosa v. Florida, ante, p. 1079.


text:
    No. 91-7634.
    Gaskin v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Cer-tiorari granted, judgment vacated, and ease remanded for further consideration in light of Espinosa v. Florida, ante, p. 1079.


text:
    No.-.
    Tozzi v. Joliet Junior College et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. A-915.
    Rawlins v. Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections.
   Application for bail, addressed to Justice Blackmun and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-1100.
    In re Disbarment of Cunningham.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 503 U. S. 956.]


text:
    No. D-1110.
    In re Disbarment of Hansen.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 503 U. S. 980.]


text:
    No. D-1116.
    In re Disbarment of Muldrow.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 503 U. S. 1002.]


text:
    No. D-1142.
    In re Disbarment of Shaughnessy.
   It is ordered that Robert William Shaughnessy, of Miami, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1143.
    In re Disbarment of Byrd.
   It is ordered that Mitchell King Byrd, of Rock Hill, S. 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. 91-1546.
    Slagle v. Terrazas et al.
   Appeal from D. C. W. D. Tex. Motion of appellant for establishment of deadline for submission of the views of the United States denied.


text:
    No. 91-8233.
    In re Kaltenbach.
   Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma -pauperis denied. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Petitioner is allowed until July 20, 1992, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens would deny the petition for writ of mandamus.


text:
    No. 91-8412.
    Prows v. Williams, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pau-peris denied. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Petitioner is allowed until July 20, 1992, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens would deny the petition for writ of certiorari.


text:
    No. 91-8494.
    No. 91-8508.
    In re Burnett; and In re Cochran.
   Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.


text:
    No. 91-1526.
    Alexander v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 91-790.
    No. 91-1206.
    CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood; and Easterwood v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of Association of American Railroads for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 91-790 granted. Certiorari granted, eases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 91-1958.
    Helling et al. v. McKinney.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 91-5397.
    Negonsott v. Samuels, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir! Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 90-1362.
    Wilson v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1448.
    Roberts v. Madigan et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-1573.
    Village of Crestwood, Illinois, et al. v. Doe.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 90-8443.
    Redd v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-141.
    City of Rolling Meadows et al. v. Kuhn et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-284.
    Barger v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-286.
    Bishop v. Delchamps et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-468.
    Chabad-Lubavitch of Vermont et al. v. City of Burlington, Vermont, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied:


text:
    No. 91-477.
    Morongo Unified School District et al. v. Sands et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-614.
    Northwest Financial, Inc. v. California State Board of Equalization et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-685.
    Lederle Laboratories, Division of American Cyanamid Co. v. Feldman.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-796.
    Cammack et al. v. Waihee, Governor of Hawaii, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-941.
    Esposito et al. v. South Carolina Coastal Council et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1076.
    Long Beach Equities, Inc. v. County of Ventura, California, et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1176.
    Constangy v. North Carolina Civil Liberties Union et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1211.
    Evans v. City of Evanston et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1462.
    Murray et al. v. City of Austin, Texas, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1511.
    Roberts, dba Roberts Motor Co. v. Ferrari S. p. A. Esercizio Fabriche Automobili E Corse.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1531.
    Czarnecki v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1551.
    Ayers v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1582.
    Ellwest Stereo Theatres of Memphis, Inc., dba Executive South, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1603.
    Save Barton Creek Assn., Inc., et al. v. Federal Highway Administration et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1619.
    No. 91-1620.
    Vulpis et al. v. United States; and Paccione et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1617.
    Huls et al. v. United States.
   G. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1636.
    No. 91-7625.
    Renfroe v. United States; and Daniels v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1644.
    Vire, Individually and as Mother and Personal Representative of the Estate of Vire, et al. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1663.
    Ellis v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1665.
    Cannon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1688.
    Lucas v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1715.
    Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Fanoli et ux.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1741.
    Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al. v. Southern California Rapid Transit District et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1746.
    Quintero-Cruz et al. v. Louisiana.
   Ct. App. La., 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1747.
    Western Farm Credit Bank v. Fobian et al.; and Fobian et al. v. Western Farm Credit Bank.
    No. 91-1969.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 951 F. 2d 1149. '


text:
    No. 91-1771.
    Miller v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1773.
    Fleck et al. v. Mobile Communications Corporation of America, Inc., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1774.
    Lillis et al. v. Golino.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1777.
    Amwest Surety Insurance Co. v. United Fidelity & Trust Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1779.
    Eddine v. Eddine.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1786.
    Massachusetts v. Tanso.
   Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1791.
    Manes v. United States District Court for the Central District of California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1802.
    Sorrell et al. v. Dayton Women’s Health Center, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Montgomery County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1806.
    Allied Mutual Insurance Co. v. Northern Insurance Company of New York.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1809.
    Tunis Brothers Co., Inc., et al. v. Ford Motor Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1812.
    Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. et al. v. Burns, as Executrix of the Estate of Echols, Deceased, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1814.
    Comer et al. v. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Department of Highways.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1815.
    Westborough Mall, Inc., et al. v. City of Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1816.
    Illinois v. Breeding.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1818.
    Biggins v. Hazen Paper Co. et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1823.
    Jones v. Odom, Sheriff of White County, Arkansas.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1824.
    Pointer v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1827.
    Blankmann et al. v. Sargent.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1832.
    Tittjung v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1838.
    Rock v. Preate, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1896.
    Aviation Associates, Inc. v. Airline Pilots Assn., International.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1903.
    Cresswell et al. v. Sullivan & Cromwell.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1905.
    Carver et al. v. Westinghouse Hanford Co. et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1914.
    Shore v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1917.
    Edgmon et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1948.
    Urabazo v. United States et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1956.
    LeQuire v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-6344.
    Bullard v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-6373.
    Ming Hoi Wong v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-6712.
    Jones v. Illinois.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-6785.
    Wells v. Vaughn, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution (and Diagnostic and Classification Center) at Graterford.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-6822.
    Deeb v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7351.
    Toro v. Fairman, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7572.
    McDaniel v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7727.
    Bedoya v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7783.
    Vaden v. Lujan, Secretary of the Interior.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7854.
    McGough v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7881.
    McNeal v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7901.
    Vontsteen v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-7946.
    Nicolaus v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8007.
    Leonard v. Nevada.
   Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8009.
    Davis v. Strubbe et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8049.
    Johnson v. Quinlan, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8094.
    Potts v. Georgia.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8111.
    Kennedy v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8147.
    White v. Temple University.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8161.
    Johnson v. Love, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8162.
    Jeffrey v. Connecticut.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8164.
    Reese v. Love, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8168.
    Kolichman v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st -Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8172.
    Moskaluk v. Louisiana et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8174.
    Long v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8175.
    Benirschke v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8183.
    Crawford v. District of Columbia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8185.
    Gaydos v. Gaydos et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8186.
    Langdale v. International Monetary Market.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8189.
    Edwards v. Borg, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8191.
    Dana v. Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8193.
    Smith v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA).
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8216.
    Johnson v. Arkansas.
   Sup. Ct. Ark. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8217.
    Hall v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8220.
    Toy v. Borough of Berlin et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8222.
    Johnson v. Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc., dba Wonder World, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8223.
    Kiskila et vir v. Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8225.
    Buchmann v. Washington.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8227.
    Baker v. Miller et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8231.
    Fain v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8232.
    Harris v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8236.
    Kudrako v. Allstate Insurance Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8241.
    Berry v. Harken et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8245.
    Hunt v. North Carolina.
   Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8249.
    Kinslow v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8259.
    Mark v. Gambriell Properties.
   Ct.. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8260.
    Propes v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8261.
    Muhammad v. Moxon et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8280.
    Johns et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8284.
    Hill v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8293.
    Swanson v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8310.
    London v. Kavanagh et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8324.
    Zzie v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8339.
    Henthorn v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8343.
    Daley v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8365.
    Mills v. Ohio.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8372.
    Arnette v. Chief of Police, Town of McColl, South Carolina, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8379.
    Sharp v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8382.
    Ngbendu v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8388.
    Stewart v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8390.
    Clarke v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8398.
    Steffens v. Derwinski, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8406.
    Cochran v. Turner, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8408.
    Yepes v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8409.
    Crespo v. Florida et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8410.
    Ramo v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8416.
    Carlson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8419.
    Allen v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8421.
    Bush v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8436.
    Redd v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8437.
    Reid, aka Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8439.
    Mejia v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8442.
    Digiacomo v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8444.
    Byrom v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8446.
    Brooks et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8447.
    DeGraffin v. United States.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8449.
    Moore v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8450.
    Hicks v. Kelly, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8452.
    Whaley v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8453.
    Castrillon v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8454.
    Cox v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8457.
    Brown v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8461.
    Slaughter v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8463.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8465.
    Jusino v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8475.
    Granviel v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8478.
    Bailey v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8480.
    Marshburn v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8483.
    Pacione v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8490.
    Cooper v. Sauser, Superintendent, Spring Creek Correctional Center.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-299.
    City of Zion et al. v. Harris et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Thomas would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 91-1370.
    King v. Ridley, Director, District of Columbia Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 91-8022.
    Hudson v. Washington, in his Personal and Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Commission on Mental Health Services for St. Elizabeth’s Hospital.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 91-1467.
    Borg, Warden v. Mikes.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma, “pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1522.
    Haberstroh, District Attorney of Blair County, Pennsylvania, et al. v. Burkett.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1772.
    Muhammad v. Pratt.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1518.
    Parker et al. v. King, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 91-1742.
    Richman Bros. Records, Inc. v. US Sprint Communications Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 91-1548.
    Franklin, Secretary of Commerce, et al. v. Massachusetts et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.


text:
    No. 91-1626.
    Stevedoring Services of America, Inc. v. Eggert et ux.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of National Association of Stevedores, Shipbuilders Council of America, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curias granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1757.
    Bunch v. Thompson, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed further herein informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1778.
    No. 91-1787.
    California Fair Political Practices Commission v. Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, et al.; and Kopp et al. v. Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice White and Justice O’Connor would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 91-1813.
    Cohn v. Bond et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of American Chiropractic Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1821.
    Andersen v. Atlantic Marine Constructors et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed as a seaman granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-1151.
    Adkins et al. v. General Motors Corp. et al., Wright v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver of Union National Bank of Chicago, Canino v. United States, Farrington v. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., et al., Anne Arundel County Republican Central Committee et al. v. State Administrative Board of Election Laws et al., Collins v. Unified Court System of New York et al., Yadav et ux. v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Perkins v. Western Surety Co., Pope v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., White v. Louisiana, Hansen v. Mississippi, Walton v. American Steel Container et al., Diaz v. Indiana, Hoffman v. Freilich et al., Lucas v. Estelle, Warden, et al. (two cases), Church v. Huffman, Warden, et al., Mumit, aka Bryant v. United States Parole Commission et al., Chappell v. United States (two cases), Bleecker v. Murphy, Thakkar v. DeBevoise,
   504 U. S. 908;

No. 91-1274.

No. 91-1371.

No. 91-1474.

No. 91-1514.

No. 91-1552.

No. 91-1557.

No. 91-1574.

No. 91-1670.

No. 91-6358.

No. 91-7700.

No. 91-7738.

No. 91-7768.

No. 91-7796.

No. 91-7820.

No. 91-7895.

No. 91-7896.

No. 91-7899.

No. 91-7959.

No. 91-8054.

504 U. S. 909;

504 U. S. 910;

504 U. S. 912;

504 U. S. 938;

504 U. S. 914;

504 U. S. 914;

504 U. S. 915;

504 U. S. 916;

504 U. S. 916;

504 U. S. 921;

504 U. S. 922;

504 U. S. 923;

504 U. S. 924;

504 U. S. 925;

504 U. S. 927;

504 U. S. 927;

504 U. S. 927;

504 U. S. 929; and

504 U.S. 961. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    July 7, 1992
    No. 91-1645.
    Wood v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   0€. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 504 U. S. 972.] Writ of certio-rari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46.


text:
    July 13, 1992
    No. A-28 (92-5088).
    Holland v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending the disposition by this Court of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certio-rari be denied, .this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.


text:
    July 16, 1992
    No. A-32 (O. T. 1992).
    Wetherell, Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, et al. v. De Grandy et al.
   Application for stay, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, granted, and it is ordered that the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, filed July 2, 1992, in case Nos. 92-40015-WS, 92-40131-WS, and 92-40220-WS, is stayed pending the timely filing of a statement as to jurisdiction. Should such a statement be timely filed, this order is to remain in effect pending this Court’s action on the appeal. In the event the judgment is affirmed, or the appeal is dismissed, this order is to terminate automatically. Should jurisdiction be noted or postponed, or should the judgment be summarily vacated or reversed, this order is to remain in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.


text:
    July 17, 1992
    No. A-51 (O. T. 1992).
    Wetherell, Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, et al. v. De Grandy et al.
   Application for stay, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, granted, and it is ordered that the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, dated July 16, 1992, in case Nos. 92-40015-WS, 92-40131-WS, and 92-40220-WS, is stayed pending the timely filing of a statement as to jurisdiction. Should such a statement be timely filed, this order is to remain in effect pending this Court’s action on the appeal. In the event the judgment is affirmed, or the appeal is dismissed, this order is to terminate automatically. Should jurisdiction be noted or postponed, or should the judgment be summarily vacated or reversed, this order is to remain in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

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


text:
    July 20, 1992
    No. 92-5194 (A-55).
    Kennedy v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 91-8111.
    Kennedy v. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.,
   ante, p. 1224. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    July 22, 1992
    No. 91-908.
    Cromwell et al. v. Equicor-Equitable HCA Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    No. 92-5248 (A-59).
    Lane v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    July 28, 1992
    No. 92-5239 (A-64).
    Andrews v. Utah.
   Sup. Ct. Utah. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    July 29, 1992
    No. A-49 (92-5182).
    Kelly v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending the disposition by this Court of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the issuance of the mandate of this Court.


text:
    July 30, 1992
    No. 92-5321 (A-81).
    Andrews v. Carver, Warden.
   C. A.

10th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice White, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

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


author: Justice Blackmun,

text:
    August 1, 1992
    No. A-82 (O. T. 1992).
    McNary, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al. v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., et al.
   Application for stay, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, granted, and it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, ease No. 92-6144, filed July 29, 1992, and the subsequent July 29, 1992, order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, case No. 92 CV 1258, are stayed pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari on or before August 24, 1992. Should the petition be filed on or before that date, this order is to remain in effect pending this Court’s action on the petition. If the petition for writ of certiorari is denied, this order is to terminate automatically. In the event the petition is granted, this order is to remain in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Should the Solicitor General so file a petition for writ of certiorari, respondents’ response is to be filed on or before September 8, 1992.

Justice Blackmun,

with whom Justice Stevens joins,

dissenting.

An applicant for a stay pending the disposition of a petition for certiorari faces a heavy burden. The applicant must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm if the judgment below is not stayed; (2) a reasonable probability that certiorari will be granted; (3) a significant possibility that the judgment below will be reversed; and (4) that the balance of the equities tilts clearly in its favor. I do not think the Government has met the latter two conditions.

Eight federal judges have now considered the territorial reach of 8 U. S. C. §1253(h). Four have concluded that the statute does not apply in international waters, and four have concluded that it does. Given the thorough .mid careful reasoning of the majority and concurring opinions below, I do not see how the Court can conclude at this stage that the Government’s likelihood of success on the merits is any better than even. That is not fatal to the Government’s application, for if each party’s chance of succeeding is equal, a strong showing on the equities can still carry the day for the Government. But no such showing has been made. While the Government has offered a vague invocation of harm to foreign policy, immigration policy, and the federal treasury, the plaintiffs in this case face the real and immediate prospect of persecution, terror, and possibly even death at the hands of those to whom they are being forcibly returned. So determined the District Court, to whose findings we should defer where the balance of equities is highly factual in nature. Block v. North Side Lumber Co., 473 U. S. 1307 (1985) (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice).

I would deny the application for a stay.


text:
    August 4, 1992
    No. 91-1700.
    Checkett, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. Vickers et ux.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    No. 92-5208 (A-67).
    Johnson v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Gertiorari denied.

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


text:
    August 5, 1992
    No. A-82 (O. T. 1992).
    McNary, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al. v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., et al.
   Motion of respondents to treat the application for stay as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and set an expedited briefing schedule denied.


text:
    No. A-98 (O. T. 1992).
    Hopkins, Warden v. Otey.
   Application to vacate the stay of executioripf sentence of death entered by the United States District Courfe»f@r the District of Nebraska, presented to Justice Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas would grant the application.


text:
    August 12, 1992
    No. 91-1160.
    Arave, Warden v. Creech.
   C. A. 9th Cir. The order entered June 15, 1992 [504 U. S. 984], is amended to read as follows: Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.


text:
    August 18, 1992
    No. A-11 (92-24).
    In re Bell.
   Sup. Ct. Ill. Application for stay of enforcement of judgment, addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-1117.
    In re Disbarment of Hughes.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 504 U. S. 903.]


text:
    No. D-1118.
    In re Disbarment of Plaia.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 504 U. S. 904,]


text:
    No. D-1120.
    In re Disbarment of Segers.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 504 U. S. 904.]


text:
    No. D-1122.
    In re Disbarment of Bales.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 504 U. S. 904.]


text:
    No. D-1123.
    In re Disbarment of Houck.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 504 U. S. 904.]


text:
    No. D-1124.
    In re Disbarment of Glubin.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein,, see 504 U. S. 904.]


text:
    No. D-1125.
    In re Disbarment of Schulz.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 504 U. S. 905.]


text:
    No. D-1127.
    In re Disbarment of Whitnall.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 504 U. S. 938.]


text:
    No. D-1128.
    In re Disbarment of Rodriguez.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 504 U. S. 939.]


text:
    No. D-1129.
    In re Disbarment of Smith.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order héréin, see 504 U. S. 953.]


text:
    No. D-1136.
    In re Disbarment of Parker.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 504 U. S. 970.]


text:
    No. D-1137.
    In re Disbarment of Cahn.
   Disbarment entered. ■ [For earlier order herein, see 504 U. S. 970.]


text:
    No. D-1140.
    In re Disbarment of Fitzpatrick.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 504 U. S. 981.]

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


text:
    No. D-1144.
    In re Disbarment of Driscoll.
   It is ordered that Robert Justin Driscoll, of Denver, 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-1145.
    In re Disbarment of Van Rye.
   It is ordered that Kenneth Van Rye, of Elmwood Park, 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-1146.
    In re Disbarment of Herzig.
   It is ordered that Philip Richard Herzig, of Salina, Kan., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1147.
    In re Disbarment of Leben.
   It is ordered that Jeffrey Michael Leben, of Yorktown Heights, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1148.
    In re Disbarment of Trevaskis.
   It is ordered that John P. Trevaskis, Jr., of Media, 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-1149.
    In re Disbarment of Greenwald.
   It is ordered that Michael I. Greenwald, of Cleveland, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. 90-6315.
    No. 91-1035.
    No. 91-1402.
    No. 91-1563.
    No. 91-1597.
    No. 91-1655.
    No. 91-1683.
    No. 91-1687.
    No. 91-1761.
    No. 91-6658.
    No. 91-6828.
    No. 91-7229.
    No. 91-7461.
    No. 91-7808.
    No. 91-7838.
    No. 91-7891.
    No. 91-7894.
    No. 91-7916.
    Perez v. Louisiana, Bussey v. United States, Broida v. Smith et al., AIU Insurance Co. et al. v. Superintendent, Maine Bureau of Insurance, Pennsylvania v. Chambers, Gardner et al. v. Ryan, Secretary of State of Illinois, et al., Polyak v. Hulen et al., Blankinship et al. v. Cinco Enterprises, Inc., Pravda v. United States et al., Kinder v. United States, Netelkos v. United States, LaBounty v. Coughlin, Commissioner, New York Department of Correctional Services, Crosby v. Waldner, Isenberg v. United States, Dicks v. United States, Smith v. Oklahoma, Stoianoff v. Wachtler, Rott v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. et al., Bodine v. Department of Transportation, East v. West One Bank, N. A., Personal Representative of the Estate of Logan, Midgyette v. Grayson, Warden, Castillo-Morales et al. v. Internal Revenue Service et al., Toste v. United States Postal Service, Farkas et al. v. Ellis,
   504 U. S. 962;

504 U. S. 908;

503 U. S. 1005;

504 U. S. 986;

504 U. S. 946;

504 U. S. 973;

504 U. S. 957;

504 U. S. 974;

504 U. S. 974;

504 U. S. 946;

503 U. S. 908;

504 U. S. 917;

503 U. S. 1007;

504 U. S. 943;

504 U. S. 925;

504 U. S. 959;

504 U. S. 975;

504 U. S. 959;

No. 91-7977.

No. 91-7983.

No. 91-8032.

No. 91-8085.

No. 91-8165.

No. 91-8201.

504 U. S. 929;

504 U. S. 976;

504 U. S. 977;

504 U. S. 961;

504 U. S. 989; and

504 U. S. 989. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 90-1599.
    United States v. Felix,
   503 U. S. 378. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed further herein informa pau-peris granted. Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 91-913.
    Patterson, Trustee v. Shumate,
   504 U. S. 753. Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing requirement for petition for rehearing granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 91-1447.
    Bingham v. Inland Division of General Motors,
   504 U. S. 965. Petition for rehearing denied. Justice Blackmun would call for a response to the petition for rehearing.


text:
    August 25, 1992
    No. A-112 (92-265).
    In re Vasquez, Warden, et al.
   Application for stay, addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    August 27, 1992
    No. A-108 (92-253).
    Illinois Department of Corrections v. Flowers.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, granted, and it is-ordered that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, case Nos. 91-2330 and 9Í-2415, is recalled and stayed pending the disposition by this Court of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

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


author: Justice Stevens,

text:
    September 2, 1992
    No. 90-985.
    Bray et al. v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 498 U. S. 1119.] Motion of respondents for leave to file a brief on reargument granted with respect to arguments addressing the potential significance of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, ante, p. 833, and the availability of injunctive relief for violations of 42 U. S. C. § 1985(3), but denied with respect to arguments addressing the hindrance clause of 42 U. S. C. § 1985(3). Petitioners may file a supplemental brief on reargument on or before September 17, 1992, responding to respondents’ arguments regarding Planned Parenthood and the availability of injunctive relief.

Justice O’Connor would grant the motion in its entirety.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Blackmun joins,

dissenting.

In a statutory construction case that is important enough to merit reargument, the Court should err on the side of allowing full discussion of the entire statute at issue. Without having examined the supplemental brief attached to respondents’ motion, and noting the absence of any objection from petitioners, I would therefore allow it to be filed as a matter of course. Because I intend to read the entire supplemental brief in preparation for the reargument — despite the Court’s peculiar order — I would welcome comment by petitioners on all issues discussed therein.


text:
    September 4, 1992
    No. D-1150.
    In re Disbarment of Deutsch.
   It is ordered that Ronald E. Deutsch, of Santa Pe, N. M., 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-1151.
    In re Disbarment of Moore.
   It is ordered that Harvin Cooper Moore III, of Houston, Tex., 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-1152.
    In re Disbarment of Bach.
   It is ordered that Larry Burton Bach, of Dallas, Tex., 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-1153.
    In re Disbarment of Kirkman.
   It is ordered that Robert L. Kirkman, of Portland, Ore., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1154.
    In re Disbarment of Ladner.
   It is ordered that Oscar Burén Ladner, of Gulfport, Miss., 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-1155.
    In re Disbarment of Unpingco.
   It is ordered that Segundo Unpingco, of San Jose, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1156.
    In re Disbarment of Robertson.
   It is ordered that Juan Paul Robertson, of Beverly Hills, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1157.
    In re Disbarment of Horn.
   It is ordered that Edward Horn, of Brooklyn, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1158.
    In re Disbarment of Speciner.
   It is ordered that Jules V. Speeiner, of Great Neck, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1159.
    In re Disbarment of Brodo.
   It is ordered that Thomas George Brodo, of Wayne, 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-1160.
    In re Disbarment of Weil.
   It is ordered that Joseph Hilliard Weil, of North Miami, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1161.
    In re Disbarment of Jones.
   It is ordered that Curtis Larenzo Jones, Jr., of Miami, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1162.
    In re Disbarment of Salmen.
   It is ordered that T. Jay Salmen, of St. Paul, Minn., 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-1163.
    In re Disbarment of Knoll.
   It is ordered that David R. Knoll, of Buffalo, N. Y., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1164.
    In re Disbarment of Frascinella.
   It is ordered that Phillip Frascinella, of Santa Monica, Cal., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-1165.
    In re Disbarment of Watson.
   It is ordered that John D. Watson, of Denver, 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. 91-781.
    United States v. A Parcel of Land, Buildings, Appurtenances, and Improvements, Known as 92 Buena Vista Avenue, Rumson, New Jersey, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 503 U. S. 905.] Motion of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 91-1030.
    Withrow v. Williams.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certio-rari granted, 503 U. S. 983.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 91-1393.
    Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction v. Fretwell.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 504 U. S. 908.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 91-1420.
    Growe, Secretary of State of Minnesota, et al. v. Emison et al.
   D. C. Minn. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 503 U. S. 958.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 91-7873.
    Fex v. Michigan.
   Sup. Ct. Mich. [Certiorari granted, 504 U. S. 908.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 91-1513.
    United States Department of the Treasury et al. v. Fabe, Superintendent of Insurance of Ohio.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 504 U. S. 907.] Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 91-1538.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Cer-tiorari granted, 504 U. S. 984.] Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 91-1657.
    Leatherman et al. v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1203.] Motion of petitioners to permit Richard Gladden to present oral argument pro hac vice granted.


text:
    No. 90-8370.
    No. 90-8443.
    No. 91-141.
    No. 91-299.
    No. 91-971.
    No. 91-1752.
    No. 91-1757.
    No. 91-1809.
    No. 91-1914.
    No. 91-5450.
    No. 91-6076.
    No. 91-6382.
    No. 91-7170.
    No. 91-7273.
    No. 91-7598.
    No. 91-7634.
    No. 91-7818.
    No. 91-7939.
    No. 91-8024.
    No. 91-8029.
    No. 91-8037.
    No. 91-8070.
    No. 91-8091.
    No. 91-8144.
    No. 91-8164.
    Medina v. California, Redd v. Georgia, City of Rolling Meadows et al. v. Kuhn et al., City of Zion et al. v. Harris et al., Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., Wood v. Freedman et al., Bunch v. Thompson, Warden, Tunis Brothers Co., Inc., et al. v. Ford Motor Co. et al., Shore v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Hitchcock v. Florida, Beltran-Lopez v. Florida, Sawyer v. Whitley, Warden, Henry v. Florida, Davis v. Florida, Hill, aka Robinson v. United States, Gaskin v. Florida, McGee v. Screw Conveyor Corporation of Winona, Mississippi, Turner v. Oklahoma, Urdenis v. Thermal Industries, Inc., Lyle et vir v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Young v. United States et al., Scott v. Dime Savings Bank of New York, Williams v. Fauver et al., Dempsey v. Massachusetts, Reese v. Love, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, Gaydos v. Gaydos et al., Kiskila et vir v. Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, et al., Baker v. Miller et al., Kudrako v. Allstate Insurance Co., Arnette v. Chief of Police, Town of McColl, South Carolina, et al., Borromeo v. United States, Steffens v. Derwinski, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jusino v. United States,
   ante, p. 437;

ante, p. 1218;

ante, p. 1218;

ante, p. 1229;

ante, p. 763;

ante, p. 1206;

ante, p. 1230;

ante, p. 1221;

ante, p. 1222;

ante, p. 1215;

ante, p. 1215;

ante, p. 333;

ante, p. 1216;

ante, p. 1216;

504 U. S. 975;

ante, p. 1216;

ante, p. 1207;

504 U. S. 960;

504 U. S. 987;

504 U. S. 988;

ante,.p. 1208;

504 U. S. 988;

ante, p. 1208;

ante, p. 1209;

ante, p. 1224;

No. 91-8185.

No. 91-8223.

No. 91-8227.

No. 91-8236.

No. 91-8372.

No. 91-8396.

No. 91-8398.

No. 91-8465.

ante, p. 1225;

ante, p. 1225;

ante, p. 1225;

ante, p. 1226; .

ante, p. 1227;

ante, p. 1212;

ante, p. 1227; and

ante, p. 1228. Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 91-1709.
    In re Mills,
   504 U. S. 971. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted.. Petition for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 91-5550.
    Fain v. Idaho,
   504 U. S. 987. Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Blackmun would call for a response to the petition for rehearing.


text:
    No. 91-7390.
    Espinosa v. Florida,
   ante, p. 1079. Petition for rehearing of petitioner denied. Petition for rehearing of respondent denied.


text:
    September 8, 1992
    No. A-191 (O. T. 1992).
    Fox v. Chiles, Governor of Florida, et al.
   Application for emergency relief, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    September 15, 1992
    No. 92-5843 (A-209).
    Jones v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 92-5855 (A-215).
    Jones v. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.
   Sup. Ct. Va. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    September 19, 1992
    No. A-189 (O. T. 1992).
    Price v. North Carolina.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending the timely filing and disposition by this Court of a petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the issuance of the mandate of this Court.


text:
    September 21, 1992
    No. 92-5914 (A-232).
    Demouchette v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Black-mun and Justice Stevens would grant the application for stay.


text:
    September 22, 1992
    No. A-201 (O. T. 1992).
    Slagle v. Terrazas et al.
   D. C. W. D. Tex. Application for stay, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. 92-5939 (A-241).
    Demouchette v. Texas.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    September 23, 1992
    No. 92-5499.
    Marine v. Delaware.
   Sup. Ct. Del. Certio-rari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    September 28, 1992
    No. 92-139.
    Valley Farms et al. v. Shawmut Bank, N. A.
   Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    September 29, 1992
    No. 92-289.
    In re Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.
   Petition for writ of mandamus dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.


text:
    No. A-223 (92-5846).
    Harris v. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending the disposition by this Court of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certio-rari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.


text:
    September 30, 1992
    No. A-242 (O. T. 1992).
    Lopez v. Hale County, Texas, et al.
   D. C. N. D. Tex. Application for injunction and stay pending appeal, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    REYNOLDS v. INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR ATHLETIC FEDERATION et al.
    No. A-954.
    Decided June 20, 1992
   Justice Stevens,

Circuit Justice.

On June 19,1992, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio entered a preliminary injunction barring The Athletic Congress of the U. S. A:, Inc., and the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) from impeding or interfering with Harry L. Reynolds, Jr.’s, ability to compete in the 1992 United States Olympic Trials. Later that day, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an order staying the preliminary injunction. Mr. Reynolds has applied to me in my capacity as a Circuit Justice for a stay of the order of the Court of Appeals.

In my opinion, the IAAF’s threatened harm to third parties cannot dictate the proper disposition of applicant’s claim. The dispositive questions for me are, first, whether applicant •has established a probability of success on the merits, and second, whether the availability of a damages remedy precludes a finding of irreparable harm. With respect to the first, I find the District Court’s opinion persuasive. With respect to the second, a decent respect for the incomparable importance of winning a gold medal in the Olympic Games convinces me that a pecuniary award is not an adequate substitute for the intangible values for which the world’s greatest athletes compete.

Of course, I recognize that this ruling may not establish applicant’s right to compete in the Olympics at Barcelona, but that opportunity will presumably be foreclosed if he is not allowed to participate in the Olympic Trials. On the other hand, the harm, if any, to the IAAF can be fully cured by a fair and objective determination of the merits of the controversy. Indeed, applicant may fail to qualify, thus mooting the entire matter; if he does qualify, his eligibility can be reviewed before the final event in Barcelona.

The IAAF’s threat to enforce its eligibility decision — no matter how arbitrary or erroneous it may be — by punishing innocent third parties cannot be permitted to influence a fair and impartial adjudication of the merits of applicant’s claims.

The application for a stay is granted.


text:
    MARTIN v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS et al.
    No. 92-5584.
    Decided November 2, 1992

       Together with No. 92-5618, Martin v. McDermott et al., also on motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis.

   Per Curiam.

Pro se petitioner James L. Martin requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to our Rule 39.8. Martin is allowed until November 23, 1992, within which to pay the-docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petitions in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33. We also, direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certio-rari from Martin in noncriminal matters unless he pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.

Martin is a notorious abuser of this Court’s certiorari process. We first invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Martin in forma pauperis status last November. See Zatko v. California, 502 U. S. 16 (1991) (per curiam). At that time, we noted that Martin had filed 45 petitions in the past 10 years, and 15 in the preceding 2 years alone. Although Martin was granted in forma pauperis status to file these petitions, all of these petitions were denied without recorded dissent. In invoking Rule 39.8, we observed that Martin is “unique — not merely among those who seek to file informa pauperis, but also among those who have paid the required filing fees— because [he has] repeatedly made totally frivolous demands on the Court’s limited resources.” Id., at 18. Unfortunately, Martin has continued in his accustomed ways.

Since we first denied him in forma pauperis status last year, he has filed nine petitions for certiorari with this Court. We denied Martin leave to proceed informa pauperis under Rule 39.8 of this Court with respect to four of these petitions, and denied the remaining five petitions outright. Two additional petitions for certiorari are before us today, bringing the total number of petitions Martin has filed in the past year to 11. With the arguable exception of one of these petitions, see Martin v. Knox, 502 U. S. 999 (1991) (Stevens, J., joined by Blackmun, J., respecting denial of certiorari), all of Martin’s filings, including those before us today, have been demonstrably frivolous.

In Zatko, we warned that “[fjuture similar filings from [Martin] will merit additional measures.” 502 U. S., at 18. As we have recognized, “[e]very paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180, 184 (1989) (per curiam). Consideration of Martin’s repetitious and frivolous petitions for certiorari does not promote this end.

We have entered orders similar to the present one on two previous occasions to prevent pro se petitioners from filing repetitious and frivolous requests for extraordinary relief. See In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177 (1991) (per curiam); In re McDonald, supra. Although this case does not involve abuse of an extraordinary writ, but rather the writ of certiorari, Martin’s pattern of abuse has had a similarly deleterious effect on this Court’s “fair allocation of judicial resources.” See In re Sindram, supra, at 180. As a result, the same concerns which led us to enter the orders barring prospective filings in Sindram and McDonald require such action here.

We regret the necessity of taking this step, but Martin’s refusal to heed our earlier warning leaves us no choice. His abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal cases, and so we limit our sanction accordingly. The order will therefore not prevent Martin from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. But it will free this Court’s limited resources to consider the claims of those petitioners who have not abused our certiorari process.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Blackmun joins,

dissenting.

In my opinion the judicial resources of the Court could be used more effectively by simply denying Martin’s petitions than by drafting, entering, and policing the order the Court enters today. The theoretical administrative benefit the Court may derive from an order of this kind is far outweighed by the shadow it casts on the great tradition of open access that characterized the Court’s history prior to its unprecedented decisions in In re McDonald, 489 U. S. 180 (1989) (per curiam), and In re Sindram, 498 U. S. 177 (1991) (per curiam). I continue to adhere to the views expressed in the dissenting opinions filed in those cases, and in the dissenting opinion I filed in Zatko v. California, 502 U. S. 16, 18 (1991) (per curiam). See also Talamini v. Allstate Ins. Co., 470 U. S. 1067 (1985), appeal dism’d (Stevens, J., concurring).

         Martin v. Smith, post, p. 810; Martin v. Delaware, post, p. 810; Martin v. Sparks, post, p. 810; Martin v. Delaware, 505 U. S. 1203 (1992).

         Martin v. Delaware Law School of Widener Univ., Inc., post, p. 841; Martin v. Delaware, post, p. 886; Martin v. Knox, 502 U. S. 999 (1991); Martin v. Knox, 502 U. S. 1015 (1991); Martin v. Medical Center of Delaware, 502.U. S. 991 (1991).