text:
    No. 88-1151.
    Takahashi v. Livingston Union School District et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Motion of Asian Pacific American Coalition for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    No. 88-1157.
    Martin Marietta Corp. v. Pollard; and Pollard v. Martin Marietta Corp.
    No. 88-1338.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motions of American Corporate Counsel Association and American Bar Association for leave to file briefs as amici curiae in No. 88-1157 granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1324.
    Duckworth, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, et al. v. Dudley.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1345.
    Ricketts et al. v. Vaughan et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondents William John Cunningham and Bruce Foy Lowry for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


author: Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 88-6093.
    Hooks v. Ohio. Esparza v. Ohio. Hance v. Zant, Superintendent, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center at Jackson. Morrison v. Georgia. Karis v. California.
    No. 88-6318.
    No. 88-6562.
    No. 88-6577.
    No. 88-6626.
   Sup. Ct. Ohio; Sup. Ct. Ohio; Sup. Ct. Ga.; Sup. Ct. Ga.; and Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


author: Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 88-6438.
    Keenan v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan,

dissenting.

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

Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976) (Marshall J., dissenting), I would grant the petition for certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case. But even if I did not hold this view, I would still grant the petition. The record in this case strongly suggests that, in the words of the dissenting judge below, “certain remarks by the court during the penalty phase, superimposed upon an emotional episode that had already occurred in the jury room, had an improperly coercive effect upon the jury’s deliberations and improperly influenced the verdict.” 46 Cal. 3d 478, 545, 758 P. 2d 1081, 1124 (1988) (Kaufman, J., dissenting in part). I would therefore grant certiorari, both to ascertain whether petitioner was denied his right to an uncoerced verdict, and to clarify our standards for determining jury coercion, a subject discussed most recently in Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U. S. 231 (1988).

The penalty phase in question was described at length in the majority and partially dissenting opinions below, 46 Cal. 3d, at 527-544, 758 P. 2d, at 1112-1124 (majority opinion); id., at 545-550, 758 P. 2d, at 1124-1129 (Kaufman, J., dissenting in part), and so only a brief account is necessary here. During jury deliberations, only one juror held out: an elderly woman who refused to vote to impose the death penalty. After a day of deliberations, another juror rose out of his chair and verbally attacked her in a tirade that apparently included a death threat. Id., at 545, 758 P. 2d, at 1125. Crying and shaking, she left the jury room and went to a bathroom, where she vomited. In response, the foreman sent the judge notes indicating that there was one holdout against imposing the death penalty. Ibid.

The judge then recalled the jury. He told the jury that the court was required to investigate the jury’s “problem” by questioning the foreman and, perhaps, “‘the one or more jurors who may be having difficulty in reaching a verdict.’” Id., at 546, 758 P. 2d, at 1125. He added that, if necessary, he would determine whether or not “one or more of the jurors are refusing to adhere to the law and the evidence,” ibid, (emphasis omitted); he added that he had expected that the jury would have delivered a verdict by then. Id., at 546, 758 P. 2d, at 1126. The judge told the jurors that he was sending them home for the weekend so that they could search their consciences. He then recognized the foreman, who stated that the weekend release would be a “fine gesture,” and that “we should have a verdict come Monday.” Ibid. The judge responded: “Good. Well, I’m glad to hear you say that. I appreciate that.” Ibid. After only one hour of deliberations Monday morning, the jurors voted unanimously to impose the death penalty.

In Lowenfield, the Court observed that “[a]ny criminal defendant, and especially any capital defendant, being tried by a jury is entitled to the uncoerced verdict of that body.” 484 U. S., at 241. To determine if coercion has occurred, courts must “consider the supplemental charge given by the trial court ‘in its context and under all the circumstances.’” Id., at 237 (citation omitted). We held that the particular supplemental charges and jury polling at issue had not resulted in coercion, but that other instructions and comments might require a different conclusion. Id., at 241.

In my view, this case presents a far more compelling circumstance for finding jury coercion than did Lowenfield. As the dissenting judge below observed, the holdout juror, given her emotional condition, the verbal attack upon her, and the judge’s indication that he would have to investigate one or more jurors

“may well have interpreted these statements as meaning the court expected a verdict on Monday and that it wanted her personally to resolve any lingering doubts she may have had about the appropriateness of imposing the death penalty. It is also highly likely [she] believed that, by agreeing to the death verdict on Monday, she could avoid the threatened investigation by the court and the attorneys of the jury room incident and of her reluctance to vote for death.” 46 Cal. 3d, at 547-548, 758 P. 2d, at 1127.

The petitioner here was entitled to have the decision whether he “deserve[d] to live or die . . . made on scales that are not deliberately tipped toward death.” Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, 521-522, n. 20 (1968). Because the actions of the trial judge in this case raise serious doubts about whether the context and circumstances of the death sentence in this case were coercive, and thus whether the scales of justice were in equipoise when the time for that decision came, I would grant the petition for review. I dissent.


text:
    No. 87-764.
    Florida v. Riley, Roman v. Abrams, Attorney General of New York, Reardon et al. v. Miller, Judge, Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Camden County, et al., Harris et al. v. Israelite Bible Class, Inc., Schwarz v. City of Warwick, Rhode Island, et al., Ferdik v. Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

      No. 87-6031.
   488 U. S. 445;

489 U. S. 1052;

No. 88-894.

No. 88-925.

No. 88-936.

No. 88-6167.

488 U. S. 1031;

489 U. S. 1013;

489 U. S. 1013; and

489 U. S. 1026.

Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 88-1050.
    Applegate et vir v. California et al.,
   489 U. S. 1017.

Petition for rehearing and other relief denied.


text:
    April 7, 1989
    No. 88-493.
    University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
   C. A. 3d Cir. The order entered December 12, 1988 [488 U. S. 992], granting the petition for writ of certiorari is amended to read: “Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.” Case is removed from the calendar for argument on April 18, 1989, and will be argued during the October Term 1989.


text:
    April 17, 1989
    No. 88-1491.
    Rhinehart et al. v. Seattle Times et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Wash, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6255.
    Shaffer v. Department of Social Services.
   Appeal from Ct. Ap'p. Mich, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6630.
    Bonnie Marie H., a Minor v. Hannan et al.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist., dismissed for want of properly presented federal question.


text:
    No. 88-1366.
    Simmons et al. v. Perez.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Canton v. Harris, 489 U. S. 378 (1989).


text:
    No. 88-1395.
    Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, et al. v. Gutierrez.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of U. S. English Foundation, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to dismiss the appeal as moot. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).


text:
    (See also Nos. 88-6494 and 88-6497, ante, p. 89.)
    No.---.
    Stewart v. Corbin et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.


text:
    No. A-778 (88-6904).
    McDonald v. Yellow Cab Metro, Inc.
   Sup. Ct. Tenn. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Stevens and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-755.
    In re Disbarment of McKay.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 488 U. S. 1026.]


text:
    No. D-757.
    In re Disbarment of Sacco.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 488 U. S. 1026.]


text:
    No. D-763.
    In re Disbarment of Gridley.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 488 U. S. 1038.]


text:
    No. D-765.
    In re Disbarment of Douglas.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 488 U. S. 1039.]


text:
    No. D-776.
    In re Disbarment of Werner.
   It is ordered that Mark Eugene Werner II, of Baltimore, Md., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.


text:
    No. D-777.
    In re Disbarment of Cooper.
   It is ordered that Michael Cooper, of Arlington Heights, 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. D-778.
    In re Disbarment of Shultz.
   It is ordered that H. Barry Shultz, of Old Bridge, 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-779.
    In re Disbarment of Lampert.
   It is ordered that Irving B. Lampert, of New York, 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-780.
    In re Disbarment of Hayes.
   It is ordered that Thomas Michael Hayes, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo., 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-781.
    In re Disbarment of Black.
   It is ordered that Larry Thomas Black, of Telluride, 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. 87-6997.
    Carella v. California.
   App. Dept., Super. Ct. Cal., Los Angeles County. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 488 U. S. 940 and 964.] Motion of American Rental Association for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 88-124.
    Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 6.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 489 U. S. 1009.] Motion of Association for Union Democracy et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 88-309.
    Wyoming v. United States et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. [Certiorari granted, 488 U. S. 1040.] Motion of respondents Bradford Bath et al. for divided argument and for additional time for oral argument denied.


text:
    No. 88-429.
    Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice et al.; and Washington Legal Foundation v. United States Department of Justice et al.
    No. 88-494.
   D. C. D. C. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 488 U. S. 979.] Motion of People for the American Way Action Fund et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae, for divided argument, and for additional time for oral argument denied. Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.


text:
    No. 88-605.
    Webster, Attorney General of Missouri, et al. v. Reproductive Health Services et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 488 U. S. 1003.] Motion of Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney of Kings County, N. Y., for leave to join amici curiae brief of Massachusetts et al. granted.


text:
    No. 88-1031.
    Citibank, N. A. v. Trinh. Fernandez v. Fernandez. Citibank, N. A. v. Wells Fargo Asia Ltd. Montero v. Meyer et al.
    No. 88-1042.
    No. 88-1260.
    No. 88-6376.
   C. A. 6th Cir.;

Sup. Ct. Conn.;

C. A. 2d Cir.; and

C. A. 10th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 88-6352.
    Burkart v. Post-Browning, Inc.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed informa pauperis [489 U. S. 1064] or for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.


text:
    No. 88-1542.
    In re Barksdale; In re Green; and In re Walker.
    No. 88-6718.
    No. 88-6763.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 88-1374.
    Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 88-1000.
    New York v. Harris.
   Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-1353.
    United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-1198.
    Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Assn.; and Superior Court Trial Lawyers Assn. et al. v. Federal Trade Commission.
    No. 88-1393.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.


text:
    No. 88-1400.
    Franchise Tax Board of California et al. v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd. et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of Multistate Tax Commission for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    (See also Nos. 88-1491 and 88-6255, supra.)

    No. 87-1794.
    Tsao v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-1927.
    Knox et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-291.
    Zukas v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-868.
    Bringle et ux. v. Washington Department of Social and Health Services et al.
   Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1069.
    Regalado v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1094.
    Poinier, as Transferee of Halbach, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1177.
    Mustang Fuel Corp., fka Mustang Energy Corp. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1191.
    Vergara-Velez v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1210.
    Rivera v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1217.
    City of Fort Lauderdale et al. v. A. A. Profiles, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1223.
    Massachusetts et al. v. United States Department of Defense et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1239.
    Viola v. United States.
   Ct. Mil. App. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1358.
    Fuchs et al. v. Rural Electric Convenience Cooperative, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1360.
    United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Federal Insurance Co.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1361.
    Walls v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1362.
    McCall v. Dutton, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1363.
    Neyhard, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Neyhard v. State Farm Insurance Co.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1364.
    Averette et ux. v. Triple Creek Corp.
   Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1365.
    Fauver, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Corrections, et al. v. Ryan.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1371.
    Ellis et al. v. Consolidated Diesel Electric Corp. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1376.
    Musto et al. v. American General Corp. et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1384.
    Telum, Inc., et al. v. E. F. Hutton Credit Corp.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1392.
    Ugalde v. Georgia.
   Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1394.
    Stansel et al. v. American Security Bank, N. A.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1401.
    Angel et ux. v. Renn.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th

App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1402.
    Flayac v. Humrichouse et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1406.
    Intra Corp. et al. v. Hamar Laser Instruments, Inc.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1407.
    Dolenz v. Stuart Yacht Builders, Inc.
   C..A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1409.
    Walentas v. Lipper et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1411.
    Boyle v. United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1416.
    Barnthouse v. Barnthouse.
   Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1419.
    Lafferty v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. et al.
   Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1420.
    Erebia v. Chrysler Plastic Products Corp.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1421.
    Mondozzi v. Akron Board of Education.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1425.
    Township of Plymouth, Pennsylvania v. County of Montgomery, Pennsylvania.
   Pa. Commw. Ct. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1430.
    Union Asphalts & Roadoils, Inc., et al. v. Mo-Kan Teamsters Pension Fund et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1436.
    Fincher v. Finkbohner.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1440.
    Gajkowski et al. v. Highway Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 107.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1448.
    Salim v. District of Columbia.
   Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1452.
    Stich v. United States Bankruptcy Court et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1453.
    John E. Graham & Sons et al. v. Landry et ux.
   Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1459.
    Daigle v. Gulf States Utility Co.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1473.
    Bowline Construction Co. et al. v. Capco Pipe Co., Inc.
   Ct. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1499.
    Johnson v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1502.
    Enochs v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1509.
    Patton v. United States Railroad Retirement Board.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1511.
    Runnels, aka Davis, et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1516.
    Montemarano v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1538.
    Brennan v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1540.
    Rhone v. Frank, Postmaster General.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1556.
    Calvo v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6100.
    Villarrubia v. United States Postal Service et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6177.
    Gardner v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6265.
    Carlson et ux. v. County of Hennepin, Minnesota, et al.
   Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6294.
    Oliver et ux. v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, Macon, Mississippi.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6305.
    Warthen v. Baker et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6306.
    Warthen v. Dunsmore et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6333.
    Preston v. Odea, Warden.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6368.
    Vu Doc Guong v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6385.
    Evans v. Hathaway, Sheriff, Caddo Parish, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6387.
    Gooden v. Roberts.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6394.
    Rengifo, aka Castro v. United States; Gonzalez v. United States; and Gonzales v. United States.
    No. 88-6443.
    No. 88-6447.
   C. A. 1st Cir.

Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6418.
    Van Leeuwen et vir v. McCorkindale et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6435.
    Dickerson v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6477.
    Escobales v. Connecticut.
   App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6481.
    Nuttelman v. Stromsburg Bank et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6567.
    Ganey v. Barnett, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Institution at Maury, North Carolina, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6568.
    Ganey v. Garrison et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6570.
    Cruz v. Butler, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6572.
    Abner v. Escambia County School District, Pensacola, Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6578.
    Merkle v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6584.
    Jackson v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6586.
    Hicks v. Ohio.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6600.
    Hay v. McCotter et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6603.
    Scott v. Nebraska.
   Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6604.
    Humphrey v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6605.
    Campbell v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6610.
    Holt v. Tennessee.
   Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6614.
    Huss v. Iowa.
   Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6617.
    Burley v. Ford, Warden.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6619.
    Righter v. United States Stove Co. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6620.
    Young v. Patterson.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6621.
    Robinson v. Board of Bar Overseers et al.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6622.
    Muhammad v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6628.
    Clark v. Wharton, Superintendent, Men’s Correctional Institution at Hardwick, Georgia.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6629.
    Warren v. Nagle et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6653.
    Todd v. Dempsey, Acting Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6657.
    DuVall v. Texas Water Commission et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6659.
    Read v. Taylor et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6662.
    Armstrong v. Kincheloe, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6664.
    Jarvi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6668.
    Lance v. South Carolina Highway Patrolmen et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6669.
    Sellner v. Hudnall et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6670.
    Siers v. Freeman, Superintendent, State Correction Institution (and Diagnostic and Classification Center) at Camp Hill, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6671.
    Bonds v. Shillinger, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6673.
    Coleman v. Department of Agriculture et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6674.
    Allah v. New York.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6680.
    Funkhouser v. Mullins.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6685.
    Ives v. Kelley, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6686.
    Scott v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services of Florida.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6687.
    Steeley v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6688.
    Brown v. Hoke, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility at Napanoch, New York, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6689.
    Barker v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6690.
    York v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6691.
    Morris v. Chitwood.
   Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6692.
    Overstreet v. Trickey, Superintendent, Missouri Eastern Correctional Center, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6695.
    Sherrills v. Gray et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6696.
    Tyler et al. v. Black et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6697.
    Leal v. Coronado.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lucas County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6698.
    Brown v. Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6701.
    Lucas v. Arizona.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6702.
    Cunningham et ux. v. Cuyahoga Department of Human Services.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6706.
    Johnson v. District Court of Wyoming, First Judicial District.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6722.
    Everhart v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6731.
    Morgan v. Sullivan, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6745.
    Brawner-El v. Zimmerman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania, et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6746.
    Lawrence v. United States Railroad Retirement Board.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6753.
    Olan v. Rodriguez, Chairman, New York Board of Parole.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6766.
    Daley v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6767.
    Pollack v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6768.
    Jorge v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6774.
    Horton v. Whitworth, State Attorney.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6790.
    Franklin v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6795.
    Suarez et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6797.
    Manga v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6800.
    Adams v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6805.
    Clayton v. Crist, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6814.
    McIntosh v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6835.
    Roan Eagle, aka Blindman v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6836.
    Chambers v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6908.
    Chaney v. Rollins, Warden.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 87-6338.
    Moore v. Zant, Warden. Fleming v. Zant, Warden. Simon v. Tennessee. Bennett v. Virginia. Bryan v. Florida. Fisher v. Virginia. Sowell v. Ohio. Davis v. Alabama. Greer v. Ohio. Woodward v. Mississippi.
    No. 87-7052.
    No. 88-6038.
    No. 88-6349.
    No. 88-6496.
    No. 88-6624.
    No. 88-6656.
    No. 88-6665.
    No. 88-6667.
    No. 88-6675.
   C. A. 11th Cir.;

C. A. 11th Cir.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tenn.;

Sup. Ct. Va.;

Sup. Ct. Fla.;

Sup. Ct. Va.;

Sup. Ct. Ohio;

Sup. Ct. Ala.;

Sup. Ct. Ohio; and

Sup. Ct. Miss.

Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


author: Justice White,

text:
    No. 88-415.
    Pueblo of Acoma v. Padilla.
   Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.

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

Justice White,

dissenting.

Respondent Frank Padilla, a roofing consultant, filed suit in New Mexico state court alleging a breach of contract by petitioner Pueblo of Acoma, doing business as Sky City Contractors. Petitioner had hired respondent to supervise Sky City’s installation of roofs on two building projects located off the Acoma Indian Reservation. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that petitioner was not protected from suit by tribal sovereign immunity. 107 N. M. 174, 754 P. 2d 845 (1988). According to the New Mexico court, a State’s “exercise of jurisdiction over a sovereign Indian tribe for off-reservation conduct is solely a matter of comity.” Id., at 179, 754 P. 2d, at 850 (citing Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S. 410 (1979)). Because the State of New Mexico allows breach of contract actions to be brought against itself, the court reasoned, such actions were allowable against Indian tribes as well.

This decision conflicts with decisions of the Arizona courts applying tribal sovereign immunity to off-reservation activities. In Morgan v. Colorado River Indian Tribe, 103 Ariz. 425, 427-428, 443 P. 2d 421, 423-424 (1968), the Arizona Supreme Court held that the Colorado River Indian Tribe was immune from suit for an accident at the Blue Water Marina Park, a tribal enterprise located outside the boundaries of its reservation. The court did not treat the question as one of comity; indeed, the court noted that under identical circumstances the State of Arizona would be hable. Id., at 428, n. 1, 443 P. 2d, at 424, n. 1. See also S. Unique, Ltd. v. Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 138 Ariz. 378, 380-381, 674 P. 2d 1376, 1378-1379 (App. 1983) (breach of contract action arising out of business transaction initiated off reservation). The doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity, as applied by the Arizona courts, extends not only to an Indian tribe but also to a "subordinate economic organization” of the tribe. White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe v. Shelley, 107 Ariz. 4, 6-7, 480 P. 2d 654, 656-657 (1971); Smith Plumbing Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 149 Ariz. 524, 532, 720 P. 2d 499, 507, cert. denied, 479 U. S. 987 (1986). The New Mexico Supreme Court expressly recognized that Sky City Contractors was a subordinate economic organization of petitioner, 107 N. M., at 178, 754 P. 2d, at 849 (citing White Mountain Apache, supra), yet nevertheless held that it was not immune from suit.

An opportunity to resolve this conflict was presented by our grant of certiorari in Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Graham, 488 U. S. 816 (1988), although we ultimately decided the case on other grounds. In that case, two questions were before us: whether the case had been properly removed to federal court and whether tribal sovereign immunity barred an action to collect taxes “on commercial activities conducted by an Indian tribe on off-reservation lands.” We held that the case had not been properly removed, Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Graham, 489 U. S. 838 (1989) (per curiam), and as a result did not need to reach the sovereign immunity question. The- present case provides an opportunity to resolve the issue we did not reach in Graham and thereby to resolve the conflict among the state courts.

I would grant the petition for certiorari and resolve the question on which we previously granted certiorari but did not decide.


text:
    No. 88-535.
    Local Freight Drivers, Local 208, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Rozay’s Transfer.
   C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 88-992.
    Dallas County Commission et al. v. United States (two cases).
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of Samson Crum et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 88-1053.
    Association of the Bar of the City of New York v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-1056.
    Pennsylvania v. Waggoner.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-1147.
    Oklahoma v. Brooks, aka Amenshi, et al.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Motion of Muscogee (Creek) Nation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1347.
    Green v. Foley.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1378.
    McNeil et al. v. Springfield Park District.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1414.
    California v. Parwez.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6189.
    Ricks v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 87-121.
    Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al. v. Adams, Compoy, Warden v. Turner, Teague v. Lane, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, et al., Lindsey v. Smith, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Taylor v. Taylor, Stanton v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Harrison et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Wilmoth v. Virginia, Uberoi v. University of Colorado et al. Smith v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., et al., Edwards v. Black, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al., Hawley et al. v. United States, Sun v. United States, McCabe v. Dias et al., Teagler v. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, DePew v. Ohio, Green v. United States, Jones v. Illinois, Schultz et ux. v. Swanhorst et al., In re Theodoropoulos, Giles v. Garwood et al., Lowe v. King et al., Olive v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Brown v. Ohio,

      No. 87-889.
    No. 87-5259.
    No. 87-5617.
    No. 88-875.
    No. 88-895.
    No. 88-947.
   489 U. S. 401;

489 U. S. 1059;

489 U. S. 288;

489 U. S. 1059;

489 U. S. 1012;

489 U. S. 1001;

489 U. S. 1053;

No. 88-1115.

No. 88-1127.

No. 88-1134.

No. 88-5687.

No. 88-5802.

No. 88-5944.

No. 88-6040.

No. 88-6054.

No. 88-6059.

No. 88-6067.

No. 88-6079.

No. 88-6116.

No. 88-6227.

No. 88-6235.

No. 88-6249.

No. 88-6266.

No. 88-6325.

489 U. S. 1053;

489 U. S. 1019;

489 U. S. 1054;

489 U. S. 1059;

489 U. S. 1020;

489 U. S. 1022;

488 U. S. 1036;

489 U. S. 1022;

489 U. S. 1042;

489 U. S. 1023;

489 U. S. 1040;

489 U. S. 1024;

489 U. S. 1009;

489 U. S. 1030;

489 U. S. 1030;

489 U. S. 1031; and

489 U. S. 1040.

Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    April 24, 1989
    No. 88-1478.
    Corpus Christi Taxpayers Assn. et al. v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari dismissed as to petitioner Tom Hunt under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    No. 88-980.
    Eckles, dba Riverview Marina v. Oregon et al.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ore. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 87-750.
    Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Pampin Lopez, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Lopez de Pampin, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., ante, p. 122.


text:
    No. 88-6056.
    Perez v. Jones, Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Harris v. Reed, 489 U. S. 255 (1989).


text:
    No. 74, Orig.
    Georgia v. South Carolina.
   Second and Final Report of the Special Master received and ordered filed. Exceptions to the Report, with supporting briefs, may be filed by the parties within 45 days. Reply briefs to such Exceptions may be filed within 30 days. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 475 U. S. 1115.]


text:
    No. 88-309.
    Wyoming v. United States et al.
   Sup. Ct. Wyo. [Certiorari granted, 488 U. S. 1040.] Motion of respondents Shoshone Tribe and Northern Arapaho Tribe to strike brief of respondents Bradford Bath et al. denied.


text:
    No. 88-1480.
    Reves et al. v. Arthur Young & Co.
   C. A. 8th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.


text:
    No. 88-6732.
    Lashley et ux. v. First National Bank of Live Oak.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until May 15, 1989, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 88-1319.
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-1076.
    Preseault et ux. v. Interstate Commerce Commission et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of Pacific Legal Foundation and National Association of Reversionary Property Owners for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-1150.
    Missouri et al. v. Jenkins et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of National Taxpayers Union et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 2 presented by the petition. The parties are directed to brief also whether the petition for writ of certiorari is timely filed.


text:
    No. 88-1264.
    Saffle, Warden, et al. v. Parks.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-6546.
    Duro v. Reina, Chief of Police, Salt River Department of Public Safety, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-240.
    GAF Corp. v. Erich et al.
   Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-963.
    Culberson v. Veterans Administration.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1088.
    Rogers et al. v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1146.
    Nader et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1194.
    No. 88-1228.
    Clark et al. v. Jenkins, by her Friend, Agyei, et al.; and Jackson County, Missouri, et al. v. Jenkins, by her Friend, Agyei, et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1200.
    Lampert et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1252.
    Gurary et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1255.
    American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations et al. v. Love et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1284.
    Carpenters Local 608, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1295.
    Texas Employers’ Insurance Assn. v. Jackson.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1304.
    Union Carbide Corp. v. Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco (Villmar Dental Labs, Inc., et al., Real Parties in Interest).
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1305.
    Ashley Transfer & Storage Co., Inc., et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1354.
    Eaton Corp. v. PKL Cos., Inc.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1431.
    Marcos et al. v. Republic of the Philippines et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1435.
    Chandler’s Cove Inn, Ltd. v. Cedar Tide Corp.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1437.
    Thomas v. Board of Examiners, Chicago Public Schools, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1438.
    Schwartz, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Schwartz, et al. v. John Deere Co. et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1441.
    Fleming v. Levy et al.
   Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1444.
    Golin v. FMC Corp. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1460.
    Grohs v. Gold Bond Building Products.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1485.
    H. C. Elliott, Inc. v. Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1492.
    Crawford v. City of Macon, Georgia.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1498.
    Box Office, Inc., et al. v. Missouri.
   Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1508.
    Ross v. United States et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1519.
    Bergman v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1537.
    Mortensen v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1561.
    Di Bella v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1563.
    Quarles v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1585.
    Smith et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6080.
    Anderson v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill, 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6117.
    Ramirez-Sausedo v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6155.
    Curry v. Blankinship.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6356.
    Nuccio v. Butler, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6405.
    Mello v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6482.
    Smith v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6574.
    Crandall v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6579.
    Scull v. Florida.
   Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6678.
    Bonanno v. California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6700.
    Curry v. Blannock.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6713.
    Birdo v. McCotter et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6714.
    Hicks v. Florida.
   Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6717.
    McNeill v. Arizona Public Service Co.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6720.
    Sills v. Terry, Attorney General of Virginia.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6726.
    Asberry v. United States Postal Service et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6730.
    Hunter v. Savage, Records Manager, Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility.
   Dist. Ct. N. M., 3d Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6733.
    Aman v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6734.
    Adamo v. Hotel, Motel, Bartenders, Cooks & Restaurant Workers Union Local 24 et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6735.
    Casey v. Miles, Superintendent, Elmira Correctional Facility at Elmira, New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6738.
    Karriem v. District of Columbia.
   Ct. App.

D. C. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6743.
    Lynch v. Albertson Food Centers, Inc., et al.
   Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6744.
    Clark et al. v. Borg, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6747.
    Diggs v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6748.
    Davis v. Oklahoma.
   Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6750.
    Richards v. New York.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6752.
    Schuler v. Shillinger, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6754.
    Simmons v. Bessinger, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6759.
    Copas et ux. v. Cabinet for Human Resources et al.
   Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6786.
    Castillo-Sicairos v. United States Parole Commission.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6793.
    Wojtowicz v. Warner Brothers, Inc.
   App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6817.
    Tabachnik v. Murphy et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6819.
    Brown, aka Ali v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6832.
    Serrano v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6840.
    Baldwin v. Seabold, Warden.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6853.
    Alasad v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6858.
    Jones v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6866.
    Milnes v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1159.
    Arizona v. Bravo.
   Sup. Ct. Ariz. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed informa pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1249.
    Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.; and New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.
    No. 88-1250.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of Communications Satellite Corp. for leave to file a reply as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and these petitions.


text:
    No. 88-1302.
    Bohatch et vir v. Delhaes et al.
   Ct. App. Ohio, Lake County. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-1321.
    Navistar International Transportation Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-1427.
    International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers Pension Plan et al. v. Meagher.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of American Society of Pension Actuaries, American Society for Personnel Administration, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, and American Academy of Actuaries of the United States for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1447.
    Ward Petroleum Corp. et al. v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co., Successor by Merger and Acquisition to Inexco Oil Co., et al.
   Sup. Ct. Okla. Motion of National Association of Royalty Owners et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1450.
    Dura-Corp. v. Risi Stone Ltd. et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondents for attorney’s fees and expenses denied. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6448.
    Baron, aka Sonido v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 88-6728.
    Caro v. California.
   Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


author: Justice Marshall,

text:
    No. 88-6848.
    Laws v. Armontrout, Warden.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting), I would grant the petition for certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.

Even if I did not hold this view, I would still grant the petition and vacate petitioner’s death sentence, so that we might address petitioner’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial. After an extended hearing, the District Court granted petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus, ruling that petitioner had not received effective assistance of counsel, and a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The panel’s judgment, however, was overturned by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, over a strong dissenting opinion which three judges joined. 868 F. 2d 1377, 1394 (1988) (McMillian, J., dissenting, joined by Lay, C. J., and Heaney and Arnold, JJ.).

In my view, the behavior of petitioner’s attorney at the penalty phase was plainly deficient, depriving his client of “the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 687 (1984). The attorney offered literally no evidence in mitigation. This inaction cannot be explained by a dearth of potentially mitigating evidence. On the contrary, the attorney knew of, but failed to investigate, a number of facts about petitioner on which quite credible arguments in mitigation could have been made. Petitioner told his attorney, for example, that he had fought for this country in Vietnam and received an honorable discharge from the Army. 863 F. 2d, at 1396 (dissenting opinion). The attorney, however, failed to pursue this claim. Had he done so, he would have learned that petitioner had earned the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Good Conduct Medal. Id., at 1397.

The attorney also knew that many of the soldiers who served in the Vietnam conflict suffered severe emotional trauma afterwards, encountering problems of socialization and readjustment. In some cases, they have suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder so severe as to induce violent criminality, a fact recognized by Congress when it passed the Veterans Health Care Amendments of 1979, 38 U. S. C. §612 et seq. 863 F. 2d, at 1396-1397. The attorney failed, too, to explore this potential source of mitigating evidence, deciding after a sketchy telephone conversation with petitioner’s stepmother and after a brief conversation with his brother not to interview the family. Id., at 1395-1396. Had he done so, he would have learned that after his experience in Vietnam, petitioner “changed from a church-going young man who had never had any trouble with the law to a nervous and withdrawn loner constantly in trouble, in and out of prison.” Id., at 1397. The attorney also failed to explore petitioner’s postdischarge psychiatric records, documents which would have provided “even more evidence of [petitioner’s] personality change after his military service in Vietnam.” Ibid.

It is questionable, to say the least, whether under these facts counsel’s performance was indeed reasonable so as to satisfy the first prong of the two-pronged test for ineffective assistance set forth in Strickland. This conclusion is especially doubtful given that this is a capital case, posing the heaviest professional responsibility on counsel. Yet that is precisely what the en banc Court of Appeals held in this case. 868 F. 2d, at 1394. In my view, the decision below calls into question whether the Strickland test is to have any vitality at all. To establish that there are minimal thresholds below which counsel cannot go, I would grant the petition for certiorari.


text:
    No. 88-1101.
    Madison v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, Spisak v. Ohio, Clark v. Ohio, Robinson v. United States Department of Education, Robinson v. English Department of the University of Pennsylvania et al., Stewart v. Illinois, Crawford v. Georgia, Britz v. Illinois, Henderson v. Ohio, Davis-El v. Robinson, Brown v. Virginia, Brown v. Virginia, Martin v. Pennsylvania, Entelisano v. Felt,
    No. 88-5169.
    No. 88-5750.
    No. 88-5990.
    No. 88-6242.
    No. 88-6005.
    No. 88-6009.
    No. 88-6078.
    No. 88-6224.
    No. 88-6292.
    No. 88-6320.
    No. 88-6321.
    No. 88-6392.
    No. 88-6451.
   489 U. S. 1053;

489 U. S. 1071;

489 U. S. 1071;

489 U. S. 1048;

489 U. S. 1048;

489 U. S. 1072;

489 U. S. 1040;

489 U. S. 1044;

489 U. S. 1072;

489 U. S. 1057;

489 U. S. 1069;

489 U. S. 1069;

489 U. S. 1085; and

489 U. S. 1070.

Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 88-489.
    McKabney et ux. v. United States,
   488 U. S. 993.

Petition for rehearing denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-5700.
    Rosberg v. Jacob et al., 488 U. S. 984; and Hernandez v. United States, 489 U. S. 1027.
    No. 88-6178.
   Motions for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    May 1, 1989
    No. 88-773.
    Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P. A. v. Revenue Division of the Department of Taxation and Revenue of New Mexico.
   Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. M. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 88-1290.
    Benjamin et al. v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U. S. 794 (1989).


text:
    No.---.
    Kaestel v. Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, et al.
   Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Justice Blackmun dissents.


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


text:
    No. A-815 (88-7008).
    James v. Carlson, Warden.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Application for release, addressed to Justice Marshall and referred to the Court, denied.


text:
    No. D-742.
    In re Disbarment of Frederick.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 488 U. S. 963.]


text:
    No. D-769.
    In re Disbarment of Smith.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 489 U. S. 1004.]


text:
    No. D-770.
    In re Disbarment of Matthews.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 489 U. S. 1004.]


text:
    No. D-771.
    In re Disbarment of Biaggi.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 489 U. S. 1049.]


text:
    No. D-782.
    In re Disbarment of Ricks.
   It is ordered that Everett Emett Ricks, Jr., of Long Beach, 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-783.
    In re Disbarment of Paige.
   It is ordered that Richard R. Paige, 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-784.
    In re Disbarment of Lillback.
   It is ordered that Larry G. Lillback, of Mentor, 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. 65, Orig.
    Texas v. New Mexico.
   Motion of the River Master for approval of fees and expenses granted, and the River Master is awarded $7,168.53 for the period January 1 through March 31, 1989, to be paid equally by the parties. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 489 U. S. 1005.]


text:
    No. 87-1979.
    Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Schwalb et al.; and Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Goode.
    No. 88-127.
   Sup. Ct. Va. [Certiorari granted, 489 U. S. 1009.] Motion of Association of American Railroads et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted.


text:
    No. 88-124.
    Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 6.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 489 U. S. 1009.] Motion of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.


text:
    No. 88-449.
    Healy et al. v. The Beer Institute et al.; and Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of Connecticut, Inc. v. The Beer Institute et al.
    No. 88-513.
   C. A. 2d Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 488 U. S. 954.] Motion of appellants John F. Healy et al. for leave to file a supplemental brief after argument granted.


text:
    No. 88-764.
    Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin et al., 489 U. S. 1002.
   Motion of respondents to vacate taxing of costs denied.

Justice Blackmun would grant this motion.


text:
    No. 88-1213.
    Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon, et al. v. Smith et al.
   Sup. Ct. Ore. [Certiorari granted, 489 U. S. 1077.] Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 88-6589.
    In re Madden; and In re Walker.
    No. 88-6827.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 88-1569.
    Austin, Michigan Secretary of State, et al. v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce.
   Appeal from C. A. 6th Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted.


text:
    No. 88-1474.
    United States v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-1476.
    Carden et al. v. Arkoma Associates.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-1640.
    Michigan Citizens for an Independent Press et al. v. Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States, et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


text:
    No. 88-6677.
    Butler v. McKellar, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-234.
    Florida Power & Light Co. et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1142.
    Helba v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1285.
    Intermountain Rural Electric Assn. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1308.
    Valera v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1317.
    Churchill’s Super Markets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1318.
    Pennsylvania v. Stein.
   Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1346.
    Morella et al. v. Cooper/T. Smith, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1396.
    United Steelworkers of America, Local Union 7533 v. Dixie Electrical Manufacturing Co.
   Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1397.
    Telectronics, Inc., et al. v. United States et al.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1457.
    Owens v. Texaco Inc.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1468.
    Johnstone v. Amoco Oil Co.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1472.
    Fuller, Individually and as Provisional Tutrix of the Minor, Fuller v. United States Aircraft Insurance Group.
   Ct. App. La., 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1475.
    Johnson v. Alabama.
   Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1477.
    Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. Kansas.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1484.
    Hawaii v. Proko Industries, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari'denied.


text:
    No. 88-1488.
    City of Dallas v. Video International Productions, Inc., et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1490.
    Local Lodge D111 of the Cement, Lime, Gypsum & Allied Workers, Division of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO, et al. v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1494.
    Badalamenti v. Dunham’s, Inc., et al.
   C. A.

Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1495.
    Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System v. Higgins.
   Ct. App. Mo., Western Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1501.
    Eastman Kodak Co. v. Polaroid Corp.
   C. A.

Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1505.
    Brookens v. Wisconsin.
   Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1517.
    Dunning v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1521.
    Booth v. Arkansas.
   Ct. App. Ark. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1525.
    Loftice v. Colorado.
   Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1539.
    Baker et ux. v. Pierce, Executrix of the Estate of Baker, et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1544.
    Adams v. Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1606.
    Scopo v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1607.
    Clark County, Nevada v. Frank Briscoe Co., Inc.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1615.
    Gaensel v. United States.
   C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1625.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1641.
    Bodine v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6074.
    Muhammad, aka Metoyer v. White, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6458.
    Mitchell et al. v. Dutton et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6470.
    Juvenile Male v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6505.
    Colt v. United States Postal Service.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6513.
    Atherton v. Attorney General of the United States et al.
   C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6515.
    Brathwaite v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6660.
    Price v. United States Postal Service.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6693.
    Parker v. United States Postal Service et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6755.
    Lemons v. Cox et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6758.
    Cook v. Butler, Warden, et al.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6761.
    York v. Tate, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Institute.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6762.
    Mason v. Indiana.
   Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6764.
    Russell v. Malden State Bank.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6765.
    Tang-Forteleche v. United States; Calleja v. United States; and Calleja v. United States.
    No. 88-6779.
    No. 88-6893.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6770.
    Hohensee v. Smith et al.
   Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6772.
    Lyons v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6773.
    Barron v. Salt Lake City, Utah.
   Ct. App. Utah. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6776.
    Dortch v. Cohn, Superintendent, Indiana State Reformatory, et al.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6778.
    Andrades-Salinas et al. v. United States; and Crespo-Herrera v. United States.
    No. 88-6781.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6782.
    Tangwall v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6784.
    Mahlerwein v. Federal Land Bank of Louisville et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6787.
    White et al. v. Cleveland Board of Education et al.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6796.
    Quigley v. California.
   Super. Ct. Cal., Santa Cruz County. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6802.
    Stelten v. United States.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6803.
    Fowler v. Texas.
   Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6806.
    Brooks v. Illinois.
   App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6807.
    Reed v. Butler, Warden.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6818.
    Roose v. Cox et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6824.
    Ortega v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6829.
    Hall v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6842.
    Runderson v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6849.
    Richter v. New York et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6854.
    Gloster v. Kelly, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, et al.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6859.
    Gonzalez v. Department of the Navy.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6868.
    Drummond v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6871.
    Muhammad v. United States.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6878.
    Cuevas v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6880.
    Cooper v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6887.
    Dread v. United States.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6889.
    Frometa v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6894.
    Daroti-Lagos, aka Lagos-Daroti v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6900.
    Hoffman v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6902.
    Hunt v. United States.
   C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6905.
    Colon-Ortiz v. United States.
   C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6921.
    Curlee v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6923.
    Garrett v. United States.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6926.
    Finn v. United States.
   C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6933.
    Thomas v. United States.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-6939.
    Alvarez v. United States.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-1381.
    Robles v. Exxon Corp.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice White would grant certiorari.


text:
    No. 88-1399.
    Peabody Coal Co. v. Arizona et al.
   Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.

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


text:
    No. 88-1482.
    Oklahoma Corporation Commission v. ANR Pipeline Co. et al.
   C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of Public Service Company of Oklahoma et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.


text:
    No. 88-5804.
    Paulino v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

In August 1987, two police officers observed a car parked in a high-crime area of New York City. Seated in the front seat of the car was its owner and another occupant; petitioner was in the back seat. The officers approached the car and began to ask questions of the owner. As they did this, they saw petitioner lean over and appear to place an object on the floor. Fearful that the item might be a weapon, the officers ordered the men out of the car and searched its interior. The front and back seat areas were searched. When one officer lifted the rear floormat, he found a packet of currency there. He picked up the packet, removed a rubber band, and examined the bills closely. He observed that all the bills had the same serial number and concluded that they were counterfeit. Petitioner was arrested and charged with a counterfeiting offense.

The District Court granted petitioner’s motion to suppress the fruits of the search of the packet, but the Second Circuit reversed. 850 F. 2d 93 (1988). The panel majority agreed with petitioner that the officer, upon determining that the item beneath the floor mat was neither a weapon nor plainly contraband, “had no basis to take any further action.” Id., at 98. “[AJbsent either probable cause or self-evident contraband the search and seizure of these bills was unjustified,” the Court of Appeals concluded. ' Ibid. However, the Second Circuit nonetheless refused to suppress the evidence so obtained because it found that petitioner lacked a “reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched.” Ibid.

As I see it, the decision below was incorrect; it at least merits review here. The Fourth Amendment protects from unreasonable searches not only an individual’s home and person, but also his effects. Even granting that petitioner had no “expectation of privacy” in the back seat of the car, he had standing to object to the violation of his Fourth Amendment rights when an admittedly illegal search and seizure of his property was conducted. To conclude otherwise, as the Second Circuit did here, would suggest that when someone lays -a sheaf of papers down on a sales counter, or places a stack of documents on the bus seat beside him, or the like, the police may come along, pick up these items, and rifle through them — even if the officers lack probable cause or reasonable suspicion or any basis whatsoever for the search or seizure. None of our precedents reflects such an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment with respect to the right to resist the search and seizure of one’s possessions, even when those possessions are in public places.

In its decision below, the Court of Appeals relied on our prior rulings in Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U. S. 98 (1980); United States v. Salvucci, 448 U. S. 83 (1980); and Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128 (1978). These cases do support the notion that merely having a property right in a seized item does not give one standing to challenge the unlawful search of another person’s property to find that item. Salvucci, supra, at 91; Rawlings, supra, at 105-106. But this case is different from the cases on which the Second Circuit relied. In those cases, the aggrieved defendants sought to challenge the legality of searches of others’ private places, when those searches revealed contraband items belonging to the defendants. In this case, though, the officers opened and examined an item belonging to petitioner which, on its face, offered no justification for such an examination. This case is thus like the one we left open in Rakas, supra, at 142, n. 11.

We have noted repeatedly in the past that the Fourth Amendment “protects people, not places.” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351 (1967). Just because petitioner’s packet was in a place that was not private does not deprive him of a right to resist a search of that packet, any more than Chadwick was so deprived by his placement of his suitcase in a car which the police had no cause to search. See United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1 (1977); United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 812-813 (1982). Simply put, the Second Circuit confused petitioner’s lack of standing to challenge the search of another’s car for an item belonging to petitioner, with petitioner’s right to challenge the search of an item belonging to him that was found within the car.

Nor is the sweep of the ruling below limited by observing that petitioner could have preserved his privacy interest in the packet of bills if he had kept it on his person. Such a view suggests that the officers could not have taken petitioner’s wallet from his person and examined its contents but could have searched his briefcase if he had had one on the seat beside him. It also suggests that the police, without a warrant or probable cause, could search and seize a person’s briefcase checked in a public checkroom, or his luggage in a hotel lobby, or his personal effects in a public place. In none of these instances would such a person have standing to object to the officer’s being where he was, but to say that he may not object to the seizure of his effects is suspect and merits review here. Consequently, I dissent from the Court’s denial of review in this case.


author: Justice O’Connor,

text:
    No. 88-6120.
    Hambsch v. United States.
   C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Memorandum of Justice Stevens respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari.

There are times when it is important to emphasize the fact that an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits of any question presented by the petition. See Singleton v. Commissioner, 439 U. S. 940, 942 (1978) (Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari). In my opinion, this is such an occasion.

Justice O’Connor,

with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy join,

dissenting.

In this case, the Court of Appeals has misread a statute designed to protect the rights of a class of federal workers and misapplied our decision in United States v. Testan, 424 U. S. 392 (1976). The result is a jurisdictional ruling which even respondent here, the United States, does not defend. The Solicitor General has informed this Court that the United States views the jurisdictional holding of the Court of Appeals as plainly wrong and asks that its decision be vacated and remanded. See Brief for United States 6-7. Because the error is plain, and because it carries the clear potential of compounding itself in the Back Pay Act jurisprudence of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, I would grant the petition and summarily reverse the judgment below.

Petitioner, a former member of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division (USSSUD), was involved in a motorcycle accident while allegedly responding to a call for relief at 1310 L Street, N. W., in Washington, D. C., which is the headquarters of the Secret Service. As he and a fellow officer were passing through a private alley on motorcycles, an automobile exited from an underground garage and struck petitioner’s motorcycle, pinning Mm underneath his vehicle. Petitioner received immediate medical care, and later underwent corrective surgery for damage to his left knee. After the accident, in order to receive paid administrative leave, petitioner requested a determination that the accident occurred in the performance of his duties. Such a determination was critical to petitioner’s rights under 5 U. S. C. § 6324(a), which provides: “Sick leave may not be charged to the account of a member of the Metropolitan Police force or the Fire Department of the District of Columbia, the United States Park Police force, or the Executive Protective Service force for an absence due to injury or illness resulting from the performance of duty.” Pursuant to agency regulations, an investigation and subsequent review by the Administrative Review Board were conducted. The agency determined that under its regulations petitioner’s injury did not occur in “the performance of duty” due to the fact that he was in violation of local traffic regulations and USSSUD regulations at the time of the accident. Petitioner was thus denied administrative leave for the period of his convalescence, and after his sick leave vas exhausted, he was placed on leave without pay.

Petitioner subsequently brought this action in the United States Claims Court, seeking a determination that he was erroneously denied paid administrative leave by the agency and was thus entitled to an award of backpay for the period in question. Petitioner premised the Claims Court’s jurisdiction on that portion of the Tucker Act now codified at 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1), which provides generally that the United States Claims Court “shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded . . . upon . . . any Act of Congress.” The “Act of Congress” upon which petitioner relied was the Back Pay Act, 5 U. S. C. § 5596, which provides in pertinent part:

“(b)(1) An employee of an agency who ... is found by appropriate authority under applicable law, rule, regulation, or collective bargaining agreement, to have been affected by an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action which has resulted in the withdrawal or reduction of all or part of the pay, allowances, or differentials of the employee—
“(A) is entitled . . . [to] . . .
“(i) an amount equal to all or any part of the pay, allowances or differentials, as applicable, which the employee normally would have earned or received during the period if the personnel action had not occurred.”

In essence, petitioner claimed that 5 U. S. C. § 6324(a) was an “applicable law” within the meaning of the Back Pay Act and that the allegedly erroneous denial of his request for paid administrative leave was an “unwarranted personnel action” which entitled him to an award of lost wages against the United States. The Claims Court ruled against petitioner on the merits, finding that the agency’s decision that petitioner was not injured in the performance of his duties was supported by substantial evidence and not legally arbitrary or capricious. 12 Cl. Ct. 744 (1987).

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did not reach the merits of petitioner’s claims. 857 F. 2d 763 (1988). Instead that court ruled that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over this action. Relying on our decision in United States v. Testan, supra, the Court of Appeals held that “consent to suit against the United States for back pay must be ‘unequivocally expressed’ and . . . 5 U. S. C. §6324 does not express such consent.” 857 F. 2d, at 764. The Court of Appeals also relied on its earlier decision in Hambsch v. United States, 848 F. 2d 1228 (1988), where it stated: “[T]he parties often speak of section 6324 as if it requires that police officers be placed on administrative leave if injured in the performance of duty, yet the statute doesn’t say that. It says they must not be placed on sick leave. This implication from a negative may indicate an intent to create liability for back pay for violation, but it is hard to say that it does so ‘unequivocally.’” Id., at 1231. The Court of Appeals vacated the decision below and remanded to the Claims Court with instructions to dismiss petitioner’s complaint for want of jurisdiction. 857 F. 2d, at 765.

In United States v. Testan, we dealt with a claim by Government employees that they had erroneously been classified in a pay grade lower than those who did substantially identical work in the same agency. We held that neither the Classification Act, 5 U. S. C. §5101 et. seq., nor the Back Pay Act could trigger the Tucker Act jurisdiction of the former Court of Claims in the circumstances of that case. We noted that “the Back Pay Act, as its words so clearly indicate, was intended to grant a monetary cause of action only to those who were subjected to a reduction in their duly appointed emoluments or position.” 424 U. S., at 407. The plaintiffs in Testan were not such employees because they were not claiming a right “to receive only the salary of the position to which [they were] appointed”; rather they sought reclassification into a new position and pay grade. Thus Testan makes clear, and our subsequent cases have reaffirmed, that the Back Pay Act itself is an explicit consent to suit by the United States as to a claim by a federal employee that the pay or emoluments of his or her position have been wrongfully withheld in violation of an “applicable law, rule, regulation, or collective bargaining agreement.” See, e. g., United States v. Hopkins, 427 U. S. 123, 128 (1976) (“The Back Pay Act is the means by which appointed employees subjected to unjustified personnel action are given a cause of action against the United States”); accord, Bush v. Lucas, 462 U. S. 367, 385, n. 25 (1983); Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U. S. 879, 905-906, n. 42 (1988). It follows that the Court of Appeals erred in searching for an explicit waiver of immunity from suit in § 6324; that explicit waiver is found in the Back Pay Act itself. The Court of Appeals’ interpretation of Testan would render the Back Pay Act a nullity, for rarely if ever will an agency personnel regulation or collective bargaining agreement contain an express waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States. The proper inquiry is simply whether the employee alleges the violation of a statute, rule, or provision of a collective bargaining agreement which has resulted in the unlawful withholding of compensation to which he or she would otherwise be entitled.

There is little doubt that the violation of 5 U. S. C. § 6324 alleged by petitioner here is exactly the type of “unwarranted personnel action” addressed by the Back Pay Act. As the Claims Court put it: “In 5 U. S. C. §6324, Congress established a statutory right to administrative leave rather than sick leave to members of the USSSUD where an absence is due to an injury or illness resulting from the performance of duty.” 12 Cl. Ct., at 749. Section 6324 appears in Subchapter 2 of Chapter 63 of Title 5 which is entitled “Other Paid Leave” and stands in contradistinction to Subchapter 1 of Chapter 63 which covers “Annual and Sick Leave.” Moreover, the legislative history of §6324, which was originally enacted in 1964, indicates that Congress intended to prohibit the taxing of sick leave against USSSUD employees injured in the performance of their duties in order to make clear their entitlement to paid administrative leave. Congress expressed concern that such employees were often required to use annual leave or leave without pay for nonwork-related illnesses because they were obligated to expend their sick leave on job-related injuries. See H. R. Rep. No. 1220, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1964). Indeed, the Secretary of the Treasury, who is charged with promulgating regulations implementing §6324, understands that section to create an entitlement to administrative paid leave where it is determined that the injury occurred in the performance of the officer’s duties. See USSSUD Manual, chs. 2.7.22 and 2.7.23. Further, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has had occasion to interpret § 6324 as it applies to members of the District of Columbia Police and Fire Departments, likewise understands that section to require that employees injured in the performance of their duties be placed on administrative paid leave. See Brown v. Jefferson, 451 A. 2d 74, 75 (1982). The Court of Appeals’ contrary interpretation of § 6324 leads to incongruous results. It imputes to Congress an intent to deny to employees injured in the performance of their duties, and only such employees, the right to take sick leave. Thus, an employee injured at home would be entitled to expend available sick leave, while an employee injured in the performance of his or her duties would be prohibited by statute from taking such leave and thus would have to expend annual leave or go on leave without pay.

In my view, the jurisdictional holding of the Court of Appeals is quite clearly wrong, and as the Solicitor General points out, this jurisdictional error will preclude review in a rather large class of cases falling within its scope. Brief for United States 7. Moreover, the Court of Appeal’s misinterpretation of our decision in Testan threatens to do continuing damage as that court searches for explicit waivers of the sovereign immunity of the United States in agency personnel rules and collective bargaining agreements. For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case for further proceedings not inconsistent with the principles enunciated above. In this regard, I note that the Court of Appeals made passing reference to the possible applicability of our decision in United States v. Fausto, 484 U. S. 439 (1988), to petitioner’s claims. 857 F. 2d, at 764. Because the Court of Appeals did not rest its judgment on that ground, and because the Solicitor General explicitly disclaims any reliance on Fausto in this Court, see Brief for United States 4, n. 6, I express no opinion on this issue.


text:
    No. 88-6588.
    No. 88-6650.
    No. 88-6716.
    McDowell v. California. Purtell v. Texas.
    Nevius v. Sumner, Director, Nevada Department of Prisons, et al.
   Sup. Ct. Cal.;

Ct. Crim. App. Tex.; and

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 88-987.
    Hesse v. Board of Education of Township High School District No. 211, Cook County, Illinois, et al., Ainsworth v. State Bar of California, Sutherland v. United States Postal Service et al., Maurer v. Ohio, and In re McKnight,
    No. 88-1240.
    No. 88-1279.
    No. 88-6317.
    No. 88-6597.
   489 U. S. 1015;

489 U. S. 1081;

489 U. S. 1082;

489 U. S. 1072;

489 U. S. 1077.

Petitions for rehearing denied.


text:
    No. 88-232.
    Grossman v. United States,
   488 U. S. 1040.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis granted. Petition for rehearing denied.


author: Justice Brennan,

text:
    May 3, 1989
    No. 88-7140 (A-875).
    Adams v. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.
   C. A. 11th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan,

with whom Justice Marshall joins,

dissenting.

I

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227 (1976), I would grant the motion for a stay of execution and the petition for a writ of certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.

II

Even if I did not take this view, I would grant the petition to consider whether the sentencing procedure in this case violated the Eighth Amendment requirement that a convicted defendant have the opportunity to present any relevant mitigating evidence— not just statutory mitigating factors — at the sentencing hearing. Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U. S. 393 (1987). The Florida Supreme Court declined to find petitioner’s Hitchcock claim procedurally barred and addressed this claim on the merits. Adams v. State, 543 So. 2d 1244, 1247 (1989). Likewise, the District Court addressed the merits, determining that petitioner’s “is not a proper Hitchcock issue.” No. 89-67-Civ-Oc-16, p. 5 (MD Fla., May 3, 1989). Moreover, since Hitchcock was not decided until after petitioner had filed his second federal habeas petition, I detect no abuse of the writ in petitioner raising this claim now for the first time.

At the time petitioner was sentenced, Florida’s “standard jury instructions included a charge which had the effect of limiting the jury’s consideration to the statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances,” 543 So. 2d, at 1247, reflecting what may have been the general belief in the State, based upon decisions such as Cooper v. State, 336 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1976), that mitigating factors not specifically itemized in the statute, Fla. Stat. §921.141 (1975), were not to be taken into account in sentencing. Reasonably believing that state law prohibited a jury or court from considering nonstatutory factors at sentencing, a Florida lawyer might rationally have declined to divert resources from other aspects of case development into the investigation, development, and presentation of evidence of such factors. Indeed, two of petitioner’s counsel have filed affidavits to the effect that, operating on the basis of what they understood to be the law at the time, they did not pursue nonstatutory mitigating evidence because they did not believe it would be admissible. I would grant certiorari in this case to consider whether state-generated disincentives to the pursuit and presentation of mitigating evidence infected petitioner’s sentencing with constitutional error.

The trial judge in this case initially denied petitioner’s request for a sentencing instruction to the jury that they might consider nonstatutory mitigating factors. After the prosecutor’s closing argument at sentencing, however, the trial judge announced that he had changed his mind, and that because the prosecutor’s closing had listed statutory mitigating circumstances as the only mitigating factors the jury could consider, he would give the requested instruction that ‘“[t]he aggravating circumstances which you may consider are limited to those upon which I’ve just instructed you. However, there is no such limitation upon the mitigating factors you may consider.’” See 543 So. 2d, at 1247. This change of mind appears to have come too late to allow petitioner’s counsel to develop the mitigating evidence that the court’s prior ruling, and existing Florida law, had reasonably led them to believe would be inadmissible. A belated instruction to consider mitigating evidence cannot cure a defect the effect of which has been to ensure that there is little or no nonstatutory mitigating evidence for the jury or court to consider.


text:
    May 9, 1989
    No. 88-1456.
    Ippolito et al. v. WNS, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.


text:
    May 11, 1989
    No. A-881.
    Lankford v. Idaho.
   Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her 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:
    May 15, 1989
    No. 88-6811.
    Hesler v. Cabinet for Human Resources of Kentucky.
   Appeal from Ct. App. Ky. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.


text:
    No. 88-1208.
    Sandia Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Vernon Savings & Loan Assn.
   C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Coit Independence Joint Venture v. FSLIC, 489 U. S. 561 (1989).


text:
    No. 88-1300.
    Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Bohemian Savings & Loan Assn. v. Capozzi et al.
   C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of FSLIC v. Ticktin, ante, p. 82.


text:
    No.---.
    In re Cramblet.
   Motion for leave to file petition for common-law writ of habeas corpus and other relief denied.


text:
    No.---.
    In re Dean.
   Motion for an order to file petition for writ of habeas corpus and other relief denied.


text:
    No. D-750.
    In re Disbarment of Soucek.
   Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 488 U. S. 1000.]


text:
    No. D-785.
    In re Disbarment of Aronson.
   It is ordered that Mitchell David Aronson, 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-786.
    In re Disbarment of Ford.
   It is ordered that John J. Ford III, of San Francisco, 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-787.
    In re Disbarment of Prantil.
   It is ordered that Frank G. Prantil, of Fair Oaks, 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-788.
    In re Disbarment of Cates.
   It is ordered that Michael H. Cates, of Key West, Fla., be suspended from the prac-’ tice 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. 108, Orig.
    Nebraska v. Wyoming et al.
   Second interim motion of the Special Master for compensation and reimbursement of expenses granted, and the Special Master is awarded $94,801.10 to be paid 40% by Nebraska, 40% by Wyoming, and 20% by the United States. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 487 U. S. 1231.]


text:
    No. 88-124.
    Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 6.
   C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 489 U. S. 1009.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.


text:
    No. 88-1264.
    Saffle, Warden, et al. v. Parks.
   C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1034.] Motion for appointment of counsel granted, and it is ordered that Vivian O. Berger, Esq., of New York, N. Y., be appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.


text:
    No. 88-1353.
    United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
   C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1019.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.


text:
    No. 88-1374.
    Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California.
   Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. [Probable jurisdiction noted, ante, p. 1018.] Motion of appellee to limit questions presented for review denied.


text:
    No. 88-6896.
    Schaefer v. Transportation Media, Inc.
   C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until June 5, 1989, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 88-6966.
    Rita v. United States.
   C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pawperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until June 5, 1989, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

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


text:
    No. 88-1599.
    In re Vondersaar; In re Phillips; and In re Williams.
    No. 88-6826.
    No. 88-6971.
   Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.


text:
    No. 88-1609.
    In re Haynes.
   Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.


text:
    No. 88-1434.
    Dole, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. United Steelworkers of America et al.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.


text:
    No. 88-1512.
    Ferens et ux. v. John Deere Co.
   C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.