(ORDER LIST: 531 U.S.)
MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2000
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuitfor further consideration in light of Santa FeIndependent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. ____ (2000).99-6775 BLUE, MARSTON E. V. UNITED STATES
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorariare granted. The judgment is vacated and the case isremanded to the United States Court of Appeals for theFourth Circuit for further consideration in light ofApprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. ____ (2000).99-7351 GIBSON, BERNARD V. UNITED STATES
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorariare granted. The judgment is vacated and the case isremanded to the United States Court of Appeals for theFourth Circuit for further consideration in light ofApprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. ____ (2000).99-8958 WIMS, JOHN C. V. UNITED STATES
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorariare granted. The judgment is vacated and the case isremanded to the United States Court of Appeals for theEleventh Circuit for further consideration in light ofApprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. ____ (2000).99-9902 BURTON, BOBBY J. V. UNITED STATES
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorariare granted. The judgment is vacated and the case isremanded to the United States Court of Appeals for theFifth Circuit for further consideration in light ofApprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. ____ (2000).99-9924 MARTIN, LESLIE D. V. CAIN, WARDEN
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorariare granted. The judgment is vacated and the case isremanded to the United States Court of Appeals for theFifth Circuit for further consideration in light ofTerry Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. ____ (2000).
The motions to direct the Clerk to file petitionsfor writs of certiorari out-of-time are denied.00M6 IN RE JAMES J. CLANCY
The motion to direct the Clerk to file a motionfor leave to intervene in No. 99-830, Stenberg v. Carhart,and other relief is denied.00M7 IN RE JAMES J. CLANCY
The motion for leave to file a declaration and otherrelief is denied.00M11 BUCHANAN, JASPER V. DOE, JOHN
The motion to direct the Clerk to file a petitionfor a writ of certiorari out-of-time under Rule 14.5 isdenied.00M13 SEALED PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES
The motion for leave to file a petition for a writof certiorari under seal with redacted copies for thepublic record is granted.00M15 D.S. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperiswithout an affidavit of indigency executed by petitioneris denied.126, ORIG. KANSAS V. NEBRASKA, ET AL.
The motion of Nebraska for leave to file firstamended answer, counterclaim and cross-claim is referredto the Special Master. The motion of the Special Master forallowance of fee and disbursements is granted and theSpecial Master is awarded a total of $111,631.38 to bepaid equally by Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado.98-942 FIORE, WILLIAM V. WHITE, WARDEN, ET AL.
The parties are invited to file supplementalbriefs addressing the opinion of the Supreme Courtof Pennnsylvania entered August 21, 2000. Thebrief of the respondents, not to exceed 25 pages, isto be filed with the Clerk and served upon petitioneron or before Monday, October 23, 2000. The brief of thepetitioner, not to exceed 25 pages, is to be filed withthe Clerk and served upon respondent on or before Monday,November 13, 2000. A reply brief, if any, not to exceed10 pages, is to be filed with the Clerk and served uponrespondents on or before Wednesday, November 22, 2000.99-1702 TEXAS V. COBB, RAYMOND L.
The motion for appointment of counsel is grantedand it is ordered that Roy E. Greenwood, Esquire, ofAustin, Texas, is appointed to serve as counsel for therespondent in this case.99-1996 J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, ET AL. V. PIONEER HI-BRED INTL.
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief inthis case expressing the views of the United States.Justice O'Connor took no part in the consideration ordecision of this order.99-8696 BUCHANAN, JASPER V. DOE, JOHN, ETC.
The motions of petitioners for reconsideration oforders denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis aredenied.99-9912 NEIL, BARBARA M. V. ALLSTATE INS. CO., ET AL.
The motions of petitioners for leave to proceedin forma pauperis are denied. Petitioners are alloweduntil October 23, 2000, within which to pay thedocketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submitpetitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rulesof this Court.99-10221 GRIER, KARLOS L., ET AL. V. HOOD, ROBERT A., WARDEN
The motion of petitioners to expedite considerationof the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.99-1720 WOODFORD, ACTING WARDEN V. ASHMUS, TROY A.99-1725 TENNESSEE V. BROWN, HOWARD99-1896 TERHUNE, DIR., CA DOC, ET AL. V. SHUAIBE, SHOMARI N.00-130 LUEBBERS, SUPT., POTOSI V. WHITE, LEAMON
The motions of respondents for leave to proceed informa pauperis are granted. The petitions for writs ofcertiorari are denied.99-1788 PFIZER, INC. V. TX PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS.
The motion of International PolicyholdersAssociation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiaeis granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari isdenied. Justice O'Connor took no part in theconsideration or decision of this motion and thispetition.99-1817 ) MCI TELECOMMUNS., ET AL. V. ACCESS TELECOM, INC.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.Justice O'Connor took no part in the consideration ordecision of these petitions.99-1852 SKLAROFF, ROBERT B. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ETC., ET AL.
The motion of Jon D. Fox for leave to file a briefas amicus curiae is denied. The motion of petitioner forsanctions is denied. The petition for a writ ofcertiorari is denied.99-1880 FREEMAN, GRAEME, ET AL. V. BURLINGTON BROADCASTERS
The motion of James Jeffords, et al., for leave tofile a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petitionfor a writ of certiorari is denied.99-1904 I&M RAIL LINK V. NORTHSTAR NAVIGATION, INC.
The motion of Association of American Railroads forleave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. Thepetition for a writ of certiorari is denied.99-1930 ALBERS, SCOTT A. V. SUP. CT. OF MT
The motion of Samuel Dash, et al., for leave to filea brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for awrit of certiorari is denied.99-1935 COLUMBUS-AMERICA DISCOVERY V. ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO.
The motion of respondents for leave to file certainlodgings under seal is granted. The motion of NationalTrust for Historic Preservation in the United States forleave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. Themotion of National Association of Academies of Sciencefor leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted.The motion of National Maritime Historical Society forleave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. Thepetition for a writ of certiorari is denied.99-1957 HAVANA CLUB HOLDING, ET AL. V. BACARDI & CO., LTD., ET AL.
The motion of French National Commitee of InternationalChamber of Commerce, et al., for leave to file a brief asamici curiae is granted. The motion of Organization forInternational Investment, et al., for leave to file abrief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for awrit of certiorari is denied.99-1967 FRANCOLINO, JOSEPH, ET AL. V. NEW YORK
The motion of National Association of CriminalDefense Lawyers, et al., for leave to file a brief asamici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ ofcertiorari is denied.99-1971 CALIFORNIA, ET AL. V. PARK, DON SOON
The motion of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation forleave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. Thepetition for a writ of certiorari is denied.99-2010 BOSWELL, JAMES D. vs. TX CHRISTIAN UNIV, ET AL.
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed asa veteran is granted. The petition for a writ ofcertiorari is denied.99-9417 KELLY, ANDREAS J. V. SMALL, WARDEN, ET AL,
The petition for a writ of certiorari beforejudgment is denied.99-9550 COTNER, ROBERT E. V. OKLAHOMA, ET AL.
The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed informa pauperis are denied, and the petitions for writsof certiorari are dismissed. See Rule 39.8.99-9633 BURGESS, RICHARD O. V. COOK, DIR., OR DOC
The motions of petitioners for leave to proceedin forma pauperis are denied, and the petitions forwrits are certiorari are dismissed. See Rule 39.8. Asthe petitioners have repeatedly abused this Court'sprocess, the Clerk is directed not to accept any furtherpetitions in noncriminal matters from petitioners unlessthe docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and thepetitions are submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. SeeMartin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals , 506U.S. 1 (1992) ( per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents.See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.99-9951 ALFORD, RICKEY L. V. USDC ND CA
The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration ordecision of these petitions.99-10242 GLINSEY, CURTIS V. UNITED STATES
The motion of petitioner to consolidate this casewith No. 99-1687, Bartnicki v. Vopper, and No. 99-1728,United States v. Vopper, is denied. The petition for awrit of certiorari is denied.00-50 R. E. W. vs. C. A. M., ET AL.
The motions of petitioners for leave to filepetitions for writs of certiorari under seal withredacted copies for the public record are granted. Thepetitions for writs of certiorari are denied.00-86 KERSTETTER, LINDA V. PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC CO.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration ordecision of these petitions.00-90 EXXON MOBIL CORP., ET AL. V. BAKER, GRANT, ET AL.
The motion of petitioners to defer consideration ofthe petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Thepetition for a writ of certiorari is denied.00-113 PIERSON, JOAN GODWIN V. WILSHIRE TERRACE CORP.(00A180)
The application for stay addressed to The ChiefJustice and referred to the Court is denied. Thepetition for a writ of certiorari is denied.00-124 PARTIDO ACCION CIVIL V. PUERTO RICO
The motion of Partido Laboral Union Social forleave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. Thepetition for a writ of certiorari is denied.00-186 TOPPS CO., INC. V. MI DEPT. OF TREASURY, ETC.
The motion of Gillette Company for leave to file abrief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for awrit of certiorari is denied.
The petition for a commom law writ of certiorariis denied.99-10160 IN RE THOMAS RETTIG
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis is denied, and the petition for a commonlaw writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
The petitions for writs of habeas corpus aredenied.99-10127 IN RE ROBERT E. COTNER
The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed informa pauperis are denied, and the petitions for writsof habeas corpus are dismissed. See Rule 39.8.00-5382 IN RE ANTHONY JOHN VENERI, JR.
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed informa pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As thepetitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process,the Clerk is directed not to accept any furtherpetitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unlessthe docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and thepetition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. SeeMartin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals , 506U.S. 1 (1992) ( per curiam). Justice Stevens dissents.See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.
The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied.99-2040 IN RE EILEEN VEY99-10188 IN RE BILLY GRISSO00-5344 IN RE JEFFERSON A. McGEE, ET AL.
The petitions for writs of mandamus and/orprohibition are denied.
The petitions for writs of prohibition are denied.
The petitions for rehearing are denied.99-8573 GONZALEZ, MONIKA V. ASKINS, JAMES, ET AL.
The motion for leave to file a petition forrehearing is denied.
Charles H. Jacobs, of Dubuque, Iowa, having beensuspended from the practice of law in this Court byorder of June 26, 2000; and a rule having been issuedand served upon him requiring him to show cause why heshould not be disbarred; and the time to file a responsehaving expired;It is ordered that Charles H. Jacobs is disbarredfrom the practice of law in this Court.D-2169 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF THOMAS MICHAEL BOOKER
Thomas Michael Booker, of Austin, Texas, havingbeen suspended from the practice of law in this Court byorder of June 26, 2000; and a rule having been issuedand served upon him requiring him to show cause why heshould not be disbarred; and the time to file a responsehaving expired;It is ordered that Thomas Michael Booker isdisbarred from the practice of law in this Court.D-2174 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF JOSEPH PAUL KIERPIEC
Joseph Paul Kierpiec, of Detroit, Michigan, havingbeen suspended from the practice of law in this Court byorder of June 26, 2000; and a rule having been issuedrequiring him to show cause why he should not bedisbarred;It is ordered that Joseph Paul Kierpiec isdisbarred from the practice of law in this Court.D-2182 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF LAWRENCE M. SANDS
Lawrence M. Sands, of New York, New York, havingbeen suspended from the practice of law in this Court byorder of August 7, 2000; and a rule having been issuedand served upon him requiring him to show cause why heshould not be disbarred; and the time to file a responsehaving expired;It is ordered that Lawrence M. Sands is disbarredfrom the practice of law in this Court.D-2183 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF EDWARD C. VINING, JR.
Edward C. Vining, Jr., of Miami, Florida, havingbeen suspended from the practice of law in this Court byorder of August 7, 2000; and a rule having been issuedand served upon him requiring him to show cause why heshould not be disbarred; and the time to file a responsehaving expired;It is ordered that Edward C. Vining, Jr., isdisbarred from the practice of law in this Court.D-2191 IN THE MATTER OF DAVID GARCIA
Due to mistaken identify, the order enteredAugust 28, 2000, is vacated and the Rule to ShowCause is discharged.D-2196 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF JAMES F. PINGEL, JR.
James F. Pingel, Jr., of Tampa, Florida, issuspended from the practice of law in this Court and arule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiringhim to show cause why he should not be disbarred fromthe practice of law in this Court.D-2197 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF JACK CHILINGIRIAN
Jack Chilingirian, of St. Clair Shores, Michigan,is suspended from the practice of law in this Court anda rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiringhim to show cause why he should not be disbarred fromthe practice of law in this Court.D-2198 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF RICHARD A. GRADDOCK
Richard A. Graddock, of West Palm Beach, Florida,is suspended from the practice of law in this Court anda rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiringhim to show cause why he should not be disbarred fromthe practice of law in this Court.D-2199 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF JOHN V. ADAMS, JR.
John V. Adams, Jr., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, issuspended from the practice of law in this Court and arule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiringhim to show cause why he should not be disbarred fromthe practice of law in this Court.D-2200 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF FRANKLIN FEIGENBAUM
Franklin Feigenbaum, of North Hills, California, issuspended from the practice of law in this Court and arule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiringhim to show cause why he should not be disbarred fromthe practice of law in this Court.D-2201 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF DOUGLASS EDWARD HUBERT
Douglass Edward Hubert, of Monterey, California, issuspended from the practice of law in this Court and arule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiringhim to show cause why he should not be disbarred fromthe practice of law in this Court.