577

1 of 2
PRELIMINARY PRINT
Vol. 577 (Pp. 1–189; 801–1116)

Volume 577 U. S. - Part 1

Pages 1–189; 801–1116

OFFICIAL REPORTS
OF

THE SUPREME COURT

Beginning of Term
October 5, 2015, Through January 21, 2016
UNITED STATES REPORTS

CHRISTINE LUCHOK FALLON

reporter of decisions

NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the

bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, of
any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be
made before the bound volume goes to press.

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Publishing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402
Part 1
 J UST ICES
of the
S U P R EM E CO U RT
during the time of these reports

JOHN G. ROBERTS, Jr., Chief Justice.

ANTONIN SCALIA, Associate Justice.
ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, Associate Justice.
CLARENCE THOMAS, Associate Justice.
RUTH BADER GINSBURG, Associate Justice.
STEPHEN BREYER, Associate Justice.
SAMUEL A. ALITO, Jr., Associate Justice.
SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Associate Justice.
ELENA KAGAN, Associate Justice.
retired
JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Associate Justice.
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Associate Justice.
DAVID H. SOUTER, Associate Justice.

ofącers of the court

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General.
DONALD B. VERRILLI, Jr., Solicitor General.
SCOTT S. HARRIS, Clerk.
CHRISTINE LUCHOK FALLON, Reporter of
Decisions.
PAMELA TALKIN, Marshal.
LINDA S. MASLOW, Librarian.

i
 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Allotment of Justices
It is ordered that the following allotment be made of the Chief
Justice and Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits,
pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42, and that such
allotment be entered of record, effective September 28, 2010, viz.:
For the District of Columbia Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr.,
Chief Justice.
For the First Circuit, Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice.
For the Second Circuit, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate
Justice.
For the Third Circuit, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice.
For the Fourth Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.
For the Fifth Circuit, Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice.
For the Sixth Circuit, Elena Kagan, Associate Justice.
For the Seventh Circuit, Elena Kagan, Associate Justice.
For the Eighth Circuit, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice.
For the Ninth Circuit, Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice.
For the Tenth Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice.
For the Eleventh Circuit, Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice.
For the Federal Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.
September 28, 2010.

(For next previous allotment, see 561 U. S., p. vi.)

ii
 INDEX
(Vol. 577 U. S., Part 1)

AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTOR DETERMINATIONS.

See Constitutional Law.
ARBITRATION. See Federal Arbitration Act.
AUSTRIA. See Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.
BALLISTICS ANALYSIS. See Constitutional Law.
CALIFORNIA. See Pre-emption of State Law.
CAPITAL MURDER. See Constitutional Law.
CHOICE OF LAW. See Federal Arbitration Act.
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871. See Immunity from Suit.
CLASS ACTIONS. See Jurisdiction.
CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING. See Jurisdiction.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See also Jurisdiction.
Cruel and unusual punishment—Jury instructions—Mitigating cir-
cumstances—Reasonable-doubt standard—Severance of joint sentencing
proceedings.—Eighth Amendment does not require capital-sentencing
courts to instruct a jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved
beyond a reasonable doubt; nor did Constitution require severance of joint
sentencing proceedings for two brothers whose convictions arose out of a
single chain of events. Kansas v. Carr, p. 108.
Right to counsel—Effective assistance of counsel—Ballistics analy-
sis—Deficient performance.—Under this Court’s “rule of contemporary
assessment of counsel’s conduct,” Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U. S. 364,
372, Kulbicki’s counsel’s failure to unearth a 1991 report on a then-
uncontroversial mode of ballistics analysis, identify its methodological flaw,
and use that flaw against State’s expert witness did not constitute deficient
performance. Maryland v. Kulbicki, p. 1.
Right to jury trial—Capital murder—State sentencing scheme.—Flori-
da’s scheme, which requires a judge to find and weigh any aggravating
and mitigating circumstances independently of jury’s advisory sentence,
iii
iv INDEX

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Continued.
violates Sixth Amendment in light of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584.
Hurst v. Florida, p. 92.
CRIMINAL LAW. See Constitutional Law.
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. See Constitutional Law.
DEATH PENALTY. See Constitutional Law; Habeas Corpus.
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. See Constitutional Law.
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS. See Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974.
Third-party personal injury settlement—Reimbursement under plan’s
subrogation clause.—When a participant in an employee benefit plan gov-
erned by ERISA wholly dissipates a third-party personal injury settle-
ment on nontraceable assets, a plan fiduciary seeking reimbursement
under plan’s subrogation clause may not file suit under ERISA § 502(a)(3)
“to obtain . . . equitable relief ” by attaching participant’s general assets.
Montanile v. Board of Trustees of Nat. Elevator Industry Health Benefit
Plan, p. 136.
FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT.
Pre-emption of state appellate court interpretation—Arbitration
agreement choice of law provision.—Act pre-empts California Court of
Appeal’s interpretation of an arbitration agreement’s choice of law provi-
sion—that binding arbitration was unenforceable where parties intended
a pre-empted California law to govern—so state court must enforce agree-
ment. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, p. 47
FEDERAL COURTS. See Jurisdiction.
FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS. See Federal Arbitration Act.
FEES. See In Forma Pauperis.
FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES. See Employee Retirement In-
come Security Act of 1974.
FIRST AMENDMENT. See Jurisdiction.
FLORIDA. See Constitutional Law.
FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT OF 1976.
Injuries suffered boarding train—Commercial activity exception.—
Respondent’s federal suit against Austrian state-owned railway, which
arose from injuries she suffered while attempting to board a train in Aus-
 INDEX v

FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT OF 1976—Continued.

tria, was not “based upon” U. S. sale of a Eurail pass for purposes of
28 U. S. C. § 1605(a)(2)’s “commercial activity” exception to FSIA and is
therefore barred by sovereign immunity. OBB Personenverkehr AG v.
Sachs, p. 27.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law; Habeas

Corpus.

FOURTH AMENDMENT. See Immunity from Suit.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. See Jurisdiction.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS. See Jurisdiction.

HABEAS CORPUS.
Clearly established federal law—Death penalty—Juror exclusion.—
Sixth Circuit erred in overturning respondent’s death sentence on habeas
review, because Kentucky Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply
clearly established federal law in affirming trial court’s exclusion of a juror
who could not give sufficient assurance of neutrality or impartiality in
considering whether to impose death penalty. White v. Wheeler, p. 73.

IMMUNITY FROM SUIT. See also Foreign Sovereign Immunities

Act of 1976; Jurisdiction.
Qualified immunity—Police officer’s conduct.—Fifth Circuit erred in
denying qualified immunity to Trooper Mullenix, because existing prece-
dent does not clearly establish that he acted unreasonably when he shot
and killed a fleeing suspect in an attempt to disable suspect’s vehicle.
Mullenix v. Luna, p. 7.

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. See Constitutional

Law.

IN FORMA PAUPERIS.
Prisoner’s federal-court filing fees—Monthly installment payments.—
Where an in forma pauperis prisoner is required to pay federal-court
filing fees in more than one civil action, 28 U. S. C. § 1915(b)(2) calls for
simultaneous, not sequential, recoupment of multiple monthly installment
payments. Bruce v. Samuel, p. 82.

JURISDICTION.
Congressional redistricting plan—Right of political association—
Three-judge court.—Title 28 U. S. C. § 2284 entitles petitioners to make
their case—that Maryland’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan burdens
their First Amendment right of political association—before a three-judge
court. Shapiro v. McManus, p. 39.
vi INDEX

JURISDICTION—Continued.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act—Class action—Offer of judg-
ment—Immunity from suit.—Because an unaccepted settlement offer or
offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case, District Court retained
jurisdiction to adjudicate respondent’s complaint in this TCPA case; peti-
tioner’s status as a federal contractor does not entitle it to immunity from
suit under TCPA. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, p. 153.
JURY INSTRUCTIONS. See Constitutional Law.
JURY SELECTION. See Habeas Corpus.
JURY TRIAL RIGHT. See Constitutional Law.
KENTUCKY. See Habeas Corpus.
MARYLAND. See Constitutional Law; Jurisdiction.
MOOTNESS. See Jurisdiction.
PERSONAL INJURY LAWSUITS. See Foreign Sovereign Immuni-
ties Act of 1976.
POLICE CONDUCT. See Immunity from Suit.
POLITICAL ASSOCIATION. See Jurisdiction.
PRE-EMPTION. See Federal Arbitration Act.
PRISONERS. See In Forma Pauperis.
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. See Immunity from Suit.
RAILROADS. See Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.
REASONABLE-DOUBT STANDARD. See Constitutional Law.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL. See Constitutional Law.
RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL. See Constitutional Law.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. See Immunity from Suit.
SENTENCING. See Constitutional Law.
SIXTH AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law; Habeas Corpus.
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. See Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
of 1976.
TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT. See Jurisdiction.
TRIAL BY JURY. See Constitutional Law.
WAIVER OF FEES. See In Forma Pauperis.
 INDEX vii

WORDS AND PHRASES.

“[B]ased upon a commercial activity.” Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. § 1605(a)(2). OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs,
p. 27.
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED
(Vol. 577 U. S., Part 1)

Note: All undesignated references herein to the United States Code

are to the 2012 edition.
Cases reported before page 801 are those decided with opinions of the
Court or decisions per curiam. Cases reported on page 801 et seq. are
those in which orders were entered. The page numbers are the same as
they will be in the bound volume, thus making the permanent citations
available upon publication of this preliminary print.
An individual attorney whose name appears on a brief filed with the
Court will be listed in the United States Reports in connection with the
opinion in the case concerning which the document is filed if he or she is
a member of the Court's Bar at the time the case is argued.

Page
A. v. Louisiana Dept. of Children and Family Services . . . . . . . . . 874
Aamodt v. Landis & Setzler, P. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Abadie, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027
ABB Inc. v. Arizona Bd. of Regents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Abbott; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Abbott; Evenwel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Abbott; Nixon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839,998
Abbott v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Abbring v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Abby v. Perry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Abdulla v. Klosinski Overstreet, LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
Abdullah-Malik v. South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
Abney v. Court of Common Pleas of Pa., First Judicial Dist. . . . . 927
Abram v. Fulton County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826,1022
Abreu Aceves v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
Acevedo v. Capra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Aceves v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
Ackels v. Krause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Acosta v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Acosta-Febo v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026
Acosta-Juarez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Actavis plc, v. Schneiderman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002
ix
x TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Acuna v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916
Adame v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Adams; Cote v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Adams v. Ducart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840,1054
Adams v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Adams; Hardy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Adams v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Adams v. Mackie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Adams v. Rogers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
Adams v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Adams v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864,892,908,991,1091
Addai v. Braun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Addison; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Addison v. New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Adeyi v. McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Adigun v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Adkins v. McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Adkins; Parsons v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
Adkins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Adkins v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Adkins v. Wetzel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Adrien v. Wittenburg Univ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Adzhemyan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Aegon Companies Pension Plan; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061
Aetna Life Ins. Co.; Cook v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Agnew v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Aguilar v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Aguilar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
Aguilera v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Aguirre; Kansas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Aguirre v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Ahlers v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
AHRC Nassau; Augustus v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877,1023
Aikens; Palmer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Aikins v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Ai Le v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
Aircraft Check Services Co. v. Verizon Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Ajamian, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814
Ajilon Professional Staffing; Lampkin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Akbar v. Prison Emergency Response Team Officers . . . . . . . . . . 836
Akili, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Akina v. Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024,1100
Alabama; Brooks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115
Alabama; J. H. F. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xi

Page
Alabama; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Alabama; Joyce v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Alabama; Lane v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
Alabama; Martin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Alabama; McCary v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
Alabama; Murray v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Alabama; Nagel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Alabama; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Alabama Dept. of Human Resources; Ghee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Alabama Gas Corp. v. Gas Fitters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Alamilla Ramirez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Albanese v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Albritton v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Alcozer v. Pfister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
Aldaba; Pickens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972
Alders Maintenance Assn.; Dinh Ton That v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Alegria-Mera v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
Alejandro Diaz v. Biter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Alejandro-Montanez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Aleman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Aleman Triana v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Alexopoulos v. Gordon Hargrove and James, P. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Alfred v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927,1096
Alisuretove v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Al Jaber v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Allah v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Allaithi v. Rumsfeld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Allard v. Baldwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
Alldredge; Hines v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Allegheny County Bar Assn.; Coulter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817,1021
Allen; Beckham v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Allen v. Davey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839,1094
Allen v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Allen v. Florida Dept. of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Allen v. Goguen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Allen; Henry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Allen v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
Allen v. Keller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Allen v. McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Allen v. Pastrana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Allen v. Rolf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Allen v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925,1036,1058,1083
Allenbaugh, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951
Allen & Overy, LLP; Clark v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,1015
xii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Allergan plc v. Schneiderman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002
Allianz Seguros S. A.; Maxitrate Tratamento Termico e Controles v. 924
Allison; Garcia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094
Allison; Golson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
All Star Advertising Agency, Inc.; Felder’s Collision Parts, Inc. v. 816
Allvoice Developments US, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Alma; Creveling v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Al-Maliki v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Almanza v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Almanza Sanchez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Almeida v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Alonso Posas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Alonzo-Solis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Alps South, LLC v. Ohio Willow Wood Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Alston v. Kean Univ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989,1114
Alston v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907,1017
Alvarado v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Alvarado v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Alvarado-Aranda v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Alvarez v. Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Alvarez; Thompson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Alvarez-Alvarez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Alvert Music; DM Records, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Al-Yousif v. Trani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Amador-Huggins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Amaro, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
Amaya v. IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Amaya v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Amazon.com, Inc.; OIP Technologies, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
American Airlines, Inc.; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
American Airlines, Inc.; Overka v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla.; Lundahl v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. 1061
American Home Mortgage Servicing; Rodriguez v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
American Mortgage Network; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Americold Logistics, LLC v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
Amerijet Int’l, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters . . 985
A. M. G. v. Oregon Dept. of Human Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Amos v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Amrhein v. La Madeleine, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844,1022
Amridge Univ.; Kloth-Zanard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Anaya v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Anderson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937,952
Anderson v. First Jud. District Court of Nev., Carson City Cty. 852
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xiii

Page
Anderson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Anderson; Maki v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,983,1032
Anderson; Pamela B. Johnson Trust v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Anderson v. Rivard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Anderson v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833,1054
Anderson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816,905,907,925,965
Anderson; Wong v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969
Anderson Merchandisers LLC; Ash v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Andrade v. Ducart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Andrade-Rocha v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Andrade-Rodriguez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Andre v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Andrews; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Andrews v. Superior Court of Cal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Andrews v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947,1054
Andrews v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947,1054
Andy E. v. Doe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Angel Cuevas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Anghel v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Angio Dynamics, Inc.; Biolitec AG v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Anglin v. Ceres Gulf, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Angov v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Anguiano v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Anh Nguyet Tran v. Bank of N. Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Anonymous Physician; Perry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
An Thai Tu v. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Anthony v. Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Antolin v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Antomattei v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Antonio Gonzalez v. Holland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Antonio Montanez v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017
Antonio Parra v. Ryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
AOL Inc.; Interval Licensing LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
AOL Inc.; I/P Engine, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Apker; Henoud v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Apodaca v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Aponte v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Aponte-Ortiz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Aponte-Sobrado v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Aponte-Torres v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
Apotex Inc.; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Apotex Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 981
Apperson, Crump & Maxwell, PLC; Braxton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Apple American Group, LLC v. Salazar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
xiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Apple Inc.; MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Apple Inc.; NetAirus Technologies, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819,1021
Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Arrow Recycling Solutions, Inc. . . 974
Arafat v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Arakji v. Hess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
Aramburo-Moreno v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Aranda v. Dal-Tile Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846,1094
Arciba v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Arena; Carswell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Areso; CarMax Auto Superstores Cal., LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Argueta-Bonilla v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Argyris v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Arizona v. Ashton Co. Inc. Contractors & Engineers . . . . . . . . . . 913
Arizona; Burns v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
Arizona; De La Cruz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Arizona; Leteve v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Arizona; McBride v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Arizona; Roseberry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Arizona; Vera v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
Arizona; Waller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Arizona; Williamson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Arizona Bd. of Regents; ABB Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Arizona Dept. of Child Safety; Charlotte G. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Arizona Dept. of Child Safety; Rhett U. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System; Sherrill v. . . . . . 847
Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . 1001
Arizona Libertarian Party v. Reagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Arkansas; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Arkansas; Fudge v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Arkansas; McClinton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Arkansas; Ratchford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Arkansas; Swain v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Arkansas; Ward v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938,978
Armada; Raimondo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Armendariz Sandoval v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Armenta-Aguilar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Armstrong, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951
Armstrong v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Armstrong; Shirvell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
Arness v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953,1089
Arnold; Ranteesi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844,998,1070
Arnold v. Sessoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Arpaio; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xv

Page
Arpaio; Loudermilk v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 824
Arpaio v. Obama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1103
Arreola-Escalante v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 965
Arriaga v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 928
Arrow Recycling Solutions, Inc.; Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. 974
Arthrex, Inc. v. KFx Medical Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 985
Artus; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 978
Aruba Hotel & Spa; Childs v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 838
Arunachalam v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1068
Arzate v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 876
Arzola v. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1061
Asante v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 884
Asbury v. South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803,1004
Ash v. Anderson Merchandisers LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1063
Ashley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 897
Ashmore; Cook v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 851
Ashton Co. Inc. Contractors & Engineers; Arizona v. . . . . . . . .. 913
Askew v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992,1031
Aslanyan v. Obenland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,1005
Aspen Technology, Inc.; Tian v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1066
Asturias v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1052
Atkins; Sumpter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 882
Atkinson v. Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 822
Atlanta; Stansel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 822
Attebury; Preston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1074
Attorney General; Adame v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 825
Attorney General; Adams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1034
Attorney General; Allergan plc v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1002
Attorney General; Angov v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1102
Attorney General; Awoleye v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 943
Attorney General; Dauksh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1008
Attorney General; Duku v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 849
Attorney General; Franco-Bardales v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921,1009
Attorney General; Gonzalez-Isaguirre v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 871
Attorney General; Ho Kwan Wu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1067
Attorney General; Ido v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 829
Attorney General; Kimca v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1065
Attorney General; Kwan He Wu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1067
Attorney General; Kwan Ho Wu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1067
Attorney General; Leal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 811
Attorney General; Mangru v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 869
Attorney General; Mellouli v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950,1025
Attorney General; Menchu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1066
Attorney General; Mtoched v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1080
xvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Attorney General; Neil v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Attorney General; Oppedisano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Attorney General; Ortiz-Franco v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Attorney General; Padilla-Martinez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881
Attorney General; Perez-Aguilar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Attorney General; Platas-Hernandez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Attorney General; Ponce Silva v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Attorney General; Reyes-Garcia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Attorney General; Romero-Escobar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Attorney General; Shui-Hui Wei v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Attorney General; Thompson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Attorney General; Velazquez-Soberanes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Attorney General; Villalta v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878,1023
Attorney General; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Attorney General; Yi Hong Chen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Attorney General of Ala.; Frye v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Attorney General of Cal.; Center for Competitive Politics v. . . . . 975
Attorney General of Fla.; Marquez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Attorney General of Mo.; Flenoid v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Attorney General of Mont.; Marble v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Attorney General of Nev.; Deere v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870,1023
Attorney General of N. Y.; Ladeairous v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892,1024
Attorney General of Ore.; Holdner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
Attorney General of Pa.; Biros v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Attorney General of Pa.; Nelson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Attorney General of S. C.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm. v. . . . . . 1093
Augustus v. AHRC Nassau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877,1023
Aurora Loan Services, LLC; Nivia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. v. Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Auto Parts Mfg. Miss. Inc.; Noatex Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Avakian; Carrascal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
A. V. E. L. A., Inc. v. Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. . . . . . . . . 957
Avila v. Frauenheim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
Avila v. Hidalgo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Avila-Gonzalez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Aviles v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Aviles-Santiago v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
Awoleye v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Ayala Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Ayanbadejo v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Ayers, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Azania v. Neal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Aziz v. New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
B. v. S. T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xvii

Page
Babcock; Barrington v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Baca; Flowers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Baca v. New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Baca; Voss v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Baez-Martinez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002
Bagdis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871,1023
Bahash; Boca Raton Firefighters & Police Pension Fund v. . . . . . 956
Bahaudin v. Fanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Bailey v. Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Bailey v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Bailey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Baine v. Estes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
Bajat; Lavergne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Bakalik v. Quinn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Baker v. Iowa City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Baker; Microsoft Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
Baker; Sechrest v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Baker; Talley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Baker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900,947,1024,1094
Bal v. ITEX Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Bala v. Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation . . . . . . . . . 1009
Baldwin; Allard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
Baldwin v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Baldwin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Balfour v. Howes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Balice v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Balkamp Inc.; Butler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Ballesteros-Valverde v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Baloco v. Drummond Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Balsam v. Guadagno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Balsam v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932,1096
Bamdad v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872,1023
Bank Markazi v. Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004,1055
Bank of America; Clayton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Bank of America; Pongo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047
Bank of America Corp.; Schwab Money Market Fund v. . . . . . . . 818
Bank of America, N. A.; Castro Velasquez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Bank of America, N. A. v. Hackbart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
Bank of America, N. A.; Madura v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858,1023
Bank of America, N. A.; Rodriguez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Bank of N. Y.; Anh Nguyet Tran v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Bank of N. Y. Mellon; Anh Nguyet Tran v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Bank of N. Y. Mellon; Calderon-Cardona v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Bank of N. Y. Mellon; Cunda v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
xviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Bank of N. Y. Mellon; Gardner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Bank of N. Y. Mellon; Hindo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Bank of N. Y. Mellon; Retirement Bd. of Policemen’s Ann. Fund v. 1062
Bank of N. Y. Mellon; Senci v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875,1044
Banks v. Butler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Banks; Lattimore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Banks v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Banks v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936
Banks; Wolfe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Baptiste v. C & F Properties, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Baptiste v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Barahona-Sales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
Barber; LeBlanc v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Barber; Mines v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.; W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. . . . . 915
Bargo v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Barill v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Barkley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Barko v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Barksdale v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012,1096
Barnard v. Perez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Barnard; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Barnes; Franco Palomar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Barnes; Richards v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093
Barnes v. Ross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
Barnes v. Tumlinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Barnes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847,893
Barnett v. Crockett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Barnett v. Maye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043
Barnett v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091,1114
Barney v. Congoleum Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Barrera v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of Colo. . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Barrett; Kaprelian v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Barriner v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Barrington v. Babcock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Barron v. University of Mich. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Barron-Espinosa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
Barrow; Roberts v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Barry v. Diallo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829,1022
Barry; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Barstad v. Washington Dept. of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Barth v. McNeely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Barth v. Peabody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Bartholomew v. Muhammad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xix

Page
Bartley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1089
Bartow; Coleman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 927
Basey v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888,1024
Basilio v. Nassau County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 872
Bass v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 884
Bater, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1060
Bates v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 839
Bates v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1112
Batista; Clugston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930,1045
Baton; Heath v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 847
Battaglia v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1071
Battle v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 884
Batts v. Cooley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 888
Baugh v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 857
Baughman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 910
Bauman; Tucker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 832
Baumgartner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 815
Bautista v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 835
Bautista-Sanchez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1032
Bavaria, Germany; Schoeps v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1102
Baylor; Day-Petrano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 838
Baylor Health Care System; Hoffman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 818
Baylor Medical Center at Waxahachie; Hoffman v. . . . . . . . . . . .. 818
Bazargani v. Radel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 827
Bazemore v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 893
Bazinski v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 822
Beach v. Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1045
Beak; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961,1096
Beale v. Madigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 801
Bealer v. Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 905
Beard; Arriaga v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 928
Beard; Chokchai Krongkiet v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1071
Beard; Garcia Rubio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 843
Beard; Guadalupe Garcia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1015
Beard; Harper-Bey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 963
Beard; Hilbert v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1051
Beard; Madden v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 835
Beard; Nichols v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1084
Beard; Potts v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1050
Beard; Rodriguez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1075
Beard; Sanchez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 901
Beard; Solorzano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 895
Beard; Suong v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 857
Beard; Trung Quang Phan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 864
xx TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Beard; Walker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1015
Bearing Fund LP v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP . . . . . . . . . .. 976
Bear Valley Mut. Water Co. v. Jewell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1092
Beasley v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 960
Beasley v. Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1070
Beaulieu v. Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 845
Bechtel v. Sandel Avionics, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 958
Beck, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 951
Beck v. Edwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1102
Beckford v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1017
Beckham v. Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1107
Beckman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867,1008
Beckmann v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 876
Beckstrom v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1083
Beckwith; Rhodes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1089
Beelby v. Gidley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1107
Beeman v. BGI Creditors’ Liquidating Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 827
Begolli v. Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810,1006
Behrmann v. National Heritage Foundation, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 969
Bejarano v. Macomber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1058
Bektas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 966
Belcher v. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 893
Beling v. Ennis, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 960
Bell v. New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 988
Bell v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 852
Bell v. Perez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1075
Bell v. Persson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1017
Bell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965,1016
Bell v. Virginia Natural Gas, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 928
Bello-Urquiza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 966
Belniak v. Florida Highway Patrol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 826
Belt v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 910
Ben-Ari, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 814
Bender v. Obama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058,1093
Bender v. United States Parole Comm’n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 980
Benitez v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 942
Benjamin v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 850
Bennett; Cooper v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 940
Bennett v. Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1049
Bennett v. Peery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 855
Benton v. South Fork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 842
Beras, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 813
Bercovich v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1062
Berera v. Mesa Medical Group, PLLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 874
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxi

Page
Berger; Curry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962,1096
Bergh; Clay v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Bergh; Zavaleta v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Berghuis; Butler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Berghuis; Camp v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Berghuis; Cunningham v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Berghuis; Hamilton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Berghuis; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Berghuis; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Bergo v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Third App. Dist. . . . . . . . . . . 810,983
Beriont v. GTE Laboratories, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
Bernabe Gonzales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
Bernard v. Cain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Bernard v. Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
Bernard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Berndt v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
Bernier v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth App. Dist. . . . 925,1034,1106
Bernstein; Joseph v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Berrones-Vargas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
Berry v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949
Beshear; Foley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Best v. Holland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Betancourt Mendoza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
Betterman v. Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
Beukes v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Bevill v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017
Bey, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937,1005
Bey v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Bey v. Vega . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Beyle v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Beylund v. Levi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
BGI Creditors’ Liquidating Trust; Beeman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Bibbs v. Edenfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Bickell; Leach v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Biddle, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953
Bierley v. Sambroak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Biolitec AG v. Angio Dynamics, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Biosig Instruments, Inc.; Nautilus, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
Birch; Blankenship v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Birchfield v. North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
Birhanzl v. Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Birkett; Hardy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028
Biros v. Kane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Bischoff v. Gallo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918
xxii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Bishop; Chew v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Bishop; Kelly v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885,1044
Bistline v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Bistrika v. Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828,1022
Biter; Alejandro Diaz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Biter; Huy Trong Tran v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Biter; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Black Eagle Consulting, Inc.; LaFrieda v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Assn., Inc. v. Vilsack . . . . . . 822
Blackley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Blackman Plumbing Supply Co., Inc.; LaCertosa v. . . . . . . . . . 826,1022
Blackston; Rapelje v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019
Blackstone Advisory Partners LP; IDT Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
Blackwood v. Lindamood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Blades v. Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Blake; Ross v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
Blakely v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Blakes v. Foutch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Blanco GmbH + Co. KG; Laera v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Bland v. French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Blankenship v. Birch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Blick v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852,1022
Blond v. Graham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Blount v. Merit Systems Protection Bd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
Blow v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
Blue v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
Bluebonnet Trails Community Services; Graham v. . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Bluechristine99 v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098
Bluemel, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Board of County Comm’rs of Payne County; Doe v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1093
Board of Trustees, Elevator Indus. Health Plan; Montanile v. . . 136,949
Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala.; Pouyeh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Mass.; MedImmune, LLC v. . . . 1103
Boca Raton Firefighters & Police Pension Fund v. Bahash . . . . . 956
Boda v. South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Boddie v. Department of Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811
Bodum, Inc. v. Meyer Intellectual Properties Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Boehner; Rangel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FTC . . . . . . . . 953,1102
Boeing Co.; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093
Boeing Co.; McDonald v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Bogany v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834,1022
Bogle; Emery v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Bolden v. Doe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxiii

Page
Bolds v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989,1071
Bolds v. Cavazos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942,1054
Bolen; Hayes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
Bolen; Mitchell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
Bolin v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Bolin v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Bollinger v. Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Bolt v. Nooth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
Bolton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942,1096
Bomar v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Bond v. Department of Ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Bond v. Holder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Bondi; Marquez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Bonds v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
Bonilla v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984
Bonner v. Brighton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Bontrager v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Booker v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Booker v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
Booker; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Booker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Booker-El v. Neal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Boone, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060
Boone v. Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Boone v. Howerton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Boone v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890,1024
Booth, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812,1095
Borden; Chavis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Borough. See name of borough.
Boschini; Boswell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Bo’s Food Store; Hammonds v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044
Bosier v. Department of the Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Bost v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Boston Inspectional Services Dept.; Dickey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Boswell v. Boschini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Boswell v. Ector County Independent School Dist. Bd. of Trustees 943
Bouaphakeo; Tyson Foods, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Boughton; Boyd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Bouldin; Dietz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Boulware; Wannamaker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Bowden v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Bowden v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Bowers v. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Bowers v. Pollard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
xxiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Bowers v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895,932
Bowersox; Manning v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Bowersox; Young v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Bowling v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Bowring v. Raemisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
Box v. Capozza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Boyd v. Boughton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Boyd v. Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929,1096
Boyer; Health Grades, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Boyer v. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Boykin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909,1087
BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; Sealed Appellant v. . . . . . . . . 987
BP p. l. c.; Veracruz Mexico v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Bracken v. Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Bradden v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Bradley v. Sabree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874,998
Bradshaw; Savoie v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942,1096
Brady v. Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Brainerd v. Schlumberger Technology Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997
Bramage v. Discover Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927,1044
Brammer v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Bran v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Branch v. Dunbar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Branch v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Branch; LeBlanc v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Brandon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Brannon v. Stevenson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878,1023
Braun; Addai v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Brawley, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028
Braxton v. Apperson, Crump & Maxwell, PLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Bray v. Premo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
Brayboy v. Napel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888,1054
Brayboy v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
Brazelton; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Brazelton; McGinnis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
Brazelton; Nelson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,984
Breaux v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
Brelo; Pate v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Brennan; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949
Brewer v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983,1058
Bridges v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
Briese Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH; Langton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Brighton; Bonner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Brimm v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxv

Page
Brink v. Continental Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Brinkley; Hensley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Briscoe v. Wallace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Broadcast Music Inc.; DeGrate v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Broadnax v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Broadway v. Cain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Brock v. Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Brock v. Small . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Brodhead; Harr v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Broida, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951
Brookens v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Sup. Ct. of Pa. . . . . 869
Brooks v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1115
Brooks v. Dunn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116
Brooks v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Brooks v. Pierce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Brooks v. Raemisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Brost v. Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942,1096
Brown, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812,937,1024
Brown v. Burton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Brown v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Brown v. Cartledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Brown v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Brown v. Corrections Corp. of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Brown v. Florida Dept. of Children and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . 888,998
Brown; Ivy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988,1114
Brown v. Kleerekoper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Brown v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Brown v. Lower Brule Community Development Enterprise, LLC 1063
Brown v. Marriott Hotel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Brown v. McCausland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
Brown v. Office of Personnel Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Brown; Olson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Brown v. Perez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865,1095
Brown; Quicken Loans Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Brown; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Brown; Study v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Brown; Thompkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Brown v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847,
855,888,902,910,912,966,991,1038,1091,1097,1112
Brownback; Petrella v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Bruce v. Samuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Bruce v. South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Brumfiel v. U. S. Bank N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Brumfield v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
xxvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Bruno v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 910
Brunson v. Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883,1023
Brunson v. Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964,1114
Brutus v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 879
Bryant v. Meko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 843
Bryant v. South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1012
Bryant v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 913
Bryant; United States v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1048
Bryson; Reeves v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 977
Bryson; Terrell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1045
Buchwald; Langama v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 808
Buckeley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 993
Buckeye Valley High School; Rosebrough v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 816
Buckley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 993
Buck-Soltero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1085
Buford v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 826
Bughrara; Douglas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893,1024
Bughrara; Houston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893,1024
Building Industry Assn. of Wash. v. Utter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 820
Bui Phu Xuan, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 812
Bullard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 994
Bunnell; Tibbs v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 809
Bunthoen Roeung v. Uribe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 902
Burce v. Laughlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1071
Burda v. Burda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 846
Burda v. Korenman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 846
Burditt v. Leedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 822
Bureau of Prisons; Strouse v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 964
Burfeindt v. Postupack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 988
Burg v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 933
Burgess v. Holloway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 892
Burgos-Montes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1036
Burke v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1053
Burke v. Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 875
Burks v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 963
Burlington; Joseph v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 975
Burman v. Perdue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 915
Burnett v. Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1061
Burns v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 846
Burns v. Covenant Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1051
Burns v. Florida Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 872
Burns v. Rogers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 850
Burrows, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812,1054
Bursey v. McGowan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 881
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxvii

Page
Burt; Cardenas-Borbon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Burt; McGowan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Burt; Stricklen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Burt; Wagner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Burton; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Burton v. Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Burton v. South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Burton-Cahill; Castaneda v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Burwell; East Tex. Baptist Univ. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971,999,1097
Burwell; Geneva College v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971,999,1098
Burwell; Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. . . 971,999,1097
Burwell; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Wash. v. . . . . . . . . 971,998,1097
Burwell; Southern Nazarene Univ. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971,999,1098
Burwell; Zubik v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971,998,1097
Bush; Coleman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Bush; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Bush; McFadden v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Bush v. Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
Bush v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
Butler, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
Butler v. Balkamp Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Butler; Banks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Butler v. Berghuis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Butler; Makiel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Butler v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Butler; Thivel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Butler v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849,856,867,969,1038
Butler v. Whitten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Butters v. Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Buxton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933,1096
Byars; Martin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Byrd v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Byrd v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
C. v. Florida Dept. of Children and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Cabello v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Cable News Network; Chong Su Yi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Cabrera v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Cabrera Mejia v. Wal-Mart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900,1024
Cacace; Tesler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Cade v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Cahill v. Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Cain; Bernard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Cain; Broadway v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Cain; Drake v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
xxviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Cain; Foster v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Cain; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Cain; Lee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Cain; Luna v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Cain; Nelson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Cain; Parks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Cain; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Cain; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
Cain v. Woodfox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Caison v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927,1078
Calais v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Calderon v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Calderon-Cardona v. Bank of N. Y. Mellon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Caldwell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949
Calhoun v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
California; Abreu Aceves v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
California; Almanza v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
California; Alvarado v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
California; Antolin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
California; Asturias v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
California; Bolds v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989,1071
California; Booker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
California; Brammer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
California; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
California; Charles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
California; Clark v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
California; Cleveland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
California; Corrales v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841,1054
California; Cox v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
California; Davidson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
California; Dotson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
California; Edwards v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
California; Estrada v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
California; Firman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
California; George v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
California; Goursau v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
California; Greene v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
California; Herships v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
California; Hiramanek v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
California; Holdridge v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
California; Hurd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
California; Jeffery v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
California; Jost v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
California; Kopatz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxix

Page
California; Lefkovitch v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
California; Lopez Moreno v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
California; Magno Gana v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
California; Martin Trinidad v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
California; McNamara v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
California; Missud v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
California; Montoya v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
California; Moran v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
California; Mosley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
California; Ortega v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
California; Phillips v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
California; Pickens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
California; Piper v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
California; Ramirez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
California; Riley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
California; Robles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
California; Rojas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
California; Shapiro v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
California; Sierra v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
California; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
California; Soto v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
California; Spry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
California; Tittle v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
California; Villa v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
California Dump Truck Owners Assn. v. Nichols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
California State Water Resources Control Bd.; Conway v. . . . . . . 940
California Teachers Assn.; Friedrichs v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004
California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Bd.; Forward v. . . . . 840
Calix v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945
Callan Appraisal Inc.; Wynn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Calton v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Calvin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916
Camacho; Kelley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Camacho v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
Cameron v. Dolce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867,1023
Cameron; Edwards v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Cameron; Miller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Cameron; Peterson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Camick v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Camp v. Berghuis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Campbell, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060
Campbell v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Campbell v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919,1028
Campbell v. Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
xxx TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Campbell v. Nationstar Mortgage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Campbell v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Campbell v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Campbell; Raub v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Campbell; Teal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Campbell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Campbell Harrison & Dagley, L. L. P.; Hill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Campie v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Canadian Pacific Railway; Knoedler Mfrs., Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Canales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Cancel v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Cannon v. District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,981
Cannon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Cantero-Perez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Cantu v. Schmidt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Cantu-Moreno v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Cape; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Capital One, N. A.; Chong Su Yi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Capital One, N. A.; Wu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986,1095
Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Capozza; Box v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Capra; Acevedo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Capra; Seals v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Carabali-Diaz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Caracappa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868,916
Carbajal-Moreno v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Cardelle v. Wilmington Trust, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Cardenas v. Swarthout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Cardenas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945,1045
Cardenas-Borbon v. Burt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Cardenas-Bucio v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Carey v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Carey of Houston v. Henry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Caribbean Airlines Ltd.; Singh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Carius v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Carlson v. Dayton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983,1059
Carlson; Dixon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Carlton; Montague v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
CarMax Auto Superstores Cal., LLC v. Areso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Carmichael v. Estes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Carmichael v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Carmona v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Carpenter; Irick v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxxi

Page
Carpenter v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871,1044
Carr v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Carr; Kansas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Carr v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Carranza-Raudales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Carrascal v. Avakian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Carreon v. McDowell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Carrick v. Hutchinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Carrillo v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Carrillo v. Wenerowicz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Carrillo-Morones v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Carson v. Millus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Carswell v. Arena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Carter v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928,963
Carter; Evans v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Carter; French v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Carter v. Kefer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Carter v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961,1096
Carter; Milano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Carter; Olesen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Cartledge; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Cartledge; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903,1044
Cartledge; Lucas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Cartledge; Nash v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Cartledge; Reilly v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Cartledge; Riley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Cartledge; Tyson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Cartledge; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Casciola v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Cash; Griffith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Cashler; Cook v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Casias v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945
Cassady; Turner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Cassidy v. Ducart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Castaneda v. Burton-Cahill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Castaneda-Guardiola v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Castillo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994
Castleman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Castles v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Castro v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Castro-Davis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858,868
Castro Gomez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Castro-Gomez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Castro-Gutierrez v. Frauenheim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
xxxii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Castro Perez v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Castro Velasquez v. Bank of America, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Catron; Layne Energy, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Cauthen v. New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Cavazos; Bolds v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942,1054
Cavazos v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111
Cavazos; Sajor-Reeder v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Cavazos Vela v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Cavin v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Cazy v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
C&B Assn. Montgomery; Croskey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
CBS News Inc.; Moline v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Cean v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Ceballos; Cranford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Cedillo-Martinez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Ceglia v. Zuckerberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Cellco Partnership; Katz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Cendant Mortgage Corp.; Lightfoot v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004,1055
Central Intelligence Agency; Doal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Cephas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092
Ceraolo v. Citibank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Ceres Gulf, Inc.; Anglin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc.; Mullen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Cerna v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s, London; Jefferson v. . . . . . . . . . 1102
Cervantes-Carrillo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Cervantes Chavez v. Los Angeles County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Cesar Cardenas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945,1045
C & F Properties, LLC; Baptiste v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
C. G. v. Deborah Heart and Lung Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Chabot v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
Chacon-Arviso v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Chafe v. Florida Dept. of Children and Families . . . . . . . . 807,1003,1059
Chalmers v. Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830,1022
Chamberlain v. Chamberlain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Chamberlain v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
Chambliss v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907,1096
Champagnie v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969
Champion v. Holt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Chang Lim v. Terumo Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Chanley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Chantharath v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxxiii

Page
Chan-Vicente v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Chao Ho Lin v. Chi Chu Wu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Chappell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Chappelle v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Charles, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814
Charles v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Charlotte G. v. Arizona Dept. of Child Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Charlton v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Charnock v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Chase Bank USA, N. A.; Herbison v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Chatman; Foster v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Chatman; Fults v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
Chatman; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001
Chatman; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817,1021
Chatman; O’Kelley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Chatman; Reeves v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Chatman; Terrell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
Chatman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Chattanooga-Hamilton Cty. Hosp. v. United States ex rel. Whipple 873
Chavez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Chavez-Perez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945
Chavira Corona v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Chavis v. Borden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Chavoya v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Cheadle v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Cheek v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855,1044
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Chen v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Cherkovsky v. Delgado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870,1023
Chesapeake Energy Corp.; Food & Commercial Workers v. . . . . . 816
Chestang v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Chetirkin; Tompkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Chew v. Bishop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Chi v. Doe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Chibuko v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
Chicago; Bailey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Chicas-Guevara v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Chi Chu Wu; Chao Ho Lin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Chief Justice of Pa.; Rosario v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Ky.; Long v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Chi Giang Ho v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Childs v. Aruba Hotel & Spa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Childs v. Irvington Properties, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
xxxiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Chin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Chiprez; Freeman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Chitre; Pampattiwar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
CHMM, LLC; Freeman Marine Equipment, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1026
Choi v. Mabus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Choi v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
Choice Hotels International, Inc.; Grover v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Choiniere v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093
Chokchai Krongkiet v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Chomsky; Kinney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Chong Su Yi v. Cable News Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Chong Su Yi v. Capital One, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Chopane v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Christakis v. Jeanne D’Arc Credit Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Christenson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814,969
Christian v. 43d District Court of Mich. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Christian v. Plumley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
Christies, Inc.; Sam Francis Foundation v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Chuan Wang v. International Business Machines Corp. . . . . . . . . 914
Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. v. Eidos Display, LLC . . . . . . . . . 985
Chuol v. Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Churn v. Parkkila . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Ciacci v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
Cintron v. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Cipra v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Circuit Judge, Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Mo.; Watson v. 885
Citco Group Ltd.; Firefighters’ Retirement System v. . . . . . . . . . 1102
Citibank, N. A.; Ceraolo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Citibank, N. A.; Cruz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820,1097
CitiMortgage, Inc.; Diaz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
CitiMortgage, Inc.; Dolz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873,1097
CitiMortgage, Inc.; Kratz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
CitiMortgage, Inc.; Nunez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873,1095
CitiMortgage, Inc.; Silverthorne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
City. See also name of city.
City Univ. of N. Y., Brooklyn College; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . 903,1024
Cladek v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847,1022
Claiborne v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Clancy; Dix v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817,1021
Clark v. Allen & Overy, LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,1015
Clark v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
Clark v. Federal Labor Relations Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,1105
Clark v. Foxx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080,1086
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxxv

Page
Clark v. Kerestes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Clark; Kinney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944,1059
Clark v. Linares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Clark v. Olathe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Clark v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Clark v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851,976
Clark v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Clarke; Battle v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Clarke; Booker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
Clarke; Breaux v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
Clarke; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Clarke; Carter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928,963
Clarke; Crowell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Clarke; Goodman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Clarke; Hurd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
Clarke; Jenkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Clarke; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Clarke; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835,883,1094
Clarke; Legesse v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Clarke; Luis Cruz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Clarke; Munoz Rueda v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
Clarke; Ostrander v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
Clarke; Prieto v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919
Clarke; Supreme-El v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Clarke; Tribble v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Clarke; Turner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Clarke; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Clarke; Wood v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Claros v. Perez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Clay v. Bergh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Clay v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002,1100
Clay v. Zae Young Zeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Clayton v. Bank of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Clayton v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Cleaveland v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Cleaver v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Clemente v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Clements; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018
Cleveland v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Cleveland v. Stewart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Cleveland Bd. of Review v. Hillenmeyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Cleveland Bd. of Review v. Saturday . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Clinical & Support Options, Inc.; Guardia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
xxxvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Clugston v. Batista . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930,1045
Clum v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
CMH Homes, Inc.; McKinley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Coad v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
Coakley; Simpson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Cobb; Ross v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840,1114
Cochrun v. Dooley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Cockerham, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Codiga v. Uttecht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Coffman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Cogdell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Cohane v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Cole, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814
Cole v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900,989,1112
Cole; Whole Woman’s Health v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982
Colegrove; Jacobson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
Coleman v. Bartow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Coleman v. Bush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Coleman v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Coleman; Kaylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
Coleman v. Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Coleman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Coleman v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Coles v. National Labor Relations Bd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829,1022
Coley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
Collie v. South Carolina Comm’n on Lawyer Conduct . . . 953,1028,1059
Collier v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Collins v. Steele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Collins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906,935,1037,1112
Collins Inkjet Corp.; Eastman Kodak Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,981
Colon v. Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Colon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890,1087
Colondres v. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Colorado; Courville v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Colorado; Cumby v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
Colorado; Guevara v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Colorado; Harding v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Colorado; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Colorado; McCoy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
Colorado; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Colorado; Sylvester v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Colquitt v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
Columbia Univ. Medical Center; Leon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
Columbus; Pollard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxxvii

Page
Colvin; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Colvin; Elfadly v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Colvin; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Colvin; Harrison v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005
Colvin; Jordan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849,1094
Colvin; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Colvin; Scipio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Colvin v. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 981
Colvin; Watson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842,1054
Colvin; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Comcast Corp., LLC; Lan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005,1070
Commercial Research, LLC; Roup v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974,1069
Commissioner; Charlton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Commissioner; JT USA, LP v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Commissioner; Karagozian v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Commissioner; Lazniarz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Commissioner; Mabbett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974
Commissioner; Rogers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Commissioner; Ruhaak v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Commissioner; Ryskamp v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. See Commissioner.
Commissioner, Tex. Dept. Health Servs.; Whole Woman’s Health v. 982
Committee on Character and Fitness; Eisenstein v. . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n; Scott v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
ConAgra Foods, Inc.; Americold Logistics, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
Concord v. Northern New England Tel. Operations LLC . . . . . . . 1009
Congoleum Corp.; Barney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Congress v. Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Connecticut; Gonzalez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843,1022
Constance; Ranteesi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847,998
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Stoller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Content Extraction & Transmission v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. 914
Continental Ins. Co.; Brink v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Contorinis v. Securities and Exchange Comm’n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001
Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility; Russell v. . . . 976
Contreras; Hill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972,1059
Contreras; Los Angeles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Conway v. California State Water Resources Control Bd. . . . . . . 940
Conway v. Pfister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Cook v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Cook v. Ashmore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Cook; Brock v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Cook v. Cashler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Cook v. Muniz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
xxxviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Cook v. Sabatka-Rine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Cook v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856,906
Cook; Wilson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Cooke v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Cooley; Batts v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
Cooley; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Coon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
Cooper, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Cooper v. Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Cooper v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 1072
Cooper v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Cooper v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Cope v. Meko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Copeland v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Copeland v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
Copley Fund, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Comm’n . . . . . . . . 1104
Coppola v. O’Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
Cordova v. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Cordovano v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Corizon, LLC; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806,1005
Cornejo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Cornejo-Macias v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Cornelius v. Dykema Gossett PLLC Retirement Plan . . . . . . . . . 924
Cornell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Cornett v. Madden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Cornish v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
Corona v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Corona-Rosales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Corpcar Services Houston, Ltd. v. Henry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Corr v. Metropolitan Wash. Airports Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Corrales v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841,1054
Correa-Osorio v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Correctional Care Solutions Medical Advisor; Shaker v. . . . . . . . . 1106
Corrections Corp. of America; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Correll v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 948
Corrigan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
Cortes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Cortez-Guzman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Corzo Trucking Corp. v. West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Coskun v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
Costco Wholesale Corp.; Omega S. A. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971
Costilla v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Cote v. Adams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Cote; Fialdini v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xxxix

Page
Cotham v. Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Cotinola v. Gipson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
Cottillion; United Refining Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Cotton v. Russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Coulter v. Allegheny County Bar Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817,1021
Coulter v. Doerr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817,1021
Coulter v. Gale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817,1021
Coulter v. Lope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817,1021
Coulter v. Mahood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817,1021
Coulter v. Ramsden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817,1021
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Tyshkevich v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
County. See name of county.
Court of Appeal of Cal., First App. Dist.; Missud v. . . . . . . . . . . . 918
Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth App. Dist.; Bernier v. . . . 925,1034,1106
Court of Appeal of Cal., Second App. Dist.; Ortiz v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Court of Appeal of Cal., Third App. Dist.; Bergo v. . . . . . . . . . . 810,983
Court of Appeals. See also U. S. Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals of Tex., 11th Dist.; Morris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Court of Appeals of Tex., Fourth Dist.; Miles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Court of Common Pleas of Pa., First Judicial Dist.; Abney v. . . . . 927
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tex.; Norman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
Courville v. Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Couture v. Playdom, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Covenant Bank; Burns v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Coventry II Developers Diversified Realty; Garrett v. . . . . . . . . . 818
Cowan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Cowans; Hayes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Cowart v. Sherman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926,1096
Cowder v. Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Cowser-Griffin v. Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061
Cox, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005,1060
Cox v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Cox; Gonzalez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Cox; Ofeldt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Cox v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Cox v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Healy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
CPV Md., LLC v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Cranford v. Ceballos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Cranford v. Employees of Coalinga State Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Cranford v. Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Crawford; Croskey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Crawford v. Household Finance Corp. III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 948
Crawford v. Nooth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
xl TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Crayton v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896,1044
Crayton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Creamer v. Florida Comm’n on Offender Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
Creamer v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Creech; Rivera v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Creeden; Kusak v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Creighton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Crespin v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Creveling v. Alma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Crews v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Crider v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Crockett; Barnett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Crockett v. SEPTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Crockett v. Southeastern Pa. Transportation Authority . . . . . . . . 820
Crook v. Galaviz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Crosby v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Croskey v. C&B Assn. Montgomery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Croskey v. Crawford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Cross v. Fayram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Crowder v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Crowell v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Crowley; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990,1096
CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
Cruell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036,1088
Crump v. Montgomery County Ed. Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Crump v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Cruthirds v. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,985
Cruz v. Citibank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820,1097
Cruz v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Cruz; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Cruz v. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Cruz; Sarvis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Cruz-Granados v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Crystal Lake 960 Assn., Inc.; Israni v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983,989
Cuba; Jerez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Cuddy; Tobin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Cuevas-Medina v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Culberson v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Cullen v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Culp v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900
Culver v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Cumberbatch, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953
Cumby v. Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
Cummings v. Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xli

Page
Cummings-Avila v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110
Cunda v. Bank of N. Y. Mellon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Cunningham v. Berghuis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Cuong Phu Le v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098
Cupp v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893,1074
Curry v. Berger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962,1096
Curry v. Mansfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855,1023
Curry v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Curtin; Daniels v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Curtin; Hill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Curtis, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974
Curtis v. Sankary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Curts; Nestle Purina PetCare Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Cutler v. Department of Health & Human Servs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Cuyahoga County Dept. of Children & Family Servs.; Kovacic v. 823
Dabbs v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Dahl v. Dahl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
Dahlstrom; Sun-Times Media, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. v. Apotex Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Dale v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Dal-Tile Corp.; Aranda v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846,1094
Daly v. Gipson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
D’Amario v. Manhattan Housing Specialists, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
D’Amico v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Damon, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Dancel; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Daniels v. Curtin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Daniels; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863,864
Daniels v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Danihel v. Office of the President of the U. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Dansby v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Danske Bank; Lipin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
D’Antignac v. Deere & Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
D’Antignac v. John Deere Commercial Products, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Dantone, Inc. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Dan Wilson Homes Inc.; Hunn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Darden v. Pastrana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Dauksh v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Dauphanus; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012,1114
Davenport v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Davey; Allen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839,1094
Davey; Jordan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Davey; Secrest v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
xlii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Davey; Stamos v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834,1022
Davey; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
David; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Davidson v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Davies v. Waterstone Capital Management, L. P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Davila v. Haynes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Davis v. Abbott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Davis v. Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Davis v. Boeing Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093
Davis v. Colvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Davis v. District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Davis v. Maryland State Dept. of Ed. Office of Child Care . . . . . . 1018
Davis v. Stevenson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
Davis v. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Davis v. Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Davis v. United States . . . . . . . 847,858,883,887,916,930,945,965,975,1110
Davis v. U. S. Bank N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Dawson v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Dawson v. Premo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Dawson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,901
Day-Petrano v. Baylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Dayton; Carlson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983,1059
Dayton; Galluzzo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
Dean v. Porsche Automobil Holdings SE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828,1022
Debolt v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044
Deborah Heart and Lung Center; C. G. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Debrow, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
DeCarlo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
DeCaro v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
Decker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Deere v. Laxalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870,1023
Deere & Co.; D’Antignac v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Deese v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
DeFazio v. Hollister, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923,1044
Degennaro; Horton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
DeGrate v. Broadcast Music Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
DeHenre v. Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
De Jesus Martinez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
De La Cruz v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
De La Cruz-Feliciano v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
De La Cruz-Gutierrez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
De La Cruz-Quintana v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
De La Cruz Sepulveda-Gaytan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
De La Garza-Garza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xliii

Page
Delaney v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
De La Paz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
De La Rosa-Soto v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Delaware; Epperson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
Delaware; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Delaware & Hudson R. Co., Inc.; Knoedler Mfrs., Inc. v. . . . . . . . 818
Delgadillo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Delgado; Cherkovsky v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870,1023
Delgado v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854,867
Delgado Rodriguez v. Wofford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Dellosantos v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Delray Beach; Moody v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928,1045
Delrio, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061
De Luca; Valencia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Denbo; UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Denewiler v. Swarthout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Denham; Gregory v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
Denney; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Dennis, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
DeNoma v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Denson v. Shepard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Dent v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
Department of Army; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,1069
Department of Defense; Leonard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Department of Ed.; Bond v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Department of Ed.; Greene v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Department of Ed.; Nesselrode v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,998
Department of Ed.; Pilger v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Department of Ed.; Ward v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Department of HHS; Cutler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Department of HHS; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Department of HHS; New Hampshire Right to Life v. . . . . . . . . . 994
Department of HHS; Priests for Life v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971,998,1097
Department of HHS; Sissel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Department of Homeland Security; Electronic Privacy Info. Ctr. v. 1062
Department of Homeland Security; Urosevic v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Department of Industrial Relations; Liu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,987
Department of Justice; Jolley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Department of Labor; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990,1097
Department of Labor; Kirschenbaum v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Department of Treasury; Boddie v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811
Department of Treasury; Bosier v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Department of Treasury; Reedom v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Department of Veterans Affairs; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,984
xliv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Deppenbrook v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,987
De Ritis v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review . . . . . . . 821
Derringer v. Derringer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
DeShields v. Kerestes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
DeSue v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950
Detroit East Community Mental Health; White v. . . . . . . . . . . 984,1069
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co.; Blick v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852,1022
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co.; Carrillo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co.; Echeverry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957,1095
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co.; Un v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
DeVaughn v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
Devlin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
DeWilliams v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920
Diallo; Barry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829,1022
Dias v. Peery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Diaz v. Biter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Diaz v. CitiMortgage, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Diaz; Fuentes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
Diaz v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Diaz v. Kerestes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Diaz v. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Diaz v. Quintana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Diaz v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Diaz v. Unger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Diaz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938,1036
Diaz-Agramonte v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Diaz-Arroyo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Diaz-Colon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Diaz Herrera v. Stansell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Diaz-Rodriguez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
Diaz-Soto v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Dickerson v. United Way of New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829,1053
Dickey v. Boston Inspectional Services Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Dicks v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945
Diehl v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890,1024
Dietz v. Bouldin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Dignity Health; Hernandez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984,1058
Dilbert v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
D’Ilio; Taccetta v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Dillon v. Dooley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Dillon County Detention Center; Walls v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Dinh Ton That v. Alders Maintenance Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Dinwiddie v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs; Cooper v. . . . . . . . 1072
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xlv

Page
Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs; Peabody Coal Co. v. 816
Director of penal or correctional institution. See name or title
of director.
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
DIRECTV, LLC v. Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue . . . . . . . . . . 954
Dische v. Preyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court of N. M.; Dixon v. . . . . . . 1104
Discover Bank; Bramage v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927,1044
District Court. See U. S. District Court.
District Judge. See U. S. District Judge.
District of Columbia; Cannon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,981
District of Columbia; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
District of Columbia; Monroe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
District of Columbia Office of Bar Counsel; Yelverton v. . . . . . . . 877
Division of Youth and Family Services; Fluker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950
Dix v. Clancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817,1021
Dixon, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813,814,815
Dixon v. Carlson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Dixon v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court of N. M. . . . . . . . 1104
Dixon v. McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Dixon v. 24th District Court of La. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984,1100
Dixon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911,965,967,983
D’llio; Soto v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
DM Records, Inc. v. Alvert Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
DM Records, Inc. v. Isbell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Doal v. Central Intelligence Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Dobek v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Dodson; Olibas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Doe; Andy E. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Doe v. Board of County Comm’rs of Payne County . . . . . . . . . . . 1093
Doe; Bolden v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Doe; Chi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Doe; Nestle U. S. A., Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Doe v. Rosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Doe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Doering; McRae v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Doerr; Coulter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Dohman; Scheffler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Dohou v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Dolan v. Penn Millers Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Dolce; Cameron v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867,1023
Doleman v. Neven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians . . . 973
xlvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Dolz v. CitiMortgage, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873,1097
Dominguez-Garcia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829,888
Dominguez-Valencia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994
Donahue v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Donahue v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Donelson v. Pfister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Donofrio v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Donohue, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952,1100
Don Quijote (USA) Co. Ltd.; Mizukami v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Dooley; Cochrun v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Dooley; Dillon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Dooley; Litschewski v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Dooley v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Doran, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952
Dorsey v. Tennille . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Dortch v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Dorward v. Macy’s, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
Dotson v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Dotson v. Kiser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Dotson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Doucet; Meche v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Dougherty v. Philadelphia Newspapers LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Dougherty v. Pruett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838,1044
Dougherty v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838,1044
Douglas v. Bughrara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893,1024
Douglas v. Dunlap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Douglas v. Goodwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Douglas v. Janda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Douglas v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Douglas v. Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Dowell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Downs v. Van Orden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Draeger Safety Diagnostics, Inc.; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Draganov v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Drake v. Cain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Drayton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Drew v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831,856
Driskill v. Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
Drummond Co., Inc.; Baloco v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Drummondo-Farias v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
D. T. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969,1044
Ducart; Adams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840,1054
Ducart; Cassidy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Ducart; Jorge Andrade v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xlvii

Page
Ducart; Marquez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Ducart; Salas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Ducart; Saldana v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850,915
Duckworth; Giampa v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Ductant v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Dudley v. Timmerman-Cooper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Duerst v. Placer County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Duff v. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Duke Medical Center; Watkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Duku v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
Dunbar; Branch v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Duncan v. Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Duncan v. Owens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,982
Duncan v. Rolf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Duncan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
Dunigan v. Tennessee Dept. of Correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Dunlap; Douglas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Dunn; Brooks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116
Dunn v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835,960
Duong v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Duperon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Duperval v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Dupont; McDonough v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Duque-Diaz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
Duquette v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Duran-Mejia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Durante v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Duranty v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
Duranty-Moore v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
Durham v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
Duy Pham v. McEwen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Dwyer v. Norman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Dyab v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Dykema Gossett PLLC Retirement Plan; Cornelius v. . . . . . . . . . 924
Dykes-Bey v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Dyson v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
E. v. Doe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Eads v. Sexton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Eagleton; Edens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Eagleton; Rayfield v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Earman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Eason, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Easterling v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Eastern Shipbuilding Group; Fodor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862,1023
xlviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Collins Inkjet Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,981
Easton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
East Tex. Baptist Univ. v. Burwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971,999,1097
Echeverry v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957,1095
Eckard; Tapp v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841,1044
Ector County Independent School Dist. Bd. of Trustees; Boswell v. 943
Edenfield; Bibbs v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Edens v. Eagleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Editions Ltd. West, Inc. v. Ryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Edmonds v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
Edmondson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111
Ednacot v. Mesa Medical Group, PLLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Educational Credit Management Corp.; Tetzlaff v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Edwards, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Edwards; Beck v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Edwards v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Edwards v. Cameron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Edwards v. Lockheed Martin Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Edwards; Neeley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
Edwards v. Obadina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Edwards v. Soto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Edwards v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Edwards v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864,905
Edwards-Fears; Sherman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Edwin B. Stimpson Co., Inc.; Fuller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Egerton v. Giroux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Eidos Display, LLC; Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. v. . . . . . . . . 985
Eikelboom v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Eikleberry; Wrae v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Eisenstein v. Committee on Character and Fitness . . . . . . . . . . . 958
E. L.; Smith, Guardian ad Litem v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
E. L.; V. L. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
El-Alamin v. Moats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Elam v. Pastrana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835,1044
El Amin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
El Bey, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937,1005
El Bey v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Electronic Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Department of Homeland Security 1062
Elenes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Eleri v. Hartley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929,1054
Elfadly v. Colvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Elliot v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
Elliott v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Ellis; Jaimez Reyes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xlix

Page
Ellison v. Kazmierski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961,1096
Ellison; Lesher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
Ellrich v. Hays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Elmer’s Products, Inc.; Evans v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
Embarq Corp. v. Fulghum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Embarq Corp.; Fulghum v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Emerson v. Hutchinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Emery v. Bogle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Employees of Coalinga State Hospital; Cranford v. . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098
Endencia v. Rush Behavioral Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Energy and Environment Legal Inst. v. Epel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043
Energy-Intensive Mfrs. Group on Greenhouse Gas Reg. v. EPA 1103
Engle v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Ennis, Inc.; Beling v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Enriquez v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919,1100
EPA; Energy-Intensive Mfrs. Group on Greenhouse Gas Reg. v. 1103
EPA; Zook v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Enyart v. Erdos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Epel; Energy and Environment Legal Inst. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043
Epley; Konrad v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
Epperson v. Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
Eppinger; Kronenberg v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
EEOC; CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
Erdos; Enyart v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Erie Bureau of Revenue and Tax Claim; Schulze v. . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Erie Satellite Office, Bureau of ATF; Willaman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
Erlanger Health System v. United States ex rel. Whipple . . . . . . 873
Erlanger Medical Center v. United States ex rel. Whipple . . . . . . 873
Ernie Haire Ford, Inc.; Atkinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Ervin, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814,1022,1029
Ervin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Erwin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
Escamilla v. Escamilla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Escamilla v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Eschenbach v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 811
Escobar; United Health Services, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
Escobar-Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945
Esparza v. Falk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Esparza v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Esparza v. Uribe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Espinal v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Espinoza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Espinoza-Nunez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
l TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Esposito v. Esposito . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Esqueda v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Esquivel v. Ramirez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Esquivel-Rios v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Estes; Baine v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
Estes; Carmichael v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Estes; Grays v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Estes v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Estrada v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Estrada v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840,1094
Estrada-Garcia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Estrada-Zolorzano v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.; Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. . . . . . . 1019
European Community; RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004
Evans v. Carter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Evans v. Elmer’s Products, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
Evans v. Heyns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Evans v. McCullough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Evans v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Evans; Sun Life & Health Ins. Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Evans v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
Evans v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802,877,885
Evans v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Evenwel v. Abbott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Everett v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Evola, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972
Ewing v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Ewing v. Lucas County Dept. of Job and Family Services . . . . . . 943
Exeter Finance Corp.; Parker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Ezell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916
F. v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Fabian v. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Fagan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Fairchild v. Warrior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Faison v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984
Falk; Esparza v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Falk; Peoples v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Falls v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Fannie Mae; Rubin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Fanning; Bahaudin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Faraz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110
Farkas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Farley; Wadley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Farmer v. Potteiger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896,1024
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED li

Page
Farmer v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Farris v. Frazier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Farwell; Pray v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Faucette v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Faulkner, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Fay v. Maye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018
Fayram; Cross v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Fayram; Hoskins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Fazio v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
Feas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Feaster v. Federal Express Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Feather; Pettaway v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
Federal Bureau of Investigation; Rajkovic v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849,1022
Federal Bureau of Investigation; Walsh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969,1055
Federal Bureau of Prisons; Marshall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.; McCann v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Federal Election Comm’n; Miller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Federal Express Corp.; Feaster v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.; Mock v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Federal Labor Relations Authority; Clark v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,1105
Federal Republic of Germany; Schoeps v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
FTC; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . 953,1102
FTC; McWane, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004
Feinberg; Holland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Felder v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Felder’s Collision Parts, Inc. v. All Star Advertising Agency, Inc. 816
Feldman, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Felix-Villalobos v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Feng Xian v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
Ferebee v. Temple Hills Post Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Ferguson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Fermin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Fernandez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
Fernandez v. Valenzuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Ferrer v. Garasimowicz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Ferry v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Fiala; Kallas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Fialdini v. Cote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Fields v. Gerth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Fields v. Giroux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Fields v. Housing Auth. of San Buena Ventura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Fields v. Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Fields v. Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Fields v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936,979
lii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Fiesta Tex., Inc.; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd.; A. V. E. L. A., Inc. v. . . . . . . . . 957
Figueroa-Lugo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017
Figueroa-Magana v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Financial Industry Regulatory Auth., Inc.; Huy Pham v. . . . . . . . 897
Financial Industry Regulatory Auth., Inc.; Lobaito v. . . . . . . . . . 1016
Financial Industry Regulatory Auth., Inc.; Santos-Buch v. . . . . . . 817
Firefighters’ Retirement System v. Citco Group Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Firempong v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110
Firenze v. National Labor Relations Bd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Firman v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
First American Title Ins. Co.; Stevenson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
FirstEnergy Generation Corp.; Yeager v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
First Jud. District Court of Nev., Carson City Cty.; Anderson v. 852
First Marblehead Corp. v. Massachusetts Comm’r of Revenue . . . 918
Fischer; Kearney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,998
Fischer; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Fischer Market Place, LLP; Rechtzigel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Fischer Sand & Aggregate, LLP; Rechtzigel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Fishburne v. Hamilton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Fisher v. Ironton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925,1044
Fisher; Loden v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Fisher v. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Fisher; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002
Fisher; Wilhelm v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983
Fisher; Wright v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Fishman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Fitzgerald v. House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Fitzgerald; Paske v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Fitzgerald v. Rolf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Fivetech Technology Inc. v. Southco, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Fizer; Mata-Camacho v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Fleitas v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
Fleming, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Fleming v. Shore Health System, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
Flemmer; Nelson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077,1079
Flenoid v. Koster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Fletcher v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Fletcher v. Park County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Fletes-Ramos v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Flint; Reid v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861,1023
Flood v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Flores v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED liii

Page
Flores-Granados v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
Flores-Perez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Flores-Vasquez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Florida; Adams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Florida; Aikins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Florida; Allen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Florida; Beasley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Florida; Bolin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Florida; Burks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Florida; Campbell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Florida; Carius v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Florida; Carr v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Florida; Cleaver v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Florida; Cordovano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Florida; Correll v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 948
Florida; Crayton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896,1044
Florida; Dawson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Florida; Ewing v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Florida; Ford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Florida; Geer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Florida v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Florida; Hanna v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Florida; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Florida; Hernandez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
Florida; Hill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Florida; Holland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021
Florida; Huggins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Florida; Hurst v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Florida; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Florida; Lanier v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Florida; Leverette v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Florida; Magwood v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Florida; Marquardt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
Florida; McCarthy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Florida; Mellquist v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Florida; Mency v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Florida; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900
Florida; Morin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Florida; Norman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899,1024
Florida; Olive v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Florida; Ortiz-Lopez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
Florida; Pawley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Florida; Reid v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Florida; Robenson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
liv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Florida; Roberts v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Florida; Salas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Florida; Sanchez Montes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Florida; Sandelier v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Florida; Serrano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Florida; Shaikh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873,1023
Florida; Sparre v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Florida; Stinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Florida; Streeter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Florida; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Florida; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Florida; Wallis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Florida; Wilson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Florida Atlantic Univ. Bd. of Trustees; Wood v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984
Florida Bar; Burns v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Florida Comm’n on Offender Review; Creamer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services; Martinez v. 1104
Florida Dept. of Children and Families; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . 888,998
Florida Dept. of Children and Families; Chafe v. . . . . . . . 807,1003,1059
Florida Dept. of Children and Families; J. P. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Florida Dept. of Children and Families; M. C. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Florida Dept. of Corrections; Allen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Florida Highway Patrol; Belniak v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
Florida Judicial Qualifications Comm’n; Watson v. . . . . . . . . . . 920,1093
Flowers v. Baca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Flowers v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Floyd v. Gorcyca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Fluker v. Division of Youth and Family Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950
Fluker v. Reynolds American Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950
Fluker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950
Flute v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Flynn, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972
Fodor v. Eastern Shipbuilding Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862,1023
Fogel; Koffley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Fogle v. Gonzales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
Fogle v. Infante . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Foley v. Beshear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Folino; Rivera v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881
Folk v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
Fondren v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Food & Commercial Workers v. Chesapeake Energy Corp. . . . . . 816
Ford v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Ford v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Ford v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lv

Page
Ford Motor Co.; Parr v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1008
Foreman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1112
Forrest v. Steele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 829
Fortress Ins. Co.; Woodard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890,1095
Forward v. California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Bd. . . . .. 840
Foss v. Quintana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 875
Foster v. Cain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1075
Foster v. Chatman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 809
Foster; Colon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 921
Foster; Truss v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 808
Foster v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 864
Foster v. Wynne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1051
Foules v. Santa Clara County Federal Credit Union . . . . . . . . . .. 1074
Foulk; Harmon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 842
Foulk; McKinney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 833
Foulk; Nickerson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1105
Foulk; Pacheco v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1072
43d District Court of Mich.; Christian v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 990
42d Judicial District Court of La.; Houston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827,1022
Foutch; Blakes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 905
Fowler v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1083
Fox; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 851
Fox; Marble v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 907
Fox v. Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 989
Foxx; Clark v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080,1086
Foxx; Norris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,1009
Foxx; Tadlock v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 830
France v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1026
Franco-Bardales v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921,1009
Franco Palomar v. Barnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1035
Frank; Livingston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1113
Frankel; Scott v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 824
Frankel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1104
Franklin v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1073
Franklin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 994
Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust; Acosta-Febo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1026
Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust; Puerto Rico v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1025
Frauenheim; Castro-Gutierrez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1010
Frauenheim; Knight v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 839
Frauenheim; Sanchez Avila v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 877
Frauenheim; Venegas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 880
Frauenheim; Villareal Villanueva v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1073
Frazier; Farris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1057
Frazier v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 884
lvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Frazier; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 855
Frazier v. West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829,1054
Freddie Mac; Mock v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 819
Fredericksburg Care Co., LP; Perez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1092
Fred Martin Motor Co. v. Spitzer Autoworld Akron, LLC . . . . .. 823
Freeman v. Chiprez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 863
Freeman v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1072
Freeman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 931
Freeman Marine Equipment, Inc. v. CHMM, LLC . . . . . . . . . . .. 1026
Freeport Pancake House, Inc.; Cheeks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1067
Fregia v. McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 867
French; Bland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1016
French v. Carter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1074
Frias v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 861
Friedman v. Highland Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1039
Friedman & Schuman, P. C.; Groeber v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1049
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1004
Fries v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1029
Frink; Rukes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 979
Frontier Technology LLC; Shields v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 869
Frost; Sturgeon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1047
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1100
Frye v. Strange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1058
Fudge v. Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 960
Fuentes v. Diaz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 859
Fuentes v. 245th Judicial District Court of Harris County . . . . .. 1007
Fuentes-Majano v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1087
Fugate v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 828
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1007
Fulghum; Embarq Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1007
Fuller v. Edwin B. Stimpson Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 870
Fuller v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 863
Fullman v. Kistler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942,1024
Fulton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967,1097
Fulton County; Abram v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826,1022
Fults v. Chatman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 835
Furst v. Malloy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1051
Futch v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,1094
G. v. Arizona Dept. of Child Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 891
G. v. Deborah Heart and Lung Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 872
G. v. Oregon Dept. of Human Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 944
G. v. Sonya G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1079
G.; Thomas G. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1079
Gabay; Manko v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 936
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lvii

Page
Gache v. Hill Realty Associates, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Gage, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Gagnon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Gaines v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Galan-Olavarria v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
Galaviz; Crook v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Gale; Coulter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Gallagher; Pickett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,987
Gallant v. Gallant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Gallimore v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Gallion v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Gallo; Bischoff v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918
Galluzzo v. Dayton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
Galvan Cerna v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Galvan Mireles v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111
Galvis Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Gamble v. Kenworthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Ganoe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Garasimowicz; Ferrer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Garay v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Garcia v. Allison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094
Garcia v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Garcia v. Hebert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Garcia v. Mahally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
Garcia v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Garcia v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022
Garcia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849,911,917,1088
Garcia-Chihuahua v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Garcia-Duran v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
Garcia-Gaona v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Garcia-Gonzalez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Garcia-Guia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Garcia-Hernandez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Garcia-Jasso v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Garcia-Lara v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
Garcia-Rosas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036
Garcia Rubio v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Garcia Valencia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Gardner v. Bank of N. Y. Mellon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Gardner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Garduno-Castillo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
Garfias-Chaires v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Gariano v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Garity v. Postal Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
lviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Garivay v. Long . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Garman; Leafey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Garrett v. Coventry II Developers Diversified Realty . . . . . . . . . 818
Garrett v. Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Garrett v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Garron-Morales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
Garvey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Garvin v. Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Garza-Mata v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Garza Valencia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Gas Fitters; Alabama Gas Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Gastelo; Tillman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Gates v. North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Gatewood v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Gavilanes-Ocaranza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Geer v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Gelin v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
General Motors Corp.; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Geneva College v. Burwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971,999,1098
Geoffrey v. Geoffrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
GEO Group, Inc.; Wilkinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028
George v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Georgelas Group, Inc.; Hendry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Georgetown; Tennant v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Georgia; Carey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Georgia; DeVaughn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
Georgia; Florida v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Georgia; Franklin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Georgia; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Georgia; Mobley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
Georgia; Perera v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
Georgia; Sallee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Georgia; Sanders v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868,897
Georgia; Seibert v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Georgia; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Georgiou v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
Gerhartz v. Richert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Gerry; Perri v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Gerth; Fields v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Ghee v. Alabama Dept. of Human Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Ghermezian; Podlin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Giampa v. Duckworth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Giang Ho v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Gibson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894,912
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lix

Page
Gibson v. Valley Avenue Drive-In Restaurant, LLC . . . . . . . . 862,1023
Gidley; Beelby v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Gilbert; Hall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958,1095
Gilcrest; Suchocki v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Giles v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Gillie; Sheriff v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
Gilmore; Landeck v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Gilmore v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Gioeli v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Gipson; Cotinola v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
Gipson; Daly v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Gipson; Hubbard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Gipson; Rene Gomez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Girard v. M/Y Quality Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Giroux; Egerton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Giroux; Fields v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Giroux; Mann v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Gjokaj v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Glasgow v. Oregon Dept. of Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,984
Glasmann v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Gleason; Kansas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Glebe; Hegewald v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Glebe; Lee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
Glendale; Yousefian v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Glenn; Sullivan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Global Traffic Technologies LLC; Morgan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Gloss v. Soto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Glover v. Mathis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092
Glunt; Silvis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Glunt; Solano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
GMAC Mortgage, LLC; Beukes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
GMAC Mortgage, LLC; Taggart v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939,1095
Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Goddard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
Godfrey; Oakland Port Services Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Goguen; Allen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Goins v. Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Golden Gaming, Inc.; Yung Lo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Goldthwaite v. Norfolk Southern R. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Golson v. Allison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Golston v. Sconyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
Gomes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Gomez; Campbell-Ewald Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Gomez v. Gipson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
lx TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Gomez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901,1033
Gomez-Duval v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
Gomez-Guerrero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Gomez-Gutierrez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
Gomez-Juarez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Gomez-Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Gomez-Pena v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
Gonzales; Fogle v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
Gonzales v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Gonzales v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Gonzales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
Gonzales v. Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Gonzales-Matute v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Gonzalez v. Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843,1022
Gonzalez v. Cox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836,861
Gonzalez v. Holland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Gonzalez; Rowe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004
Gonzalez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859,1018
Gonzalez-Acevedo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Gonzalez-Isaguirre v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Gonzalez Lora, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Gonzalez Lora v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044
Gonzalez-Martinez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
Gonzalez-Robles v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Gonzalez-Tejeda v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Gonzalez Uribe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
Goodman v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Goodrich v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944,1096
Goodwin; Douglas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Goodwin; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Goodwin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Google, Inc.; Qin Zhang v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Gorcyca; Floyd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Gordon v. Mullins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
Gordon v. New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Gordon v. Somerset Medical Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
Gordon Hargrove and James, P. A.; Alexopoulos v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Gore; Talley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832,953,1054
Gossage v. Terrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Gottesman, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952
Gouch-Onassis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Gough; Vos v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxi

Page
Gould, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047
Goursau v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
Gouse v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Governor of Ala.; Howard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Governor of Ark.; Carrick v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Governor of Ark.; Emerson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Governor of Conn.; Furst v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Governor of Fla.; Ahlers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Governor of Fla.; Tweed v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805,1005
Governor of Kan.; Petrella v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Governor of Ky.; Foley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Governor of Minn.; Carlson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983,1059
Governor of Penn.; Murray v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Governor of Tex.; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Governor of Tex.; Evenwel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Governor of Tex.; Nixon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839,998
Graham; Blond v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Graham v. Bluebonnet Trails Community Services . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Graham; Sood v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Granado v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965
Granados v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Grant v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Gray v. Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Gray v. New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Gray; Serna v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111
Gray v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913,1085
Grays v. Estes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Gray-Sommerville v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Grazzini-Rucki v. Knutson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Green, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Green v. Addison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Green v. Brennan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949
Green v. Bush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Green v. Colvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Green v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Green v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Green v. Lester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Green v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
Green v. Stevenson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
Green v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991,1082,1086
Greene v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
Greene v. Department of Ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Greer v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
Gregory, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814
lxii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Gregory v. Denham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
Gregory v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Grenadyor v. Ukrainian Village Pharmacy, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Griep v. Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061
Griffin; Boone v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Griffin; Cowser-Griffin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061
Griffin v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Griffin; Moronta v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Griffin; Salnave v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Griffin v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
Griffin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036
Griffis v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Griffith v. Cash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Griffith; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970,1037
Griffith; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Griffith; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Grisafe; Ransom v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Groeber v. Friedman & Schuman, P. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Groover v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Gross v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Grounds; Mizner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021
Grove v. South Carolina Dept. of Health and Env. Control . . . . . . 1007
Grover v. Choice Hotels International, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
GTE Laboratories, Inc.; Beriont v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
Gu v. Presence St. Joseph Medical Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Guadagno; Balsam v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Guadalupe Garcia v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Guajardo v. McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036
Guajardo-Prieto v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110
Guardia v. Clinical & Support Options, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Guel-Nevares v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Guel-Nevarez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Guerino v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
Guerra v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Guerrero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900
Guerrero-Gonzalez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Guevara v. Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Guia-Llavero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Gunn v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
Gunnell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Gunter v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110
Gurrola-Perez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Guthrie v. New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Gutierrez v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829,1022
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxiii

Page
Gutierrez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861,1031
Gutierrez-Orosco v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1052
Gutierrez-Orozco v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1052
Gutierrez Rubio v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1083
Guzman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1085
Guzman-Bautista v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 868
GwanJun Kim, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954,1096
Gwinnett County; Lawrence v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 917
Haagensen v. Wherry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1064
Haas; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1070
Hackbart; Bank of America, N. A. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 801
Haddow v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1015
Hadley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 967
Hadsell v. Hadsell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1103
Hahn v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 933
Haines; Hanson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 896
Hales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1110
Hall v. Gilbert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958,1095
Hall v. McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 863
Hall v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 862
Hall v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1048
Hall v. Prince . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 976
Hall v. Tallie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862,1054
Hall v. Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 974
Hall v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 964
Hallock v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 866
Halloran, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 953
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 938
Halo Electronics, Inc.; Pulse Electronics, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 874
Hambleton v. Washington Dept. of Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 922
Hamilton v. Berghuis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 863
Hamilton; Fishburne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 841
Hamilton v. Smarjesse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 979
Hamilton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058,1072
Hammonds v. Bo’s Food Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1044
Hammons v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1069
Hampton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1086
Hancock v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 867
Handy v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 836
Hanlon, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 951
Hanna v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 860
Hansen v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1050
Hanson v. Haines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 896
Hanson Mosteller v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1109
lxiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Haoren Ma v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
Hardin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007,1036
Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Harding v. Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Hardrick v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Hardy v. Adams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Hardy v. Birkett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028
Hardy v. Peterman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Hardy v. Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Harmon v. Foulk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Harmon v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Harmon; Mosley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Harnage v. Rell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Harnage v. Torres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Haro v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Harper-Bey v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Harr v. Brodhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Harrall v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Harrell v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Harrell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Harrington v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n . . . . . . . . . 1001
Harris v. Arpaio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Harris; Center for Competitive Politics v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Harris v. Fiesta Tex., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Harris v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Harris v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Harris v. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Harris; O’Hare v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061
Harris v. Six Flags-Fiesta Tex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Harris v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852,859,912
Harris v. Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Harrison v. Colvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005
Harrison v. Muniz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
Harrison v. Obenland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Harrison v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Harry; Scales v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Harson; Lavergne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Hart v. Salois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Hart v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.; Smiley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Hartley; Eleri v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929,1054
Hartman v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc.; Sone v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925,1044
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxv

Page
Harvey v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920
Harvey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016,1018
Haskell; Leonard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Hastings; Salazar-Espinoza v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Hastings v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867,1054
Haugen; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Hauseur v. Virga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Hausler v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Hawaii; Akina v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024,1100
Hawkes Co., Inc.; Army Corps of Engineers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
Hawkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Hawkins v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Hawks; Shinault v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Hayes v. Bolen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
Hayes v. Cowans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Hayes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909,994
Hayes v. Viacom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Haynes; Davila v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Haynes v. McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Hays; Ellrich v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Haywood v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Hazen v. Hazen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Head; Reeves v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Health Grades, Inc. v. Boyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Healy; Cox Communications, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Heard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Hearst Corp.; Martin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Heath v. Baton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Heath v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
Hebert; Garcia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Hechler v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
Heddings v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Heffernan v. Paterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Hegewald v. Glebe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Heinz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Henderson v. Hope Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924,1095
Henderson v. Shanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Hendry v. Georgelas Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Henoud v. Apker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Henricks v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Henry v. Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Henry; Carey of Houston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Henry; Corpcar Services Houston, Ltd. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Henry v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969
lxvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Henry v. Vasquez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Hensley v. Brinkley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Hensley v. Hensley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Hentges v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Henthorne; Lester v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Herbison v. Chase Bank USA, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Heritage Auctions, Inc.; OMG, L. P. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Hermitage; Mercer Outdoor Advertising, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Hernan De La Paz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Hernandez v. Dignity Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984,1058
Hernandez v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
Hernandez v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Hernandez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Hernandez v. Mesa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004
Hernandez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903,911,935,1091
Hernandez; Wallace v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Hernandez-Diaz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110
Hernandez Gonzalez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Hernandez-Gutierrez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Hernandez-Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
Hernandez-Maldonado v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994
Hernandez-Osorio v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Herrera v. Stansell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Herrera v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994
Herrera-Sanchez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
Herrera-Sifuentes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Herships v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
Herson v. Richmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
Hess; Arakji v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
He Wu v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Heyn v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Heyns; Evans v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Hickingbottom v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Hickman v. Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896,1054
Hickory Hills Property Owners Assn.; Rahman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Hicks; Vane Line Bunkering, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Hidalgo; Avila v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Higbie v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Higginbotham v. King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Higginbotham v. Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Higgins v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Higgins v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Highland Park; Friedman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039
Hilbert v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxvii

Page
Hill v. Campbell Harrison & Dagley, L. L. P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Hill v. Contreras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972,1059
Hill v. Curtin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Hill v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Hill; Humphrey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Hill v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Hill; Otrompke v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Hill v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Hill v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909,946
Hill v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Hillenmeyer; Cleveland Bd. of Review v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Hill Realty Associates, LLC; Gache v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Himes v. Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Himmelreich; Simmons v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971
Hindo v. Bank of N. Y. Mellon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Hines v. Alldredge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Hinga v. MIC Group, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Hiramanek v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
Hiramanek v. Hiramanek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
Hitchcock v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Ho v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Hoang Ai Le v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
Hobbs v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Hobia; Oklahoma v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Ho-Chunk Nation; Wisconsin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
Hoelscher v. Millers First Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Hoever v. Porter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Hoffart v. Wiggins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941,1054
Hoffman v. Baylor Health Care System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Hoffman v. Baylor Medical Center at Waxahachie . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Hoffman v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Ho Kwan Wu v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Holden v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Holder; Bond v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Holder v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
Holdner v. Rosenblum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
Holdridge v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Holguin v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Holiday v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 999
Ho Lin v. Chi Chu Wu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Holkesvig v. Hutton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
Holland; Antonio Gonzalez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Holland; Best v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Holland v. Feinberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
lxviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Holland v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021
Holland; Ybarra v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Hollander v. Pembroke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824,1022
Hollier v. Watson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Hollingsworth v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
Hollis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Hollister, Inc.; DeFazio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923,1044
Holloway; Burgess v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
Holman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
Holmes v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Holt; Champion v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Holt v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Home Depot U. S. A., Inc.; Begolli v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810,1006
Home Legend, LLC v. Mannington Mills, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
Hong Chen v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Hongyan Li v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Honken v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Hood v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896,1024
Hooper v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Hoover v. Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Hope v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
Hope Mills; Henderson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924,1095
Hopkins v. Springfield Housing Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
Hopkins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853,946
Horton v. Degennaro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Horton v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Horton v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Horton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Hosier v. Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Hoskins v. Fayram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Hosseini v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036
House; Fitzgerald v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Household Finance Corp. III; Crawford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 948
Housing Authority of San Buena Ventura; Fields v. . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Houston v. Bughrara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893,1024
Houston v. 42d Judicial District Court of La. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827,1022
Houston v. Queen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986,1095
Houston; Satterwhite v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Houston v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Houston v. Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Houswerth v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Howard v. Railroad Retirement Bd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875,998
Howard v. Strange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Howard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxix

Page
Howell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950,1029
Howerton; Boone v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Howes; Balfour v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Howton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Ho Wu v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Hrabe; Matson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
HR Director, Franklin County Bd. of Elections; McBroom v. . . 870,1023
HSBC Bank USA, N. A.; Mirabal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872,1097
HSBC Bank USA, N. A.; Townsend v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc.; Gjokaj v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Huarte v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Hubbard v. Gipson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Hubbard v. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Hubbard v. Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Hubert; Scott v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Huckabone v. Jamestown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Hudak; Wimberly v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Hudson v. Hudson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Hudson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Huerta-Gutierrez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
Huff v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
Huffman v. Speedway LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Hufstetler v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Huggins v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Huggins v. Kerestes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Hughes v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Huguely v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Huha; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840,1054
Huitron-Rocha v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Humphrey v. Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Humphrey; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Humphrey; Lucas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914,1022
Hunn v. Dan Wilson Homes Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Hunt v. Ross Store, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Hunt v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Hunter; Mocksville v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Hunter v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894,1085
Hurd v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Hurd v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
Hurst v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971
Hutcherson v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Hutcheson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
lxx TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Hutchinson; Carrick v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 876
Hutchinson; Emerson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1078
Hutchinson v. Razdan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1022
Hutchinson v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 896
Hutton; Holkesvig v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 874
Huy Pham v. Financial Industry Regulatory Auth., Inc. . . . . . .. 897
Huy Trong Tran v. Biter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 845
Hye v. Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 876
Hykes v. Lew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1068
Hymowitz; Lee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012,1097
Idaho; Sivak v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1012
Idaho; Stanfield v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1062
Ido v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 829
IDT Corp. v. Blackstone Advisory Partners LP . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 954
II–VI Inc.; Rouse v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1030
Ilanjian v. Kenset Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 808
Illinois; Almeida v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 962
Illinois; Anguiano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 832
Illinois; Baldwin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 962
Illinois; Branch v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 955
Illinois; Cavazos v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1111
Illinois; Claiborne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 955
Illinois; Cooper v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 976
Illinois; Diaz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 955
Illinois; Donahue v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 828
Illinois; Dortch v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 841
Illinois; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 860
Illinois; Harmon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 955
Illinois; Haywood v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 862
Illinois; Jaimes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 959
Illinois; Jenkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 955
Illinois; Kastrinsios v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 843
Illinois; Knox v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 846
Illinois; LaPointe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1018
Illinois; LeFlore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 894
Illinois; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1077
Illinois; Littleton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 961
Illinois; Lopez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 859
Illinois; Maxwell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 878
Illinois; McCullough v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 892
Illinois; McGee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 885
Illinois; Mooney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 955
Illinois; Pacheco v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 955
Illinois; Patterson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 955
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxxi

Page
Illinois; Ramirez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Illinois; Rembert v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Illinois; Rodriguez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Illinois; Santos v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Illinois; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Illinois; Snipes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Illinois; Sturdivant v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Illinois; Sustaita v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Illinois; Thompson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Illinois; Turner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Illinois; Warren v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900,955
Illinois; Watson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Illinois; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831,888,1095
Illinois Commerce Comm’n; Nationwide Freight Systems, Inc. v. 873
Illinois Dept. of Parole; Wright v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Imburgia; DIRECTV, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Imperato v. Securities and Exchange Comm’n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933,998
Independence Federal Savings Bank; Price v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Independent Electrical Contractors Inc.; Salas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Independent School Management, Inc.; Rumanek v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Indiana; Harrell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Indiana; Hartman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Indiana; Hickingbottom v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Indiana; Hill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Indiana; Manley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
Indiana; Shell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Indiana; Study v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Indiana; Tiller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Indiana; Weisheit v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Indiana; Wells v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Indiana; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Industrial Claim Appeals Office of Colo.; Barrera v. . . . . . . . . . . . 929
IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB; Amaya v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Infante; Fogle v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Ing v. Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Ingram v. Just Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Ingram v. Stephenson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Internal Revenue Service; Langley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
International. For labor union, see name of trade.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Amerijet Int’l, Inc. v. 985
International Business Machines Corp.; Chuan Wang v. . . . . . . . . 914
Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Investorshub.com, Inc.; Medytox Solutions, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Iowa; Brost v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942,1096
lxxii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Iowa; Vogt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884,1023
Iowa City; Baker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Iowa State Penitentiary; Vogt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929,998
I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Irby v. Stevenson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Irick v. Carpenter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Irick v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Ironton; Fisher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925,1044
Irvington Properties, LLC; Childs v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Isaac v. McLaughlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836,865
Isbell; DM Records, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Israni v. Crystal Lake 960 Assn., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983,989
ITEX Corp.; Bal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Ivanez v. Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Ives; Neal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
Ivy v. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988,1114
Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC; Streambend Properties II, LLC v. 808
Iwuala v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110
Izhar v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Jabalera-Chavira v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Jack v. Panuccio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Jack v. Virginia Bureau of Ins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Jackman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Jackson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Jackson v. Denney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Jackson v. Humphrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Jackson v. McCollum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
Jackson v. McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806,974
Jackson v. McDowell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Jackson; McKeithen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Jackson v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Jackson v. Park Place Condominiums Assn., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 977,1096
Jackson v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Jackson v. South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Jackson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897,912,946,973,1070,1112
Jackson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Jackson v. White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Jacob v. Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Jacobson v. Colegrove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
Jaimes v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Jaimes-Jaimes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Jaimez Reyes v. Ellis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
James v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
James v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902,992,1084
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxxiii

Page
James-Bey, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974
James City County; Wright v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Jamestown; Huckabone v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Janda; Douglas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Janda; Rodriguez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Janes v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Jarvis; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093
Jarvis; Martinez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021
Javier Gomez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Javier Luna v. Palmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
J. D. T. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969,1044
Jean v. Racette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Jean v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Jeanes; Washington v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Jeanne D’Arc Credit Union; Christakis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Jeep v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846,1022
Jefferson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027
Jefferson v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s, London . . . . . . . . . 1102
Jefferson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
Jeffery v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Jena v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Jenkins v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Jenkins v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Jenkins v. Myrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Jenkins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111
Jennings v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Jerez v. Republic of Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Jewell; Bear Valley Mut. Water Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092
JFT Corp. v. Newtel Payphone Operations, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Jha v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934,1045
J. H. F. v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Jiles v. McLaughlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Jim v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Jimenez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Jimenez-Archaga v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Jimenez-Arzate v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
Jimenez-Binagra v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Jimenez Mancilla v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Jimenez Pina v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Jimenez-Quelix v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Jim Thorpe; Sac and Fox Nation of Okla. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
J-Lu Co. Ltd., L. L. C.; Schmidt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
John Deere Commercial Products, Inc.; D’Antignac v. . . . . . . . . . 1064
Johns v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
lxxiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Johnson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984,1060
Johnson v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Johnson; Ayanbadejo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Johnson v. Beak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961,1096
Johnson v. Brazelton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Johnson v. Cain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Johnson v. Chatman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001
Johnson v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Johnson v. Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Johnson v. Cruz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Johnson v. Dauphanus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012,1114
Johnson v. David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Johnson v. Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Johnson v. Department of Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990,1097
Johnson v. Draeger Safety Diagnostics, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Johnson; Elliott v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Johnson v. Fox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Johnson; Frazier v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Johnson v. General Motors Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Johnson v. Griffith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970,1037
Johnson v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053,1109
Johnson v. Just Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047
Johnson v. Lombardi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970,1037
Johnson v. Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Johnson v. Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Johnson v. Miami Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Johnson v. Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900
Johnson v. Owens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Johnson v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Johnson v. Perry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Johnson v. Philadelphia School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Johnson v. Reddy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
Johnson; Reveles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Johnson v. Rivard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Johnson v. Santa Clara County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Johnson; Skinner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Johnson v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Johnson v. Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866,926
Johnson v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Johnson; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Johnson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . 880,916,923,936,968,989,1048,1110
Johnson; Valenzuela v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Johnson; Vargas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Johnson; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxxv

Page
Johnson v. Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Johnson v. Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Johnson v. Zatecky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Johnson & Johnson v. Reckis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Johnston v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; Bluechristine99 v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; Kirtsaeng v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098
Joliet; Manuel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098
Jolley v. Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Jonassen v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Jones, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Jones; Alfred v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927,1096
Jones; Allen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
Jones; Antonio Montanez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017
Jones; Armstrong v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Jones v. Artus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Jones; Barriner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Jones; Bates v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Jones; Benitez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Jones; Benjamin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Jones; Bolin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Jones; Boone v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890,1024
Jones; Brooks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Jones; Caison v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927,1078
Jones; Calhoun v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Jones; Campbell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919,1028
Jones; Cancel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Jones v. Cartledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903,1044
Jones; Casciola v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Jones v. Chatman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817,1021
Jones v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835,883,1094
Jones v. Clements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018
Jones; Coleman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Jones; Copeland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Jones; Crosby v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Jones; D’Amico v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Jones v. Dancel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Jones v. Department of Health and Human Services . . . . . . . . . . 937
Jones; DeSue v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950
Jones; Everett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Jones; Fleitas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
Jones v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Jones; Fuller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Jones; Griffin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
lxxvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Jones; Handy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Jones; Harrington v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Jones; Hernandez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Jones; Horton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Jones; Houswerth v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Jones; Hughes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Jones v. Jarvis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093
Jones; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053,1109
Jones v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
Jones v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Jones; Kokal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Jones; Lambrix v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
Jones v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Jones; Lumpkin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Jones; Luxama v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Jones; Lynch v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Jones v. Macomber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Jones; McCall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Jones v. McDaniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Jones; McKinnon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Jones; Means v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Jones; Melton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Bd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,1067
Jones; Merriweather v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Jones v. Nuttall AFC Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860,1044
Jones; Oberwise v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Jones; O’Connor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919
Jones; Pardon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Jones v. Peery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Jones; Peterka v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Jones; Placide v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Jones; Rosado v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Jones; Rowland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866,1023
Jones v. Sandor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Jones; Schmidt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
Jones; Shepherd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Jones; Silva v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Jones v. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Jones; Smock v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Jones; Spencer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Jones; Stoddard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Jones; Tanzi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Jones; Toler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Jones v. United States . . . . . . . . 908,918,932,967,968,1096,1110,1111,1112
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxxvii

Page
Jones; Upson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Jones; Velazco v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Jones; Velez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Jones; Vickers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Jones; Walsh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969,1054
Jones; Whitfield v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Jones; Wiggins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Jones; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805,1072
Jones; Wright v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855,962
Jones; Yawn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Jordan, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921,1024
Jordan v. Colvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849,1094
Jordan v. Davey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Jordan; Landrith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919
Jordan v. Metropolitan Jewish Hospice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Jordan v. Satterfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865,1023
Jordan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111
Jorge Andrade v. Ducart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Joseph v. Bernstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Joseph v. Burlington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Jost v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Joyce v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Joyner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
J. P. v. Florida Dept. of Children and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.; Bazinski v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.; Carmichael v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.; Estes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.; Hausler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.; Hawkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.; Hernandez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.; Lossia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.; McPike-McDyess v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.; Messinger v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.; Valentine v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.; Winget v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Arunachalam v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
JT USA, LP v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Juarez v. Warren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Judge; Nijjar Realty, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Judge; PAMA Management Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Judge, Circuit Ct. of Ky., Fayette County; Tibbs v. . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Judge, Ct. of Common Pleas of Pa.; Van Tassel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Judge, 11th Judicial Circuit, St. Charles County, Mo.; Fitzgerald v. 895
Judge, Superior Ct. of Cal., Los Angeles County; Kinney v. . . . . . 890
lxxviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Judge, Superior Ct. of Cal., Pima County; Wrae v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Judge, Superior Ct. of Ga., Habersham County; Ross v. . . . . . . . . 891
Judge, U. S. District Court for the Dist. of N. J.; Clark v. . . . . . . . 845
Judy v. Obama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Julison v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Julius; Wimberly v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Just Energy; Ingram v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Just Energy; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047
Justice, Superior Court of Me.; Tobin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Justice, Supreme Court of N. Y., Bronx County; Davis v. . . . . . . . 977
Kaiser v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan; Izhar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Kalamazoo; LeBlanc v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Kalamazoo County; LeBlanc v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905,941,1096
Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s Dept.; LeBlanc v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900,1096
Kalange v. Suter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Kalick v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Kalla; Rivera v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Kallas v. Fiala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Kamal v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Kane; Biros v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Kane v. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Kane; Nelson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Kane County v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Kansas v. Aguirre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Kansas; Alvarez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Kansas; Bollinger v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Kansas v. Carr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Kansas v. Gleason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Kansas; Keel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Kansas; Reed v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
Kansas City; Powell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Kaprelian v. Barrett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Karagozian v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Karas v. Paramo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Kargbo v. New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Kashani; Miller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Kassim v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Kastrinsios v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Katavich; Pela v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Katz, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952,1058
Katz v. Cellco Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Katz v. Lew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Katz v. Verizon Wireless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxxix

Page
Kauffman; Strum v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Kawa Orthodontics, LLP v. Lew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. v. Plano Molding Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Kaylor v. Coleman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
Kaymark; Udren Law Offices, P. C. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Kazmierski; Ellison v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961,1096
Keahey v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Kean Univ.; Alston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989,1114
Kearney v. Fischer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,998
Kearney v. New York Dept. of Correctional Services . . . . . . . . 919,1028
Keatings v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
Keel v. Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Keelan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Keene v. Rossi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Kefer; Carter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Keith; Ruben v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891,1054
Keller; Allen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Keller v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Kelley; Bargo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Kelley v. Camacho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Kelley; Clayton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Kelley; Dansby v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Kelley; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Kelley; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Kelley; Lawshea v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861,1095
Kelley v. Lazaroff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,1023
Kelley; Lee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Kelley; Marks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Kelley; Mason v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Kelley; Norris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Kelley; Richardson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Kelley; Sanders v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896,1075
Kelley; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979,1017
Kelley; Thornton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Kelley; Turner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Kelley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851,877
Kelley v. Winn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.; United States ex rel. Barko v. . . . . . 1066
Kelly v. Bishop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885,1044
Kelly v. Owens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Kendrick v. Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Kennedy, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Kenset Corp.; Ilanjian v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Kentucky; Fields v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
lxxx TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Kentucky; St. Clair v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Kenworthy; Gamble v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Kenya; Odhiambo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Kerestes; Clark v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Kerestes; DeShields v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Kerestes; Diaz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Kerestes; Huggins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Kerestes; Maxton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Kerestes; Pabon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Kerestes; Pridgen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015,1114
Kerley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
Kern; Webb v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Kerr v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909,1024
Kersey v. New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Kessel-Revis v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Kessler; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
KFx Medical Corp.; Arthrex, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Khalil v. New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency 823
Khan v. Regions Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Kidwell v. Ryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Kieffer v. Sauers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018
Kiehle v. Ryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Kilburg v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Kills On Top v. Kirkegard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Kim, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954,1096
Kim v. Montgomery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Kimber v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Kimberly-Clark Corp.; Anderson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Kimca v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
King v. Booker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
King v. Department of Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,1069
King v. Department of Veterans Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,984
King; Higginbotham v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
King v. Kessler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
King v. Mackie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
King v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
King; Osborne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
King v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
King v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936
King v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
King; Wright v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
King; Zamiara v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 970
Kinney v. Chomsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxxxi

Page
Kinney v. Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944,1059
Kinney v. Lavin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 890
Kinney v. Steele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1101
Kirby v. Morrissey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1076
Kirkegard; Kills On Top v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 943
Kirkegard; Price v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 943
Kirkland; Spear v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1047
Kirkland v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018,1111
Kirschenbaum v. Department of Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 922
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1098
Kiser; Dotson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1010
Kistler; Fullman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942,1024
Kitterman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1105
Kleerekoper; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 921
Klein; Kusak v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1081
Kline; Matthews v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 943
Klosinski Overstreet, LLP; Abdulla v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 874
Kloska; O’Neil v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 884
Kloth-Zanard v. Amridge Univ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 851
Kloth-Zanard v. Southern Christian Univ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 851
Knight v. Frauenheim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 839
Knight; Parks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 960
Knight; Rodgers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 874
Knipp; Racz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1030
Knoedler Mfrs., Inc. v. Canadian Pacific Railway . . . . . . . . . . . .. 818
Knoedler Mfrs., Inc. v. Delaware & Hudson R. Co., Inc. . . . . . . .. 818
Knox v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 846
Knox v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 802
Knutson; Grazzini-Rucki v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 939
Koch, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 814
Koch v. Pechota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 826
Koffley v. Fogel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1065
Kokal v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1074
Kolodesh v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 912
Konrad v. Epley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 826
Kopatz v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 925
Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd.; Jacob v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 876
Korenman; Burda v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 846
Koresko, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1027
Kormanik, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 952
Kornegay v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978,1096
Kornegay v. Old Republic National Title Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 825
Koster; Flenoid v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 990
Koster v. Sullivan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 827
lxxxii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Kott; McNeal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Kotzev, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814
Koumjian v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Dept. of Children and Family Servs. 823
Kowaleski v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Kraeger v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Kraemer, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814,1060
Kraemer v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965
Kralovetz v. Spearman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840,1094
Krantz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Kratochvil v. Nixon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Kratz v. CitiMortgage, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
Kraus v. White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Krause; Ackels v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Krieg v. Steele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Krieger v. Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Kronenberg v. Eppinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Kronenberg v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Krongkiet v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Krushwitz v. University of Cal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Kulbicki; Maryland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Kumvachirapitag v. Obama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
Kusak v. Creeden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Kusak v. Klein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Kusak v. Lambadola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Kwan He Wu v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Kwan Ho Wu v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Kwan Wie v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Kyung Choi v. Mabus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Kyzar v. Ryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
L. v. E. L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
L. v. New York State Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
L.; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
L.; V. L. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
LaBelle v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905,1096
Labor Union. See name of trade.
Lacayo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
LaCertosa v. Blackman Plumbing Supply Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . 826,1022
LaChance v. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Lackey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Lackner; Maes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Lackner; Wilson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Lacy v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Ladeairous v. Schneiderman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892,1024
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxxxiii

Page
Ladner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 811
Laera v. Blanco GmbH + Co. KG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 958
LaFrieda v. Black Eagle Consulting, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 827
Lagos-Maradiaga v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1088
Lake v. Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 941
Lal, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 954
La Madeleine, Inc.; Amrhein v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844,1022
Lamarque; Ramos v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 901
Lambadola; Kusak v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1081
Lambrix, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1005
Lambrix v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1009
Lampkin v. Ajilon Professional Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 991
Lan v. Comcast Corp., LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005,1070
Lancaster v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1026
Landaverde-Escalante v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 903
Landeck v. Gilmore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 844
Landers v. Norris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 925
Landis & Setzler, P. C.; Aamodt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1049
Landrith v. Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 919
Lane v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 802
Lane v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1113
Langama v. Buchwald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 808
Langer v. Nilles, Ilvedson, Plambeck & Selbo, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . 871,1023
Langer v. Nilles, Plambeck, Selbo & Harrie, Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . 871,1023
Langley v. Internal Revenue Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1081
Langton v. Briese Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH . . . . . . . . . . . .. 821
Lanham v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 933
Lanier v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 886
LaPierre; Missud v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 805
LaPointe v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1018
Lara-Baltaza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1052
Lara-Lorenzo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1052
Lara Madrid v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 947
Lara-Ruiz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1031
LaRiviere; Tricome v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 972
Larose v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1090
Laschkewitsch v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1034
Lassonde; Stanton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1049
Las Vegas; Scher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1053
Latta v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 851
Lattimore v. Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1070
Laughlin; Burce v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1071
Laureano v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 865
Laureano-Salgado v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1108
lxxxiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
LaValley; Lugo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
LaValley; Scrubb v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
LaValley; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Lavenant v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862,1023
Lavergne v. Bajat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Lavergne v. Harson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Lavergne v. Louisiana State Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Lavergne v. Public Defender 15th Judicial District Court . . . . . . 810
Lavergne v. Sheriff’s Office Acadia Parish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Lavergne v. Sheriff’s Office Lafayette Parish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803,1004
Lavin; Kinney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
Lawrence v. Gwinnett County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Lawshea v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861,1095
Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092
Lawton, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Laxalt; Deere v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870,1023
Layne Energy, Inc. v. Catron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Lazaroff; Kelley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,1023
Lazniarz v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
L. B. v. S. T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Le v. Racette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Le v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Leach v. Bickell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Leach v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Leach; Surles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Leafey v. Garman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Leake v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Leal v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811
LeBaron v. Vidal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
LeBlanc v. Barber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
LeBlanc v. Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
LeBlanc v. Kalamazoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
LeBlanc v. Kalamazoo County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905,941,1096
LeBlanc v. Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900,1096
LeBlanc v. Macomb Regional Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898,1095
LeBlanc v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901,1096
LeBlanc v. Royster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
LeBlanc v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
LeBlanc v. Zimmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Lee; Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Lee v. Cain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Lee; Campbell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Lee; Coleman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Lee; Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxxxv

Page
Lee v. Glebe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
Lee; Gray v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Lee v. Hymowitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012,1097
Lee; Ing v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Lee v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Lee v. Premo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Lee; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Lee v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894,904,991
Leedy; Burditt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Lee-Gutierrez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Leffebre v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Lefkovitch v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
LeFlore v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Legesse v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Lehman v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Leightey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Lemmon; Wagoner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
Lempke; Saxon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Lentz v. Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Leon v. Columbia Univ. Medical Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
Leonard v. Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Leonard v. Haskell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Leonard v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Leonard; Okezie v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Leonhart v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Lesher v. Ellison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
Lessieur v. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Lester; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Lester v. Henthorne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Lester v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898,1054
Leteve v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Leverette v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Levi; Beylund v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
Levi v. Perez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950
Levitan v. Morgan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Lew; Hykes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Lew; Katz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Lew; Kawa Orthodontics, LLP v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Lewandowski v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Lewicki v. Washington County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986,1095
Lewis v. American Airlines, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Lewis; An Thai Tu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Lewis v. Berghuis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Lewis; Diaz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
lxxxvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Lewis; Duff v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Lewis; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Lewis v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Lewis; Kane v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Lewis v. McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Lewis; NECA–IBEW Pension Trust Fund v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Lewis; Ramirez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850,901
Lewis v. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Lewis v. Soto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Lewis v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Lewis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847,965,1009,1083
Lewiston-Porter Central School Dist.; Lilly v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827,1094
Leyva v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Leyva-Munoz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Leyva-Samaripa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Li v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.; Gobeille v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Libertywood Nursing Center; Long v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986,1095
Life Ins. Co. of North America; Rochow v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Lightfoot v. PHH Mortgage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Lightstorm Entertainment, Inc.; Morawski v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Lilly v. Lewiston-Porter Central School Dist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827,1094
Lim v. Terumo Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Lin v. Chi Chu Wu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Linares; Clark v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Lindamood; Blackwood v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Lindamood; Small v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Lindor v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933,1045
Lindsey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Lipin v. Danske Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Lisenby v. South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Li-Shou v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
Listecki v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
Litschewski v. Dooley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Little; Olson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Littlebear v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Littleman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell . . 971,999,1097
Littleton v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Liu v. Department of Industrial Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,987
Livingston v. Frank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Livingston; Sheppard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxxxvii

Page
Lizarraga; Lopes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Lizarraga; Sturdivant v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Lizcano v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Llera-Plaza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900
Lloyd’s Register North America, Inc.; Pearl Seas Cruises, LLC v. 819
Loan Phuong v. Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Lobaito v. Financial Industry Regulatory Auth., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Lobo-Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Lockamy v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Lockett; Molina v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Lockheed Martin Corp.; Edwards v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Lockridge; Michigan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043
Loden v. Fisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Loeffler, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Loera-Velasco v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Lofton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Lohse v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Lombard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Lombardi; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970,1037
Lombardo; O’Keefe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
Long; Garivay v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Long v. Libertywood Nursing Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986,1095
Long v. Minton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Long; Morris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Long v. Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Long Beach Mortgage Co.; Mosher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Loon v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Looney v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Lope; Coulter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Lopes v. Lizarraga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Lopez v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
Lopez v. Newport Elementary School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821,1021
Lopez; Paleologus v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Lopez v. Tapia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Lopez v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849,962
Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923,980,1033,1084,1112
Lopez-Ilustre v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Lopez-Merino v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Lopez Moreno v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Lopez-Vasquez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965
Lopez-Vences v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Lora, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Lora v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044
Lorain County Bar Assn.; Zubaidah v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
lxxxviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Lorenzo Esparza v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Los Angeles v. Contreras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Los Angeles County; Cervantes Chavez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Social Services; Roman v. . . 1107
Loscombe v. Scranton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Lossia v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Lothian Cassidy, LLC v. Ransom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Loudermilk v. Arpaio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Louisiana; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Louisiana; Fletcher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Louisiana; Harrall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Louisiana; Harvey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920
Louisiana; Henry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969
Louisiana; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Louisiana; Mayon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Louisiana; Mosley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Louisiana; Neal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Louisiana; Nicholson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Louisiana; Ray v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Louisiana; Sims v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Louisiana; Sylvester v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Louisiana; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Louisiana Dept. of Children and Family Services; R. A. v. . . . . . . 874
Louisiana Dept. of Corrections Officials; Rollins v. . . . . . . . . . . 857,1095
Louisiana State Police; Lavergne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Love v. Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Lovin v. Osborne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017
Lowe v. Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Lower Brule Community Development Enterprise, LLC; Brown v. 1063
Lucas v. Cartledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Lucas v. Humphrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914,1022
Lucas County Dept. of Job and Family Services; Ewing v. . . . . . . 943
Lucio v. Santos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Lucio Vasquez v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Ludwick; Wilkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Lugo v. LaValley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Luhrsen; Plews v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Luis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949
Luis Castillo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994
Luis Cruz v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Luis Rebollar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Luis Torres v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Lumpkin v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Luna v. Cain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED lxxxix

Page
Luna; Mullenix v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Luna v. Palmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Luna-Erives v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Lundahl v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Lunz v. O’Meara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883,998
Luong v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. Munchkin, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Luxama v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Lyles, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813,815
Lynch; Adame v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Lynch; Adams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Lynch; Angov v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Lynch; Awoleye v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Lynch; Dauksh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Lynch; Duku v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
Lynch; Franco-Bardales v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921,1009
Lynch; Gonzalez-Isaguirre v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Lynch; Ho Kwan Wu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Lynch; Ido v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
Lynch v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Lynch; Kimca v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Lynch; Kwan He Wu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Lynch; Kwan Ho Wu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Lynch; Leal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811
Lynch v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Lynch; Mangru v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Lynch; Mellouli v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950,1025
Lynch; Menchu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Lynch; Mtoched v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Lynch; Neil v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Lynch; Oppedisano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Lynch; Ortiz-Franco v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Lynch; Padilla-Martinez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881
Lynch; Perez-Aguilar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Lynch; Platas-Hernandez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Lynch; Ponce Silva v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Lynch; Reyes-Garcia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Lynch; Romero-Escobar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Lynch; Shui-Hui Wei v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Lynch; Thompson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Lynch v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Lynch; Velazquez-Soberanes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Lynch; Villalta v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878,1023
Lynch; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
xc TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Lynch; Yi Hong Chen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Lyon v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Ma v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
Mabbett v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974
Mabus; Kyung Choi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
MacDonald; Urbano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
MacDonald; Vassallo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Machuca v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Machuca-Anzaldo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Machuca-Secundino v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Machulas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Mackay v. Mercedes Benz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Mackay v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900
Mackey, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
Mackey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Mackie; Adams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Mackie; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Mackie; McCaa v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
MacNeill, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,1047
Macomber; Bejarano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Macomber; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Macomber; Noel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Macomb Regional Facility; LeBlanc v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898,1095
Macy’s, Inc.; Dorward v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
Madden v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
Madden; Cornett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Maddox v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Madigan; Beale v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
Madigan; Reeder v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Madrid v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Madura v. Bank of America, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858,1023
Maes v. Lackner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Maes; Sperry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Magno Gana v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Magwood v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Mahally; Garcia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
Mahally; Maier v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Mahally; McCormick v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990,1097
Mahally; Pacell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Mahally; Turner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093
Mahoney v. McDonnell’s Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047
Mahood; Coulter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Maier v. Mahally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Maine; Hoover v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xci

Page
Maine; McGowan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Maine Dept. of Health and Human Services; Norton v. . . . . . . . . 1004
Maiorana; Terrell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Maisonet v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Maki v. Anderson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,983,1032
Maki v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941,1096
Makiel v. Butler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Maldonado v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982
Malibu Media, LLC; Pelizzo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Malloy; Furst v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Malouff v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
Mangarella v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Mangru v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Manhattan Housing Specialists, Inc.; D’Amario v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
Manko v. Gabay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936
Manley v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
Mann v. Giroux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Mann v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945,1030
Manning v. Bowersox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Manning; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. . . . . . . . 809
Manning v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Mannington Mills, Inc.; Home Legend, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
Mano v. McDowell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Mansfield; Curry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855,1023
Manska v. Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920
Mansukhani; McLean v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Manuel v. Joliet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098
Manuel Carmona v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Manuel Diaz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Manuel Rodriguez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Mapes; Paulson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Marble v. Fox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
March v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094
Marchan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Marco Ramirez v. Yates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Marcus v. Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Maricopa County v. Ortega Melendres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Maricopa County Correctional Health Services; Valenzuela v. . . . 1056
Marin; Wilson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Marks v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Marquardt v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
Marquez v. Bondi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Marquez v. Ducart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Marquez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932,1109
xcii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Marquez-Esquivel v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Marriott Hotel; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Marroquin-Salazar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Marrow v. New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Marsh v. Wynne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Marshall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Marshall v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965
Martin v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Martin v. Byars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Martin v. Hearst Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Martin v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Martin v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Martin v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859,893
Martin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863,931,1114
Martin v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Martin; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Martinez v. Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services 1104
Martinez v. Jarvis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021
Martinez v. Texas Workforce Comm’n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Martinez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858,993
Martinez v. Winn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Martinez Asignacion v. Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrtsgesellschaft 1092
Martinez-Garza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Martinez-Lugo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Martinez-Montalvo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Martinez-Ordonez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Martinez-Rubio v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Martin Flores v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Martin Trinidad v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Maryland; Bennett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Maryland; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Maryland v. Kulbicki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Maryland; Marcus v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Maryland; McClurkin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019
Maryland; Russell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Maryland; Thurston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904,1096
Maryland; Varriale v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Maryland State Dept. of Ed. Office of Child Care; Davis v. . . . . . 1018
Masco Corp.; Prostyakov v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Maselli Warren, P. C.; Microbilt Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Mason v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Mason v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Massachusetts; Arzola v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061
Massachusetts; Bowers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xciii

Page
Massachusetts; Boyer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Massachusetts; Cintron v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Massachusetts; Colondres v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Massachusetts; Cruz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Massachusetts; LaChance v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Massachusetts; Lessieur v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Massachusetts; Novo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Massachusetts; Pagan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Massachusetts; Ramos v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Massachusetts; Todisco v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth.; Am. Freedom Defense Init. v. 1061
Massachusetts Comm’r of Revenue; First Marblehead Corp. v. . . 918
Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue; DIRECTV, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . 954
Massey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Masters v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
Masterson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114
Masterson v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114,1115
Mata v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Mata-Camacho v. Fizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Mathis; Glover v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092
Mathis v. Morrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Mathis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Matias-Torres v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.; Nelson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Matson v. Hrabe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Matthews v. Kline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Matthews; Nunn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Matthews v. Stewart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886,1023
Matthews v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Mauricio-Trujillo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Mawatu v. Valentin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Maxitrate Tratamento Termico e Controles v. Allianz Seguros S. A. 924
Maxton v. Kerestes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Maxwell v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Maxwell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
May; Mendez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
May v. Schnurr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Maye; Barnett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043
Maye; Fay v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018
Mayele v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111
Mayer v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Mayon v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Mayora Medrano v. Ryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Mazariegos-Soto v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900
xciv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Mazin v. Norwood Police Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
Mazur v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Mbunda; Van Zandt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
M. C. v. Florida Dept. of Children and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
McAdam v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
McAnulty v. Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
McBeath, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028
McBride v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
McBride v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
McBroom v. HR Director, Franklin County Bd. of Elections . . 870,1023
McCaa v. Mackie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
McCall v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
McCall v. Shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
McCall v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882,908,940
McCann v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
McCarthren v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918
McCarthy v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
McCary v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
McCausland; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
McClain v. Montgomery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
McClain; Piccone v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
McClain v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
McClinton v. Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
McClurkin v. Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019
McCollum; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
McConnell; Hall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
McConnell; Rossco Holdings, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
McCormick v. Mahally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990,1097
McCoy v. Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
McCoy v. O’Neill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
McCoy v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854,1102
McCulloch; Roberts v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
McCullough; Evans v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
McCullough v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
McDaniel; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
McDonald, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974
McDonald; Adeyi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
McDonald; Adkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
McDonald; Allen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
McDonald v. Boeing Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
McDonald; Dixon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
McDonald; Fregia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
McDonald; Guajardo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036
McDonald; Haynes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xcv

Page
McDonald; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806,974
McDonald; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
McDonald; McKinley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
McDonald v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
McDonald; Ward v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
McDonald v. Zions First National Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
McDonald’s Restaurants of Md., Inc.; Suteerachanon v. . . . . . . . . 1101
McDonnell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
McDonnell’s Estate; Mahoney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047
McDonough v. Dupont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
McDonough v. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
McDowell; Carreon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
McDowell; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
McDowell; Mano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
McDowell Bey v. Vega . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
McEachern v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
McEntyre v. Semple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
McEwen; Duy Pham v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
McEwen; Nelson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
McFadden v. Bush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
McGee v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
McGee v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
McGee v. Norman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
McGee v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
McGee v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
McGinnis v. Brazelton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
McGowan; Bursey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881
McGowan v. Burt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
McGowan v. Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
McGriff v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
McInerney v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . 812,1004
McInnis, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
McKeithen v. Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
McKinley v. CMH Homes, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
McKinley v. McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
McKinney v. Foulk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
McKinnon v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
McLaughlin; Isaac v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836,865
McLaughlin; Jiles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
McLaughlin; Traylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
McLean v. Mansukhani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
McLellan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
McMahon; Yamaha Motor Corp., U. S. A. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
McManus; Shapiro v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
xcvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
McNamara v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
McNeal v. Kott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
McNeely; Barth v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
McNew v. Tibbals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
McPike-McDyess v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
McQuiggen; Walthall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857,1094
McRae v. Doering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
McWane, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm’n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004
McWhorter v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Meadows v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Means v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Meche v. Doucet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Medearis v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
MedImmune, LLC v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Mass. . . . 1103
MedImmune, LLC v. University of Mass. Biologic Labs . . . . . . . . 1103
Medina v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845,933,992,1091
Medley v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839,1044
Medlock v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Medrano v. Ryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Medrano v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036
Medrano Diaz v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Medrano-Hernandez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018
Medrano-Rodriguez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Medtronic, Inc.; Caplinger v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc. . . . . . . . . 1099
Medytox Solutions, Inc. v. Investorshub.com, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Mejia v. Pfister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
Mejia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Mejia v. Wal-Mart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900,1024
Meko; Bryant v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Meko; Cope v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Melendez-Serrano v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
Mellouli, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
Mellouli v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950,1025
Mellquist v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Melot v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844,1022
Melton v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Melton v. Reinke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
Membreno v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881
Memphis; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Memphis Area Legal Services; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority; Love v. . . . . . . . . . . 939
Menchu v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Mency v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xcvii

Page
Mendez v. May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Mendez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837,966,1090
Mendez-Sosa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Mendoza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
Mendoza-Nunez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
Mendoza-Toledo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Mentor v. Rosenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Menzies v. Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Mercado v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903,1032
Mercado Villalobos v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Mercedes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Mercedes Benz; Mackay v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Mercer Outdoor Advertising, LLC v. Hermitage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Meregildo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Merimee v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Merit Systems Protection Bd.; Blount v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
Merit Systems Protection Bd.; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,1067
Merit Systems Protection Bd.; Passiatore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811
Merit Systems Protection Bd.; Searcy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,976,1095
Merit Systems Protection Bd.; Thibeault v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Meriweather v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853,1094
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning . . . . . . . . 809
Merriweather v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Mesa; Hernandez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004
Mesa Medical Group, PLLC; Berera v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
Mesa Medical Group, PLLC; Ednacot v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH . . . . . 997
Messerli & Kramer, P. A.; Scheffler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Messinger v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Metropolitan Jewish Hospice; Jordan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Metropolitan Wash. Airports Authority; Corr v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Mette v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Meyer Intellectual Properties Ltd.; Bodum, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Meza-Garcia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110
Mezerhane v. Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
M. G. v. Oregon Dept. of Human Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Miami Beach; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Miami Beach; Wusiya v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
MIC Group, LLC; Hinga v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Michaels, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
Michigan; Cavin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Michigan; Greer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
Michigan; Hall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Michigan; Hutcherson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
xcviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Michigan; Latta v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Michigan v. Lockridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043
Michigan; Loon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Michigan; McGee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
Michigan; Nynetjer El Bey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Michigan; Platte v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
Michigan; Prince v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Michigan; Seaman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853,1023
Michigan v. Stevens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Michigan; Tillman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Michigan; Turnpaugh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919
Michigan Dept. of Corrections; Carter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961,1096
Michigan Dept. of Corrections; Culberson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Michigan Dept. of Corrections; Dykes-Bey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Michigan Dept. of Corrections; LeBlanc v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901,1096
MicroAge, LLC; Shields v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Microbilt Corp. v. Maselli Warren, P. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Microsoft Corp.; Allvoice Developments US, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
Middleton, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Middleton v. Pash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
Midgette v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Mierzwa v. Wal-Mart, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806,984
Milano v. Carter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Miles v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fourth District . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Miles v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Milhouse v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Miller v. Cameron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Miller; Cordova v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Miller; Cruthirds v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,985
Miller v. Federal Election Comm’n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Miller; Fisher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Miller; Hubbard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Miller v. Kashani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Miller v. Office of Children, Youth and Families of Allegheny Cty. 1051
Miller; Riggins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Miller v. Sexton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Miller v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830,855,1111
Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Millers First Ins. Co.; Hoelscher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Millus; Carson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Milton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Mines v. Barber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Ming Tien v. Tien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED xcix

Page
Ministerio Roca Solida, Inc. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974
Minnesota; Beaulieu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Minnesota; Bernard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
Minnesota; Butters v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Minnesota; Fox v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
Minnesota; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900
Minnesota; Krieger v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Minnesota; Lowe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Minnesota; Manska v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920
Minnesota; Scheffler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860,989
Minnesota; Wenthe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue; Nelson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Minor; Richardson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Minton; Long v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Mintz, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Mirabal v. HSBC Bank USA, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872,1097
Miramontes-Muniz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
Miranda-Martinez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
Mira Overseas Consulting Ltd. v. Muse Family Enterprises, Ltd. 1104
Mississippi; Boyd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929,1096
Mississippi; Burton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Mississippi; Cummings v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Mississippi; DeHenre v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Mississippi; Duncan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Mississippi; Higginbotham v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Mississippi; Hye v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Mississippi; Rigdon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Mississippi v. Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 981
Mississippi; Totten v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
Mississippi; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Dollar General Corp. v. . . . 973
Missouri; Bracken v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Missouri; Driskill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
Missouri; Hosier v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Missouri; Weinhaus v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855,1094
Missouri ex rel. Middleton v. Pash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
Missud v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Missud v. Court of Appeal of Cal., First Appellate Dist. . . . . . . . 918
Missud v. LaPierre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
Mitchell v. Bolen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
Mitchell v. Navarro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Mitchell v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Mitchell v. Texas Medical Bd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
Mitchell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934,968
c TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Mizner v. Grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021
Mizukami v. Don Quijote (USA) Co. Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Moats; El-Alamin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Mobley v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
Mobley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
Mobley; Willis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Mock v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Mock v. Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Mocksville v. Hunter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Modjewski v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Moe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
Mohr; Richard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Molina v. Lockett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Moline v. CBS News Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Monell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Monroe v. District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Montague v. Carlton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Montana; Beach v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
Montana; Betterman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
Montana; Himes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Montana v. Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Montanez v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017
Montanile v. Board of Trustees, Elevator Indus. Health Plan . . 136,949
Montero-Ornelas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Montgomery; Kim v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Montgomery; McClain v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Montgomery; Vargas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Montgomery County Ed. Assn.; Crump v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Montgomery Hospice, Inc.; Uche v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Montiel; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005,1100
Montoya v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Montoya-Correa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Moody v. Delray Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928,1045
Mooney v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Moore v. Berghuis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Moore v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900
Moore v. Frazier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
Moore v. Montiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005,1100
Moore v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
Moore v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Moore v. Raemisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Moore v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972,1047
Moore v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . 845,854,879,900,966,1037,1112,1114
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED ci

Page
Morales v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Conn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Morales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891,1088
Morales-Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Morales-Vega v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Moran v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Mora-Patino v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Morawski v. Lightstorm Entertainment, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Moreno v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908,1016
Moreno Vargas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111
Morgan v. Global Traffic Technologies LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Morgan; Levitan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Morgan; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Morgan State Univ.; Stewart v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Morin v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Moronta v. Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Morris v. Court of Appeals of Tex., 11th Dist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Morris v. Long . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Morris v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941,1054
Morris v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830,984,1102
Morrissey; Kirby v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Morrow; Mathis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Eschenbach v. 811
Mosher v. Long Beach Mortgage Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Mosley v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Mosley v. Harmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Mosley v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Moss v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017
Mosti v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
Moten v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Motz v. O’Meara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
M. P.; Wyttenbach v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869,1054
Mtoched v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Muhammad; Bartholomew v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Muhammad v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965
Mujahid v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Mulero-Carrillo v. Roman-Hernandez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Mullen v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Mullenix v. Luna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Mullikin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Mullins; Gordon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
Munchkin, Inc.; Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Muniz; Cook v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Muniz; Harrison v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
cii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Muniz; Ramsey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Munks; Rodgers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Munoz-Munoz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Munoz-Ramon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Munoz Rueda v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
Munyenyezi v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Murphy; Rollins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Murr v. Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098
Murray v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Murray v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Murray v. Toal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Murray v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Murray v. Wolf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Muse Family Enterprises, Ltd.; Mira Overseas Consulting Ltd. v. 1104
Myers v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915,945
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Apotex Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 981
M/Y Quality Time; Girard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Myrick; Jenkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Nachamie; Posr v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Naddi, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Nagel v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Nails v. U. S. Bank N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Nakkhumpun; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 981
Napel; Brayboy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888,1054
Napoleon Community Schools; Fry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Narayan; Ritz-Carlton Development Co., Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Nardella v. Philadelphia Gas Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Nash v. Cartledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Nash v. Pash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Nash-Rocky Mount Bd. of Ed.; Whitaker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Nassau County; Basilio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Nassau County; Southaite v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Natal v. Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
Nath; Ritz-Carlton Development Co., Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
National Collegiate Athletic Assn.; Cohane v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
National Heritage Foundation, Inc.; Behrmann v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969
National Labor Relations Bd.; Coles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829,1022
National Labor Relations Bd.; Firenze v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
National Railroad Passenger Corp.; Lacy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Nationstar Mortgage; Campbell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Nationwide Freight Systems, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n 873
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.; Petrano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
Navarrete-Cordova v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED ciii

Page
Navarro; Encino Motorcars, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098
Navarro; Mitchell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Nave v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
Navedo-Ramirez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
Nazzal v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Neal; Azania v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Neal; Booker-El v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Neal v. Ives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
Neal v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Nealy v. United States Postal Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Nebraska; Chuol v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Nebraska; Newman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Nebraska v. Parker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
NECA–IBEW Pension Trust Fund v. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Nechovski v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920
Neeley v. Edwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
Neely, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028
Neely v. Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Neil v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Nelson v. Brazelton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,984
Nelson v. Cain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Nelson v. Flemmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077,1079
Nelson v. Kane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Nelson v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Nelson v. McEwen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
Nelson v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Nelson; Spence v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Nelson v. Tennille . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Nelson v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Nelson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898,944
Nelson; Zutz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Nesbitt, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Nesselrode v. Department of Ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,998
Nestle Purina PetCare Co. v. Curts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Nestle U. S. A., Inc. v. Doe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
NetAirus Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819,1021
Netro-De Leon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Nevada; Polk v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Nevada; Randolph v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Nevada; Zahavi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Nevada County; Pellerin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Nevada Dept. of Taxation; Sierra Pacific Power Co. v. . . . . . . . . . 1061
Nevarez-Blanco v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
Neven; Doleman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
civ TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
New Baltimore; Zammit v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005,1101
New Hampshire; Addison v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
New Hampshire; Gray v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
New Hampshire; Kargbo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
New Hampshire; Kersey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
New Hampshire; Stillwagon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
New Hampshire Right to Life v. Department of HHS . . . . . . . . . 994
New Jersey; Aziz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
New Jersey; Bell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
New Jersey; Cauthen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
New Jersey; Marrow v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
New Jersey; Spivey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency; Khalil v. 823
New Jersey Secretary of State; Balsam v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Newman v. Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Newman; United States v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
New Mexico; Baca v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
New Mexico; Texas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808,809
New Milford Public School; Y. W. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Newport Elementary School; Lopez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821,1021
Newtel Payphone Operations, Inc.; JFT Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Newton; New York City v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
New York; Allergan plc v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002
New York; Argyris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
New York; Barill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
New York; Cooke v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
New York; Crump v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
New York; Donofrio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
New York; Garay v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
New York; Gelin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
New York; Giles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
New York; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
New York; Kornegay v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978,1096
New York; Leach v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
New York; Lyon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
New York; Maki v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941,1096
New York; Qureshi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978,1096
New York; Rucano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
New York; Scott v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
New York; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
New York; Velez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835,1094
New York; Wallace v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
New York City; Gordon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
New York City; Guthrie v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cv

Page
New York City v. Newton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
New York City; Phillips v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
New York City Dept. of Ed.; Pinkard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
New York City Dept. of Ed.; Russo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957,1095
New York City Human Resources Administration; Sykes v. . . . . . 832
New York City Police Dept.; Raoul v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
New York Dept. of Correctional Services; Kearney v. . . . . . . . 919,1028
New York State Assembly; U. L. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
New York State Dept. of Correctional Service; Redman v. . . . . . 1034
Neyland v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Ng; Taffaro v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900
Ngoc Duong v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Nguyen v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Nguyet Tran v. Bank of N. Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Nichols v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Nichols; California Dump Truck Owners Assn. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Nichols v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972
Nicholson v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Nickerson v. Foulk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Nick & Howard, LLC; Onyango v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Nijjar Realty, Inc. v. Judge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Nike, Inc.; Ranza v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047,1104
Nike, Inc.; Stephens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Nike, Inc.; Stevens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Nilles, Ilvedson, Plambeck & Selbo, Ltd.; Langer v. . . . . . . . . . 871,1023
Nino-Guerrero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Nivia v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
Nix v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Nixon v. Abbott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839,998
Nixon; Kratochvil v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Nixon v. 301st Judicial Court, Dallas County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Noatex Corp. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss. Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Nobles v. Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Noel v. Macomber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
No Named Respondent; Winkles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Nooth; Bolt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
Nooth; Crawford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
Norales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
Norfolk Southern R. Co.; Goldthwaite v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Norman v. Court of Criminal Appeals of Tex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
Norman; Dwyer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Norman v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899,1024
Norman; McGee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Norris v. Foxx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,1009
cvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Norris v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1085
Norris; Landers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 925
Norris v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 846
North Carolina; Bowden v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1029
North Carolina; Campbell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 939
North Carolina; Hall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1048
North Carolina; Horton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1051
North Carolina; James v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 885
North Carolina; McGee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 888
North Carolina; Square v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 891
North Carolina; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 820
North Carolina; Wilson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1108
North Dakota; Birchfield v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1045
North Dakota; Gates v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1075
Northern New England Tel. Operations LLC; Concord v. . . . . .. 1009
Northstar Financial Advisors, Inc.; Schwab Investments v. . . . .. 874
Norton v. Maine Dept. of Health and Human Services . . . . . . . .. 1004
Norwood Police Dept.; Mazin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 925
Novack v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1084
Novo v. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 904
Nunez v. CitiMortgage, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873,1095
Nunez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 931
Nunez-Pena v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1088
Nunn v. Matthews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 943
Nurse v. Richmond County Sheriff’s Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1078
Nurse v. Sheraton Atlanta Hotel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1013
Nuttall AFC Co.; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860,1044
NuVasive, Inc.; Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. v. . . . . . . .. 1099
Nwafor v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1036
Nynetjer El Bey v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 937
O. v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 941
Oakland Port Services Corp. v. Godfrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 922
Oaks v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 847
Oates v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1111
Obadina; Edwards v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 973
Obama; Arpaio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1103
Obama; Bender v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058,1093
Obama; Judy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 810
Obama; Kumvachirapitag v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1099
OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
Obenland; Aslanyan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,1005
Obenland; Harrison v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 836
Oberwise v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1078
O’Brien; Coppola v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1082
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cvii

Page
O’Bryan v. Terris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
O’Bryant v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
O’Campo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Occhiuto v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Occidental Petroleum Corp.; Galvis Mujica v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Ochoa v. Rubin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
O’Connor v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; Leonard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Odhiambo v. Republic of Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Ofeldt v. Cox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Office Depot, Inc.; SpeedTrack, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Office of Children, Youth and Families of Allegheny Cty.; Miller v. 1051
Office of Comm’r of Baseball; San Jose v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Sup. Ct. of Pa.; Brookens v. . . . . 869
Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility Bd.; Selmer v. . . . . 1055
Office of Personnel Management; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Office of President of the U. S.; Danihel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors; Listecki v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
O’Hare v. Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061
Ohio; Campbell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Ohio; DeNoma v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Ohio; Elliot v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
Ohio; Evans v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Ohio; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Ohio; Keahey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Ohio; Kronenberg v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Ohio; Leonhart v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Ohio; Neyland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Ohio; Palmer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Ohio; Pickens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Ohio; Q. O. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Ohio; Shuster v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Ohio; Thompson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843,1022
Ohio; Tolliver v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Ohio; Vinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
Ohio v. White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Ohio; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
Ohio; Willan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Ohio; Woods v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Ohio; Yates v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017
Ohio Willow Wood Co.; Alps South, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Ohlsen v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Ojelade; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
cviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Okafor v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Okeayainneh v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
O’Keefe v. Lombardo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
O’Kelley v. Chatman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Okezie v. Leonard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Oklahoma; Higgins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Oklahoma v. Hobia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Oklahoma; Littlebear v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Oklahoma; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
Oklahoma; West v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections; Knox v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
Olague County v. Sacramento . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Olathe; Clark v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Old Republic National Title Ins. Co.; Kornegay v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Olesen v. Carter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Olibas v. Dodson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Olivarez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Olive v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Oller v. Roussel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Ollie v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Olmos v. Ryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Olson v. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Olson v. Little . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
O’Meara; Lunz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883,998
O’Meara; Motz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Omega S. A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971
OMG, L. P. v. Heritage Auctions, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
OMS, LLC, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814
OneBeacon America Ins. Co.; Reeves v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Oneida County Sheriff’s Dept.; Zavalidroga v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
O’Neil v. Kloska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
O’Neill; McCoy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
Onyango v. Nick & Howard, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Oppedisano v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Orange County; Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Orange County Service Unit; Vazquez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Orcutt v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside County . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Oregon; Birhanzl v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Oregon; Bistrika v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828,1022
Oregon; Hickman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896,1054
Oregon; McAnulty v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
Oregon Dept. of Human Services; A. M. G. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Oregon Dept. of Revenue; Glasgow v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,984
Original Talk Radio Network, Inc. v. Savage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cix

Page
Original Talk Radio Network, Inc. v. Wiener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Orlando; Paulk v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837,1022
Orozco v. Reznichenko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Ortega v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Ortega v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879,1095
Ortega v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110
Ortega Melendres; Maricopa County v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Ortega-Mora v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm. v. South Carolina ex rel. Wilson 1093
Ortiz v. Court of Appeal of Cal. 2d Appellate District . . . . . . . . . 1071
Ortiz; Rashid v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Ortiz-Aguirre v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Ortiz-Franco v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Ortiz-Lopez v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
Ortiz-Varela v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085
Osborne v. King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Osborne; Lovin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017
Ostrander v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
Osuna-Alvarez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Otrompke v. Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Outlaw; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Outlaw v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
Overka v. American Airlines, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Overton v. Tennessee Dept. of Children’s Services . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Overton; Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Oviedo-Perez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
Owens; Duncan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,982
Owens; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Owens; Kelly v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Owens; Ricks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Owens v. U. S. Bank N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
P. v. Florida Dept. of Children and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
P.; Wyttenbach v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869,1054
Pablo Gutierrez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Pablo Jimenez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Pabon v. Kerestes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Pacell v. Mahally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Pacheco v. Foulk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Pacheco v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Pacheco v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
Pacheco-Alvarado v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Padgett v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Padilla; Rubin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Padilla-Martinez v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881
cx TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Paetsch v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 885
Pagan v. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1013
Pai v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1108
Paige v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 850
Palacios-Pascacio v. United States . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1032
Palatine; Senne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 957
Paleologus v. Lopez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 963
Palmer v. Aikens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 833
Palmer; Javier Luna v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 891
Palmer v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 942
Palmer; Rowell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 865
Palmer v. Ryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 895
Palmer; Schwiger v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 853
Palmer; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1107
Palomar v. Barnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1035
Palumbo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 912
PAMA Management Co. v. Judge . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 821
Pamela B. Johnson Trust v. Anderson . . . . . . ............. . . 869
Pampattiwar v. Chitre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1008
Pannell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1114
Panuccio; Jack v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1073
Pappas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1035
Pappas v. Zickefoose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1036
Paramo; Karas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 956
Paramo; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 807
Pardon v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 975
Paredes-Carmona v. United States . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1088
Park County; Fletcher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1059
Parker v. Exeter Finance Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1106
Parker; Nebraska v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1055
Parker; Ramirez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1080
Parker v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1033
Parker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 911
Parkkila; Churn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1072
Park Place Condominiums Assn., Inc.; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . 977,1096
Parks, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1060
Parks v. Cain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 977
Parks v. Knight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 960
Parr v. Ford Motor Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1008
Parra v. Ryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 841
Parsons v. Adkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 896
Partida-Rodriguez v. Perry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 929
Pascale; Whelan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1102
Pash; Missouri ex rel. Middleton v. . . . . . . . . . ............. . . 1086
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxi

Page
Pash; Nash v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Paske v. Fitzgerald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Passiatore v. Merit Systems Protection Bd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811
Pastrana; Allen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Pastrana; Darden v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Pastrana; Elam v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835,1044
Pate v. Brelo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Pate; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Paterson; Heffernan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Patterson v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Patterson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829,966
Patterson v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Patton; Sampson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837,1054
Patton v. Werlinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Paul v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
Pauley; Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . 1098
Paulk v. Orlando . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837,1022
Paulson v. Mapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Paulson v. South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Pawley v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Payne v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936
Peabody; Barth v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Peabody Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs 816
Pearl Seas Cruises, LLC v. Lloyd’s Register North America, Inc. 819
Pearson; Goins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Pechota; Koch v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
Pedersen v. Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Peel v. Sepanek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
Peery; Bennett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
Peery; Dias v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Peery; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Pela v. Katavich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Pelizzo v. Malibu Media, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Pellerin v. Nevada County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Pembroke; Hollander v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824,1022
Pena-Aguilar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
Pennington v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Penn Millers Ins. Co.; Dolan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Pennsylvania; Bell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Pennsylvania; Bomar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Pennsylvania; Davenport v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Pennsylvania; Dooley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Pennsylvania; Dyson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Pennsylvania; Ford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
cxii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Pennsylvania; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
Pennsylvania; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Pennsylvania; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Pennsylvania; Lehman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Pennsylvania; Martin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Pennsylvania; Meadows v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Pennsylvania; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Pennsylvania; Rizzo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,1064
Pennsylvania; Robertson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Pennsylvania; Shoback v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Pennsylvania; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Pennsylvania; Staton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Pennsylvania; Watkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
Pennsylvania; Wright v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.; Deppenbrook v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,987
Peoples v. Falk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Peppers v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Perdue; Burman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Peredes v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Pereida v. Ryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Perera v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
Perez; Barnard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Perez; Bell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Perez; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865,1095
Perez; Claros v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Perez v. Fredericksburg Care Co., LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092
Perez; Levi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950
Perez v. Perry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Perez v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Perez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868,908,1083
Perez-Aguilar v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Perez-Barra v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Perez-Chavez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881
Perez-De La Rosa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Perez-Perez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Perez-Sanchez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018
Perkins, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814
Perkins v. Superior Court of Cal., Los Angeles County . . . . . . . . 940
Perkins v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Perkins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036
Perri v. Gerry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Perritt; Pickens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928,1096
Perry; Abby v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Perry v. Anonymous Physician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxiii

Page
Perry; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 926
Perry; Partida-Rodriguez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 929
Perry v. Rawski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 894
Perry; Rogers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1015
Perry; Townsend v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 833
Perry v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 955
Perry v. Wenerowicz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1080
Perry; Zavaleta Perez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1013
Persaud v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1006
Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
Personhuballah; Wittman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 982
Persson; Bell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1017
Peshkin v. Picard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 873
Peterka v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1050
Peterman; Hardy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1079
Peters, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1060
Peterson; Bank Markazi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004,1055
Peterson v. Cameron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1072
Peterson; Central Bank of Iran v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004,1055
Peterson; Worm v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1052
Petrano v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 927
Petrano v. Rhodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 842
Petrella v. Brownback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1030
Pettaway v. Feather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 992
Pettit v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 912
Peyronel v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1013
Pfister; Alcozer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 877
Pfister; Conway v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 838
Pfister; Donelson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 858
Pfister; Mejia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 854
Pham v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. . . . . . . .. 897
Pham v. McEwen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 878
PHH Mortgage; Lightfoot v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 809
Phifer v. Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1101
PHI Inc. v. Rolls Royce Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 817
Philadelphia Gas Works; Nardella v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1058
Philadelphia Newspapers LLC; Dougherty v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 823
Philadelphia School District; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 808
Philippe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 900
Phillips v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 832
Phillips v. New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 822
Phillips; Price v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 906
Phillips; Robertson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 906
Phillips v. Ternes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1064
cxiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Phillips v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Phillips Winters Apartments; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Phipps v. Phipps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Phu Le v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Phuong v. Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Phu Xuan, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Picard; Peshkin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Piccione; Van Tassel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Piccone v. McClain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Pickens v. Aldaba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972
Pickens v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
Pickens v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Pickens v. Perritt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928,1096
Pickett v. Gallagher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,987
Pickett v. Scillia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Pickett v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Pico’s Estate; Sherrill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949,1058
Pierce; Brooks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Pierce v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
Pierce; Yelardy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900
Pierson v. Rogow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957,1095
Piert v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
Pilger v. Department of Ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Pinkard v. New York City Dept. of Ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Piper v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Pirosko v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
Pisciotta v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Pitonyak, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Placer County; Duerst v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Placide v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Planned Parenthood of Wisc., Inc.; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
Plano Molding Co.; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. v. . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Plascencia-Acosta v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Platas-Hernandez v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Platinum Plus; Tonkin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Plato v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Platte v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
Platts, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814,921
Playdom, Inc.; Couture v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Pleasant-Bey v. Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Plews v. Luhrsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Plumley; Christian v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
Pocono Township; Werkheiser v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Podlin v. Ghermezian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxv

Page
Politte v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 974
Polk v. Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1072
Pollard; Bowers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1082
Pollard v. Columbus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 872
Polonczyk v. Toyota Motor Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1051
Ponce Silva v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1035
Pongo v. Bank of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1047
Poole v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 842
Porsche Automobil Holdings SE; Dean v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828,1022
Porter; Hoever v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1011
Porter v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 878
Portnoy v. Woodland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1077
Posas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1032
Posas-Torres v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1032
Posner v. Tassely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 825
Posr v. Nachamie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 830
Postal Workers; Garity v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 820
Postmaster General; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 949
Postupack; Burfeindt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 988
Potteiger; Farmer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896,1024
Potts v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1050
Pouyeh v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1081
Powell v. Kansas City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 870
Powell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 850
Power; Telesaurus VPC, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 817
Power; Verde Systems, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 817
Powers v. Tibbals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1015
Powers v. Wexford Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 927
Prado v. Riverside County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 840
Prairie County v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 923
Pramstaller; Reed-Bey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1050
Pratt, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 922
Pray v. Farwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 979
Preciado-Ovalles v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 991
Premo; Bray v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 932
Premo; Dawson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 917
Premo; Lee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 930
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.; Cahill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 940
Presence St. Joseph Medical Center; Gu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1034
President of U. S.; Arpaio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1103
President of U. S.; Bender v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058,1093
President of U. S.; Judy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 810
President of U. S.; Kumvachirapitag v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1099
Presley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 858
cxvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Prestidge v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953
Preston v. Attebury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Preston State Bank v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Preyer; Dische v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Price; Brunson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883,1023
Price; Cranford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Price v. Independence Federal Savings Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Price v. Kirkegard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Price v. Phillips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Price v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888
Price v. Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Price; Yan Sui v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP; Bearing Fund LP v. . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Pride v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
Pridgen v. Kerestes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015,1114
Priestley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Priests for Life v. Department of HHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971,998,1097
Prieto v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919
Primus v. Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
Prince; Hall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Prince v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Printz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Prison Emergency Response Team Officers; Akbar v. . . . . . . . . . 836
Proebstle v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
Promega Corp.; Life Technologies Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Prostyakov v. Masco Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Pruett; Dougherty v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838,1044
Pruitt v. ResCap Liquidating Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Public Defender 15th Judicial District Court; Lavergne v. . . . . . . 810
Puentes v. Santa Clara County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Pulse Electronics, Inc. v. Halo Electronics, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
Pulse Electronics, Inc.; Halo Electronics, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Purcell, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952
Qin Zhang v. Google, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Q. O. v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Qualls v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Queen; Houston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986,1095
Quicken Loans Inc. v. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Quinino-Salome v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
Quinn; Bakalik v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Quinn; Watford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Quintana; Diaz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxvii

Page
Quintana; Foss v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Quintanilla v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Qureshi v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978,1096
R. A. v. Louisiana Dept. of Children and Family Services . . . . . . 874
Raar v. Rivard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Raby v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Racette; Jean v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Racette; Le v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Racette; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Racz v. Knipp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Radel; Bazargani v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Raemisch; Bowring v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
Raemisch; Brooks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Raemisch; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Raesmich; Wardell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
Rafferty v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953
Ragan v. Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Ragge v. Webster Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823,1094
Ragsdell v. Regional Housing Alliance of La Plata County . . . . . 819
Rahman v. Hickory Hills Property Owners Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Rahman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Railroad Retirement Bd.; Howard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875,998
Raimondo v. Armada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Rajkovic v. Federal Bureau of Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849,1022
Ralston v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839,1054
Ram v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Ramey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018
Ramirez v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Ramirez; Esquivel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Ramirez v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Ramirez v. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850,901
Ramirez v. Parker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Ramirez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861,962
Ramirez v. Yates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Ramirez-Ballejo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Ramirez-Bertran v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Ramirez-Gandarilla v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Ramirez-Garcia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Ramirez-Garza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Ramirez-Macias v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881
Ramirez-Rivera v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Ramirez-Saucedo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
Ramon Ochoa v. Rubin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Ramon Ochoa v. Rubin Ochoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
cxviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Ramos v. Lamarque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Ramos v. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Ramos-Martinez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Ramos-Mauricio v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Ramos-Sorto v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Ramsden; Coulter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817,1021
Ramsey, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005
Ramsey v. Muniz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Ramsey v. Stephenson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
Randolph v. Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Randolph-Kennedy v. Verizon Services Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005
Rangel v. Boehner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Rangel v. Sanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Ransom v. Grisafe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Ransom; Lothian Cassidy, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Ranteesi v. Arnold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844,998,1070
Ranteesi v. Constance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847,998
Ranza v. Nike, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047,1104
Raoul v. New York City Police Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Rapelje v. Blackston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019
Rasgado v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945
Rashid v. Ortiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Ratchford v. Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Raub v. Campbell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Rauso v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082,1101
Ravell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Rawski; Perry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Ray v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Rayfield v. Eagleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Rayford v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Raymonda v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
Raysor v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Razdan; Hutchinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022
Razo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Read; Torres v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Reagan; Arizona Libertarian Party v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Reaves v. South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
Rebollar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Rebollar-Bautista v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Rechtzigel v. Fischer Market Place, LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Rechtzigel v. Fischer Sand & Aggregate, LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Reckis; Johnson & Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Redd v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Reddy; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxix

Page
Redman v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Service . . . . . . 1034
Reed v. Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
Reed v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869,882
Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Reeder v. Madigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Reedom v. Department of Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Reese v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968,1053
Reeves v. Bryson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Reeves v. Chatman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Reeves v. Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Reeves v. OneBeacon America Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Regional Housing Alliance of La Plata County; Ragsdell v. . . . . . 819
Regions Bank; Khan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Rehberger, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Reichling v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Reid v. Flint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861,1023
Reid v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Reid v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Reilly v. Cartledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Reinke; Melton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
ReliaStar Life Ins. Co.; Laschkewitsch v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Rell; Harnage v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Rembert v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Rene Gomez v. Gipson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; McInerney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 812,1004
Rentschler, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814
Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela; Mezerhane v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Republic of Cuba; Jerez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Republic of Kenya; Odhiambo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
ResCap Liquidating Trust; Pruitt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Retirement Bd. of Policemen’s Ann. Fund v. Bank of N. Y. Mellon 1062
Retta-Reyes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Reveles v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Reyes v. Ellis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Reyes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888,908
Reyes-Garcia v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Reyes-Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Reyna v. Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Reynolds American Inc.; Fluker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950
Rezendes v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Reznichenko; Orozco v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Rhett U. v. Arizona Dept. of Child Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Rhines v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Rhodes v. Beckwith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
cxx TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Rhodes; Petrano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Rice v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
Richard v. Mohr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Richards v. Barnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093
Richardson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Richardson v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Richardson v. Minor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Richardson; Pedersen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Richardson v. South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
Richardson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866,1016
Richardson v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
Richert; Gerhartz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Richmond; Herson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
Richmond County Sheriff’s Dept.; Nurse v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Richter v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,992
Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrtsgesellschaft; Martinez Asignacion v. 1092
Ricks v. Owens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Ricks v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
Ridens v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Rider v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Rigdon v. Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Riggins v. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Riggs, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Rigsby; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Riley v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Riley v. Cartledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Riley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Rinaldi v. Zickefoose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Rindfleisch v. Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Ringgold-Lockhart v. Sankary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Ringold v. Sankary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Rios; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
Rios Medina v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Rios-Pintado v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Rios Suarez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Riscajche-Siquina v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
Ritz; Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971
Ritz-Carlton Development Co., Inc. v. Narayan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Ritz-Carlton Development Co., Inc. v. Nath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Rivard; Anderson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Rivard; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Rivard; Raar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Rivard; Sanders v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Rivas v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,1095
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxxi

Page
Rivera, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Rivera v. Creech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Rivera v. Folino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881
Rivera v. Kalla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Rivera v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868,910
Rivera-Diaz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Rivera-Dominguez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Rivera-Miranda v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Rivera-Nevarez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
Rivera-Otero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
Rivero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969
Rivers v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854,917
Riverside County; Prado v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Rizzo v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,1064
RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004
R. M. P.; Wyttenbach v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869,1054
Roalson v. Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Robbins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Robenson v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Roberson v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Roberson v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Robert; Lake v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Roberts v. Barrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Roberts; DIRECTV, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
Roberts v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Roberts v. McCulloch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Roberts v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Roberts; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Robertson v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Robertson v. Phillips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Robertson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Robins; Spokeo, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Robinson v. Andrews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Robinson v. Colvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Robinson v. Cooley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Robinson v. Griffith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Robinson v. Haas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Robinson v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Robinson; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Robinson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903,916,994,1035
Robinson v. Valdamudi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Robinson v. Wetzel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Robles v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Rocha-Gutierrez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
cxxii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Roche Diagnostics GmbH; Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. . . . . . 997
Rochester; Rochester City Lines, Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Rochester City Lines, Co. v. Rochester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Rochow v. Life Ins. Co. of North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Rockwell v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Rodarte v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834,1044
Rodgers v. Knight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
Rodgers v. Munks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Rodriguez, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812,1060
Rodriguez v. American Home Mortgage Servicing . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Rodriguez v. Bank of America, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Rodriguez v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Rodriguez v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Rodriguez v. Janda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Rodriguez v. School Bd. of Polk County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Rodriguez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830,888,899,992,1033
Rodriguez v. Wofford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Rodriguez-Ayala v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Rodriguez-Bernal v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
Rodriguez-Castro v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Rodriguez-Flores v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Rodriguez-Grado v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Rodriguez-Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Rodriguez-Pena v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Rodriguez-Rodriguez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Rodriguez Sosa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Roemmele v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Rogers; Adams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
Rogers; Burns v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Rogers v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Rogers v. Perry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Rogers v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856,891,965,966,1024
Rogow; Pierson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957,1095
Rojas v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Rojas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Rolf; Allen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Rolf; Duncan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Rolf; Fitzgerald v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Rollins v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections Officials . . . . . . . . . . 857,1095
Rollins v. Murphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Rolls Royce Corp.; PHI Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Roman v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Social Services . . . 1107
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Wash. v. Burwell . . . . . . . . 971,998,1097
Roman-Hernandez; Mulero-Carrillo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxxiii

Page
Romensas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
Romero-Escobar v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Romero-Guevara v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Romero-Molina v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Rosa; Doe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Rosa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Rosabianca, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027
Rosado v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Rosales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032,1036
Rosales-Vargas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Rosales-Velasquez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Rosario v. Saylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Rose v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918,1036
Roseberry v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Rosebrough v. Buckeye Valley High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Rosen, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027
Rosenbaum v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Rosenberg; Mentor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Rosenberg; U. S. Bank N. A. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Rosenblum; Holdner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
Rosga v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Rosin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Ross; Barnes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
Ross v. Blake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
Ross v. Cobb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840,1114
Ross v. Struble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Ross v. Trierweiler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Ross v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937,993,1061
Rossco Holdings, Inc. v. McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
Rossi; Keene v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Ross Store, Inc.; Hunt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Roundtree v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998
Roundtree v. Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Roup v. Commercial Research, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974,1069
Rouse v. II–VI Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Roussel; Oller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Rowe, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812,1044
Rowe v. Gonzalez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004
Rowe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993,1097
Rowell v. Palmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Rowland v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866,1023
Royster; LeBlanc v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Rozenstrauch, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028
Ruben v. Keith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891,1054
cxxiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Rubin v. Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Rubin v. Padilla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Rubin; Ramon Ochoa v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Rubin Ochoa; Ramon Ochoa v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Rubio v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Rubio v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Rucano v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
Ruchlewicz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945
Ruddy; Thompson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Rueda v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966
Rufus, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005
Ruggiero v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Ruggles v. Yagong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Ruhaak v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Ruiz-Huertas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Ruiz-Vazquez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Rukes v. Frink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Rumanek v. Independent School Management, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Rumsfeld; Allaithi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Ruppert, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060
Rush Behavioral Health; Endencia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P. C.; Anghel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Russell v. Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility . . . . 976
Russell; Cotton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Russell v. Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Russo v. New York City Dept. of Ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957,1095
Ryan; Antonio Parra v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Ryan; Editions Ltd. West, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Ryan; Kidwell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Ryan; Kiehle v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Ryan; Kyzar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Ryan; Mayora Medrano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Ryan; Olmos v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Ryan; Palmer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Ryan; Pereida v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Ryskamp v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Sabatka-Rine; Cook v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Sabeniano, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814,1022
Sabin v. Trujillo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Sabree; Bradley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874,998
Sac and Fox Nation of Okla. v. Jim Thorpe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Sachs; OBB Personenverkehr AG v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Sacramento; Olague County v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Sacus v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxxv

Page
Sadler v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
Saenz v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Saenz-Aranda v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Sage v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Saguil v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
St. Clair v. Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Saint Cyr v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
St. John v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Sainz-Camacho v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
Sajor-Reeder v. Cavazos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Salaam, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Salahuddin v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of West Chester . . . . . . . . . 984,1069
Salam v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994
Salas v. Ducart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Salas v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Salas v. Independent Electrical Contractors Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Salazar; Apple American Group, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Salazar-Espinoza v. Hastings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Saldana v. Ducart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850,915
Saldana v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
Salem v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Salgado-Padilla v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Salih El Bey, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937,1005
Sallee v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Salman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Salnave v. Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Salois; Hart v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Sambroak; Bierley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Sam Francis Foundation v. Christies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Sampson v. Patton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837,1054
Samuels; Bruce v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Sanchez v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Sanchez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880,903,964,1032
Sanchez-Armenta v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Sanchez Avila v. Frauenheim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
Sanchez-Hernandez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Sanchez Montes v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Sanchez-Rodriguez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Sanchez Valle; Puerto Rico v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Sanchez-Venegas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Sandel Avionics, Inc.; Bechtel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Sandelier v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Sanders v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868,897
Sanders v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896,1075
cxxvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Sanders; Rangel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
Sanders v. Rivard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Sandor; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Sandoval v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074,1081
Sandreth v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
San Jose v. Office of Comm’r of Baseball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Sankary; Curtis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Sankary; Ringgold-Lockhart v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Sankary; Ringold v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Santa Clara County; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Santa Clara County; Puentes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Santa Clara County Federal Credit Union; Foules v. . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Santa Fe; Valencia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians; Torres v. . . . . . . . . . . . 826,1022
Santillan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Santoro; Stoot v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Santos v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Santos; Lucio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Santos-Buch v. Financial Industry Regulatory Auth., Inc. . . . . . . 817
Sarabia-Baltazar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Sarceno-Sarceno v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Sarvis v. Cruz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Satterfield; Jordan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865,1023
Satterwhite v. Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Saturday; Cleveland Bd. of Review v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976
Sauers; Kieffer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018
Saunders; Stevenson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892,998
Saunders v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Saunders v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887,998
Savage; Original Talk Radio Network, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Savoie v. Bradshaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942,1096
Savoy, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814
Saxon v. Lempke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Saylor; Rosario v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Scales v. Harry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Scalia; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002
Schaefer v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Scheffler v. Dohman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Scheffler v. Messerli & Kramer, P. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Scheffler v. Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860,989
Scheiring v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Scher v. Las Vegas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Schirripa, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060
Schloff v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxxvii

Page
Schlumberger Technology Corp.; Brainerd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997
Schmidt; Cantu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Schmidt v. J-Lu Co. Ltd., L. L. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Schmidt v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
Schmidt; Villegas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Schneider, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814,1094
Schneiderman; Ladeairous v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892,1024
Schnurr; May v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Schoeps v. Bavaria, Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Schofield; Tyler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
School Bd. of Polk County; Rodriguez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Schott v. Wenk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092
Schreiber, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814
Schulze v. Erie Bureau of Revenue and Tax Claim . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Schumacher v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
Schwab Investments v. Northstar Financial Advisors, Inc. . . . . . 874
Schwab Money Market Fund v. Bank of America Corp. . . . . . . . . 818
Schwager v. Schwager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953
Schwan’s Home Service, Inc.; Hawkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Schwartz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969
Schwiger v. Palmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Scillia; Pickett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Scipio v. Colvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Sconyers; Golston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
Scott, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813
Scott; Ahlers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Scott v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Scott v. Frankel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Scott v. Hubert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Scott v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Scott; Tweed v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805,1005
Scott v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863,1094,1110
Scotton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900,1024
Scranton; Loscombe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Scrubb v. LaValley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
Sealed Appellant v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. . . . . . . . . 987
Sealed Defendant v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
Seals v. Capra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Seaman v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853,1023
Searcy v. Merit Systems Protection Bd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,976,1095
Seaside Engineering & Surveying; Vision-Park Properties v. . . . 823
Sebolt v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915,916
Sechrest v. Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Secrest v. Davey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
cxxviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Secretary of Agric.; Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Assn. v. 822
Secretary of Army; Bahaudin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Secretary of Defense; Milano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Secretary of HHS; East Tex. Baptist Univ. v. . . . . . . . . . . 971,999,1097
Secretary of HHS; Geneva College v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971,999,1098
Secretary of HHS; Little Sisters of the Poor v. . . . . . . . . . 971,999,1097
Secretary of HHS; Roman Catholic Archbishop v. . . . . . . . 971,998,1097
Secretary of HHS; Southern Nazarene Univ. v. . . . . . . . . . 971,999,1098
Secretary of HHS; Zubik v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971,998,1097
Secretary of Homeland Security; Ayanbadejo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Secretary of Homeland Security; Reveles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Secretary of Homeland Security; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Secretary of Interior; Bear Valley Mut. Water Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . 1092
Secretary of Labor; Levi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950
Secretary of Navy; Kyung Choi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Secretary of Transportation; Clark v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080,1086
Secretary of Transportation; Norris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,1009
Secretary of Transportation; Tadlock v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Secretary of Treasury; Hykes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Secretary of Treasury; Kawa Orthodontics, LLP v. . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Adeyi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Allen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Dixon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Guajardo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Haynes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806,974
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Ward v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Securities and Exchange Comm’n; Contorinis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001
Securities and Exchange Comm’n; Copley Fund, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . 1104
Securities and Exchange Comm’n; Imperato v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933,998
Securities and Exchange Comm’n; Ware v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Segarra Miranda; Sitka Enterprises, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Seguin, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Seibert v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Seifer v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.; Cox v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Selmer v. Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility Bd. . . . . 1055
Semple; McEntyre v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
Senci v. Bank of N. Y. Mellon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875,1044
Senne v. Palatine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
Sepanek; Peel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
Sepcich, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027
SEPTA; Crockett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxxix

Page
Sepulveda v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Sepulveda-Uribe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Sequeira v. Sequeira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Sereme v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Serna v. Gray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111
Serrano v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Sessoms; Arnold v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc.; Phifer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Sewell v. Strayer Univ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848,981
Sexton; Eads v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Sexton; Miller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Sexton Lofts, LLC; Streambend Properties III, LLC v. . . . . . . . 808
Shackelford v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849,1094
Shadow Management, Inc.; Tonkin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Shaikh v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873,1023
Shaker v. Correctional Care Solutions Medical Advisor . . . . . . . . 1106
Shankle v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Shanks; Henderson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Shannon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090
Shapiro v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Shapiro v. McManus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Sharma v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
Sharp, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060
Shawnego; Warren v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Shelikhova v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Shell v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Shelton, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Shepard; Denson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Shepard; Viers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Shepherd v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Sheppard v. Livingston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Sheraton Atlanta Hotel; Nurse v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Sheriff v. Gillie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
Sheriff’s Office Acadia Parish; Lavergne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Sheriff’s Office Lafayette Parish; Lavergne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803,1004
Sherman; Cowart v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926,1096
Sherman v. Edwards-Fears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Sherman; Vaughn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Sherrill v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System . . . . . 847
Sherrill v. Poco’s Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949,1058
Shields v. Frontier Technology LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Shields v. MicroAge, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Shields v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Shinault v. Hawks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
cxxx TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Shirvell v. Armstrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Shkambi v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Shoback v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Shock; McCall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Shoda; Yamada v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Shore Health System, Inc.; Fleming v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
Short v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018
Shreveport; Stevens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Shteyman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Shui-Hui Wei v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Shuster v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Siegelman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092
Sierra v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Sierra Pacific Power Co. v. Nevada Dept. of Taxation . . . . . . . . . 1061
Sierra-Villegas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
Silva v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Silva v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Silverthorne v. CitiMortgage, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Silvis v. Glunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Siman v. Stansell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Simandle; Talley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866,1044
Simmons v. Himmelreich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971
Simmons v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912,992
Simon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
Simpson v. Coakley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Simpson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944,1112
Simpson v. Valenzuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881
Sims v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Sinclair v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
Singh v. Caribbean Airlines Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Singleton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111
Sinkfield v. State Farm Ins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
Sisk, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Sitka Enterprises, Inc. v. Segarra Miranda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Sivak v. Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Six Flags-Fiesta Tex.; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Skinner v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Skipp-Tittle v. Tittle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874,1044
Small; Brock v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Small v. Lindamood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Smallwood v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Smarjesse; Hamilton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Smiley v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxxxi

Page
Smith, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812,937
Smith v. Aegon Companies Pension Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061
Smith v. American Mortgage Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Smith v. Biter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Smith v. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Smith v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Smith v. Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Smith v. E. L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
Smith v. Fischer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Smith v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Smith v. Haugen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Smith v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Smith; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Smith v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979,1017
Smith v. LaValley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Smith; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Smith; McDonough v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Smith v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Smith v. Paramo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
Smith v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Smith v. Phillips Winters Apartments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Smith v. Scalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002
Smith v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Smith v. United States . . . 852,865,877,887,902,905,907,924,945,1017,1086
Smith; Wagner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Smith; Wheatley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Smith v. Wood County District Attorney’s Office . . . . . . . . . . . 880,1023
Smock v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Snipes v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Snowball-Padron v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Sobrevilla-Revolloso v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Sofris v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Los Angeles County . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Solano v. Glunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Solis, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006
Solomon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
Solorzano v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Solow Management Corp.; Vaigasi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Somerset Medical Center; Gordon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
Sone v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925,1044
Sonmez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Sonya G.; Thomas G. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Sood v. Graham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Sorensen v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026
Sorensen v. WD–40 Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
cxxxii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Sorrentino v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Sosa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853,891,944
Soto v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Soto v. D’llio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Soto; Edwards v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Soto; Gloss v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Soto; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Soto v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932,964,992
Southaite v. Nassau County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
South Carolina; Abdullah-Malik v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
South Carolina; Asbury v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803,1004
South Carolina; Bruce v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
South Carolina; Bryant v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
South Carolina; Burton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
South Carolina; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
South Carolina; Lisenby v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
South Carolina; Reaves v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086
South Carolina; Richardson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
South Carolina; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
South Carolina; Whitehead v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
South Carolina Comm’n on Lawyer Conduct; Collie v. . . . 953,1028,1059
South Carolina Dept. of Health and Env. Control; Grove v. . . . . . 1007
South Carolina ex rel. Wilson; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm. v. 1093
Southco, Inc.; Fivetech Technology Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
South Dakota; Boda v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
South Dakota; Paulson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Southeastern Pa. Transportation Authority; Crockett v. . . . . . . . 820
Southern Christian Univ.; Kloth-Zanard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Southern Nazarene Univ. v. Burwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971,999,1098
South Fork; Benton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Spackler; Starkey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Spangler, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060
Sparks v. Trumbull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Sparre v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Spaulding, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Speaker of the Ill. House of Representatives; Reeder v. . . . . . . . . 824
Spear v. Kirkland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047
Spearman; Kralovetz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840,1094
Spears v. Tatum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Speed v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857,1023
SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Speedway LLC; Huffman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Spence v. Nelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Spence v. Willis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxxxiii

Page
Spencer v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Spencer v. Tifft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Spencer v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933,1096
Spencer v. Young Kwon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
Sperry v. Maes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Spinedex Physical Therapy USA; United Healthcare of Ariz. v. 922
Spitzer Autoworld Akron, LLC; Fred Martin Motor Co. v. . . . . . 823
Spivey v. New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Springfield Housing Authority; Hopkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
Sprint Nextel Corp.; Yoak v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Spry v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Square v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
S. T.; L. B. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Stamos v. Davey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834,1022
Stanfield v. Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Stansel v. Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Stansell; Diaz Herrera v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Stansell; Siman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Stansell; Villarosa Investments Fla., Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Stanton v. Lassonde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Stanton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Staples, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813
Staples v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961,1096
Starkey v. Spackler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Starks v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965
Starner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945
Starr, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951
Starr v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
State. See name of State.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby . . . . 1058
State Farm Ins.; Sinkfield v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
State Univ. of N. Y. Institute of Technology; Xu-Shen Zhou v. . . . 827
Staton v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Staton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867,875
Steele; Collins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Steele; Forrest v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
Steele; Kinney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Steele; Krieg v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Stephens; Adams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Stephens; Anderson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833,1054
Stephens; Arciba v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Stephens; Bailey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Stephens; Banks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
cxxxiv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Stephens; Basey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 888,1024
Stephens; Battaglia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Stephens; Bogany v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834,1022
Stephens; Brewer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983,1058
Stephens; Byrd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Stephens; Calton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Stephens; Carr v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Stephens; Castro Perez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Stephens; Clark v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Stephens; Clay v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002,1100
Stephens; Crowder v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Stephens; Delaney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Stephens; Douglas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Stephens; Dunn v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835,960
Stephens; Edwards v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959
Stephens; Enriquez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919,1100
Stephens; Escamilla v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Stephens; Freeman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072
Stephens; Gaines v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Stephens; Garcia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Stephens; Gonzales v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Stephens; Gutierrez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829,1022
Stephens; Henricks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Stephens; Holiday v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 999
Stephens; Jennings v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Stephens; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Stephens; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Stephens; Koumjian v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Stephens; Lester v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898,1054
Stephens; Lorenzo Esparza v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Stephens; Lucio Vasquez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Stephens; Martin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Stephens; McBride v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Stephens; Medearis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Stephens; Medley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839,1044
Stephens; Medrano Diaz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Stephens; Mercado Villalobos v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Stephens; Mitchell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Stephens; Morris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941,1054
Stephens v. Nike, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Stephens; Ortega v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879,1095
Stephens; Rayford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Stephens; Rivas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,1095
Stephens; Roberson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxxxv

Page
Stephens; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Stephens; Rodarte v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834,1044
Stephens; Shackelford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849,1094
Stephens; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Stephens; Stewart v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,1054
Stephens; Storey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
Stephens; Tarvin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Stephens; Thurman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Stephens; Towery v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Stephens v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Stephens; Van Houten v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005
Stephens; Vega v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Stephens; Ward v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Stephens; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Stephens; Zeedyk v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Stephens; Zirus v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Stephenson; Ingram v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Stephenson; Ramsey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
Stern; Watkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Stevens; Michigan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Stevens v. Nike, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Stevens v. Shreveport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Stevenson; Brannon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878,1023
Stevenson; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
Stevenson v. First American Title Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Stevenson; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
Stevenson; Irby v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Stevenson v. Saunders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892,998
Steward; Turner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857,1044
Stewart; Cleveland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Stewart; Matthews v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886,1023
Stewart v. Morgan State Univ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Stewart v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881,1054
Stewart v. Treasure Bay Casino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Stewart; Watson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Stewart-Hanson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Stillwagon v. New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Stinson v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Stoddard v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Stoll v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Stoller v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Stone; Fields v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Stoot v. Santoro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Storey v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
cxxxvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Strain v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898,1054
Strange; Frye v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Strange; Howard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Stratton; Theriault v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Strayer Univ.; Sewell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848,981
Streambend Properties II, LLC v. Ivy Tower Minneapolis, LLC 808
Streambend Properties III, LLC v. Sexton Lofts, LLC . . . . . . . . 808
Streeter v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Strickland, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060
Stricklen v. Burt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Strong v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Strouse v. Bureau of Prisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Strouse v. Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Struble; Ross v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Strum v. Kauffman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Strunk v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,1068
Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Stuckey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Study v. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Study v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Sturdivant v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852
Sturdivant v. Lizarraga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983
Sturgeon v. Frost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047
Styles v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
Suarez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Subieta v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Suchocki v. Gilcrest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Sui v. Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Sui v. 2176 Pacific Homeowners Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Sullivan v. Glenn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Sullivan; Koster v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Sullivan v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979,1097
Sumpter v. Atkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Sun Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Sun Microsystems, Inc.; Lawson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092
Sun-Times Media, LLC v. Dahlstrom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Suong v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
Superintendent of penal or correctional institution. See name or
title of superintendent.
Superior Ct. of Cal.; Andrews v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Superior Ct. of Cal., Butte County; Youngblood v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Superior Ct. of Cal., Los Angeles County; Perkins v. . . . . . . . . . . 940
Superior Ct. of Cal., Los Angeles County; Sofris v. . . . . . . . . . . . 872
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxxxvii

Page
Superior Ct. of Cal., Riverside County; Orcutt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Superior Ct. of Pa.; Ullman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Supervising Judge, Circuit Ct. of Ill., Cook County; Ellison v. . . 961,1096
Suppressed v. Suppressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Supreme-El v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Surles v. Leach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Sussex; Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Sustaita v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Suteerachanon v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Md., Inc. . . . . . . . . . 1101
Suter; Kalange v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Sutton v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Su Yi v. Cable News Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Su Yi v. Capital One, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Swain v. Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Swarthout; Cardenas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Swarthout; Denewiler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Sykes v. New York City Human Resources Administration . . . . . 832
Sylvester v. Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Sylvester v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Szpyt v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
T.; L. B. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
T. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969,1044
Taccetta v. D’Ilio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Tadlock v. Foxx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Taffaro v. Ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900
Taggart v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939,1095
Talen Energy Marketing, LLC; CPV Md., LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Talen Energy Marketing, LLC; Hughes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Talik v. Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Talley v. Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Talley v. Gore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832,953,1054
Talley v. Simandle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866,1044
Tallie; Hall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862,1054
Tam Tran Nguyen v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Tanzi v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Tapia; Lopez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Tapp v. Eckard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841,1044
Tartt, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814
Tarvin v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Tassely; Posner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Orange County . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Tatar, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937,1054
Tate, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984
Tatum; Spears v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
cxxxviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Tatum; Woodley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017
Tavarez, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Taveras v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Taveras De La Cruz-Gutierrez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Taylor, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Taylor v. Barnard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Taylor; Brunson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964,1114
Taylor v. Crowley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990,1096
Taylor v. Daniels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863,864
Taylor v. Fisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Taylor v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Taylor v. Memphis Area Legal Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Taylor v. Nakkhumpun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 981
Taylor v. Palmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Taylor v. Pate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Taylor; Primus v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
Taylor v. Robinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Taylor v. South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Taylor v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 864,889,908,934,967,968,1017,1097
Taylor v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
Taylor v. Valenzuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Teal v. Campbell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Telemaque v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Telesaurus VPC, LLC v. Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Temple Hills Post Office; Ferebee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Tennant v. Georgetown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Tennessee; Bush v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892
Tennessee; Chalmers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830,1022
Tennessee; Cotham v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Tennessee; Garrett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Tennessee; Hall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974
Tennessee; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866,926
Tennessee; Kendrick v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Tennessee; Mississippi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 981
Tennessee; Pleasant-Bey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Tennessee; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Tennessee Bd. of Probation and Parole; Wells v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
Tennessee Comm’r of Revenue; DIRECTV, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 954
Tennessee Dept. of Children’s Services; Overton v. . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Tennessee Dept. of Correction; Dunigan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Tennille; Dorsey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Tennille; Nelson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Ternes; Phillips v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Terrell v. Bryson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxxxix

Page
Terrell v. Chatman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1045
Terrell v. Maiorana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Terrill; Gossage v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Terris; O’Bryan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Terry v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Terumo Corp.; Chang Lim v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Tesler v. Cacace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Tetzlaff v. Educational Credit Management Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Texas; Agnew v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Texas; Aguilar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Texas; Anaya v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Texas; Bradden v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Texas; Broadnax v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Texas; Butler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Texas; Cade v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Texas; Cleaveland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Texas; Crespin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Texas; Crider v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Texas; Cuong Phu Le v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Texas; Estrada v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840,1094
Texas; Evans v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
Texas; Frias v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861
Texas; Galvan Cerna v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Texas; Garcia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022
Texas; Gonzales v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Texas; Griffin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
Texas; Griffis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Texas; Higgins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1074
Texas; Hill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Texas; Hoffman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Texas; Holguin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Texas; Hunt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Texas; Hutchinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
Texas; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Texas; Kessel-Revis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Texas; Lancaster v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026
Texas; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Texas; Lizcano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Texas; Lopez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849,962
Texas; Martin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859,893
Texas; Masterson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114,1115
Texas; McDonald v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840
Texas; Murray v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Texas; Nelson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
cxl TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Texas v. New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808,809
Texas; Parker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Texas; Peredes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Texas; Perkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065
Texas; Peyronel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Texas; Piert v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
Texas; Preston State Bank v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Texas; Raby v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Texas; Ralston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839,1054
Texas; Roberson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Texas; Roberts v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853
Texas; Rockwell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Texas; Saenz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Texas; Schaefer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Texas; Smallwood v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
Texas; Staples v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961,1096
Texas; United States v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Texas; Verlee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Texas; Wasserman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Texas; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845,899
Texas; Wilson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Texas; Zamarripa Alvarado v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Texas; Zavala v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Texas; Zelaya-Zelaya v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Texas Dept. of Public Safety; Phillips v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Texas Medical Bd.; Mitchell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
Texas Workforce Comm’n; Martinez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Thai Tu v. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
That v. Alders Maintenance Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Theall v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Theriault v. Stratton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Thibeault v. Merit Systems Protection Bd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Thivel v. Butler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Thomas, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061
Thomas; Belcher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
Thomas v. Cape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Thomas v. Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Thomas; Colvin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 981
Thomas; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Thomas; Fabian v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Thomas v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Thomas v. Goodwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Thomas v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Thomas v. Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxli

Page
Thomas v. Morgan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Thomas v. Outlaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Thomas; Talik v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Thomas v. Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Thomas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859,911,1017,1084
Thomas v. U. S. Bank N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Thomas v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Land Use Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Thomas v. Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Thomas G. v. Sonya G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Thomas K. Plofchan, Jr., PLLC v. Yelp, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Thompkins v. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Thompson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Thompson v. Alvarez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Thompson; Cowder v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Thompson; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Thompson; Hardy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Thompson v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Thompson; Loan Phuong v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Thompson v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Thompson v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843,1022
Thompson v. Ruddy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Thompson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Thompson v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890,1024
Thorne v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968
Thornton v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
301st Judicial Court, Dallas County; Nixon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Thurman v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Thurston v. Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904,1096
Tian v. Aspen Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Tibbals; McNew v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
Tibbals; Powers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Tibbs v. Bunnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809
Tibbs v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
Tiburcio v. United States Capitol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017,1114
Tien; Ming Tien v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Tien v. Tien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Tien Li-Shou v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
TIFD III–E, LLC v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092
Tifft; Spencer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Tiller v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Tillman v. Gastelo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Tillman v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Timmerman-Cooper; Dudley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Tinker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
cxlii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Tippens v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114
Tittle v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Tittle; Skipp-Tittle v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874,1044
T-Mobile USA, Inc.; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972,1047
Toal; Murray v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Tobin v. Cuddy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Todisco v. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Toledo-Martinez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Toler v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1109
Tolliver v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Tomikel v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Tomkins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955,1095
Tompkins v. Chetirkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Tonkin v. Platinum Plus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Tonkin v. Shadow Management, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Ton That v. Alders Maintenance Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Torres; Harnage v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Torres v. Read . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Torres v. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . 826,1022
Torres v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916,934
Torres-Colon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Torres-Moreno v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Torres-Rodriguez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Torres-Salas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Totten v. Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
Tovar-Espinoza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Towery v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Townsend v. HSBC Bank USA, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Townsend v. Perry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Toyota Motor Corp.; Polonczyk v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Trachanas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Tracia, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951
Tran v. Bank of N. Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Tran v. Biter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Tran v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036
Trani; Al-Yousif v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Tran Nguyen v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Travelers Indemnity Co. of Conn.; Morales v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Traylor v. McLaughlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Treasure Bay Casino; Stewart v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Tretola v. Tretola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Trevino Morales v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
Triana v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Tribble v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxliii

Page
Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority; Janes v. . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Tricome v. LaRiviere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972
Trierweiler; Ross v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley . . . . . . . . . . 1098
Trinity Wall Street v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982
Triplett, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060
Trogdon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Trong Tran v. Biter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
True v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Truitt, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Trujillo; Sabin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Truman Medical Center, Administrative Dept.; Young v. . . . . . . . 943
Trumbull; Sparks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Trung Quang Phan v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Truss v. Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Trye, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027
Tsirelman v. Zucker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Tu v. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Tucker v. Bauman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Tucker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Tumlinson; Barnes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
Tunstall-Bey v. Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Tuomi v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC v. Sussex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Turner v. Cassady . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Turner v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Turner v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Turner v. Kelley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886
Turner v. Mahally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093
Turner v. Steward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857,1044
Turner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864,889,912,945,980,998,1037
Turner v. Whitener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Turnpaugh v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919
Tweed v. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805,1005
Twitty v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802,807
Two Bulls v. Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
24th District Court of La.; Dixon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984,1100
245th Jud. District Court of Harris Cty.; Zaragoza Fuentes v. . . . 1007
2176 Pacific Homeowners Assn.; Yan Sui v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Two Shields v. Wilkinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. . . . . . . 1019
Tyler v. Schofield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Tyler v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Tyshkevich v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
cxliv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Tyson v. Cartledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
U. v. Arizona Dept. of Child Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Uche v. Montgomery Hospice, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
Udren Law Offices, P. C. v. Kaymark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Uhler; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
Ukrainian Village Pharmacy; United States ex rel. Grenadyor v. 818
U. L. v. New York State Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
Ulin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Ulin-Zubieta v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Ullman v. Superior Court of Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Un v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857
Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review; De Ritis v. . . . . . . . 821
Unger; Diaz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
United. For labor union, see name of trade.
United Arab Emirates; Sturdza v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983
United Healthcare of Ariz. v. Spinedex Physical Therapy USA 922
UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Denbo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
United Refining Co. v. Cottillion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
United States. See name of other party.
U. S. Bank N. A.; Brumfiel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
U. S. Bank N. A.; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
U. S. Bank N. A.; Nails v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
U. S. Bank N. A.; Owens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
U. S. Bank N. A. v. Rosenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
U. S. Bank N. A.; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
United States Capitol; Tiburcio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017,1114
U. S. District Chief Judge; Talley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866,1044
U. S. District Court; Adkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
U. S. District Court; Andrews v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947,1054
U. S. District Court; Barksdale v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012,1096
U. S. District Court; Clark v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
U. S. District Court; Evans v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
U. S. District Court; Flood v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
U. S. District Court; Kraemer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965
U. S. District Court; Patterson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
U. S. District Court; Strain v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898,1054
U. S. District Court; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
U. S. District Court; Thompson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890,1024
U. S. District Court; Villa v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
United States District Judge; Hill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972,1059
United States ex rel. Barko v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. . . . . . 1066
United States ex rel. Escobar; United Health Services, Inc, v. . . . 1025
United States ex rel. Grenadyor v. Ukrainian Village Pharmacy 818
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxlv

Page
United States ex rel. Rigsby; State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. 1058
United States Interagency Homelessness Council; Wright v. . . 927,1024
United States Parole Comm’n; Bender v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 980
United States Postal Service; Nealy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
U. S. Tour & Remittance, Inc. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
United Way of New York City; Dickerson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829,1053
Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
University of Cal.; Krushwitz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
University of Mass. Biologic Labs; MedImmune, LLC v. . . . . . . . 1103
University of Mich.; Barron v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 957
University of Tex. at Austin; Fisher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002
Unnamed Defendants; Wehmhoefer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Upshaw v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875,1066
Upson v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Urbano v. MacDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Urena-Navarro v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Uresti-Garza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Uribe; Bunthoen Roeung v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Uribe; Esparza v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
Uribe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905,1086
Urosevic v. Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
Ushery v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
Usman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Utah; Burke v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875
Utah; Gonzales v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Utah; Menzies v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Uttecht; Codiga v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Utter; Building Industry Assn. of Wash. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Uveges v. Uveges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Vaigasi v. Solow Management Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1081
Valdamudi; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Valencia v. De Luca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Valencia v. Santa Fe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Valencia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Valencia Garcia v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Valentin; Mawatu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Valentine v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 930
Valenzuela; Fernandez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862
Valenzuela v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Valenzuela v. Maricopa County Correctional Health Services . . . . 1056
Valenzuela; Simpson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881
Valenzuela; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Valley Avenue Drive-In Restaurant, LLC; Gibson v. . . . . . . . . 862,1023
Valle Zuniga v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
cxlvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Vanegas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Vane Line Bunkering, Inc. v. Hicks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
Van Houten v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005
Vann v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,968
Van Orden; Downs v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Van Tassel v. Piccione . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Van Winkle; Vieira v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854,1023
Van Zandt v. Mbunda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Vargas v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Vargas v. Montgomery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Vargas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Vargas-Alvarez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Varriale v. Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
Vashey, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813
Vasquez; Henry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075
Vasquez v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
Vasquez-Martinez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Vassallo v. MacDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Vaughn v. Sherman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Vazquez v. Orange County Service Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Vega; McDowell Bey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Vega v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Vela v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Vela-Cavazos v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Velasquez v. Bank of America, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Velasquez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Velasquez-Lopez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Velazco v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Velazquez-Soberanes v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Velez v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Velez v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835,1094
Velez-Figueroa v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Velez-Soto v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1110
Veliz v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
Venegas v. Frauenheim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880
Ventura v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018
Vera v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
Veracruz Mexico v. BP p. l. c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Verde Systems, LLC v. Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Verdugo-Beltran v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Vergara-Escobar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965
Verizon Services Corp.; Randolph-Kennedy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005
Verizon Wireless; Aircraft Check Services Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Verizon Wireless; Katz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxlvii

Page
Verlee v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Vermont; Congress v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Vernon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Viacom; Hayes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Vickers v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1037
Vidal; LeBaron v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Vieira v. Van Winkle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854,1023
Viers v. Shepard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Vieux v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
Villa v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1034
Villa v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 866
Villagran-Pecina v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088
Villalobos v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Villalonga v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1113
Villalta v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878,1023
Villanueva v. Frauenheim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Villareal Villanueva v. Frauenheim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Villarosa Investments Fla., Inc. v. Stansell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Villarreal-De La Fuente v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Villarreal-Flores v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Villegas v. Schmidt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Villegas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859,965
Vilsack; Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Assn., Inc. v. . . . . . . 822
Vines v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Vinson v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
Viray, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814,1023
Virga; Hauseur v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Virginia; Albritton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Virginia; Allah v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Virginia; Chamberlain v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
Virginia; Charnock v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Virginia; Coleman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Virginia; Creamer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Virginia; Dougherty v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838,1044
Virginia; Ferry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
Virginia; Hill v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Virginia; Huguely v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Virginia; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Virginia; Martin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Virginia; Richardson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
Virginia; Saunders v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887,998
Virginia; Terry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Virginia; Tippens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1114
Virginia; Tomikel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010
cxlviii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Virginia; Wright v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Virginia Bureau of Ins.; Jack v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation; Bala v. . . . . . . . . 1009
Virginia Natural Gas, Inc.; Bell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Virgin Islands Bd. of Land Use Appeals; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Vision-Park Properties v. Seaside Engineering & Surveying . . . . 823
Visiting Judge, Lawrence Cty. Ct. of Common Pleas; Haagensen v. 1064
Vizcarra-Serrano v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111
V. L. v. E. L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1046
Vogt v. Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884,1023
Vogt v. Iowa State Penitentiary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929,998
Voisine v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949,1058
Volk v. Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Volkman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
Vos v. Gough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Voss v. Baca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Vu v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
W. v. New Milford Public School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Wadford v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Wadley v. Farley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Wagner v. Burt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Wagner v. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Wagoner v. Lemmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
Waldrip v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Walker, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Walker v. Beard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Walker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877,887,899,956,1068,1087
Walker; Wallace v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Wall; Price v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1087
Wallace; Briscoe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Wallace v. Hernandez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876
Wallace v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Wallace v. Walker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Wallace; Watkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Waller v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Wallis v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
Walls v. Dillon County Detention Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1083
Walls; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 897
Walls v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
Wal-Mart; Cabrera Mejia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900,1024
Wal-Mart, Inc.; Mierzwa v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806,984
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Hardin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Miller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cxlix

Page
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Trinity Wall Street v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982
Walpole v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Walsh v. Federal Bureau of Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969,1055
Walsh v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969,1054
Walthall, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060
Walthall v. McQuiggen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857,1094
Wannamaker v. Boulware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Ward v. Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938,978
Ward v. Department of Ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Ward v. McDonald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Ward v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Wardell v. Raesmich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859
Warden. See name of warden.
Ware v. Securities and Exchange Comm’n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Ware v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918
Ware v. Zatecky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Warner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844,1054
Warren v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900,955
Warren; Juarez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Warren v. Shawnego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Warren v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889,935,1044
Warrior; Fairchild v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Warrior; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Washington, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Washington; Calderon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Washington; Glasmann v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Washington; Holmes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Washington v. Jeanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Washington; Reid v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Washington; Stoll v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Washington; Tyler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Washington v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092
Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC . . . 1014
Washington County; Lewicki v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986,1095
Washington Dept. of Corrections; Barstad v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Washington Dept. of Revenue; Hambleton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Wasserman v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Waterstone Capital Management, L. P.; Davies v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Watford v. Quinn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928
Watkins v. Duke Medical Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Watkins v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
Watkins v. Stern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Watkins v. Wallace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Watson v. Colvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842,1054
cl TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Watson v. Florida Judicial Qualifications Comm’n . . . . . . . . . . . 920,1093
Watson; Hollier v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
Watson v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Watson v. Stewart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885
Watson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857,931,990
Watts v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
WD–40 Co.; Sorensen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Webb v. Kern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Webb v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931,998,1089
Weber, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953
Webster Bank, N. A.; Ragge v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823,1094
Wehmhoefer v. Unnamed Defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050
Wei v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Weinhaus v. Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855,1094
Weisheit v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Wei Zhou, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060
Welch v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801,945,1056,1098
Wells, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812,1047
Wells v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Wells; Lentz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Probation and Parole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854
Wells; Tunstall-Bey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.; Clark v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838
Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.; Content Extraction & Transmission v. 914
Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.; Devlin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.; Frankel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.; Leyva v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.; Meriweather v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 853,1094
Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.; Strunk v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811,1068
Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.; Wong v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Welsh v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Wenerowicz; Carrillo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856
Wenerowicz; Perry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Wenk; Schott v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092
Wenthe v. Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Werkheiser v. Pocono Township . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956
Werlinger; Patton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
West; Corzo Trucking Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
West v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
West v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
Westgate Resorts, Ltd., v. Overton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
Westlake Legal Group v. Yelp, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
West Virginia; Frazier v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829,1054
Wetzel; Adkins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cli

Page
Wetzel; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Wexford Health Services; Powers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Wheatley v. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Wheeler v. White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Wheeler; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Whelan v. Pascale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Wherry; Haagensen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Whipple; Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Auth. v. . . . . . . 873
Whipple; Erlanger Health System v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Whipple; Erlanger Medical Center v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Whisnant v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018
Whitaker v. Nash-Rocky Mount Bd. of Ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
White v. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
White v. Cain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
White v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
White v. Detroit East Community Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . 984,1069
White v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035
White; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
White; Kraus v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
White v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
White; Ohio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
White v. Racette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
White v. Rios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
White v. Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
White v. Uhler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868
White v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932,936
White v. Wheeler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
White; Wheeler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
White v. White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103
White v. Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830,844
White; Yell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
White & Case LLP; Whitehead v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947,969
Whitehead v. South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Whitehead v. White & Case LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947,969
Whitener; Turner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Whitfield v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Whitson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Whittaker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932,933
Whittemore v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822
Whitten; Butler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982
Widdison v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890
Widmer v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053
Wiener; Original Talk Radio Network, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
clii TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Wiggins; Hoffart v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941,1054
Wiggins v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Wilburn v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Wilcox v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917
Wilhelm v. Fisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983
Wilk v. Winn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916
Wilkerson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026
Wilkins v. Ludwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Wilkinson v. GEO Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1028
Wilkinson; Two Shields v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049
Willaman v. Erie Satellite Office, Bureau of ATF . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104
Willan v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 894
William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC; Washington v. 1014
Williams, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952,1060,1061
Williams v. Barry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
Williams; Bealer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Williams; Brady v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Williams v. Cain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849
Williams v. Cartledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Williams v. City Univ. of N. Y., Brooklyn College . . . . . . . . . . . 903,1024
Williams v. Colvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
Williams v. Corizon, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806,1005
Williams v. Davey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832
Williams v. Griffith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
Williams v. Huha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840,1054
Williams v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831,888,1095
Williams v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084
Williams v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805,1072
Williams v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
Williams v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
Williams v. Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
Williams v. Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Williams; Natal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846
Williams v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Williams v. Ojelade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941
Williams v. Planned Parenthood of Wisc., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
Williams v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1106
Williams v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845,899
Williams v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801,
848,849,890,893,909,923,935,959,967,1038,1086,1094,1101,
1111
Williams; Volk v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
Williams v. Warrior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Williamson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812,1095
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED cliii

Page
Williamson v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Willis v. Mobley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063
Willis; Spence v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
Wilmington Trust, N. A.; Cardelle v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1105
Wilson v. Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Wilson v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Wilson v. Lackner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
Wilson v. Marin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860
Wilson v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Wilson; Ragan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Wilson; Strouse v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Wilson v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
Wilson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851,992,1006
Wilson; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . 1093
Wimberly v. Hudak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Wimberly v. Julius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987
Wimberly v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Wingard; Wright v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899,1024
Winget v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1048
Winkles v. No Named Respondent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Winn; Kelley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Winn; Martinez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Winn; Wilk v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916
Winston v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Winters v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
Wisconsin; Anthony v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955
Wisconsin; Griep v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061
Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874
Wisconsin; Ivanez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
Wisconsin; Murr v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1098
Wisconsin; Rindfleisch v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Wisconsin; Roalson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069
Wisconsin; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
Wise; Zwicker & Associates, P. C. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061
Wittenburg Univ.; Adrien v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
Wittman v. Personhuballah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982
Witzlib v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112
W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. . . . . 915
Wofford; Delgado Rodriguez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
Wolf, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060
Wolf; Murray v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1107
Wolfe v. Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Womble v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1089
Wong v. Anderson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969
cliv TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Wong v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
Wong v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Wood v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Wood v. Florida Atlantic Univ. Bd. of Trustees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984
Wood v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Woodard v. Fortress Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890,1095
Woodard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1082
Wood County District Attorney’s Office; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . 880,1023
Woodfox; Cain v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 816
Woodings v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1091
Woodland; Portnoy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Woodley v. Tatum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017
Woods; Beasley v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Woods; Hubbard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1033
Woods; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Woods; Long v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Woods; Neely v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Woods; Nobles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Woods v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
Woods; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830,844
Woodward v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
Woolsey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1038
Worm v. Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052
Wrae v. Eikleberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Wright, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Wright; Douglas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Wright v. Fisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1070
Wright; Garvin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
Wright; Houston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988
Wright v. Illinois Dept. of Parole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
Wright v. James City County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Wright v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855,962
Wright v. King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899
Wright v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
Wright; Roundtree v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 865
Wright v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807,830,889,965
Wright v. United States Interagency Homelessness Council . . 927,1024
Wright v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 884
Wright v. Wingard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899,1024
Wright Tree Service, Inc.; Chytka v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
Wu v. Capital One, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986,1095
Wu v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Wusiya v. Miami Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Wu Tien Li-Shou v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826
 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED clv

Page
Wyman, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950
Wynn v. Callan Appraisal Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Wynn v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Wynne; Foster v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Wynne; Marsh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051
Wyoming; Montana v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Wyttenbach v. R. M. P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869,1054
Xian v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893
Xuan, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812
Xu-Shen Zhou v. State Univ. of N. Y. Institute of Technology . . . 827
Yagong; Ruggles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
Yamada v. Shoda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
Yamaha Motor Corp., U. S. A. v. McMahon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985
Yan Sui v. Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Yan Sui v. 2176 Pacific Homeowners Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870
Yates; Marco Ramirez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962
Yates v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017
Yawn v. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 889
Ybarra v. Holland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Yeager v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817
Yelardy v. Pierce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900
Yell v. White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1108
Yelp, Inc.; Thomas K. Plofchan, Jr., PLLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Yelp, Inc.; Westlake Legal Group v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008
Yelverton v. District of Columbia Office of Bar Counsel . . . . . . . . 877
Yi v. Cable News Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Yi v. Capital One, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Yi Hong Chen v. Lynch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Yoak v. Sprint Nextel Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1016
Young, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047
Young v. Bowersox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 979
Young; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898
Young; Reyna v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Young v. Truman Medical Center, Administrative Dept. . . . . . . . 943
Young; Two Bulls v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927
Young v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931,1038
Youngblood v. Superior Court of Cal., Butte County . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Young Kwon; Spencer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855
Young Zeon; Clay v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Yousefian v. Glendale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
Yung Lo v. Golden Gaming, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
Y. W. v. New Milford Public School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819
Zae Young Zeon; Clay v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Zahavi v. Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
clvi TABLE OF CASES REPORTED

Page
Zaler v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Zamarripa Alvarado v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961
Zamiara v. King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1062
Zammit v. New Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005,1101
Zar v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1018
Zaragoza Fuentes v. 245th Jud. District Court of Harris Cty. . . . 1007
Zareck v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
Zatecky; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
Zatecky; Ware v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960
Zavala v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986
Zavala-Marti v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
Zavaleta v. Bergh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076
Zavaleta Perez v. Perry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Zavalidroga v. Oneida County Sheriff’s Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1071
Zeedyk v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1073
Zelaya v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869
Zelaya-Zelaya v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977
Zeon; Clay v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810
Zepeda-Gonzalez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Zepeda-Rangel v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Zhang v. Google, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973
Zhou, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1060
Zickefoose; Pappas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036
Zickefoose; Rinaldi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
Zimmer; LeBlanc v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Zimmer, Inc.; Stryker Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938
Zions First National Bank; McDonald v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836
Zirus v. Stephens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Zobrist, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1027
Zoning Hearing Bd. of West Chester; Salahuddin v. . . . . . . . . . 984,1069
Zook v. Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958
Zubaidah v. Lorain County Bar Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Zubik v. Burwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971,998,1097
Zucker; Tsirelman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1064
Zuckerberg; Ceglia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Zuniga v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967
Zutz v. Nelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Zwicker & Associates, P. C. v. Wise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1061
 CASES ADJUDGED
IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AT

OCTOBER TERM, 2015

MARYLAND v. KULBICKI

on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of

appeals of maryland
No. 14–848. Decided October 5, 2015
At respondent Kulbicki’s 1995 murder trial, the State of Maryland’s ballis-
tics expert testified, based on Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis
(CBLA), that bullet fragments from the crime scene were similar in
composition to a fragment found in Kulbicki’s truck and a bullet found
in his gun. The jury convicted Kulbicki of first-degree murder. Years
later, after CBLA was discredited and abandoned as a mode of ballistics
analysis, Kulbicki argued on state postconviction review that his trial
attorneys were ineffective because they had not questioned CBLA’s le-
gitimacy. The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that trial counsel’s
failure to discover a 1991 report coauthored by the State’s expert wit-
ness, to identify a methodological flaw contained therein, and to use
that flaw to cast doubt on CBLA during cross-examination amounted to
deficient performance. Concluding further that counsel’s deficiency was
prejudicial, the court set aside Kulbicki’s conviction and ordered a new
trial.
Held: Kulbicki’s trial attorneys were not constitutionally ineffective.
Under the “rule of contemporary assessment of counsel’s conduct,”
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U. S. 364, 372, the Maryland Court of Appeals
should have “judge[d] the reasonableness of counsel’s challenged con-
duct . . . viewed as of the time of counsel’s conduct,” Strickland v. Wash-
ington, 466 U. S. 668, 690. Had it done so, it would have acknowledged
1
2 MARYLAND v. KULBICKI

Per Curiam

that counsel’s failure to poke methodological holes in a then-

uncontroversial mode of ballistics analysis did not amount to deficient
performance. There is no reason to believe that a diligent search would
have discovered the supposedly crucial 1991 report. The State Court
of Appeals’ demand for something close to “perfect advocacy” is far
more than the “reasonable competence” the Sixth Amendment right to
counsel guarantees. Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U. S. 1, 8.
Certiorari granted; 440 Md. 33, 99 A. 3d 730, reversed.

Per Curiam.
A criminal defendant “shall enjoy the right . . . to have
the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U. S. Const.,
Amdt. 6. We have held that this right requires effective
counsel in both state and federal prosecutions, even if the
defendant is unable to afford counsel. Gideon v. Wain-
wright, 372 U. S. 335, 344 (1963). Counsel is unconstitution-
ally ineffective if his performance is both deficient, meaning
his errors are “so serious” that he no longer functions as
“counsel,” and prejudicial, meaning his errors deprive the
defendant of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466
U. S. 668, 687 (1984). Applying this standard in name only,
the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that James Kulbicki’s
defense attorneys were unconstitutionally ineffective. We
summarily reverse.
In 1993, Kulbicki shot his 22-year-old mistress in the head
at pointblank range. The two had been ensnarled in a pater-
nity suit, and the killing occurred the weekend before a
scheduled hearing about unpaid child support. At Kul-
bicki’s trial, commencing in 1995, Agent Ernest Peele of the
FBI testified as the State’s expert on Comparative Bullet
Lead Analysis, or CBLA. In testimony of the sort CBLA
experts had provided for decades, Peele testified that the
composition of elements in the molten lead of a bullet frag-
ment found in Kulbicki’s truck matched the composition of
lead in a bullet fragment removed from the victim’s brain; a
similarity of the sort one would “ ‘expect’ ” if “ ‘examining
two pieces of the same bullet.’ ” 440 Md. 33, 41, 99 A. 3d
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 1 (2015) 3

Per Curiam

730, 735 (2014). He further testified that a bullet taken from

Kulbicki’s gun was not an “exac[t]” match to the bullet frag-
ments, but was similar enough that the two bullets likely
came from the same package. Id., at 42–44, 99 A. 3d, at
735–736. After considering this ballistics evidence, addi-
tional physical evidence from Kulbicki’s truck, and witness
testimony, the jury convicted Kulbicki of first-degree murder.
Kulbicki then filed a petition for postconviction relief,
which lingered in state court until 2006 when Kulbicki added
a claim that his defense attorneys were ineffective for failing
to question the legitimacy of CBLA. By then, 11 years
after his conviction, CBLA had fallen out of favor. Indeed,
Kulbicki supplemented his petition once more in 2006 after
the Court of Appeals of Maryland held for the first time that
CBLA evidence was not generally accepted by the scientific
community and was therefore inadmissible. See Clemons v.
State, 392 Md. 339, 371, 896 A. 2d 1059, 1078 (2006).
Kulbicki lost in the lower state courts and appealed to the
Court of Appeals of Maryland. At that point, Kulbicki aban-
doned his claim of ineffective assistance with respect to the
CBLA evidence, but the high court vacated Kulbicki’s con-
viction on that ground alone. Kulbicki’s counsel, according
to the court, should have found a report coauthored by Agent
Peele in 1991 that “presaged the flaws in CBLA evidence.”
440 Md., at 40, 99 A. 3d, at 734. One of the many findings
of the report was that the composition of lead in some bullets
was the same as that of lead in other bullets packaged many
months later in a separate box. Rather than conduct “fur-
ther research to explain the existence of overlapping compo-
sitions,” the authors “speculated” that coincidence (or, in one
case, the likelihood that separately packaged bullets origi-
nated from the same source of lead) caused the overlap. Id.,
at 49, 99 A. 3d, at 739. The Court of Appeals opined that
this lone finding should have caused the report’s authors to
doubt “that bullets produced from different sources of lead
would have a unique chemical composition,” the faulty as-
4 MARYLAND v. KULBICKI

Per Curiam

sumption that ultimately led the court to reject CBLA evi-

dence 15 years later. Ibid.; see Clemons, supra, at 369–370,
896 A. 2d, at 1077. The authors’ “failure to fully explore the
variance,” the Court of Appeals concluded, was “at odds with
the scientific method.” 440 Md., at 50, 99 A. 3d, at 740.
In the Court of Appeals’ view, any good attorney should
have spotted this methodological flaw. The court held that
counsel’s failure to unearth the report, to identify one of its
findings as “at odds with the scientific method,” and to use
this methodological flaw to cast doubt on CBLA during coun-
sel’s cross-examination of Peele, “fell short of prevailing pro-
fessional norms.” Id., at 50–53, 99 A. 3d, at 740–742. Con-
cluding that counsel’s supposed deficiency was prejudicial,
the court set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial.
Id., at 56, 99 A. 3d, at 743–744.
We reverse. The Court of Appeals offered no support for
its conclusion that Kulbicki’s defense attorneys were consti-
tutionally required to predict the demise of CBLA. Instead,
the court indulged in the “natural tendency to speculate as
to whether a different trial strategy might have been more
successful.” Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U. S. 364, 372 (1993).
To combat this tendency, we have “adopted the rule of con-
temporary assessment of counsel’s conduct.” Ibid. Had
the Court of Appeals heeded this rule, it would have
“judge[d] the reasonableness of counsel’s challenged conduct
. . . viewed as of the time of counsel’s conduct.” Strickland,
supra, at 690.
At the time of Kulbicki’s trial in 1995, the validity of
CBLA was widely accepted, and courts regularly admitted
CBLA evidence until 2003. See United States v. Higgs, 663
F. 3d 726, 738 (CA4 2011). As the Court of Appeals ac-
knowledged, even the 1991 report itself did not question the
validity of CBLA, concluding that it was a valid and useful
forensic tool to match suspect to victim. 440 Md., at 51,
n. 11, 99 A. 3d, at 740, n. 11. Counsel did not perform defi-
ciently by dedicating their time and focus to elements of the
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 1 (2015) 5

Per Curiam

defense that did not involve poking methodological holes in

a then-uncontroversial mode of ballistics analysis.
That is especially the case here, since there is no reason
to believe that a diligent search would even have discovered
the supposedly crucial report. The Court of Appeals of-
fered a single citation in support of its sweeping statement
that the report “was available” to Kulbicki’s counsel in
1995—a Government Printing Office Web page accessed by
the Court of Appeals, apparently conducting its own In-
ternet research nearly two decades after the trial. Id., at
51, and n. 12, 99 A. 3d, at 740–741, and n. 12; see also Brief
in Opposition 14. The Web page indicates that a compilation
of forensic studies that included the report was “distributed
to various public libraries in 1994.” 440 Md., at 51, n. 12, 99
A. 3d, at 741, n. 12. But which ones? And in an era of card
catalogues, not a worldwide web, what efforts would counsel
have had to expend to find the compilation? And had they
found it, would counsel really have combed through the en-
tire compilation, and have identified the one (of many) find-
ings in one of the reports, the disregard of which counsel
would have recognized to be “at odds with the scientific
method”? And then, would effective counsel really have
brought to the attention of the jury a report whose conclu-
sion was that CBLA was a valid investigative technique in
cases just like Kulbicki’s? Neither the Court of Appeals nor
Kulbicki has answers. Given the uncontroversial nature of
CBLA at the time of Kulbicki’s trial, the effect of the judg-
ment below is to demand that lawyers go “looking for a nee-
dle in a haystack,” even when they have “reason to doubt
there is any needle there.” Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U. S.
374, 389 (2005). The Court of Appeals demanded something
close to “perfect advocacy”—far more than the “reasonable
competence” the right to counsel guarantees. Yarborough
v. Gentry, 540 U. S. 1, 8 (2003) (per curiam).
Kulbicki’s trial counsel did not provide deficient perform-
ance when they failed to uncover the 1991 report and to use
6 MARYLAND v. KULBICKI

Per Curiam

the report’s so-called methodological flaw against Peele on

cross-examination. (We need not, and so do not, decide
whether the supposed error prejudiced Kulbicki.) The peti-
tion for writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the
Court of Appeals for Maryland is reversed.
It is so ordered.
 OCTOBER TERM, 2015 7

Syllabus

MULLENIX v. LUNA, individually and as repre-

sentative of the ESTATE OF LEIJA, et al.

on petition for writ of certiorari to the united

states court of appeals for the ąfth circuit
No. 14–1143. Decided November 9, 2015
Israel Leija, Jr., led officers on a high-speed car chase in an attempt to
evade service of an arrest warrant. During the chase, he twice told a
police dispatcher that he had a gun and would shoot officers if they did
not abandon their pursuit. The dispatcher relayed the threats, together
with a report that Leija might be intoxicated, to all concerned officers,
including petitioner Chadrin Mullenix, who had driven ahead to an over-
pass above the interstate. Once there, Mullenix discussed with other
officers the idea of shooting Leija’s car to disable it, even though he had
not been trained in this tactic and had not attempted it before. Mul-
lenix nonetheless took up a shooting position and learned that another
officer was beneath the overpass. As Leija approached, Mullenix fired
multiple shots, killing Leija. Respondents sued Mullenix under 42
U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that he had violated the Fourth Amendment
by using excessive force against Leija. Mullenix moved for summary
judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, but the District Court
denied the motion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Mul-
lenix was not entitled to qualified immunity because the law clearly
established “that a reasonable officer would have known that the use
of deadly force, absent a sufficiently substantial and immediate threat,
violated the Fourth Amendment.” 773 F. 3d 712, 725.
Held: Because the constitutional rule applied by the Fifth Circuit was not
“ ‘beyond debate,’ ” Stanton v. Sims, 571 U. S. 3, 6, the Fifth Circuit
wrongly decided that Mullenix was not entitled to qualified immunity.
In assessing whether Mullenix violated clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,
the court improperly defined the clearly established law at a high level
of generality rather than asking whether the violative nature of the
particular conduct is clearly established. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S.
731, 742. Here, Mullenix confronted a reportedly intoxicated fugitive,
set on avoiding capture through high-speed vehicular flight, who twice
during his flight had threatened to shoot police officers, and who was
moments away from encountering an officer underneath the overpass.
Far from clarifying the issue, this Court’s excessive force cases involv-
ing car chases reveal the hazy legal backdrop against which Mullenix
8 MULLENIX v. LUNA

Per Curiam

acted. See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194; Scott v. Harris, 550 U. S.

372; and Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U. S. 765. Nor have cases decided
by lower courts since Brosseau clearly established that deadly force is
inappropriate in response to conduct like Leija’s. Finally, the fact that
the danger Leija represented was less substantial than the threats that
courts have previously found sufficient to justify deadly force says little,
if anything, about whether such force was reasonable in the circum-
stances here because qualified immunity protects actions in “the ‘hazy
border between excessive and acceptable force.’ ” Brosseau, 573 U. S.,
at 201 (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 206).
Certiorari granted; 773 F. 3d 712, reversed.

Per Curiam.
On the night of March 23, 2010, Sergeant Randy Baker of
the Tulia, Texas, Police Department followed Israel Leija,
Jr., to a drive-in restaurant, with a warrant for his arrest.
773 F. 3d 712, 715–716 (CA5 2014). When Baker approached
Leija’s car and informed him that he was under arrest, Leija
sped off, headed for Interstate 27. 2013 WL 4017124, *1
(ND Tex., Aug. 7, 2013). Baker gave chase and was quickly
joined by Trooper Gabriel Rodriguez of the Texas Depart-
ment of Public Safety (DPS). 773 F. 3d, at 716.
Leija entered the interstate and led the officers on an 18-
minute chase at speeds between 85 and 110 miles per hour.
Ibid. Twice during the chase, Leija called the Tulia Police
dispatcher, claiming to have a gun and threatening to shoot
at police officers if they did not abandon their pursuit. The
dispatcher relayed Leija’s threats, together with a report
that Leija might be intoxicated, to all concerned officers.
As Baker and Rodriguez maintained their pursuit, other
law enforcement officers set up tire spikes at three locations.
Officer Troy Ducheneaux of the Canyon Police Department
manned the spike strip at the first location Leija was ex-
pected to reach, beneath the overpass at Cemetery Road.
Ducheneaux and the other officers had received training on
the deployment of spike strips, including on how to take a
defensive position so as to minimize the risk posed by the
passing driver. Ibid.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 7 (2015) 9

Per Curiam

DPS Trooper Chadrin Mullenix also responded. He drove

to the Cemetery Road overpass, initially intending to set up
a spike strip there. Upon learning of the other spike strip
positions, however, Mullenix began to consider another tac-
tic: shooting at Leija’s car in order to disable it. 2013 WL
4017124, *1. Mullenix had not received training in this tac-
tic and had not attempted it before, but he radioed the idea
to Rodriguez. Rodriguez responded “10–4,” gave Mullenix
his position, and said that Leija had slowed to 85 miles per
hour. Mullenix then asked the DPS dispatcher to inform his
supervisor, Sergeant Byrd, of his plan and ask if Byrd
thought it was “ ‘worth doing.’ ” 773 F. 3d, at 716–717. Be-
fore receiving Byrd’s response, Mullenix exited his vehicle
and, armed with his service rifle, took a shooting position on
the overpass, 20 feet above I–27. Respondents allege that
from this position, Mullenix still could hear Byrd’s response
to “ ‘stand by’ ” and “ ‘see if the spikes work first.’ ” Ibid.*
As Mullenix waited for Leija to arrive, he and another of-
ficer, Randall County Sheriff’s Deputy Tom Shipman, dis-
cussed whether Mullenix’s plan would work and how and
where to shoot the vehicle to best carry it out. 2013 WL
4017124, *2. Shipman also informed Mullenix that another
officer was located beneath the overpass. 773 F. 3d, at 717.
Approximately three minutes after Mullenix took up his
shooting position, he spotted Leija’s vehicle, with Rodriguez
in pursuit. As Leija approached the overpass, Mullenix
fired six shots. Leija’s car continued forward beneath the
overpass, where it engaged the spike strip, hit the median,
and rolled 2½ times. It was later determined that Leija had
been killed by Mullenix’s shots, four of which struck his
upper body. There was no evidence that any of Mullenix’s

*Although Mullenix disputes hearing Byrd’s response, we view the facts

in the light most favorable to respondents, who oppose Mullenix’s motion
for summary judgment. See Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U. S. 650, 651 (2014)
( per curiam).
10 MULLENIX v. LUNA

Per Curiam

shots hit the car’s radiator, hood, or engine block. Id., at

716–717; 2013 WL 4017124, *2–*3.
Respondents sued Mullenix under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42
U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that he had violated the Fourth
Amendment by using excessive force against Leija. Mul-
lenix moved for summary judgment on the ground of quali-
fied immunity, but the District Court denied his motion,
finding that “[t]here are genuine issues of fact as to whether
Trooper Mullenix acted recklessly, or acted as a reasonable,
trained peace officer would have acted in the same or similar
circumstances.” 2013 WL 4017124, *6.
Mullenix appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit affirmed. 765 F. 3d 531 (2014). The court agreed
with the District Court that the “immediacy of the risk
posed by Leija is a disputed fact that a reasonable jury could
find either in the plaintiffs’ favor or in the officer’s favor,
precluding us from concluding that Mullenix acted objec-
tively reasonably as a matter of law.” Id., at 538.
Judge King dissented. She described the “ ‘fact issue’ ref-
erenced by the majority” as “simply a restatement of the
objective reasonableness test that applies to Fourth Amend-
ment excessive force claims,” which, she noted, the Supreme
Court has held “ ‘is a pure question of law.’ ” Id., at 544–
545 (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U. S. 372, 381, n. 8 (2007)).
Turning to that legal question, Judge King concluded that
Mullenix’s actions were objectively reasonable. When Mul-
lenix fired, she emphasized, he knew not only that Leija had
threatened to shoot the officers involved in his pursuit, but
also that Leija was seconds away from encountering such an
officer beneath the overpass. Judge King also dismissed the
notion that Mullenix should have given the spike strips a
chance to work. She explained that because spike strips are
often ineffective, and because officers operating them are
vulnerable to gunfire from passing cars, Mullenix reasonably
feared that the officers manning them faced a significant risk
of harm. 765 F. 3d, at 548–549.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 7 (2015) 11

Per Curiam

Mullenix sought rehearing en banc before the Fifth Cir-

cuit, but the court denied his petition. Judge Jolly dis-
sented, joined by six other members of the court. Judge
King, who joined Judge Jolly’s dissent, also filed a separate
dissent of her own. 777 F. 3d 221 (2014) ( per curiam). On
the same day, however, the two members forming the origi-
nal panel’s majority withdrew their previous opinion and
substituted a new one. 773 F. 3d 712. The revised opinion
recognized that objective unreasonableness is a question of
law that can be resolved on summary judgment—as Judge
King had explained in her dissent—but reaffirmed the denial
of qualified immunity. Id., at 715, 718. The majority con-
cluded that Mullenix’s actions were objectively unreasonable
because several of the factors that had justified deadly force
in previous cases were absent here: There were no innocent
bystanders, Leija’s driving was relatively controlled, Mul-
lenix had not first given the spike strips a chance to work,
and Mullenix’s decision was not a split-second judgment.
Id., at 720–724. The court went on to conclude that Mul-
lenix was not entitled to qualified immunity because “the
law was clearly established such that a reasonable officer
would have known that the use of deadly force, absent a
sufficiently substantial and immediate threat, violated the
Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 725.
We address only the qualified immunity question, not
whether there was a Fourth Amendment violation in the
first place, and now reverse.
The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from
civil liability so long as their conduct “ ‘does not violate
clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which
a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Pearson v. Calla-
han, 555 U. S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982)). A clearly established right is one
that is “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would
have understood that what he is doing violates that right.”
Reichle v. Howards, 566 U. S. 658, 664 (2012) (internal quota-
12 MULLENIX v. LUNA

Per Curiam

tion marks and alteration omitted). “We do not require a

case directly on point, but existing precedent must have
placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond de-
bate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 741 (2011). Put
simply, qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly in-
competent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley
v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 341 (1986).
“We have repeatedly told courts . . . not to define clearly
established law at a high level of generality.” al-Kidd,
supra, at 742. The dispositive question is “whether the vio-
lative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.”
Ibid. (emphasis added). This inquiry “ ‘must be undertaken
in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad
general proposition.’ ” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194,
198 (2004) ( per curiam) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S.
194, 201 (2001)). Such specificity is especially important in
the Fourth Amendment context, where the Court has recog-
nized that “[i]t is sometimes difficult for an officer to deter-
mine how the relevant legal doctrine, here excessive force,
will apply to the factual situation the officer confronts.” 533
U. S., at 205.
In this case, the Fifth Circuit held that Mullenix violated
the clearly established rule that a police officer may not “ ‘use
deadly force against a fleeing felon who does not pose a suf-
ficient threat of harm to the officer or others.’ ” 773 F. 3d,
at 725. Yet this Court has previously considered—and re-
jected—almost that exact formulation of the qualified immu-
nity question in the Fourth Amendment context. In Bros-
seau, which also involved the shooting of a suspect fleeing
by car, the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity on the
ground that the officer had violated the clearly established
rule, set forth in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985), that
“deadly force is only permissible where the officer has proba-
ble cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious
physical harm, either to the officer or to others.” Haugen
v. Brosseau, 339 F. 3d 857, 873 (CA9 2003) (internal quotation
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 7 (2015) 13

Per Curiam

marks omitted). This Court summarily reversed, holding

that use of Garner’s “general” test for excessive force was
“mistaken.” Brosseau, 543 U. S., at 199. The correct in-
quiry, the Court explained, was whether it was clearly estab-
lished that the Fourth Amendment prohibited the officer’s
conduct in the “ ‘situation [she] confronted’: whether to shoot
a disturbed felon, set on avoiding capture through vehicular
flight, when persons in the immediate area are at risk from
that flight.” Id., at 199–200. The Court considered three
Court of Appeals cases discussed by the parties, noted that
“this area is one in which the result depends very much on
the facts of each case,” and concluded that the officer was
entitled to qualified immunity because “[n]one of [the cases]
squarely governs the case here.” Id., at 201 (emphasis
added).
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635 (1987), is also instruc-
tive on the required degree of specificity. There, the lower
court had denied qualified immunity based on the clearly es-
tablished “right to be free from warrantless searches of one’s
home unless the searching officers have probable cause and
there are exigent circumstances.” Id., at 640. This Court
faulted that formulation for failing to address the actual
question at issue: whether “the circumstances with which
Anderson was confronted . . . constitute[d] probable cause
and exigent circumstances.” Id., at 640–641. Without an-
swering that question, the Court explained, the conclusion
that Anderson’s search was objectively unreasonable did not
“follow immediately” from—and thus was not clearly estab-
lished by—the principle that warrantless searches not sup-
ported by probable cause and exigent circumstances violate
the Fourth Amendment. Id., at 641.
In this case, Mullenix confronted a reportedly intoxicated
fugitive, set on avoiding capture through high-speed vehicu-
lar flight, who twice during his flight had threatened to shoot
police officers, and who was moments away from encounter-
ing an officer at Cemetery Road. The relevant inquiry is
14 MULLENIX v. LUNA

Per Curiam

whether existing precedent placed the conclusion that Mul-

lenix acted unreasonably in these circumstances “beyond de-
bate.” al-Kidd, supra, at 741. The general principle that
deadly force requires a sufficient threat hardly settles this
matter. See Pasco v. Knoblauch, 566 F. 3d 572, 580 (CA5
2009) (“[I]t would be unreasonable to expect a police officer
to make the numerous legal conclusions necessary to apply
Garner to a high-speed car chase . . . ”).
Far from clarifying the issue, excessive force cases involv-
ing car chases reveal the hazy legal backdrop against which
Mullenix acted. In Brosseau itself, the Court held that an
officer did not violate clearly established law when she shot
a fleeing suspect out of fear that he endangered “other offi-
cers on foot who [she] believed were in the immediate area,”
“the occupied vehicles in [his] path,” and “any other citizens
who might be in the area.” 543 U. S., at 197 (first alteration
in original; internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis
added). The threat Leija posed was at least as immediate
as that presented by a suspect who had just begun to drive
off and was headed only in the general direction of officers
and bystanders. Id., at 196–197. By the time Mullenix
fired, Leija had led police on a 25-mile chase at extremely
high speeds, was reportedly intoxicated, had twice threat-
ened to shoot officers, and was racing toward an officer’s
location.
This Court has considered excessive force claims in con-
nection with high-speed chases on only two occasions since
Brosseau. In Scott v. Harris, 550 U. S. 372, the Court held
that an officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by
ramming the car of a fugitive whose reckless driving “posed
an actual and imminent threat to the lives of any pedestrians
who might have been present, to other civilian motorists, and
to the officers involved in the chase.” Id., at 384. And in
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U. S. 765 (2014), the Court reaf-
firmed Scott by holding that an officer acted reasonably when
he fatally shot a fugitive who was “intent on resuming” a
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 7 (2015) 15

Per Curiam

chase that “pose[d] a deadly threat for others on the road.”

572 U. S., at 777. The Court has thus never found the use
of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to
violate the Fourth Amendment, let alone to be a basis for
denying qualified immunity. Leija in his flight did not pass
as many cars as the drivers in Scott or Plumhoff; traffic was
light on I–27. At the same time, the fleeing fugitives in
Scott and Plumhoff had not verbally threatened to kill any
officers in their path, nor were they about to come upon such
officers. In any event, none of our precedents “squarely
governs” the facts here. Given Leija’s conduct, we cannot
say that only someone “plainly incompetent” or who “know-
ingly violate[s] the law” would have perceived a sufficient
threat and acted as Mullenix did. Malley, 475 U. S., at 341.
The dissent focuses on the availability of spike strips as an
alternative means of terminating the chase. It argues that
even if Leija posed a threat sufficient to justify deadly force
in some circumstances, Mullenix nevertheless contravened
clearly established law because he did not wait to see if the
spike strips would work before taking action. Spike strips,
however, present dangers of their own, not only to drivers
who encounter them at speeds between 85 and 110 miles per
hour, but also to officers manning them. See, e. g., Thomp-
son v. Mercer, 762 F. 3d 433, 440 (CA5 2014); Brief for Na-
tional Association of Police Organizations et al. as Amici Cu-
riae 15–16. Nor are spike strips always successful in ending
the chase. See, e. g., Cordova v. Aragon, 569 F. 3d 1183, 1186
(CA10 2009); Brief for National Association of Police Organi-
zations et al. as Amici Curiae 16 (citing examples). The
dissent can cite no case from this Court denying qualified
immunity because officers entitled to terminate a high-speed
chase selected one dangerous alternative over another.
Even so, the dissent argues, there was no governmental
interest that justified acting before Leija’s car hit the spikes.
Mullenix explained, however, that he feared Leija might at-
tempt to shoot at or run over the officers manning the spike
16 MULLENIX v. LUNA

Per Curiam

strips. Mullenix also feared that even if Leija hit the spike
strips, he might still be able to continue driving in the direc-
tion of other officers. The dissent ignores these interests
by suggesting that there was no “possible marginal gain in
shooting at the car over using the spike strips already in
place.” Post, at 23 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.). In fact,
Mullenix hoped his actions would stop the car in a manner
that avoided the risks to other officers and other drivers that
relying on spike strips would entail. The dissent disputes
the merits of the options available to Mullenix, post, at 22–
23, but others with more experience analyze the issues dif-
ferently. See, e. g., Brief for National Association of Police
Organizations et al. as Amici Curiae 15–16. Ultimately,
whatever can be said of the wisdom of Mullenix’s choice, this
Court’s precedents do not place the conclusion that he acted
unreasonably in these circumstances “beyond debate.” al-
Kidd, 563 U. S., at 741.
More fundamentally, the dissent repeats the Fifth Circuit’s
error. It defines the qualified immunity inquiry at a high
level of generality—whether any governmental interest jus-
tified choosing one tactic over another—and then fails to con-
sider that question in “the specific context of the case.”
Brosseau, supra, at 198 (internal quotation marks omitted).
As in Anderson, the conclusion that Mullenix’s reasons were
insufficient to justify his actions simply does not “follow im-
mediately” from the general proposition that force must be
justified. 483 U. S., at 641.
Cases decided by the lower courts since Brosseau likewise
have not clearly established that deadly force is inappropri-
ate in response to conduct like Leija’s. The Fifth Circuit
here principally relied on its own decision in Lytle v. Bexar
County, 560 F. 3d 404 (2009), denying qualified immunity to
a police officer who had fired at a fleeing car and killed one
of its passengers. That holding turned on the court’s as-
sumption, for purposes of summary judgment, that the car
was moving away from the officer and had already traveled
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 7 (2015) 17

Per Curiam

some distance at the moment the officer fired. See id., at

409. The court held that a reasonable jury could conclude
that a receding car “did not pose a sufficient threat of harm
such that the use of deadly force was reasonable.” Id., at
416. But, crucially, the court also recognized that if the
facts were as the officer alleged, and he fired as the car was
coming toward him, “he would likely be entitled to qualified
immunity” based on the “threat of immediate and severe
physical harm.” Id., at 412. Without implying that Lytle
was either correct or incorrect, it suffices to say that Lytle
does not clearly dictate the conclusion that Mullenix was un-
justified in perceiving grave danger and responding accord-
ingly, given that Leija was speeding toward a confrontation
with officers he had threatened to kill.
Cases that the Fifth Circuit ignored also suggest that Mul-
lenix’s assessment of the threat Leija posed was reasonable.
In Long v. Slaton, 508 F. 3d 576 (2007), for example, the
Eleventh Circuit held that a sheriff’s deputy did not violate
the Fourth Amendment by fatally shooting a mentally unsta-
ble individual who was attempting to flee in the deputy’s car,
even though at the time of the shooting the individual had
not yet operated the cruiser dangerously. The court ex-
plained that “the law does not require officers in a tense and
dangerous situation to wait until the moment a suspect uses
a deadly weapon to act to stop the suspect” and concluded
that the deputy had reason to believe Long was dangerous
based on his unstable state of mind, theft of the cruiser, and
failure to heed the deputy’s warning to stop. Id., at 581–
582. The court also rejected the notion that the deputy
should have first tried less lethal methods, such as spike
strips. “[C]onsidering the unpredictability of Long’s behav-
ior and his fleeing in a marked police cruiser,” the court held,
“we think the police need not have taken that chance and
hoped for the best.” Id., at 583 (alteration and internal quo-
tation marks omitted). But see Smith v. Cupp, 430 F. 3d
766, 774–777 (CA6 2005) (denying qualified immunity to an
18 MULLENIX v. LUNA

Per Curiam

officer who shot an intoxicated suspect who had stolen the

officer’s cruiser where a reasonable jury could have con-
cluded that the suspect’s flight did not immediately threaten
the officer or any other bystander).
Other cases cited by the Fifth Circuit and respondents are
simply too factually distinct to speak clearly to the speci-
fic circumstances here. Several involve suspects who may
have done little more than flee at relatively low speeds.
See, e. g., Walker v. Davis, 649 F. 3d 502, 503 (CA6 2011);
Kirby v. Duva, 530 F. 3d 475, 479–480 (CA6 2008); Adams v.
Speers, 473 F. 3d 989, 991 (CA9 2007); Vaughan v. Cox, 343
F. 3d 1323, 1330–1331, and n. 7 (CA11 2003). These cases
shed little light on whether the far greater danger of a speed-
ing fugitive threatening to kill police officers waiting in his
path could warrant deadly force. The court below noted
that “no weapon was ever seen,” 773 F. 3d, at 723, but surely
in these circumstances the police were justified in taking
Leija at his word when he twice told the dispatcher he had
a gun and was prepared to use it.
Finally, respondents argue that the danger Leija repre-
sented was less substantial than the threats that courts have
found sufficient to justify deadly force. But the mere fact
that courts have approved deadly force in more extreme cir-
cumstances says little, if anything, about whether such force
was reasonable in the circumstances here. The fact is that
when Mullenix fired, he reasonably understood Leija to be a
fugitive fleeing arrest, at speeds over 100 miles per hour,
who was armed and possibly intoxicated, who had threatened
to kill any officer he saw if the police did not abandon their
pursuit, and who was racing toward Officer Ducheneaux’s po-
sition. Even accepting that these circumstances fall some-
where between the two sets of cases respondents discuss,
qualified immunity protects actions in the “ ‘hazy border be-
tween excessive and acceptable force.’ ” Brosseau, 543
U. S., at 201 (quoting Saucier, 533 U. S., at 206; some internal
quotation marks omitted).
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 7 (2015) 19

Scalia, J., concurring in judgment

Because the constitutional rule applied by the Fifth Cir-

cuit was not “ ‘beyond debate,’ ” Stanton v. Sims, 571 U. S.
3, 11 (2013) ( per curiam), we grant Mullenix’s petition for
certiorari and reverse the Fifth Circuit’s determination that
Mullenix is not entitled to qualified immunity.
It is so ordered.
Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment.
I join the judgment of the Court, but would not describe
what occurred here as the application of deadly force in ef-
fecting an arrest. Our prior cases have reserved that de-
scription to the directing of force sufficient to kill at the per-
son of the desired arrestee. See, e. g., Plumhoff v. Rickard,
572 U. S. 765 (2014); Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194 (2004)
( per curiam); Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985). It
does not assist analysis to refer to all use of force that hap-
pens to kill the arrestee as the application of deadly force.
The police might, for example, attempt to stop a fleeing fel-
on’s car by felling a large tree across the road; if they drop
the tree too late, so that it crushes the car and its occupant,
I would not call that the application of deadly force. Though
it was force sufficient to kill, it was not applied with the
object of harming the body of the felon.
Thus, in Scott v. Harris, 550 U. S. 372 (2007), we declined
to characterize officer Scott’s use of his pursuing vehicle’s
bumper to push the fleeing vehicle off the road as the applica-
tion of deadly force. Whether or not it was that, we said,
“all that matters is whether Scott’s actions were reasonable.”
Id., at 383. So also here. But it stacks the deck against the
officer, it seems to me, to describe his action as the applica-
tion of deadly force.
It was at least arguable in Scott that pushing a speeding
vehicle off the road is targeting its occupant for injury or
death. Here, however, it is conceded that Trooper Mullenix
did not shoot to wound or kill the fleeing Leija, nor even to
drive Leija’s car off the road, but only to cause the car to
20 MULLENIX v. LUNA

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

stop by destroying its engine. That was a risky enterprise,

as the outcome demonstrated; but determining whether it
violated the Fourth Amendment requires us to ask, not
whether it was reasonable to kill Leija, but whether it was
reasonable to shoot at the engine in light of the risk to Leija.
It distorts that inquiry, I think, to make the question
whether it was reasonable for Mullenix to “apply deadly
force.”

Justice Sotomayor, dissenting.

Chadrin Mullenix fired six rounds in the dark at a car trav-
eling 85 miles per hour. He did so without any training in
that tactic, against the wait order of his superior officer, and
less than a second before the car hit spike strips deployed to
stop it. Mullenix’s rogue conduct killed the driver, Israel
Leija, Jr. Because it was clearly established under the
Fourth Amendment that an officer in Mullenix’s position
should not have fired the shots, I respectfully dissent from
the grant of summary reversal.

I
Resolving all factual disputes in favor of plaintiffs, as the
Court must on a motion for summary judgment, Mullenix
knew the following facts before he shot at Leija’s engine
block: Leija had led police officers on an 18-minute car chase,
at speeds ranging from 85 to 110 miles per hour. 773 F. 3d
712, 716 (CA5 2014). Leija had twice called the police dis-
patcher threatening to shoot at officers if they did not cease
the pursuit. Ibid. Police officers were deploying three sets
of spike strips in order to stop Leija’s flight. Ibid. The of-
ficers were trained to stop a car using spike strips. This
training included how to take a defensive position to mini-
mize the risk of danger from the target car. Ibid. Mullenix
knew that spike strips were being set up directly beneath
the overpass where he was stationed. Id., at 723. There is
no evidence below that any of the officers with whom Mul-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 7 (2015) 21

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

lenix was in communication—including Officer Troy Duchen-

eaux, whom Mullenix believed to be below the overpass—
had expressed any concern for their safety. Id., at 720.
Mullenix had no training in shooting to disable a moving
vehicle and had never seen the tactic done before. Id., at
716. He also lacked permission to take the shots: When
Mullenix relayed his plan to his superior officer, Robert
Byrd, Byrd responded “stand by” and “see if the spikes work
first.” Id., at 716–717. Three minutes after arriving at the
overpass, Mullenix fired six rounds at Leija’s car. None hit
the car’s engine block; at least four struck Leija in the upper
body, killing Leija. Id., at 717.

II
When confronting a claim of qualified immunity, a court
asks two questions. First, the court considers whether the
officer in fact violated a constitutional right. Saucier v.
Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 201 (2001). Second, the court asks
whether the contours of the right were “sufficiently clear
that a reasonable official would [have understood] that what
he is doing violates that right.” Id., at 202 (quoting Ander-
son v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987)). This Court has
rejected the idea that “an official action is protected by quali-
fied immunity unless the very action in question has pre-
viously been held unlawful.” Id., at 640. Instead, the crux
of the qualified immunity test is whether officers have “fair
notice” that they are acting unconstitutionally. Hope v.
Pelzer, 536 U. S. 730, 739 (2002).
Respondents here allege that Mullenix violated the Fourth
Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures by using
deadly force to apprehend Leija. This Court’s precedents
clearly establish that the Fourth Amendment is violated un-
less the “ ‘governmental interests’ ” in effectuating a particu-
lar kind of seizure outweigh the “ ‘nature and quality of the
intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests.’ ”
Scott v. Harris, 550 U. S. 372, 383 (2007) (quoting United
22 MULLENIX v. LUNA

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 703 (1983)). There must be a

“governmental interes[t]” not only in effectuating a seizure,
but also in “how [the seizure] is carried out.” Tennessee v.
Garner, 471 U. S. 1, 8 (1985).
Balancing a particular governmental interest in the use of
deadly force against the intrusion occasioned by the use of
that force is inherently a fact-specific inquiry, not susceptible
to bright lines. But it is clearly established that the govern-
ment must have some interest in using deadly force over
other kinds of force.
Here, then, the clearly established legal question—the
question a reasonable officer would have asked—is whether,
under all the circumstances as known to Mullenix, there was
a governmental interest in shooting at the car rather than
waiting for it to run over spike strips.
The Court does not point to any such interest here. It
claims that Mullenix’s goal was not merely to stop the car,
but to stop the car “in a manner that avoided the risks” of
relying on spike strips. Ante, at 16. But there is no evi-
dence in the record that shooting at Leija’s engine block
would stop the car in such a manner.
The majority first suggests that Mullenix did not wait for
the results of the spikes, as his superior advised, because of
his concern for the officers manning the strips. But Leija
was going to come upon those officers whether or not Mullen-
ix’s shooting tactic was successful: Mullenix took his shot
when Leija was between 25 and 30 yards away from the
spike strip, traveling at 85 miles per hour. Even if his shots
hit Leija’s engine block, the car would not have stopped in-
stantly. Mullenix would have bought the officers he was
trying to protect—officers who had been trained to take de-
fensive positions—less than three-quarters of a second over
waiting for the spike strips. And whatever threat Leija
posed after his car was stopped existed whether the car was
stopped by a shot to the engine block or by the spike strips.
Nor was there any evidence that shooting at the car was
more reliable than the spike strips. The majority notes that
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 7 (2015) 23

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

spike strips are fallible. Ante, at 15. But Mullenix had no

information to suggest that shooting to disable a car had a
higher success rate, much less that doing so with no training
and at night was more likely to succeed. Moreover, not only
did officers have training in setting up the spike strips, but
they had also placed two backup strips farther north along
the highway in case the first set failed. A reasonable officer
could not have thought that shooting would stop the car with
less danger or greater certainty than waiting.
The majority cites Long v. Slaton, 508 F. 3d 576 (CA11
2007), for the proposition that Mullenix need not have “first
tried less lethal methods, such as spike strips.” Ante, at 17.
But in that case, there was a clear reason to prefer deadly
force over the alternatives. In Long, an officer fired to stop
a suspect from fleeing in a stolen police cruiser. 508 F. 3d,
at 583. When the officer fired, there were no alternative
means of stopping the car in place. The Eleventh Circuit
held that the governmental interest against waiting for a
future deployment of spike strips that may never materialize
justified the use of deadly force. Ibid.
In this case, by contrast, neither petitioner nor the major-
ity can point to any possible marginal gain in shooting at the
car over using the spike strips already in place. It is clearly
established that there must be some governmental interest
that necessitates deadly force, even if it is not always clearly
established what level of governmental interest is sufficient.
Under the circumstances known to him at the time, Mul-
lenix puts forth no plausible reason to choose shooting at
Leija’s engine block over waiting for the results of the spike
strips. I would thus hold that Mullenix violated Leija’s
clearly established right to be free of intrusion absent some
governmental interest.
III
The majority largely evades this key legal question by fo-
cusing primarily on the governmental interest in whether
the car should be stopped rather than the dispositive ques-
tion of how the car should be stopped. But even assuming
24 MULLENIX v. LUNA

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

that Leija posed a “sufficient,” ante, at 15, or “immediate,”

ante, at 14, threat, Mullenix did not face a “choice between
two evils” of shooting at a suspect’s car or letting him go.
Scott, 550 U. S., at 384; see, e. g., Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572
U. S. 765, 769–770 (2014); Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194,
196–197 (2004) (per curiam). Instead, Mullenix chose to
employ a potentially lethal tactic (shooting at Leija’s engine
block) in addition to a tactic specifically designed to accom-
plish the same result (spike strips).* By granting Mullenix
qualified immunity, this Court goes a step further than our
previous cases and does so without full briefing or argument.
Thus framed, it is apparent that the majority’s exhortation
that the right at stake not be defined at “a high level of
generality,” ante, at 16, is a red herring. The majority ad-
duces various facts that the Fifth Circuit supposedly ignored
in its qualified immunity analysis, including that Leija was
“a reportedly intoxicated fugitive, set on avoiding capture
through high-speed vehicular flight, who twice during his
flight had threatened to shoot police officers, and who was
moments away from encountering an officer at Cemetery
Road.” Ante, at 13. But not one of those facts goes to the
governmental interest in shooting over awaiting the spike
strips. The majority also claims that established law does
not make clear that “Mullenix’s reasons were insufficient to
justify” his choice of shooting over following his superior’s
orders to wait for the spikes. Ante, at 16. But Mullenix

*The majority describes the choice between spike strips and shooting
as the choice between “one dangerous alternative” and another, noting
that spike strips can pose a danger to drivers that encounter them. Ante,
at 15. But Mullenix could not have thought that awaiting the spikes was
anywhere near as dangerous as shooting immediately before Leija hit the
spikes. For one thing, Mullenix had no training in shooting to disable the
vehicle and so no idea of the relative danger that shooting posed to a
driver. For another, Leija would be subjected to the danger posed by
the spike strips whether Mullenix shot or not. And, in fact, that is what
happened: Leija’s car hit the spike strips and then rolled 2½ times.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 7 (2015) 25

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

seemed to have no reasons to prefer shooting to following

orders.
Instead of dealing with the question whether Mullenix
could constitutionally fire on Leija’s car rather than waiting
for the spike strips, the majority dwells on the imminence
of the threat posed by Leija. The majority recharacterizes
Mullenix’s decision to shoot at Leija’s engine block as a split-
second, heat-of-the-moment choice, made when the suspect
was “moments away.” Ante, at 13. Indeed, reading the
majority opinion, one would scarcely believe that Mullenix
arrived at the overpass several minutes before he took his
shot, or that the rural road where the car chase occurred had
few cars and no bystanders or businesses. 773 F. 3d, at 717,
720. The majority also glosses over the facts that Mullenix
had time to ask Byrd for permission to fire upon Leija and
that Byrd—Mullenix’s superior officer—told Mullenix to
“stand by.” Id., at 717. There was no reason to believe that
Byrd did not have all the same information Mullenix did,
including the knowledge that an officer was stationed be-
neath the overpass. Even after receiving Byrd’s response,
Mullenix spent minutes in shooting position discussing his
next step with a fellow officer, minutes during which he re-
ceived no information that would have made his plan more
suitable or his superior’s orders less so. Ibid.
An appropriate reading of the record on summary judg-
ment would thus render Mullenix’s choice even more unrea-
sonable. And asking the appropriate legal question would
leave the majority with no choice but to conclude that
Mullenix ignored the longstanding and well-settled Fourth
Amendment rule that there must be a governmental interest
not just in seizing a suspect, but in the level of force used to
effectuate that seizure.

* * *
When Mullenix confronted his superior officer after the
shooting, his first words were, “How’s that for proactive?”
26 MULLENIX v. LUNA

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

Ibid. (Mullenix was apparently referencing an earlier coun-

seling session in which Byrd suggested that he was not
enterprising enough. Ibid.) The glib comment does not
impact our legal analysis; an officer’s actual intentions are
irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment’s “objectively reason-
able” inquiry. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 397
(1989). But the comment seems to me revealing of the cul-
ture this Court’s decision supports when it calls it reason-
able—or even reasonably reasonable—to use deadly force for
no discernible gain and over a supervisor’s express order to
“stand by.” By sanctioning a “shoot first, think later” ap-
proach to policing, the Court renders the protections of the
Fourth Amendment hollow.
For the reasons discussed, I would deny Mullenix’s petition
for a writ of certiorari. I thus respectfully dissent.
 OCTOBER TERM, 2015 27

Syllabus

OBB PERSONENVERKEHR AG v. SACHS

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for

the ninth circuit
No. 13–1067. Argued October 5, 2015—Decided December 1, 2015
Respondent Carol Sachs, a California resident, purchased a Eurail pass
over the Internet from a Massachusetts-based travel agent. While
using that pass to board a train in Austria operated by petitioner OBB
Personenverkehr AG (OBB), the Austrian state-owned railway, Sachs
fell to the tracks and suffered traumatic personal injuries. She sued
OBB in Federal District Court. OBB moved to dismiss, claiming that
her suit was barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which
shields foreign states and their agencies and instrumentalities from suit
in United States courts, unless a specified exception applies. Sachs
countered that her suit fell within the Act’s commercial activity excep-
tion, which abrogates sovereign immunity for suits “based upon a com-
mercial activity carried on in the United States by [a] foreign state,”
28 U. S. C. § 1605(a)(2), reasoning that her suit was “based upon” the
Massachusetts-based travel agent’s sale of the Eurail pass in the United
States, and that the travel agent’s sale of that pass could be attributed
to OBB through common law principles of agency. The District Court
held that Sachs’s suit did not fall within § 1605(a)(2) and dismissed the
suit, but the en banc Ninth Circuit reversed. The court first concluded
that the Eurail pass sale by the travel agent could be attributed to OBB
through common law principles of agency, and then determined that
Sachs’s suit was “based upon” that Eurail pass sale because the sale
established a single element necessary to recover under each cause of
action brought by Sachs.
Held: Sachs’s suit falls outside the commercial activity exception and is
therefore barred by sovereign immunity. Pp. 32–38.
(a) Sachs’s suit is not “based upon” the sale of the Eurail pass for
purposes of § 1605(a)(2). Therefore, the Court has no need to address
whether the Act allows the travel agent’s sale of the Eurail pass to be at-
tributed to OBB through common law principles of agency. Pp. 32–36.
(1) Although the Act does not elaborate on the phrase “based
upon,” Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U. S. 349, provides sufficient guid-
ance to resolve this case. There, the Court held that the “based upon”
inquiry requires a court to determine the “particular conduct on which
the action is ‘based,’ ” id., at 356, and identified that conduct by looking
to “the ‘gravamen of the complaint,’ ” id., at 357. Pp. 33–34.
28 OBB PERSONENVERKEHR AG v. SACHS

Syllabus

(2) The Ninth Circuit used a flawed approach when it found that
the “based upon” inquiry would be satisfied if the sale of the Eurail pass
provided “an element” of each of Sachs’s claims. This Court’s approach
in Nelson is flatly incompatible with such a one-element approach, which
necessarily requires a court to identify all the elements of each claim
before finding that the claim falls outside § 1605(a)(2). The Nelson
Court did not undertake such an exhaustive claim-by-claim, element-by-
element analysis or engage in the choice-of-law analysis necessary to
such an undertaking. See 507 U. S., at 356–358. Pp. 34–35.
(3) As opposed to adopting a one-element test, the Nelson Court
zeroed in on the core of the plaintiffs’ suit—the conduct that actually
injured the plaintiffs—to identify the conduct that the suit was “based
upon.” See 507 U. S., at 358. All of Sachs’s claims turn on the same
tragic episode in Austria, allegedly caused by wrongful conduct and dan-
gerous conditions in Austria, which led to injuries suffered in Austria.
However Sachs frames her suit, the incident in Innsbruck, Austria, re-
mains at its foundation. Any other approach would allow plaintiffs to
evade the Act’s restrictions through artful pleading. See id., at 363.
Pp. 35–36.
(b) Sachs now contends that her claims are “based upon” OBB’s entire
railway enterprise. Because that argument was never presented to
any lower court, it is forfeited. See Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503
U. S. 638, 645–646. Pp. 36–38.
737 F. 3d 584, reversed.

Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Juan C. Basombrio argued the cause for petitioner. With

him on the briefs were Steven J. Wells and Timothy J. Droske.
Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler argued the cause for
the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With
him on the brief were Solicitor General Verrilli, Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mizer, Elaine J. Gold-
enberg, Sharon Swingle, and Sushma Soni.
Jeffrey L. Fisher argued the cause for respondent. With
him on the brief was Geoffrey Becker.*
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the International
Rail Transport Committee (CIT) by Benjamin G. Shatz; and for the King-
dom of the Netherlands et al. by Donald I. Baker, W. Todd Miller, and
Ishai Mooreville.
Matthew D. McGill, Theodore B. Olson, and Scott P. Martin filed a brief
for NML Capital, LTD, as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 27 (2015) 29

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the

Court.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act shields foreign
states and their agencies from suit in United States courts
unless the suit falls within one of the Act’s specifically enu-
merated exceptions. This case concerns the scope of the
commercial activity exception, which withdraws sovereign
immunity in any case “in which the action is based upon a
commercial activity carried on in the United States by [a]
foreign state.” 28 U. S. C. § 1605(a)(2).
Respondent Carol Sachs is a resident of California who
purchased in the United States a Eurail pass for rail travel
in Europe. She suffered traumatic personal injuries when
she fell onto the tracks at the Innsbruck, Austria, train sta-
tion while attempting to board a train operated by the Aus-
trian state-owned railway. She sued the railway in Federal
District Court, arguing that her suit was not barred by sov-
ereign immunity because it is “based upon” the railway’s sale
of the pass to her in the United States. We disagree and
conclude that her action is instead “based upon” the railway’s
conduct in Innsbruck. We therefore hold that her suit falls
outside the commercial activity exception and is barred by
sovereign immunity.
I
A
Petitioner OBB Personenverkehr AG (OBB) operates a
railway that carries nearly 235 million passengers each year
on routes within Austria and to and from points beyond Aus-
tria’s frontiers. OBB is wholly owned by OBB Holding
Group, a joint-stock company created by the Republic of Aus-
tria. OBB Holding Group in turn is wholly owned by the
Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation, and
Technology. Sachs v. Republic of Austria, 737 F. 3d 584,
587 (CA9 2013).
OBB—along with 29 other railways throughout Europe—
is a member of the Eurail Group, an association responsible
30 OBB PERSONENVERKEHR AG v. SACHS

Opinion of the Court

for the marketing and management of the Eurail pass pro-

gram. Brief for International Rail Transport Committee as
Amicus Curiae 12; 737 F. 3d, at 587. Eurail passes allow
their holders unlimited passage for a set period of time on
participating Eurail Group railways. They are available
only to non-Europeans, who may purchase them both directly
from the Eurail Group and indirectly through a worldwide
network of travel agents. Brief for International Rail
Transport Committee as Amicus Curiae 12–13, and n. 3;
Brief for Respondent 4–5.
Carol Sachs is a resident of Berkeley, California. In
March 2007, she purchased a Eurail pass over the Internet
from The Rail Pass Experts, a Massachusetts-based travel
agent. The following month, Sachs arrived at the Innsbruck
train station, planning to use her Eurail pass to ride an OBB
train to Prague. As she attempted to board the train, Sachs
fell from the platform onto the tracks. OBB’s moving train
crushed her legs, both of which had to be amputated above
the knee. 737 F. 3d, at 587–588.
Sachs sued OBB in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, asserting five causes of
action: (1) negligence; (2) strict liability for design defects in
the train and platform; (3) strict liability for failure to warn
of those design defects; (4) breach of an implied warranty of
merchantability for providing a train and platform unsafe for
their intended uses; and (5) breach of an implied warranty of
fitness for providing a train and platform unfit for their in-
tended uses. App. 14–18. OBB claimed sovereign immu-
nity and moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. 737 F. 3d, at 588.

B
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act “provides the sole
basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the
courts of this country.” Argentine Republic v. Amerada
Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U. S. 428, 443 (1989). The Act de-
fines “foreign state” to include a state “agency or instrumen-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 27 (2015) 31

Opinion of the Court

tality,” 28 U. S. C. § 1603(a), and both parties agree that OBB

qualifies as a “foreign state” for purposes of the Act. OBB
is therefore “presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of
United States courts” unless one of the Act’s express excep-
tions to sovereign immunity applies. Saudi Arabia v. Nel-
son, 507 U. S. 349, 355 (1993). Sachs argues that her suit
falls within the Act’s commercial activity exception, which
provides in part that a foreign state does not enjoy immunity
when “the action is based upon a commercial activity carried
on in the United States by the foreign state.” § 1605(a)(2).1
The District Court concluded that Sachs’s suit did not fall
within § 1605(a)(2) and therefore granted OBB’s motion to
dismiss. 2011 WL 816854, *1, *4 (ND Cal., Jan. 28, 2011).
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 695 F. 3d 1021 (2012). The full
court ordered rehearing en banc and, with three judges dis-
senting, reversed the panel decision. 737 F. 3d 584.
The en banc majority first observed that, “based on the
agreement of the parties,” “the only relevant commercial ac-
tivity within the United States was [Sachs’s] March 2007 pur-
chase of a Eurail pass from the Rail Pass Experts,” a Massa-
chusetts company. Id., at 591, n. 4 (internal quotation marks
omitted). The court concluded that The Rail Pass Experts
had acted as OBB’s agent and, using common law principles
of agency, attributed that Eurail pass sale to OBB. Id., at
591–598.

1
Section 1605(a)(2) contains three separate clauses. In full, the sec-
tion provides:
“A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of
the United States or of the States in any case . . . in which the action is
based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the
foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States in connection
with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act
outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial
activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect
in the United States.”
As Sachs relies only on the first clause to establish jurisdiction over her
suit, we limit our inquiry to that clause.
32 OBB PERSONENVERKEHR AG v. SACHS

Opinion of the Court

The court next asked whether Sachs’s claims were “based

upon” the sale of the Eurail pass within the meaning of
§ 1605(a)(2). The “based upon” determination, the court ex-
plained, requires that the commercial activity within the
United States be “connected with the conduct that gives rise
to the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Id., at 590. But, the
court continued, “it is not necessary that the entire claim be
based upon the commercial activity of OBB.” Id., at 599.
Rather, in the court’s view, Sachs would satisfy the “based
upon” requirement for a particular claim “if an element of
[that] claim consists in conduct that occurred in commercial
activity carried on in the United States.” Ibid. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Applying California law, see id., at 600, n. 14, the court
analyzed Sachs’s causes of action individually and concluded
that the sale of the Eurail pass established a necessary ele-
ment of each of her claims. Turning first to the negligence
claim, the court found that Sachs was required to show that
OBB owed her a duty of care as a passenger as one element
of that claim. The court concluded that such a duty arose
from the sale of the Eurail pass. Id., at 600–602. Turning
next to the other claims, the court determined that the exist-
ence of a “transaction between a seller and a consumer” was
a necessary element of Sachs’s strict liability and breach of
implied warranty claims. Id., at 602. The sale of the Eurail
pass, the court noted, provided proof of such a transaction.
Ibid. Having found that “the sale of the Eurail pass in the
United States forms an essential element of each of Sachs’s
claims,” the court concluded that each claim was “based upon
a commercial activity carried on in the United States” by
OBB. Ibid.
We granted certiorari. 574 U. S. 1133 (2015).

II
OBB contends that the sale of the Eurail pass is not attrib-
utable to the railway, reasoning that the Foreign Sovereign
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 27 (2015) 33

Opinion of the Court

Immunities Act does not allow attribution through principles

found in the common law of agency. OBB also argues that
even if such attribution were allowed under the Act, Sachs’s
suit is not “based upon” the sale of the Eurail pass for pur-
poses of § 1605(a)(2). We agree with OBB on the second
point and therefore do not reach the first.

A
The Act itself does not elaborate on the phrase “based
upon.” Our decision in Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U. S.
349, however, provides sufficient guidance to resolve this
case. In Nelson, a husband and wife brought suit against
Saudi Arabia and its state-owned hospital, seeking damages
for intentional and negligent torts stemming from the hus-
band’s allegedly wrongful arrest, imprisonment, and torture
by Saudi police while he was employed at a hospital in
Saudi Arabia. Id., at 351, 353–354. The Saudi defendants
claimed sovereign immunity under the Act, arguing, inter
alia, that § 1605(a)(2) was inapplicable because the suit was
“based upon” sovereign acts—the exercise of Saudi police
authority—and not upon commercial activity. See Brief for
Petitioners in Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, O. T. 1992, No. 91–
552, pp. 12–14. The Nelsons countered that their suit was
“based upon” the defendants’ commercial activities in “re-
cruit[ing] Scott Nelson for work at the hospital, sign[ing] an
employment contract with him, and subsequently employ-
[ing] him.” 507 U. S., at 358. We rejected the Nelsons’
arguments.
The Act’s “based upon” inquiry, we reasoned, first requires
a court to “identify[ ] the particular conduct on which the
[plaintiff’s] action is ‘based.’ ” Id., at 356. Considering dic-
tionary definitions and lower court decisions, we explained
that a court should identify that “particular conduct” by
looking to the “basis” or “foundation” for a claim, id., at 357
(citing dictionary definitions), “those elements . . . that, if
proven, would entitle a plaintiff to relief,” ibid., and “the
34 OBB PERSONENVERKEHR AG v. SACHS

Opinion of the Court

‘gravamen of the complaint,’ ” ibid. (quoting Callejo v. Ban-

comer, S. A., 764 F. 2d 1101, 1109 (CA5 1985)). Under that
analysis, we found that the commercial activities, while they
“led to the conduct that eventually injured the Nelsons,”
were not the particular conduct upon which their suit was
based. The suit was instead based upon the Saudi sovereign
acts that actually injured them. 507 U. S., at 358. The Nel-
sons’ suit therefore did not fit within § 1605(a)(2). Id., at
361–362.
B
The Ninth Circuit held that Sachs’s claims were “based
upon” the sale of the Eurail pass because the sale of the pass
provided “an element” of each of her claims. 737 F. 3d, at
599. Under Nelson, however, the mere fact that the sale of
the Eurail pass would establish a single element of a claim
is insufficient to demonstrate that the claim is “based upon”
that sale for purposes of § 1605(a)(2).
The Ninth Circuit apparently derived its one-element test
from an overreading of one part of one sentence in Nelson,
in which we observed that “the phrase [‘based upon’] is read
most naturally to mean those elements of a claim that, if
proven, would entitle a plaintiff to relief under his theory of
the case.” 507 U. S., at 357. We do not see how that men-
tion of elements—plural—could be considered an endorse-
ment of a one-element test, nor how the particular element
the Ninth Circuit singled out for each of Sachs’s claims could
be construed to entitle her to relief.
Be that as it may, our analysis in Nelson is flatly incompat-
ible with a one-element approach. A one-element test nec-
essarily requires a court to identify all the elements of each
claim in a complaint before that court may reject those
claims for falling outside § 1605(a)(2). But we did not under-
take such an exhaustive claim-by-claim, element-by-element
analysis of the Nelsons’ 16 causes of action, nor did we en-
gage in the choice-of-law analysis that would have been a
necessary prelude to such an undertaking. Compare id., at
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 27 (2015) 35

Opinion of the Court

356–358, with 737 F. 3d, at 600, n. 14 (noting disagreement

over whether state or federal common law principles govern
suits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act).
Nelson instead teaches that an action is “based upon” the
“particular conduct” that constitutes the “gravamen” of the
suit. Rather than individually analyzing each of the Nel-
sons’ causes of action, we zeroed in on the core of their suit:
the Saudi sovereign acts that actually injured them. As the
Court explained:
“Even taking each of the Nelsons’ allegations about
Scott Nelson’s recruitment and employment as true,
those facts alone entitle the Nelsons to nothing under
their theory of the case. The Nelsons have . . . alleged
. . . personal injuries caused by [the defendants’] inten-
tional wrongs and by [the defendants’] negligent failure
to warn Scott Nelson that they might commit those
wrongs. Those torts, and not the arguably commercial
activities that preceded their commission, form the basis
for the Nelsons’ suit.” 507 U. S., at 358.

Under this analysis, the conduct constituting the grava-

men of Sachs’s suit plainly occurred abroad. All of her
claims turn on the same tragic episode in Austria, allegedly
caused by wrongful conduct and dangerous conditions in
Austria, which led to injuries suffered in Austria.
Sachs maintains that some of those claims are not limited
to negligent conduct or unsafe conditions in Austria, but
rather involve at least some wrongful action in the United
States. Her strict liability claim for failure to warn, for ex-
ample, alleges that OBB should have alerted her to the dan-
gerous conditions at the Innsbruck train station when OBB
sold the Eurail pass to her in the United States. Under any
theory of the case that Sachs presents, however, there is
nothing wrongful about the sale of the Eurail pass standing
alone. Without the existence of the unsafe boarding condi-
tions in Innsbruck, there would have been nothing to warn
36 OBB PERSONENVERKEHR AG v. SACHS

Opinion of the Court

Sachs about when she bought the Eurail pass. However

Sachs frames her suit, the incident in Innsbruck remains at
its foundation.
As we explained in Nelson, any other approach would
allow plaintiffs to evade the Act’s restrictions through artful
pleading. For example, any plaintiff “could recast virtually
any claim of intentional tort . . . as a claim of failure to warn,
simply by charging the defendant with an obligation to an-
nounce its own tortious propensity before indulging it.” Id.,
at 363. To allow such “recast[ing]” of a complaint, we rea-
soned, would “give jurisdictional significance to [a] feint of
language,” thereby “effectively thwart[ing] the Act’s mani-
fest purpose.” Ibid.
A century ago, in a letter to then-Professor Frankfurter,
Justice Holmes wrote that the “essentials” of a personal in-
jury narrative will be found at the “point of contact”—“the
place where the boy got his fingers pinched.” Letter (Dec.
19, 1915), in Holmes and Frankfurter: Their Correspondence,
1912–1934, p. 40 (R. Mennel & C. Compston eds. 1996). At
least in this case, that insight holds true. Regardless of
whether Sachs seeks relief under claims for negligence, strict
liability for failure to warn, or breach of implied warranty,
the “essentials” of her suit for purposes of § 1605(a)(2) are
found in Austria.2
III
Sachs raises a new argument in this Court in an attempt
to fit her claims within § 1605(a)(2). In addition to arguing
that her claims are “based upon” the sale of the Eurail pass,
she now contends that her suit is “based upon” “OBB’s over-

2
We cautioned in Nelson that the reach of our decision was limited, see
Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U. S. 349, 358, n. 4 (1993), and similar caution
is warranted here. Domestic conduct with respect to different types of
commercial activity may play a more significant role in other suits under
the first clause of § 1605(a)(2). In addition, we consider here only a case
in which the gravamen of each claim is found in the same place.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 27 (2015) 37

Opinion of the Court

all commercial railway enterprise.” Brief for Respondent

24; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 38.
“[C]ommercial activity carried on in the United States by
the foreign state,” as used in § 1605(a)(2), is defined to mean
“commercial activity carried on by such state and having
substantial contact with the United States.” § 1603(e).
Sachs’s new theory is that OBB’s entire railway enterprise
constitutes the “commercial activity” that has the requisite
“substantial contact with the United States,” because OBB
reaches out to American customers by marketing and selling
Eurail passes in the United States.
That argument was never presented to any lower court
and is therefore forfeited. Sachs argued in the courts below
only that her claims were “based upon” the sale of the Eurail
pass, and the lower courts resolved the case on that under-
standing. See, e. g., 737 F. 3d, at 591, n. 4 (“The district
court concluded, based on the agreement of the parties, that
‘the only relevant commercial activity within the United
States was plaintiff’s March 2007 purchase of a Eurail Pass
from the Rail Pass Experts.’ We consider only the relevant
conduct as defined by the district court.”).3 Indeed, when
we granted certiorari, the relevant question presented for
our review was whether Sachs’s claims were “based upon”
the “sale of the ticket in the United States.” Pet. for Cert.

3
See also Points and Authorities in Opposition to OBB Personenverkehr
AG’s Motion To Dismiss in No. 08–01840 (ND Cal.), p. 8 (“The claims
herein are based on the purchase of the Eurail pass.”); Appellant’s Opening
Brief in No. 11–15458 (CA9), p. 10 (“[T]he claims are ‘based upon’ the
purchase of the ticket which occurred in the United States.”); Appellant’s
Reply Brief in No. 11–15458 (CA9), p. 8 (“[H]er claim was based on the
purchase/sale of the ticket.”). The District Court decided the case on that
understanding of Sachs’s argument. See 2011 WL 816854, *2 (ND Cal.,
Jan. 28, 2011); see also 2010 WL 4916394, *1 (ND Cal., Nov. 22, 2010). As
did the Ninth Circuit panel, see 695 F. 3d 1021, 1024 (2012), and, as noted,
the Ninth Circuit en banc. When OBB petitioned this Court for writ of
certiorari, Sachs’s brief in opposition repeated her earlier arguments.
See Brief in Opposition 2; see also this Court’s Rule 15.2.
38 OBB PERSONENVERKEHR AG v. SACHS

Opinion of the Court

i; accord, Brief for Respondent i. We have answered that

question in the negative. Absent unusual circumstances—
none of which is present here—we will not entertain argu-
ments not made below. Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503
U. S. 638, 645–646 (1992).
We therefore conclude that Sachs has failed to demon-
strate that her suit falls within the commercial activity ex-
ception in § 1605(a)(2). OBB has sovereign immunity under
the Act, and accordingly the courts of the United States lack
jurisdiction over the suit.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
 OCTOBER TERM, 2015 39

Syllabus

SHAPIRO et al. v. McMANUS, CHAIRMAN, MARY-

LAND STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for

the fourth circuit
No. 14–990. Argued November 4, 2015—Decided December 8, 2015
Since 1976, federal law has mandated that a “district court of three judges
shall be convened . . . when an action is filed challenging the constitu-
tionality of the apportionment of congressional districts . . . ,” 28 U. S. C.
§ 2284(a), and has provided that “the judge [presented with a request
for a three-judge court] shall, unless he determines that three judges
are not required, immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit, who
shall designate two other judges” to serve, § 2284(b)(1).
Petitioners requested that a three-judge court be convened to con-
sider their claim that Maryland’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan
burdens their First Amendment right of political association. Conclud-
ing that no relief could be granted for this claim, the District Judge
dismissed the action instead of notifying the Chief Judge of the Circuit
to convene a three-judge court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Held: Section 2284 entitles petitioners to make their case before a three-
judge court. Pp. 42–46.
(a) Section 2284(a)’s prescription could not be clearer. Because the
present suit is indisputably “an action . . . challenging the constitutional-
ity of the apportionment of congressional districts,” the District Judge
was required to refer the case to a three-judge court. Section 2284(a)
admits of no exception, and “the mandatory ‘shall’ . . . normally creates
an obligation impervious to judicial discretion.” Lexecon Inc. v. Mil-
berg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U. S. 26, 35. The subsequent
provision of § 2284(b)(1), that the district judge shall commence the proc-
ess for appointment of a three-judge panel “unless he determines that
three judges are not required,” should be read not as a grant of discre-
tion to the district judge to ignore § 2284(a), but as a compatible adminis-
trative detail requiring district judges to “determin[e]” only whether
the “request for three judges” is made in a case covered by § 2284(a).
This conclusion is bolstered by § 2284(b)(3)’s explicit command that “[a]
single judge shall not . . . enter judgment on the merits.” Pp. 42–44.
(b) Respondents’ alternative argument, that the District Judge
should have dismissed petitioners’ claim as “constitutionally insubstan-
tial” under Goosby v. Osser, 409 U. S. 512, is unpersuasive. This Court
has long distinguished between failing to raise a substantial federal
40 SHAPIRO v. McMANUS

Opinion of the Court

question for jurisdictional purposes—what Goosby addressed—and fail-

ing to state a claim for relief on the merits—what the District Judge
found here; only “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” claims implicate
the former, Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 682–683. Absent such obvious
frivolity, “the failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judg-
ment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction.”
Id., at 682. Petitioners’ plea for relief, which was based on a legal the-
ory put forward in Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Vieth v. Jube-
lirer, 541 U. S. 267, 315, and uncontradicted in subsequent majority opin-
ions, easily clears Goosby’s low bar. Pp. 44–46.
584 Fed. Appx. 140, reversed and remanded.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Michael B. Kimberly argued the cause for petitioners.

With him on the briefs was Paul W. Hughes.
Steven M. Sullivan, Chief of Civil Litigation, argued the
cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Brian
E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Julia Doyle Bern-
hardt, Deputy Chief of Civil Litigation, and Jennifer L. Katz
and Patrick B. Hughes, Assistant Attorneys General.*

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider under what circumstances, if any, a district
judge is free to “determin[e] that three judges are not re-
quired” for an action “challenging the constitutionality of
the apportionment of congressional districts.” 28 U. S. C.
§§ 2284(a), (b)(1).
I
A
Rare today, three-judge district courts were more common
in the decades before 1976, when they were required for var-
ious adjudications, including the grant of an “interlocutory

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Common Cause
et al. by Emmet J. Bondurant and J. Gerald Hebert; for Judicial Watch,
Inc., by Meir Feder and Rajeev Muttreja; for the Virginia Conference of
the NAACP by Anita Earls and Allison Riggs; and for Joshua A. Douglas
et al. by Ashley C. Parrish and Ethan P. Davis.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 39 (2015) 41

Opinion of the Court

or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, opera-

tion or execution of any State statute . . . upon the ground
of the unconstitutionality of such statute.” 28 U. S. C. § 2281
(1970 ed.), repealed, Pub. L. 94–381, § 1, 90 Stat. 1119. See
Currie, The Three-Judge District Court in Constitutional
Litigation, 32 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1, 3–12 (1964). Decisions of
three-judge courts could, then as now, be appealed as of right
directly to this Court. 28 U. S. C. § 1253.
In 1976, Congress substantially curtailed the circum-
stances under which a three-judge court is required. It was
no longer required for the grant of an injunction against
state statutes, see Pub. L. 94–381, § 1, 90 Stat. 1119 (repeal-
ing 28 U. S. C. § 2281), but was mandated for “an action . . .
challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of
congressional districts or the apportionment of any state-
wide legislative body.” Id., § 3, now codified at 28 U. S. C.
§ 2284(a).
Simultaneously, Congress amended the procedures gov-
erning three-judge district courts. The prior statute had
provided: “The district judge to whom the application for
injunction or other relief is presented shall constitute one
member of [the three-judge] court. On the filing of the ap-
plication, he shall immediately notify the chief judge of the
circuit, who shall designate two other judges” to serve. 28
U. S. C. § 2284(1) (1970 ed.). The amended statute provides:
“Upon the filing of a request for three judges, the judge to
whom the request is presented shall, unless he determines
that three judges are not required, immediately notify the
chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other
judges” to serve. 28 U. S. C. § 2284(b)(1) (2012 ed.) (empha-
sis added). The dispute here concerns the scope of the itali-
cized text.
B
In response to the 2010 Census, Maryland enacted a stat-
ute in October 2011 establishing—or, more pejoratively,
gerrymandering—the districts for the State’s eight congres-
42 SHAPIRO v. McMANUS

Opinion of the Court

sional seats. Dissatisfied with the crazy-quilt results, see

App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a, petitioners, a bipartisan group of
citizens, filed suit pro se in Federal District Court. Their
amended complaint alleges, inter alia, that Maryland’s redis-
tricting plan burdens their First Amendment right of politi-
cal association. Petitioners also requested that a three-
judge court be convened to hear the case.
The District Judge, however, thought the claim “not one
for which relief can be granted.” Benisek v. Mack, 11
F. Supp. 3d 516, 526 (Md. 2014). “[N]othing about the con-
gressional districts at issue in this case affects in any pro-
scribed way [petitioners’] ability to participate in the politi-
cal debate in any of the Maryland congressional districts in
which they might find themselves. They are free to join
preexisting political committees, form new ones, or use what-
ever other means are at their disposal to influence the opin-
ions of their congressional representatives.” Ibid. (brack-
ets, ellipsis, and internal quotation marks omitted).
For that reason, instead of notifying the Chief Judge of
the Circuit of the need for a three-judge court, the District
Judge dismissed the action. The Fourth Circuit summarily
affirmed in an unpublished disposition. Benisek v. Mack,
584 Fed. Appx. 140 (CA4 2014). Seeking review in this
Court, petitioners pointed out that at least two other Cir-
cuits consider it reversible error for a district judge to dis-
miss a case under § 2284 for failure to state a claim for relief
rather than refer it for transfer to a three-judge court. See
LaRouche v. Fowler, 152 F. 3d 974, 981–983 (CADC 1998);
LULAC v. Texas, 113 F. 3d 53, 55–56 (CA5 1997) (per
curiam). We granted certiorari. Shapiro v. Mack, 576
U. S. 1003 (2015).
II
Petitioners’ sole contention is that the District Judge had
no authority to dismiss the case rather than initiate the pro-
cedures to convene a three-judge court. Not so, argue re-
spondents; the 1976 addition to § 2284(b)(1) of the clause “un-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 39 (2015) 43

Opinion of the Court

less he determines that three judges are not required” is

precisely such a grant of authority. Moreover, say respond-
ents, Congress declined to specify a standard to constrain
the exercise of this authority. Choosing, as the District
Judge did, the familiar standard for dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) best serves the purposes of a
three-judge court, which (in respondents’ view) is to protect
States from “hasty, imprudent invalidation” of their statutes
by rogue district judges acting alone. Brief for Respond-
ents 27.
Whatever the purposes of a three-judge court may be, re-
spondents’ argument needlessly produces a contradiction in
the statutory text. That text’s initial prescription could not
be clearer: “A district court of three judges shall be convened
. . . when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality
of the apportionment of congressional districts . . . .” 28
U. S. C. § 2284(a) (emphasis added). Nobody disputes that
the present suit is “an action . . . challenging the constitution-
ality of the apportionment of congressional districts.” It
follows that the district judge was required to refer the case
to a three-judge court, for § 2284(a) admits of no exception,
and “the mandatory ‘shall’ . . . normally creates an obligation
impervious to judicial discretion.” Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U. S. 26, 35 (1998); see
also National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wild-
life, 551 U. S. 644, 661–662 (2007) (same).
The subsequent provision of § 2284(b)(1), that the district
judge shall commence the process for appointment of a three-
judge panel “unless he determines that three judges are not
required,” need not and therefore should not be read as a
grant of discretion to the district judge to ignore § 2284(a).
It is not even framed as a proviso, or an exception from that
provision, but rather as an administrative detail that is en-
tirely compatible with § 2284(a). The old § 2284(1) triggered
the district judge’s duty to refer the matter for the convening
of a three-judge court “[o]n the filing of the application” to
44 SHAPIRO v. McMANUS

Opinion of the Court

enjoin an unconstitutional state law. By contrast, the cur-

rent § 2284(b)(1) triggers the district judge’s duty “[u]pon the
filing of a request for three judges” (emphasis added). But
of course a party may—whether in good faith or bad, through
ignorance or hope or malice—file a request for a three-judge
court even if the case does not merit one under § 2284(a).
Section 2284(b)(1) merely clarifies that a district judge need
not unthinkingly initiate the procedures to convene a three-
judge court without first examining the allegations in the
complaint. In short, all the district judge must “deter-
min[e]” is whether the “request for three judges” is made in
a case covered by § 2284(a)—no more, no less.
That conclusion is bolstered by § 2284(b)(3)’s explicit com-
mand that “[a] single judge shall not . . . enter judgment on
the merits.” It would be an odd interpretation that allowed
a district judge to do under § 2284(b)(1) what he is forbidden
to do under § 2284(b)(3). More likely that Congress in-
tended a three-judge court, and not a single district judge,
to enter all final judgments in cases satisfying the criteria
of § 2284(a).
III
Respondents argue in the alternative that a district judge
is not required to refer a case for the convening of a three-
judge court if the constitutional claim is (as they assert peti-
tioners’ claim to be) “insubstantial.” In Goosby v. Osser, 409
U. S. 512 (1973), we stated that the filing of a “constitution-
ally insubstantial” claim did not trigger the three-judge-
court requirement under the pre-1976 statutory regime.
Id., at 518. Goosby rested not on an interpretation of statu-
tory text, but on the familiar proposition that “[i]n the ab-
sence of diversity of citizenship, it is essential to jurisdiction
that a substantial federal question should be presented.”
Ex parte Poresky, 290 U. S. 30, 31 (1933) (per curiam) (em-
phasis added). Absent a substantial federal question, even
a single-judge district court lacks jurisdiction, and “[a] three-
judge court is not required where the district court itself
lacks jurisdiction of the complaint or the complaint is not
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 39 (2015) 45

Opinion of the Court

justiciable in the federal courts.” Gonzalez v. Automatic

Employees Credit Union, 419 U. S. 90, 100 (1974).
In the present case, however, the District Judge dismissed
petitioners’ complaint not because he thought he lacked ju-
risdiction, but because he concluded that the allegations
failed to state a claim for relief on the merits, citing Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U. S. 544 (2007). See 11 F. Supp. 3d, at 520.
That was in accord with Fourth Circuit precedent, which
holds that where the “pleadings do not state a claim, then by
definition they are insubstantial and so properly are subject
to dismissal by the district court without convening a three-
judge court.” Duckworth v. State Admin. Bd. of Election
Laws, 332 F. 3d 769, 772–773 (CA4 2003) (emphasis added).
We think this standard both too demanding and inconsist-
ent with our precedents. “[C]onstitutional claims will not
lightly be found insubstantial for purposes of ” the three-
judge-court statute. Washington v. Confederated Tribes of
Colville Reservation, 447 U. S. 134, 147–148 (1980). We
have long distinguished between failing to raise a substantial
federal question for jurisdictional purposes—which is what
Goosby addressed—and failing to state a claim for relief on
the merits; only “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” claims
implicate the former. Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 682–683
(1946); see also Hannis Distilling Co. v. Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore, 216 U. S. 285, 288 (1910) (“obviously
frivolous or plainly insubstantial”); Bailey v. Patterson, 369
U. S. 31, 33 (1962) (per curiam) (“wholly insubstantial,” “le-
gally speaking nonexistent,” “essentially fictitious”); Steel
Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 89
(1998) (“frivolous or immaterial”). Absent such frivolity,
“the failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judg-
ment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of juris-
diction.” Bell, supra, at 682. Consistent with this princi-
ple, Goosby clarified that “ ‘[c]onstitutional insubstantiality’
for this purpose has been equated with such concepts as ‘es-
sentially fictitious,’ ‘wholly insubstantial,’ ‘obviously frivo-
46 SHAPIRO v. McMANUS

Opinion of the Court

lous,’ and ‘obviously without merit.’ ” 409 U. S., at 518 (cita-

tions omitted). And the adverbs were no mere throwaways;
“[t]he limiting words ‘wholly’ and ‘obviously’ have cogent
legal significance.” Ibid.
Without expressing any view on the merits of petitioners’
claim, we believe it easily clears Goosby’s low bar; after all,
the amended complaint specifically challenges Maryland’s ap-
portionment “along the lines suggested by Justice Kennedy
in his concurrence in Vieth [v. Jubelirer, 541 U. S. 267
(2004)].” App. to Brief in Opposition 44. Although the
Vieth plurality thought all political gerrymandering claims
nonjusticiable, Justice Kennedy, concurring in the judg-
ment, surmised that if “a State did impose burdens and re-
strictions on groups or persons by reason of their views,
there would likely be a First Amendment violation, unless
the State shows some compelling interest. . . . Where it is
alleged that a gerrymander had the purpose and effect of
imposing burdens on a disfavored party and its voters, the
First Amendment may offer a sounder and more pruden-
tial basis for intervention than does the Equal Protection
Clause.” Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U. S. 267, 315 (2004).
Whatever “wholly insubstantial,” “obviously frivolous,” etc.,
mean, at a minimum they cannot include a plea for relief
based on a legal theory put forward by a Justice of this Court
and uncontradicted by the majority in any of our cases. Ac-
cordingly, the District Judge should not have dismissed the
claim as “constitutionally insubstantial” under Goosby. Per-
haps petitioners will ultimately fail on the merits of their
suit, but § 2284 entitles them to make their case before a
three-judge district court.
* * *
The judgment of the Fourth Circuit is reversed, and the
case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
It is so ordered.
 OCTOBER TERM, 2015 47

Syllabus

DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA et al.

certiorari to the court of appeal of california,

second appellate district, division one
No. 14–462. Argued October 6, 2015—Decided December 14, 2015
Petitioner DIRECTV, Inc., and its customers entered into a service agree-
ment that included a binding arbitration provision with a class-
arbitration waiver. It specified that the entire arbitration provision
was unenforceable if the “law of your state” made class-arbitration
waivers unenforceable. The agreement also declared that the arbitra-
tion clause was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. At the time
that respondents, California residents, entered into that agreement with
DIRECTV, California law made class-arbitration waivers unenforceable,
see Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 113 P. 3d 1100.
This Court subsequently held in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
563 U. S. 333, however, that California’s Discover Bank rule was pre-
empted by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. § 2.
When respondents sued petitioner, the trial court denied DIRECTV’s
request to order the matter to arbitration, and the California Court of
Appeal affirmed. The court thought that California law would render
class-arbitration waivers unenforceable, so it held the entire arbitration
provision was unenforceable under the agreement. The fact that the
Federal Arbitration Act pre-empted that California law did not change
the result, the court said, because the parties were free to refer in the
contract to California law as it would have been absent federal pre-
emption. The court reasoned that the phrase “law of your state” was
both a specific provision that should govern more general provisions and
an ambiguous provision that should be construed against the drafter.
Therefore, the court held, the parties had in fact included California law
as it would have been without federal pre-emption.
Held: Because the California Court of Appeal’s interpretation is pre-
empted by the Federal Arbitration Act, that court must enforce the
arbitration agreement. Pp. 53–59.
(a) No one denies that lower courts must follow Concepcion, but that
elementary point of law does not resolve the case because the parties
are free to choose the law governing an arbitration provision, including
California law as it would have been if not pre-empted. The state court
interpreted the contract to mean that the parties did so, and the inter-
pretation of a contract is ordinarily a matter of state law to which this
48 DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA

Syllabus

Court defers, Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of

Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U. S. 468, 474. The issue here is
not whether the court’s decision is a correct statement of California
law but whether it is consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.
Pp. 53–54.
(b) The California court’s interpretation does not place arbitration
contracts “on equal footing with all other contracts,” Buckeye Check
Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U. S. 440, 443, because California courts
would not interpret contracts other than arbitration contracts the same
way. Several considerations lead to this conclusion.
First, the phrase “law of your state” is not ambiguous and takes its
ordinary meaning: valid state law. Second, California case law—
that under “general contract principles,” references to California law
incorporate the California Legislature’s power to change the law
retroactively, Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal. 4th 64, 69–70, 302 P. 3d 598, 601–
602—clarifies any doubt about how to interpret it. Third, because
the court nowhere suggests that California courts would reach the
same interpretation in any other context, its conclusion appears to re-
flect the subject matter, rather than a general principle that would in-
clude state statutes invalidated by other federal law. Fourth, the
language the court uses to frame the issue focuses only on arbitration.
Fifth, the view that state law retains independent force after being
authoritatively invalidated is one courts are unlikely to apply in other
contexts. Sixth, none of the principles of contract interpretation
relied on by the California court suggests that other California courts
would reach the same interpretation elsewhere. The court applied
the canon that contracts are construed against the drafter, but the
lack of any similar case interpreting similar language to include invalid
laws indicates that the antidrafter canon would not lead California
courts to reach a similar conclusion in cases not involving arbitration.
Pp. 54–58.
225 Cal. App. 4th 338, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190, reversed and remanded.

Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J.,
and Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed
a dissenting opinion, post, p. 59. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion,
in which Sotomayor, J., joined, post, p. 59.

Christopher Landau argued the cause for petitioner.

With him on the briefs were Melissa D. Ingalls, Robyn E.
Bladow, and Shaun Paisley.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 47 (2015) 49

Opinion of the Court

Thomas C. Goldstein argued the cause for respondents.

With him on the brief were F. Edie Mermelstein, Paul D.
Stevens, and Ingrid Maria Evans.*
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Arbitration Act states that a “written provi-
sion” in a contract providing for “settle[ment] by arbitration”
of “a controversy . . . arising out of ” that “contract . . . shall
be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of
any contract.” 9 U. S. C. § 2. We here consider a California
court’s refusal to enforce an arbitration provision in a con-
tract. In our view, that decision does not rest “upon such
grounds as exist . . . for the revocation of any contract,” and
we consequently set that judgment aside.
I
DIRECTV, Inc., the petitioner, entered into a service
agreement with its customers, including respondents Amy
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Atlantic Legal
Foundation et al. by Martin S. Kaufman and Mary-Christine Sungaila;
for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. by
Andrew J. Pincus, Archis A. Parasharami, Richard B. Katskee, Kate
Comerford Todd, Warren Postman, and Deborah White; for DRI–The
Voice of the Defense Bar by David M. Axelrad, Felix Shafir, and John F.
Querio; for the Equal Employment Advisory Council by Rae T. Vann and
Amy Beth Leasure; for the New England Legal Foundation by Benjamin
G. Robbins and Martin J. Newhouse; for the Pacific Legal Foundation by
Deborah J. La Fetra and Ernesto J. Sanchez; and for the Washington
Legal Foundation by Cory L. Andrews.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for Arbitration and
Contracts Scholars by Francis J. Balint, Jr., Andrew S. Friedman, and
Richard H. Frankel; for California Law Professors by Holly McGregor
Mosier; for Law Professors by Kristen Marquis Fritz and Gregory G.
Rizio; for Law Professors by Imre S. Szalai; for Public Citizen, Inc., by
Scott L. Nelson and Allison M. Zieve; for Peter Linzer by Mr. Linzer, pro
se; for Michael Vachon by Mr. Vachon, pro se; and for William R. Weinstein
by Mr. Weinstein, pro se.
50 DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA

Opinion of the Court

Imburgia and Kathy Greiner. Section 9 of that contract

provides that “any Claim either of us asserts will be resolved
only by binding arbitration.” App. 128. It then sets forth
a waiver of class arbitration, stating that “[n]either you nor
we shall be entitled to join or consolidate claims in arbitra-
tion.” Id., at 128–129. It adds that if the “law of your
state” makes the waiver of class arbitration unenforceable,
then the entire arbitration provision “is unenforceable.”
Id., at 129. Section 10 of the contract states that § 9, the
arbitration provision, “shall be governed by the Federal Ar-
bitration Act.” Ibid.
In 2008, the two respondents brought this lawsuit against
DIRECTV in a California state court. They seek dam-
ages for early termination fees that they believe violate Cali-
fornia law. After various proceedings not here relevant,
DIRECTV, pointing to the arbitration provision, asked the
court to send the matter to arbitration. The state trial
court denied that request, and DIRECTV appealed.
The California Court of Appeal thought that the critical
legal question concerned the meaning of the contractual
phrase “law of your state,” in this case the law of Cali-
fornia. Does the law of California make the contract’s class-
arbitration waiver unenforceable? If so, as the contract pro-
vides, the entire arbitration provision is unenforceable. Or
does California law permit the parties to agree to waive the
right to proceed as a class in arbitration? If so, the arbitra-
tion provision is enforceable.
At one point, the law of California would have made the
contract’s class-arbitration waiver unenforceable. In 2005,
the California Supreme Court held in Discover Bank v. Su-
perior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162–163, 113 P. 3d 1100, 1110,
that a “waiver” of class arbitration in a “consumer contract
of adhesion” that “predictably involve[s] small amounts of
damages” and meets certain other criteria not contested here
is “unconscionable under California law and should not be
enforced.” See Cohen v. DirecTV, Inc., 142 Cal. App. 4th
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 47 (2015) 51

Opinion of the Court

1442, 1446–1447, 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 813, 815–816 (2006) (holding

a class-action waiver similar to the one at issue here unen-
forceable pursuant to Discover Bank); see also Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Ann. §§ 1751, 1781(a)
(West 2009) (invalidating class-action waivers for claims
brought under that statute). But in 2011, this Court held
that California’s Discover Bank rule “ ‘stands as an obstacle
to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and
objectives of Congress’ ” embodied in the Federal Arbitra-
tion Act. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. 333,
352 (2011) (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67
(1941)); see Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC, 61 Cal.
4th 899, 923–924, 353 P. 3d 741, 757 (2015) (holding that Con-
cepcion applies to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act to the
extent that it would have the same effect as Discover Bank).
The Federal Arbitration Act therefore pre-empts and in-
validates that rule. 563 U. S., at 352; see U. S. Const., Art.
VI, cl. 2.
The California Court of Appeal subsequently held in this
case that, despite this Court’s holding in Concepcion, “the
law of California would find the class action waiver unen-
forceable.” 225 Cal. App. 4th 338, 342, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190,
194 (2014). The court noted that Discover Bank had held
agreements to dispense with class-arbitration procedures un-
enforceable under circumstances such as these. 225 Cal.
App. 4th, at 341, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d, at 194. It conceded that
this Court in Concepcion had held that the Federal Arbitra-
tion Act invalidated California’s rule. 225 Cal. App. 4th, at
341, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d, at 194. But it then concluded that
this latter circumstance did not change the result—that the
“class action waiver is unenforceable under California law.”
Id., at 347, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d, at 198.
In reaching that conclusion, the Court of Appeal referred
to two sections of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, §§ 1751, 1781(a), rather than Discover Bank itself. See
225 Cal. App. 4th, at 344, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d, at 195. Section
52 DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA

Opinion of the Court

1751 renders invalid any waiver of the right under § 1781(a)

to bring a class action for violations of that Act. The Court
of Appeal thought that applying “state law alone” (that is,
those two sections) would render unenforceable the class-
arbitration waiver in § 9 of the contract. Id., at 344, 170 Cal.
Rptr. 3d, at 195. But it nonetheless recognized that if it
applied federal law “then the class action waiver is enforce-
able and any state law to the contrary is preempted.” Ibid.
As far as those sections apply to class-arbitration waivers,
they embody the Discover Bank rule. The California Su-
preme Court has recognized as much, see Sanchez, supra, at
923–924, 353 P. 3d, at 757, and no party argues to the con-
trary, see Supp. Brief for Respondents 2 (“The ruling in San-
chez tracks respondents’ position precisely”). We shall con-
sequently refer to the here-relevant rule as the Discover
Bank rule.
The court reasoned that just as the parties were free in
their contract to refer to the laws of different States or dif-
ferent nations, so too were they free to refer to California
law as it would have been without this Court’s holding invali-
dating the Discover Bank rule. The court thought that the
parties in their contract had done just that. And it set forth
two reasons for believing so.
First, § 10 of the contract, stating that the Federal Arbi-
tration Act governs § 9 (the arbitration provision), is a gen-
eral provision. But the provision voiding arbitration if the
“law of your state” would find the class-arbitration waiver
unenforceable is a specific provision. The court believed
that the specific provision “ ‘is paramount to’ ” and must gov-
ern the general. 225 Cal. App. 4th, at 344, 170 Cal. Rptr.
3d, at 195 (quoting Prouty v. Gores Technology Group, 121
Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1235, 18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 178, 185–186 (2004);
brackets omitted).
Second, the court said that “ ‘a court should construe am-
biguous language against the interest of the party that
drafted it.’ ” 255 Cal. App. 4th, at 345, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d, at
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 47 (2015) 53

Opinion of the Court

196 (quoting Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.,

514 U. S. 52, 62 (1995)). DIRECTV had drafted the lan-
guage; to void the arbitration provision was against its inter-
est. Hence the arbitration provision was void. The Court
of Appeal consequently affirmed the trial court’s denial of
DIRECTV’s motion to enforce the arbitration provision.
The California Supreme Court denied discretionary re-
view. App. to Pet. for Cert. 1a. DIRECTV then filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari, noting that the Ninth Circuit
had reached the opposite conclusion on precisely the same
interpretive question decided by the California Court of Ap-
peal. Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc., 724 F. 3d 1218, 1226–1228
(2013). We granted the petition.

II
No one denies that lower courts must follow this Court’s
holding in Concepcion. The fact that Concepcion was a
closely divided case, resulting in a decision from which four
Justices dissented, has no bearing on that undisputed obliga-
tion. Lower court judges are certainly free to note their
disagreement with a decision of this Court. But the “Su-
premacy Clause forbids state courts to dissociate themselves
from federal law because of disagreement with its content or
a refusal to recognize the superior authority of its source.”
Howlett v. Rose, 496 U. S. 356, 371 (1990); cf. Khan v. State
Oil Co., 93 F. 3d 1358, 1363–1364 (CA7 1996), vacated, 522
U. S. 3 (1997). The Federal Arbitration Act is a law of the
United States, and Concepcion is an authoritative interpre-
tation of that Act. Consequently, the judges of every State
must follow it. U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2 (“[T]he Judges in
every State shall be bound” by “the Laws of the United
States”).
While all accept this elementary point of law, that point
does not resolve the issue in this case. As the Court of Ap-
peal noted, the Federal Arbitration Act allows parties to an
arbitration contract considerable latitude to choose what law
54 DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA

Opinion of the Court

governs some or all of its provisions, including the law gov-

erning enforceability of a class-arbitration waiver. 225 Cal.
App. 4th, at 342–343, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d, at 194. In principle,
they might choose to have portions of their contract gov-
erned by the law of Tibet, the law of prerevolutionary Rus-
sia, or (as is relevant here) the law of California including
the Discover Bank rule and irrespective of that rule’s invali-
dation in Concepcion. The Court of Appeal decided that, as
a matter of contract law, the parties did mean the phrase
“law of your state” to refer to this last possibility. Since the
interpretation of a contract is ordinarily a matter of state
law to which we defer, Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v.
Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489
U. S. 468, 474 (1989), we must decide not whether its decision
is a correct statement of California law but whether (assum-
ing it is) that state law is consistent with the Federal Arbi-
tration Act.
III
Although we may doubt that the Court of Appeal has
correctly interpreted California law, we recognize that Cali-
fornia courts are the ultimate authority on that law. While
recognizing this, we must decide whether the decision of the
California court places arbitration contracts “on equal foot-
ing with all other contracts.” Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc.
v. Cardegna, 546 U. S. 440, 443 (2006). And in doing so, we
must examine whether the Court of Appeal’s decision in fact
rests upon “grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revo-
cation of any contract.” 9 U. S. C. § 2. That is to say, we
look not to grounds that the California court might have of-
fered but rather to those it did in fact offer. Neither this
approach nor our result “steps beyond Concepcion” or any
other aspect of federal arbitration law. See post, at 67
(Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (hereinafter the dissent).
We recognize, as the dissent points out, post, at 62, that
when DIRECTV drafted the contract, the parties likely be-
lieved that the words “law of your state” included California
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 47 (2015) 55

Opinion of the Court

law that then made class-arbitration waivers unenforceable.

But that does not answer the legal question before us. That
is because this Court subsequently held in Concepcion that
the Discover Bank rule was invalid. Thus the underlying
question of contract law at the time the Court of Appeal
made its decision was whether the “law of your state” in-
cluded invalid California law. We must now decide whether
answering that question in the affirmative is consistent with
the Federal Arbitration Act. After examining the grounds
upon which the Court of Appeal rested its decision, we con-
clude that California courts would not interpret contracts
other than arbitration contracts the same way. Rather, sev-
eral considerations lead us to conclude that the court’s inter-
pretation of this arbitration contract is unique, restricted to
that field.
First, we do not believe that the relevant contract lan-
guage is ambiguous. The contract says that “[i]f . . . the law
of your state would find this agreement to dispense with
class arbitration procedures unenforceable, then this entire
Section 9 [the arbitration section] is unenforceable.” App.
129. Absent any indication in the contract that this lan-
guage is meant to refer to invalid state law, it presumably
takes its ordinary meaning: valid state law. Indeed, neither
the parties nor the dissent refer us to any contract case from
California or from any other State that interprets similar
language to refer to state laws authoritatively held to be
invalid. While we recognize that the dissent believes this
phrase to be “ambiguous,” post, at 65, 67, or “anomalous,”
post, at 68, we cannot agree with that characterization.
Second, California case law itself clarifies any doubt about
how to interpret the language. The California Supreme
Court has held that under “general contract principles,” ref-
erences to California law incorporate the California Legisla-
ture’s power to change the law retroactively. Doe v. Harris,
57 Cal. 4th 64, 69–70, 302 P. 3d 598, 601–602 (2013) (holding
that plea agreements, which are governed by general con-
56 DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA

Opinion of the Court

tract principles, are “ ‘ “deemed to incorporate and contem-

plate not only the existing law but the reserve power of the
state to amend the law or enact additional laws” ’ ” (quoting
People v. Gipson, 117 Cal. App. 4th 1065, 1070, 12 Cal. Rptr.
3d 478, 481 (2004))). And judicial construction of a statute
ordinarily applies retroactively. Rivers v. Roadway Ex-
press, Inc., 511 U. S. 298, 312–313 (1994). As far as we are
aware, the principle of California law announced in Harris,
not the Court of Appeal’s decision here, would ordinarily
govern the scope of phrases such as “law of your state.”
Third, nothing in the Court of Appeal’s reasoning suggests
that a California court would reach the same interpretation
of “law of your state” in any context other than arbitration.
The Court of Appeal did not explain why parties might gen-
erally intend the words “law of your state” to encompass
“invalid law of your state.” To the contrary, the contract
refers to “state law” that makes the waiver of class arbitra-
tion “unenforceable,” while an invalid state law would not
make a contractual provision unenforceable. Assuming—as
we must—that the court’s reasoning is a correct statement
as to the meaning of “law of your state” in this arbitration
provision, we can find nothing in that opinion (nor in any
other California case) suggesting that California would gen-
erally interpret words such as “law of your state” to include
state laws held invalid because they conflict with, say, federal
labor statutes, federal pension statutes, federal antidiscrimi-
nation laws, the Equal Protection Clause, or the like. Even
given our assumption that the Court of Appeal’s conclusion
is correct, its conclusion appears to reflect the subject matter
at issue here (arbitration), rather than a general principle
that would apply to contracts using similar language but in-
volving state statutes invalidated by other federal law.
Fourth, the language used by the Court of Appeal focused
only on arbitration. The court asked whether “law of your
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 47 (2015) 57

Opinion of the Court

state” “mean[s] ‘the law of your state to the extent it is not

preempted by the [Federal Arbitration Act],’ or ‘the law of
your state without considering the preemptive effect, if any,
of the [Federal Arbitration Act].’ ” 225 Cal. App. 4th, at 344,
170 Cal. Rptr. 3d, at 195. Framing the question in such
terms, rather than in generally applicable terms, suggests
that the Court of Appeal could well have meant that its hold-
ing was limited to the specific subject matter of this con-
tract—arbitration.
Fifth, the Court of Appeal reasoned that invalid state arbi-
tration law, namely, the Discover Bank rule, maintained
legal force despite this Court’s holding in Concepcion. The
court stated that “[i]f we apply state law alone . . . to the
class action waiver, then the waiver is unenforceable.” 225
Cal. App. 4th, at 344, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d, at 195. And at the
end of its opinion it reiterated that “[t]he class action waiver
is unenforceable under California law, so the entire arbitra-
tion agreement is unenforceable.” Id., at 347, 170 Cal.
Rptr. 3d, at 198. But those statements do not describe Cali-
fornia law. See Concepcion, 563 U. S., at 344, 352; Sanchez,
61 Cal. 4th, at 923–924, 353 P. 3d, at 757. The view that
state law retains independent force even after it has been
authoritatively invalidated by this Court is one courts are
unlikely to accept as a general matter and to apply in other
contexts.
Sixth, there is no other principle invoked by the Court of
Appeal that suggests that California courts would reach the
same interpretation of the words “law of your state” in other
contexts. The court said that the phrase “law of your state”
constitutes “ ‘a specific exception’ ” to the agreement’s “ ‘gen-
eral adoption of the [Federal Arbitration Act].’ ” 225 Cal.
App. 4th, at 344, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d, at 195. But that tells
us nothing about how to interpret the words “law of your
state” elsewhere. It does not answer the relevant question:
whether those words encompass laws that have been author-
58 DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA

Opinion of the Court

itatively held invalid. Cf. Prouty, 121 Cal. App. 4th, at 1235,
18 Cal. Rptr. 3d, at 185–186 (specific words govern only
“when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent”).
The court added that it would interpret “ ‘ambiguous lan-
guage against the interest of the party that drafted it,’ ”
namely, DIRECTV. 225 Cal. App. 4th, at 345, 170 Cal.
Rptr. 3d, at 196 (quoting Mastrobuono, 514 U. S., at 62).
The dissent adopts a similar argument. See post, at 65–67.
But, as we have pointed out, supra, at 56, were the phrase
“law of your state” ambiguous, surely some court would
have construed that term to incorporate state laws invali-
dated by, for example, federal labor law, federal pension
law, or federal civil rights law. Yet, we have found no such
case. Moreover, the reach of the canon construing con-
tract language against the drafter must have limits, no mat-
ter who the drafter was. The fact that we can find no
similar case interpreting the words “law of your state” to
include invalid state laws indicates, at the least, that the
antidrafter canon would not lead California courts to reach
a similar conclusion in similar cases that do not involve
arbitration.
* * *
Taking these considerations together, we reach a conclu-
sion that, in our view, falls well within the confines of (and
goes no further than) present well-established law. Califor-
nia’s interpretation of the phrase “law of your state” does not
place arbitration contracts “on equal footing with all other
contracts,” Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc., 546 U. S., at 443.
For that reason, it does not give “due regard . . . to the
federal policy favoring arbitration.” Volt Information Sci-
ences, 489 U. S., at 476. Thus, the Court of Appeal’s inter-
pretation is pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
See Perry v. Thomas, 482 U. S. 483, 493, n. 9 (1987) (noting
that the Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts decisions that take
their “meaning precisely from the fact that a contract to arbi-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 47 (2015) 59

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

trate is at issue”). Hence, the California Court of Appeal

must “enforc[e]” the arbitration agreement. 9 U. S. C. § 2.
The judgment of the California Court of Appeal is re-
versed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

I remain of the view that the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., does not apply to proceedings in
state courts. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson,
513 U. S. 265, 285–297 (1995) (dissenting opinion); see also
Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U. S. 346, 363 (2008) (same); Buckeye
Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U. S. 440, 449 (2006)
(same); Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U. S. 444,
460 (2003) (same); Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto,
517 U. S. 681, 689 (1996) (same). Thus, the FAA does not
require state courts to order arbitration. Accordingly, I
would affirm the judgment of the California Court of Appeal.

Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Sotomayor

joins, dissenting.
It has become routine, in a large part due to this Court’s
decisions, for powerful economic enterprises to write into
their form contracts with consumers and employees no-class-
action arbitration clauses. The form contract in this case
contains a Delphic provision stating that “if the law of your
state” does not permit agreements barring class arbitration,
then the entire agreement to arbitrate becomes unenforce-
able, freeing the aggrieved customer to commence class-
based litigation in court. This Court reads that provision in
a manner most protective of the drafting enterprise. I
would read it, as the California court did, to give the cus-
tomer, not the drafter, the benefit of the doubt. Acknowl-
edging the precedent so far set by the Court, I would take
60 DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

no further step to disarm consumers, leaving them without

effective access to justice.
I
This case began as a putative class action in state
court claiming that DIRECTV, by imposing hefty early-
termination fees, violated California consumer-protective
legislation, including the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 1750 et seq. (West 2015).
App. 58. DIRECTV did not initially seek to stop the law-
suit and compel bilateral arbitration. See id., at 52–53.
The reason for DIRECTV’s failure to oppose the litigation is
no mystery. The version of DIRECTV’s service agreement
applicable in this case (the 2007 version) requires consumers
to arbitrate all disputes and to forgo class arbitration. Id.,
at 128–129. If the relevant provision stopped there, the
Court’s recent precedent, see American Express Co. v.
Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U. S. 228 (2013); AT&T Mo-
bility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. 333 (2011), would con-
trol, and DIRECTV could have resisted the lawsuit. But
DIRECTV’s form contract continued: The entire arbitra-
tion clause is unenforceable “[i]f . . . the law of your state
would find” unenforceable the agreement’s class-arbitration
prohibition. App. 129. At the time plaintiff-respondents
Imburgia and Greiner commenced their court action, class-
arbitration bars like the one in DIRECTV’s agreement were
per se unenforceable as unconscionable under the law of Cali-
fornia. See Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th
148, 162–163, 113 P. 3d 1100, 1110 (2005).
Nearly three years into the litigation, this Court held in
Concepcion, 563 U. S., at 338–351, that the Federal Arbi-
tration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., preempts state
rules that render class-arbitration bans unenforceable.
DIRECTV then moved to halt the long-pending lawsuit and
compel bilateral arbitration. App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a. The
California Superior Court denied DIRECTV’s motion, No.
BC398295 (Super. Ct. Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 26, 2012), App.
to Pet. for Cert. 17a–20a, and the California Court of Appeal
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 47 (2015) 61

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

affirmed. The Court of Appeal first observed that, under

the California law DIRECTV confronted when it drafted the
clause in question, provisions relinquishing the right to pro-
ceed under the CLRA on behalf of a class would not be en-
forced. 225 Cal. App. 4th 338, 342, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190,
194 (2014). The question dispositive of DIRECTV’s motion,
the California court explained, trains on the meaning of the
atypical contractual phrase “the law of your state”: “[D]oes
it mean ‘the law of your state to the extent it is not pre-
empted by the FAA,’ or ‘the law of your state without con-
sidering the preemptive effect, if any, of the FAA’?” Id., at
344, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d, at 195.
In resolving this question, the California court emphasized
that DIRECTV drafted the service agreement, giving its
customers no say in the matter, and reserving to itself the
right to modify the agreement unilaterally at any time. Id.,
at 345, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d, at 196. See also Brief for Respond-
ents 1–2. DIRECTV used the same take-it-or-leave-it con-
tract everywhere it did business. Ibid. “[T]o protect the
party who did not choose the language from an unintended
or unfair result,” the California court applied “the common-
law rule of contract interpretation that a court should con-
strue ambiguous language against the interest of the party
that drafted it.” 225 Cal. App. 4th, at 345, 170 Cal. Rptr.
3d, at 196 (quoting Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hut-
ton, Inc., 514 U. S. 52, 62–63 (1995)). That rule was particu-
larly appropriate in this case, the court reasoned, for, “as a
practical matter, it seems unlikely that plaintiffs anticipated
in 2007 that the Supreme Court would hold in 2011 that
the FAA preempts” state-law protection against compelled
class-arbitration waivers. 255 Cal. App. 4th, at 345, 170 Cal.
Rptr. 3d, at 196 (internal quotation marks omitted).

II
The Court today holds that the California Court of Appeal
interpreted the language in DIRECTV’s service agreement
so unreasonably as to suggest discrimination against arbitra-
62 DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

tion in violation of the FAA. Ante, at 58. As I see it, the

California court’s interpretation of the “law of your state”
provision is not only reasonable, it is entirely right.
Arbitration is a matter of “consent, not coercion.” Stolt-
Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U. S. 662, 681
(2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The FAA “re-
quires courts to enforce privately negotiated agreements
to arbitrate, like other contracts, in accordance with their
terms.” Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trust-
ees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U. S. 468, 478
(1989). “[T]he interpretation of private contracts is ordi-
narily a question of state law, which this Court does not sit
to review.” Id., at 474. See also First Options of Chicago,
Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U. S. 938, 944 (1995) (when interpreting
arbitration agreements, courts “should apply ordinary state-
law principles that govern the formation of contracts”).
Historically, this Court has respected state-court interpre-
tations of arbitration agreements. See Mastrobuono, 514
U. S., at 60, n. 4; Volt Information Sciences, 489 U. S., at 484.
Indeed, in the more than 25 years between Volt Information
Sciences and this case, not once has this Court reversed a
state-court decision on the ground that the state court mis-
applied state contract law when it determined the meaning
of a term in a particular arbitration agreement. Today’s de-
cision is a dangerous first.
Beyond genuine debate, DIRECTV originally meant the
“law of your state” clause to refer to its customer’s home
state law untouched by federal preemption. As DIRECTV
explained in a state-court filing, the clause prevented en-
forcement of the arbitration agreement in those States, Cali-
fornia among them, where the class-arbitration proscription
was unenforceable as a matter of state law, while requiring
bilateral arbitration in States that did not outlaw purported
waivers of class proceedings. App. 52 (“The Customer
Agreement between DIRECTV and its customers provides
that the customer’s home state laws will govern the relation-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 47 (2015) 63

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

ship, and that any disputes will be resolved in individual ar-

bitration if the customer’s home state laws enforce the par-
ties’ arbitration agreement.” (emphasis added)).
According to DIRECTV, because the class-arbitration ban,
post-Concepcion, is enforceable in all States, this case must
now be resolved, if at all, in bilateral arbitration. The Court
agrees. After Concepcion, the Court maintains, it no longer
matters whether DIRECTV meant California’s “home state
laws” when it drafted the 2007 version of its service agree-
ment. But Concepcion held only that a State cannot compel
a party to engage in class arbitration when the controlling
agreement unconditionally prohibits class procedures. See
563 U. S., at 351 (“Arbitration is a matter of contract, and
the FAA requires courts to honor parties’ expectations,” so
parties may consent to class procedures even though such
procedures “may not be required by state law.”). Just as a
contract itself may provide for class arbitration, so the par-
ties may choose to be bound by a particular state law, in this
case, the CLRA, even if the FAA would otherwise displace
that state law. Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel,
Inc., 552 U. S. 576, 586 (2008) (“[T]he FAA lets parties tailor
some, even many, features of arbitration by contract, includ-
ing . . . procedure and choice of substantive law.”).1 “In
principle,” the Court acknowledges, parties “might choose to
have portions of their contract governed by the law of Tibet,
[or] the law of prerevolutionary Russia.” Ante, at 54; see
Brief for Petitioner 20 (observing that the FAA would allow
parties “to bind themselves by reference to the rules of a
1
FAA preemption is distinct from federal preemption in other contexts.
Unlike “state laws invalidated by, for example, federal labor law, federal
pension law, or federal civil rights law,” ante, at 58, state laws are pre-
empted by the FAA only to the extent that they conflict with the contract-
ing parties’ intent. See Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.,
514 U. S. 52, 59 (1995) (“[I]n the absence of contractual intent to the con-
trary, the FAA would pre-empt” a particular state law. (emphasis added));
Brief for Law Professors as Amici Curiae 10 (“FAA preemption cannot
occur without reference to a particular agreement of the parties . . . .”).
64 DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

board game”). Prerevolutionary Russian law, but not Cali-

fornia’s “home state laws” operative and unquestionably
valid in 2007? Makes little sense to me.
Nothing in Concepcion or the FAA nullifies provisions of
the CLRA. They hold sway when parties elect judicial res-
olution of their disputes, and should similarly control when
parties choose that consumer-protective law to govern their
arbitration agreements. See Volt Information Sciences,
489 U. S., at 475 (where parties had “incorporat[ed] . . . Cali-
fornia rules of arbitration into their agreement,” they had
no “FAA-guaranteed right to compel arbitration” on terms
inconsistent with those California rules).2 Thus, even after
Concepcion, one could properly refer to the CLRA’s class-
waiver proscription as “California law.” To repeat, the dis-
positive question in this case is whether the parties intended
the “law of your state” provision to mean state law as pre-
empted by federal law, as the Court today reads the provi-
sion, or home state law as framed by the California Legisla-
ture, without considering the preemptive effect of federal
law, as the California court read it.
The latter reading is the better one. DIRECTV had no
occasion to refer to “the law of [its customer’s] state” had it
meant to incorporate state law as preempted by the FAA.
That is, DIRECTV, like virtually every other company with
a similar service agreement, could have employed a clause di-
rectly conditioning enforceability of the arbitration agreement
on the exclusion of class arbitration. Indeed, DIRECTV
2
The Court refers to the relevant California law as the “Discover Bank
rule” and suggests that, “under ‘general contract principles,’ references to
California law incorporate the California Legislature’s power to change
the law retroactively.” Ante, at 55. But despite this Court’s rejection of
the Discover Bank rule in Concepcion, the California Legislature has not
capitulated; it has retained without change the CLRA’s class-waiver prohi-
bition. The Discover Bank rule relied on an interpretation of the FAA,
see 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162–173, 113 P. 3d 1100, 1100–1117 (2005); in contrast,
the CLRA’s class-waiver proscription reflects California’s legislative pol-
icy judgment.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 47 (2015) 65

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

has done just that in service agreements both before and

after 2007. App. 121 (the 2004 version provides that “[a]
court may sever any portion of [the arbitration agreement]
that it finds to be unenforceable, except for the prohibi-
tion on class or representative arbitration”); Brief for Re-
spondents 35–36 (stating that the June 2015 version of
DIRECTV’s agreement provides that “[a] court may sever
any portion of [the arbitration agreement] that it finds to be
unenforceable, except for the prohibition on [class arbitra-
tion]” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Had DIRECTV
followed this pattern in its 2007 form contract, the arbi-
tration agreement, post-Concepcion, unquestionably would
have been enforceable in all States. In the 2007 version,
however, DIRECTV chose a different formulation, one refer-
ring to the “law of [its customer’s] state.” I would not
translate that term to be synonymous with “federal law.”
If DIRECTV meant to exclude the application of California
legislation, it surely chose a bizarre way to accomplish that
result.
As earlier noted, see supra, at 61, and as the California
court appreciated, courts generally construe ambiguous con-
tractual terms against the drafter. See Mastrobuono, 514
U. S., at 63 (“Respondents drafted an ambiguous document,
and they cannot now claim the benefit of the doubt.”). This
“common-law rule of contract interpretation,” id., at 62, re-
flects the principle that a party should not be permitted to
write an ambiguous term, lock another party into agreeing
to that term, and then reap the benefit of the ambiguity once
a dispute emerges. The rule has particular force where, as
here, a court is interpreting a “standardized contrac[t]” that
was not the product of bilateral bargaining. Restatement
(Second) of Contracts § 206, Comment a (1979).
Allowing DIRECTV to reap the benefit of an ambiguity it
could have avoided would ignore not just the hugely unequal
bargaining power of the parties, but also their reasonable
expectations at the time the contract was formed. See
66 DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

Mastrobuono, 514 U. S., at 63 (it is particularly appropriate

to construe terms against the drafter where the other party
had no reason to anticipate or intend the drafter’s preferred
result). See also Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin
Mint Corp., 466 U. S. 243, 262 (1984) (“[C]ontract[s] . . . are
to be read in the light of the conditions and circumstances
existing at the time they were entered into, with a view to
effecting the objects and purposes of the [parties] thereby
contracting.” (quoting Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U. S. 317,
331–332 (1912); ellipsis in original)). At the time DIRECTV
imposed this agreement on its customers, it assumed that
the arbitration clause would be unenforceable in California.
App. 52 (explaining in state-court filing that, “[b]ecause Cali-
fornia law would not enforce the arbitration agreement . . . ,
DIRECTV has not sought and will not seek to arbitrate dis-
putes with California customers”). Likewise, any California
customer who read the agreement would scarcely have un-
derstood that she had submitted to bilateral arbitration of
any and all disputes with DIRECTV. She certainly would
have had no reason to anticipate the Court’s decision in Con-
cepcion, rendered four years later, or to consider whether
“law of your state” is a chameleon term meaning California
legislation when she received her service contract, but pre-
emptive federal law later on.
DIRECTV primarily responds that the FAA requires con-
struction of all terms in arbitration agreements in favor of
arbitrability. True, this Court has found in the FAA a “fed-
eral policy favoring arbitration.” Ante, at 58 (quoting Volt
Information Sciences, 489 U. S., at 476). But the Court has
also cautioned that an arbitration-favoring presumption ap-
plies “only where it reflects, and derives its legitimacy from,
a judicial conclusion that arbitration of a particular dispute
is what the parties intended because their express agree-
ment to arbitrate was validly formed[, is] legally enforce-
able[,] and [is] best construed to encompass the dispute.”
Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters, 561 U. S. 287, 303 (2010).
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 47 (2015) 67

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

DIRECTV acknowledges that “[t]his case . . . involves a

threshold dispute over the enforceability of the parties’ arbi-
tration agreement” in its entirety. Reply Brief 7. Like
the California court, I would resolve that dispute by employ-
ing traditional rules of contract interpretation sans any
arbitration-favoring presumption, including the rule that am-
biguous language should be construed against the drafter.
See supra, at 61, 65.
III
Today’s decision steps beyond Concepcion and Italian Col-
ors. There, as here, the Court misread the FAA to deprive
consumers of effective relief against powerful economic enti-
ties that write no-class-action arbitration clauses into their
form contracts. In Concepcion, 563 U. S., at 336, customers
brought a class action claiming that AT&T Mobility had
improperly charged $30.22 in sales tax while advertising cel-
lular telephones as free. AT&T Mobility’s form consumer
contract contained a mandatory arbitration clause and a
class-arbitration proscription. Because consumers lacked
input into the contractual terms, and because few rational
consumers would go through the hassle of pursuing a $30.22
claim in bilateral arbitration, the California courts deemed
the arbitration agreement unenforceable as unconscionable.
See id., at 365 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (“ ‘[T]he maximum
gain to a customer for the hassle of arbitrating a $30.22 dis-
pute is still just $30.22.’ ” (quoting Laster v. AT&T Mobility
LLC, 584 F. 3d 849, 856 (CA9 2009))); Carnegie v. Household
Int’l, Inc., 376 F. 3d 656, 661 (CA7 2004) (“The realistic alter-
native to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but
zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for
$30.”), cert. denied, 543 U. S. 1051 (2005). Nonetheless, the
Court held that the FAA mandated enforcement of the entire
arbitration agreement, including the class-arbitration ban.
Concepcion, 563 U. S., at 343. Two years later, in Italian
Colors, 570 U. S., at 235, the Court reaffirmed that class-
arbitration prohibitions are enforceable even where claim-
68 DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

ants “have no economic incentive to pursue their . . . claims

individually in arbitration.” Today, the Court holds that
consumers lack not only protection against unambiguous
class-arbitration bans in adhesion contracts. They lack
even the benefit of the doubt when anomalous terms in such
contracts reasonably could be construed to protect their
rights.3
These decisions have predictably resulted in the depriva-
tion of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses, and,
turning the coin, they have insulated powerful economic in-
terests from liability for violations of consumer-protection
laws. See N. Y. Times, Nov. 1, 2015, p. A1, col. 5 (“By insert-
3
It has not always been this way. In Wilko v. Swan, 346 U. S. 427, 435,
438 (1953), the Court unanimously held that an arbitration clause in a
brokerage agreement was unenforceable. The Court noted that the Secu-
rities Act was “drafted with an eye to the disadvantages under which
buyers labor” when negotiating brokerage agreements, id., at 435, and
described arbitration as less protective of the rights of stock buyers than
litigation, id., at 435–437. The Court later overruled Wilko, rejecting
what it described as Wilko’s “suspicion of arbitration as a method of weak-
ening the protections afforded in the substantive law.” Rodriguez de
Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477, 481 (1989).
See also Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U. S. 20, 33 (1991)
(relying on Rodriguez de Quijas to conclude that “[m]ere inequality in
bargaining power . . . is not a sufficient reason to hold that arbitration
agreements are never enforceable in the employment context”). Simi-
larly, before Italian Colors, the Court had suggested that “the existence
of large arbitration costs could preclude a litigant . . . from effectively
vindicating her federal statutory rights in the arbitral forum,” and when
that is so, an arbitration agreement may be unenforceable. Green Tree
Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U. S. 79, 90 (2000). Although the
Court in Italian Colors did not expressly reject this “effective vindica-
tion” principle, the Court’s refusal to apply the principle in that case sug-
gests that the principle will no longer apply in any case. See 570 U. S.,
at 240–241 (Kagan, J., dissenting); CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565
U. S. 95, 110 (2012) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (criticizing the Court for
ignoring a federal statutory “right to sue” and for holding “that credit
repair organizations can escape suit by providing in their take-it-or-leave-it
contracts that arbitration will serve as the parties’ sole dispute-resolution
mechanism”).
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 47 (2015) 69

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

ing individual arbitration clauses into a soaring number of

consumer and employment contracts, companies [have] de-
vised a way to circumvent the courts and bar people from
joining together in class-action lawsuits, realistically the only
tool citizens have to fight illegal or deceitful business prac-
tices.”). Studies confirm that hardly any consumers take ad-
vantage of bilateral arbitration to pursue small-dollar claims.
Resnik, Diffusing Disputes: The Public in the Private of Ar-
bitration, the Private in Courts, and the Erasure of Rights,
124 Yale L. J. 2804, 2900–2910 (2015) (Resnik, Diffusing
Disputes). Because consumers lack bargaining power to
change the terms of consumer adhesion contracts ex ante,
“[t]he providers [have] won the power to impose a manda-
tory, no-opt-out system in their own private ‘courts’ designed
to preclude aggregate litigation.” Resnik, Fairness in Num-
bers: A Comment on AT&T v. Concepcion, Wal-Mart v.
Dukes, and Turner v. Rogers, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 78, 133
(2011). See also Miller, Simplified Pleading, Meaningful
Days in Court, and Trials on the Merits: Reflections on the
Deformation of Federal Procedure, 88 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 286,
323 (2013) (“[P]owerful economic entities can impose no-
class-action-arbitration clauses on people with little or no
bargaining position—through adhesion contracts involving
securities accounts, credit cards, mobile phones, car rentals,
and many other social amenities and necessities.”).4 The
proliferation of take-it-or-leave-it agreements mandating ar-
bitration and banning class procedures, and this Court’s
readiness to enforce such one-sided agreements, have dis-
abled consumers from “shop[ping] to avoid arbitration man-
dates.” Resnik, Diffusing Disputes 2839. See also id., at

4
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently published a study
documenting the proliferation of mandatory arbitration clauses containing
class-arbitration waivers in consumer financial-services contracts, as well
as the vanishingly small number of claims brought by financial-services
consumers in bilateral arbitration. See Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, Arbitration Study § 1, pp. 9–13 (2015).
70 DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

2872 (“[T]he numbers of clauses mandating arbitration are

soaring across many sectors.”).
The Court has suggested that these anticonsumer out-
comes flow inexorably from the text and purpose of the FAA.
But Congress passed the FAA in 1925 as a response to the
reluctance of some judges to enforce commercial arbitration
agreements between merchants with relatively equal bar-
gaining power. Moses, Arbitration Law: Who’s in Charge?
40 Seton Hall L. Rev. 147, 170–171 (2010). See also id., at
170 (contract disputes between merchants have been a
proper subject of arbitration since the 1600’s). The FAA’s
purpose was to “make the contracting party live up to his
agreement.” H. R. Rep. No. 68–96, p. 1 (1924). See also
Moses, supra, at 147 (Congress sought to “provide federal
courts with procedural law that would permit the enforce-
ment of arbitration agreements between merchants in diver-
sity cases.”). Congress in 1925 could not have anticipated
that the Court would apply the FAA to render consumer
adhesion contracts invulnerable to attack by parties who
never meaningfully agreed to arbitration in the first place.
See Resnik, Diffusing Disputes 2860 (“The merchants and
lawyers who forged the public law of arbitration in the
United States sought federal legislation to enforce consen-
sual agreements.” (emphasis added)).
Nor does the text of the FAA compel this result. Section
2, on which the Court relied in Concepcion, Italian Colors,
and this case, prescribes simply that arbitration provisions
are to be treated the same as other contractual terms: “A
written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction
involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy . . .
shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract.” 9 U. S. C. § 2. As Justice O’Connor observed
when the Court was just beginning to transform the FAA
into what it has become, “the Court has abandoned all pre-
tense of ascertaining congressional intent with respect to
the Federal Arbitration Act, building instead, case by case,
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 47 (2015) 71

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

an edifice of its own creation.” Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos.

v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265, 283 (1995) (concurring opinion).
See also Miller, supra, at 324 (“[O]ver the years the Act has
been transformed by the Supreme Court through constant
expansion into an expression of a ‘federal policy’ favoring
arbitration, whether it involves a bilateral business dispute
or not.”).
The Court’s ever-larger expansion of the FAA’s scope con-
trasts sharply with how other countries treat mandatory ar-
bitration clauses in consumer contracts of adhesion. A 1993
European Union Directive forbids binding consumers to un-
fair contractual terms, defined as those “not . . . individually
negotiated” that “caus[e] a significant imbalance in the par-
ties’ rights and obligations . . . to the detriment of the con-
sumer.” Coun. Directive 93/13, Art. 3, 1993 O. J. (L. 95) 31.
A subsequent EU Recommendation interpreted this Direc-
tive to bar enforcement of one-party-dictated mandatory
consumer arbitration agreements. Comm’n Recommenda-
tion 98/257, 1998 O. J. (L. 115) 34 (“The consumer’s recourse
to the out-of-court procedure may not be the result of a com-
mitment prior to the materialisation of the dispute, where
such commitment has the effect of depriving the consumer
of his right to bring an action before the courts for the settle-
ment of the dispute.”). As a result of this Directive and
Recommendation, disputes between providers and consum-
ers in the EU are arbitrated only when the parties mutually
agree to arbitration on a “post-dispute basis.” Sternlight,
Is the U. S. Out on a Limb? Comparing the U. S. Approach
to Mandatory Consumer and Employment Arbitration to
That of the Rest of the World, 56 U. Miami L. Rev. 831,
847–848 (2002) (emphasis deleted); see id., at 852 (enforce-
ment of mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts
of adhesion “is quite rare, if not nonexistent,” outside the
United States).
* * *
The California Court of Appeal appropriately applied tra-
ditional tools of state contract law to interpret DIRECTV’s
72 DIRECTV, INC. v. IMBURGIA

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

reference to the home state laws of its customers. Demean-

ing that court’s judgment through harsh construction, this
Court has again expanded the scope of the FAA, further de-
grading the rights of consumers and further insulating al-
ready powerful economic entities from liability for unlawful
acts. I resist the Court’s bent, and would affirm the judg-
ment of the California Court of Appeal.
 OCTOBER TERM, 2015 73

Syllabus

WHITE, WARDEN v. WHEELER

on petition for writ of certiorari to the united

states court of appeals for the sixth circuit
No. 14–1372. Decided December 14, 2015
During the jury selection process in respondent Roger Wheeler’s state
murder trial, the prosecution moved to strike Juror 638 for cause based
on his inconsistent replies to the question whether he could consider
voting to impose the death penalty. The trial judge initially found the
juror unproblematic but, after deliberating and reviewing the relevant
testimony, excused the juror, concluding that he could not give sufficient
assurance of neutrality or impartiality in considering whether the death
penalty should be imposed. Respondent was convicted and sentenced
to death, and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed. After exhausting
available state postconviction procedures, respondent sought a writ of
habeas corpus in Federal District Court, asserting, inter alia, that the
trial court erred in striking Juror 638. The District Court dismissed
the petition, but the Sixth Circuit granted relief as to respondent’s sen-
tence, holding that the exclusion of Juror 638 was an unreasonable appli-
cation of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510, Wainwright v. Witt, 469
U. S. 412, and their progeny.
Held: The Sixth Circuit’s determination contravenes this Court’s control-
ling precedents. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996, federal habeas review of respondent’s claim—much like that
of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim—must be “ ‘ “doubly defer-
ential.” ’ ” Burt v. Titlow, 571 U. S. 12, 15. The Court of Appeals did
not afford the proper deference to the state-court ruling. Juror 638’s
statement that he was “not absolutely certain whether [he] could realis-
tically consider” the death penalty, App. to Pet. for Cert. 132a, was a
reasonable basis for the trial judge’s conclusion that the juror was un-
able to give that penalty fair consideration. Her decision to excuse
Juror 638 thus did not violate clearly established federal law. See, e. g.,
Witt, supra, at 425–426. Nor was the Kentucky Supreme Court’s rul-
ing that there was no error “ ‘beyond any possibility for fairminded dis-
agreement.’ ” White v. Woodall, 572 U. S. 415, 420. The Sixth Circuit’s
suggestion that a trial judge is entitled to less deference for having
deliberated after her initial ruling is wrong. While a trial court’s con-
temporaneous assessment of a juror’s demeanor and its bearing on how
to interpret or understand the juror’s responses are entitled to substan-
tial deference, see Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U. S. 1, 17, a trial court ruling
74 WHITE v. WHEELER

Per Curiam

is likewise entitled to deference when made after a careful review of a

formal transcript or recording.
Certiorari granted; 779 F. 3d 366, reversed and remanded.

Per Curiam.
A death sentence imposed by a Kentucky trial court and
affirmed by the Kentucky Supreme Court has been over-
turned, on habeas corpus review, by the Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit. During the jury selection process, the
state trial court excused a juror after concluding he could
not give sufficient assurance of neutrality or impartiality in
considering whether the death penalty should be imposed.
The Court of Appeals, despite the substantial deference it
must accord to state-court rulings in federal habeas pro-
ceedings, determined that excusing the juror in the cir-
cumstances of this case violated the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments. That ruling contravenes controlling prece-
dents from this Court, and it is now necessary to reverse the
Court of Appeals by this summary disposition.
Warden Randy White is the petitioner here, and the con-
victed prisoner, Roger Wheeler, is the respondent.
In October 1997, police in Louisville, Kentucky, found the
bodies of Nigel Malone and Nairobi Warfield in the apart-
ment the couple shared. Malone had been stabbed nine
times. Warfield had been strangled to death and a pair of
scissors stuck out from her neck. She was pregnant. DNA
taken from blood at the crime scene matched respondent’s.
Respondent was charged with the murders.
During voir dire, Juror 638 gave equivocal and inconsist-
ent answers when questioned about whether he could con-
sider voting to impose the death penalty. In response to
the judge’s questions about his personal beliefs on the death
penalty, Juror 638 said, “I’m not sure that I have formed an
opinion one way or the other. I believe there are arguments
on both sides of the—of it.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 126a.
When asked by the prosecution about his ability to consider
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 73 (2015) 75

Per Curiam

all available penalties, Juror 638 noted he had “never been

confronted with that situation in a, in a real-life sense of
having to make that kind of determination.” Id., at 131a.
“So it’s difficult for me,” he explained, “to judge how I would
I guess act, uh.” Ibid. The prosecution sought to clarify
Juror 638’s answer, asking if the juror meant he was “not
absolutely certain whether [he] could realistically consider”
the death penalty. Id., at 132a. Juror 638 replied, “I think
that would be the most accurate way I could answer your
question.” Ibid. During defense counsel’s examination,
Juror 638 described himself as “a bit more contemplative on
the issue of taking a life and, uh, whether or not we have the
right to take that life.” Id., at 133a. Later, however, he
expressed his belief that he could consider all the penalty
options. Id., at 134a.
The prosecution moved to strike Juror 638 for cause based
on his inconsistent replies, as illustrated by his statement
that he was not absolutely certain he could realistically con-
sider the death penalty. The defense opposed the motion,
arguing that Juror 638’s answers indicated his ability to con-
sider all the penalty options, despite having some reserva-
tions about the death penalty. The judge said that when she
was done questioning Juror 638, she wrote in her notes that
the juror “ ‘could consider [the] entire range’ ” of penalties.
Id., at 138a. She further stated that she did not “see him
as problematic” at the end of her examination. Ibid. But
she also noted that she did not “hear him say that he couldn’t
realistically consider the death penalty,” and reserved ruling
on the motion until she could review Juror 638’s testimony.
Ibid. The next day, after reviewing the relevant testimony,
the judge struck Juror 638 for cause. When she announced
her decision to excuse the juror, the trial judge stated, “And
when I went back and reviewed [the juror’s] entire testi-
mony, [the prosecution] concluded with saying, ‘Would it be
accurate to say that you couldn’t, couldn’t consider the entire
range?’ And his response is—I think was, ‘I think that
76 WHITE v. WHEELER

Per Curiam

would be pretty accurate.’ So, I’m going to sustain that one,

too.” Id., at 139a–140a.
The case proceeded to trial. Respondent was convicted
of both murders and sentenced to death. The Kentucky Su-
preme Court affirmed the convictions and the sentence.
Wheeler v. Commonwealth, 121 S. W. 3d 173, 189 (2003). In
considering respondent’s challenges to the trial court’s excu-
sal of certain jurors for cause, the Kentucky Supreme Court
held that the trial judge “appropriately struck for cause
those jurors that could not impose the death penalty. . . .
There was no error and the rights of the defendant to a fair
trial by a fair and impartial jury . . . under both the federal
and state constitutions were not violated.” Id., at 179.
After exhausting available state postconviction proce-
dures, respondent sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U. S. C. § 2254 from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky. He asserted, inter alia, that
the Kentucky trial court erred in striking Juror 638 during
voir dire on the ground that the juror could not give assur-
ances that he could consider the death penalty as a sentenc-
ing option. The District Court dismissed the petition; but a
divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
reversed, granting habeas relief as to respondent’s sentence.
Wheeler v. Simpson, 779 F. 3d 366, 379 (2015). While ac-
knowledging the deferential standard required on federal ha-
beas review of a state conviction, the Court of Appeals held
that allowing the exclusion of Juror 638 was an unreasonable
application of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1968),
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S. 412 (1985), and their progeny.
779 F. 3d, at 372–374.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996 (AEDPA), habeas relief is authorized if the state
court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreason-
able application of, clearly established Federal law, as deter-
mined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28
U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). This Court, time and again, has in-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 73 (2015) 77

Per Curiam

structed that AEDPA, by setting forth necessary predicates

before state-court judgments may be set aside, “erects a for-
midable barrier to federal habeas relief for prisoners whose
claims have been adjudicated in state court.” Burt v. Tit-
low, 571 U. S. 12, 19 (2013). Under § 2254(d)(1), “ ‘a state
prisoner must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim
being presented in federal court was so lacking in justifica-
tion that there was an error well understood and compre-
hended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded
disagreement.’ ” White v. Woodall, 572 U. S. 415, 419–420
(2014) (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. 86, 103 (2011)).
The Court of Appeals was required to apply this deferen-
tial standard to the state court’s analysis of respondent’s
juror exclusion claim. In Witherspoon, this Court set forth
the rule for juror disqualification in capital cases. Wither-
spoon recognized that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of
an impartial jury confers on capital defendants the right to
a jury not “uncommonly willing to condemn a man to die.”
391 U. S., at 521. But the Court with equal clarity has ac-
knowledged the State’s “strong interest in having jurors who
are able to apply capital punishment within the framework
state law prescribes.” Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U. S. 1, 9
(2007). To ensure the proper balance between these two in-
terests, only “a juror who is substantially impaired in his or
her ability to impose the death penalty under the state-law
framework can be excused for cause.” Ibid. As the Court
explained in Witt, a juror may be excused for cause “where
the trial judge is left with the definite impression that a pro-
spective juror would be unable to faithfully and impartially
apply the law.” 469 U. S., at 425–426.
Reviewing courts owe deference to a trial court’s ruling
on whether to strike a particular juror “regardless of
whether the trial court engages in explicit analysis regarding
substantial impairment; even the granting of a motion to
excuse for cause constitutes an implicit finding of bias.”
Uttecht, 551 U. S., at 7. A trial court’s “finding may be up-
78 WHITE v. WHEELER

Per Curiam

held even in the absence of clear statements from the juror

that he or she is impaired . . . .” Ibid. And where, as here,
the federal courts review a state-court ruling under the
constraints imposed by AEDPA, the federal court must ac-
cord an additional and “independent, high standard” of defer-
ence. Id., at 10. As a result, federal habeas review of a
Witherspoon-Witt claim—much like federal habeas review of
an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim—must be “ ‘ “dou-
bly deferential.” ’ ” Burt, supra, at 15 (quoting Cullen v.
Pinholster, 563 U. S. 170, 190 (2011)).
The Court of Appeals held that the Kentucky Supreme
Court unreasonably applied Witherspoon, Witt, and their
progeny when it determined that removing Juror 638 for
cause was constitutional. 779 F. 3d, at 372–374. The Court
of Appeals determined Juror 638 “understood the decisions
he would face and engaged with them in a thoughtful, honest,
and conscientious manner.” Id., at 373. In the Court of
Appeals’ estimation, the trial judge concluded the juror was
not qualified only by “misapprehending a single question and
answer exchange” between Juror 638 and the prosecution,
id., at 374—the exchange in which Juror 638 stated he was
not absolutely certain he could realistically consider the
death penalty, id., at 372. According to the Court of Ap-
peals, Juror 638 “agreed he did not know to an absolute cer-
tainty whether he could realistically consider the death pen-
alty, but the court proceeded as if he knew he could not.”
Ibid. The Court of Appeals further determined that if the
trial judge, when reviewing Juror 638’s examination, had
“properly processed that exchange” between Juror 638 and
the prosecution, Juror 638 would not have been excused.
Id., at 374.
Both the analysis and the conclusion in the decision under
review were incorrect. While the Court of Appeals ac-
knowledged that deference was required under AEDPA, it
failed to ask the critical question: Was the Kentucky Su-
preme Court’s decision to affirm the excusal of Juror 638 for
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 73 (2015) 79

Per Curiam

cause “ ‘so lacking in justification that there was an error

well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond
any possibility for fairminded disagreement’ ”? Woodall,
supra, at 420 (quoting Harrington, supra, at 103).
The Court of Appeals did not properly apply the deference
it was required to accord the state-court ruling. A fair-
minded jurist could readily conclude that the trial judge’s
exchange with Juror 638 reflected a “diligent and thoughtful
voir dire”; that she considered with care the juror’s testi-
mony; and that she was fair in the exercise of her “broad
discretion” in determining whether the juror was qualified
to serve in this capital case. Uttecht, 551 U. S., at 20.
Juror 638’s answers during voir dire were at least ambiguous
as to whether he would be able to give appropriate consider-
ation to imposing the death penalty. And as this Court
made clear in Uttecht, “when there is ambiguity in the pro-
spective juror’s statements,” the trial court is “ ‘entitled to
resolve it in favor of the State.’ ” Id., at 7 (quoting Witt,
469 U. S., at 434).
The Court of Appeals erred in its assessment of the trial
judge’s reformulation of an important part of Juror 638’s
questioning. 779 F. 3d, at 372. When excusing the juror
the day after the voir dire, the trial judge said that the
prosecution had asked whether the juror “couldn’t consider
the entire range” of penalties. App. to Pet. for Cert. 139a.
The prosecution in fact asked if the juror was “not absolutely
certain whether [he] could realistically consider” the entire
range of penalties. Id., at 132a. The juror’s confirmation
that he was “not absolutely certain whether [he] could realis-
tically consider” the death penalty, ibid., was a reasonable
basis for the trial judge to conclude that the juror was unable
to give that penalty fair consideration. The trial judge’s de-
cision to excuse Juror 638 did not violate clearly established
federal law by concluding that Juror 638 was not qualified to
serve as a member of this capital jury. See Witt, supra,
at 424–426. And similarly, the Kentucky Supreme Court’s
80 WHITE v. WHEELER

Per Curiam

ruling that there was no error is not beyond any possibility

for fairminded disagreement.
The Court of Appeals noted that the deference toward
trial courts recognized in Uttecht “was largely premised on
the trial judge’s ability to ‘observe the demeanor of ’ ”
the juror. 779 F. 3d, at 373 (quoting 551 U. S., at 17). It
concluded that deference to the trial court here supported
habeas relief, because the trial judge’s “initial assessment
of [the juror’s] answers and demeanor” did not lead her
to immediately strike Juror 638 for cause. 779 F. 3d, at
373–374.
The Court of Appeals’ conclusion conflicts with the mean-
ing and holding of Uttecht and with a commonsense under-
standing of the jury selection process. Nothing in Uttecht
limits the trial court to evaluating demeanor alone and not
the substance of a juror’s response. And the implicit sug-
gestion that a trial judge is entitled to less deference for
having deliberated after her initial ruling is wrong. In the
ordinary case the conclusion should be quite the opposite.
It is true that a trial court’s contemporaneous assessment of
a juror’s demeanor and its bearing on how to interpret or
understand the juror’s responses are entitled to substantial
deference; but a trial court ruling is likewise entitled to def-
erence when made after a careful review of a formal tran-
script or recording. If the trial judge chooses to reflect and
deliberate further, as this trial judge did after the proceed-
ings recessed for the day, that is not to be faulted; it is to
be commended.
This is not a case where “the record discloses no basis for
a finding of substantial impairment.” Uttecht, supra, at 20.
The two federal judges in the majority below might have
reached a different conclusion had they been presiding over
this voir dire. But simple disagreement does not overcome
the two layers of deference owed by a federal habeas court
in this context.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 73 (2015) 81

Per Curiam

* * *
The Kentucky Supreme Court was not unreasonable in its
application of clearly established federal law when it con-
cluded that the exclusion of Juror 638 did not violate the
Sixth Amendment. Given this conclusion, there is no need
to consider petitioner’s further contention that, if there were
an error by the trial court in excluding the juror, it should
be subject to harmless-error analysis. And this Court does
not review the other rulings of the Court of Appeals that are
not addressed in this opinion.
As a final matter, this Court again advises the Court of
Appeals that the provisions of AEDPA apply with full force
even when reviewing a conviction and sentence imposing the
death penalty. See, e. g., Parker v. Matthews, 567 U. S. 37
(2012) (per curiam); Bobby v. Dixon, 565 U. S. 23 (2011) (per
curiam); Bobby v. Mitts, 563 U. S. 395 (2011) (per curiam);
Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U. S. 4 (2009) (per curiam).
The petition for certiorari and respondent’s motion to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed, and the
case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
It is so ordered.
82 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

Syllabus

BRUCE v. SAMUELS et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for

the district of columbia circuit
No. 14–844. Argued November 4, 2015—Decided January 12, 2016
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides that prisoners qualified
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) must nonetheless pay an initial
partial filing fee, set as “20 percent of the greater of ” the average
monthly deposits in the prisoner’s account or the average monthly bal-
ance of the account over the preceding six months. 28 U. S. C.
§ 1915(b)(1). They must then pay the remainder of the fee in monthly
installments of “20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to
the prisoner’s account.” § 1915(b)(2). The initial partial fee is assessed
on a per-case basis, i. e., each time the prisoner files a lawsuit. The
initial payment may not be exacted if the prisoner has no means to
pay it, § 1915(b)(4), and no monthly installments are required unless the
prisoner has more than $10 in his account, § 1915(b)(2). In contest here
is the calculation of subsequent monthly installment payments when
more than one fee is owed.
Petitioner Antoine Bruce, a federal inmate and a frequent litigant,
argued that the monthly filing-fee payments do not become due until
filing-fee obligations previously incurred in other cases are satisfied.
The D. C. Circuit disagreed, holding that Bruce’s monthly payments
were due simultaneously with monthly payments in the earlier cases.
Held: Section 1915(b)(2) calls for simultaneous, not sequential, recoupment
of multiple monthly installment payments. Pp. 87–91.
(a) Bruce and the Government present competing interpretations of
the IFP statute, which does not explicitly address how multiple filing
fees should be paid. In urging a per-prisoner approach under which he
would pay 20 percent of his monthly income regardless of the number
of cases he has filed, Bruce relies principally on the contrast between
the singular “clerk” and the plural “fees” as those nouns appear in
§ 1915(b)(2), which requires payments to be forwarded “to the clerk of
the court . . . until the filing fees are paid.” Even when more than one
filing fee is owed, Bruce contends, § 1915(b)(2) instructs that only one
clerk will receive payment each month. In contrast, the Government
urges a per-case approach. Emphasizing that § 1915 as a whole has a
single-case focus, providing instructions for each case, the Government
contends that it would be anomalous to treat paragraph (b)(1)’s initial
partial payment, admittedly directed at a single case, differently than
paragraph (b)(2)’s subsequent monthly payments. Pp. 87–89.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 82 (2016) 83

Opinion of the Court

(b) Section 1915’s text and context support the per-case approach.
Just as § 1915(b)(1) calls for assessment of “an initial partial filing fee”
each time a prisoner “brings a civil action or files an appeal” (emphasis
added), so its allied provision, § 1915(b)(2), calls for monthly 20 percent
payments simultaneously for each action pursued. Section 1915(b)(3),
which imposes a ceiling on fees permitted “for the commencement of a
civil action or an appeal” (emphasis added), and § 1915(b)(4), which pro-
tects the right to bring “a civil action or appea[l] a . . . judgment”
(emphasis added), confirm that subsection (b) as a whole is written from
the perspective of a single case. Pp. 89–90.
761 F. 3d 1, affirmed.

Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Anthony F. Shelley argued the cause for petitioner. With

him on the briefs were Laura G. Ferguson, Dawn E. Murphy-
Johnson, and Kathleen T. Wach.
Nicole A. Saharsky argued the cause for respondents.
With her on the brief were Solicitor General Verrilli, Prin-
cipal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mizer, Deputy
Solicitor General Gershengorn, Barbara L. Herwig, and
Benjamin M. Shultz.*
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the payment of filing fees for civil ac-
tions commenced by prisoners in federal courts. Until 1996,
indigent prisoners, like other indigent persons, could file a

*A brief of amici curiae urging affirmance was filed for the State of
Michigan et al. by Bill Schuette, Attorney General of Michigan, and Aaron
D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General for their
respective States as follows: Luther Strange of Alabama, Craig Richards
of Alaska, Mark Brnovich of Arizona, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, Cyn-
thia Coffman of Colorado, Pamela Jo Bondi of Florida, Douglas S. Chin
of Hawaii, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Derek Schmidt of Kansas, James
D. “Buddy” Caldwell of Louisiana, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Adam Paul
Laxalt of Nevada, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Michael DeWine
of Ohio, E. Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma, Kathleen G. Kane of Pennsylvania,
Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Ken Paxton of Texas, and Patrick Morri-
sey of West Virginia.
Clifford M. Sloan and Paul M. Kerlin filed a brief for the Southern
Poverty Law Center et al. as amici curiae.
84 BRUCE v. SAMUELS

Opinion of the Court

civil action without paying any filing fee. See 28 U. S. C.

§ 1915(a)(1). In the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(PLRA), 110 Stat. 1321–66, Congress placed several limita-
tions on prisoner litigation in federal courts. Among those
limitations, Congress required prisoners qualified to proceed
in forma pauperis nevertheless to pay an initial partial filing
fee. That fee is statutorily set as “20 percent of the greater
of ” the average monthly deposits in the prisoner’s account or
the average monthly balance of the account over the preceding
six months. § 1915(b)(1). Thereafter, to complete payment
of the filing fee, prisoners must pay, in monthly installments,
“20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the
prisoner’s account.” § 1915(b)(2). The initial partial filing
fee may not be exacted if the prisoner has no means to pay it,
§ 1915(b)(4), and no monthly installments are required unless
the prisoner has more than $10 in his account, § 1915(b)(2).
It is undisputed that the initial partial filing fee is to be
assessed on a per-case basis, i. e., each time the prisoner files
a lawsuit. In contest here is the calculation of subsequent
monthly installment payments. Petitioner Antoine Bruce
urges a per-prisoner approach under which he would pay 20
percent of his monthly income regardless of the number of
cases he has filed. The Government urges, and the court
below followed, a per-case approach under which a prisoner
would pay 20 percent of his monthly income for each case he
has filed. Courts of Appeals have divided on which of these
two approaches § 1915(b)(2) orders.1 To resolve the conflict,
we granted certiorari. 576 U. S. 1021 (2015).
1
Compare Atchison v. Collins, 288 F. 3d 177, 181 (CA5 2002) (per cu-
riam); Newlin v. Helman, 123 F. 3d 429, 436 (CA7 1997), overruled in part
on other grounds by Lee v. Clinton, 209 F. 3d 1025 (CA7 2000), and Walker
v. O’Brien, 216 F. 3d 626 (CA7 2000); Lefkowitz v. Citi-Equity Group, Inc.,
146 F. 3d 609, 612 (CA8 1998); Christensen v. Big Horn Cty. Bd. of Cty.
Comm’rs, 374 Fed. Appx. 821, 829–833 (CA10 2010); and Pinson v. Sam-
uels, 761 F. 3d 1, 7–10 (CADC 2014) (case below) (adopting per-case ap-
proach), with Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F. 3d 264, 276–277 (CA2 2001); Siluk
v. Merwin, 783 F. 3d 421, 427–436 (CA3 2015); and Torres v. O’Quinn, 612
F. 3d 237, 241–248 (CA4 2010) (adopting per-prisoner approach).
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 82 (2016) 85

Opinion of the Court

We hold that monthly installment payments, like the initial

partial payment, are to be assessed on a per-case basis.
Nothing in § 1915’s current design supports treating a pris-
oner’s second or third action unlike his first lawsuit.
I
A
In 1892, Congress enacted the in forma pauperis (IFP)
statute, now codified at 28 U. S. C. § 1915, “to ensure that
indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal
courts.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S. 319, 324 (1989).
Reacting to “a sharp rise in prisoner litigation,” Woodford v.
Ngo, 548 U. S. 81, 84 (2006), Congress in 1996 enacted the
PLRA, which installed a variety of measures “designed to
filter out the bad claims [filed by prisoners] and facilitate
consideration of the good,” Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U. S.
532, 535 (2015) (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U. S. 199, 204
(2007); alteration in original).
Among those measures, Congress required prisoners to
pay filing fees for the suits or appeals they launch. The pro-
visions on fee payment, set forth in § 1915(b), read:
“(1) . . . [I]f a prisoner brings a civil action or files an
appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required
to pay the full amount of a filing fee. The court shall
assess and, when funds exist, collect, as a partial pay-
ment of any court fees required by law, an initial partial
filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of—
“(A) the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s
account; or
“(B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s ac-
count for the 6-month period immediately preceding the
filing of the complaint or notice of appeal.
“(2) After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the
prisoner shall be required to make monthly payments of
20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to
the prisoner’s account. The agency having custody of
the prisoner shall forward payments from the prisoner’s
86 BRUCE v. SAMUELS

Opinion of the Court

account to the clerk of the court each time the amount

in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid.”
The monthly installment scheme described in § 1915(b)(2)
also applies to costs awarded against prisoners when they
are judgment losers. § 1915(f)(2)(B).
To further contain prisoner litigation, the PLRA intro-
duced a three-strikes provision: Prisoners whose suits or
appeals are dismissed three or more times as frivolous,
malicious, or failing to state a claim on which relief may
be granted are barred from proceeding IFP “unless the pris-
oner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
§ 1915(g). In other words, for most three strikers, all future
filing fees become payable in full upfront.
Congress included in its 1996 overhaul of § 1915 a safety-
valve provision to ensure that the fee requirements would
not bar access to the courts: “In no event shall a prisoner be
prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil or
criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no
assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing
fee.” § 1915(b)(4).
B
Petitioner Antoine Bruce, a federal inmate serving a 15-
year sentence, is a frequent litigant.2 In the instant case,
Bruce challenges his placement in a special management unit
at the Federal Correctional Institution in Talladega, Ala-
bama. Pinson v. Samuels, 761 F. 3d 1, 3–4 (CADC 2014).3
Bruce had previously incurred filing-fee obligations in other
2
At oral argument, Bruce’s counsel informed the Court that Bruce had
framed or joined 19 prison-litigation cases, although “the last seven or so
have not been filed . . . because [Bruce] had had three strikes by the 12th.”
Tr. of Oral Arg. 23. See Brief for Respondents 40 (stating that Bruce
filed three new lawsuits during the pendency of his case before this Court).
3
The Court of Appeals construed the pleadings in this case as a petition
for a writ of mandamus. 761 F. 3d, at 3. We assume without deciding
that a mandamus petition qualifies as a “civil action” or “appeal” for pur-
poses of 28 U. S. C. § 1915(b).
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 82 (2016) 87

Opinion of the Court

cases and maintained that the monthly filing-fee payments

for this case would not become due until those prior obliga-
tions were satisfied. Id., at 4, 7. The Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, whose decision is before us
for review, rejected Bruce’s argument. Id., at 8–10. Bruce
must make monthly filing-fee payments in this case, the
court held, simultaneously with such payments in earlier
commenced cases. Id., at 8. We agree with the appeals
court that § 1915(b)(2) calls for simultaneous, not sequential,
recoupment of multiple filing fees.

II
The IFP statute does not explicitly address whether multi-
ple filing fees (after the initial partial payment) should be
paid simultaneously or sequentially. Bruce and the Govern-
ment present competing interpretations.

A
In support of the per-prisoner approach, Bruce relies prin-
cipally on what he sees as a significant contrast between the
singular “clerk” and the plural “fees” as those nouns appear
in 28 U. S. C. § 1915(b)(2). That provision requires payments
to be forwarded “to the clerk of the court . . . until the filing
fees are paid.” Ibid. (emphasis added). Even when more
than one filing fee is owed, Bruce contends, the statute in-
structs that only one clerk will receive payment each month;
in other words, fee payments are to be made sequentially
rather than simultaneously.
The initial partial payment, which is charged on a per-case
basis, plus the three-strikes provision, Bruce urges, together
suffice to satisfy the PLRA’s purpose, which is to “force pris-
oners to think twice about the case and not just file reflex-
ively,” 141 Cong. Rec. 14572 (1995) (remarks of Sen. Kyl).
The additional economic disincentive that the per-case ap-
proach would occasion, Bruce asserts, could excessively en-
cumber access to federal courts.
88 BRUCE v. SAMUELS

Opinion of the Court

Furthermore, Bruce points out, the per-case approach

breaks down when a prisoner incurs more than five obliga-
tions. Nothing will be left in the account to pay the sixth
fee, Bruce observes. Necessarily, therefore, its payment
will be entirely deferred. Why treat the second obligation
unlike the sixth, Bruce asks. Isn’t the statute sensibly read
to render all monthly payments sequential? Bruce notes in
this regard that, under the per-case approach, his ability to
use his account to purchase amenities will be progressively
curtailed; indeed, the account might be reduced to zero upon
his filing or joining a fifth case.
Finally, Bruce argues, administrative difficulties counsel
against the per-case approach. Costs could dwarf the mone-
tary yield if prisons, under a per-case regime, were obliged
to send as many as five checks to five different courts each
month. And the problems faced by state-prison officials—
who sometimes must choose which of several claims on a
prisoner’s income (e. g., child-support, medical copayments)
should take precedence—would be exacerbated under a sys-
tem demanding simultaneous payment of multiple litigation
charges.
B
The Government emphasizes that § 1915 as a whole has a
single-case focus, providing instructions for each case. It
would be anomalous, the Government urges, to treat para-
graph (b)(1)’s initial partial payment, which Bruce concedes
is directed at a single case, differently than paragraph (b)(2)’s
subsequent monthly payments. The two paragraphs, the
Government observes, are linked by paragraph (b)(2)’s open-
ing clause: “After payment of the initial partial filing fee.”
The per-case approach, the Government adds, better com-
ports with the purpose of the PLRA to deter frivolous suits.
See Newlin v. Helman, 123 F. 3d 429, 436 (CA7 1997) (East-
erbrook, J.) (“Otherwise a prisoner could file multiple suits
for the price of one, postponing payment of the fees for later-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 82 (2016) 89

Opinion of the Court

filed suits until after the end of imprisonment (and likely

avoiding them altogether [because fees are often uncollecta-
ble on a prisoner’s release]).”), overruled in part on other
grounds by Lee v. Clinton, 209 F. 3d 1025 (CA7 2000), and
Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F. 3d 626 (CA7 2000). The Govern-
ment further observes that the generally small size of the
initial partial fee—here, $0.64, App. to Pet. for Cert. 21a—
provides scant disincentive, on its own, for multiple filings.
Responding to Bruce’s observation that, for a prisoner
with more than five charges, even the per-case approach re-
sorts to sequential payments, the Government agrees, but
tells us that this scenario arises infrequently. “[M]ost pris-
oners,” the Government states, “would accrue three strikes
(and therefore be required to pay the full filing fees upfront)
by the time they incurred the obligation for their sixth case.”
Brief for Respondents 29.
Finally, answering Bruce’s concern that the per-case ap-
proach could leave a prisoner without money for amenities,
the Government points out that prisons “are constitutionally
bound to provide inmates with adequate food, clothing, shel-
ter, and medical care,” id., at 48 (citing Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U. S. 825, 832 (1994)), and must furnish “ ‘paper and pen
to draft legal documents’ and ‘stamps to mail them,’ ” Brief
for Respondents 48 (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U. S. 817,
824, 825 (1977)). Moreover, the Government notes, the Fed-
eral Bureau of Prisons “goes beyond those requirements,”
providing inmates “articles necessary for maintaining per-
sonal hygiene,” and free postage “not only for legal mailings
but also to enable the inmate to maintain community ties.”
Brief for Respondents 48, n. 21 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
III
The Circuits following the per-case approach, we conclude,
better comprehend the statute. Just as § 1915(b)(1) calls for
assessment of “an initial partial filing fee” each time a pris-
90 BRUCE v. SAMUELS

Opinion of the Court

oner “brings a civil action or files an appeal” (emphasis

added), so its allied provision, § 1915(b)(2), triggered immedi-
ately after, calls for “monthly payments of 20 percent of the
preceding month’s income” simultaneously for each action
pursued. The other two paragraphs of § 1915(b) confirm
that the subsection as a whole is written from the perspec-
tive of a single case. See § 1915(b)(3) (imposing a ceiling on
fees permitted “for the commencement of a civil action or an
appeal” (emphasis added)); § 1915(b)(4) (protecting the right
to “brin[g] a civil action or appea[l] a civil or criminal judg-
ment” (emphasis added)). There is scant indication that the
statute’s perspective shifts partway through paragraph (2).4
Bruce’s extratextual points do not warrant a departure
from the interpretation suggested by the text and context.
The per-case approach more vigorously serves the statutory
objective of containing prisoner litigation, while the safety-
valve provision, see supra, at 86, ensures against denial of
access to federal courts. Bruce’s administrability concerns
carry little weight given reports from several States that the
per-case approach is unproblematic. See Brief for State of
Michigan et al. as Amici Curiae 18–20.

4
Use of the plural “fees” in that paragraph does not persuade us other-
wise. Congress has been less than meticulous in its employment of the
singular “fee” and the plural “fees,” sometimes using those words inter-
changeably. See, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 1930(a) (“The parties commencing a
case under title 11 shall pay to the clerk . . . the following filing fees:
[enumerating several options]. In addition to the filing fee paid to the
clerk, [an additional fee shall be paid].” (emphasis added)); 42 U. S. C.
§ 1988(b) (“[T]he court . . . may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable
attorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer . . . such officer shall not be held liable for any
costs, including attorney’s fees . . . .” (emphasis added)). See also Diction-
ary Act, 1 U. S. C. § 1 (“In determining the meaning of any Act of Con-
gress, unless the context indicates otherwise—words importing the singu-
lar include and apply to several persons, parties, or things; words
importing the plural include the singular . . . .”).
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 82 (2016) 91

Opinion of the Court

* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Ap-
peals for the District of Columbia Circuit is
Affirmed.
92 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

Syllabus

HURST v. FLORIDA

certiorari to the supreme court of Ćorida

No. 14–7505. Argued October 13, 2015—Decided January 12, 2016
Under Florida law, the maximum sentence a capital felon may receive on
the basis of a conviction alone is life imprisonment. He may be sen-
tenced to death, but only if an additional sentencing proceeding “results
in findings by the court that such person shall be punished by death.”
Fla. Stat. § 775.082(1). In that proceeding, the sentencing judge first
conducts an evidentiary hearing before a jury. § 921.141(1). Next, the
jury, by majority vote, renders an “advisory sentence.” § 921.141(2).
Notwithstanding that recommendation, the court must independently
find and weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before en-
tering a sentence of life or death. § 921.141(3).
A Florida jury convicted petitioner Timothy Hurst of first-degree
murder for killing a co-worker and recommended the death penalty.
The court sentenced Hurst to death, but he was granted a new sentenc-
ing hearing on appeal. At resentencing, the jury again recommended
death, and the judge again found the facts necessary to sentence Hurst
to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Hurst’s argu-
ment that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment in light of Ring
v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584, in which this Court found unconstitutional an
Arizona capital sentencing scheme that permitted a judge rather than
the jury to find the facts necessary to sentence a defendant to death.
Held: Florida’s capital sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment
in light of Ring. Pp. 97–103.
(a) Any fact that “expose[s] the defendant to a greater punishment
than that authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict” is an “element” that
must be submitted to a jury. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466,
494. Applying Apprendi to the capital punishment context, the Ring
Court had little difficulty concluding that an Arizona judge’s independ-
ent factfinding exposed Ring to a punishment greater than the jury’s
guilty verdict authorized. 536 U. S., at 604. Ring’s analysis applies
equally here. Florida requires not the jury but a judge to make the
critical findings necessary to impose the death penalty. That Flor-
ida provides an advisory jury is immaterial. See Walton v. Arizona,
497 U. S. 639, 648. As with Ring, Hurst had the maximum authorized
punishment he could receive increased by a judge’s own factfinding.
Pp. 97–99.
(b) Florida’s counterarguments are rejected. Pp. 99–102.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 92 (2016) 93

Syllabus

(1) In arguing that the jury’s recommendation necessarily included

an aggravating circumstance finding, Florida fails to appreciate the
judge’s central and singular role under Florida law, which makes the
court’s findings necessary to impose death and makes the jury’s func-
tion advisory only. The State cannot now treat the jury’s advisory
recommendation as the necessary factual finding required by Ring.
Pp. 99–100.
(2) Florida’s reliance on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296, is
misplaced. There, this Court stated that under Apprendi, a judge may
impose any sentence authorized “on the basis of the facts . . . admitted
by the defendant,” 542 U. S., at 303. Florida alleges that Hurst’s coun-
sel admitted the existence of a robbery, but Blakely applied Apprendi
to facts admitted in a guilty plea, in which the defendant necessarily
waived his right to a jury trial, while Florida has not explained how
Hurst’s alleged admissions accomplished a similar waiver. In any
event, Hurst never admitted to either aggravating circumstance alleged
by the State. Pp. 100–101.
(3) That this Court upheld Florida’s capital sentencing scheme in
Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U. S. 638, and Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S.
447, does not mean that stare decisis compels the Court to do so here,
see Alleyne v. United States, 570 U. S. 99, 119 (Sotomayor, J., concur-
ring). Time and subsequent cases have washed away the logic of Spazi-
ano and Hildwin. Those decisions are thus overruled to the extent
they allow a sentencing judge to find an aggravating circumstance, inde-
pendent of a jury’s factfinding, that is necessary for imposition of the
death penalty. Pp. 101–102.
(4) The State’s assertion that any error was harmless is not ad-
dressed here, where there is no reason to depart from the Court’s nor-
mal pattern of leaving such considerations to state courts. P. 102.
147 So. 3d 435, reversed and remanded.

Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts,

C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan, JJ., joined.
Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 103.
Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 103.

Seth P. Waxman argued the cause for petitioner. With

him on the briefs were Catherine M. A. Carroll, David M.
Lehn, Francesco Valentini, David A. Davis, and Mark E.
Olive.
Allen Winsor, Solicitor General of Florida, argued the
cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Pamela
94 HURST v. FLORIDA

Opinion of the Court

Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asso-

ciate Deputy Attorney General, and Denise Harles, Rachel
Nordby, and Osvaldo Vazquez, Deputy Solicitors General.*
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court.
A Florida jury convicted Timothy Lee Hurst of murder-
ing his co-worker, Cynthia Harrison. A penalty-phase jury
recommended that Hurst’s judge impose a death sentence.
Notwithstanding this recommendation, Florida law required
the judge to hold a separate hearing and determine whether
sufficient aggravating circumstances existed to justify im-
posing the death penalty. The judge so found and sentenced
Hurst to death.
We hold this sentencing scheme unconstitutional. The
Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each
fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A jury’s mere
recommendation is not enough.
I
On May 2, 1998, Cynthia Harrison’s body was discovered
in the freezer of the restaurant where she worked—bound,
gagged, and stabbed over 60 times. The restaurant safe
was unlocked and open, missing hundreds of dollars. The
State of Florida charged Harrison’s co-worker, Timothy Lee
Hurst, with her murder. See 819 So. 2d 689, 692–694 (Fla.
2002).
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Bar
Association by William C. Hubbard and Rory K. Little; for the American
Civil Liberties Union et al. by Brian W. Stull, Cassandra Stubbs, Steven
R. Shapiro, Nancy G. Abudu, Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brianne J. Gorod, Clif-
ford M. Sloan, and Paul M. Kerlin; for Former Florida Circuit Court
Judges by Sonya Rudenstine and Stuart L. Hartstone; and for Former
Justices of the Supreme Court of Florida by Karen M. Gottlieb and Ste-
phen K. Harper.
A brief of amici curiae urging affirmance was filed for the State of
Alabama et al. by Luther Strange, Attorney General of Alabama, Andrew
L. Brasher, Solicitor General, Megan A. Kirkpatrick, Deputy Solicitor
General, and Tim Fox, Attorney General of Montana.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 92 (2016) 95

Opinion of the Court

During Hurst’s 4-day trial, the State offered substantial

forensic evidence linking Hurst to the murder. Witnesses
also testified that Hurst announced in advance that he
planned to rob the restaurant; that Hurst and Harrison were
the only people scheduled to work when Harrison was killed;
and that Hurst disposed of bloodstained evidence and used
stolen money to purchase shoes and rings.
Hurst responded with an alibi defense. He claimed he
never made it to work because his car broke down. Hurst
told police that he called the restaurant to let Harrison know
he would be late. He said she sounded scared and he could
hear another person—presumably the real murderer—whis-
pering in the background.
At the close of Hurst’s defense, the judge instructed the
jury that it could find Hurst guilty of first-degree murder
under two theories: premeditated murder or felony murder
for an unlawful killing during a robbery. The jury convicted
Hurst of first-degree murder but did not specify which the-
ory it believed.
First-degree murder is a capital felony in Florida. See
Fla. Stat. § 782.04(1)(a) (2010). Under state law, the maxi-
mum sentence a capital felon may receive on the basis of
the conviction alone is life imprisonment. § 775.082(1). “A
person who has been convicted of a capital felony shall be
punished by death” only if an additional sentencing proceed-
ing “results in findings by the court that such person shall
be punished by death.” Ibid. “[O]therwise such person
shall be punished by life imprisonment and shall be ineligible
for parole.” Ibid.
The additional sentencing proceeding Florida employs is a
“hybrid” proceeding “in which [a] jury renders an advisory
verdict but the judge makes the ultimate sentencing deter-
minations.” Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584, 608, n. 6 (2002).
First, the sentencing judge conducts an evidentiary hearing
before a jury. Fla. Stat. § 921.141(1). Next, the jury ren-
ders an “advisory sentence” of life or death without specify-
96 HURST v. FLORIDA

Opinion of the Court

ing the factual basis of its recommendation. § 921.141(2).

“Notwithstanding the recommendation of a majority of the
jury, the court, after weighing the aggravating and mitigat-
ing circumstances, shall enter a sentence of life imprison-
ment or death.” § 921.141(3). If the court imposes death,
it must “set forth in writing its findings upon which the sen-
tence of death is based.” Ibid. Although the judge must
give the jury recommendation “great weight,” Tedder v.
State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1975) (per curiam), the sen-
tencing order must “reflect the trial judge’s independent
judgment about the existence of aggravating and mitigating
factors,” Blackwelder v. State, 851 So. 2d 650, 653 (Fla. 2003)
(per curiam).
Following this procedure, Hurst’s jury recommended a
death sentence. The judge independently agreed. See 819
So. 2d, at 694–695. On postconviction review, however, the
Florida Supreme Court vacated Hurst’s sentence for reasons
not relevant to this case. See 18 So. 3d 975 (2009).
At resentencing in 2012, the sentencing judge conducted a
new hearing during which Hurst offered mitigating evidence
that he was not a “major participant” in the murder because
he was at home when it happened. App. 505–507. The sen-
tencing judge instructed the advisory jury that it could rec-
ommend a death sentence if it found at least one aggravating
circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt: that the murder
was especially “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” or that it oc-
curred while Hurst was committing a robbery. Id., at 211–
212. The jury recommended death by a vote of 7 to 5.
The sentencing judge then sentenced Hurst to death. In
her written order, the judge based the sentence in part on
her independent determination that both the heinous-murder
and robbery aggravators existed. Id., at 261–263. She as-
signed “great weight” to her findings as well as to the jury’s
recommendation of death. Id., at 271.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed 4 to 3. 147 So. 3d
435 (2014). As relevant here, the court rejected Hurst’s ar-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 92 (2016) 97

Opinion of the Court

gument that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment in

light of Ring, 536 U. S. 584. Ring, the court recognized,
“held that capital defendants are entitled to a jury determi-
nation of any fact on which the legislature conditions an in-
crease in the maximum punishment.” 147 So. 3d, at 445.
But the court considered Ring inapplicable in light of this
Court’s repeated support of Florida’s capital sentencing
scheme in pre-Ring cases. 147 So. 3d, at 446–447 (citing
Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U. S. 638 (1989) (per curiam)); see
also Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 457–465 (1984).
Specifically, in Hildwin, this Court held that the Sixth
Amendment “does not require that the specific findings au-
thorizing the imposition of the sentence of death be made by
the jury.” 490 U. S., at 640–641. The Florida court noted
that we have “never expressly overruled Hildwin, and did
not do so in Ring.” 147 So. 3d, at 446–447.
Justice Pariente, joined by two colleagues, dissented from
this portion of the court’s opinion. She reiterated her view
that “Ring requires any fact that qualifies a capital defend-
ant for a sentence of death to be found by a jury.” Id., at
450 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).
We granted certiorari to resolve whether Florida’s capital
sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment in light of
Ring. 575 U. S. 902 (2015). We hold that it does, and
reverse.
II
The Sixth Amendment provides: “In all criminal prosecu-
tions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury . . . .” This right, in conjunction
with the Due Process Clause, requires that each element of
a crime be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U. S. 99, 104 (2013). In Ap-
prendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 494 (2000), this Court
held that any fact that “expose[s] the defendant to a greater
punishment than that authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict”
is an “element” that must be submitted to a jury. In the
98 HURST v. FLORIDA

Opinion of the Court

years since Apprendi, we have applied its rule to instances

involving plea bargains, Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S.
296 (2004), sentencing guidelines, United States v. Booker,
543 U. S. 220 (2005), criminal fines, Southern Union Co. v.
United States, 567 U. S. 343 (2012), mandatory minimums,
Alleyne, 570 U. S., at 117, and, in Ring, 536 U. S. 584, capi-
tal punishment.
In Ring, we concluded that Arizona’s capital sentencing
scheme violated Apprendi’s rule because the State allowed
a judge to find the facts necessary to sentence a defendant
to death. An Arizona jury had convicted Timothy Ring of
felony murder. 536 U. S., at 591. Under state law, “Ring
could not be sentenced to death, the statutory maximum pen-
alty for first-degree murder, unless further findings were
made.” Id., at 592. Specifically, a judge could sentence
Ring to death only after independently finding at least one
aggravating circumstance. Id., at 592–593. Ring’s judge
followed this procedure, found an aggravating circumstance,
and sentenced Ring to death.
The Court had little difficulty concluding that “ ‘the re-
quired finding of an aggravated circumstance exposed Ring
to a greater punishment than that authorized by the jury’s
guilty verdict.’ ” Id., at 604 (quoting Apprendi, 530 U. S., at
494; alterations omitted). Had Ring’s judge not engaged in
any factfinding, Ring would have received a life sentence.
Ring, 536 U. S., at 597. Ring’s death sentence therefore vio-
lated his right to have a jury find the facts behind his
punishment.
The analysis the Ring Court applied to Arizona’s sentenc-
ing scheme applies equally to Florida’s. Like Arizona at the
time of Ring, Florida does not require the jury to make
the critical findings necessary to impose the death penalty.
Rather, Florida requires a judge to find these facts. Fla.
Stat. § 921.141(3). Although Florida incorporates an advi-
sory jury verdict that Arizona lacked, we have previously
made clear that this distinction is immaterial: “It is true that
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 92 (2016) 99

Opinion of the Court

in Florida the jury recommends a sentence, but it does not

make specific factual findings with regard to the existence of
mitigating or aggravating circumstances and its recommen-
dation is not binding on the trial judge. A Florida trial
court no more has the assistance of a jury’s findings of fact
with respect to sentencing issues than does a trial judge in
Arizona.” Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, 648 (1990); ac-
cord, State v. Steele, 921 So. 2d 538, 546 (Fla. 2005) (“[T]he
trial court alone must make detailed findings about the exist-
ence and weight of aggravating circumstances; it has no jury
findings on which to rely”).
As with Timothy Ring, the maximum punishment Timothy
Hurst could have received without any judge-made findings
was life in prison without parole. As with Ring, a judge
increased Hurst’s authorized punishment based on her own
factfinding. In light of Ring, we hold that Hurst’s sentence
violates the Sixth Amendment.

III
Without contesting Ring’s holding, Florida offers a bevy of
arguments for why Hurst’s sentence is constitutional. None
holds water.
A
Florida concedes that Ring required a jury to find every
fact necessary to render Hurst eligible for the death penalty.
But Florida argues that when Hurst’s sentencing jury recom-
mended a death sentence, it “necessarily included a finding
of an aggravating circumstance.” Brief for Respondent 44.
The State contends that this finding qualified Hurst for the
death penalty under Florida law, thus satisfying Ring.
“[T]he additional requirement that a judge also find an ag-
gravator,” Florida concludes, “only provides the defendant
additional protection.” Brief for Respondent 22.
The State fails to appreciate the central and singular role
the judge plays under Florida law. As described above and
by the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida sentencing stat-
100 HURST v. FLORIDA

Opinion of the Court

ute does not make a defendant eligible for death until “find-
ings by the court that such person shall be punished by
death.” Fla. Stat. § 775.082(1) (emphasis added). The trial
court alone must find “the facts . . . [t]hat sufficient aggravat-
ing circumstances exist” and “[t]hat there are insufficient
mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating cir-
cumstances.” § 921.141(3); see Steele, 921 So. 2d, at 546.
“[T]he jury’s function under the Florida death penalty stat-
ute is advisory only.” Spaziano v. State, 433 So. 2d 508, 512
(Fla. 1983). The State cannot now treat the advisory recom-
mendation by the jury as the necessary factual finding that
Ring requires.
B
Florida launches its second salvo at Hurst himself, arguing
that he admitted in various contexts that an aggravating cir-
cumstance existed. Even if Ring normally requires a jury
to hear all facts necessary to sentence a defendant to death,
Florida argues, “Ring does not require jury findings on facts
defendants have admitted. ” Brief for Respondent 41.
Florida cites our decision in Blakely, 542 U. S. 296, in which
we stated that under Apprendi, a judge may impose any sen-
tence authorized “on the basis of the facts reflected in the
jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” 542 U. S., at
303 (emphasis deleted). In light of Blakely, Florida points
to various instances in which Hurst’s counsel allegedly ad-
mitted the existence of a robbery. Florida contends that
these “admissions” made Hurst eligible for the death penalty.
Brief for Respondent 42–44.
Blakely, however, was a decision applying Apprendi to
facts admitted in a guilty plea, in which the defendant neces-
sarily waived his right to a jury trial. See 542 U. S., at 310–
312. Florida has not explained how Hurst’s alleged admis-
sions accomplished a similar waiver. Florida’s argument is
also meritless on its own terms. Hurst never admitted to
either aggravating circumstance alleged by the State. At
most, his counsel simply refrained from challenging the ag-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 92 (2016) 101

Opinion of the Court

gravating circumstances in parts of his appellate briefs.

See, e. g., Initial Brief for Appellant in No. SC12–1947 (Fla.),
p. 24 (“not challeng[ing] the trial court’s findings” but
arguing that death was nevertheless a disproportionate
punishment).
C
The State next argues that stare decisis compels us to up-
hold Florida’s capital sentencing scheme. As the Florida
Supreme Court observed, this Court “repeatedly has re-
viewed and upheld Florida’s capital sentencing statute over
the past quarter of a century.” Bottoson v. Moore, 833
So. 2d 693, 695 (2002) (per curiam) (citing Hildwin, 490 U. S.
638; Spaziano, 468 U. S. 447). “In a comparable situation,”
the Florida court reasoned, “the United States Supreme
Court held:
‘If a precedent of this Court has direct application in
a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in
some other line of decisions, the [other courts] should
follow the case which directly controls, leaving to
this Court the prerogative of overruling its own deci-
sions.’ ” Bottoson, 833 So. 2d, at 695 (quoting Rodri-
guez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490
U. S. 477, 484 (1989)); see also 147 So. 3d, at 446–447
(case below).
We now expressly overrule Spaziano and Hildwin in rele-
vant part.
Spaziano and Hildwin summarized earlier precedent to
conclude that “the Sixth Amendment does not require that
the specific findings authorizing the imposition of the sen-
tence of death be made by the jury.” Hildwin, 490 U. S., at
640–641. Their conclusion was wrong, and irreconcilable
with Apprendi. Indeed, today is not the first time we have
recognized as much. In Ring, we held that another pre-
Apprendi decision—Walton, 497 U. S. 639—could not “sur-
vive the reasoning of Apprendi.” 536 U. S., at 603. Wal-
102 HURST v. FLORIDA

Opinion of the Court

ton, for its part, was a mere application of Hildwin’s holding

to Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme. 497 U. S., at 648.
“Although ‘ “the doctrine of stare decisis is of fundamental
importance to the rule of law[,]” . . . [o]ur precedents are not
sacrosanct.’ . . . ‘[W]e have overruled prior decisions where
the necessity and propriety of doing so has been estab-
lished.’ ” Ring, 536 U. S., at 608 (quoting Patterson v.
McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 172 (1989)). And in
the Apprendi context, we have found that “stare decisis does
not compel adherence to a decision whose ‘underpinnings’
have been ‘eroded’ by subsequent developments of constitu-
tional law.” Alleyne, 570 U. S., at 119 (Sotomayor, J., con-
curring); see also United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506,
519–520 (1995) (overruling Sinclair v. United States, 279
U. S. 263 (1929)); Ring, 536 U. S., at 609 (overruling Walton,
497 U. S., at 639); Alleyne, 570 U. S., at 116 (overruling Har-
ris v. United States, 536 U. S. 545 (2002)).
Time and subsequent cases have washed away the logic of
Spaziano and Hildwin. The decisions are overruled to the
extent they allow a sentencing judge to find an aggravating
circumstance, independent of a jury’s factfinding, that is nec-
essary for imposition of the death penalty.

D
Finally, we do not reach the State’s assertion that any
error was harmless. See Neder v. United States, 527 U. S.
1, 18–19 (1999) (holding that the failure to submit an uncon-
tested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless).
This Court normally leaves it to state courts to consider
whether an error is harmless, and we see no reason to depart
from that pattern here. See Ring, 536 U. S., at 609, n. 7.

* * *
The Sixth Amendment protects a defendant’s right to an
impartial jury. This right required Florida to base Timothy
Hurst’s death sentence on a jury’s verdict, not a judge’s fact-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 92 (2016) 103

Alito, J., dissenting

finding. Florida’s sentencing scheme, which required the

judge alone to find the existence of an aggravating circum-
stance, is therefore unconstitutional.
The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is reversed,
and the case is remanded for further proceedings not incon-
sistent with this opinion.
So ordered.

Justice Breyer, concurring in the judgment.

For the reasons explained in my opinion concurring in the
judgment in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584, 613–619 (2002),
I cannot join the Court’s opinion. As in that case, however,
I concur in the judgment here based on my view that “the
Eighth Amendment requires that a jury, not a judge, make
the decision to sentence a defendant to death.” Id., at 614;
see id., at 618 (“[T]he danger of unwarranted imposition of
the [death] penalty cannot be avoided unless ‘the decision to
impose the death penalty is made by a jury rather than by a
single governmental official’ ” (quoting Spaziano v. Florida,
468 U. S. 447, 469 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and
dissenting in part))). No one argues that Florida’s juries
actually sentence capital defendants to death—that job is left
to Florida’s judges. See Fla. Stat. § 921.141(3) (2010). Like
the majority, therefore, I would reverse the judgment of the
Florida Supreme Court.

Justice Alito, dissenting.

As the Court acknowledges, “this Court ‘repeatedly has
reviewed and upheld Florida’s capital sentencing statute
over the past quarter of a century.’ ” Ante, at 101. And as
the Court also concedes, our precedents hold that “ ‘the Sixth
Amendment does not require that the specific findings au-
thorizing the imposition of the sentence of death be made by
the jury.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U. S.
638, 640–641 (1989) (per curiam); emphasis added); see also
Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 460 (1984). The Court
104 HURST v. FLORIDA

Alito, J., dissenting

now reverses course, striking down Florida’s capital sentenc-

ing system, overruling our decisions in Hildwin and Spazi-
ano, and holding that the Sixth Amendment does require
that the specific findings authorizing a sentence of death be
made by a jury. I disagree.

I
First, I would not overrule Hildwin and Spaziano without
reconsidering the cases on which the Court’s present deci-
sion is based. The Court relies on later cases holding that
any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater punishment
than that authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict is an ele-
ment of the offense that must be submitted to a jury. Ante,
at 97–98. But there are strong reasons to question whether
this principle is consistent with the original understanding
of the jury trial right. See Alleyne v. United States, 570
U. S. 99, 133–134 (2013) (Alito, J., dissenting). Before over-
ruling Hildwin and Spaziano, I would reconsider the cases,
including most prominently Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584
(2002), on which the Court now relies.
Second, even if Ring is assumed to be correct, I would not
extend it. Although the Court suggests that today’s hold-
ing follows ineluctably from Ring, the Arizona sentencing
scheme at issue in that case was much different from the
Florida procedure now before us. In Ring, the jury found
the defendant guilty of felony murder and did no more. It
did not make the findings required by the Eighth Amend-
ment before the death penalty may be imposed in a felony-
murder case. See id., at 591–592, 594; Enmund v. Florida,
458 U. S. 782 (1982); Tison v. Arizona, 481 U. S. 137 (1987).
Nor did the jury find the presence of any aggravating factor,
as required for death eligibility under Arizona law. Ring,
supra, at 592–593. Nor did it consider mitigating factors.
And it did not determine whether a capital or noncapital sen-
tence was appropriate. Under that system, the jury played
no role in the capital sentencing process.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 92 (2016) 105

Alito, J., dissenting

The Florida system is quite different. In Florida, the

jury sits as the initial and primary adjudicator of the factors
bearing on the death penalty. After unanimously deter-
mining guilt at trial, a Florida jury hears evidence of ag-
gravating and mitigating circumstances. See Fla. Stat.
§ 921.141(1) (2010). At the conclusion of this separate sen-
tencing hearing, the jury may recommend a death sen-
tence only if it finds that the State has proved one or more
aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt and only
after weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors.
§ 921.141(2).
Once the jury has made this decision, the trial court per-
forms what amounts, in practical terms, to a reviewing func-
tion. The judge duplicates the steps previously performed
by the jury and, while the court can impose a sentence differ-
ent from that recommended by the jury, the judge must ac-
cord the jury’s recommendation “great weight.” See Lam-
brix v. Singletary, 520 U. S. 518, 525–526 (1997) (recounting
Florida law and procedure). Indeed, if the jury recommends
a life sentence, the judge may override that decision only if
“the facts suggesting a sentence of death [were] so clear and
convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ.”
Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 1975) (per curiam).
No Florida trial court has overruled a jury’s recommendation
of a life sentence for more than 15 years.
Under the Florida system, the jury plays a critically im-
portant role. Our decision in Ring did not decide whether
this procedure violates the Sixth Amendment, and I would
not extend Ring to cover the Florida system.

II
Finally, even if there was a constitutional violation in this
case, I would hold that the error was harmless beyond a rea-
sonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 24
(1967). Although petitioner attacks the Florida system on
numerous grounds, the Court’s decision is based on a single
106 HURST v. FLORIDA

Alito, J., dissenting

perceived defect, i. e., that the jury’s determination that at

least one aggravating factor was proved is not binding on
the trial judge. Ante, at 98–99. The Court makes no pre-
tense that this supposed defect could have prejudiced peti-
tioner, and it seems very clear that it did not.
Attempting to show that he might have been prejudiced
by the error, petitioner suggests that the jury might not
have found the existence of an aggravating factor had it been
instructed that its finding was a prerequisite for the imposi-
tion of the death penalty, but this suggestion is hard to
credit. The jury was told to consider two aggravating fac-
tors: that the murder was committed during the course of a
robbery and that it was especially “heinous, atrocious, or
cruel.” App. 212. The evidence in support of both factors
was overwhelming.
The evidence with regard to the first aggravating factor—
that the murder occurred during the commission of a rob-
bery—was as follows. The victim, Cynthia Harrison, an as-
sistant manager of a Popeye’s restaurant, arrived at work
between 7 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on the date of her death. When
other employees entered the store at about 10:30 a.m., they
found that she had been stabbed to death and that the res-
taurant’s safe was open and the previous day’s receipts were
missing. At trial, the issue was whether Hurst committed
the murder. There was no suggestion that the murder did
not occur during the robbery. Any alternative scenario—
for example, that Cynthia Harrison was first murdered by
one person for some reason other than robbery and that a
second person came upon the scene shortly after the murder
and somehow gained access to and emptied the Popeye’s
safe—is fanciful.
The evidence concerning the second aggravating factor—
that the murder was especially “heinous, atrocious, or
cruel”—was also overwhelming. Cynthia Harrison was
bound, gagged, and stabbed more than 60 times. Her inju-
ries included “facial cuts that went all the way down to the
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 92 (2016) 107

Alito, J., dissenting

underlying bone,” “cuts through the eyelid region” and “the

top of her lip,” and “a large cut to her neck which almost
severed her trachea.” Id., at 261. It was estimated that
death could have taken as long as 15 minutes to occur. The
trial court characterized the manner of her death as follows:
“The utter terror and pain that Ms. Harrison likely experi-
enced during the incident is unfathomable. Words are inad-
equate to describe this death, but the photographs intro-
duced as evidence depict a person bound, rendered helpless,
and brutally, savagely, and unmercifully slashed and dis-
figured. The murder of Ms. Harrison was conscienceless,
pitiless, and unnecessarily torturous.” Id., at 261–262.
In light of this evidence, it defies belief to suggest that the
jury would not have found the existence of either aggravat-
ing factor if its finding was binding. More than 17 years
have passed since Cynthia Harrison was brutally murdered.
In the interest of bringing this protracted litigation to a
close, I would rule on the issue of harmless error and would
affirm the decision of the Florida Supreme Court.
108 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

Syllabus

KANSAS v. CARR

certiorari to the supreme court of kansas

No. 14–449. Argued October 7, 2015—Decided January 20, 2016*
A Kansas jury sentenced respondent Sidney Gleason to death for killing a
co-conspirator and her boyfriend to cover up the robbery of an elderly
man.
A Kansas jury sentenced respondents Reginald and Jonathan Carr,
brothers, to death after a joint sentencing proceeding. Respond-
ents were convicted of various charges stemming from a notorious
crime spree that culminated in the brutal rape, robbery, kidnaping, and
execution-style shooting of five young men and women.
The Kansas Supreme Court vacated the death sentences in each case,
holding that the sentencing instructions violated the Eighth Amend-
ment by failing “to affirmatively inform the jury that mitigating circum-
stances need only be proved to the satisfaction of the individual juror
in that juror’s sentencing decision and not beyond a reasonable doubt.”
It also held that the Carrs’ Eighth Amendment right “to an individual-
ized capital sentencing determination” was violated by the trial court’s
failure to sever their sentencing proceedings.
Held:
1. The Eighth Amendment does not require capital-sentencing courts
to instruct a jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved
beyond a reasonable doubt. Pp. 117–122.
(a) Because the Kansas Supreme Court left no doubt that its ruling
was based on the Federal Constitution, Gleason’s initial argument—that
this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear his case because the state court’s
decision rested on adequate and independent state-law grounds—is
rejected. See Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U. S. 163, 169. Pp. 117–118.
(b) This Court’s capital-sentencing case law does not support re-
quiring a court to instruct a jury that mitigating circumstances need
not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e. g., Buchanan v. Ange-
lone, 522 U. S. 269, 275. Nor was such an instruction constitutionally
necessary in these particular cases to avoid confusion. Ambiguity in
capital-sentencing instructions gives rise to constitutional error only if
“there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged

*Together with No. 14–450, Kansas v. Carr, and No. 14–452, Kansas v.
Gleason, also on certiorari to the same court.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 109

Syllabus

instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally

relevant evidence,” Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 380, a bar
not cleared here. Even assuming that it would be unconstitutional to
require the defense to prove mitigating circumstances beyond a reason-
able doubt, the record belies the defendants’ contention that the instruc-
tions caused jurors to apply such a standard of proof here. The instruc-
tions make clear that both the existence of aggravating circumstances
and the conclusion that they outweigh mitigating circumstances must be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt but that mitigating circumstances
must merely be “found to exist,” which does not suggest proof beyond
a reasonable doubt. No juror would have reasonably speculated that
“beyond a reasonable doubt” was the correct burden for mitigating cir-
cumstances. Pp. 118–122.
2. The Constitution did not require severance of the Carrs’ joint sen-
tencing proceedings. The Eighth Amendment is inapposite when a
defendant’s claim is, at bottom, that evidence was improperly admitted
at a capital-sentencing proceeding. The question is whether the alleg-
edly improper evidence “so infected the sentencing proceeding with un-
fairness as to render the jury’s imposition of the death penalty a denial
of due process.” Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U. S. 1, 12. In light of all
the evidence presented at the guilt and penalty phases relevant to the
jury’s sentencing determination, the contention that the admission of
mitigating evidence by one Carr brother could have “so infected” the
jury’s consideration of the other’s sentence as to amount to a denial of
due process is beyond the pale. The Court presumes that the jury
followed its instructions to “give separate consideration to each de-
fendant.” Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123, distinguished. Joint
proceedings are permissible and often preferable when the joined
defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events. Bu-
chanan v. Kentucky, 483 U. S. 402, 418. Limiting instructions, like
those given in the Carrs’ proceeding, “often will suffice to cure any risk
of prejudice,” Zafiro v. United States, 506 U. S. 534, 539, that might arise
from codefendants’ “antagonistic” mitigation theories, id., at 538. It
is improper to vacate a death sentence based on pure “speculation” of
fundamental unfairness, “rather than reasoned judgment.” Romano,
supra, at 13–14. Only the most extravagant speculation would lead to
the conclusion that any supposedly prejudicial evidence rendered the
Carr brothers’ joint sentencing proceeding fundamentally unfair when
their acts of almost inconceivable cruelty and depravity were described
in excruciating detail by the sole survivor, who, for two days, relived
the Wichita Massacre with the jury. Pp. 122–126.
110 KANSAS v. CARR

Opinion of the Court

No. 14–449, 300 Kan. 340, 329 P. 3d 1195; No. 14–450, 300 Kan. 1, 331 P. 3d
544; and No. 14–452, 299 Kan. 1127, 329 P. 3d 1102, reversed and
remanded.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J.,
and Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ.,
joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 127.

Derek L. Schmidt, Attorney General of Kansas, argued the

cause for petitioner in all cases (Burden). With him on the
briefs in No. 14–452 were Jeffrey A. Chanay, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, Stephen R. McAllister, Solicitor General,
Kristafer R. Ailslieger, Deputy Solicitor General, and Nata-
lie Chalmers, Assistant Solicitor General. Mr. McAllister
argued the cause for petitioner in Nos. 14–449 and 14–550
(Severance). With him on the briefs were Messrs. Schmidt,
Chanay, and Ailslieger, Ms. Chalmers, and David Lowden.
Rachel P. Kovner argued the cause for the United States
as amicus curiae in support of petitioners. With her on
the briefs were Solicitor General Verrilli, Assistant At-
torney General Caldwell, and Deputy Solicitor General
Dreeben.
Jeffrey T. Green argued the cause for respondents in Nos.
14–449 and 14–452. With him on the briefs in both cases
were Sarah Ellen Johnson, Meryl Carver-Allmond, and
Sarah O’Rourke Schrup. Neal Kumar Katyal (Burden) and
Frederick Liu (Severance) argued the cause for respondent
in No. 14–450. With them on the brief were Jaclyn L. Di-
Lauro and Debra J. Wilson.†
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Supreme Court of Kansas vacated the death sentences
of Sidney Gleason and brothers Reginald and Jonathan Carr.

†Kent S. Scheidegger filed a brief of amici curiae urging reversal for

the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation et al. in all cases.
G. Ben Cohen and Michael Admirand filed a brief of amicus curiae
urging affirmance for the Promise of Justice Initiative in both cases.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 111

Opinion of the Court

Gleason killed one of his co-conspirators and her boyfriend

to cover up the robbery of an elderly man. The Carrs’ noto-
rious Wichita crime spree culminated in the brutal rape, rob-
bery, kidnaping, and execution-style shooting of five young
men and women. We first consider whether the Constitu-
tion required the sentencing courts to instruct the juries that
mitigating circumstances “need not be proved beyond a rea-
sonable doubt.” And second, whether the Constitution re-
quired severance of the Carrs’ joint sentencing proceedings.

I
A
Less than one month after Sidney Gleason was paroled
from his sentence for attempted voluntary manslaughter, he
joined a conspiracy to rob an elderly man at knifepoint.1
Gleason and a companion “cut up” the elderly man to get $10
to $35 and a box of cigarettes. 299 Kan. 1127, 1136, 329 P. 3d
1102, 1115 (2014). Fearing that their female co-conspirators
would snitch, Gleason and his cousin, Damien Thompson, set
out to kill co-conspirator Mikiala Martinez. Gleason shot
and killed Martinez’s boyfriend, and then Gleason and
Thompson drove Martinez to a rural location, where Thomp-
son strangled her for five minutes and then shot her in the
chest, Gleason standing by and providing the gun for the
final shot.
The State ultimately charged Gleason with capital murder
for killing Martinez and her boyfriend, first-degree premedi-
tated murder of the boyfriend, aggravating kidnaping of
Martinez, attempted first-degree murder and aggravated
robbery of the elderly man, and criminal possession of a
firearm. He was convicted on all counts except the at-
tempted first-degree murder charge. Id., at 1134–1135,
1
The facts for this portion of the opinion come from the Kansas Supreme
Court, 299 Kan. 1127, 1134–1147, 329 P. 3d 1102, 1113–1121 (2014), and the
parties’ briefs.
112 KANSAS v. CARR

Opinion of the Court

1146, 329 P. 3d, at 1114, 1120. The jury also found that
the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the existence
of four aggravating circumstances and unanimously agreed
to a sentence of death. Id., at 1146–1147, 329 P. 3d, at
1120–1121.
B
In December 2000, brothers Reginald and Jonathan Carr
set out on a crime spree culminating in the Wichita Massa-
cre.2 On the night of December 7, Reginald Carr and an
unknown man carjacked Andrew Schreiber, held a gun to his
head, and forced him to make cash withdrawals at various
ATMs.
On the night of December 11, the brothers followed Linda
Ann Walenta, a cellist for the Wichita symphony, home from
orchestra practice. One of them approached her vehicle and
said he needed help. When she rolled down her window, he
pointed a gun at her head. When she shifted into reverse
to escape, he shot her three times, ran back to his brother’s
car, and fled the scene. One of the gunshots severed Walen-
ta’s spine, and she died one month later as a result of her
injuries.
On the night of December 14, the brothers burst into a
triplex at 12727 Birchwood, where roommates Jason, Brad,
and Aaron lived. Jason’s girlfriend, Holly, and Heather, a
friend of Aaron’s, were also in the house. Armed with hand-
guns and a golf club, the brothers forced all five into Jason’s
bedroom. They demanded that they strip naked and later
ordered them into the bedroom closet. They took Holly and
Heather from the bedroom, demanded that they perform oral
sex and digitally penetrate each other as the Carrs looked
on and barked orders. They forced each of the men to have
2
The facts for this portion of the opinion come from the Kansas Supreme
Court, 300 Kan. 1, 18–38, 331 P. 3d 544, 575–586 (2014), and witness testi-
mony. See 21–A Tr. 59–75 (Oct. 7, 2002), 22–B Tr. 39–124 (Oct. 8, 2002),
23–A Tr. 4–118 (Oct. 9, 2002), 23–B Tr. 5–133 (Oct. 9, 2002), and 24–A Tr.
4–93 (Oct. 10, 2002).
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 113

Opinion of the Court

sex with Holly and then with Heather. They yelled that the
men would be shot if they could not have sex with the
women, so Holly—fearing for Jason’s life—performed oral
sex on him in the closet before he was ordered out by the
brothers.
Jonathan then snatched Holly from the closet. He or-
dered that she digitally penetrate herself. He set his gun
between her knees on the floor. And he raped her. Then
he raped Heather.
Reginald took Brad, Jason, Holly, and Aaron one-by-one
to various ATMs to withdraw cash. When the victims
returned to the house, their torture continued. Holly uri-
nated in the closet because of fright. Jonathan found an en-
gagement ring hidden in the bedroom that Jason was keep-
ing as a surprise for Holly. Pointing his gun at Jason, he
had Jason identify the ring while Holly was sitting nearby in
the closet. Then Reginald took Holly from the closet, said
he was not going to shoot her yet, and raped her on the
dining-room floor strewn with boxes of Christmas decora-
tions. He forced her to turn around, ejaculated into her
mouth, and forced her to swallow. In a nearby bathroom,
Jonathan again raped Heather and then again raped Holly.
At 2 a.m.—three hours after the mayhem began—the
brothers decided it was time to leave the house. They at-
tempted to put all five victims in the trunk of Aaron’s Honda
Civic. Finding that they would not all fit, they jammed the
three young men into the trunk. They directed Heather to
the front of the car and Holly to Jason’s pickup truck, driven
by Reginald. Once the vehicles arrived at a snow-covered
field, they instructed Jason and Brad, still naked, and Aaron
to kneel in the snow. Holly cried, “Oh, my God, they’re
going to shoot us.” Holly and Heather were then ordered
to kneel in the snow. Holly went to Jason’s side; Heather,
to Aaron.
Holly heard the first shot, heard Aaron plead with the
brothers not to shoot, heard the second shot, heard the
114 KANSAS v. CARR

Opinion of the Court

screams, heard the third shot, and the fourth. She felt the
blow of the fifth shot to her head, but remained kneeling.
They kicked her so she would fall face-first into the snow
and ran her over in the pickup truck. But she survived,
because a hair clip she had fastened to her hair that night
deflected the bullet. She went to Jason, took off her
sweater, the only scrap of clothing the brothers had let
her wear, and tied it around his head to stop the bleeding
from his eye. She rushed to Brad, then Aaron, and then
Heather.
Spotting a house with white Christmas lights in the dis-
tance, Holly started running toward it for help—naked, skull
shattered, and without shoes, through the snow and over
barbed-wire fences. Each time a car passed on the nearby
road, she feared it was the brothers returning and camou-
flaged herself by lying down in the snow. She made it to
the house, rang the doorbell, knocked. A man opened the
door, and she relayed as quickly as she could the events of
the night to him, and minutes later to a 911 dispatcher, fear-
ing that she would not live.
Holly lived, and retold this play-by-play of the night’s
events to the jury. Investigators also testified that the
brothers returned to the Birchwood house after leaving the
five friends for dead, where they ransacked the place for val-
uables and (for good measure) beat Holly’s dog, Nikki, to
death with a golf club.
The State charged each of the brothers with more than 50
counts, including murder, rape, sodomy, kidnaping, burglary,
and robbery, and the jury returned separate guilty verdicts.
It convicted Reginald of one count of kidnaping, aggravated
robbery, aggravated battery, and criminal damage to prop-
erty for the Schreiber carjacking, and one count of first-
degree felony murder for the Walenta shooting. Jonathan
was acquitted of all counts related to the Schreiber carjack-
ing but convicted of first-degree felony murder for the Wa-
lenta shooting. For the Birchwood murders, the jury con-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 115

Opinion of the Court

victed each brother of 4 counts of capital murder, 1 count of

attempted first-degree murder, 5 counts of aggravated kid-
naping, 9 counts of aggravated robbery, 20 counts of rape or
attempted rape, 3 counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, 1
count each of aggravated burglary and burglary, 1 count of
theft, and 1 count of cruelty to animals. The jury also con-
victed Reginald of three counts of unlawful possession of a
firearm. 300 Kan. 1, 15–16, 331 P. 3d 544, 573–574 (2014).
The State sought the death penalty for each of the four
Birchwood murders, and the brothers were sentenced to-
gether. The State relied on the guilt-phase evidence, includ-
ing Holly’s two days of testimony, as evidence of four aggra-
vating circumstances: that the defendants knowingly or
purposely killed or created a great risk of death to more than
one person; that they committed the crimes for the purpose
of receiving money or items of monetary value; that they
committed the crimes to prevent arrest or prosecution; and
that they committed the crimes in an especially heinous,
atrocious, or cruel manner. Id., at 258–259, 331 P. 3d, at 708.
After hearing each brother’s case for mitigation, the jury
issued separate verdicts of death for Reginald and Jonathan.
It found unanimously that the State proved the existence of
the four aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable
doubt and that those aggravating circumstances outweighed
the mitigating circumstances, justifying four separate ver-
dicts of death for each brother for the murders of Jason,
Brad, Aaron, and Heather. App. in No. 14– 449 etc.,
pp. 461–492.
C
The Kansas Supreme Court vacated the death penalties in
both cases. It held that the instructions used in both Glea-
son’s and the Carrs’ sentencing violated the Eighth Amend-
ment because they “failed to affirmatively inform the jury
that mitigating circumstances need only be proved to the sat-
isfaction of the individual juror in that juror’s sentencing de-
cision and not beyond a reasonable doubt.” 299 Kan., at
116 KANSAS v. CARR

Opinion of the Court

1196, 329 P. 3d, at 1147 (Gleason); 300 Kan., at 303, 331 P. 3d,
at 733 (Reginald Carr); 300 Kan. 340, 369–370, 329 P. 3d 1195,
1213 (2014) (Jonathan Carr). Without that instruction, ac-
cording to the court, the jury “was left to speculate as to
the correct burden of proof for mitigating circumstances, and
reasonable jurors might have believed they could not con-
sider mitigating circumstances not proven beyond a reason-
able doubt.” 299 Kan., at 1197, 329 P. 3d, at 1148. This, the
court concluded, might have caused jurors to exclude rele-
vant mitigating evidence from their consideration. Ibid.
The Kansas Supreme Court also held that the Carrs’ death
sentences had to be vacated because of the trial court’s fail-
ure to sever their sentencing proceedings, thereby violating
the brothers’ Eighth Amendment right “to an individualized
capital sentencing determination.” 300 Kan., at 275, 331
P. 3d, at 717; 300 Kan., at 368, 329 P. 3d, at 1212. According
to the court, the joint trial “inhibited the jury’s individual-
ized consideration of [Jonathan] because of family character-
istics tending to demonstrate future dangerousness that he
shared with his brother”; and his brother’s visible handcuffs
prejudiced the jury’s consideration of his sentence. 300
Kan., at 275, 331 P. 3d, at 717. As for Reginald, he was
prejudiced, according to the Kansas Supreme Court, by Jon-
athan’s portrayal of him as the corrupting older brother.
Id., at 276, 331 P. 3d, at 717. Moreover, Reginald was preju-
diced by his brother’s cross-examination of their sister, who
testified that she thought Reginald had admitted to her that
he was the shooter. Id., at 279, 331 P. 3d, at 719. (She later
backtracked and testified, “ ‘I don’t remember who was, you
know, shot by who[m]. ’ ” Ibid.) The Kansas Supreme
Court opined that the presumption that the jury followed
its instructions to consider each defendant separately was
“defeated by logic.” Id., at 280, 331 P. 3d, at 719. “[T]he
defendants’ joint upbringing in the maelstrom that was their
family and their influence on and interactions with one an-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 117

Opinion of the Court

other . . . simply was not amenable to orderly separation

and analysis.” Ibid., 331 P. 3d, at 719–720. The Kansas
Supreme Court found itself unable to “say that the death
verdict was unattributable, at least in part, to this error.”
Id., at 282, 331 P. 3d, at 720. We granted certiorari. 575
U. S. 934 (2015).
II
We first turn to the Kansas Supreme Court’s conten-
tion that the Eighth Amendment required these capital-
sentencing courts to instruct the jury that mitigating circum-
stances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

A
Before considering the merits of that contention, we con-
sider Gleason’s challenge to our jurisdiction. According to
Gleason, the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision rests on ade-
quate and independent state-law grounds. This argument
is a familiar one. We rejected it in Kansas v. Marsh, 548
U. S. 163, 169 (2006). Like the defendant in that case, Glea-
son urges that the decision below rests only on a rule of
Kansas law announced in State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 40
P. 3d 139 (2001) (per curiam)—a rule later reiterated in State
v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 183 P. 3d 801 (2008) (per curiam). As
we stated in Marsh, “Kleypas, itself, rested on federal law.”
548 U. S., at 169. So too does the relevant passage of Scott,
which rested on Kleypas’s discussion of the constitutional
rule that jurors need not agree on mitigating circumstances.
See Scott, supra, at 106–107, 183 P. 3d, at 837–838. The
Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion in this case acknowledged
as much, saying that “statements from Kleypas implicate the
broader Eighth Amendment principle prohibiting barriers
that preclude a sentencer’s consideration of all relevant miti-
gating evidence.” 299 Kan., at 1195, 329 P. 3d, at 1147.
The Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion leaves no room for
doubt that it was relying on the Federal Constitution. It
118 KANSAS v. CARR

Opinion of the Court

stated that the instruction it required “protects a capital de-

fendant’s Eighth Amendment right to individualized sen-
tencing,” that the absence of the instruction “implicat[ed]
Gleason’s right to individualized sentencing under the
Eighth Amendment,” and that vacatur of Gleason’s death sen-
tence was the “[c]onsequen[ce]” of Eighth Amendment error.
Id., at 1196–1197, 329 P. 3d, at 1147–1148 (emphasis added).
For this reason, the criticism leveled by the dissent is mis-
directed. It generally would have been “none of our busi-
ness” had the Kansas Supreme Court vacated Gleason’s and
the Carrs’ death sentences on state-law grounds. Marsh,
548 U. S., at 184 (Scalia, J., concurring). But it decidedly
did not. And when the Kansas Supreme Court time and
again invalidates death sentences because it says the Federal
Constitution requires it, “review by this Court, far from un-
dermining state autonomy, is the only possible way to vindi-
cate it.” Ibid. “When we correct a state court’s federal er-
rors, we return power to the State, and to its people.” Ibid.
The state courts may experiment all they want with their
own constitutions, and often do in the wake of this Court’s
decisions. See Sutton, San Antonio Independent School
District v. Rodriguez And Its Aftermath, 94 Va. L. Rev.
1963, 1971–1977 (2008). But what a state court cannot do is
experiment with our Federal Constitution and expect to
elude this Court’s review so long as victory goes to the crimi-
nal defendant. “Turning a blind eye” in such cases “would
change the uniform ‘law of the land’ into a crazy quilt.”
Marsh, supra, at 185. And it would enable state courts to
blame the unpopular death-sentence reprieve of the most
horrible criminals upon the Federal Constitution when it is
in fact their own doing.
B
We turn, then, to the merits of the Kansas Supreme
Court’s conclusion that the Eighth Amendment requires
capital-sentencing courts in Kansas “to affirmatively inform
the jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proven
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 119

Opinion of the Court

beyond a reasonable doubt.” 299 Kan., at 1197, 329 P. 3d,

at 1148.
Approaching the question in the abstract, and without
reference to our capital-sentencing case law, we doubt
whether it is even possible to apply a standard of proof to
the mitigating-factor determination (the so-called “selection
phase” of a capital-sentencing proceeding). It is possible to
do so for the aggravating-factor determination (the so-called
“eligibility phase”), because that is a purely factual determi-
nation. The facts justifying death set forth in the Kansas
statute either did or did not exist—and one can require the
finding that they did exist to be made beyond a reasonable
doubt. Whether mitigation exists, however, is largely a
judgment call (or perhaps a value call); what one juror might
consider mitigating another might not. And of course the
ultimate question whether mitigating circumstances out-
weigh aggravating circumstances is mostly a question of
mercy—the quality of which, as we know, is not strained.
It would mean nothing, we think, to tell the jury that the
defendants must deserve mercy beyond a reasonable doubt;
or must more-likely-than-not deserve it. It would be possi-
ble, of course, to instruct the jury that the facts establishing
mitigating circumstances need only be proved by a prepon-
derance, leaving the judgment whether those facts are in-
deed mitigating, and whether they outweigh the aggra-
vators, to the jury’s discretion without a standard of proof.
If we were to hold that the Constitution requires the
mitigating-factor determination to be divided into its factual
component and its judgmental component, and the former to
be accorded a burden-of-proof instruction, we doubt whether
that would produce anything but jury confusion. In the last
analysis, jurors will accord mercy if they deem it appro-
priate, and withhold mercy if they do not, which is what our
case law is designed to achieve.
In any event, our case law does not require capital-
sentencing courts “to affirmatively inform the jury that miti-
120 KANSAS v. CARR

Opinion of the Court

gating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reason-

able doubt.” Ibid. In Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U. S. 269
(1998), we upheld a death sentence even though the trial
court “failed to provide the jury with express guidance on
the concept of mitigation.” Id., at 275. Likewise in Weeks
v. Angelone, 528 U. S. 225 (2000), we reaffirmed that the
Court has “never held that the State must structure in a
particular way the manner in which juries consider mitigat-
ing evidence” and rejected the contention that it was consti-
tutionally deficient to instruct jurors to “ ‘consider a mitigat-
ing circumstance if you find there is evidence to support it,’ ”
without additional guidance. Id., at 232–233.
Equally unavailing is the contention that even if an in-
struction that mitigating evidence need not be “proven be-
yond a reasonable doubt” is not always required, it was con-
stitutionally necessary in these cases to avoid confusion.
Ambiguity in capital-sentencing instructions gives rise to
constitutional error only if “there is a reasonable likelihood
that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way
that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant
evidence.” Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 380 (1990)
(emphasis added). The alleged confusion stemming from the
jury instructions used at the defendants’ sentencings does
not clear that bar. A meager “possibility” of confusion is
not enough. Ibid.
As an initial matter, the defendants’ argument rests on the
assumption that it would be unconstitutional to require the
defense to prove mitigating circumstances beyond a reason-
able doubt. Assuming without deciding that that is the
case, the record belies the defendants’ contention that the
instructions caused jurors to apply that standard of proof.
The defendants focus upon the following instruction: “The
State has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that there are one or more aggravating circumstances and
that they are not outweighed by any mitigating circum-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 121

Opinion of the Court

stances found to exist.” App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 14–

452, p. 133 (Instr. 8).3 The juxtaposition of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, so goes the argument, caused the
jury to speculate that mitigating circumstances must also be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 299 Kan., at 1197, 329
P. 3d, at 1148. It seems to us quite the opposite. The in-
struction makes clear that both the existence of aggravating
circumstances and the conclusion that they outweigh mitigat-
ing circumstances must be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt; mitigating circumstances themselves, on the other
hand, must merely be “found to exist.” That same descrip-
tion, mitigating circumstances “found to exist,” is contained
in three other instructions, App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 14–
452, at 133 (Instrs. 7, 9, and 10) (emphasis added)—unsurpris-
ingly, since it recites the Kansas statute, see Kan. Stat. Ann.
§ 21–4624(e) (1995). “Found to exist” certainly does not sug-
gest proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The instructions as
a whole distinguish clearly between aggravating and miti-
gating circumstances: “The State has the burden to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that there are one or more ag-
gravating circumstances . . . ,” and the jury must decide
unanimously that the State met that burden. App. to Pet.
for Cert. in No. 14–452, at 133 (Instrs. 8 and 10) (emphasis
added). “[M]itigating circumstances,” on the other hand,
“do not need to be found by all members of the jury” to “be
considered by an individual juror in arriving at his or her
sentencing decision.” Id., at 131 (Instr. 7). Not once do the
instructions say that defense counsel bears the burden of
proving the facts constituting a mitigating circumstance be-
yond a reasonable doubt—nor would that make much sense,
since one of the mitigating circumstances is (curiously)
“mercy,” which simply is not a factual determination.
3
The relevant penalty-phase instructions from the Carrs’ sentencing
proceedings are materially indistinguishable. See App. to Pet. for Cert.
in No. 14–450, pp. 501–510.
122 KANSAS v. CARR

Opinion of the Court

We reject the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision that jurors

were “left to speculate as to the correct burden of proof for
mitigating circumstances.” 299 Kan., at 1197, 329 P. 3d, at
1148. For the reasons we have described, no juror would
reasonably have speculated that mitigating circumstances
must be proved by any particular standard, let alone be-
yond a reasonable doubt. The reality is that jurors do not
“pars[e] instructions for subtle shades of meaning in the
same way that lawyers might.” Boyde, supra, at 381. The
instructions repeatedly told the jurors to consider any miti-
gating factor, meaning any aspect of the defendants’ back-
ground or the circumstances of their offense. Jurors would
not have misunderstood these instructions to prevent their
consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.

III
We turn next to the contention that a joint capital-
sentencing proceeding in the Carrs’ cases violated the de-
fendants’ Eighth Amendment right to an “individualized sen-
tencing determination.” 300 Kan., at 276, 331 P. 3d, at 717.
The Kansas Supreme Court agreed with the defendants
that, because of the joint sentencing proceeding, one defend-
ant’s mitigating evidence put a thumb on death’s scale for the
other, in violation of the other’s Eighth Amendment rights.
Ibid. It accepted Reginald’s contention that he was preju-
diced by his brother’s portrayal of him as the corrupting
older brother. And it agreed that Reginald was prejudiced
by his brother’s cross-examination of their sister, who equiv-
ocated about whether Reginald admitted to her that he was
the shooter. (Reginald has all but abandoned that implausi-
ble theory of prejudice before this Court and contends only
that the State “likely would not have introduced any such
testimony” had he been sentenced alone. Brief for Re-
spondent in No. 14–450, p. 34, n. 3.) Jonathan asserted that
he was prejudiced by evidence associating him with his dan-
gerous older brother, which caused the jury to perceive him
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 123

Opinion of the Court

as an incurable sociopath.4 Both speculate that the evidence

assertedly prejudicial to them would have been inadmissible
in severed proceedings under Kansas law. The Kansas
Supreme Court also launched a broader attack on the joint
proceedings, contending that the joinder rendered it im-
possible for the jury to consider the Carrs’ relative moral
culpability and to determine individually whether they
were entitled to “mercy.” 300 Kan., at 278, 331 P. 3d, at
718–719.
Whatever the merits of defendants’ procedural objections,
we will not shoehorn them into the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.” As the
United States as amicus curiae intimates, the Eighth
Amendment is inapposite when each defendant’s claim is, at
bottom, that the jury considered evidence that would not
have been admitted in a severed proceeding, and that the
joint trial clouded the jury’s consideration of mitigating evi-
dence like “mercy.” Brief for United States 24, n. 8. As
we held in Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U. S. 1 (1994), it is
not the role of the Eighth Amendment to establish a special
“federal code of evidence” governing “the admissibility of
evidence at capital sentencing proceedings.” Id., at 11–12.
Rather, it is the Due Process Clause that wards off the intro-
duction of “unduly prejudicial” evidence that would “rende[r]
the trial fundamentally unfair.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501
U. S. 808, 825 (1991); see also Brown v. Sanders, 546 U. S.
212, 220–221 (2006).
The test prescribed by Romano for a constitutional viola-
tion attributable to evidence improperly admitted at a
capital-sentencing proceeding is whether the evidence “so in-
fected the sentencing proceeding with unfairness as to ren-

4
Jonathan also alleges that he was prejudiced by the jury’s witnessing
his brother’s handcuffs, which his brother requested remain visible before
the penalty phase commenced. That allegation is mystifying. That his
brother’s handcuffs were visible (while his own restraints were not) more
likely caused the jury to see Jonathan as the less dangerous of the two.
124 KANSAS v. CARR

Opinion of the Court

der the jury’s imposition of the death penalty a denial of due

process.” 512 U. S., at 12. The mere admission of evidence
that might not otherwise have been admitted in a severed
proceeding does not demand the automatic vacatur of a
death sentence.
In light of all the evidence presented at the guilt and pen-
alty phases relevant to the jury’s sentencing determination,
the contention that the admission of mitigating evidence by
one brother could have “so infected” the jury’s consideration
of the other’s sentence as to amount to a denial of due proc-
ess is beyond the pale. To begin with, the court instructed
the jury that it “must give separate consideration to each
defendant,” that each was “entitled to have his sentence de-
cided on the evidence and law which is applicable to him,”
and that any evidence in the penalty phase “limited to only
one defendant should not be considered by you as to the
other defendant.” App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 14–450, at
501 (Instr. 3). The court gave defendant-specific instruc-
tions for aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Id., at
502–508 (Instrs. 5, 6, 7, and 8). And the court instructed the
jury to consider the “individual” or “particular defendant”
by using four separate verdict forms for each defendant, one
for each murdered occupant of the Birchwood house. Id., at
509 (Instr. 10); App. in No. 14–449 etc., at 461–492. We pre-
sume the jury followed these instructions and considered
each defendant separately when deciding to impose a sen-
tence of death for each of the brutal murders. Romano,
supra, at 13.
The contrary conclusion of the Kansas Supreme Court—
that the presumption that jurors followed these instructions
was “defeated by logic,” 300 Kan., at 280, 331 P. 3d, at 719—
is untenable. The Carrs implausibly liken the prejudice re-
sulting from the joint sentencing proceeding to the prejudice
infecting the joint trial in Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S.
123 (1968), where the prosecution admitted hearsay evidence
of a codefendant’s confession implicating the defendant.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 125

Opinion of the Court

That particular violation of the defendant’s confrontation

rights, incriminating evidence of the most persuasive sort,
ineradicable, as a practical matter, from the jury’s mind, jus-
tified what we have described as a narrow departure from
the presumption that jurors follow their instructions, Rich-
ardson v. Marsh, 481 U. S. 200, 207 (1987). We have de-
clined to extend that exception, id., at 211, and have con-
tinued to apply the presumption to instructions regarding
mitigating evidence in capital-sentencing proceedings, see,
e. g., Weeks, 528 U. S., at 234. There is no reason to think
the jury could not follow its instruction to consider the de-
fendants separately in this case.
Joint proceedings are not only permissible but are often
preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct
arises out of a single chain of events. Joint trial may enable
a jury “to arrive more reliably at its conclusions regarding
the guilt or innocence of a particular defendant and to assign
fairly the respective responsibilities of each defendant in the
sentencing.” Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U. S. 402, 418
(1987). That the codefendants might have “antagonistic”
theories of mitigation, Zafiro v. United States, 506 U. S. 534,
538 (1993), does not suffice to overcome Kansas’s “interest in
promoting the reliability and consistency of its judicial proc-
ess,” Buchanan, supra, at 418. Limiting instructions, like
those used in the Carrs’ sentencing proceeding, “often will
suffice to cure any risk of prejudice.” Zafiro, supra, at 539
(citing Richardson, supra, at 211). To forbid joinder in
capital-sentencing proceedings would, perversely, increase
the odds of “wanto[n] and freakis[h]” imposition of death sen-
tences. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 206–207 (1976)
( joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). Better
that two defendants who have together committed the same
crimes be placed side-by-side to have their fates determined
by a single jury.
It is improper to vacate a death sentence based on pure
“speculation” of fundamental unfairness, “rather than rea-
126 KANSAS v. CARR

Opinion of the Court

soned judgment,” Romano, supra, at 13–14. Only the most

extravagant speculation would lead to the conclusion that the
supposedly prejudicial evidence rendered the Carr brothers’
joint sentencing proceeding fundamentally unfair. It is be-
yond reason to think that the jury’s death verdicts were
caused by the identification of Reginald as the “corrupter”
or of Jonathan as the “corrupted,” the jury’s viewing of Regi-
nald’s handcuffs, or the sister’s retracted statement that
Reginald fired the final shots. None of that mattered.
What these defendants did—acts of almost inconceivable
cruelty and depravity—was described in excruciating detail
by Holly, who relived with the jury, for two days, the Wichita
Massacre. The joint sentencing proceedings did not render
the sentencing proceedings fundamentally unfair.

IV
When we granted the State’s petition for a writ of certio-
rari for the Carrs’ cases, we declined to review whether the
Confrontation Clause, U. S. Const., Amdt. 6, requires that
defendants be allowed to cross-examine witnesses whose
statements are recorded in police reports referred to by the
State in penalty-phase proceedings. The Kansas Supreme
Court did not make the admission of those statements a
basis for its vacating of the death sentences, but merely
“caution[ed]” that in the resentencing proceedings these
out-of-court testimonial statements should be omitted, 300
Kan., at 288, 331 P. 3d, at 724. We are confident that
cross-examination regarding these police reports would not
have had the slightest effect upon the sentences. See Dela-
ware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 684 (1986).

* * *
The judgments of the Supreme Court of Kansas are re-
versed, and these cases are remanded for further proceed-
ings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 127

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

Justice Sotomayor, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent because I do not believe these cases
should ever have been reviewed by the Supreme Court. I
see no reason to intervene in cases like these—and plenty
of reasons not to. Kansas has not violated any federal
constitutional right. If anything, the State has over-
protected its citizens based on its interpretation of state
and federal law. For reasons ably articulated by my prede-
cessors and colleagues and because I worry that cases like
these prevent States from serving as necessary laborato-
ries for experimenting with how best to guarantee defend-
ants a fair trial, I would dismiss the writs as improvidently
granted.
I
In 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court vacated three death
sentences—the sentences of Sidney Gleason and the Carr
brothers, Reginald and Jonathan—because of constitutional
errors in the penalty phases of their trials.
All three men were tried under jury instructions that did
not include language previously mandated by the Kansas Su-
preme Court. The instructions did not state that, under
Kansas’ statutory scheme, mitigating circumstances need
only be proved to an individual juror’s satisfaction and not
beyond a reasonable doubt. 299 Kan. 1127, 1192–1197, 329
P. 3d 1102, 1145–1148 (2014) (Sidney Gleason); 300 Kan. 1,
302–303, 331 P. 3d 544, 732–733 (2014) (Reginald Carr); 300
Kan. 340, 368–369, 329 P. 3d 1195, 1213 (2014) (Jonathan
Carr). The court found that the instructions therefore both
undermined Kansas’ state law and created a “reasonable
likelihood that the jury . . . applied the challenged instruction
in a way that prevents consideration” of mitigating evidence
as required by the Federal Constitution. 299 Kan., at 1191–
1197, 329 P. 3d, at 1144–1148 (quoting Boyde v. California,
494 U. S. 370, 380 (1990)).
The Kansas Supreme Court also vacated the Carr broth-
ers’ death sentences because they were jointly tried at the
128 KANSAS v. CARR

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

penalty phase. The court concluded that each brother’s par-

ticular case for mitigation compromised the other brother’s
case and therefore that trying them jointly violated the
Eighth Amendment right to individualized sentencing. The
error was not harmless, the Kansas Supreme Court found,
because an “especially damning subset” of the evidence pre-
sented might not have been admitted in separate penalty
proceedings. 300 Kan., at 275–282, 331 P. 3d, at 717–720; 300
Kan., at 369–370, 329 P. 3d, at 1212.
The Kansas attorney general requested certiorari, alleg-
ing that it would best serve the State’s interest for a federal
court to intervene and correct the Kansas Supreme Court.
This Court complied, even though there was no suggestion
that the Kansas Supreme Court had violated any federal con-
stitutional right. The majority now reverses the Kansas
Supreme Court on both points.

II
A
Even where a state court has wrongly decided an “impor-
tant question of federal law,” this Court’s Rule 10, we often
decline to grant certiorari, instead reserving such grants for
instances where the benefits of hearing a case outweigh the
costs of so doing. My colleagues and predecessors have ef-
fectively set forth many of the costs of granting certiorari in
cases where state courts grant relief to criminal defendants:
We risk issuing opinions that, while not strictly advisory,
may have little effect if a lower court is able to reinstate its
holding as a matter of state law. Florida v. Powell, 559
U. S. 50, 66 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting). We expend re-
sources on cases where the only concern is that a State has
“ ‘overprotected’ ” its citizens. Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S.
1032, 1068 (1983) (Stevens, J., dissenting). We intervene in
an intrastate dispute between the State’s executive and its
judiciary rather than entrusting the State’s structure of gov-
ernment to sort it out. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 129

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

722, 766–767 (1991) (Blackmun, J., dissenting). And we lose

valuable data about the best methods of protecting con-
stitutional rights—a particular concern in cases like these,
where the federal constitutional question turns on the “rea-
sonable likelihood” of jury confusion, an empirical question
best answered with evidence from many state courts. Cf.
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U. S. 1, 30–31 (1995) (Ginsburg, J.,
dissenting).
B
The cases here demonstrate yet another cost of granting
certiorari to correct a state court’s overprotection of federal
rights: In explaining that the Federal Constitution does not
protect some particular right, it is natural to buttress the
conclusion by explaining why that right is not very impor-
tant. In so doing, the Court risks discouraging States from
adopting valuable procedural protections even as a matter of
their own state law.
State experimentation with how best to guarantee a fair
trial to criminal defendants is an essential aspect of our fed-
eralism scheme. See, e. g., Linde, First Things First: Redis-
covering the States’ Bill of Rights, 9 U. Balt. L. Rev. 379,
393 (1980). The Federal Constitution guarantees only a
minimum slate of protections; States can and do provide in-
dividual rights above that constitutional floor. See, e. g.,
Brennan, The Bill of Rights and the States: the Revival of
State Constitutions as Guardians of Constitutional Rights, 61
N. Y. U. L. Rev. 535, 548–550 (1986). That role is particu-
larly important in the criminal arena because state courts
preside over many millions more criminal cases than their
federal counterparts and so are more likely to identify pro-
tections important to a fair trial. Compare Court Statistics
Project, Examining the Work of State Courts: An Analysis
of 2010 State Court Caseloads 19–21 (2012), with Dept. of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statis-
tics 2011–2012, pp. 19–20 (Jan. 2015) (Tables 11 and 12).
130 KANSAS v. CARR

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

The majority’s opinion in these cases illustrates how an

unnecessary grant of certiorari can lead to unexpected costs
by disrupting this sort of state experimentation. Take the
first question presented in these cases. The majority’s ac-
tual holding is that the Eighth Amendment does not require
an instruction specifying that mitigating factors need not be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Ante, at 119–121. The
Eighth Amendment has nothing to say about whether such
an instruction is wise as a question of state law or policy.
But the majority nonetheless uses this Court’s considerable
influence to call into question the logic of specifying any bur-
den of proof as to mitigating circumstances. The majority
claims that while assessing an aggravating factor is “a purely
factual determination,” assessing mitigation involves “a
judgment call (or perhaps a value call)” and is thus not ame-
nable to burdens of proof. Ante, at 119. Short of dividing
the mitigating factor “into its factual component and its judg-
mental component,” and issuing burden-of-proof instructions
only as to the former, the majority wonders “whether it is
even possible to apply a standard of proof to the mitigating-
factor determination.” Ibid.
By this observation, and with no experience with the
needs of juries, the majority denigrates the many States that
do specify a burden of proof for the existence of mitigating
factors as a matter of state law, presumably under the belief
that it is, in fact, “possible” to do so.* Brief for Respondent
in No. 14–452, pp. 28–29, and n. 6. Some States even recom-
mend an instruction specifying that mitigating factors need
not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e. g., Idaho

*I leave aside the merits of the majority’s questionable distinction,

though I cannot see how the jury’s conclusion that the Carr brothers
committed their crime “in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel man-
ner”—one of the aggravating circumstances found by the Carr brothers’
jury—involved any less of a judgment or value call than the mitigating
circumstances alleged. See 300 Kan. 1, 282–283, 331 P. 3d 544, 721 (2014).
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 131

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

Jury Instr., Crim., ICJI 1718, Jury Deliberations (2010);

Okla. Jury Instr., Crim, OUJI–CR 4–78 (2015).
The majority’s discussion of severance likewise short cir-
cuits state experimentation. The majority is not content to
hold that the Eighth Amendment does not, strictly speaking,
require severance of capital penalty proceedings. Instead,
it goes on to explain why joint capital sentencing proceedings
are not only permissible under the Federal Constitution but
are, in fact, preferable as a policy matter: “Better that two
defendants who have together committed the same crimes
be placed side-by-side to have their fates determined by a
single jury.” Ante, at 125. The majority even intimates
that severed proceedings may be worse for defendants: “To
forbid joinder in capital-sentencing proceedings would, per-
versely, increase the odds of ‘wanto[n] and freakis[h]’ imposi-
tion of death sentences.” Ibid. (quoting Gregg v. Georgia,
428 U. S. 153, 206–207 (1976) ( joint opinion of Stewart, Pow-
ell, and Stevens, JJ.).
So much for Ohio’s, Georgia’s, and Mississippi’s sentencing
regimes, all of which routinely allow severance at both
phases of capital proceedings. See Ga. Code Ann. § 17–8–4
(2013) (upon request, defendants must be tried separately in
capital cases); Miss. Code Ann. § 99–15–47 (2015) (same);
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2945.20 (Lexis 2014) (capital defend-
ants shall be tried separately unless good cause is shown
for a joint trial). There is no evidence that any of those
three States adopted a severance regime based on a mis-
understanding of the Eighth Amendment. But without
any empirical foundation or any basis in experience, the
majority asserts that such regimes may increase the odds
of arbitrariness.
The majority claims that we “ ‘return power to the State,
and to its people,’ ” when we explain that the Federal Consti-
tution does not require a particular result. Ante, at 118
(emphasis deleted). But that is only so when the Court is
able to pass solely on the federal constitutional ground and
132 KANSAS v. CARR

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

not the wisdom of a state holding on an equivalent question.

Though the Court pretends that it sends back cases like this
one with a clean slate, it rarely fully erases its thoughts on
the virtues of the procedural protection at issue. By placing
a thumb on the scale against a State adopting—even as a
matter of state law—procedural protections the Constitution
does not require, the Court risks turning the Federal Consti-
tution into a ceiling, rather than a floor, for the protection of
individual liberties.
III
I see no reason why these three cases out of the Kansas
Supreme Court warranted our intervention given the costs
that I have just described and those described by my prede-
cessors and colleagues, see supra, at 128–129. No federal
right has been compromised. And nobody disputes that the
State of Kansas could, as a matter of state law, reach the
same outcome.
Perhaps most importantly, both of the questions on which
the Court granted certiorari turn on specific features of Kan-
sas’ sentencing scheme. As a result, the Kansas Supreme
Court’s opinion is unlikely to have much salience for other
States. If the Kansas Supreme Court was wrong, its wrong
opinion will not subvert federal law on a broader scale.
First, the Kansas court’s decision on the jury instruction
question aimed to “both preserv[e] the [state] statute’s favor-
able distinction and protec[t] a capital defendant’s Eighth
Amendment right to individualized sentencing by ensuring
jurors are not precluded from considering all relevant miti-
gating evidence.” 299 Kan., at 1196, 329 P. 3d, at 1147 (em-
phasis added). The Kansas Supreme Court’s decision was
thus informed by a combination of federal and state consider-
ations. A decision that expressly relies on a State’s unique
statutory scheme—as did the Kansas Supreme Court’s
here—has limited potential for influencing other States.
It is not absurd to conclude that a juror unfamiliar with
the mechanics of the law might be confused by Kansas’ jury
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 133

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

instructions, which almost always mention aggravating and

mitigating instructions in the same breath. Id., at 1196–
1197, 329 P. 3d, at 1147–1148. The Kansas Supreme Court’s
opinion rested largely on the specific language and ordering
of that State’s instructions. Other States’ jury instructions
may be less likely to have the same effect.
Moreover, the decision below was made against the unique
backdrop of trial courts’ failure to implement the Kansas Su-
preme Court’s earlier demands for a change to jury instruc-
tions in capital cases. In a 2001 case, the Kansas Supreme
Court considered the jury instructions insufficiently con-
fusing to reverse the judgment, but sufficiently confusing to
demand higher clarity going forward: “[A]ny instruction
dealing with the consideration of mitigating circumstances
should state (1) they need to be proved only to the satisfac-
tion of the individual juror in the juror’s sentencing decision
and not beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) mitigating circum-
stances do not need to be found by all members of the jury
in order to be considered in an individual juror’s sentencing
decision.” State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 1078, 40 P. 3d 139,
268. The Kansas pattern instructions were then revised to
include consideration (2), but—“inexplicably,” as the court
noted in Gleason—not consideration (1). 299 Kan., at 1193,
329 P. 3d, at 1145. The Kansas Supreme Court reiterated
the two requirements for any jury instruction in 2008, see
State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 106–108, 183 P. 3d 801, 837, and
the pattern instructions were finally changed in 2011, see 299
Kan., at 1193, 329 P. 3d, at 1145. But Gleason and the Carr
brothers were tried in the 10-year delay between the Kan-
sas Supreme Court’s initial admonition and when the jury
instructions were finally edited. The Kansas Supreme
Court’s opinion in Gleason may have rested in part on a
“broader Eighth Amendment principle,” but it also rested on
some lower courts’ failure to give instructions reflecting the
Kansas Supreme Court’s “repeated recognition of the re-
quired content.” Id., at 1195, 329 P. 3d, at 1146, 1147.
134 KANSAS v. CARR

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

Given this context, the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision is

particularly unlikely to undermine other States or the Fed-
eral Constitution.
The same goes for the severance question. The Kansas
Supreme Court’s decision depended on the “especially damn-
ing subset” of the aggravating evidence presented that may
not have been admitted in a severed proceeding under Kan-
sas’ capital punishment scheme and evidentiary rules, such
as evidence that one brother was a bad influence on the
other. Ibid. But the difference between a joint penalty
phase and a severed penalty phase may be of limited signifi-
cance in States where the same evidence may be admitted in
joint and severed proceedings. Cf. Brown v. Sanders, 546
U. S. 212, 217 (2006); L. Palmer, The Death Penalty in the
United States: A Complete Guide to Federal and State Laws
137 (2d ed. 2014). It thus seems to me unlikely that the
Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion would have proven instruc-
tive in other States, even though it was couched in the lan-
guage of the Federal Constitution.

IV
There may, of course, be rare cases where certiorari is
warranted in which a state prosecutor alleges that a State’s
highest court has overprotected a criminal defendant.
These circumstances may include: Where a state court’s deci-
sion in favor of a criminal defendant implicates another con-
stitutional right, see, e. g., Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart,
427 U. S. 539, 547 (1976); where a state court indicates a hos-
tility to applying federal precedents, Florida v. Meyers, 466
U. S. 380, 383 (1984) (per curiam) (Stevens, J., dissenting); or
where a state court’s grant of relief is particularly likely
to destabilize or significantly interfere with federal policy.
None of those circumstances, and no comparable interest, is
present in these cases.
The Carr brothers committed acts of “almost inconceivable
cruelty and depravity,” and the majority is understandably
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 108 (2016) 135

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

anxious to ensure they receive their just deserts. (So anx-

ious, in fact, that it reaches out to address a question on
which we did not grant certiorari at all. Ante, at 126.) But
I do not believe that interest justifies not only “correcting”
the Kansas Supreme Court’s error but also calling into ques-
tion the procedures of other States.
The standard adage teaches that hard cases make bad law.
See Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197,
400 (1904) (Holmes, J., dissenting). I fear that these cases
suggest a corollary: Shocking cases make too much law. Be-
cause I believe the Court should not have granted certiorari
here, I respectfully dissent.
136 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

Syllabus

MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE

NATIONAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH
BENEFIT PLAN

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for

the eleventh circuit
No. 14–723. Argued November 9, 2015—Decided January 20, 2016
Employee benefits plans regulated by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) often contain subrogation clauses requir-
ing a plan participant to reimburse the plan for medical expenses if the
participant later recovers money from a third party for his injuries.
Here, petitioner Montanile was seriously injured by a drunk driver, and
his ERISA plan paid more than $120,000 for his medical expenses.
Montanile later sued the drunk driver, obtaining a $500,000 settlement.
Pursuant to the plan’s subrogation clause, respondent plan administrator
(the Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit
Plan, or Board), sought reimbursement from the settlement. Montan-
ile’s attorney refused that request and subsequently informed the Board
that the fund would be transferred from a client trust account to Mon-
tanile unless the Board objected. The Board did not respond, and Mon-
tanile received the settlement.
Six months later, the Board sued Montanile in Federal District Court
under § 502(a)(3) of ERISA, which authorizes plan fiduciaries to file suit
“to obtain . . . appropriate equitable relief . . . to enforce . . . the terms
of the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3). The Board sought an equitable
lien on any settlement funds or property in Montanile’s possession and
an order enjoining Montanile from dissipating any such funds. Montan-
ile argued that because he had already spent almost all of the settle-
ment, no identifiable fund existed against which to enforce the lien.
The District Court rejected Montanile’s argument, and the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed, holding that even if Montanile had completely dissi-
pated the fund, the plan was entitled to reimbursement from Montanile’s
general assets.
Held: When an ERISA-plan participant wholly dissipates a third-party
settlement on nontraceable items, the plan fiduciary may not bring suit
under § 502(a)(3) to attach the participant’s separate assets. Pp. 142–151.
(a) Plan fiduciaries are limited by § 502(a)(3) to filing suits “to obtain
. . . equitable relief.” Whether the relief requested “is legal or equita-
ble depends on [1] the basis for [the plaintiff ’s] claim and [2] the nature
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 136 (2016) 137

Syllabus

of the underlying remedies sought.” Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical

Services, Inc., 547 U. S. 356, 363. Pp. 142–146.
(1) This Court’s precedents establish that the basis for the Board’s
claim—the enforcement of a lien created by an agreement to convey a
particular fund to another party—is equitable. See Sereboff, 547 U. S.,
at 363–364. The Court’s precedents also establish that the nature of
the Board’s underlying remedy—enforcement of a lien against “ ‘specifi-
cally identifiable’ funds that were within [Montanile’s] possession and
control,” id., at 362–363—would also have been equitable had the Board
immediately sued to enforce the lien against the fund. But those propo-
sitions do not resolve the question here: whether a plan is still seeking
an equitable remedy when the defendant has dissipated all of a separate
settlement fund, and the plan then seeks to recover out of the defend-
ant’s general assets. Pp. 142–144.
(2) This Court holds today that a plan is not seeking equitable relief
under those circumstances. In premerger equity courts, a plaintiff
could ordinarily enforce an equitable lien, including, as here, an equita-
ble lien by agreement, only against specifically identified funds that re-
mained in the defendant’s possession or against traceable items that the
defendant purchased with the funds. See 4 S. Symons, Pomeroy’s Eq-
uity Jurisprudence § 1234, pp. 693–695. If a defendant dissipated the
entire fund on nontraceable items, the lien was eliminated and the plain-
tiff could not attach the defendant’s general assets instead. See Re-
statement of Restitution § 215(1), p. 866. Pp. 144–146.
(b) The Board’s arguments in favor of the enforcement of an equitable
lien against Montanile’s general assets are unsuccessful. Sereboff does
not contain an exception to the general asset-tracing requirement for
equitable liens by agreement. See 547 U. S., at 365. Nor does histori-
cal equity practice support the enforcement of an equitable lien against
general assets. And the Board’s claim that ERISA’s objectives are best
served by allowing plans to enforce such liens is a “vague notio[n] of
[the] statute’s ‘basic purpose’ . . . inadequate to overcome the words of
its text regarding the specific issue under consideration.” Mertens v.
Hewitt Associates, 508 U. S. 248, 261. Pp. 146–151.
(c) The case is remanded for the District Court to determine, in the
first instance, whether Montanile kept his settlement fund separate from
his general assets and whether he dissipated the entire fund on non-
traceable assets. P. 151.
593 Fed. Appx. 903, reversed and remanded.

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J.,
and Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and
138 MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NAT. ELE-
VATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN
Opinion of the Court

in which Alito, J., joined except for Part III–C. Ginsburg, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, post, p. 151.

Peter K. Stris argued the cause for petitioner. With him

on the briefs were Brendan S. Maher and Shaun P. Martin.
Ginger D. Anders, Assistant to the Solicitor General, ar-
gued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urg-
ing reversal. With her on the brief were Solicitor General
Verrilli, Deputy Solicitor Kneedler, M. Patricia Smith, and
Elizabeth Hopkins.
Neal Kumar Katyal argued the cause for respondent.
With him on the brief were Jessica L. Ellsworth, Mary
Helen Wimberly, Sean Marotta, and John D. Kolb.*

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.†

When a third party injures a participant in an employee
benefits plan under the Employee Retirement Income Secu-
rity Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29
U. S. C. § 1001 et seq., the plan frequently pays covered medi-
cal expenses. The terms of these plans often include a sub-
rogation clause requiring a participant to reimburse the plan
if the participant later recovers money from the third party
for his injuries. And under ERISA § 502(a)(3), 29 U. S. C.
§ 1132(a)(3), plan fiduciaries can file civil suits “to obtain . . .
appropriate equitable relief . . . to enforce . . . the terms of
the plan.” 1

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for AARP by Mary
Ellen Signorille; for the American Association for Justice by Jeffrey R.
White and Lisa Blue; and for United Policyholders by Mark D. DeBofsky,
Martina B. Sherman, and Tybe A. Brett.
†Justice Alito joins this opinion, except for Part III–C.
1
In full, the provision states: “A civil action may be brought— . . . (3) by
a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act or practice
which violates any provision of this subchapter or the terms of the plan,
or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such viola-
tions or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of
the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3).
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 136 (2016) 139

Opinion of the Court

In this case, we consider what happens when a participant

obtains a settlement fund from a third party, but spends the
whole settlement on nontraceable items (for instance, on
services or consumable items like food). We evaluate in par-
ticular whether a plan fiduciary can sue under § 502(a)(3) to
recover from the participant’s remaining assets the medical
expenses it paid on the participant’s behalf. We hold that,
when a participant dissipates the whole settlement on non-
traceable items, the fiduciary cannot bring a suit to attach
the participant’s general assets under § 502(a)(3) because the
suit is not one for “appropriate equitable relief.” In this
case, it is unclear whether the participant dissipated all of
his settlement in this manner, so we remand for further
proceedings.
I
Petitioner Robert Montanile was a participant in a health
benefits plan governed by ERISA and administered by re-
spondent, the Board of Trustees of the National Elevator
Industry Health Benefit Plan (Board of Trustees or Board).
The plan must pay for certain medical expenses that benefi-
ciaries or participants incur. The plan may demand reim-
bursement, however, when a participant recovers money
from a third party for medical expenses. The plan states:
“Amounts that have been recovered by a [participant] from
another party are assets of the Plan . . . and are not distribut-
able to any person or entity without the Plan’s written re-
lease of its subrogation interest.” App. 45. The plan also
provides that “any amounts” that a participant “recover[s]
from another party by award, judgment, settlement or other-
wise . . . will promptly be applied first to reimburse the Plan
in full for benefits advanced by the Plan . . . and without
reduction for attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses or damages
claimed by the covered person.” Id., at 46. Participants
must notify the plan and obtain its consent before settling
claims.
140 MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NAT. ELE-
VATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN
Opinion of the Court

In December 2008, a drunk driver ran through a stop sign

and crashed into Montanile’s vehicle. The accident severely
injured Montanile, and the plan paid at least $121,044.02 for
his initial medical care. Montanile signed a reimburse-
ment agreement reaffirming his obligation to reimburse the
plan from any recovery he obtained “as a result of any legal
action or settlement or otherwise.” Id., at 51 (emphasis
deleted).
Thereafter, Montanile filed a negligence claim against the
drunk driver and made a claim for uninsured motorist bene-
fits under Montanile’s car insurance. He obtained a $500,000
settlement. Montanile then paid his attorneys $200,000 and
repaid about $60,000 that they had advanced him. Thus,
about $240,000 remained of the settlement. Montanile’s at-
torneys held most of that sum in a client trust account. This
included enough money to satisfy Montanile’s obligations to
the plan.
The Board of Trustees sought reimbursement from Mon-
tanile on behalf of the plan, and Montanile’s attorney argued
that the plan was not entitled to any recovery. The parties
attempted but failed to reach an agreement about reimburse-
ment. After discussions broke down, Montanile’s attorney
informed the Board that he would distribute the remaining
settlement funds to Montanile unless the Board objected
within 14 days. The Board did not respond within that
time, so Montanile’s attorney gave Montanile the remainder
of the funds.
Six months after negotiations ended, the Board sued Mon-
tanile in District Court under ERISA § 502(a)(3), 29 U. S. C.
§ 1132(a)(3), seeking repayment of the $121,044.02 the plan
had expended on his medical care. The Board asked the
court to enforce an equitable lien upon any settlement funds
or any property which is “ ‘in [Montanile’s] actual or con-
structive possession.’ ” 593 Fed. Appx. 903, 906 (CA11 2014)
(quoting complaint). Because Montanile had already taken
possession of the settlement funds, the Board also sought an
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 136 (2016) 141

Opinion of the Court

order enjoining Montanile from dissipating any such funds.

Montanile then stipulated that he still possessed some of the
settlement proceeds.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the
Board. No. 12–80746–Civ. (SD Fla., Apr. 18, 2014), 2014 WL
8514011, *1. The court rejected Montanile’s argument that,
because he had by that time spent almost all of the settle-
ment funds, there was no specific, identifiable fund separate
from his general assets against which the Board’s equitable
lien could be enforced. Id., at *8–*11. The court held that,
even if Montanile had dissipated some or all of the settlement
funds, the Board was entitled to reimbursement from Mon-
tanile’s general assets. Id., at *10–*11. The court entered
judgment for the Board in the amount of $121,044.02.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
It reasoned that a plan can always enforce an equitable lien
once the lien attaches, and that dissipation of the specific
fund to which the lien attached cannot destroy the underly-
ing reimbursement obligation. The court therefore held
that the plan can recover out of a participant’s general assets
when the participant dissipates the specifically identified
fund. 593 Fed. Appx., at 908.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the
Courts of Appeals over whether an ERISA fiduciary can en-
force an equitable lien against a defendant’s general assets
under these circumstances.2 575 U. S. 934 (2015). We hold
that it cannot, and accordingly reverse the judgment of the
Eleventh Circuit and remand for further proceedings.

2
Compare Thurber v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 712 F. 3d 654 (CA2 2013),
Funk v. CIGNA Group Ins., 648 F. 3d 182 (CA3 2011), Cusson v. Liberty
Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 592 F. 3d 215 (CA1 2010), Longaberger Co.
v. Kolt, 586 F. 3d 459 (CA6 2009), and Gutta v. Standard Select Trust
Ins. Plans, 530 F. 3d 614 (CA7 2008), with Treasurer, Trustees of Drury
Industries, Inc. Health Care Plan & Trust v. Goding, 692 F. 3d 888 (CA8
2012), and Bilyeu v. Morgan Stanley Long Term Disability Plan, 683
F. 3d 1083 (CA9 2012).
142 MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NAT. ELE-
VATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN
Opinion of the Court

II
A
As previously stated, § 502(a)(3) of ERISA authorizes plan
fiduciaries like the Board of Trustees to bring civil suits “to
obtain other appropriate equitable relief . . . to enforce . . .
the terms of the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3). Our cases
explain that the term “equitable relief ” in § 502(a)(3) is lim-
ited to “those categories of relief that were typically avail-
able in equity” during the days of the divided bench (mean-
ing, the period before 1938 when courts of law and equity
were separate). Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U. S.
248, 256 (1993). Under this Court’s precedents, whether the
remedy a plaintiff seeks “is legal or equitable depends on
[(1)] the basis for [the plaintiff ’s] claim and [(2)] the nature of
the underlying remedies sought.” Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic
Medical Services, Inc., 547 U. S. 356, 363 (2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Our precedents also prescribe a
framework for resolving this inquiry. To determine how to
characterize the basis of a plaintiff ’s claim and the nature of
the remedies sought, we turn to standard treatises on equity,
which establish the “basic contours” of what equitable relief
was typically available in premerger equity courts. Great-
West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U. S. 204,
217 (2002).
We have employed this approach in three earlier cases
where, as here, the plan fiduciary sought reimbursement for
medical expenses after the plan beneficiary or participant
recovered money from a third party. Under these prec-
edents, the basis for the Board’s claim is equitable. But
our cases do not resolve whether the remedy the Board
now seeks—enforcement of an equitable lien by agree-
ment against the defendant’s general assets—is equitable
in nature.
First, in Great-West, we held that a plan with a claim for
an equitable lien was—in the circumstances presented—
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 136 (2016) 143

Opinion of the Court

seeking a legal rather than an equitable remedy. In that

case, a plan sought to enforce an equitable lien by obtaining
a money judgment from the defendants. The plan could not
enforce the lien against the third-party settlement that the
defendants had obtained because the defendants never actu-
ally possessed that fund; the fund went directly to the de-
fendants’ attorneys and to a restricted trust. We held that
the plan sought a legal remedy, not an equitable one, even
though the plan claimed that the money judgment was a
form of restitution. Id., at 208–209, 213–214. We explained
that restitution in equity typically involved enforcement of
“a constructive trust or an equitable lien, where money or
property identified as belonging in good conscience to the
plaintiff could clearly be traced to particular funds or prop-
erty in the defendant’s possession.” Id., at 213. But the
restitution sought in Great-West was legal—not equitable—
because the specific funds to which the fiduciaries “claim[ed]
an entitlement . . . [we]re not in [the defendants’] possession.”
Id., at 214. Since both the basis for the claim and the partic-
ular remedy sought were not equitable, the plan could not
sue under § 502(a)(3).
Next, in Sereboff, we held that both the basis for the claim
and the remedy sought were equitable. The plan there
sought reimbursement from beneficiaries who had retained
their settlement fund in a separate account. 547 U. S., at
359–360. We held that the basis for the plan’s claim was
equitable because the plan sought to enforce an equitable
lien by agreement, a type of equitable lien created by an
agreement to convey a particular fund to another party.
See id., at 363–364. The lien existed in Sereboff because
of the beneficiaries’ agreement with the plan to convey the
proceeds of any third-party settlement. We explained that
a claim to enforce such a lien is equitable because the plan
“could rely on a familiar rul[e] of equity” to collect—specifi-
cally, the rule “that a contract to convey a specific object
even before it is acquired will make the contractor a trustee
144 MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NAT. ELE-
VATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN
Opinion of the Court

as soon as he gets a title to the thing.” Ibid. (internal quo-

tation marks omitted; alteration in original). The underly-
ing remedies that the plan sought also were equitable, be-
cause the plan “sought specifically identifiable funds that
were within the possession and control” of the beneficiar-
ies—not recovery from the beneficiaries’ “assets generally.”
Id., at 362–363 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Finally, in US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 569 U. S. 88
(2013), we reaffirmed our analysis in Sereboff and again con-
cluded that a plan sought to enforce an equitable claim by
seeking equitable remedies. As in Sereboff, “the basis for
[the plan’s] claim was equitable” because the plan’s terms cre-
ated an equitable lien by agreement on a third-party settle-
ment. See 569 U. S., at 95 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted). And, as in Sereboff, “[t]he nature of the recovery
requested” by the plan “was equitable because [it] claimed
specifically identifiable funds within the [beneficiaries’] con-
trol—that is, a portion of the settlement they had gotten.”
569 U. S., at 95 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Under these principles, the basis for the Board’s claim here
is equitable: The Board had an equitable lien by agreement
that attached to Montanile’s settlement fund when he ob-
tained title to that fund. And the nature of the Board’s un-
derlying remedy would have been equitable had it immedi-
ately sued to enforce the lien against the settlement fund
then in Montanile’s possession. That does not resolve this
case, however. Our prior cases do not address whether a
plan is still seeking an equitable remedy when the defendant,
who once possessed the settlement fund, has dissipated it all,
and the plan then seeks to recover out of the defendant’s
general assets.
B
To resolve this issue, we turn to standard equity treatises.
As we explain below, those treatises make clear that a plain-
tiff could ordinarily enforce an equitable lien only against
specifically identified funds that remain in the defendant’s
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 136 (2016) 145

Opinion of the Court

possession or against traceable items that the defendant pur-

chased with the funds (e. g., identifiable property like a car).
A defendant’s expenditure of the entire identifiable fund on
nontraceable items (like food or travel) destroys an equitable
lien. The plaintiff then may have a personal claim against
the defendant’s general assets—but recovering out of those
assets is a legal remedy, not an equitable one.
Equitable remedies “are, as a general rule, directed
against some specific thing; they give or enforce a right to
or over some particular thing . . . rather than a right to
recover a sum of money generally out of the defendant’s
assets.” 4 S. Symons, Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence
§ 1234, p. 694 (5th ed. 1941) (Pomeroy). Equitable liens thus
are ordinarily enforceable only against a specifically identi-
fied fund because an equitable lien “is simply a right of a
special nature over the thing . . . so that the very thing itself
may be proceeded against in an equitable action.” Id.,
§ 1233, at 692; see also Restatement of Restitution § 215,
Comment a, p. 866 (1936) (Restatement) (enforcement of eq-
uitable lien requires showing that the defendant “still holds
the property or property which is in whole or in part its
product”); 1 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 1.4, p. 19 (2d ed.
1993) (Dobbs) (similar). This general rule’s application to
equitable liens includes equitable liens by agreement, which
depend on “the notion . . . that the contract creates some
right or interest in or over specific property,” and are en-
forceable only if “the decree of the court can lay hold of ”
that specific property. 4 Pomeroy § 1234, at 694–695.
If, instead of preserving the specific fund subject to the
lien, the defendant dissipated the entire fund on nontraceable
items, that complete dissipation eliminated the lien. Even
though the defendant’s conduct was wrongful, the plaintiff
could not attach the defendant’s general assets instead. Ab-
sent specific exceptions not relevant here, “where a person
wrongfully dispose[d] of the property of another but the
property cannot be traced into any product, the other . . .
146 MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NAT. ELE-
VATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN
Opinion of the Court

cannot enforce a constructive trust or lien upon any part

of the wrongdoer’s property.” Restatement § 215(1), at 866
(emphasis added); see also Great-West, 534 U. S., at 213–214
(citing Restatement § 160). The plaintiff had “merely a per-
sonal claim against the wrongdoer”—a quintessential action
at law. Id., § 215(1), at 866.
In sum, at equity, a plaintiff ordinarily could not enforce
any type of equitable lien if the defendant once possessed a
separate, identifiable fund to which the lien attached, but
then dissipated it all. The plaintiff could not attach the de-
fendant’s general assets instead because those assets were
not part of the specific thing to which the lien attached.
This rule applied to equitable liens by agreement as well as
other types of equitable liens.

III
The Board of Trustees nonetheless maintains that it can
enforce its equitable lien against Montanile’s general assets.
We consider the Board’s arguments in turn.

A
First, the Board argues that, while equity courts ordi-
narily required plaintiffs to trace a specific, identifiable fund
in the defendant’s possession to which the lien attached,
there is an exception for equitable liens by agreement. The
Board asserts that equitable liens by agreement require no
such tracing, and can be enforced against a defendant’s gen-
eral assets. According to the Board, we recognized this
exception in Sereboff by distinguishing between equitable
restitution (where a lien attaches because the defendant
misappropriated property from the plaintiff) and equitable
liens by agreement.
The Board misreads Sereboff, which left untouched the
rule that all types of equitable liens must be enforced
against a specifically identified fund in the defendant’s pos-
session. See 1 Dobbs § 4.3(3), at 601, 603. The question we
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 136 (2016) 147

Opinion of the Court

faced in Sereboff was whether plaintiffs seeking an equitable

lien by agreement must “identify an asset they originally
possessed, which was improperly acquired and converted
into property the defendant held.” 547 U. S., at 365. We
observed that such a requirement, although characteristic of
restitutionary relief, does not “appl[y] to equitable liens by
agreement or assignment.” Ibid. (discussing Barnes v. Al-
exander, 232 U. S. 117 (1914)). That is because the basic
premise of an equitable lien by agreement is that, rather
than physically taking the plaintiff’s property, the defendant
constructively possesses a fund to which the plaintiff is enti-
tled. But the plaintiff must still identify a specific fund in
the defendant’s possession to enforce the lien. See id., at
123 (“Having a lien upon the fund, as soon as it was identified
they could follow it into the hands of the appellant”).

B
Second, the Board contends that historical equity practice
supports enforcement of its equitable lien against Monta-
nile’s general assets. The Board identifies three methods
that equity courts purportedly employed to effectuate this
principle: substitute money decrees, deficiency judgments,
and the swollen assets doctrine. This argument also fails.
We have long rejected the argument that “equitable re-
lief ” under § 502(a)(3) means “whatever relief a court of eq-
uity is empowered to provide in the particular case at issue,”
including ancillary legal remedies. Mertens, 508 U. S., at
256. In “many situations . . . an equity court could establish
purely legal rights and grant legal remedies which would
otherwise be beyond the scope of its authority.” Ibid. (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted). But these legal remedies
were not relief “typically available in equity,” and interpret-
ing them as such would eliminate any limit on the meaning
of “equitable relief ” and would “render the modifier super-
fluous.” Id., at 256, 258 (emphasis deleted); see also Great-
West, supra, at 210. As we have explained—and as the
148 MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NAT. ELE-
VATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN
Opinion of the Court

Board conceded at oral argument—as a general rule, plain-

tiffs cannot enforce an equitable lien against a defendant’s
general assets. See Part II–B, supra. The Board contends
that there is an exception if the defendant wrongfully dissi-
pates the equitable lien to thwart its enforcement. But
none of the Board’s examples show that such relief was “typi-
cally available” in equity.3
The specific methods by which equity courts might have
awarded relief from a defendant’s general assets only confirm
that the Board seeks legal, not equitable, remedies. While
equity courts sometimes awarded money decrees as a substi-
tute for the value of the equitable lien, they were still legal
remedies, because they were “wholly pecuniary and per-
sonal.” 4 Pomeroy § 1234, at 694. The same is true with
respect to deficiency judgments. Equity courts could award
both of these remedies as part of their ancillary jurisdiction
to award complete relief. But the treatises make clear that
when equity courts did so, “the rights of the parties are
strictly legal, and the final remedy granted is of the kind
which might be conferred by a court of law.” 1 id., § 231,
at 410; see also 1 Dobbs § 2.7, at 180–181, and § 4.3(3), at
602 (similar); New Federal Equity Rules 10 (rev. 5th ed.
1925) (authorizing equity courts to award such relief). But

3
The Board also interprets CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U. S. 421 (2011),
as all but overruling Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U. S. 248 (1993),
and Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U. S. 204 (2002),
in favor of the Board’s broad interpretation of “equitable relief ” under
§ 502(a)(3). But CIGNA reaffirmed that “traditionally speaking, relief
that sought a lien or a constructive trust was legal relief, not equitable
relief, unless the funds in question were ‘particular funds or property in
the defendant’s possession.’ ” 563 U. S., at 439 (quoting Great-West,
supra, at 213; emphasis deleted). In any event, the Court’s discussion of
§ 502(a)(3) in CIGNA was not essential to resolving that case, and—as
our later analysis in US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 569 U. S. 88 (2013),
reinforces—our interpretation of “equitable relief ” in Mertens, Great-
West, and Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 547 U. S. 356
(2006), remains unchanged. See McCutchen, supra, at 94–95.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 136 (2016) 149

Opinion of the Court

legal remedies—even legal remedies that a court of equity

could sometimes award—are not “equitable relief ” under
§ 502(a)(3). See Mertens, supra, at 256–258.
The swollen assets doctrine also does not establish that
the relief the Board seeks is equitable. Under the Board’s
view of this doctrine, even if a defendant spends all of a
specifically identified fund, the mere fact that the defendant
wrongfully had assets that belonged to another increased the
defendant’s available assets, and justifies recovery from his
general assets. But most equity courts and treatises re-
jected that theory. See Taft, Note, A Defense of a Limited
Use of the Swollen Assets Theory Where Money Has Wrong-
fully Been Mingled With Other Money, 39 Colum. L. Rev.
172, 175 (1939) (describing the swollen assets doctrine as
“often . . . rejected by the courts”); see also Oesterle, Defi-
ciencies of the Restitutionary Right To Trace Misappropri-
ated Property in Equity and in UCC § 9–306, 68 Cornell
L. Rev. 172, 189, and n. 33 (1983) (similar). To the extent
that courts endorsed any version of the swollen assets the-
ory, they adopted a more limited rule: that commingling a
specifically identified fund—to which a lien attached—with a
different fund of the defendant’s did not destroy the lien.
Instead, that commingling allowed the plaintiff to recover
the amount of the lien from the entire pot of money. See
Restatement § 209, at 844; Scott, The Right To Follow Money
Wrongfully Mingled With Other Money, 27 Harv. L. Rev. 125,
125–126 (1913). Thus, even under the version of the swollen
assets doctrine adopted by some courts, recovery out of Mon-
tanile’s general assets—in the absence of commingling—
would not have been “typically available” relief.

C
Finally, the Board argues that ERISA’s objectives—of en-
forcing plan documents according to their terms and of pro-
tecting plan assets—would be best served by allowing plans
to enforce equitable liens against a participant’s general
150 MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NAT. ELE-
VATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN
Opinion of the Court

assets. The Board also contends that, unless plans can en-
force reimbursement provisions against a defendant’s gen-
eral assets, plans will lack effective or cost-efficient reme-
dies, and participants will dissipate any settlement as quickly
as possible, before fiduciaries can sue.
We have rejected these arguments before, and do so again.
“[ V ]ague notions of a statute’s ‘basic purpose’ are . . . inade-
quate to overcome the words of its text regarding the spe-
cific issue under consideration.” Mertens, 508 U. S., at 261.
Had Congress sought to prioritize the Board’s policy argu-
ments, it could have drafted § 502(a)(3) to mirror ERISA pro-
visions governing civil actions. One of those provisions, for
instance, allows participants and beneficiaries to bring civil
actions “to enforce [their] rights under the terms of the plan”
and does not limit them to equitable relief. Great-West, 534
U. S., at 221 (quoting 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (1994 ed.)).
In any event, our interpretation of § 502(a)(3) promotes
ERISA’s purposes by “allocat[ing] liability for plan-related
misdeeds in reasonable proportion to respective actors’
power to control and prevent the misdeeds.” Mertens,
supra, at 262. More than a decade has passed since we de-
cided Great-West, and plans have developed safeguards
against participants’ and beneficiaries’ efforts to evade reim-
bursement obligations. Plans that cover medical expenses
know how much medical care that participants and benefici-
aries require, and have the incentive to investigate and track
expensive claims. Plan provisions—like the ones here—
obligate participants and beneficiaries to notify the plan of
legal process against third parties and to give the plan a
right of subrogation.
The Board protests that tracking and participating in legal
proceedings is hard and costly, and that settlements are often
shrouded in secrecy. The facts of this case undercut that
argument. The Board had sufficient notice of Montanile’s
settlement to have taken various steps to preserve those
funds. Most notably, when negotiations broke down and
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 136 (2016) 151

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

Montanile’s lawyer expressed his intent to disburse the

remaining settlement funds to Montanile unless the plan
objected within 14 days, the Board could have—but did
not—object. Moreover, the Board could have filed suit im-
mediately, rather than waiting half a year.

IV
Because the lower courts erroneously held that the plan
could recover out of Montanile’s general assets, they did not
determine whether Montanile kept his settlement fund sepa-
rate from his general assets or dissipated the entire fund on
nontraceable assets. At oral argument, Montanile’s counsel
acknowledged “a genuine issue of . . . material fact on how
much dissipation there was” and a lack of record evidence as
to whether Montanile mixed the settlement fund with his
general assets. Tr. of Oral Arg. 4. A remand is necessary
so that the District Court can make that determination.

* * *
We reverse the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit and re-
mand the case for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Ginsburg, dissenting.
Montanile received a $500,000 settlement out of which he
had pledged to reimburse his health benefit plan for expendi-
tures on his behalf of at least $121,044.02. See ante, at 140.
He can escape that reimbursement obligation, the Court de-
cides, by spending the settlement funds rapidly on nontrace-
able items. See ante, at 145–146. What brings the Court
to that bizarre conclusion? As developed in my dissenting
opinion in Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson,
534 U. S. 204, 224–234 (2002), the Court erred profoundly in
that case by reading the work product of a Congress sitting
in 1974 as “unravel[ling] forty years of fusion of law and
152 MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NAT. ELE-
VATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN
Ginsburg, J., dissenting

equity, solely by employing the benign sounding word ‘equi-

table’ when authorizing ‘appropriate equitable relief.’ ”
Langbein, What ERISA Means by “Equitable”: The Su-
preme Court’s Trail of Error in Russell, Mertens, and Great-
West, 103 Colum. L. Rev. 1317, 1365 (2003). The Court has
been persuasively counseled “to confess its error.” Ibid. I
would not perpetuate Great-West’s mistake, and would there-
fore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.
 OCTOBER TERM, 2015 153

Syllabus

CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for

the ninth circuit
No. 14–857. Argued October 14, 2015—Decided January 20, 2016
The United States Navy contracted with petitioner Campbell-Ewald Com-
pany (Campbell) to develop a multimedia recruiting campaign that in-
cluded the sending of text messages to young adults, but only if those
individuals had “opted in” to receipt of marketing solicitations on topics
that included Navy service. Campbell’s subcontractor Mindmatics
LLC generated a list of cellular phone numbers for consenting 18- to
24-year-old users and then transmitted the Navy’s message to over
100,000 recipients, including respondent Jose Gomez, who alleges that
he did not consent to receive text messages and, at age 40, was not in
the Navy’s targeted age group. Gomez filed a nationwide class action,
alleging that Campbell violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), 47 U. S. C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), which prohibits “using any
automatic dialing system” to send a text message to a cellular tele-
phone, absent the recipient’s prior express consent. He sought tre-
ble statutory damages for a willful and knowing TCPA violation and
an injunction against Campbell’s involvement in unsolicited
messaging.
Before the deadline for Gomez to file a motion for class certification,
Campbell proposed to settle Gomez’s individual claim and filed an offer
of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Gomez
did not accept the offer and allowed the Rule 68 submission to lapse on
expiration of the time (14 days) specified in the Rule. Campbell then
moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction. Campbell argued first that its offer mooted Go-
mez’s individual claim by providing him with complete relief. Next,
Campbell urged that Gomez’s failure to move for class certification be-
fore his individual claim became moot caused the putative class claims
to become moot as well. The District Court denied the motion. After
limited discovery, the District Court granted Campbell’s motion for
summary judgment. Relying on Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Constr. Co.,
309 U. S. 18, the court held that Campbell, as a contractor acting on
the Navy’s behalf, acquired the Navy’s sovereign immunity from suit
under the TCPA. The Ninth Circuit reversed. It agreed that Gomez’s
case remained live but concluded that Campbell was not entitled
154 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Syllabus

to “derivative sovereign immunity” under Yearsley or on any other

basis.
Held:
1. An unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot
a plaintiff ’s case, so the District Court retained jurisdiction to adjudi-
cate Gomez’s complaint.
Article III’s “cases” and “controversies” limitation requires that “an
actual controversy . . . be extant at all stages of review, not merely at
the time the complaint is filed,” Arizonans for Official English v. Ari-
zona, 520 U. S. 43, 67 (internal quotation marks omitted), but a case
does not become moot as “long as the parties have a concrete interest,
however small,” in the litigation’s outcome, Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S.
165, 172 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Gomez’s complaint was not effaced by Campbell’s unaccepted offer
to satisfy his individual claim. Under basic principles of contract law,
Campbell’s settlement bid and Rule 68 offer of judgment, once rejected,
had no continuing efficacy. With no settlement offer operative, the par-
ties remained adverse; both retained the same stake in the litigation
they had at the outset. Neither Rule 68 nor the 19th-century railroad
tax cases, California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U. S. 308, Little
v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, and San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific
R. Co., 116 U. S. 138, support the argument that an unaccepted settle-
ment offer can moot a complaint. Pp. 160–166.
2. Campbell’s status as a federal contractor does not entitle it to im-
munity from suit for its violation of the TCPA. Unlike the United
States and its agencies, federal contractors do not enjoy absolute immu-
nity. A federal contractor who simply performs as directed by the Gov-
ernment may be shielded from liability for injuries caused by its con-
duct. See Yearsley, 309 U. S., at 20–21. But no “derivative immunity”
exists when the contractor has “exceeded [its] authority” or its authority
“was not validly conferred.” Id., at 21. The summary judgment rec-
ord includes evidence that the Navy authorized Campbell to send text
messages only to individuals who had “opted in” to receive solicitations,
as required by the TCPA. When a contractor violates both federal law
and the Government’s explicit instructions, as alleged here, no immunity
shields the contractor from suit. Pp. 166–169.
768 F. 3d 871, affirmed and remanded.

Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy,

Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opin-
ion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 169. Roberts, C. J., filed a dis-
senting opinion, in which Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined, post, p. 175.
Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 184.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 155

Counsel

Gregory G. Garre argued the cause for petitioner. With

him on the briefs were Melissa Arbus Sherry, Michael E.
Bern, Nicole Ries Fox, Laura A. Wytsma, and Meredith J.
Siller.
Jonathan F. Mitchell argued the cause for respondent.
With him on the brief were Scott L. Nelson, Myles McGuire,
Evan M. Meyers, and Michael J. McMorrow.
Anthony A. Yang argued the cause for the United States
as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief
were Solicitor General Verrilli, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General Mizer, Deputy Solicitor General Stewart,
and Mark B. Stern.*

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Chamber of
Commerce of the United States of America et al. by Theodore J. Boutrous,
Jr., Kathryn Comerford Todd, and Warren Postman; for the Consumer
Data Industry Association by Robert A. Long, Jr., and David M. Zionts;
for DRI–The Voice of the Defense Bar et al. by Lawrence S. Ebner, Jessica
Abrahams, Tami Lyn Azorsky, Robin S. Conrad, and John Parker
Sweeney; for KBR, Inc., by Paul D. Clement and Jeffrey M. Harris; for
Lawyers for Civil Justice by Alexander R. Dahl; for the Legal Aid Society
of the District of Columbia et al. by Michael R. Smith, David A. Reiser,
Chinh Q. Le, and Jonathan H. Levy; for the National Black Chamber of
Commerce by Andrew M. Grossman, Deborah H. Renner, and John B.
Lewis; for the National Defense Industrial Association by Raymond B.
Biagini, Robert S. Nichols, Herbert L. Fenster, and Kurt J. Hamrock;
for Trans Union LLC by James C. Martin, Colin E. Wrabley, and
Michael O’Neil; and for the Washington Legal Foundation by Richard
A. Samp.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Lynn K.
Rhinehart, Harold C. Becker, James B. Coppess, and Matthew J. Gins-
burg; for the Constitutional Accountability Center by Douglas T. Kendall,
Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brianne J. Gorod, and David H. Gans; for the Na-
tional Employment Lawyers Association et al. by Adam W. Hansen and
Catherine K. Ruckelshaus; for the National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation, Inc., by W. James Young, Milton L. Chappell, and William
H. DuRoss III; for NECA–IBEW Welfare Trust Fund by Darren J. Rob-
bins and Eric Alan Isaacson; and for Public Justice, P. C., et al. by Jason
L. Lichtman, Jonathan D. Selbin, Leslie A. Brueckner, and Julie Nepveu.
156 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Opinion of the Court

Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.

Is an unaccepted offer to satisfy the named plaintiff’s indi-
vidual claim sufficient to render a case moot when the com-
plaint seeks relief on behalf of the plaintiff and a class of
persons similarly situated? This question, on which Courts
of Appeals have divided, was reserved in Genesis Health-
Care Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U. S. 66, 72, 73, n. 4 (2013). We
hold today, in accord with Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, that an unaccepted settlement offer has no
force. Like other unaccepted contract offers, it creates no
lasting right or obligation. With the offer off the table, and
the defendant’s continuing denial of liability, adversity be-
tween the parties persists.
This case presents a second question. The claim in suit
concerns performance of the petitioner’s contract with the
Federal Government. Does the sovereign’s immunity from
suit shield the petitioner, a private enterprise, as well? We
hold that the petitioner’s status as a Government contractor
does not entitle it to “derivative sovereign immunity,” i. e.,
the blanket immunity enjoyed by the sovereign.

I
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA or Act),
48 Stat. 1064, 47 U. S. C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), prohibits any per-
son, absent the prior express consent of a telephone-call re-
cipient, from “mak[ing] any call . . . using any automatic tele-
phone dialing system . . . to any telephone number assigned
to a paging service [or] cellular telephone service.” A text
message to a cellular telephone, it is undisputed, qualifies as
a “call” within the compass of § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 768 F. 3d
871, 874 (CA9 2014). For damages occasioned by conduct
violating the TCPA, § 227(b)(3) authorizes a private right of
action. A plaintiff successful in such an action may recover
her “actual monetary loss” or $500 for each violation, “which-
ever is greater.” Damages may be trebled if “the defendant
willfully or knowingly violated” the Act.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 157

Opinion of the Court

Petitioner Campbell-Ewald Company (Campbell) is a na-

tionwide advertising and marketing communications agency.
Beginning in 2000, the United States Navy engaged Camp-
bell to develop and execute a multimedia recruiting cam-
paign. In 2005 and 2006, Campbell proposed to the Navy a
campaign involving text messages sent to young adults, the
Navy’s target audience, encouraging them to learn more
about the Navy. The Navy approved Campbell’s proposal,
conditioned on sending the messages only to individuals who
had “opted in” to receipt of marketing solicitations on topics
that included service in the Navy. App. 42. In final form,
the message read:
“Destined for something big? Do it in the Navy. Get a
career. An education. And a chance to serve a greater
cause. For a FREE Navy video call [phone number].”
768 F. 3d, at 873.

Campbell then contracted with Mindmatics LLC, which gen-

erated a list of cellular phone numbers geared to the Navy’s
target audience—namely, cellular phone users between the
ages of 18 and 24 who had consented to receiving solicitations
by text message. In May 2006, Mindmatics transmitted the
Navy’s message to over 100,000 recipients.
Respondent Jose Gomez was a recipient of the Navy’s re-
cruiting message. Alleging that he had never consented to
receiving the message, that his age was nearly 40, and that
Campbell had violated the TCPA by sending the message
(and perhaps others like it), Gomez filed a class-action com-
plaint in the District Court for the Central District of Cali-
fornia in 2010. On behalf of a nationwide class of individuals
who had received, but had not consented to receipt of, the
text message, Gomez sought treble statutory damages, costs,
and attorney’s fees, also an injunction against Campbell’s
involvement in unsolicited messaging. App. 16–24.
Prior to the agreed-upon deadline for Gomez to file a mo-
tion for class certification, Campbell proposed to settle Go-
158 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Opinion of the Court

mez’s individual claim and filed an offer of judgment pursu-

ant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. App. to Pet. for
Cert. 52a–61a.1 Campbell offered to pay Gomez his costs,
excluding attorney’s fees, and $1,503 per message for the
May 2006 text message and any other text message Gomez
could show he had received, thereby satisfying his personal
treble-damages claim. Id., at 53a. Campbell also proposed
a stipulated injunction in which it agreed to be barred from
sending text messages in violation of the TCPA. The pro-
posed injunction, however, denied liability and the allega-
tions made in the complaint, and disclaimed the existence of
grounds for the imposition of an injunction. Id., at 56a.
The settlement offer did not include attorney’s fees, Camp-
bell observed, because the TCPA does not provide for an
attorney’s-fee award. Id., at 53a. Gomez did not accept the
settlement offer and allowed Campbell’s Rule 68 submission
to lapse after the time, 14 days, specified in the Rule.
Campbell thereafter moved to dismiss the case pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. No Article III case or contro-
versy remained, Campbell urged, because its offer mooted
Gomez’s individual claim by providing him with complete
relief. Gomez had not moved for class certification before
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 provides, in relevant part:
“(a) Making an Offer; Judgment on an Accepted Offer. At least
14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a claim
may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified
terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 14 days after being served,
the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either party
may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The
clerk must then enter judgment.
“(b) Unaccepted Offer. An unaccepted offer is considered with-
drawn, but it does not preclude a later offer. Evidence of an unaccepted
offer is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs.
. . . . .
“(d) Paying Costs After an Unaccepted Offer. If the judgment that
the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer,
the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.”
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 159

Opinion of the Court

his claim became moot, Campbell added, so the putative class

claims also became moot. The District Court denied Camp-
bell’s motion. 805 F. Supp. 2d 923 (CD Cal. 2011).2 Gomez
was not dilatory in filing his certification request, the Dis-
trict Court determined; consequently, the court noted, the
class claims would “relat[e] back” to the date Gomez filed the
complaint. Id., at 930–931.
After limited discovery, Campbell moved for summary
judgment on a discrete ground. The U. S. Navy enjoys the
sovereign’s immunity from suit under the TCPA, Campbell
argued. The District Court granted the motion. Relying
on our decision in Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Constr. Co., 309
U. S. 18 (1940), the court held that, as a contractor acting on
the Navy’s behalf, Campbell acquired the Navy’s immunity.
No. CV 10–02007 DMG (CD Cal., Feb. 22, 2013), App. to Pet.
for Cert. 22a–34a, 2013 WL 655237.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
summary judgment entered for Campbell. 768 F. 3d 871.
The appeals court disagreed with the District Court’s ruling
on the immunity issue, but agreed that Gomez’s case
remained live. Concerning Gomez’s individual claim, the
Court of Appeals relied on its then-recent decision in Diaz
v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp., 732 F. 3d
948 (2013). Diaz held that “an unaccepted Rule 68 offer that
would fully satisfy a plaintiff ’s [individual] claim is insuffi-
cient to render th[at] claim moot.” Id., at 950. As to the
class relief Gomez sought, the Ninth Circuit held that “an
unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment—for the full amount
of the named plaintiff ’s individual claim and made before the
named plaintiff files a motion for class certification—does not
moot a class action.” 768 F. 3d, at 875 (quoting Pitts v.
Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F. 3d 1081, 1091–1092 (CA9 2011)).

2
Because Campbell had already answered the complaint, the District
Court construed Campbell’s motion as a request for summary judgment.
805 F. Supp. 2d, at 927, n. 2.
160 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Opinion of the Court

Next, the Court of Appeals held that Campbell was

not entitled to “derivative sovereign immunity” under
this Court’s decision in Yearsley or on any other basis. 768
F. 3d, at 879–881. Vacating the District Court’s judg-
ment, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further
proceedings.3
We granted certiorari to resolve a disagreement among
the Courts of Appeals over whether an unaccepted offer can
moot a plaintiff ’s claim, thereby depriving federal courts of
Article III jurisdiction. Compare Bais Yaakov v. Act, Inc.,
798 F. 3d 46, 52 (CA1 2015); Hooks v. Landmark Industries,
Inc., 797 F. 3d 309, 315 (CA5 2015); Chapman v. First Index,
Inc., 796 F. 3d 783, 787 (CA7 2015); Tanasi v. New Alliance
Bank, 786 F. 3d 195, 200 (CA2 2015); Stein v. Buccaneers
Limited Partnership, 772 F. 3d 698, 703 (CA11 2014); Diaz,
732 F. 3d, at 954–955 (holding that an unaccepted offer does
not render a plaintiff ’s claim moot), with Warren v. Ses-
soms & Rogers, P. A., 676 F. 3d 365, 371 (CA4 2012); O’Brien
v. Ed Donnelly Enterprises, Inc., 575 F. 3d 567, 574–575
(CA6 2009); Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F. 3d 337, 340
(CA3 2004) (noting that an unaccepted offer can moot an indi-
vidual plaintiff ’s claim). We granted review as well to re-
solve the federal contractor immunity question Campbell’s
petition raised. 575 U. S. 1008 (2015).

II
Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court jurisdic-
tion to “cases” and “controversies.” U. S. Const., Art. III,
§ 2. We have interpreted this requirement to demand that
“an actual controversy . . . be extant at all stages of review,
not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Arizonans
for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 67 (1997) (quot-
ing Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U. S. 395, 401 (1975)). “If an
intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a ‘personal
3
The Court of Appeals stayed its mandate pending proceedings in this
Court. App. to Pet. for Cert. 62a–63a.
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 161

Opinion of the Court

stake in the outcome of the lawsuit,’ at any point during liti-

gation, the action can no longer proceed and must be dis-
missed as moot.” Genesis HealthCare Corp., 569 U. S., at 72
(quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U. S. 472, 477–
478 (1990)). A case becomes moot, however, “only when it
is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief
whatever to the prevailing party.” Knox v. Service Em-
ployees, 567 U. S. 298, 307 (2012) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “As long as the parties have a concrete interest,
however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is
not moot.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (2013) (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted).
In Genesis HealthCare, the Court considered a collective
action brought by Laura Symczyk, a former employee of
Genesis HealthCare Corp. Symczyk sued on behalf of her-
self and similarly situated employees for alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U. S. C. § 201
et seq. In that case, as here, the defendant served the plain-
tiff with an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 that would
have satisfied the plaintiff ’s individual damages claim. 569
U. S., at 69. Also as here, the plaintiff allowed the offer to
lapse by failing to respond within the time specified in the
Rule. Id., at 70. But unlike the case Gomez mounted, Sym-
czyk did not dispute in the lower courts that Genesis Health-
Care’s offer mooted her individual claim. Id., at 72–73. Be-
cause of that failure, the Genesis HealthCare majority
refused to rule on the issue. Instead, the majority simply
assumed, without deciding, that an offer of complete relief
pursuant to Rule 68, even if unaccepted, moots a plaintiff ’s
claim. Id., at 73. Having made that assumption, the Court
proceeded to consider whether the action remained justicia-
ble on the basis of the collective-action allegations alone.
Absent a plaintiff with a live individual case, the Court con-
cluded, the suit could not be maintained. Ibid.
Justice Kagan, writing in dissent, explained that she
would have reached the threshold question and would have
162 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Opinion of the Court

held that “an unaccepted offer of judgment cannot moot a

case.” Id., at 81. She reasoned:
“When a plaintiff rejects such an offer—however good
the terms—her interest in the lawsuit remains just what
it was before. And so too does the court’s ability to
grant her relief. An unaccepted settlement offer—like
any unaccepted contract offer—is a legal nullity, with
no operative effect. As every first-year law student
learns, the recipient’s rejection of an offer ‘leaves the
matter as if no offer had ever been made.’ Minneapo-
lis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Columbus Rolling Mill, 119
U. S. 149, 151 (1886). Nothing in Rule 68 alters that
basic principle; to the contrary, that rule specifies that
‘[a]n unaccepted offer is considered withdrawn.’ Fed.
Rule Civ. Proc. 68(b). So assuming the case was live
before—because the plaintiff had a stake and the court
could grant relief—the litigation carries on, unmooted.”
Ibid.
We now adopt Justice Kagan’s analysis, as has every Court
of Appeals ruling on the issue post Genesis HealthCare.4
Accordingly, we hold that Gomez’s complaint was not effaced
by Campbell’s unaccepted offer to satisfy his individual
claim.
As earlier recounted, see supra, at 157–158, Gomez com-
menced an action against Campbell for violation of the TCPA,
suing on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.
Gomez sought treble statutory damages and an injunction on
behalf of a nationwide class, but Campbell’s settlement offer
proposed relief for Gomez alone, and it did not admit liability.

4
See Bais Yaakov v. Act, Inc., 798 F. 3d 46, 51–52 (CA1 2015); Hooks v.
Landmark Industries, Inc., 797 F. 3d 309, 314–315 (CA5 2015); Chapman
v. First Index, Inc., 796 F. 3d 783, 786–787 (CA7 2015); Tanasi v. New
Alliance Bank, 786 F. 3d 195, 199–200 (CA2 2015); Stein v. Buccaneers
Limited Partnership, 772 F. 3d 698, 702–703 (CA11 2014); Diaz v. First
American Home Buyers Corp., 732 F. 3d 948, 953–955 (CA9 2013).
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 163

Opinion of the Court

App. to Pet. for Cert. 58a. Gomez rejected Campbell’s set-

tlement terms and the offer of judgment.
Under basic principles of contract law, Campbell’s settle-
ment bid and Rule 68 offer of judgment, once rejected, had
no continuing efficacy. See Genesis HealthCare, 569 U. S.,
at 81 (Kagan, J., dissenting). Absent Gomez’s acceptance,
Campbell’s settlement offer remained only a proposal, bind-
ing neither Campbell nor Gomez. See App. to Pet. for Cert.
59a (“Please advise whether Mr. Gomez will accept [Camp-
bell’s] offer . . . .”). Having rejected Campbell’s settlement
bid, and given Campbell’s continuing denial of liability,
Gomez gained no entitlement to the relief Campbell pre-
viously offered. See Eliason v. Henshaw, 4 Wheat. 225, 228
(1819) (“It is an undeniable principle of the law of contracts,
that an offer of a bargain by one person to another, imposes
no obligation upon the former, until it is accepted by the
latter . . . .”). In short, with no settlement offer still opera-
tive, the parties remained adverse; both retained the same
stake in the litigation they had at the outset.
The Federal Rule in point, Rule 68, hardly supports the
argument that an unaccepted settlement offer can moot a
complaint. An offer of judgment, the Rule provides, “is con-
sidered withdrawn” if not accepted within 14 days of its
service. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 68(a), (b). The sole built-in
sanction: “If the [ultimate] judgment . . . is not more favor-
able than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs
incurred after the offer was made.” Rule 68(d).
In urging that an offer of judgment can render a contro-
versy moot, Campbell features a trio of 19th-century railroad
tax cases: California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149
U. S. 308 (1893), Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547 (1890), and
San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 116 U. S.
138 (1885). None of those decisions suggests that an un-
accepted settlement offer can put a plaintiff out of court. In
San Pablo, California had sued to recover state and coun-
ty taxes due from a railroad. In response, the railroad had
164 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Opinion of the Court

not merely offered to pay the taxes in question. It had actu-

ally deposited the full amount demanded in a California bank
in the State’s name, in accord with a California statute that
“extinguished” the railroad’s tax obligations upon such
payment. 149 U. S., at 313–314. San Pablo thus rested
on California’s substantive law, which required the State
to accept a taxpayer’s full payment of the amount in
controversy. San Mateo and Little similarly involved actual
payment of the taxes for which suit was brought. In all
three cases, the railroad’s payments had fully satisfied the
asserted tax claims, and so extinguished them. San Mateo,
116 U. S., at 141–142; Little, 134 U. S., at 556.5

5
In addition to California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U. S. 308
(1893), The Chief Justice maintains, two recent decisions of the Court
support its position: Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U. S. 87 (2009), and Already,
LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U. S. 85 (2013). See post, at 180–182 (dissenting
opinion). The Court’s reasoning in those opinions, however, is consistent
with our decision in this case. In Alvarez, the Court found moot claims
for injunctive and declaratory relief in relation to cars and cash seized
by the police. Through separate state-court proceedings, the State had
“returned all the cars that it seized,” and the plaintiff-property owners
had “either forfeited any relevant cash or ha[d] accepted as final the State’s
return of some of it.” 558 U. S., at 89, 95–96. Alvarez thus resembles
the railroad tax cases described above: The Alvarez plaintiffs had in fact
received all the relief they could claim, all “underlying property disputes”
had ended, id., at 89, and as the complaint sought “only declaratory and
injunctive relief, not damages,” id., at 92, no continuing controversy
remained.
Already concerned a trademark owned by Nike. Already sought a de-
claratory judgment invalidating the trademark. The injury Already as-
serted was the ongoing threat that Nike would sue for trademark infringe-
ment. In response to Already’s claim, Nike filed a “Covenant Not to Sue,”
in which it promised not to bring any trademark claims based on Already’s
existing or similar footwear designs. 568 U. S., at 88–89. The Court
found this covenant sufficient to overcome the rule that “voluntary cessa-
tion” is generally inadequate to moot a claim. Id., at 93. True, Nike’s
covenant was unilateral, but it afforded Already blanket protection from
future trademark litigation. Id., at 95. The risk that underpinned Al-
ready’s standing—the Damocles’ sword of a trademark infringement
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 165

Opinion of the Court

In contrast to the cases Campbell highlights, when the set-

tlement offer Campbell extended to Gomez expired, Gomez
remained emptyhanded; his TCPA complaint, which Camp-
bell opposed on the merits, stood wholly unsatisfied. Be-
cause Gomez’s individual claim was not made moot by the
expired settlement offer, that claim would retain vitality
during the time involved in determining whether the case
could proceed on behalf of a class. While a class lacks inde-
pendent status until certified, see Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S.
393, 399 (1975), a would-be class representative with a live
claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show
that certification is warranted.
The Chief Justice’s dissent asserts that our decision
transfers authority from the federal courts and “hands it to
the plaintiff.” Post, at 184. Quite the contrary. The dis-
sent’s approach would place the defendant in the driver’s
seat. We encountered a kindred strategy in U. S. Bancorp
Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U. S. 18
(1994). The parties in Bancorp had reached a voluntary
settlement while the case was pending before this Court.
Id., at 20. The petitioner then sought vacatur of the Court
of Appeals’ judgment, contending that it should be relieved
from the adverse decision on the ground that the settlement
made the dispute moot. The Court rejected this gambit.
Id., at 25. Similarly here, Campbell sought to avoid a
potential adverse decision, one that could expose it to dam-
ages a thousandfold larger than the bid Gomez declined to
accept.
In sum, an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judg-
ment does not moot a plaintiff ’s case, so the District Court

suit—thus ceased to exist given Nike’s embracive promise not to sue. In

short, in both Alvarez and Already, the plaintiffs had received full redress
for the injuries asserted in their complaints. Here, by contrast, Camp-
bell’s revocable offer, far from providing Gomez the relief sought in his
complaint, gave him nary a penny.
166 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Opinion of the Court

retained jurisdiction to adjudicate Gomez’s complaint. That

ruling suffices to decide this case. We need not, and do not,
now decide whether the result would be different if a
defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff ’s individ-
ual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court
then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount. That
question is appropriately reserved for a case in which it is
not hypothetical.
III
The second question before us is whether Campbell’s sta-
tus as a federal contractor renders it immune from suit for
violating the TCPA by sending text messages to uncon-
senting recipients. The United States and its agencies, it is
undisputed, are not subject to the TCPA’s prohibitions be-
cause no statute lifts their immunity. Brief for Petitioner 2;
Brief for Respondent 43. Do federal contractors share the
Government’s unqualified immunity from liability and litiga-
tion? We hold they do not.
“[G]overnment contractors obtain certain immunity in
connection with work which they do pursuant to their con-
tractual undertakings with the United States.” Brady v.
Roosevelt S. S. Co., 317 U. S. 575, 583 (1943). That immu-
nity, however, unlike the sovereign’s, is not absolute. See
id., at 580–581. Campbell asserts “derivative sovereign im-
munity,” Brief for Petitioner 35, but can offer no authority
for the notion that private persons performing Government
work acquire the Government’s embracive immunity. When
a contractor violates both federal law and the Government’s
explicit instructions, as here alleged, no “derivative immu-
nity” shields the contractor from suit by persons adversely
affected by the violation.
Campbell urges that two of our decisions support its “de-
rivative immunity” defense: Yearsley, 309 U. S. 18, and Filar-
sky v. Delia, 566 U. S. 377 (2012). In Yearsley, a landowner
asserted a claim for damages against a private company
whose work building dikes on the Missouri River pursuant
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 167

Opinion of the Court

to its contract with the Federal Government had washed

away part of the plaintiff ’s land. We held that the contrac-
tor was not answerable to the landowner. “[T]he work
which the contractor had done in the river bed,” we ob-
served, “was all authorized and directed by the Government
of the United States” and “performed pursuant to the Act of
Congress.” 309 U. S., at 20 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted). Where the Government’s “authority to carry out the
project was validly conferred, that is, if what was done was
within the constitutional power of Congress,” we explained,
“there is no liability on the part of the contractor” who sim-
ply performed as the Government directed. Id., at 20–21.6
The Court contrasted with Yearsley cases in which a Govern-
ment agent had “exceeded his authority” or the authority
“was not validly conferred”; in those circumstances, the
Court said, the agent could be held liable for conduct causing
injury to another. Id., at 21.7
In Filarsky, we considered whether a private attorney
temporarily retained by a municipal government as an
investigator could claim qualified immunity in an action
brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Finding no distinction in
the common law “between public servants and private indi-
viduals engaged in public service,” we held that the investi-
gator could assert “qualified immunity” in the lawsuit. 566
U. S., at 387, 384. Qualified immunity reduces the risk that
contractors will shy away from government work. But the
doctrine is bounded in a way that Campbell’s “derivative im-
munity” plea is not. “Qualified immunity may be over-

6
If there had been a taking of the plaintiff ’s property, the Court noted,
“a plain and adequate remedy” would be at hand, i. e., recovery from the
United States of “just compensation.” Yearsley, 309 U. S., at 21.
7
We disagree with the Court of Appeals to the extent that it described
Yearsley as “establish[ing] a narrow rule regarding claims arising out of
property damage caused by public works projects.” 768 F. 3d, at 879.
Critical in Yearsley was not the involvement of public works, but the con-
tractor’s performance in compliance with all federal directions.
168 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Opinion of the Court

come . . . if the defendant knew or should have known that

his conduct violated a right ‘clearly established’ at the time
of the episode in suit.” Id., at 394 (Ginsburg, J., concur-
ring) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982)).
Campbell does not here contend that the TCPA’s require-
ments or the Navy’s instructions failed to qualify as
“clearly established.”
At the pretrial stage of litigation, we construe the record
in a light favorable to the party seeking to avoid summary
disposition, here, Gomez. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574, 587 (1986). In opposi-
tion to summary judgment, Gomez presented evidence that
the Navy authorized Campbell to send text messages only to
individuals who had “opted in” to receive solicitations. App.
42–44; 768 F. 3d, at 874. A Navy representative noted the
importance of ensuring that the message recipient list be
“kosher” (i. e., that all recipients had consented to receiving
messages like the recruiting text), and made clear that the
Navy relied on Campbell’s representation that the list was in
compliance. App. 43. See also ibid. (noting that Campbell
itself encouraged the Navy to use only an opt-in list in order
to meet national and local law requirements). In short, the
current record reveals no basis for arguing that Gomez’s
right to remain message-free was in doubt or that Campbell
complied with the Navy’s instructions.
We do not overlook that subcontractor Mindmatics, not
Campbell, dispatched the Navy’s recruiting message to un-
consenting recipients. But the Federal Communications
Commission has ruled that, under federal common-law prin-
ciples of agency, there is vicarious liability for TCPA viola-
tions. In re Joint Petition Filed by Dish Network, LLC, 28
FCC Rcd. 6574 (2013). The Ninth Circuit deferred to that
ruling, 768 F. 3d, at 878, and we have no cause to question
it. Campbell’s vicarious liability for Mindmatics’ conduct,
however, in no way advances Campbell’s contention that it
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 169

Thomas, J., concurring in judgment

acquired the sovereign’s immunity from suit based on its con-

tract with the Navy.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is affirmed, and the case is re-
manded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment.
The Court correctly concludes that an offer of complete
relief on a claim does not render that claim moot. But, in
my view, the Court does not advance a sound basis for this
conclusion. The Court rests its conclusion on modern con-
tract law principles and a recent dissent concerning Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 68. See ante, at 160–163. I would
rest instead on the common-law history of tenders. That
history—which led to Rule 68—demonstrates that a mere
offer of the sum owed is insufficient to eliminate a court’s
jurisdiction to decide the case to which the offer related. I
therefore concur only in the judgment.
I
The text of Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement,
that requirement’s drafting history, and our precedents
do not appear to provide sufficiently specific principles
to resolve this case. When faced with such uncertainty, it
seems particularly important for us to look to how courts
traditionally have viewed a defendant’s offer to pay the
plaintiff’s alleged damages. That history—which stretches
from the common law directly to Rule 68 and modern settle-
ment offers—reveals one unbroken practice that should re-
solve this case: A defendant’s offer to pay the plaintiff—with-
out more—would not have deprived a court of jurisdiction.
Campbell-Ewald’s offers thus do not bar federal courts from
continuing to hear this case.
170 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Thomas, J., concurring in judgment

A
Modern settlement procedure has its origins in the law of
tenders, as refined in the 18th and 19th centuries. As with
much of the early common law, the law of tenders had many
rigid formalities. These formalities make clear that, around
the time of the framing, a mere offer of relief was insufficient
to deprive a court of jurisdiction.
At common law, a prospective defendant could prevent a
case from proceeding, but he needed to provide substantially
more than a bare offer. A “mere proposal or proposition”
to pay a claim was inadequate to end a case. A. Hunt, A
Treatise on the Law of Tender, and Bringing Money Into
Court §§ 1–2, 3–4 (1903) (Hunt) (citing cases from the 1800’s).
Nor would a defendant’s “readiness and an ability to pay the
money” suffice to end a case. Holmes v. Holmes, 12 Barb.
137, 144 (N. Y. 1851). Rather, a prospective defendant
needed to provide a “tender”—an offer to pay the entire
claim before a suit was filed, accompanied by “actually pro-
duc[ing]” the sum “at the time of tender” in an “uncondi-
tional” manner. M. Bacon, A New Abridgment of the Law
314–315, 321 (1856) (citing cases from the early 1800’s).
Furthermore, in state and federal courts, a tender of the
amount due was deemed “an admission of a liability” on the
cause of action to which the tender related, so any would-be
defendant who tried to deny liability could not effectuate a
tender. Hunt § 400, at 448; see Cottier v. Stimpson, 18 F.
689, 691 (Ore. 1883) (explaining that a tender constitutes “an
admission of the cause of action”); The Rossend Castle Dil-
lenback v. The Rossend Castle, 30 F. 462, 464 (SDNY 1887)
(same). As one treatise explained, “[a] tender must be of a
specific sum which the tenderor admits to be due”—“[t]here
must be no denial of the debt.” Hunt § 242, at 253 (emphasis
added). The tender had to offer and actually deliver com-
plete relief. See id., § 2, at 4; Sheredine v. Gaul, 2 Dall. 190,
191 (Pa. 1792) (defendant must “brin[g] the money into
Court”). And an offer to pay less than what was demanded
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 171

Thomas, J., concurring in judgment

was not a valid tender. See, e. g., Elderkin v. Fellows, 60

Wis. 339, 340–341, 19 N. W. 101, 102 (1884).
Even when a potential defendant properly effectuated a
tender, the case would not necessarily end. At common law,
a plaintiff was entitled to “deny that [the tender was] suffi-
cient to satisfy his demand” and accordingly “go on to trial.”
Raiford v. Governor, 29 Ala. 382, 384 (1856); see also Hunt
§ 511, at 595.*
This history demonstrates that, at common law, a defend-
ant or prospective defendant had to furnish far more than a
mere offer of settlement to end a case. This history also
demonstrates that courts at common law would not have un-
derstood a mere offer to strip them of jurisdiction.

B
Although 19th-century state statutes expanded the
common-law tender regime, the law retained its essential
features. See Bone, “To Encourage Settlement”: Rule 68,
Offers of Judgment, and the History of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1561, 1585 (2008) (Bone).
These changes, for example, allowed defendants to offer a
tender “during the pendency of an action,” as well as before
it commenced. Taylor v. Brooklyn Elevated R. Co., 119
N. Y. 561, 565, 23 N. E. 1106, 1107 (1890); cf. Colby v. Reed,
99 U. S. 560, 566 (1879) (at common law, generally no “right
of tender after action brought”). Statutes also expanded
the right of tender to cover types of actions in which dam-
ages were not certain. Compare Dedekam v. Vose, 7 F. Cas.
337, 338 (SDNY 1853) (“[T]ender could not be maintained,

*Nevertheless, the common law strongly encouraged a plaintiff to accept

a tender by penalizing plaintiffs who improperly rejected them. A plain-
tiff would not be able to recover any damages that accrued after the
tender, nor could he receive the costs of the suit if the jury returned a
verdict for either the amount offered or less. See Hunt §§ 363–364, at
403–404. This rule remains today. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 68(d) (taxing
costs to plaintiff who fails to recover more than the offer of judgment).
172 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Thomas, J., concurring in judgment

according to the strict principles of the common law,” in

cases where damages were not easily ascertainable), with
Patrick v. Illawaco Oyster Co., 189 Wash. 152, 155, 63 P. 2d
520, 521 (1937) (state statute “extend[ed] the common-law
rule” to tort actions).
Nevertheless, state statutes generally retained the core of
the common-law tender rules. Most critically for this case,
a mere offer remained insufficient to end a lawsuit. See,
e. g., Kilts v. Seeber, 10 How. Pr. 270, 271 (N. Y. 1854) (under
New York law, a mere offer was insufficient to preclude liti-
gation). Like the common-law tender rules, state statutes
recognized that plaintiffs could continue to pursue litigation
by rejecting an offer. See Bone 1586.

C
The offer-of-judgment procedure in Rule 68 was modeled
after a provision in the New York Field Code that was
enacted in the mid-19th century. See id., at 1583–1584.
That code abrogated many of the common-law formalities
governing civil procedure. Among its innovations, the code
allowed defendants in any cause of action to make an offer
in writing to the plaintiff proposing to accept judgment
against the defendant for a specified sum. See The Code
of Procedure of the State of New York From 1848 to 1871:
Comprising the Act as Originally Enacted and the Various
Amendments Made Thereto, to the Close of the Session of
1870, § 385, p. 274 (1870). The plaintiff could accept the
offer, which would end the litigation, or reject the offer, in
which case the offer was considered withdrawn without any
admission of liability by the defendant. Ibid.
In 1938, Rule 68 was adopted as part of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and has subsisted throughout the years
without material changes. See Bone 1564. As it did in
1938, Rule 68 now authorizes “a party defending against
a claim” to “serve on an opposing party an offer to allow
judgment on specified terms.” Rule 68(a). Rule 68 also
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 173

Thomas, J., concurring in judgment

provides a plaintiff the option to accept or reject an offer.

If the plaintiff accepts the offer, the “clerk must then
enter judgment,” but “[a]n unaccepted offer is considered
withdrawn.” Rules 68(a)–(b). Withdrawn offers (unlike
common-law tenders) cannot be used in court as an admission
against defendants. Rule 68(b).

D
In light of the history discussed above, a rejected offer
does not end the case. And this consistent historical prac-
tice demonstrates why Campbell-Ewald’s offers do not divest
a federal court of jurisdiction to entertain Gomez’s suit.
Campbell-Ewald made two settlement offers after Gomez
sued—one filed with the District Court under Rule 68 and
one freestanding settlement offer. But with neither of these
offers did the company make payment; it only declared its
intent to pay. Because Campbell-Ewald only offered to pay
Gomez’s claim but took no further steps, the court was not
deprived of jurisdiction.
II
Although the Court reaches the right result, I cannot
adopt its reasoning. Building on the dissent in Genesis
HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U. S. 66 (2013), the Court
relies on principles of contract law that an unaccepted offer
is a legal nullity. But the question here is not whether
Campbell-Ewald’s offer formed an enforceable contract.
The question is whether its continuing offer of complete re-
lief eliminated the case or controversy required by Article
III. By looking only to contract law and one recent Rule 68
opinion, the Court fails to confront this broader issue. In-
stead, I believe that we must resolve the meaning of
“case” and “controversy” in Article III by looking to “the
traditional, fundamental limitations upon the powers of
common-law courts” because “cases” and “controversies”
“have virtually no meaning except by reference to that tradi-
174 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Thomas, J., concurring in judgment

tion.” Honig v. Doe, 484 U. S. 305, 340 (1988) (Scalia, J.,

dissenting).
The Chief Justice’s dissent argues that examining
whether the requirements of common-law tenders have been
met does not answer “whether there is a case or controversy
for purposes of Article III.” Post, at 183, n. 3. As explained
above, however, courts have historically refused to dismiss
cases when an offer did not conform to the strict tender
rules. The logical implications of The Chief Justice’s rea-
soning are that the common-law tender rules conflict with
Article III and that the Constitution bars Article III courts
from following those principles. But see Colby, 99 U. S., at
566 (stating that, to stop litigation, a party “must adopt the
measure prescribed by the common law, except in jurisdic-
tions where a different mode of proceeding is prescribed by
statute”). That reasoning, therefore, calls into question the
history and tradition that the case-or-controversy require-
ment embodies.
The Chief Justice also contends that our precedents
“plainly establish that an admission of liability is not re-
quired for a case to be moot under Article III.” Post, at
183, n. 3. But we need not decide today whether compliance
with every common-law formality would be necessary to end
a case. The dispositive point is that state and federal courts
have not considered a mere offer, without more, sufficient to
moot the case. None of the cases cited by The Chief Jus-
tice hold that a retrospective claim for money damages can
become moot based on a mere offer. California v. San
Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U. S. 308 (1893), is inapposite
because that decision involved a fully tendered offer that ex-
tinguished the tax debt under California law. Id., at 313–
314. Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U. S. 87 (2009), and Already,
LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U. S. 85 (2013), are also not on point.
Both involved claims for injunctive or declaratory relief that
became moot when the defendants ceased causing actual or
threatened injury. But whether a claim for prospective re-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 175

Roberts, C. J., dissenting

lief is moot is different from the issue in this case, which

involves claims for damages to remedy past harms. See,
e. g., Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle
School Dist. No. 1, 551 U. S. 701, 720 (2007) (plaintiff “sought
damages in her complaint, which is sufficient to preserve our
ability to consider the question”); Alvarez, supra, at 92 (sug-
gesting that a “continuing controversy over damages” would
mean that the case was not moot).
As explained above, I would follow history and tradition
in construing Article III, and so I find that Campbell-Ewald’s
mere offers did not deprive the District Court of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, I concur in the judgment only.

Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Scalia and

Justice Alito join, dissenting.
This case is straightforward. Jose Gomez alleges that the
marketing firm Campbell-Ewald (Campbell) sent him text
messages without his permission, and he requests relief
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. That Act
permits consumers to recover statutory damages for unau-
thorized text messages. Based on Gomez’s allegations, the
maximum that he could recover under the Act is $1500 per
text message, plus the costs of filing suit. Campbell has of-
fered to pay Gomez that amount, but it turns out he wants
more. He wants a federal court to say he is right.
The problem for Gomez is that the federal courts exist to
resolve real disputes, not to rule on a plaintiff ’s entitlement
to relief already there for the taking. As this Court has
said, “[n]o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s
proper role in our system of government than the constitu-
tional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases
or controversies.” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 818 (1997)
(quoting Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization,
426 U. S. 26, 37 (1976)). If there is no actual case or contro-
versy, the lawsuit is moot, and the power of the federal
courts to declare the law has come to an end. Here, the
176 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Roberts, C. J., dissenting

District Court found that Campbell agreed to fully satisfy

Gomez’s claims. That makes the case moot, and Gomez is
not entitled to a ruling on the merits of a moot case.
I respectfully dissent.
I
A
In 1793, President George Washington sent a letter to
Chief Justice John Jay and the Associate Justices of the Su-
preme Court, asking for the opinion of the Court on the
rights and obligations of the United States with respect to
the war between Great Britain and France. The Supreme
Court politely—but firmly—refused the request, concluding
that “the lines of separation drawn by the Constitution be-
tween the three departments of the government” prohibit
the federal courts from issuing such advisory opinions. 3
Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay 486–489 (H.
Johnston ed. 1890–1893).
That prohibition has remained “the oldest and most con-
sistent thread in the federal law of justiciability.” Flast v.
Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 96 (1968) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted). And for good reason. It is derived from Article III
of the Constitution, which limits the authority of the federal
courts to the adjudication of “Cases” or “Controversies.”
U. S. Const., Art. III, § 2. The case or controversy require-
ment is at once an important check on the powers of the
Federal Judiciary and the source of those powers. In Mar-
bury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803), Chief Justice Mar-
shall established that it is “the province and duty of the judi-
cial department to say what the law is.” Not because there
is a provision in the Constitution that says so—there isn’t.
Instead, the federal courts wield that power because they
have to decide cases and controversies, and “[t]hose who
apply [a] rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound
and interpret that rule.” Ibid. Federal courts may exer-
cise their authority “only in the last resort, and as a necessity
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 177

Roberts, C. J., dissenting

in the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy

between individuals.” Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v.
Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 345 (1892); see also Allen v. Wright,
468 U. S. 737, 752 (1984). “If a dispute is not a proper case
or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or
expounding the law in the course of doing so.” Daimler-
Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 341 (2006).
A case or controversy exists when both the plaintiff and
the defendant have a “personal stake” in the lawsuit. Cam-
reta v. Greene, 563 U. S. 692, 701 (2011). A plaintiff demon-
strates a personal stake by establishing standing to sue,
which requires a “personal injury fairly traceable to the de-
fendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be re-
dressed by the requested relief.” Allen, 468 U. S., at 751.
A defendant demonstrates a personal stake through “an on-
going interest in the dispute.” Camreta, 563 U. S., at 701.
The personal stake requirement persists through every
stage of the lawsuit. It “is not enough that a dispute was
very much alive when suit was filed”; the “parties must con-
tinue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit”
to prevent the case from becoming moot. Lewis v. Conti-
nental Bank Corp., 494 U. S. 472, 477–478 (1990) (internal
quotation marks omitted). If either the plaintiff or the de-
fendant ceases to have a concrete interest in the outcome of
the litigation, there is no longer a live case or controversy.
A federal court that decides the merits of such a case runs
afoul of the prohibition on advisory opinions.

B
Applying those basic principles to this case, it is clear that
the lawsuit is moot. All agree that at the time Gomez filed
suit, he had a personal stake in the litigation. In his com-
plaint, Gomez alleged that he suffered an injury in fact when
he received unauthorized text messages from Campbell. To
remedy that injury, he requested $1500 in statutory damages
178 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Roberts, C. J., dissenting

for each unauthorized text message. (It was later deter-

mined that he received only one text message.)
What happened next, however, is critical: After Gomez’s
initial legal volley, Campbell did not return fire. Instead,
Campbell responded to the complaint with a freestanding
offer to pay Gomez the maximum amount that he could re-
cover under the statute: $1500 per unauthorized text mes-
sage, plus court costs. Campbell also made an offer of judg-
ment on the same terms under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, which permits a defendant to recover cer-
tain attorney’s fees if the Rule 68 offer is unaccepted and the
plaintiff later recovers no more than the amount of the offer.
Crucially, the District Court found that the “parties do not
dispute” that Campbell’s Rule 68 offer—reflecting the same
terms as the freestanding offer—“would have fully satisfied
the individual claims asserted, or that could have been as-
serted,” by Gomez. 805 F. Supp. 2d 923, 927 (CD Cal. 2011).
When a plaintiff files suit seeking redress for an alleged
injury, and the defendant agrees to fully redress that injury,
there is no longer a case or controversy for purposes of Arti-
cle III. After all, if the defendant is willing to remedy the
plaintiff ’s injury without forcing him to litigate, the plaintiff
cannot demonstrate an injury in need of redress by the court,
and the defendant’s interests are not adverse to the plaintiff.
At that point, there is no longer any “necessity” to “expound
and interpret” the law, Marbury, 1 Cranch, at 177, and the
federal courts lack authority to hear the case. That is ex-
actly what happened here: Once Campbell offered to fully
remedy Gomez’s injury, there was no longer any “necessity”
for the District Court to hear the merits of his case, render-
ing the lawsuit moot.1

1
The Court does not reach the question whether Gomez’s claim for class
relief prevents this case from becoming moot. The majority nevertheless
suggests that Campbell “sought to avoid a potential adverse decision, one
that could expose it to damages a thousandfold larger than the bid Gomez
declined to accept.” Ante, at 165. But under this Court’s precedents
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 179

Roberts, C. J., dissenting

It is true that although Campbell has offered Gomez full

relief, Campbell has not yet paid up. That does not affect
the mootness inquiry under the facts of this case. Campbell
is a multimillion dollar company, and the settlement offer
here is for a few thousand dollars. The settlement offer
promises “prompt payment,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 59a, and
it would be mere pettifoggery to argue that Campbell might
not make good on that promise. In any event, to the extent
there is a question whether Campbell is willing and able to
pay, there is an easy answer: have the firm deposit a certified
check with the trial court.
II
The Court today holds that Gomez’s lawsuit is not moot.
According to the Court, “An unaccepted settlement offer—
like any unaccepted contract offer—is a legal nullity, with no
operative effect.” Ante, at 162 (quoting Genesis HealthCare
Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U. S. 66, 81 (2013) (Kagan, J., dissent-
ing)). And so, the Court concludes, if a plaintiff does not
feel like accepting the defendant’s complete offer of relief,
the lawsuit cannot be moot because it is as if no offer had
ever been made.
But a plaintiff is not the judge of whether federal litigation
is necessary, and a mere desire that there be federal litiga-
tion—for whatever reason—does not make it necessary.
When a lawsuit is filed, it is up to the federal court to deter-
mine whether a concrete case or controversy exists between
Gomez does not have standing to seek relief based solely on the alleged
injuries of others, and Gomez’s interest in sharing attorney’s fees among
class members or in obtaining a class incentive award does not create
Article III standing. See Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U. S. 472,
480 (1990) (An “interest in attorney’s fees is, of course, insufficient to cre-
ate an Article III case or controversy where none exists on the merits of
the underlying claim.”); Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523
U. S. 83, 107 (1998) (“Obviously, however, a plaintiff cannot achieve stand-
ing to litigate a substantive issue by bringing suit for the cost of bringing
suit. The litigation must give the plaintiff some other benefit besides re-
imbursement of costs that are a byproduct of the litigation itself.”).
180 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Roberts, C. J., dissenting

the parties. That remains true throughout the litigation.

Article III does not require the parties to affirmatively agree
on a settlement before a case becomes moot. This Court
has long held that when a defendant unilaterally remedies
the injuries of the plaintiff, the case is moot—even if the
plaintiff disagrees and refuses to settle the dispute, and even
if the defendant continues to deny liability.
In California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U. S. 308
(1893), the State of California brought suit against a railroad
company for back taxes. Before oral argument in this
Court, the railroad offered to pay California the entire sum
at issue, “together with interest, penalties and costs.” Id.,
at 313. Although California continued to litigate the case
despite the railroad’s offer of complete relief, the Court con-
cluded that the offer to pay the full sum, in addition to “the
deposit of the money in a bank, which by a statute of the
State ha[s] the same effect as actual payment and receipt of
the money,” mooted the case. Id., at 314.
The Court grounded its decision in San Pablo on the prohi-
bition against advisory opinions, explaining that “the court
is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract prop-
ositions, or to declare, for the government of future cases,
principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result
as to the thing in issue in the case.” Ibid. Although the
majority here places great weight on Gomez’s rejection of
Campbell’s offer of complete relief, San Pablo did not con-
sider the agreement of the parties to be relevant to the ques-
tion of mootness. As the Court said then, “[n]o stipulation
of parties or counsel, whether in the case before the court or
in any other case, can enlarge the power, or affect the duty,
of the court.” Ibid.
More recently, in Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U. S. 87 (2009), the
Court found that a plaintiff ’s refusal to settle a case did not
prevent it from becoming moot. In Alvarez, Chicago police
officers had seized vehicles and cash from six individuals.
The individuals filed suit against the city and two officials,
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 181

Roberts, C. J., dissenting

claiming that they were entitled to a timely post-seizure

hearing to seek the return of their property. The Court of
Appeals ruled for the plaintiffs, and this Court granted
certiorari.
At oral argument, the parties informed the Court that the
cars and some of the cash had been returned, and that the
plaintiffs no longer sought the return of the remainder of the
cash. Id., at 92. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs—much like
Gomez—“continue[d] to dispute the lawfulness of the State’s
hearing procedures.” Id., at 93. Although the plaintiffs re-
fused to settle the case, and the defendants would not con-
cede that the hearing procedures were unlawful, the Court
held that the case was moot. As the Court explained, the
“dispute is no longer embedded in any actual controversy
about the plaintiffs’ particular legal rights,” and “a dispute
solely about the meaning of a law, abstracted from any con-
crete actual or threatened harm, falls outside the scope of
the constitutional words ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’ ” Ibid.
The Court reached a similar conclusion in Already, LLC v.
Nike, Inc., 568 U. S. 85 (2013). In that case, Nike filed suit
alleging that two of Already’s athletic shoes violated Nike’s
Air Force 1 trademark. In response, Already filed a coun-
terclaim alleging that Nike’s trademark was invalid. In-
stead of litigating the counterclaim, Nike issued a unilateral
covenant not to sue Already. In that covenant, Nike “uncon-
ditionally and irrevocably” promised not to raise any trade-
mark or unfair competition claims against Already based on
its current shoe designs or any future “colorable imitations”
of those designs. Id., at 93. Nike did not, however, admit
that its trademark was invalid. After issuing the covenant,
Nike asked the District Court to dismiss the counterclaim as
moot. Id., at 89.
Already did not agree to Nike’s covenant, and it did not
view the covenant as sufficient to protect it from future
trademark litigation. Already argued that without judicial
resolution of the dispute, “Nike’s trademarks [would] hang
182 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Roberts, C. J., dissenting

over Already’s operations like a Damoclean sword.” Id.,

at 96. This Court disagreed and dismissed the suit. It
found that because Nike had demonstrated “that the cove-
nant encompasses all of [Nike’s] allegedly unlawful conduct,”
and that the “challenged conduct cannot reasonably be ex-
pected to recur,” the counterclaim was moot. Id., at 94–95.
These precedents reflect an important constitutional prin-
ciple: The agreement of the plaintiff is not required to moot
a case. In San Pablo, California did not accept the railroad’s
money in exchange for settling the State’s legal claims; in
Alvarez, the plaintiffs did not receive their cars and cash
in return for an agreement to stop litigating the case; and
in Already, the eponymous shoe company never agreed to
Nike’s covenant not to sue. In each of those cases, despite
the plaintiff ’s desire not to settle, the Court held that the
lawsuit was moot.
The majority attempts to distinguish these precedents by
emphasizing that the plaintiffs in all three cases received
complete relief, but that is not the point. I had thought that
the theory of the Court’s opinion was that acceptance is re-
quired before complete relief will moot a case. But consider
the majority’s discussion of Already: What did Nike’s cove-
nant do? It “afforded Already blanket protection from fu-
ture trademark litigation.” Ante, at 164, n. 5. What hap-
pened as a result of this complete relief? “The risk that
underpinned Already’s standing” thus “ceased to exist.”
Ibid. Even though what? Even though “Nike’s covenant
was unilateral,” and not accepted by Already. Ibid.
The majority is correct that because Gomez did not accept
Campbell’s settlement, it is a “legal nullity” as a matter of
contract law. The question, however, is not whether there
is a contract; it is whether there is a case or controversy
under Article III.2 If the defendant is willing to give the
2
The majority suggests that this case is analogous to U. S. Bancorp
Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U. S. 18 (1994), where the
Court declined to vacate a lower court decision that became moot on cer-
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 183

Roberts, C. J., dissenting

plaintiff everything he asks for, there is no case or contro-

versy to adjudicate, and the lawsuit is moot.3

* * *
The case or controversy requirement serves an essential
purpose: It ensures that the federal courts expound the law
“only in the last resort, and as a necessity.” Allen, 468 U. S.,
at 752 (internal quotation marks omitted). It is the neces-
sity of resolving a live dispute that reconciles the exercise of
profound power by unelected judges with the principles of
self-governance, ensuring adherence to “the proper—and

tiorari when the parties voluntarily settled the case. Bancorp is inappo-
site—it involves the equitable powers of the courts to vacate judgments
in moot cases, not the Article III question whether a case is moot in the
first place. The premise of Bancorp is that it is up to the federal courts—
and not the parties—to decide what to do once a case becomes moot. The
majority’s position, in contrast, would leave it to the plaintiff to decide
whether a case is moot.
3
To further support its Article III-by-contract theory of the case, the
Court looks to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, which states that an
unaccepted offer of judgment “is considered withdrawn.” Rule 68(b).
But Campbell made Gomez both a Rule 68 offer and a freestanding settle-
ment offer. By its terms, Rule 68 does not apply to the latter. The ma-
jority’s only argument with respect to the freestanding settlement offer is
that under the rules of contract law, an unaccepted offer is a “legal nul-
lity.” Ante, at 162. As explained, however, under the principles of Arti-
cle III, an unaccepted offer of complete relief moots a case.
Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment, would decide the case
based on whether there was a formal tender under the common law. This
suffers from the same flaw as the majority opinion. The question is not
whether the requirements of the common law of tender have been met,
but whether there is a case or controversy for purposes of Article III.
The Supreme Court cases we have discussed make clear that the two ques-
tions are not the same. To cite just one example, Justice Thomas argues
that a tender under the common law must include an admission of liability.
Ante, at 170–171. Our precedents, however, plainly establish that an ad-
mission of liability is not required for a case to be moot under Article III.
See supra, at 181–182. We are not at liberty to proceed as if those Arti-
cle III precedents do not exist.
184 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Alito, J., dissenting

properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society.”

Id., at 750 (internal quotation marks omitted).
There is no such necessity here. As the District Court
found, Campbell offered Gomez full relief. Although Gomez
nonetheless wants to continue litigating, the issue is not what
the plaintiff wants, but what the federal courts may do. It
is up to those courts to decide whether each party continues
to have the requisite personal stake in the lawsuit, and if
not, to dismiss the case as moot. The Court today takes
that important responsibility away from the federal courts
and hands it to the plaintiff.
The good news is that this case is limited to its facts. The
majority holds that an offer of complete relief is insufficient
to moot a case. The majority does not say that payment
of complete relief leads to the same result. For aught that
appears, the majority’s analysis may have come out differ-
ently if Campbell had deposited the offered funds with the
District Court. See ante, at 165–166. This Court leaves
that question for another day—assuming there are other
plaintiffs out there who, like Gomez, won’t take “yes” for
an answer.

Justice Alito, dissenting.

I join The Chief Justice’s dissent. I agree that a de-
fendant may extinguish a plaintiff ’s personal stake in pursu-
ing a claim by offering complete relief on the claim, even if
the plaintiff spurns the offer. Our Article III precedents
make clear that, for mootness purposes, there is nothing tal-
ismanic about the plaintiff ’s acceptance. E. g., Already,
LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U. S. 85 (2013) (holding that Nike’s
unilateral covenant not to sue mooted Already’s trademark
invalidity claim). I write separately to emphasize what I
see as the linchpin for finding mootness in this case: There
is no real dispute that Campbell would “make good on [its]
promise” to pay Gomez the money it offered him if the case
were dismissed. Ante, at 179 (opinion of Roberts, C. J.).
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 185

Alito, J., dissenting

Absent this fact, I would be compelled to find that the case

is not moot.
Our “voluntary cessation” cases provide useful guidance.
Those cases hold that, when a plaintiff seeks to enjoin a de-
fendant’s conduct, a defendant’s “voluntary cessation of chal-
lenged conduct does not ordinarily render a case moot be-
cause a dismissal for mootness would permit a resumption of
the challenged conduct as soon as the case is dismissed.”
Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U. S. 298, 307 (2012). To
obtain dismissal in such circumstances, the defendant must
“ ‘bea[r] the formidable burden of showing that it is abso-
lutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not rea-
sonably be expected to recur.’ ” Already, supra, at 91 (quot-
ing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental
Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 190 (2000)). We have
typically applied that rule in cases involving claims for pro-
spective relief, see Knox, supra, at 307, but the basic princi-
ple easily translates to cases, like this one, involving claims
for damages: When a defendant offers a plaintiff complete
relief on a damages claim, the case will be dismissed as moot
if—but only if—it is “ ‘absolutely clear’ ” that the plaintiff
will be able to receive the offered relief. Already, supra,
at 95.1
Consider an offer of complete relief from a defendant that
has no intention of actually paying the promised sums, or
from a defendant whose finances are so shaky that it cannot
produce the necessary funds. In both instances, there is a
question whether the defendant will back up its offer to pay
with an actual payment. If those cases were dismissed as
moot, the defendant’s failure to follow through on its promise
to pay would leave the plaintiff forever emptyhanded. In

1
I say it must be clear that the plaintiff “will be able to receive” the
relief, rather than that the plaintiff “will receive” the relief, to account for
the possibility of an obstinate plaintiff who refuses to take any relief even
if the case is dismissed. A plaintiff cannot thwart mootness by refusing
complete relief presented on a silver platter.
186 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Alito, J., dissenting

the language of our mootness cases, those cases would not

be moot because a court could still grant the plaintiff “effec-
tual relief, ” Knox, supra, at 307 (internal quotation
marks omitted)—namely, the relief sought in the first place.
The plaintiff retains a “personal stake” in continuing
the litigation. Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569
U. S. 66, 71 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). An
offer of complete relief thus will not always warrant
dismissal.
Campbell urges that a plaintiff could simply move to re-
open a dismissed case if a defendant fails to make good on
its offer. Reply Brief 10. I assume that is true. But the
prospect of having to reopen litigation is precisely why our
voluntary cessation cases require defendants to prove, before
dismissal, that the plaintiff ’s injury cannot reasonably be ex-
pected to recur. I see no reason not to impose a similar
burden when a defendant asserts that it has rendered a dam-
ages claim moot.
How, then, can a defendant make “absolutely clear” that it
will pay the relief it has offered? The most straightforward
way is simply to pay over the money. The defendant might
hand the plaintiff a certified check or deposit the requisite
funds in a bank account in the plaintiff ’s name. See Califor-
nia v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U. S. 308, 313–314
(1893). Alternatively, a defendant might deposit the money
with the district court (or another trusted intermediary) on
the condition that the money be released to the plaintiff
when the court dismisses the case as moot. See Fed. Rule
Civ. Proc. 67; 28 U. S. C. §§ 2041, 2042. In these situations,
there will rarely be any serious doubt that the plaintiff can
obtain the offered money.2

2
Depositing funds with the district court or another intermediary may
be particularly attractive to defendants because it would ensure that the
plaintiff can obtain the money, yet allow the defendant to reclaim the funds
if the court refuses to dismiss the case (for example, because it determines
the offer is for less than full relief). Contrary to the views of Gomez’s
 Cite as: 577 U. S. 153 (2016) 187

Alito, J., dissenting

While outright payment is the surest way for a defendant

to make the requisite mootness showing, I would not fore-
close other means of doing so. The question is whether it is
certain the defendant will pay, not whether the defendant
has already paid. I believe Campbell clears the mark in this
case. As The Chief Justice observes, there is no dispute
Campbell has the means to pay the few thousand dollars it
offered Gomez, and there is no basis “to argue that Campbell
might not make good on that promise” if the case were dis-
missed. Ante, at 179. Thus, in the circumstances of this
case, Campbell’s offer of complete relief should have ren-
dered Gomez’s damages claim moot. But the same would
not necessarily be true for other defendants, particularly
those that face more substantial claims, possess less secure
finances, or extend offers of questionable sincerity. Cf. Al-
ready, 568 U. S., at 105 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (emphasiz-
ing the “formidable burden on the party asserting mootness”
and noting possible “doubts that Nike’s showing [of moot-
ness] would suffice in other circumstances”).
The Court does not dispute Campbell’s ability or willing-
ness to pay, but nonetheless concludes that its unaccepted
offer did not moot Gomez’s claim. While I disagree with
that result on these facts, I am heartened that the Court
appears to endorse the proposition that a plaintiff ’s claim is
moot once he has “received full redress” from the defendant
for the injuries he has asserted. Ante, at 165, n. 5 (discussing
Already, supra, and Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U. S. 87 (2009)).

amicus, there is no reason to force a defendant to effect an “ ‘irrevocable

transfer of title’ ” to the funds without regard to whether doing so suc-
ceeds in mooting the case. Brief for American Federation of Labor and
Congress of Industrial Organizations 10. Likewise, because I believe our
precedents “provide sufficiently specific principles to resolve this case,” I
would not apply the “rigid formalities” of common-law tender in this con-
text. Ante, at 169, 170 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment). Article
III demands that a plaintiff always have a personal stake in continuing
the litigation, and that stake is extinguished if the plaintiff is freely able
to obtain full relief in the event the case is dismissed as moot.
188 CAMPBELL-EWALD CO. v. GOMEZ

Alito, J., dissenting

Today’s decision thus does not prevent a defendant who actu-

ally pays complete relief—either directly to the plaintiff or
to a trusted intermediary—from seeking dismissal on moot-
ness grounds.3

3
Although it does not resolve the issue, the majority raises the possibil-
ity that a defendant must both pay the requisite funds and have “the court
. . . ente[r] judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.” Ante, at 166. I
do not see how that can be reconciled with Already, which affirmed an
order of dismissal—not judgment for the plaintiff—where the plaintiff had
received full relief from the defendant. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568
U. S. 85, 89–90, 101 (2013).
 OCTOBER TERM, 2015 189

Per Curiam

DUNCAN, WARDEN v. OWENS

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the seventh circuit
No. 14–1516. Argued January 12, 2016—Decided January 20, 2016
Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 360.

Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General of Illinois, argued

the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Lisa
Madigan, Attorney General, Brett E. Legner, Deputy Solici-
tor General, and Michael M. Glick and Garson S. Fischer,
Assistant Attorneys General.
Barry Levenstam argued the cause for respondent. With
him on the brief were Andrew W. Vail, Skyler J. Silvertrust,
Jessica Ring Amunson, and Ishan K. Bhabha.*

Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently
granted.
It is so ordered.

*A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed for the State of Wash-
ington et al. by Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington,
Noah G. Purcell, Solicitor General, Alan D. Copsey, Deputy Solicitor Gen-
eral, and John J. Samson, Assistant Attorney General, and by the Attor-
neys General and other officials for their respective States as follows: Lu-
ther Strange of Alabama, Craig W. Richards of Alaska, Mark Brnovich of
Arizona, Matthew P. Denn of Delaware, Pamela Jo Bondi of Florida, Law-
rence G. Wasden of Idaho, Gregory F. Zoeller of Indiana, Derek Schmidt
of Kansas, Bill Schuette of Michigan, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Timothy C.
Fox of Montana, Douglas J. Peterson of Nebraska, Adam Paul Laxalt of
Nevada, Joseph A. Foster of New Hampshire, Michael DeWine of Ohio,
Ellen F. Rosenblum of Oregon, Bruce R. Beemer, First Deputy Attorney
General of Pennsylvania, Peter F. Kilmartin of Rhode Island, Alan Wil-
son of South Carolina, Marty J. Jackley of South Dakota, Ken Paxton of
Texas, Sean D. Reyes of Utah, Mark R. Herring of Virginia, Patrick Mor-
risey of West Virginia, Brad D. Schimel of Wisconsin, and Peter K.
Michael of Wyoming.
 Reporter’s Note

The next page is purposely numbered 801. The numbers between 189
and 801 were intentionally omitted, in order to make it possible to publish
the orders with permanent page numbers, thus making the official cita-
tions available upon publication of the preliminary prints of the United
States Reports.
 ORDERS FOR OCTOBER 5, 2015, THROUGH
JANUARY 21, 2016

October 5, 2015
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 14–1115. Bank of America, N. A. v. Hackbart. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case re-
manded for further consideration in light of Bank of America,
N. A. v. Caulkett, 575 U. S. 790 (2015). Reported below: 589 Fed.
Appx. 477.
No. 14–1322. Herson et al. v. City of Richmond, Califor-
nia. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and
case remanded for further consideration in light of Reed v. Town
of Gilbert, 576 U. S. 155 (2015). Reported below: 585 Fed. Appx.
522.
No. 14–9707. Beale v. Madigan et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.
Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for fur-
ther consideration in light of Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U. S.
389 (2015). Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 107.
No. 14–9971. Welch v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Re-
ported below: 774 F. 3d 891;
No. 14–9996. Bernabe Gonzales v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 311;
No. 14–10143. Williams v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 919;
No. 14–10157. Coad v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Re-
ported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 238;
No. 14–10323. Hart v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Re-
ported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 620;
No. 15–5113. Coon v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Re-
ported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 849;
No. 15–5217. Brayboy v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.;
and
801
802 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5604. Evans v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Re-

ported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 760. Motions of petitioners for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted,
judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration
in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591 (2015).
No. 14–10061. Twitty v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case re-
manded for further consideration in light of Elonis v. United
States, 575 U. S. 723 (2015). Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 676.
No. 14–10065. Lane v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.
Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for fur-
ther consideration in light of Hall v. Florida, 572 U. S. 701 (2014).
Reported below: 169 So. 3d 1076.

Certiorari Granted—Reversed. (See No. 14–848, ante, p. 1.)

Certiorari Dismissed
No. 14–9532. Hiramanek v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 14–9533. Hiramanek v. California. C. A. 9th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 14–9543. West v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As peti-
tioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is
directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
No. 14–9550. Knox v. Oklahoma Department of Correc-
tions. Sup. Ct. Okla. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this
Court’s Rule 39.8.
 ORDERS 803

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–9617. Lavergne v. Sheriff’s Ofące Acadia Parish

et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this
Court’s Rule 39.8. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 277.
No. 14–9753. Lavergne v. Sheriff’s Ofące of Lafayette
Parish. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this
Court’s Rule 39.8. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 265.
No. 14–9767. Fogle v. Infante. C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Reported
below: 595 Fed. Appx. 807.
No. 14–9850. Evans v. United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio. C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 14–9867. Robenson v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion
of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner
has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed
not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from
petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid
and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See
Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1
(1992) (per curiam). Reported below: 163 So. 3d 512.
No. 14–9886. Allen v. Florida Department of Correc-
tions. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Motion of petitioner for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dis-
missed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Reported below: 158 So.
3d 564.
No. 14–10064. Jost v. California. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 14–10084. Asbury v. South Carolina et al. Sup. Ct.
S. C. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 14–10087. Creveling v. Alma et al. Ct. App. Wash.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
804 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As

petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk
is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
No. 14–10125. Jackson v. McCollum, Warden. C. A. 10th
Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As
petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk
is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Reported below: 587 Fed. Appx. 502.
No. 14–10185. Abreu Aceves v. California. C. A. 9th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 14–10209. D’Amario v. Manhattan Housing Special-
ists, Inc., et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed.
See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused
this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any fur-
ther petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the
docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is
submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District
of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
No. 14–10309. Saldana v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As
petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk
is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Kagan took no part in the
consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
 ORDERS 805

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10324. Gregory v. Denham, Warden. C. A. 10th

Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of
this motion and this petition. Reported below: 581 Fed. Appx.
728.
No. 14–10335. Missud v. LaPierre et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 14–10451. Fogle v. Gonzales. C. A. 10th Cir. Motion
of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Reported
below: 597 Fed. Appx. 485.
No. 14–10484. Hiramanek v. Hiramanek et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 681.
No. 15–5009. Tweed v. Scott, Governor of Florida, et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule
39.8.
No. 15–5026. Williams v. Planned Parenthood of Wiscon-
sin, Inc. Ct. App. Wis. Motion of petitioner for leave to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See
this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–5060. Manley v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner
has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed
not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from
petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid
and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See
Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1
(1992) (per curiam). Reported below: 31 N. E. 3d 1046.
No. 15–5179. Williams v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
806 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner

has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed
not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from
petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid
and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See
Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1
(1992) (per curiam).
No. 15–5226. Williams v. Corizon, LLC, et al. C. A. 8th
Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–5266. Jackson v. McDonald, Secretary of Veter-
ans Affairs. C. A. Fed. Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See
this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this
Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further
petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the dock-
eting fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is sub-
mitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of
Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of
this motion and this petition. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx.
999.
No. 15–5284. Mierzwa v. Wal-Mart, Inc., et al. Sup. Ct.
N. J. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As
petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk
is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Reported below: 220 N. J. 575, 108
A. 3d 635.
No. 15–5372. Herships v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As peti-
tioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is
directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
 ORDERS 807

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506

U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
No. 15–5735. Futch v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As peti-
tioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is
directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Kagan took no part in the
consideration or decision of this motion and this petition. Re-
ported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 722.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 15A97. Twitty v. United States. Application for bail,
addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court,
denied.
No. 15M1. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Collins Inkjet Corp.;
No. 15M2. Vann v. United States; and
No. 15M22. Clark v. Allen & Overy, LLP. Motions for
leave to file petitions for writs of certiorari with supplemental
appendixes under seal granted.
No. 15M3. Cannon et al. v. District of Columbia. Motion
for leave to file petition for relief granted.
No. 15M4. Gordon v. Somerset Medical Center et al.;
No. 15M9. Chafe v. Florida Department of Children
and Families;
No. 15M10. Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board;
and
No. 15M16. In re MacNeill. Motions for leave to proceed
as veterans denied.
No. 15M5. Searcy v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran granted.
No. 15M6. Sadler v. United States;
No. 15M7. Barnes v. Ross et al.;
No. 15M8. Wright v. United States;
No. 15M11. Smith v. Paramo, Warden;
808 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15M12. Watkins v. Duke Medical Center et al.;

No. 15M13. Legesse v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections;
No. 15M14. Langama v. Buchwald et al.;
No. 15M15. Culberson v. Michigan Department of
Corrections;
No. 15M21. Bracken v. Missouri et al.;
No. 15M23. Lacy v. National Railroad Passenger Corpo-
ration et al.;
No. 15M25. Salnave v. Grifąn, Superintendent, Green
Haven Correctional Facility, et al.;
No. 15M26. Draganov v. United States;
No. 15M27. Johnson v. Philadelphia School District;
No. 15M28. Welsh v. United States; and
No. 15M29. An Thai Tu v. Lewis et al. Motions to direct
the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 15M17. Ilanjian v. Kenset Corp.;
No. 15M18. Smith v. California et al.; and
No. 15M24. Truss v. Foster, Warden. Motions to direct
the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time under
this Court’s Rule 14.5 denied.
No. 15M19. Streambend Properties III, LLC, et al. v.
Sexton Lofts, LLC, et al.; and
No. 15M20. Streambend Properties II, LLC, et al. v. Ivy
Tower Minneapolis, LLC, et al. Motions to direct the Clerk
to file petitions for writs of certiorari by Jerald Hammann, pro se,
as assignee to rights of petitioners denied.
No. 65, Orig. Texas v. New Mexico. Motion of the River
Master for fees and expenses granted, and the River Master is
awarded a total of $10,327.05 for the period July 1, 2014, through
June 30, 2015, to be paid equally by the parties. [For earlier
order herein, see, e. g., 574 U. S. 808.]
No. 137, Orig. Montana v. Wyoming et al. Motion of Mon-
tana to defer consideration of this case and exceptions to the
Special Master’s Second Interim Report filed December 29, 2014,
for a period of three months granted. Parties are ordered to
submit a joint status report to the Court no later than December
31, 2015. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 574 U. S. 1150.]
 ORDERS 809

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 141, Orig. Texas v. New Mexico et al. Motion of El

Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 for leave to inter-
vene referred to the Special Master. First Interim Motion of the
Special Master for allowance of fees and disbursements granted,
and the Special Master is awarded a total of $195,461.53 for the
period November 3, 2014, through April 30, 2015, to be paid as
follows: 37.5% by Texas, 37.5% by New Mexico, 20% by the United
States, and 5% by Colorado. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g.,
575 U. S. 981.]
No. 13–1339. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. C. A. 9th Cir. [Cer-
tiorari granted, 575 U. S. 982.] Motion of the Solicitor General
for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and
for divided argument granted.
No. 14–1055. Lightfoot et al. v. Cendant Mortgage
Corp., dba PHH Mortgage, et al. C. A. 9th Cir.;
No. 14–1140. Tibbs et al. v. Bunnell, Judge, Circuit
Court of Kentucky, Fayette County, et al. Sup. Ct. Ky.;
No. 14–1206. Odhiambo v. Republic of Kenya et al. C. A.
D. C. Cir.; and
No. 14–1538. Life Technologies Corp. et al. v. Promega
Corp. C. A. Fed. Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file
briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.
No. 14–1132. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Inc. et al. v. Manning et al. C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari
granted, 576 U. S. 1083.] Motion of petitioners to dispense with
printing joint appendix granted.
No. 14–8349. Foster v. Chatman, Warden. Sup. Ct. Ga.
[Certiorari granted, 575 U. S. 1025.] Motion of petitioner for ap-
pointment of counsel granted, and Stephen B. Bright, Esq., of
Atlanta, Ga., is appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner in
this case.
No. 14–8351. In re Nesbitt. Motion of petitioner for recon-
sideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis
[574 U. S. 1189] denied.
No. 14–8644. Derringer v. Derringer. Ct. App. N. M.
Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [575 U. S. 993] denied.
810 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–8757. Clay v. Zae Young Zeon et al. C. A. 5th Cir.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [575 U. S. 1006] denied.
No. 14–9030. Lavergne v. Harson et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [575 U. S. 1023] denied.
No. 14–9043. Lavergne v. Public Defender 15th Judicial
District Court et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for
reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris [575 U. S. 1023] denied.
No. 14–9044. Lavergne v. Louisiana State Police. C. A.
5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying
leave to proceed in forma pauperis [575 U. S. 1023] denied.
No. 14–9200. Lavergne v. Bajat et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [576 U. S. 1002] denied.
No. 14–9267. Evans v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 4th App. Dist.,
Scioto County. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order
denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [576 U. S. 1020]
denied.
No. 14–9323. Ware v. Securities and Exchange Commis-
sion. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration
of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [576 U. S.
1002] denied.
No. 14–9396. Judy v. Obama, President of the United
States, et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner for recon-
sideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis
[576 U. S. 1034] denied.
No. 14–9530. Snipes v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist. Mo-
tion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [576 U. S. 1002] denied.
No. 14–9708. Begolli v. Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. C. A.
7th Cir.;
No. 14–9973. Bergo v. Court of Appeal of California,
Third Appellate District, et al. Sup. Ct. Cal.;
 ORDERS 811

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10029. King v. Department of Veterans Affairs.

C. A. Fed. Cir.;
No. 14–10041. Leal v. Lynch, Attorney General. C. A.
9th Cir.;
No. 14–10083. Glasgow v. Oregon Department of Reve-
nue. Sup. Ct. Ore.;
No. 14–10150. Nelson v. Brazelton, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir.;
No. 14–10178. Cruthirds v. Miller et al. C. A. 4th Cir.;
No. 14–10183. Rizzo v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.;
No. 14–10234. Eschenbach v. Mortgage Electronic Reg-
istration Systems, Inc., et al. Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div.;
No. 14–10247. Boddie v. Department of the Treasury.
C. A. Fed. Cir.;
No. 15–5115. Clark v. Federal Labor Relations Author-
ity. C. A. D. C. Cir.;
No. 15–5142. Passiatore v. Merit Systems Protection
Board. C. A. Fed. Cir.;
No. 15–5149. Maki v. Anderson et al. Ct. App. Tex., 2d
Dist.; *
No. 15–5156. Strunk et ux. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.,
et al. C. A. 3d Cir.;
No. 15–5197. Pickett v. Gallagher et al. Ct. App. Miss.;
No. 15–5222. Norris v. Foxx, Secretary of Transporta-
tion, et al. C. A. 9th Cir.;
No. 15–5443. Deppenbrook v. Pension Beneąt Guaranty
Corporation. C. A. D. C. Cir.;
No. 15–5610. Liu v. Department of Industrial Relations.
Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Div. 5;
No. 15–5633. Ladner v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.;
No. 15–5645. King v. Department of the Army. C. A. Fed.
Cir.; and
No. 15–5670. Aslanyan v. Obenland, Superintendent,
Monroe Correctional Complex. C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of
petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Peti-
tioners are allowed until October 26, 2015, within which to pay
the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions
in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

*[Reporter’s Note: This order was vacated on November 16, 2015.

Post, p. 983.]
812 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–9816. McInerney v. Rensselaer Polytechnic In-

stitute et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until
October 26, 2015, within which to pay the docketing fee required
by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule
33.1 of the Rules of this Court. Justice Sotomayor took no
part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
No. 14–10155. In re Wells;
No. 14–10192. In re Kennedy;
No. 14–10210. In re Riggs;
No. 14–10232. In re Sisk et al.;
No. 14–10246. In re Brown;
No. 14–10253. In re Spaulding;
No. 14–10320. In re Rodriguez;
No. 14–10353. In re LoefĆer;
No. 14–10387. In re Wright;
No. 14–10389. In re Booth;
No. 14–10420. In re Rowe;
No. 14–10464. In re Edwards;
No. 14–10483. In re Jackson;
No. 15–49. In re Rehberger;
No. 15–250. In re Pitonyak;
No. 15–5010. In re Walker;
No. 15–5016. In re Burrows;
No. 15–5084. In re Akili;
No. 15–5125. In re Williamson;
No. 15–5252. In re Rivera;
No. 15–5257. In re Washington;
No. 15–5282. In re Jackson;
No. 15–5337. In re Tavarez;
No. 15–5380. In re Richardson;
No. 15–5435. In re McInnis;
No. 15–5446. In re Smith;
No. 15–5503. In re Faulkner;
No. 15–5531. In re Thompson;
No. 15–5560. In re Debrow;
No. 15–5739. In re Truitt;
No. 15–5786. In re Bui Phu Xuan;
No. 15–5816. In re Dennis; and
 ORDERS 813

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5894. In re Vashey. Petitions for writs of habeas

corpus denied.
No. 14–10057. In re Staples. Motion of petitioner for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of
habeas corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Justice
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion
and this petition.
No. 14–10421. In re Dixon. Motion of petitioner for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of habeas
corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–5012. In re Scott. Motion of petitioner for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of habeas
corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has
repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not
to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from peti-
tioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and
the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Mar-
tin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992)
(per curiam).
No. 15–5150. In re Lyles. Motion of petitioner for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of habeas
corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has
repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not
to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from peti-
tioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and
the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Mar-
tin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992)
(per curiam).
No. 15–5506. In re Beras. Motion of petitioner for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of habeas
corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has
repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not
to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from peti-
tioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and
the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Mar-
tin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992)
(per curiam). Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this motion and this petition.
814 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5820. In re Cole. Motion of petitioner for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of habeas
corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has
repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not
to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from peti-
tioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and
the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Mar-
tin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992)
(per curiam).
No. 14–1427. In re Sabeniano;
No. 14–1480. In re Schreiber;
No. 14–1532. In re Tartt;
No. 14–9676. In re Ervin;
No. 14–9751. In re Rentschler;
No. 14–9791. In re Schneider;
No. 14–10058. In re Kotzev;
No. 14–10470. In re Ben-Ari;
No. 15–148. In re OMS, LLC, et al.;
No. 15–5051. In re Viray;
No. 15–5054. In re Savoy; and
No. 15–5488. In re Platts. Petitions for writs of manda-
mus denied.
No. 14–10299. In re Dixon; and
No. 14–10382. In re Gregory. Motions of petitioners for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petitions for writs
of mandamus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 14–9565. In re Kraemer;
No. 14–10077. In re Christenson; and
No. 14–10160. In re Perkins. Petitions for writs of manda-
mus and/or prohibition denied.
No. 14–10180. In re Koch. Motion of petitioner for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of manda-
mus and/or prohibition dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 14–1439. In re Charles;
No. 14–9887. In re Ajamian;
No. 14–9888. In re Ajamian; and
No. 14–9889. In re Ajamian. Petitions for writs of prohibi-
tion denied.
 ORDERS 815

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–9544. In re Lyles. Motion of petitioner for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of prohi-
bition dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Justice Kagan
took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and
this petition.
No. 14–10422. In re Dixon; and
No. 15–5382. In re Ayers. Motions of petitioners for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petitions for writs of
prohibition dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.

Certiorari Denied
No. 13–1559. Corr et al. v. Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 740 F. 3d 295.
No. 14–1071. Baumgartner v. United States. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 581 Fed. Appx. 522.
No. 14–1106. Bolden v. Doe et al. Sup. Ct. Utah. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2014 UT 51, 358 P. 3d 1009.
No. 14–1133. Zubaidah v. Lorain County Bar Assn. Sup.
Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 140 Ohio St. 3d
495, 2014-Ohio-4060, 20 N. E. 3d 687.
No. 14–1136. Nestle Purina PetCare Co. et al. v. Curts
et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779
F. 3d 481.
No. 14–1177. Oklahoma v. Hobia et al. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 F. 3d 1204.
No. 14–1184. Firenze v. National Labor Relations Board
et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1191. Quicken Loans Inc. v. Brown et al. Sup. Ct.
App. W. Va. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 236 W. Va. 12,
777 S. E. 2d 581.
No. 14–1208. Diaz Herrera v. Stansell et al.;
No. 14–1336. Villarosa Investments Florida, Inc., et al.
v. Stansell et al.; and
No. 14–1342. Siman et al. v. Stansell et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 F. 3d 713.
816 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–1233. United Food and Commercial Workers

Union Local 880 Pension Fund, Individually and on Be-
half of All Others Similarly Situated v. Chesapeake
Energy Corp. et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 774 F. 3d 1229.
No. 14–1252. City of San Jose, California, et al. v. Of-
ące of the Commissioner of Baseball et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 F. 3d 686.
No. 14–1255. Higbie v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 990.
No. 14–1260. Allaithi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Former Secre-
tary of Defense, et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 753 F. 3d 1327.
No. 14–1272. Anderson v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 F. 3d 969.
No. 14–1276. Loscombe v. City of Scranton, Pennsylva-
nia, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
600 Fed. Appx. 847.
No. 14–1278. Peabody Coal Co. v. Director, Ofące of
Workers’ Compensation Programs, Department of Labor,
et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 577
Fed. Appx. 469.
No. 14–1288. Cain, Warden, et al. v. Woodfox. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 F. 3d 358.
No. 14–1291. Rosebrough v. Buckeye Valley High
School. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 582
Fed. Appx. 647.
No. 14–1295. Jerez v. Republic of Cuba et al. C. A. D. C.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 F. 3d 419.
No. 14–1299. Felder’s Collision Parts, Inc. v. All Star
Advertising Agency, Inc., et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 756.
No. 14–1301. Martin v. Hearst Corp. et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 546.
 ORDERS 817

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–1302. Yeager v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 362.
No. 14–1308. Bierley v. Sambroak. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–1312. Jones v. Chatman, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 F. 3d 1171.
No. 14–1313. Stephens v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 F. 3d 327.
No. 14–1314. Telesaurus VPC, LLC, nka Verde Systems,
LLC v. Power et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 584 Fed. Appx. 905.
No. 14–1315. Santos-Buch v. Financial Industry Regula-
tory Authority, Inc. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 32.
No. 14–1316. Coulter v. Allegheny County Bar Assn.
et al. (Reported below: 105 A. 3d 39); Coulter v. Lope et al.
(105 A. 3d 39); Coulter v. Ramsden et al. (105 A. 3d 39);
Coulter v. Doerr et al. (105 A. 3d 40); Coulter v. Gale
et al. (105 A. 3d 39); Coulter v. Mahood et al. (105 A. 3d 39);
and Coulter v. Ramsden et al. (94 A. 3d 1080). Super. Ct.
Pa. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1317. PHI Inc. v. Rolls Royce Corp. et al. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 F. 3d 671.
No. 14–1318. Dix v. Clancy, Director, United States Se-
cret Service, et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1319. Devlin et ux. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 585 Fed.
Appx. 171.
No. 14–1320. DM Records, Inc. v. Isbell, dba Alvert
Music. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774
F. 3d 859.
No. 14–1321. Henderson et al. v. Shanks et al. Ct. App.
Tex., 14th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 449 S. W.
3d 834.
818 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–1323. Hoffman v. Baylor Health Care System,

dba Baylor Medical Center at Waxahachie. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 231.
No. 14–1324. Ward v. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
762 F. 3d 24.
No. 14–1326. United States ex rel. Grenadyor v. Ukrai-
nian Village Pharmacy, Inc., et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 772 F. 3d 1102.
No. 14–1327. Amaya v. IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB. Sup.
Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 157 So. 3d 1040.
No. 14–1328. Otrompke v. Hill, President of the Illinois
Board of Admissions to the Bar, et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 495.
No. 14–1335. Tiller v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 24 N. E. 3d 1018.
No. 14–1341. Garrett et al. v. Coventry II Developers
Diversiąed Realty/Trademark Montgomery Farm, L. P.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 792.
No. 14–1343. Reveles v. Johnson, Secretary of Home-
land Security. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 595 Fed. Appx. 321.
No. 14–1344. Johnson et al. v. Draeger Safety Diagnos-
tics, Inc. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
594 Fed. Appx. 760.
No. 14–1346. Brown v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1350. Schwab Money Market Fund et al. v. Bank
of America Corp. et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1351. Knoedler Manufacturers, Inc., et al. v.
Delaware & Hudson Railway Co., Inc., dba Canadian Pa-
ciąc Railway, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 781 F. 3d 656.
No. 14–1352. Earman v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 991.
 ORDERS 819

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–1353. NetAirus Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 587 Fed.
Appx. 658.
No. 14–1359. Owens et al. v. U. S. Bank N. A. Ct. App. Ga.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1361. Ragsdell v. Regional Housing Alliance of
La Plata County et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 653.
No. 14–1363. Y. W. v. New Milford Public School et al.
Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1364. Mosher et ux. v. Long Beach Mortgage Co.
et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593
Fed. Appx. 766.
No. 14–1365. Podlin et al. v. Ghermezian et al. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 31.
No. 14–1366. Pearl Seas Cruises, LLC v. Lloyd’s Regis-
ter North America, Inc. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 780 F. 3d 283.
No. 14–1367. Kawa Orthodontics, LLP v. Lew, Secretary
of the Treasury, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 773 F. 3d 243.
No. 14–1374. Goldthwaite v. Norfolk Southern Railway
Co. Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 176
So. 3d 1209.
No. 14–1376. Perez-Aguilar v. Lynch, Attorney General.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed.
Appx. 841.
No. 14–1377. Velazquez-Soberanes v. Lynch, Attorney
General. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
589 Fed. Appx. 839.
No. 14–1378. Rechtzigel v. Fischer Market Place, LLP,
et al. Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1379. Mock v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Cor-
poration, dba Freddie Mac. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 127.
820 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–1381. Garity v. American Postal Workers Union,

AFL–CIO, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 585 Fed. Appx. 383.
No. 14–1383. Williams et al. v. North Carolina et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 585 Fed.
Appx. 251.
No. 14–1385. Cruz v. Citibank, N. A. Dist. Ct. App. Fla.,
4th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 160 So. 3d 446.
No. 14–1389. Nelson v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed.
Appx. 591.
No. 14–1393. Prince v. Michigan. Sup. Ct. Mich. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 497 Mich. 946, 857 N. W. 2d 15.
No. 14–1394. Davila v. Haynes, Warden, et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 1198.
No. 14–1395. Davies v. Waterstone Capital Management,
L. P. Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 856
N. W. 2d 711.
No. 14–1396. Crockett v. Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority, dba SEPTA, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 65.
No. 14–1397. Building Industry Association of Wash-
ington v. Utter et al. Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 182 Wash. 2d 398, 341 P. 3d 953.
No. 14–1399. Schulze v. County of Erie, Bureau of Reve-
nue and Tax Claim. Commw. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 103 A. 3d 455.
No. 14–1401. Yan Sui v. Price et al. App. Div., Super. Ct.
Cal., County of Orange. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1402. Schmidt et ux. v. J-Lu Co. Ltd., L. L. C. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 257.
No. 14–1403. Suchocki v. Gilcrest et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 91.
 ORDERS 821

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–1404. De Ritis v. Unemployment Compensation

Board of Review. Commw. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1405. Sequeira v. Sequeira. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 121
App. Div. 3d 406, 993 N. Y. S. 2d 309.
No. 14–1407. Camp v. Berghuis, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 380.
No. 14–1410. Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of
Correction v. Camacho. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 774 F. 3d 931.
No. 14–1412. Johnson et al. v. City of Memphis, Tennes-
see. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770
F. 3d 464.
No. 14–1414. Lopez v. Newport Elementary School et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1415. Martinez v. Texas Workforce Commission.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 F. 3d 685.
No. 14–1416. Langton et al. v. Briese Lichttechnik Ver-
triebs GmbH et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 536.
No. 14–1417. Stillwagon v. New Hampshire et al. Sup.
Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1420. Mullen et al. v. Ceres Marine Terminals,
Inc., et al. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1424. Nijjar Realty, Inc., dba PAMA Management
Co., et al. v. Judge. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., Div. 7. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 232 Cal. App. 4th 619, 181 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 622.
No. 14–1425. Shoback v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 106 A. 3d 165.
No. 14–1426. Satterwhite v. City of Houston, Texas.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed.
Appx. 585.
822 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–1428. Couture v. Playdom, Inc. C. A. Fed. Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 1379.
No. 14–1429. Leightey v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1430. Whittemore v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 F. 3d 1074.
No. 14–1431. Rahman v. Hickory Hills Property Owners
Assn. Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 104
A. 3d 58.
No. 14–1432. Burditt v. Leedy et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 583 Fed. Appx. 398.
No. 14–1433. Lombard v. United States. C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1434. Bazinski v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed.
Appx. 379.
No. 14–1435. Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Assn.,
Inc. v. Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. C. A.
D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1437. Cox v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.,
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 585
Fed. Appx. 862.
No. 14–1441. Ming Tien v. Tien et al. Dist. Ct. App. Fla.,
3d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 155 So. 3d 359.
No. 14–1442. Corpcar Services Houston, Ltd., dba Carey
of Houston, et al. v. Henry et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 625 Fed. Appx. 607.
No. 14–1443. Atkinson v. Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 F. 3d 1321.
No. 14–1444. Stansel v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed.
Appx. 866.
No. 14–1445. Phillips, Individually and on Behalf of
B. P. et al., Minors, et al. v. City of New York, New York,
 ORDERS 823

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775

F. 3d 538.
No. 14–1446. Ragge v. Webster Bank, N. A. App. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 85 Mass. App. 1113, 6 N. E.
3d 569.
No. 14–1447. Feas v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–1448. Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Department of
Children and Family Services et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–1449. Cook v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed.
Appx. 519.
No. 14–1450. Vision-Park Properties, LLC, et al. v. Sea-
side Engineering & Surveying, LLC. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 1070.
No. 14–1451. Khalil et al. v. New Jersey Division of
Child Protection and Permanency et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 88.
No. 14–1452. Dougherty v. Philadelphia Newspapers
LLC et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
627 Fed. Appx. 97.
No. 14–1454. Preston State Bank, fka Dallas City Bank
v. Texas et al. Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 443 S. W. 3d 428.
No. 14–1455. Fred Martin Motor Co. v. Spitzer Auto-
world Akron, LLC, et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 776 F. 3d 411.
No. 14–1456. Williams v. Lynch, Attorney General,
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 621
Fed. Appx. 768.
No. 14–1459. Meche v. Doucet et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 237.
No. 14–1460. Crump v. Montgomery County Education
Assn. et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 590 Fed. Appx. 274.
824 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–1461. Himes v. Montana. Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari

denied. Reported below: 378 Mont. 419, 345 P. 3d 297.
No. 14–1462. Loudermilk et al. v. Arpaio et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 596.
No. 14–1463. Reeder et al. v. Madigan, Speaker of the
Illinois House of Representatives, et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 799.
No. 14–1465. Fialdini et ux. v. Cote et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 113.
No. 14–1466. Scott v. Frankel. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 529.
No. 14–1471. Tretola v. Tretola. Ct. App. Ohio, 3d App.
Dist., Logan County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014-
Ohio-5484.
No. 14–1474. Huguely v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–1475. U. S. Tour & Remittance, Inc., et al. v.
United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 595 Fed. Appx. 336.
No. 14–1476. JT USA, LP, et al. v. Commissioner of Inter-
nal Revenue. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 771 F. 3d 654.
No. 14–1477. Prostyakov v. Masco Corp. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 570.
No. 14–1479. Hollander v. Pembroke. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 111 A. 3d 647.
No. 14–1481. RindĆeisch v. Wisconsin. Ct. App. Wis.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 WI App 121, 359 Wis.
2d 147, 857 N. W. 2d 456.
No. 14–1482. Reeves v. OneBeacon America Insurance
Co. et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1483. Mendez v. May. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 337.
 ORDERS 825

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–1484. Rodriguez v. Bank of America, N. A., et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed.
Appx. 356.
No. 14–1485. Khan v. Regions Bank. Ct. App. Tenn. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 461 S. W. 3d 505.
No. 14–1486. Posner et al. v. Tassely et al. Sup. Ct. Nev.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 131 Nev. 1335.
No. 14–1487. Kornegay et vir v. Old Republic National
Title Insurance Co. et al. Ct. App. Neb. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 22 Neb. App. xxii.
No. 14–1488. Olibas et al. v. Dodson, Sheriff, Brewster
County, Texas, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 412.
No. 14–1489. Orcutt v. Superior Court of California,
Riverside County. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 2. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–1490. Izhar v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
et al. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1491. Nazzal v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 451.
No. 14–1493. Gardner v. Bank of New York Mellon.
Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 160 So. 3d 894.
No. 14–1494. Charnock v. Virginia et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 587 Fed. Appx. 764.
No. 14–1495. Adame v. Lynch, Attorney General. C. A.
7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 F. 3d 667.
No. 14–1496. Youseąan v. City of Glendale, California,
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779
F. 3d 1010.
No. 14–1500. Campie v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–1501. Wrae v. Eikleberry, Judge, Superior Court
of California, Pima County, et al. Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certio-
rari denied.
826 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–1502. Nelson v. McEwen, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 688.
No. 14–1503. Koch et al. v. Pechota et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 72.
No. 14–1509. LaCertosa v. Blackman Plumbing Supply
Co., Inc., et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 582 Fed. Appx. 43.
No. 14–1510. Wu Tien Li-Shou v. United States. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 175.
No. 14–1514. Holdner v. Rosenblum, Attorney General
of Oregon, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 599 Fed. Appx. 327.
No. 14–1515. Konrad v. Epley et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 586 Fed. Appx. 72.
No. 14–1517. Beriont v. GTE Laboratories, Inc., et al.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed.
Appx. 937.
No. 14–1518. Abram v. Fulton County, Georgia. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx.
672.
No. 14–1519. Buford v. United States. C. A. Armed
Forces. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 74 M. J. 98.
No. 14–1521. Torres v. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash In-
dians. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599
Fed. Appx. 650.
No. 14–1522. U. L., Individually and as Father and Natu-
ral Guardian of E. L. v. New York State Assembly et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed.
Appx. 40.
No. 14–1523. Fazio v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 770 F. 3d 160.
No. 14–1525. Belniak v. Florida Highway Patrol et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed.
Appx. 357.
 ORDERS 827

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–1526. Girard v. M/Y Quality Time. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 596 Fed. Appx. 846.
No. 14–1527. Beeman et al. v. BGI Creditors’ Liquidating
Trust et al. (two judgments). C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 772 F. 3d 102 (first judgment); 595 Fed. Appx.
86 (second judgment).
No. 14–1528. Jackson v. Humphrey et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 F. 3d 1232.
No. 14–1529. Lilly v. Lewiston-Porter Central School
District et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 593 Fed. Appx. 87.
No. 14–1530. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC, et al.
v. Sussex et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 781 F. 3d 1065.
No. 14–1533. Xu-Shen Zhou v. State University of New
York Institute of Technology et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 41.
No. 14–1534. Hernandez v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.
Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 157 So. 3d
1044.
No. 14–1537. Houston et al. v. 42d Judicial District
Court of Louisiana. Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 2014–2144 (La. 11/26/14), 152 So. 3d 895.
No. 14–1539. Koster v. Sullivan. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 160 So. 3d 385.
No. 14–1540. LaFrieda et al. v. Black Eagle Consulting,
Inc. Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 130
Nev. 1207.
No. 14–1541. Zutz et al. v. Nelson et al. Ct. App. Minn.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–1542. Corzo Trucking Corp. et al. v. West. Ct.
App. Ga. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 329 Ga. App.
XXIII.
No. 14–1544. Bazargani v. Radel et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 829.
828 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–7776. Dean v. Porsche Automobil Holdings SE

et al. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–8486. Diaz-Colon v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763 F. 3d 89.
No. 14–8575. Hunt v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–8686. Donahue v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 120163, 16
N. E. 3d 316.
No. 14–8782. Dansby v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 766 F. 3d 809.
No. 14–8791. El Amin v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–8805. Graham v. Bluebonnet Trails Community
Services. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
587 Fed. Appx. 205.
No. 14–8856. Bistrika et al. v. Oregon (Reported below:
261 Ore. App. 710, 322 P. 3d 583); and Bistrika v. Oregon (262
Ore. App. 385, 324 P. 3d 584). Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–8893. Giles v. New York. Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 24 N. Y. 3d 1066, 25 N. E. 3d 943.
No. 14–8911. Pilger v. Department of Education et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 584 Fed.
Appx. 452.
No. 14–8921. Hernandez-Gutierrez v. United States (Re-
ported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 151); Alvarez-Alvarez v. United
States (606 Fed. Appx. 164); and Alonzo-Solis v. United
States (606 Fed. Appx. 160). C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–8967. Fugate v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 564.
No. 14–8993. McNeal v. Kott et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 566.
 ORDERS 829

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–8995. Patterson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 587 Fed. Appx. 878.
No. 14–9012. Dickerson v. United Way of New York City
et al. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 113 App. Div. 3d 452, 979 N. Y. S. 2d 25.
No. 14–9036. Dorward v. Macy’s, Inc. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 951.
No. 14–9048. Sierra-Villegas v. United States. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 F. 3d 1093.
No. 14–9078. Barry v. Diallo. Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 100 A. 3d 322.
No. 14–9114. McAnulty v. Oregon. Sup. Ct. Ore. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 356 Ore. 432, 338 P. 3d 653.
No. 14–9139. Ido v. Lynch, Attorney General. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 897.
No. 14–9150. Holder v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 721 F. 3d 979.
No. 14–9175. Gutierrez v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
590 Fed. Appx. 371.
No. 14–9239. Coles v. National Labor Relations Board
et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9275. Frazier v. West Virginia. Sup. Ct. App.
W. Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9289. Forrest v. Steele, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 F. 3d 848.
No. 14–9292. Dominguez-Garcia v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 586 Fed. Appx. 313.
No. 14–9301. Blount v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed.
Appx. 987.
830 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–9305. Miller v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 384.
No. 14–9317. Rockwell v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9320. Missud v. California et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9336. Lucio Vasquez v. Stephens, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institu-
tions Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 597 Fed. Appx. 775.
No. 14–9380. Hosier v. Missouri. Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 454 S. W. 3d 883.
No. 14–9405. Morris v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 279.
No. 14–9408. Wright v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 635.
No. 14–9425. Rodriguez v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 897.
No. 14–9476. Sanchez-Venegas v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 709.
No. 14–9479. White v. Woods, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9489. Chalmers v. Tennessee. Ct. Crim. App.
Tenn. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9495. Tadlock v. Foxx, Secretary of Transporta-
tion. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601
Fed. Appx. 595.
No. 14–9499. Posr v. Nachamie et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9500. Mosley v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2013–1967 (La. App. 1 Cir.
5/2/14).
 ORDERS 831

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–9506. Kratochvil v. Nixon, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9515. Leonard v. Haskell et al. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9524. Williams v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 158 So. 3d 309.
No. 14–9528. Harrall v. Louisiana. Sup. Ct. La. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2014–0665 (La. 1/23/15), 159 So.
3d 453.
No. 14–9536. Williamson v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9540. Schaefer v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9559. Drew v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 266.
No. 14–9561. Richardson v. Minor, Warden, et al. C. A.
8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9568. Paulson v. Mapes, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 F. 3d 901.
No. 14–9569. Johnson v. Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 630 Pa. 493, 107 A. 3d 52.
No. 14–9575. Williams v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 113359–U.
No. 14–9583. Ingram v. Stephenson. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–9584. Higgins v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9589. Higginbotham v. King, Superintendent,
South Mississippi Correctional Institution. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 313.
No. 14–9593. Zirus v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
832 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–9594. Sperry v. Maes et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-

rari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 688.
No. 14–9601. Secrest v. Davey, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9603. Stoot v. Santoro, Acting Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9611. Miller v. Cameron, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Cresson. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–9618. Jackson v. McDowell, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9620. Sykes v. City of New York Human Re-
sources Administration, Ofące of Child Support Enforce-
ment, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9625. Mackay v. Mercedes Benz. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9627. Turner v. Cassady, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9629. Williams v. Davey, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9632. Talley v. Gore et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–9635. Tucker v. Bauman, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9642. Olmos v. Ryan, Director, Arizona Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 14–9643. Phillips v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 4th
App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9646. Anguiano v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2013 IL App (1st) 113458, 4
N. E. 3d 483.
 ORDERS 833

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–9648. Anderson v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-

partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9649. Bomar v. Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 629 Pa. 136, 104 A. 3d 1179.
No. 14–9650. Vaughn v. Sherman, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9655. McKinney v. Foulk, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9656. Palmer v. Aikens et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9660. Anderson v. Rivard, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9661. Hayes v. Viacom et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–9662. Daly v. Gipson, Acting Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9665. Townsend v. Perry, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9669. Ricks v. Owens, Commissioner, Georgia De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9671. Johnson v. Rivard, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9672. Burton v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–9673. Jorge Andrade v. Ducart, Warden. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9674. Williams v. Martin et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 325.
No. 14–9680. McKinley v. McDonald, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9682. Vassallo v. MacDonald, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
834 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–9685. Stamos v. Davey, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9686. Robinson v. Valdamudi et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9687. Lewis v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 448 S. W. 3d 138.
No. 14–9691. Rodarte v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9692. Long v. Woods, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9693. Brown v. California et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9695. Dwyer v. Norman, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9703. Robinson v. Wetzel, Secretary, Pennsylva-
nia Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 762 F. 3d 316.
No. 14–9717. Bailey v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9718. Blackwood v. Lindamood, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9719. Bogany v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9720. Garcia v. Hebert et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 26.
No. 14–9724. Menzies v. Utah. Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2014 UT 40, 344 P. 3d 581.
No. 14–9726. Carr v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 156 So. 3d 1052.
 ORDERS 835

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–9727. Epperson v. Delaware. Sup. Ct. Del. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 121 A. 3d 1234.
No. 14–9731. Jones v. Clarke, Director, Virginia Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 259.
No. 14–9732. Madden v. Beard, Secretary, California De-
partment of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9736. Bautista v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 F. 3d 133.
No. 14–9740. Fults v. Chatman, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 F. 3d 1311.
No. 14–9741. Firman v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App.
Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9742. Elam v. Pastrana, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 927.
No. 14–9743. DeVaughn v. Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 296 Ga. 475, 769 S. E. 2d 70.
No. 14–9752. Jacobson v. Colegrove et al. Sup. Ct. Mich.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9754. Velez v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9756. Dunn v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9757. Crawford v. Nooth, Superintendent, Snake
River Correctional Institution. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 14–9759. McCoy v. Colorado. Ct. App. Colo. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–9762. Evans v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
836 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–9764. Horton v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-

partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–9766. Grifąs v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 441 S. W. 3d 599.
No. 14–9768. Handy v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9770. Harrison v. Obenland, Superintendent,
Clallam Bay Corrections Center. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–9773. Akbar v. Prison Emergency Response Team
Ofącers et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 589 Fed. Appx. 215.
No. 14–9776. Drake v. Cain, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9778. Isaac v. McLaughlin, Warden. Super. Ct.
Macon County, Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9779. Fields v. Gerth et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–9780. Harris v. Lewis, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9781. Gonzalez v. Cox, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9782. Rodriguez v. Janda, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9783. Cummings v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9786. Cauthen, aka Marrow v. New Jersey. Sup.
Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 220 N. J. 100, 103
A. 3d 267.
No. 14–9787. Galvan Cerna v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 14th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 441 S. W. 3d 860.
No. 14–9789. McDonald v. Zions First National Bank.
Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 837

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–9793. Horton v. Degennaro et al. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9794. Ferry v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 14–9797. Goins v. Pearson et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 585 Fed. Appx. 150.
No. 14–9798. Harrell v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 20 N. E. 3d 225.
No. 14–9799. Hardrick v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766 F. 3d 1051.
No. 14–9804. Cranford v. Employees of Coalinga State
Hospital. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9806. Cook v. Cashler et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–9810. Reilly v. Cartledge, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 220.
No. 14–9811. Calton v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9814. DeNoma v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 1st App. Dist.,
Hamilton County. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9817. Mendez v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 731.
No. 14–9819. Paulk v. City of Orlando, Florida, et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9820. Solano v. Glunt, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Rockview, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9822. Blond v. Graham, Superintendent, Auburn
Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9823. Sampson v. Patton, Director, Oklahoma De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 573.
838 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–9824. Edens v. Eagleton, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 580 Fed. Appx. 222.
No. 14–9825. Douglas v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9826. Montague v. Carlton, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9827. Small v. Lindamood, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9828. Calderon v. Washington. Sup. Ct. Wash.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9829. Day-Petrano et vir v. Baylor. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 596 Fed. Appx. 741.
No. 14–9831. Ewing v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 145 So. 3d 833.
No. 14–9833. Conway v. Pąster, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9834. Delaney v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9836. Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. Super.
Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9837. Cook v. Sabatka-Rine, Warden, et al. C. A.
8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9841. Dougherty v. Pruett, Warden (Reported
below: 585 Fed. Appx. 108); and Dougherty v. Virginia et al.
(585 Fed. Appx. 115). C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9844. Escamilla v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
602 Fed. Appx. 939.
No. 14–9845. Childs v. Irvington Properties, LLC, dba
Aruba Hotel & Spa. Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 131 Nev. 1263.
 ORDERS 839

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–9847. Martin Trinidad v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal.

Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9853. Medley v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9854. Cote v. Adams, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 586 Fed. Appx. 414.
No. 14–9855. Jordan v. Metropolitan Jewish Hospice
et al. Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 24
N. Y. 3d 1199, 27 N. E. 3d 851.
No. 14–9856. Marcus v. Maryland. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 218 Md. App. 749.
No. 14–9858. Lynch v. Lynch. App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 153 Conn. App. 208, 100 A. 3d 968.
No. 14–9860. Nixon v. Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9863. Allen v. Davey, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9864. Bates v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 768 F. 3d 1278.
No. 14–9866. Ratchford v. Arkansas. Sup. Ct. Ark. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 Ark. 452.
No. 14–9869. Ralston v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9870. Sylvester v. Colorado. Ct. App. Colo. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9872. Theriault v. Stratton et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9873. Wright v. Illinois Department of Parole
et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9878. Knight v. Frauenheim, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
840 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–9879. Kralovetz v. Spearman, Warden. C. A. 9th

Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9885. Adams v. Ducart, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 554 Fed. Appx. 610.
No. 14–9893. Prado v. Riverside County, California,
et al. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9894. Estrada v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9895. Williams v. Huha et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 584 Fed. Appx. 731.
No. 14–9897. Terrell v. Maiorana, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 352.
No. 14–9902. Keahey v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 6th App. Dist.,
Erie County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014-Ohio-
4729.
No. 14–9903. Coleman v. Bush, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 225.
No. 14–9904. Guardia v. Clinical & Support Options, Inc.
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9909. Ross v. Cobb. Super. Ct. Habersham County,
Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9911. McDonald v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 7th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9916. Cotton v. Russell, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9920. Addai v. Braun, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 776 F. 3d 528.
No. 14–9923. Rivera v. Kalla et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 321.
No. 14–9924. Forward v. California Workers’ Compensa-
tion Appeals Board et al. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist.,
Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 841

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–9925. Antonio Parra v. Ryan, Director, Arizona

Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–9926. Patton v. Werlinger et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 71.
No. 14–9930. Dudley v. Timmerman-Cooper, Warden.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9931. Fishburne v. Hamilton. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 228.
No. 14–9933. Cranford v. Price et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9934. Corrales v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9936. Cranford v. Ceballos. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9937. Dortch v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9938. Clayton v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9939. Jordan v. Davey, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9943. Tapp v. Eckard, Superintendent, State Cor-
rectional Institution at Huntingdon. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9945. Cleaveland v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 9th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9946. Edwards v. Soto, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9949. Campbell v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 F. 3d 664.
No. 14–9954. Esparza v. Uribe, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 728.
842 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–9956. Broadway v. Cain, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9959. Ward v. Department of Education. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 282.
No. 14–9960. Petrano et ux. v. Rhodes et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9961. Watson v. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 598 Fed. Appx. 634.
No. 14–9964. Broadnax v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9965. Benton v. Town of South Fork, Colorado,
et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 587
Fed. Appx. 447.
No. 14–9967. Jones v. Sandor, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 618.
No. 14–9977. Thomas v. Wisconsin. Ct. App. Wis. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2014 WI App 97, 356 Wis. 2d 830,
855 N. W. 2d 720.
No. 14–9978. Turner v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2013 IL App (3d) 110827–U.
No. 14–9980. Urbano v. MacDonald, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9981. Poole v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–9983. Miles v. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth
District. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9985. Spry v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9988. Harmon v. Foulk, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9989. Smith v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 120208–U.
 ORDERS 843

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–9992. Marroquin-Salazar v. United States. C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 595 Fed. Appx. 430.
No. 14–9994. Marks v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9995. Bryant v. Meko, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9997. Gonzalez v. Connecticut. Sup. Ct. Conn.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 315 Conn. 564, 109 A. 3d 453.
No. 14–10001. Boda v. South Dakota. Sup. Ct. S. D. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10003. Kastrinsios v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10004. Motz v. O’Meara, Superintendent, Gouver-
neur Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 14–10005. Olson v. Brown. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 14–10007. Garcia Rubio v. Beard, Secretary, Califor-
nia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10009. Thompson v. Ohio. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 141 Ohio St. 3d 254, 2014-Ohio-4751, 23
N. E. 3d 1096.
No. 14–10011. Congress v. Vermont. Sup. Ct. Vt. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2014 VT 129, 198 Vt. 241, 114
A. 3d 1128.
No. 14–10012. Adrien v. Wittenburg University et al.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10013. Rodriguez-Ayala v. United States. C. A.
8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 F. 3d 65.
No. 14–10014. Kronenberg v. Eppinger, Warden. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
844 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–10016. Marquez v. Ducart, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10017. Coleman v. Town of Lee, New Hampshire,
et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10021. Sarvis v. Cruz, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 106.
No. 14–10025. Melot et ux. v. United States. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 930.
No. 14–10031. Wilson v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 442 S. W. 3d 779.
No. 14–10033. Ward v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777
F. 3d 250.
No. 14–10036. Wasserman v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 13th
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10037. Thomas v. Morgan et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10038. Amrhein v. La Madeleine, Inc., et al.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed.
Appx. 258.
No. 14–10042. Luxama v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10044. Landeck et al. v. Gilmore, Warden, et al.
Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10045. Ranteesi v. Arnold, Acting Warden. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10047. White v. Woods, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10048. Warner v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10049. McKinley v. CMH Homes, Inc. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 204.
 ORDERS 845

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10050. Williams v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist.

Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10051. Pickett v. Scillia et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10055. Clark v. Linares, Judge, United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed.
Appx. 81.
No. 14–10056. Russell v. Maryland. Ct. Sp. App. Md.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 218 Md. App. 753.
No. 14–10059. Marquez v. Bondi, Attorney General of
Florida. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10060. Rinaldi v. Zickefoose, Warden. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 809.
No. 14–10062. Wimberly v. Hudak, Deputy Mayor of
Miami-Dade County, Florida, et al. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 160 So. 3d 445.
No. 14–10063. Huy Trong Tran v. Biter, Warden. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 365.
No. 14–10067. Zaler v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 677.
No. 14–10068. Printz v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 883.
No. 14–10069. Medina v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 372.
No. 14–10070. Moore v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 559 Fed. Appx. 308.
No. 14–10071. Beaulieu v. Minnesota. Sup. Ct. Minn.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 859 N. W. 2d 275.
No. 14–10072. Houston v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10073. Alejandro-Montanez v. United States.
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 352.
846 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–10074. Burda v. Korenman, fka Burda (three judg-

ments). Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10075. Sandreth v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 595 Fed. Appx. 244.
No. 14–10076. Durham v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766 F. 3d 672.
No. 14–10079. Norris v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10080. Norman v. Court of Criminal Appeals of
Texas et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 582 Fed. Appx. 430.
No. 14–10081. Aranda v. Dal-Tile Corp. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10082. Knox v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 120349–U.
No. 14–10085. Primus v. Taylor, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 235.
No. 14–10086. Natal v. Williams, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10088. Jeep v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10089. Abdullah-Malik v. South Carolina. Ct.
App. S. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10090. Burns v. Arizona. Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 237 Ariz. 1, 344 P. 3d 303.
No. 14–10091. Byrd v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 595 Fed. Appx. 431.
No. 14–10092. Melendez-Serrano v. United States. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10093. O’Keefe v. Lombardo, Sheriff, Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department, et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 626.
 ORDERS 847

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10094. Midgette v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 596 Fed. Appx. 237.
No. 14–10095. McEachern v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 596 Fed. Appx. 233.
No. 14–10096. Piccone v. McClain et al. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 586 Fed. Appx. 709.
No. 14–10097. Branch v. Dunbar, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 238.
No. 14–10098. Sherrill v. Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10099. Rollins v. Murphy et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 449.
No. 14–10100. Davis v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 F. 3d 1305.
No. 14–10101. Cladek v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 579 Fed. Appx. 962.
No. 14–10102. Brown v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10103. Barnes v. United States; and
No. 15–5148. Lewis v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 1234.
No. 14–10104. Albanese, aka Oaks v. United States.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10105. Ranteesi v. Constance et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 686.
No. 14–10106. Rangel v. Sanders et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10107. Heath v. Baton et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10108. Dykes-Bey v. Michigan Department of Cor-
rections. Cir. Ct. Ingham County, Mich. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10109. Hartman v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 20 N. E. 3d 225.
848 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–10110. Hauseur v. Virga, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 680.
No. 14–10112. Flores-Vasquez v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 355.
No. 14–10113. Williams v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 154.
No. 14–10114. Sewell v. Strayer University. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 596 Fed. Appx. 251.
No. 14–10115. Fisher v. Miller et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 571 Fed. Appx. 119.
No. 14–10116. Henricks v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10117. Hill v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–10118. Flute v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 551.
No. 14–10120. Delgado Rodriguez v. Wofford, Warden.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10121. Campbell v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 159 So. 3d 814.
No. 14–10122. Drayton v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 153.
No. 14–10123. Medrano Diaz v. Stephens, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institu-
tions Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10124. Estrada v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 4th
App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10126. Rodriguez-Flores v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 595 Fed. Appx. 442.
No. 14–10127. Allen v. McDonald, Secretary of Veter-
ans Affairs. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 594 Fed. Appx. 686.
 ORDERS 849

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10128. Lopez v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist.

Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10129. Adams v. Rogers, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10130. Shackelford v. Stephens, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institu-
tions Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10131. Greer v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–10132. Williams v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 878.
No. 14–10133. Garcia v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 363.
No. 14–10134. Nevarez-Blanco v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 595 Fed. Appx. 447.
No. 14–10135. Duku v. Lynch, Attorney General. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 158.
No. 14–10136. Styles v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 100 A. 3d 170.
No. 14–10139. Aviles-Santiago v. United States. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10140. Williams v. Cain, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10141. Jordan v. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 577 Fed. Appx. 107.
No. 14–10144. Rajkovic v. Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10146. Bowring v. Raemisch, Executive Director,
Colorado Department of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Colo. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10147. Butler v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
850 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–10148. Benjamin v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-

partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10149. Burns v. Rogers, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10151. Paige v. United States. Ct. App. D. C. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10152. Rivera-Dominguez v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 595 Fed. Appx. 452.
No. 14–10153. Velez v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10156. White v. Roberts, Secretary, Kansas De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 731.
No. 14–10158. Powell v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 475.
No. 14–10159. Monroe v. District of Columbia et al. Ct.
App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10161. Ramirez v. Lewis, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10163. Byrd v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10164. Garąas-Chaires v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 595 Fed. Appx. 446.
No. 14–10165. Kyzar v. Ryan, Director, Arizona Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 940.
No. 14–10166. Saldana v. Ducart, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 436.
No. 14–10167. Cleveland v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10168. Stewart v. Morgan State University et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed.
Appx. 48.
 ORDERS 851

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10169. Dixon v. Carlson et al. Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 163 So. 3d 508.
No. 14–10170. Coleman v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10171. Lugo v. LaValley, Superintendent, Clin-
ton Correctional Facility, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 46.
No. 14–10172. Johnson v. Fox, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 629.
No. 14–10173. Kelley v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 596 Fed. Appx. 529.
No. 14–10174. Latta v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–10175. Zahavi v. Nevada. Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 131 Nev. 51, 343 P. 3d 595.
No. 14–10176. Cannon v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 260.
No. 14–10177. Clark v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 53.
No. 14–10179. Tompkins v. Chetirkin, Administrator,
Northern State Prison. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10181. Kloth-Zanard v. Amridge University, fka
Southern Christian University et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10182. Morris v. Long. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 579.
No. 14–10187. Cook v. Ashmore. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 585 Fed. Appx. 189.
No. 14–10188. Hentges v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 848.
No. 14–10190. Winston, aka Wilson v. United States.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 260.
852 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–10191. Merimee v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10193. Amos v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 418.
No. 14–10194. Anderson v. First Judicial District Court
of Nevada, County of Carson City, et al. Sup. Ct. Nev.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 131 Nev. 1248.
No. 14–10195. Blick v. Deutsche Bank National Trust
Co. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 591
Fed. Appx. 231.
No. 14–10196. Bell v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 106 A. 3d 152.
No. 14–10197. Smith v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 180.
No. 14–10198. Stoddard v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 696.
No. 14–10199. Egerton v. Giroux, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Muncy, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10200. Joyce v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10201. Jenkins v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 93.
No. 14–10202. Harris v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 388.
No. 14–10203. Chestang v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10204. Gomes v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 147.
No. 14–10205. Sturdivant v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 853

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10206. Schwiger v. Palmer et al. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 585 Fed. Appx. 488.
No. 14–10207. Hopkins v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 583 Fed. Appx. 180.
No. 14–10208. Curry v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10211. Sylvester v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2012–1846 (La. App. 1
Cir. 9/13/13).
No. 14–10212. Sosa v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10213. Lynch v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 595 Fed. Appx. 943.
No. 14–10214. Perri v. Gerry, Warden. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10215. Meriweather v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.,
et al. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., Div. 5. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10216. Aponte v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 622 Fed. Appx. 118.
No. 14–10217. Boone v. Grifąn, Superintendent, Green
Haven Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 14–10218. Seaman v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–10219. Rojas v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 68.
No. 14–10220. Roberts v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 444 S. W. 3d 770.
No. 14–10221. Chavoya v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 560.
No. 14–10222. Shepherd v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
854 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–10223. Jimenez-Arzate v. United States. C. A. 9th

Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 1062.
No. 14–10224. Vieira v. Van Winkle. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10225. Moore v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10226. Mejia v. Pąster, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10228. Vu v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 622 Fed. Appx. 481.
No. 14–10229. Wells v. Tennessee Board of Probation
and Parole. Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10230. Vera v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 235 Ariz. 571, 334 P. 3d 754.
No. 14–10231. Colquitt v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 424.
No. 14–10233. Delgado v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 602.
No. 14–10235. Piert v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10236. McCoy v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 501.
No. 14–10237. McClain v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 697.
No. 14–10238. Oviedo-Perez v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 331.
No. 14–10239. Rivers v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 291.
No. 14–10240. Perera v. Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 295 Ga. 880, 763 S. E. 2d 687.
No. 14–10241. Romensas v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 647.
 ORDERS 855

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10242. Bennett v. Peery, Acting Warden. C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 526.
No. 14–10243. Brown v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 203.
No. 14–10244. Blow v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 420.
No. 14–10245. Barahona-Sales v. United States. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10248. Platte v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–10249. Moore v. Frazier. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 863.
No. 14–10250. Miramontes-Muniz v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10251. Miller v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 333.
No. 14–10252. Sinkąeld v. State Farm Insurance. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 580 Fed. Appx. 323.
No. 14–10254. Spencer v. Young Kwon et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10255. Wright v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–10256. Weinhaus v. Missouri. Ct. App. Mo., Eastern
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 459 S. W. 3d 916.
No. 14–10257. White v. Ohio. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 142 Ohio St. 3d 277, 2015-Ohio-492, 29
N. E. 3d 939.
No. 14–10258. Cheek v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 179.
No. 14–10259. Curry v. City of Mansąeld, Ohio, et al.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
856 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–10260. Dowell v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 702.
No. 14–10261. Allen v. Pastrana, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 855.
No. 14–10262. Butler v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10263. Rogers v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 934.
No. 14–10264. Douglas v. Dunlap, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 106.
No. 14–10265. Cardenas-Borbon v. Burt, Warden. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10266. Drew v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 559.
No. 14–10267. Cornell et al. v. United States. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 616.
No. 14–10268. Meadows v. Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 631 Pa. 282, 110 A. 3d 992.
No. 14–10269. Cook v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 497.
No. 14–10270. Saunders et al. v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 285.
No. 14–10271. Rogers v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 188.
No. 14–10272. Crews v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10273. Carrillo v. Wenerowicz, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10274. Carrascal v. Avakian et al. Ct. App. Cal.,
1st App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10275. Pate v. Brelo et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
 ORDERS 857

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10276. Ostrander v. Clarke, Director, Virginia

Department of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 242.
No. 14–10277. Suong v. Beard, Secretary, California De-
partment of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10278. Richardson v. South Carolina et al. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 584 Fed. Appx. 71.
No. 14–10279. Un v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 50 Kan. App.
2d xiv, 324 P. 3d 1153.
No. 14–10280. Watson v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 86.
No. 14–10281. Turner v. Steward, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10282. Walthall v. McQuiggen, Warden, et al.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10283. McEntyre v. Semple, Commissioner, Con-
necticut Department of Correction. App. Ct. Conn. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 155 Conn. App. 283, 109 A. 3d
928.
No. 14–10284. Storey v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
606 Fed. Appx. 192.
No. 14–10285. Speed v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 587 Fed. Appx. 996.
No. 14–10286. Baugh v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 488.
No. 14–10287. Rollins v. Louisiana Department of Cor-
rections Ofącials et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 596 Fed. Appx. 329.
No. 14–10288. Mobley v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 101 A. 3d 406.
858 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–10289. Madura et ux. v. Bank of America, N. A.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed.
Appx. 834.
No. 14–10290. Spence v. Nelson et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 250.
No. 14–10291. Redd v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 324.
No. 14–10292. Brooks v. Pierce, Warden. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10293. Smallwood v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 8th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10294. Castro-Davis v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10295. Castaneda-Guardiola v. United States.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed.
Appx. 501.
No. 14–10296. Rahman, aka Presley v. United States.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10297. Ayanbadejo v. Johnson, Secretary of
Homeland Security, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 586 Fed. Appx. 189.
No. 14–10298. Denewiler v. Swarthout, Warden. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10300. Davis v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10301. Donelson v. Pąster, Warden, et al. C. A.
7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10302. Jimenez-Quelix, aka Canales v. United
States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598
Fed. Appx. 270.
No. 14–10303. Martinez-Ordonez, aka Martinez v. United
States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598
Fed. Appx. 292.
 ORDERS 859

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10304. Martin v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 9th Dist.

Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10305. Wardell v. Raesmich, Executive Director,
Colorado Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 564 Fed. Appx. 922.
No. 14–10306. Villegas v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 372.
No. 14–10307. Lopez v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 121941–U.
No. 14–10308. Thomas v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 157.
No. 14–10310. Fuentes v. Diaz, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 426.
No. 14–10312. Goursau v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 1st
App. Dist., Div. 4. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10313. Garron-Morales v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 187.
No. 14–10314. Hechler v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 603.
No. 14–10315. Gomez-Pena v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 555.
No. 14–10316. Harris v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 288.
No. 14–10317. Huerta-Gutierrez v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 273.
No. 14–10318. Fernandez v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 266.
No. 14–10319. Gonzalez v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 422.
No. 14–10321. Elliot v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 8th App. Dist.,
Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014-
Ohio-3723.
860 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–10322. DeGrate v. Broadcast Music Inc. C. A. 2d

Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10325. Felder v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10326. Strong v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 804.
No. 14–10327. Lehman v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 113 A. 3d 340.
No. 14–10328. Jones v. Nuttall AFC Co. et al. Ct. App.
Mich. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10329. Kalick v. United States et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 108.
No. 14–10330. Lofton v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 972 A. 2d 327.
No. 14–10331. Mayon v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10332. Wilson v. Marin et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10333. Green v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (3d) 120522, 19
N. E. 3d 13.
No. 14–10334. Hanna v. Florida et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 362.
No. 14–10336. Fields v. Housing Authority of the City
of San Buena Ventura et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 14–10337. Anderson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. C. A.
Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 570 Fed. Appx.
927.
No. 14–10338. SchefĆer v. Minnesota. Ct. App. Minn.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10339. Hutcherson v. Michigan. Cir. Ct. Tuscola
County, Mich. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 861

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10340. Frias v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Cer-

tiorari denied.
No. 14–10341. Golson v. Allison, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10342. Richardson v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas
Department of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10343. Ferrer v. Garasimowicz et al. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 569 Fed. Appx. 149.
No. 14–10344. Harris v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 169 So. 3d 1175.
No. 14–10345. Grays v. Estes, Warden, et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10346. Pablo Gutierrez v. United States. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 581 Fed. Appx. 164.
No. 14–10347. Humphrey v. Hill, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10348. Groover v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10349. Gloss v. Soto, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10350. Harrington v. Jones, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10351. Hernandez Gonzalez v. United States.
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10352. Gallimore v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 132.
No. 14–10354. Lawshea v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas
Department of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10356. Alamilla Ramirez v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 753.
No. 14–10357. Reid v. City of Flint, Michigan. Cir. Ct.
Genesee County, Mich. Certiorari denied.
862 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–10358. Hall v. Michigan. Cir. Ct. Kalamazoo

County, Mich. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10359. Garvey v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10360. Fernandez v. Valenzuela, Warden. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10361. Chi Giang Ho v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 317.
No. 14–10363. Huggins v. Kerestes, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al. C. A.
3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10364. Hall v. Tallie et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 1042.
No. 14–10365. Haywood v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10366. Fodor v. Eastern Shipbuilding Group (two
judgments). C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 598 Fed. Appx. 693 (first judgment); 599 Fed. Appx. 375
(second judgment).
No. 14–10367. Gibson v. Valley Avenue Drive-In Restau-
rant, LLC. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 597 Fed. Appx. 568.
No. 14–10368. Rodriguez-Castro v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10369. Dotson v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–10370. Lavenant v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 217.
No. 14–10371. Jena v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 324.
No. 14–10372. Mason v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 2015 Ark. 20, 453 S. W. 3d 679.
 ORDERS 863

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10373. Martin v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 199.
No. 14–10374. Scott v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 573.
No. 14–10375. Zavala-Marti v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 6.
No. 14–10378. Wright v. James City County, Virginia.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed.
Appx. 186.
No. 14–10379. Taylor v. Daniels, Correctional Adminis-
trator, Maury Correctional Institution. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 269.
No. 14–10380. Hamilton v. Berghuis, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10381. Hall v. McConnell et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10383. Fuller v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 139 So. 3d 297.
No. 14–10384. Hubbard v. Miller, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10385. Freeman v. Chiprez et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 578 Fed. Appx. 618.
No. 14–10386. Hubbard v. Gipson et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10388. Banks v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10390. Adkins v. McDonald et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 159.
No. 14–10391. Jimenez Pina, aka Jimenez Mancilla v.
United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 605 Fed. Appx. 150.
864 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–10392. Turner v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 264.
No. 14–10393. Taylor v. Daniels et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 192.
No. 14–10394. Foster v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 217.
No. 14–10395. Adams v. Mackie, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10396. Butters v. Minnesota. Ct. App. Minn. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10397. Adams v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10398. Yung Lo v. Golden Gaming, Inc., et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10399. Jonassen v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 F. 3d 653.
No. 14–10400. Washington v. Jeanes, Warden. Super. Ct.
Calhoun County, Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10401. Taylor v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 983.
No. 14–10402. De La Cruz v. Arizona. Sup. Ct. Ariz. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10403. Edwards v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 554.
No. 14–10404. Stevens v. City of Shreveport, Louisiana,
et al. Ct. App. La., 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 49,437 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/19/14), 152 So. 3d 1071.
No. 14–10406. Trung Quang Phan v. Beard, Secretary,
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilita-
tion. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 584
Fed. Appx. 841.
No. 14–10408. Carranza-Raudales v. United States.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed.
Appx. 325.
 ORDERS 865

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10409. Esqueda v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 608.
No. 14–10410. Diaz v. Lewis, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 633.
No. 14–10411. Laureano v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10412. Jordan v. Satterąeld et al. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10413. Brown v. Perez, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10414. Castro Velasquez v. Bank of America,
N. A. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 168
So. 3d 231.
No. 14–10415. Walpole v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 56.
No. 14–10416. Tanzi v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 772 F. 3d 644.
No. 14–10417. Haynes v. McDonald, Secretary of Veter-
ans Affairs. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 785 F. 3d 614.
No. 14–10418. Smith v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10419. Rowell v. Palmer, Warden, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 620.
No. 14–10424. Isaac v. McLaughlin, Warden. Super. Ct.
Macon County, Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10425. Roundtree v. Wright, Warden. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 188.
No. 14–10426. Mawatu v. Valentin et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10428. Barill v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 120
App. Div. 3d 951, 991 N. Y. S. 2d 214.
866 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–10429. Ricks v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 246.
No. 14–10430. Starr v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 517.
No. 14–10431. Rocha-Gutierrez v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 306.
No. 14–10432. Fleitas v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–10433. Gordon v. Mullins et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 582 Fed. Appx. 248.
No. 14–10434. Richardson v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 237.
No. 14–10435. Hallock v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10436. Hurd v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 238.
No. 14–10438. Green v. Stevenson, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 209.
No. 14–10439. Hernandez v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla.,
3d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 151 So. 3d 1256.
No. 14–10440. Rowland v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10442. Johnson v. Tennessee. Ct. Crim. App. Tenn.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10444. Talley v. Simandle, Chief Judge, United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed.
Appx. 33.
No. 14–10445. Villa v. United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
 ORDERS 867

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10446. White v. Rios, Warden. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 849.
No. 14–10448. Delgado v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10449. Beckman v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 F. 3d 466.
No. 14–10450. Butler v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10452. Hancock v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 585 Fed. Appx. 265.
No. 14–10453. Folk v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 577 Fed. Appx. 106.
No. 14–10454. Goddard v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10455. Harrison v. Muniz, Warden, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10456. Hastings v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10457. Garcia-Duran v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10458. Fregia v. McDonald, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10459. Staton v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 110.
No. 14–10460. Paul v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–10461. Scrubb v. LaValley. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 14–10462. Cameron v. Dolce, Superintendent, Or-
leans Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 14–10463. Cotinola v. Gipson, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
868 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–10465. Castro-Davis v. United States. C. A. 1st

Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10466. Guel-Nevares, aka Guel-Nevarez v.
United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 598 Fed. Appx. 315.
No. 14–10467. Guzman-Bautista v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 313.
No. 14–10468. Cochrun v. Dooley, Warden, et al. C. A.
8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10469. Manuel Carmona v. United States. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10471. Suppressed v. Suppressed. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10472. Salas v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 160 So. 3d 443.
No. 14–10474. Kassim v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 831.
No. 14–10475. Caracappa v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10476. Johnson v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10477. Sanders v. Georgia. Ct. App. Ga. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 329 Ga. App. XXVII.
No. 14–10478. Perez v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 625 Fed. Appx. 919.
No. 14–10479. Pennington v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 216.
No. 14–10480. White v. Uhler, Superintendent, Upstate
Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10481. Rivera v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 372.
 ORDERS 869

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10482. Shields v. Frontier Technology LLC, dba

MicroAge, LLC, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 671.
No. 14–10485. Reed v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 260.
No. 14–10487. Apodaca v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 303.
No. 14–10488. Brookens v. Ofące of Disciplinary Coun-
sel of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–2. JFT Corp. v. Newtel Payphone Operations,
Inc., et al. Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 106 A. 3d 167.
No. 15–3. Kimber v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 553.
No. 15–4. Wyttenbach v. R. M. P. Ct. App. Tex., 13th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6. Medytox Solutions, Inc., et al. v. Investorshub
.com, Inc. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 152 So. 3d 727.
No. 15–12. Pamela B. Johnson Trust, by Johnson,
Trustee v. Anderson et al. Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–13. Tyshkevich v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
et al. Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–14. Zelaya et al. v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 1315.
No. 15–15. Thomas et al. v. Virgin Islands Board of Land
Use Appeals et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–19. Mercer Outdoor Advertising, LLC v. City of
Hermitage, Pennsylvania, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 130.
No. 15–20. Mangru v. Lynch, Attorney General. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 209.
870 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–21. Cherkovsky v. Delgado. Super. Ct. N. J., App.

Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–26. Fuller v. Edwin B. Stimpson Co., Inc. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx.
652.
No. 15–29. Yan Sui v. 2176 Paciąc Homeowners Assn.
et al. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–30. Sood v. Graham. Ct. App. Iowa. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–32. Powell v. City of Kansas City, Missouri. Ct.
App. Mo., Western Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
451 S. W. 3d 724.
No. 15–33. Deere v. Laxalt, Attorney General of Ne-
vada, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–34. Duperon v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 820.
No. 15–37. Green v. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of So-
cial Security. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 605 Fed. Appx. 553.
No. 15–38. Taccetta v. D’Ilio, Administrator, New Jersey
State Prison, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 165.
No. 15–39. Balsam et al. v. Guadagno, New Jersey Sec-
retary of State. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 607 Fed. Appx. 177.
No. 15–40. Anghel v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P. C.,
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598
Fed. Appx. 805.
No. 15–42. Ramon Ochoa v. Rubin, aka Rubin Ochoa.
Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 631 Pa. 730,
112 A. 3d 654.
No. 15–43. McBroom v. HR Director, Franklin County
Board of Elections. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 871

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–44. Olesen v. Carter et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied.
No. 15–47. Bagdis v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 129.
No. 15–51. Gallant v. Gallant. Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 184 So. 3d 387.
No. 15–52. Dantone, Inc. v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–53. Carpenter v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 599.
No. 15–55. Messinger v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.,
et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–56. J. H. F. v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 190 So. 3d 579.
No. 15–60. Williams v. Barry. App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–61. Langer v. Nilles, Ilvedson, Plambeck &
Selbo, Ltd., nka Nilles, Plambeck, Selbo & Harrie, Ltd.
Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 ND 210,
858 N. W. 2d 652.
No. 15–62. Nelson v. Minnesota Commissioner of Reve-
nue. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., Div. 6. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–66. United Reąning Co. et al. v. Cottillion
et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Simi-
larly Situated. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 781 F. 3d 47.
No. 15–67. Murray v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 457 S. W. 3d 446.
No. 15–70. Van Zandt, Executor of the Estate of Malis
v. Mbunda. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
604 Fed. Appx. 552.
No. 15–72. Gonzalez-Isaguirre v. Lynch, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607
Fed. Appx. 468.
872 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–73. Basilio v. Nassau County, New York, et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–74. Sallee v. Georgia. Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 329 Ga. App. 612, 765 S. E. 2d 758.
No. 15–75. Burns v. Florida Bar. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 183 So. 3d 276.
No. 15–76. Al-Yousif v. Trani, Warden, et al. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 F. 3d 1173.
No. 15–77. Pisciotta v. United States; and
No. 15–81. Sorrentino v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 F. 3d 727.
No. 15–78. Mirabal v. HSBC Bank USA, N. A. Dist. Ct.
App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 162
So. 3d 1026.
No. 15–79. Bailey v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 F. 3d 689.
No. 15–80. Allen et al. v. Goguen. C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 437.
No. 15–82. Sofris v. Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, et al. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., Div. 3.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–83. Vane Line Bunkering, Inc. v. Hicks. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 F. 3d 939.
No. 15–86. Oppedisano v. Lynch, Attorney General.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 F. 3d 147.
No. 15–87. C. G. v. Deborah Heart and Lung Center
et al. Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–89. Bamdad v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–90. Ceraolo et vir v. Citibank, N. A. Ct. App. Cal.,
6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–91. Pollard, Individually and as the Executrix
of the Estate of Bynum v. City of Columbus, Ohio, et al.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 395.
 ORDERS 873

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–92. Barth v. McNeely et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 846.
No. 15–93. Barth v. City of Peabody, Massachusetts.
App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 87 Mass.
App. 1101, 23 N. E. 3d 151.
No. 15–94. Mackey v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 573 Fed. Appx. 863.
No. 15–95. Peshkin et al. v. Picard, Trustee for the Liq-
uidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
LLC, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
779 F. 3d 74.
No. 15–96. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Au-
thority, dba Erlanger Medical Center et al. v. United
States ex rel. Whipple. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 782 F. 3d 260.
No. 15–97. Dolz v. CitiMortgage, Inc. Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 160 So. 3d 893.
No. 15–98. Rangel v. Boehner et al. C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 19.
No. 15–99. Shaikh v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 160 So. 3d 456.
No. 15–103. Nationwide Freight Systems, Inc., et al. v.
Illinois Commerce Commission et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 367.
No. 15–104. Nunez et al. v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Succes-
sor by Merger to ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 786.
No. 15–106. Waller v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 235 Ariz. 479, 333 P. 3d 806.
No. 15–107. Sun Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Evans.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed.
Appx. 497.
No. 15–110. Perry v. Anonymous Physician et al. Ct.
App. Ind. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 25 N. E. 3d 103.
874 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–112. Skipp-Tittle v. Tittle. App. Ct. Conn. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 150 Conn. App. 64, 89 A. 3d 1039.
No. 15–114. Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 1076.
No. 15–116. Rodgers et al. v. Knight et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 932.
No. 15–117. Home Legend, LLC v. Mannington Mills, Inc.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d
1404.
No. 15–120. Holkesvig v. Hutton et al. Sup. Ct. N. D.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2015 ND 48, 861 N. W. 2d
172.
No. 15–121. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al. v. Halo Elec-
tronics, Inc. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 769 F. 3d 1371.
No. 15–124. Bradley v. Sabree et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 881.
No. 15–127. R. A. v. Louisiana Department of Children
and Family Services. Ct. App. La., 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 2014–1078 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/4/15).
No. 15–128. Dahl v. Dahl. Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–131. Abdulla v. Klosinski Overstreet, LLP, et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 591 Fed.
Appx. 865.
No. 15–134. Schwab Investments et al. v. Northstar Fi-
nancial Advisors, Inc. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 779 F. 3d 1036.
No. 15–136. Berndt v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–137. United States v. Newman et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 F. 3d 438.
No. 15–142. Berera v. Mesa Medical Group, PLLC (Re-
ported below: 779 F. 3d 352); and Ednacot v. Mesa Medical
Group, PLLC (790 F. 3d 636). C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 875

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–144. Farkas v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 211.
No. 15–149. Upshaw v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 387.
No. 15–150. Hinga v. MIC Group, LLC. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 823.
No. 15–151. Foss v. Quintana, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–153. Lossia v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A., Suc-
cessor by Merger to Chase Home Financial, LLC. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–154. Hill et al. v. Campbell Harrison & Dagley,
L. L. P., et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 782 F. 3d 240.
No. 15–159. Staton v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 110.
No. 15–160. Senci v. Bank of New York Mellon. Sup. Ct.
Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 168 So. 3d 228.
No. 15–164. Baca v. New Mexico. Sup. Ct. N. M. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2015–NMSC–021, 352 P. 3d 1151.
No. 15–172. Howard v. Railroad Retirement Board.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–174. Leonard et al. v. Department of Defense
et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
598 Fed. Appx. 9.
No. 15–178. McGriff v. United States et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–179. Microbilt Corp. v. Maselli Warren, P. C.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed.
Appx. 169.
No. 15–180. Burke v. Utah. Ct. App. Utah. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 2015 UT App 1, 342 P. 3d 299.
876 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–183. Ruhaak v. Commissioner of Internal Reve-

nue. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–188. Swain v. Arkansas. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2015 Ark. 132, 459 S. W. 3d 283.
No. 15–189. Brandon v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 595 Fed. Appx. 676.
No. 15–194. Jacob v. Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 478.
No. 15–199. Hye v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 131 So. 3d 577.
No. 15–201. Editions Limited West, Inc. v. Ryan. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 754.
No. 15–204. Carrick v. Hutchinson, Governor of Arkan-
sas, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
782 F. 3d 400.
No. 15–206. MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc. C. A.
Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 1159.
No. 15–208. Beckmann v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 672.
No. 15–217. Wallace v. Hernandez. Ct. App. Tex., 12th
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–218. Kallas v. Fiala, Commissioner, New York
State Department of Motor Vehicles, et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 30.
No. 15–219. Gallion v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–221. Campbell v. Nationstar Mortgage et al.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed.
Appx. 288.
No. 15–225. Arzate v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–237. Culver v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 877

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–239. Dent, aka Walker v. United States. C. A.

6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 584.
No. 15–248. Kelley v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 787 F. 3d 915.
No. 15–5001. Yelverton v. District of Columbia Ofące
of Bar Counsel. Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 105 A. 3d 413.
No. 15–5002. Richardson v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5003. Kaylor v. Coleman, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5005. Jones v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5006. Simon v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 89.
No. 15–5007. Smith v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 307.
No. 15–5008. Winters v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 289.
No. 15–5011. Evans v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 1115.
No. 15–5013. Aponte-Torres v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5014. Augustus v. AHRC Nassau. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 596 Fed. Appx. 41.
No. 15–5015. Alcozer v. Pąster, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5017. Sanchez Avila v. Frauenheim, Warden.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5018. Pierce v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 832.
878 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5020. Duy Pham v. McEwen, Warden. C. A. 9th

Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 737.
No. 15–5021. Porter v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 1008.
No. 15–5022. Kiehle v. Ryan, Director, Arizona Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 642.
No. 15–5023. Maxwell v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5024. Wilson v. Lackner, Warden, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 634.
No. 15– 5025. Villalta v. Lynch, Attorney General,
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599
Fed. Appx. 628.
No. 15–5027. Lyon v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 125 App.
Div. 3d 1460, 1 N. Y. S. 3d 874.
No. 15–5028. Martin v. Byars et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 136.
No. 15–5029. Jean v. Racette, Superintendent, Great
Meadow Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 523 Fed. Appx. 744.
No. 15–5030. Reichling v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 883.
No. 15–5031. Brannon v. Stevenson, Warden. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 252.
No. 15–5033. Southaite v. Nassau County, New York,
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5034. Dinwiddie v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5035. Cervantes-Carrillo v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 275.
 ORDERS 879

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5036. Riley v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 586 Fed. Appx. 118.
No. 15–5037. Pacheco-Alvarado et al. v. United States.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 213.
No. 15–5038. Mellquist v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 200 So. 3d 1277.
No. 15–5039. Gonzalez-Robles v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 558.
No. 15–5041. Winkles v. No Named Respondent. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx.
550.
No. 15–5042. Gariano v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5044. Ortega v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
784 F. 3d 250.
No. 15–5045. Moore v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 719.
No. 15–5046. Razo v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 31.
No. 15–5048. Vargas v. Montgomery, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5049. Wright v. Pennsylvania et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5050. Brutus v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15– 5053. Smith v. Phillips Winters Apartments
et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599
Fed. Appx. 365.
No. 15–5055. Irick v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 132.
880 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5056. Smith v. Wood County District Attorney’s

Ofące et al. Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5059. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 1270.
No. 15–5061. Mann v. Giroux, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Albion, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5062. Pablo Jimenez v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 601.
No. 15–5063. Brown v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 174.
No. 15–5064. Almanza Sanchez v. United States. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx.
971.
No. 15–5065. Antolin v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App.
Dist., Div. 5. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5066. Aviles v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 165.
No. 15–5067. Estrada-Garcia v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 164.
No. 15–5068. Gurrola-Perez v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 162.
No. 15–5069. Beyle v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 159.
No. 15–5070. Tucker v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 463.
No. 15–5071. Ullman v. Superior Court of Pennsylvania,
et al. (two judgments). C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 77 (second judgment).
No. 15–5072. Venegas v. Frauenheim, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 881

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5073. Stewart v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-

partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
599 Fed. Appx. 173.
No. 15–5074. Rivas v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5075. Simpson v. Valenzuela, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 569.
No. 15–5076. Dawson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5077. Kearney v. Fischer, Commissioner, New
York Department of Correctional Services, et al. C. A.
2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 673.
No. 15–5078. Kelley v. Lazaroff, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5079. Rivera v. Folino, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Greene, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5080. Ramirez-Macias v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 584 Fed. Appx. 818.
No. 15–5081. Richter v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 498.
No. 15–5082. Bursey v. McGowan et al. Ct. App. Cal., 4th
App. Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5085. Perez-Chavez v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 534.
No. 15–5086. Nesselrode v. Department of Education.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5087. Membreno v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 206.
No. 15–5088. Padilla-Martinez v. Lynch, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770
F. 3d 825.
882 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5089. Modjewski v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 F. 3d 645.
No. 15–5090. McCall v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5091. Ortega-Mora v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 585 Fed. Appx. 716.
No. 15–5092. Means v. Jones, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5094. Martin v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 195 So. 3d 1086.
No. 15–5095. Pereida v. Ryan et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5097. Ballesteros-Valverde v. United States.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed.
Appx. 157.
No. 15–5098. Mata v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 401.
No. 15–5099. Nails v. U. S. Bank N. A. Sup. Ct. N. D. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2015 ND 51, 861 N. W. 2d 172.
No. 15–5100. Lackey v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 202.
No. 15–5101. Reed v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 436.
No. 15–5102. Robinson v. Cooley, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5103. Velez-Figueroa v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5104. Torres-Colon v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 26.
No. 15–5105. Ybarra v. Holland, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 595 Fed. Appx. 713.
No. 15–5106. Sumpter v. Atkins et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
 ORDERS 883

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5107. Jones v. Clarke, Director, Virginia Depart-

ment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 783 F. 3d 987.
No. 15–5108. Spears v. Tatum, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 900.
No. 15–5109. Mazur v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 109.
No. 15–5111. Lunz v. O’Meara, Superintendent, Gouver-
neur Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5112. Donahue v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 233.
No. 15–5114. Costilla v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 194.
No. 15–5116. Brunson v. Price, Warden, et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5117. Davis v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 761 F. 3d 713.
No. 15–5118. Falls v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 543 Fed. Appx. 54.
No. 15–5119. Medearis v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5120. Medrano-Rodriguez v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 759.
No. 15–5121. Tobin v. Cuddy, Justice, Superior Court of
Maine. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5122. Tunstall-Bey v. Wells, Correctional Ad-
ministrator, Pender Correctional Institution. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 749.
No. 15–5123. Tolliver v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 10th App.
Dist., Franklin County. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
2014-Ohio-4824.
884 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5124. Vogt v. Iowa et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-

rari denied.
No. 15–5126. Wright v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5127. Cordova v. Miller, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5128. Frazier v. Johnson, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 781.
No. 15–5129. Hufstetler v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 19.
No. 15–5130. Harrison v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 654.
No. 15–5131. Looney v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 744.
No. 15–5133. Daniels v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 F. 3d 1001.
No. 15–5134. Claros v. Perez, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5135. Goodwin v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 483.
No. 15–5136. Bass v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 1043.
No. 15–5138. Asante v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 639.
No. 15–5139. Battle v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 76.
No. 15–5143. O’Neil v. Kloska et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5144. McDonough v. Smith, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5145. Rider v. United States. Ct. App. D. C. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 103 A. 3d 545.
 ORDERS 885

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5146. Scipio v. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of So-

cial Security. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 611 Fed. Appx. 99.
No. 15–5151. Evans v. United States. Ct. App. D. C. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 110 A. 3d 641.
No. 15–5152. St. Clair v. Kentucky. Sup. Ct. Ky. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 451 S. W. 3d 597.
No. 15–5153. McGee v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 121449–U.
No. 15–5154. Huitron-Rocha v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 F. 3d 1183.
No. 15–5155. Holland v. Feinberg et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5157. Kelly v. Bishop, Warden, et al. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 200.
No. 15–5158. Flowers v. Baca, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5161. Rhines v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 64.
No. 15–5162. James v. North Carolina. Sup. Ct. N. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 368 N. C. 258, 771 S. E. 2d
309.
No. 15–5163. Paetsch v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 1162.
No. 15–5165. Brown v. Burton, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5166. Anaya v. Texas (two judgments). Ct. Crim.
App. Tex. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5167. Watson v. Stewart, Circuit Judge, Circuit
Court for Jefferson County, Missouri, et al. Sup. Ct. Mo.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5168. Toledo-Martinez v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 729.
886 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5169. Raar v. Rivard, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied.
No. 15–5170. Raar v. Rivard, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5173. McCaa v. Mackie, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5174. Rivera-Miranda v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 211.
No. 15–5175. Bowden v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5177. Hunt v. Ross Store, Inc. Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 157 So. 3d 1044.
No. 15–5178. Turner v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5180. Stuckey v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 461.
No. 15–5181. Chicas-Guevara v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 212.
No. 15–5182. Taylor v. South Carolina. Sup. Ct. S. C.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5185. Martin v. Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 627 Pa. 623, 101 A. 3d 706.
No. 15–5186. Kamal v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5187. Lanier v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 160 So. 3d 427.
No. 15–5188. Sechrest v. Baker, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 548.
No. 15–5190. Johnson, aka Kelly v. Owens et al. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 707.
No. 15–5191. Matthews v. Stewart, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 887

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5192. Davis v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 710.
No. 15–5193. Chavira Corona v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 204.
No. 15–5194. Montoya v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 4. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5195. Newman v. Nebraska. Sup. Ct. Neb. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 290 Neb. 572, 861 N. W. 2d 123.
No. 15–5196. Ortega v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5198. King v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5199. Sierra v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 6. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5200. Jones v. Macomber, Warden, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5201. Saunders v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5202. Lentz v. Wells et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5203. Leffebre v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5204. Lopes v. Lizarraga, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 411.
No. 15–5205. Smith v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 166.
No. 15–5206. Al-Maliki v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 F. 3d 784.
No. 15–5207. Tarvin v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5208. Walker v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 582.
888 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5209. Williams v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 112448–U.
No. 15–5210. McCary v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 207 So. 3d 811.
No. 15–5211. Batts v. Cooley, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5212. Brown et al. v. Florida Department of
Children and Families. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5213. Brown v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 969.
No. 15–5214. Aguilar v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 960.
No. 15–5215. Basey v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5216. Brayboy v. Napel, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5218. Dominguez-Garcia v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 653.
No. 15–5219. Rodriguez v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 8.
No. 15–5220. Hayes, aka Mitchell v. Bolen et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 420.
No. 15–5221. Reyes v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 813.
No. 15–5223. McGee v. North Carolina. Sup. Ct. N. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 368 N. C. 270, 772 S. E. 2d
727 and 728.
No. 15–5224. Ortiz-Lopez v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla.,
2d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 153 So. 3d 313.
No. 15–5225. Price v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 582 Fed. Appx. 846.
 ORDERS 889

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5227. Warren v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5228. Wright v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5229. Thompson v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 122921–U.
No. 15–5230. Turner v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 374.
No. 15–5231. Brammer v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d
App. Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5232. Allen v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 173 So. 3d 971.
No. 15–5233. Acevedo v. Capra, Superintendent, Sing
Sing Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 801.
No. 15–5234. Burton v. South Carolina. Ct. Common
Pleas of Aiken County, S. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5236. Rodriguez-Grado v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5237. Shinault v. Hawks et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 1053.
No. 15–5240. Yawn v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5241. Taylor v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5242. Taylor v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 212.
No. 15–5243. Mendez-Sosa v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 1061.
No. 15–5244. M. C. v. Florida Department of Children
and Families et al. (Reported below: 171 So. 3d 118); and
M. C. v. Florida Department of Children and Families (166
So. 3d 791). Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
890 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5245. Coley v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 161.
No. 15–5246. Woodard v. Fortress Insurance Co. et al.
Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5247. Allard v. Baldwin et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 F. 3d 768.
No. 15– 5248. Bolt v. Nooth, Superintendent, Snake
River Correctional Institution. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 680.
No. 15–5249. Boone v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5250. Thompson v. United States District Court
for the Northern District of California. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5251. Williams v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5253. Cumby v. Colorado. Ct. App. Colo. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5254. Edmonds v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 656.
No. 15–5255. Colon, aka Sealed Defendant v. United
States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785
F. 3d 832.
No. 15–5256. Diehl v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 775 F. 3d 714.
No. 15–5258. Widdison v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 F. 3d 1216.
No. 15–5259. Marquardt v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 156 So. 3d 464.
No. 15–5260. Kinney v. Lavin, Judge, Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
 ORDERS 891

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5261. Rogers v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 850.
No. 15–5262. Square v. North Carolina. Ct. App. N. C.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5263. Morales v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 269.
No. 15–5264. Munyenyezi v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 532.
No. 15–5268. Silvis v. Glunt, Superintendent, State Cor-
rectional Institution at Rockview. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5269. Ruben v. Keith, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5270. Sanders v. Rivard, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5271. Rodriguez Sosa v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5272. Charlotte G. v. Arizona Department of
Child Safety et al. Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5273. Lucio v. Santos et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 480.
No. 15–5274. Robinson v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5275. Murray v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 184 So. 3d 465.
No. 15–5276. Neely v. Woods, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5277. Javier Luna v. Palmer, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5280. Ross v. Struble, Judge, Superior Court of
Georgia, Habersham County. Super. Ct. Habersham County,
Ga. Certiorari denied.
892 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5281. Lacayo v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 296.
No. 15–5283. Rivera-Otero v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 306.
No. 15–5285. Pacheco v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 809.
No. 15–5286. McCullough v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2015 IL App (2d)
121364, 38 N. E. 3d 1.
No. 15–5287. Navedo-Ramirez v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 563.
No. 15–5288. Adams v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5289. Arakji v. Hess et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5290. Bush v. Tennessee. Ct. Crim. App. Tenn.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5291. Burgess v. Holloway, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5292. Lee v. Glebe, Superintendent, Stafford
Creek Corrections Center. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5293. Ladeairous v. Schneiderman, Attorney
General of New York, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 47.
No. 15–5295. Stevenson v. Saunders. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 190.
No. 15–5296. McGinnis v. Brazelton, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5297. McGee v. Michigan. Cir. Ct. Wayne County,
Mich. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5298. Neal v. Ives, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
 ORDERS 893

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5300. Watkins v. Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 630 Pa. 652, 108 A. 3d 692.
No. 15–5301. Williams v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 586 Fed. Appx. 576.
No. 15–5302. Feng Xian v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 399.
No. 15–5303. Booker v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections, et al. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5304. Belcher v. Thomas et al. Sup. Ct. Ala. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 215 So. 3d 1027.
No. 15–5305. Martin v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5306. Johnson v. Reddy. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 586 Fed. Appx. 405.
No. 15–5308. Sharma v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 797.
No. 15–5309. Sharma v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 797.
No. 15–5311. Cupp v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 183.
No. 15–5312. Barnes v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 596 Fed. Appx. 821.
No. 15–5313. Bazemore v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 207.
No. 15–5314. Green v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 106 A. 3d 155.
No. 15–5316. Flores-Granados v. United States. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 F. 3d 487.
No. 15–5318. Douglas, aka Houston v. Bughrara et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed.
Appx. 99.
894 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5319. Chew v. Bishop, Warden, et al. C. A. 4th

Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 203.
No. 15–5320. Alejandro Diaz v. Biter, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5321. Coleman v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15– 5322. Gavilanes-Ocaranza v. United States.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 F. 3d 624
and 585 Fed. Appx. 321.
No. 15–5323. Perry v. Rawski, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 166.
No. 15–5324. Lee v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 254.
No. 15–5325. LeFlore v. Illinois. Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2015 IL 116799, 32 N. E. 3d 1043.
No. 15–5326. Willan v. Ohio. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 144 Ohio St. 3d 94, 2015-Ohio-1475, 41
N. E. 3d 366.
No. 15–5327. Walls v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 543.
No. 15–5328. King v. Kessler. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 513.
No. 15–5329. Plato v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 364.
No. 15–5331. Gibson v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 491.
No. 15–5332. Gray-Sommerville v. United States. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 165.
No. 15–5333. Hunter v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5334. Green v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 895

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5335. Fitzgerald v. House, Judge, 11th Judicial

Circuit, St. Charles County, Missouri, et al. Sup. Ct. Mo.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5338. Mercado Villalobos v. Stephens, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional In-
stitutions Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5339. Tillman v. Michigan. Cir. Ct. Wayne County,
Mich. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5340. Surles v. Leach et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5341. Solorzano v. Beard, Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5342. Leyva-Munoz v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 393.
No. 15–5343. McBride v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5344. McKinnon v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5345. Palmer v. Ryan, Director, Arizona Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5346. Shteyman v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 60.
No. 15–5347. Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx.
841.
No. 15–5348. Bowers v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 620.
No. 15–5349. Andre v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 954.
No. 15–5351. Roberts v. McCulloch, Director, Sand
Ridge Secure Treatment Facility. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
896 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5352. Garduno-Castillo v. United States. C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 938.
No. 15–5353. Garcia-Lara v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 937.
No. 15–5354. Hickman v. Oregon. Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 355 Ore. 715, 330 P. 3d 551, and 356
Ore. 687, 343 P. 3d 634.
No. 15–5355. Hanson v. Haines, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5356. Hutchinson v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 10th
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5357. Grifąn v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5358. Golston v. Sconyers, Warden, et al. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5359. Hood v. United States. Ct. App. D. C. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5360. Farmer v. Potteiger et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5361. Hopkins v. Springąeld Housing Authority.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed.
Appx. 528.
No. 15–5362. Crayton v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 160 So. 3d 893.
No. 15–5363. Sanders v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 773 F. 3d 186.
No. 15–5364. Ohlsen v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5365. Parsons v. Adkins, Administrator, South-
western Regional Jail. Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari
denied.
 ORDERS 897

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5366. Ram v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-

rari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 317.
No. 15–5367. Noel v. Macomber, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 606.
No. 15–5369. Jackson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5370. Harris v. Walls et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 518.
No. 15–5371. Gagnon v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5373. Hazen v. Hazen. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 158 So. 3d 597.
No. 15–5374. Randolph v. Nevada. Sup. Ct. Nev. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 131 Nev. 1336.
No. 15–5375. Waldrip v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 949.
No. 15–5376. Sanders v. Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5377. Huy Pham v. Financial Industry Regula-
tory Authority, Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 345.
No. 15–5378. Butler v. Berghuis, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5379. Ashley v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 256.
No. 15–5381. Butler v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 10th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5383. Brimm v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 795.
No. 15–5384. Alvarado v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 4th
App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5385. Romero-Molina v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 286.
898 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5386. Smock v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-

ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5387. Chi v. Doe. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 258.
No. 15–5389. Cruz v. Massachusetts. App. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 86 Mass. App. 1123, 20 N. E.
3d 981.
No. 15–5390. Johnson v. Young, Warden, et al. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 F. 3d 495.
No. 15–5391. Nelson v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 37.
No. 15–5393. Theall v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 807.
No. 15–5394. Verdugo-Beltran v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 556.
No. 15–5395. Strain v. United States District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5396. Scheiring v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5397. Shell v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 16 N. E. 3d 488.
No. 15–5398. Nelson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 559.
No. 15–5400. Lester v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5401. Okafor v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 108.
No. 15–5402. Krieg v. Steele et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 231.
No. 15–5403. LeBlanc v. Macomb Regional Facility.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 899

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5404. Torres v. Read et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-

rari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 742.
No. 15–5405. McClain v. Montgomery, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 549.
No. 15–5406. Tyler v. Schoąeld, Commissioner, Tennes-
see Department of Correction, et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 445.
No. 15–5407. Rodriguez v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 534.
No. 15–5408. Sajor-Reeder v. Cavazos, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 679.
No. 15–5409. Sparks v. Trumbull et al. Ct. Sp. App. Md.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 220 Md. App. 726 and 727.
No. 15–5410. Norman v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 162 So. 3d 991.
No. 15–5411. Wright v. King. Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 166 So. 3d 38.
No. 15–5412. Watkins v. Wallace, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5413. Walker v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 247.
No. 15–5414. O’Bryan v. Terris, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5415. Johnson v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5416. Wright v. Wingard, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Somerset, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 115.
No. 15–5417. Williams v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 7th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5418. Cabrera v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 279.
900 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5419. Mazariegos-Soto v. United States. C. A. 9th

Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 641.
No. 15–5420. Johnson v. Minnesota. Ct. App. Minn. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5422. Baker v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 231.
No. 15–5423. Moore v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 458.
No. 15–5424. Yelardy v. Pierce, Warden, et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5425. Llera-Plaza v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5426. Scotton v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5427. Warren v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2013 IL App (5th) 110243–U.
No. 15–5428. Taffaro v. Ng. Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5429. Cabrera Mejia v. Wal-Mart. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 520.
No. 15–5430. Moore v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 162 So. 3d 1036.
No. 15–5431. Guerrero v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 328.
No. 15–5432. Mackay v. United States et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5433. Culp v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 390.
No. 15–5434. LeBlanc v. Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s De-
partment. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5436. Philippe v. United States; and
No. 15–5439. Cole v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 35.
 ORDERS 901

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5437. Rhett U. v. Arizona Department of Child

Safety et al. Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5438. Ramos v. Lamarque, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5440. LeBlanc v. Michigan Department of Cor-
rections. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5441. Mency v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 158 So. 3d 569.
No. 15–5442. Neil v. Lynch, Attorney General. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5444. Salas v. Ducart, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5445. Dawson v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5447. Gross v. United States. C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 784.
No. 15–5448. Javier Gomez v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 595 Fed. Appx. 726.
No. 15–5449. Carmichael v. Estes, Warden, et al. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5450. Cleaver v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 173 So. 3d 972.
No. 15–5451. Roberts v. Barrow, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5452. Sanchez v. Beard, Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5453. Eikelboom v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 224.
No. 15–5454. Ramirez v. Lewis, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5455. Thomas v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 168 So. 3d 231.
902 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5456. James v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 714.
No. 15–5457. Lopez v. Tapia, Warden. Dist. Ct. N. M., Va-
lencia County. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5458. Easterling, aka Smith v. United States.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed.
Appx. 919.
No. 15–5459. Dilbert v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5460. Felix-Villalobos v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 574.
No. 15–5461. Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 297.
No. 15–5462. Figueroa-Magana v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 500.
No. 15–5463. Starkey v. Spackler, Warden. Sup. Ct. Mo.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5464. Brown v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 1301.
No. 15–5465. Arciba v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5466. Watts v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 637.
No. 15–5467. Voss v. Baca, Warden. Ct. App. Nev. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 131 Nev. 1360.
No. 15–5468. Bunthoen Roeung et al. v. Uribe, Warden,
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 596
Fed. Appx. 575.
No. 15–5469. Saguil v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 945.
No. 15–5470. Rodriguez-Lopez v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 549.
 ORDERS 903

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5471. Mercado v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 327.
No. 15–5473. Landaverde-Escalante v. United States.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed.
Appx. 335.
No. 15–5475. Kraus v. White, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5476. Ramirez-Garcia v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 293.
No. 15–5477. Romero-Guevara v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 292.
No. 15–5478. Jones v. Cartledge, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 190.
No. 15–5480. Sanchez v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 42.
No. 15–5481. Kowaleski v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 645.
No. 15–5482. Ferebee v. Temple Hills Post Ofące. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 276.
No. 15–5483. Chacon-Arviso v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 948.
No. 15–5485. Williams v. City University of New York,
Brooklyn College. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 84.
No. 15–5486. Mata-Camacho v. Fizer, Warden, et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5491. Hernandez v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 261.
No. 15–5492. Robinson v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 180.
No. 15–5493. Stinson v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 195 So. 3d 391.
904 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5498. Carter v. Kefer et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied.
No. 15–5499. Dyab v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5500. Fletcher v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 49,303 (La. App. 2 Cir.
10/1/14), 149 So. 3d 934.
No. 15–5504. Gardner v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5507. Roemmele v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 470.
No. 15–5508. Allah v. Virginia. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 201.
No. 15–5510. Novo v. Massachusetts. Super. Ct. Mass.,
Bristol County. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5511. Carrillo-Morones v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5516. Lee v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 375.
No. 15–5517. O’Campo v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 783.
No. 15–5518. Thurston v. Maryland. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 112.
No. 15–5519. Robinson v. Andrews et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 325.
No. 15–5523. McWhorter v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5529. Nash v. Cartledge, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 200.
No. 15–5530. Tribble v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 512.
 ORDERS 905

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5533. Maes v. Lackner, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 1132.
No. 15–5534. LaBelle v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5535. Uribe v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 596 Fed. Appx. 563.
No. 15–5536. Santillan v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 548.
No. 15–5537. Anderson v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 742.
No. 15–5538. Ruiz-Huertas v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 223.
No. 15–5540. Bealer v. Williams et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5543. Blakes v. Foutch et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 1004.
No. 15–5544. Smith v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5545. Smith v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 107 A. 3d 227.
No. 15–5547. Cotham v. Tennessee. Ct. Crim. App. Tenn.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5548. Chanley v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5549. Easton v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 236.
No. 15–5551. Aponte-Sobrado v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763 F. 3d 89.
No. 15–5554. LeBlanc v. Kalamazoo County, Michigan.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5557. Edwards v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 928.
906 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5559. Collins v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 F. 3d 256.
No. 15–5561. Adkins v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5563. Olivarez v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 391.
No. 15–5564. Adigun v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 718.
No. 15–5565. Bargo v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 538.
No. 15–5566. Price, aka Robertson v. Phillips, Warden.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5569. Hill v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 158 So. 3d 603.
No. 15–5574. Cook v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 983.
No. 15–5575. Hobbs v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 94.
No. 15–5576. Duquette v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 314.
No. 15–5577. Guerra v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 295.
No. 15–5578. Hitchcock v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5580. Maisonet v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 757.
No. 15–5581. Wilburn v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 596 Fed. Appx. 241.
No. 15–5582. Wimberly v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 907

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5583. Brown v. Ofące of Personnel Management.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed.
Appx. 934.
No. 15–5584. Alston v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5585. Marble v. Fox, Attorney General of Mon-
tana, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 601 Fed. Appx. 591.
No. 15–5586. Jackson v. South Carolina. Ct. App. S. C.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5592. Anderson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 369.
No. 15–5593. Box v. Capozza, Superintendent, State Cor-
rectional Institution at Pittsburgh, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5598. Smith v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5606. McGee v. Norman, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5607. Moten v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 186.
No. 15–5608. Riggins v. Miller, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5611. Zepeda-Gonzalez v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 394.
No. 15–5612. Chambliss v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5617. Dooley v. Pennsylvania et al. Sup. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 631 Pa. 679, 115 A. 3d 875.
No. 15–5618. Engle v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 234.
No. 15–5619. Dyson v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 113 A. 3d 355.
908 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5620. Reyes et al. v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 582 Fed. Appx. 22.
No. 15–5625. Cancel v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5626. Taylor v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 434.
No. 15–5629. Moreno v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 775.
No. 15–5631. Huarte v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 942.
No. 15–5637. Chopane v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 325.
No. 15–5638. Castles v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5642. Johnston v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 789 F. 3d 934.
No. 15–5643. Jones v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5644. Rios-Pintado v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 741.
No. 15–5646. Bosier v. Department of the Treasury.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed.
Appx. 803.
No. 15–5647. Adams v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5651. Perez v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 620.
No. 15–5652. McCall v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 595 Fed. Appx. 236.
No. 15–5653. Meregildo v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 832.
 ORDERS 909

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5656. Rosa v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-

rari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 856.
No. 15–5659. Kerr v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 141.
No. 15–5660. Okeayainneh v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5664. Nash v. Pash, Warden, et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5669. Boykin v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 1352.
No. 15–5671. Mejia v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 407.
No. 15–5677. Williams v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 916.
No. 15–5678. Dobek v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 789 F. 3d 698.
No. 15–5679. Diaz-Arroyo v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 797 F. 3d 125.
No. 15–5683. Armstrong v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5685. Bibbs v. Edenąeld, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5687. Heyn v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 801.
No. 15–5688. Hill v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 759.
No. 15–5690. Hayes v. United States. Ct. App. D. C. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 111 A. 3d 647.
No. 15–5691. Saint Cyr v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 569.
No. 15–5692. De La Cruz-Feliciano v. United States.
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 78.
910 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5693. Al Jaber v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5694. Hollis v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 1064.
No. 15–5701. Belt v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 745.
No. 15–5702. Brown v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5704. Bruno v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 912.
No. 15–5705. Pacell v. Mahally, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5710. Moronta v. Grifąn, Superintendent, Sulli-
van Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 78.
No. 15–5713. Collier v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 339.
No. 15–5714. Rivera v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 402.
No. 15–5716. Best v. Holland, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5717. Barnard v. Perez, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5723. Baptiste v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 950.
No. 15–5724. Baughman v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 899.
No. 15–5728. Stewart-Hanson v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 600.
No. 15–5729. Wynn v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 339.
 ORDERS 911

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5734. Fermin v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied.
No. 15–5736. Garcia v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5737. Fagan v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5741. Jaimez Reyes v. Ellis et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 682.
No. 15–5745. Thomas v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 214.
No. 15–5746. Trachanas v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 751.
No. 15–5751. Cleveland v. Stewart, Warden. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 931.
No. 15–5752. Ervin v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5755. Manning v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 684.
No. 15–5759. Molina v. Lockett, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5761. Thompson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 726.
No. 15–5764. Parker v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5765. Mette v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 890.
No. 15–5766. Hernandez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5768. Dixon v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 787 F. 3d 55.
No. 15–5769. Esquivel-Rios v. United States. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 1299.
912 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5771. Cabello, aka Palumbo v. United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed.
Appx. 761.
No. 15–5773. Turner v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 374.
No. 15–5777. Simmons v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 280.
No. 15–5779. Garcia-Chihuahua v. United States. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx.
686.
No. 15–5781. Bruce v. South Carolina. Sup. Ct. S. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 412 S. C. 504, 772 S. E. 2d
753.
No. 15–5782. Hernandez-Osorio v. United States. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 278.
No. 15–5783. Harris v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 858.
No. 15–5785. Chappell v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 F. 3d 872.
No. 15–5788. Jackson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5789. Kolodesh v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 F. 3d 224.
No. 15–5791. Gibson v. United States; and
No. 15–5792. Adzhemyan v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 487.
No. 15–5794. Brown v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 632.
No. 15–5800. Pettit v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 1374.
No. 15–5802. Vanegas v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 664.
 ORDERS 913

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5806. Darden v. Pastrana, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5809. Cullen v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 172.
No. 15–5812. Osuna-Alvarez v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d 1183.
No. 15–5814. Gouse v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 798 F. 3d 39.
No. 15–5815. Gray v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 778.
No. 14–972. ABB Inc. et al. v. Arizona Board of Regents
et al.; and
No. 14–1019. Arizona v. Ashton Company Incorporated
Contractors & Engineers et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or deci-
sion of these petitions. Reported below: 761 F. 3d 1005.
No. 14–1358. I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc. et al. C. A.
Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. The Chief Justice took no part
in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below:
576 Fed. Appx. 982.
No. 14–1362. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Inc. et al.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. The Chief Justice took no
part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported
below: 766 F. 3d 1364.
No. 14–1380. Bryant et al. v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Motion of petitioners to defer consideration of petition for
writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
768 F. 3d 1378.
No. 14–1384. Ohio v. White. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Motion of re-
spondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 142 Ohio St. 3d 277, 2015-Ohio-
492, 29 N. E. 3d 939.
No. 14–1398. Arnold, Acting Warden v. Sessoms. C. A.
9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 F.
3d 615.
914 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–1400. Janes et al. v. Triborough Bridge and Tun-

nel Authority et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Jus-
tice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this
petition. Reported below: 774 F. 3d 1052.
No. 14–1419. Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma et al. v.
Borough of Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Motions of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell et al. and National
Congress of American Indians for leave to file briefs as amici
curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 F. 3d
255.
No. 14–1423. Chuan Wang v. International Business Ma-
chines Corp. et al. App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied. Jus-
tice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this
petition. Reported below: 86 Mass. App. 1113, 17 N. E. 3d 1118.
No. 14–1438. Jolley v. Department of Justice. C. A. Fed.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 602 Fed.
Appx. 805.
No. 14–1473. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari
denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or deci-
sion of this petition. Reported below: 776 F. 3d 1343.
No. 14–1498. Lucas v. Humphrey, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of petition for writ
of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 F.
3d 785.
No. 14–7733. Honken v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
No. 14–9645. Sherman v. Edwards-Fears et al. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.
No. 14–9914. Cassidy v. Ducart, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
No. 14–10111. Ganoe v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 650.
 ORDERS 915

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 14–10138. Dotson v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
No. 14–10162. Saldana v. Ducart, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 597 Fed.
Appx. 423.
No. 14–10184. Burman v. Perdue, Warden, et al. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.
No. 14–10362. Ford v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.
No. 14–10437. Flood v. United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 867.
No. 15–18. Bistline v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 529.
No. 15–41. W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Bard Periph-
eral Vascular, Inc., et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of
this petition. Reported below: 776 F. 3d 837.
No. 15–63. McDonald v. Boeing Co. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 452.
No. 15–5032. Sebolt v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.
No. 15–5052. Telemaque v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
No. 15–5058. Myers v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 153.
916 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5083. Booker v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
No. 15–5093. Mayer v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.
No. 15–5110. Torres et al. v. United States. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the
consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 15–5189. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 786 F.
3d 241.
No. 15–5239. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 779 F.
3d 125.
No. 15–5279. Sebolt v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 159.
No. 15–5350. Acuna v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
No. 15–5388. Caracappa v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition.
No. 15–5392. Wilk v. Winn, Complex Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition.
No. 15–5514. Davis, aka Calvin, aka Robinson v. United
States. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan
took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Re-
ported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 871.
No. 15–5515. Ezell v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 762.
 ORDERS 917

577 U. S. October 5, 2015

No. 15–5532. Wadford v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 594 Fed.
Appx. 168.
No. 15–5579. Flores-Perez v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 599 Fed.
Appx. 735.
No. 15–5624. Rivers v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 777 F. 3d
1306.
No. 15–5700. Aguilera v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 591 Fed.
Appx. 555.

Rehearing Denied
No. 14–1241. Lawrence v. Gwinnett County, Georgia,
et al., 576 U. S. 1036;
No. 14–1258. Leyva v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., 576 U. S.
1036;
No. 14–7190. Garcia v. United States, 574 U. S. 1095;
No. 14–9069. Codiga v. Uttecht, Superintendent, Coyote
Ridge Corrections Center, 575 U. S. 1031;
No. 14–9422. Kargbo v. New Hampshire, 576 U. S. 1039;
No. 14–9459. Lester v. Henthorne, 576 U. S. 1059;
No. 14–9523. Cross v. Fayram, Warden, 576 U. S. 1059;
No. 14–9647. Barriner v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al., 576 U. S. 1060;
No. 14–9652. Dohou v. United States, 576 U. S. 1012;
No. 14–9664. Collins v. Steele, Warden, 576 U. S. 1041;
No. 14–9744. Dawson v. Premo, Superintendent, Oregon
State Penitentiary, 576 U. S. 1060;
No. 14–9839. Johns v. United States, 576 U. S. 1042;
No. 14–9876. Wilcox v. United States, 576 U. S. 1061; and
No. 14–9882. Copeland v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al., 576 U. S. 1061. Petitions
for rehearing denied.
918 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 5, 6, 13, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–8628. Ware v. United States, 575 U. S. 946. Petition

for rehearing denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the
consideration or decision of this petition.
October 6, 2015
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 15–5725. Bischoff v. Gallo et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.
October 13, 2015
Affirmed for Absence of Quorum
No. 15–5601. Missud v. Court of Appeal of California,
First Appellate District, et al. Sup. Ct. Cal. Because the
Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. § 1, and since the only qualified
Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and
determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is af-
firmed under 28 U. S. C. § 2109, which provides that under these
circumstances “the court shall enter its order affirming the judg-
ment of the court from which the case was brought for review
with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided
court.” The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Ken-
nedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito took no part in the
consideration or decision of this petition.
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 14–1422. First Marblehead Corp. et al. v. Massachu-
setts Commissioner of Revenue. Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Cer-
tiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further
consideration in light of Comptroller of Treasury of Md. v.
Wynne, 575 U. S. 542 (2015). Reported below: 470 Mass. 497, 23
N. E. 3d 892.
No. 15–5330. Rose v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Re-
ported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 937;
No. 15–5654. McCarthren v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Reported below: 575 Fed. Appx. 873; and
No. 15–5667. Jones v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Re-
ported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 1064. Motions of petitioners for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted,
judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration
in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591 (2015).
 ORDERS 919

577 U. S. October 13, 2015

Certiorari Dismissed
No. 15–31. Prieto v. Clarke, Director, Virginia Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of Mark
Eric Lawlor for leave to intervene denied. Certiorari dismissed
as moot. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 245.
No. 15–5489. Landrith v. Jordan et al. Ct. App. Kan.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–5495. Enriquez v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See
this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this
Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further
petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the dock-
eting fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submit-
ted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of
Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
No. 15–5527. Kearney v. New York Department of Cor-
rectional Services et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari
dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–5589. Turnpaugh v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–5748. Campbell v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of petitioner
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari
dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeat-
edly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to
accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from peti-
tioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and
the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Mar-
tin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992)
(per curiam). Reported below: 171 So. 3d 114.
No. 15–5811. O’Connor v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of peti-
920 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 13, 2015 577 U. S.

tioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certio-

rari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has
repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not
to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from peti-
tioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and
the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Mar-
tin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992)
(per curiam).
No. 15–5819. DeWilliams v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As
petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk
is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Kagan took no part in the
consideration or decision of this motion and this petition. Re-
ported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 489.
No. 15–5921. Harvey v. Louisiana. Sup. Ct. La. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner
has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed
not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from
petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid
and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See
Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1
(1992) (per curiam). Reported below: 2014–1981 (La. 6/5/15), 171
So. 3d 945.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 14A1153. Nechovski v. United States. Application for
certificate of appealability, addressed to Justice Sotomayor and
referred to the Court, denied.
No. 15A216. Manska v. Minnesota. Ct. App. Minn. Appli-
cation for stay, addressed to Justice Sotomayor and referred to
the Court, denied.
No. 15A293. Watson v. Florida Judicial Qualiącations
Commission. Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay, addressed to
Justice Sotomayor and referred to the Court, denied.
 ORDERS 921

577 U. S. October 13, 2015

No. 15M30. Colon v. Foster, Warden;

No. 15M31. Thompson et al. v. Ruddy et al.;
No. 15M33. Brock v. Small, Warden; and
No. 15M34. Upson v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. Motions to direct the Clerk to
file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 15M32. Nealy v. United States Postal Service. Mo-
tion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out
of time under this Court’s Rule 14.5 denied.
No. 142, Orig. Florida v. Georgia. Motion of the Special
Master for allowance of fees and disbursements granted, and the
Special Master is awarded a total of $70,245.52 for the period
April 1 through August 31, 2015, to be paid equally by the parties.
[For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 575 U. S. 1007.]
No. 15–5539. Brown v. Kleerekoper. Ct. App. Tex., 1st
Dist.; and
No. 15–5686. Franco-Bardales v. Lynch, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 9th Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until Novem-
ber 3, 2015, within which to pay the docketing fees required by
Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1
of the Rules of this Court.
No. 15–6143. In re Eason. Petition for writ of habeas cor-
pus denied.
No. 15–6113. In re Middleton. Motion of petitioner for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ
of habeas corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Justice
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion
and this petition.
No. 15–5708. In re Platts;
No. 15–5868. In re Jordan; and
No. 15–5903. In re Taylor, aka Salaam. Petitions for writs
of mandamus denied.
No. 15–5509. In re Naddi. Motion of petitioner for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of manda-
mus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has
repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not
922 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 13, 2015 577 U. S.

to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from peti-

tioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and
the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Mar-
tin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992)
(per curiam).
No. 15–5588. In re Pratt et al. Petition for writ of manda-
mus and/or prohibition denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 14–1153. LaChance v. Massachusetts. Sup. Jud. Ct.
Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 469 Mass. 854, 17
N. E. 3d 1101.
No. 14–1286. United Healthcare of Arizona et al. v.
Spinedex Physical Therapy USA, Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 F. 3d 1282.
No. 14–1331. Kirschenbaum, Chapter 7 Trustee of the
Estate of the Robert Plan Corp. v. Department of Labor.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 594.
No. 14–1436. Hambleton, as Successor Personal Repre-
sentative of the Estate of Hambleton, et al. v. Washing-
ton Department of Revenue. Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 181 Wash. 2d 802, 335 P. 3d 398.
No. 14–1464. Oakland Port Services Corp. v. Godfrey
et al. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 230 Cal. App. 4th 1267, 179 Cal. Rptr. 3d 498.
No. 14–1497. Kane County, Utah v. United States; and
No. 15–27. Utah v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 772 F. 3d 1205.
No. 14–9416. Diaz v. Quintana, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9470. Lee v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas Depart-
ment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–9875. West v. United States. Ct. App. D. C. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 100 A. 3d 1076.
No. 14–10066. Smith v. Colorado. Ct. App. Colo. Certio-
rari denied.
 ORDERS 923

577 U. S. October 13, 2015

No. 14–10405. Lopez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied.
No. 14–10443. Williams v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–16. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 743.
No. 15–17. Davis v. U. S. Bank N. A. et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 809.
No. 15–22. Gerhartz v. Richert et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 F. 3d 682.
No. 15–23. Prairie County, Montana, et al. v. United
States. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
782 F. 3d 685.
No. 15–130. Anglin v. Ceres Gulf, Inc., et al. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 342.
No. 15–135. Rubin et al. v. Padilla, California Secre-
tary of State, et al. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Div. 1.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 233 Cal. App. 4th 1128, 183
Cal. Rptr. 3d 373.
No. 15–139. Volk v. Williams. Ct. App. Ohio, 5th App. Dist.,
Coshocton County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014-
Ohio-4365.
No. 15–143. Gjokaj et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Services,
Inc., et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
602 Fed. Appx. 275.
No. 15–165. Hindo et al. v. Bank of New York Mellon.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 596 Fed.
Appx. 484.
No. 15–167. Christakis v. Jeanne D’Arc Credit Union.
Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 471
Mass. 365, 29 N. E. 3d 823.
No. 15–171. DeFazio et al. v. Hollister, Inc., et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 439.
924 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 13, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–177. Noatex Corp. et al. v. Auto Parts Manufac-

turing Mississippi Inc. et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 186.
No. 15–184. Overton v. Tennessee Department of Chil-
dren’s Services. Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 464 S. W. 3d 311.
No. 15–190. Hardin, Personal Representative for Har-
din v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 545.
No. 15–192. Henderson v. Town of Hope Mills, North
Carolina, et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 594 Fed. Appx. 195.
No. 15–207. Van Tassel v. Piccione, Judge, Court of Com-
mon Pleas of Pennsylvania, Lawrence County, et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed.
Appx. 66.
No. 15–211. Hollier et ux., Individually and as Next
Friends of M. H., a Minor, et al. v. Watson et al. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 255.
No. 15–212. Harris v. Fiesta Texas, Inc., dba Six Flags-
Fiesta Texas, et al. Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–213. Chang Lim v. Terumo Corp. et al. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–223. Cornelius v. Dykema Gossett PLLC Retire-
ment Plan et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–231. Smith v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 1000.
No. 15–246. Maxitrate Tratamento Termico e Controles
et al. v. Allianz Seguros S. A., fka AGF Brasil Seguros
S. A. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617
Fed. Appx. 406.
No. 15–251. McRae v. Doering et al. Ct. App. Ga. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 330 Ga. App. XXIII.
 ORDERS 925

577 U. S. October 13, 2015

No. 15–261. Rossco Holdings, Inc., et al. v. McConnell

et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613
Fed. Appx. 302.
No. 15–271. Reed v. Kansas. Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 302 Kan. 227, 352 P. 3d 530.
No. 15–275. Chamberlain v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–279. Sone et al. v. Harvest Natural Resources,
Inc. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605
Fed. Appx. 452.
No. 15–285. Anderson v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 F. 3d 727.
No. 15–309. Kerley v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 327.
No. 15–5137. Allen v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 719.
No. 15–5140. Driskill v. Missouri. Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 459 S. W. 3d 412.
No. 15–5474. Kopatz v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 61 Cal. 4th 62, 347 P. 3d 952.
No. 15–5479. Fisher v. City of Ironton, Ohio. Ct. App.
Ohio, 4th App. Dist., Lawrence County. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 2014-Ohio-5462.
No. 15–5484. Wagoner v. Lemmon, Commissioner, Indiana
Department of Correction, et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 586.
No. 15–5487. Landers v. Norris. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5490. Mazin v. Norwood Police Department et al.
App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 86 Mass.
App. 1121, 19 N. E. 3d 868.
No. 15–5494. Bernier v. Court of Appeal of California,
Fourth Appellate District, Division One, et al. Sup. Ct.
Cal. Certiorari denied.
926 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 13, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5496. Cowart v. Sherman, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5497. Harnage v. Torres et al. App. Ct. Conn.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 155 Conn. App. 792, 111
A. 3d 523.
No. 15–5501. Houswerth v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5502. Higginbotham v. Mississippi. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5505. Harnage v. Rell et al. App. Ct. Conn. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 154 Conn. App. 905, 105 A. 3d
367.
No. 15–5512. Clayton v. Bank of America et al. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5513. Creamer v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5520. Taylor v. Pate, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 186.
No. 15–5521. Lewis v. American Airlines, Inc. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 653.
No. 15– 5522. Melton v. Jones, Secretary, Florida
Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5524. Johnson v. Perry, Secretary, North Caro-
lina Department of Public Safety. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 128.
No. 15–5525. Martinez v. Winn, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5526. Johnson v. Zatecky, Superintendent, Pen-
dleton Correctional Facility. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5528. Johnson v. Tennessee. Ct. Crim. App. Tenn.
Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 927

577 U. S. October 13, 2015

No. 15–5541. Bramage v. Discover Bank. Ct. App. Ind.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 16 N. E. 3d 1039.
No. 15–5542. Alfred v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5546. Reyna, aka Two Bulls v. Young, Warden,
et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597
Fed. Appx. 401.
No. 15–5550. Abney v. Court of Common Pleas of Penn-
sylvania, First Judicial District, et al. Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 631 Pa. 602, 114 A. 3d 1035.
No. 15–5552. Pawley v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 166 So. 3d 792.
No. 15–5553. Skinner v. Johnson, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5555. Magwood v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 162 So. 3d 991.
No. 15–5556. Castaneda v. Burton-Cahill et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 586 Fed. Appx. 373.
No. 15–5558. Donofrio v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 123
App. Div. 3d 941, 1 N. Y. S. 3d 127.
No. 15–5562. Powers v. Wexford Health Services et al.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5567. Petrano et ux. v. Nationwide Mutual Fire
Insurance Co. et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 927.
No. 15– 5568. Wright v. United States Interagency
Council on Homelessness et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5570. Coleman v. Bartow, Director, Wisconsin
Resource Center. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5571. Caison v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 163 So. 3d 507.
928 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 13, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5572. Crowell, aka Carter v. Clarke, Director,

Virginia Department of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5573. Crowell, aka Carter v. Clarke, Director,
Virginia Department of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 213.
No. 15–5590. Moody v. City of Delray Beach, Florida,
et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609
Fed. Appx. 966.
No. 15–5591. McCarthy v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 163 So. 3d 1197.
No. 15–5594. Bell v. Virginia Natural Gas, Inc. Sup. Ct.
Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5596. Bakalik v. Quinn et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5597. Pickens v. Perritt, Superintendent, Lum-
berton Correctional Institution. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 575 Fed. Appx. 173.
No. 15–5599. Ramirez v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 6th
App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5600. Watford v. Quinn. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5602. Arriaga v. Beard, Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5603. Davis v. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of So-
cial Security. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 600 Fed. Appx. 249.
No. 15–5609. Roberts v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 166 So. 3d 774.
No. 15–5614. McNamara v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d
App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5615. DeHenre v. Mississippi et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 929

577 U. S. October 13, 2015

No. 15–5616. Davis v. Arkansas. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari

denied. Reported below: 2015 Ark. 122.
No. 15–5621. Barrera v. Industrial Claim Appeals Of-
ące of Colorado et al. Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5622. Boyd v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5623. Bond v. Department of Education. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 293.
No. 15–5640. Danihel v. Ofące of the President of the
United States et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 467.
No. 15–5641. Eleri v. Hartley, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5655. Vernon v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 883.
No. 15–5663. Partida-Rodriguez v. Perry. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 103.
No. 15–5665. Pela v. Katavich, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5672. Ofeldt v. Cox, Director, Nevada Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 619.
No. 15–5675. Vogt v. Iowa State Penitentiary et al.
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5676. Wagner v. Smith, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5680. Clark v. United States District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5681. Sabin v. Trujillo et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5707. Phillips v. Texas Department of Public
Safety. Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.
930 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 13, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5726. Duncan v. Mississippi. Ct. App. Miss. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 170 So. 3d 579.
No. 15–5727. Elfadly v. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 588 Fed. Appx. 93.
No. 15–5747. Clugston v. Batista, Director, Montana De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5763. Lee v. Premo, Superintendent, Oregon
State Penitentiary. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 566.
No. 15–5772. Kendrick v. Tennessee. Sup. Ct. Tenn. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 454 S. W. 3d 450.
No. 15–5784. Stanton v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 579 Fed. Appx. 982.
No. 15–5790. Valentine v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5803. Nelson v. Kane, Attorney General of
Pennsylvania, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5817. Davis v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5818. Correa-Osorio v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 11.
No. 15–5821. Lowe v. Minnesota. Ct. App. Minn. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5822. Usman v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5829. Barrington v. Babcock, Warden, et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 585 Fed.
Appx. 698.
No. 15–5830. Smith v. Fischer, Commissioner, New York
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 556.
 ORDERS 931

577 U. S. October 13, 2015

No. 15–5831. Nunez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 353.
No. 15–5833. Freeman v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 886.
No. 15–5836. Young v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5838. Martinez-Montalvo v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 345.
No. 15–5841. Qualls v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 25.
No. 15–5843. Enyart v. Erdos, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15– 5844. Diaz-Soto, aka Duran-Mejia v. United
States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599
Fed. Appx. 154.
No. 15–5848. Webb v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5849. Watson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 213.
No. 15–5852. Spencer v. Tifft, Warden, et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5855. Martin v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5857. Williams v. Grifąth, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5859. Leverette v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 174 So. 3d 1004.
No. 15–5861. Bal v. ITEX Corp. et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5862. Bartholomew v. Muhammad et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 313.
No. 15–5863. Vines v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 158.
932 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 13, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5871. Bray v. Premo, Superintendent, Oregon

State Penitentiary. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 631.
No. 15–5872. Bowers v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 407.
No. 15–5873. Creamer v. Florida Commission on Of-
fender Review. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 166 So. 3d 769.
No. 15–5876. Soto v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 799 F. 3d 68.
No. 15–5877. Totten v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 166 So. 3d 32.
No. 15–5881. White v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 545.
No. 15–5883. Choi v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 597.
No. 15–5885. Christian v. Plumley, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 427.
No. 15–5887. Moe v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 1120.
No. 15–5888. Baine v. Estes, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5889. Balsam v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5891. Jones v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5892. Maxwell v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 740.
No. 15–5893. Marquez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5896. Whittaker v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 933

577 U. S. October 13, 2015

No. 15–5897. Whittaker v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5899. Elenes v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 562.
No. 15–5902. Burg v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 724.
No. 15–5909. Lanham v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5911. Lindor v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 777.
No. 15–5913. Hahn v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5922. Leake v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 313.
No. 15–5931. Amador-Huggins v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 799 F. 3d 124.
No. 15–5936. Whitąeld v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5937. Milhouse v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 83.
No. 15–5938. Rezendes v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 744.
No. 15–5939. Imperato v. Securities and Exchange Com-
mission. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
594 Fed. Appx. 957.
No. 15–5943. Spencer, aka Buxton v. United States.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5949. Argueta-Bonilla v. United States (Reported
below: 613 Fed. Appx. 369); Gonzales-Matute v. United
States (613 Fed. Appx. 415); Medina, aka Rios Medina v.
United States (607 Fed. Appx. 389); Snowball-Padron v.
United States (613 Fed. Appx. 374); Tovar-Espinoza v. United
States (607 Fed. Appx. 413); Valencia-Garcia, aka Garcia
934 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 13, 2015 577 U. S.

Valencia, aka Garza Valencia, aka Valencia Garcia v.

United States (607 Fed. Appx. 402); Velasquez-Lopez v.
United States (607 Fed. Appx. 414); and Vela-Cavazos, aka
Vela, aka Cavazos Vela v. United States (613 Fed. Appx.
411). C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5950. Sage v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 410.
No. 15–5951. Diaz-Agramonte, aka Luis Torres v. United
States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5952. Doe v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 625.
No. 15–5953. Colondres v. Massachusetts. Sup. Jud. Ct.
Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 471 Mass. 192, 27
N. E. 3d 1272.
No. 15–5955. Sacus v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 1214.
No. 15–5956. Jim v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 802.
No. 15–5960. Mitchell v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 976.
No. 15–5962. Reyes-Lopez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 451.
No. 15–5966. Volkman v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 797 F. 3d 377.
No. 15–5968. Mujahid v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 402.
No. 15–5972. Cox v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5975. Jha v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 212.
No. 15–5978. Taylor v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 671.
 ORDERS 935

577 U. S. October 13, 2015

No. 15–5981. Woodward v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 101.
No. 15–5982. Warren v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d 805.
No. 15–5992. Shankle v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 105.
No. 15–5993. Robbins v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 622 Fed. Appx. 209.
No. 15–5994. Retta-Reyes v. United States (Reported
below: 607 Fed. Appx. 416); Velasquez v. United States (607
Fed. Appx. 384); Aguirre v. United States (607 Fed. Appx.
397); Andrade-Rocha v. United States (609 Fed. Appx. 830);
Delgadillo v. United States (607 Fed. Appx. 410); Andrade-
Rodriguez v. United States (604 Fed. Appx. 376); Collins v.
United States (604 Fed. Appx. 384); Hernandez v. United
States (613 Fed. Appx. 406); and Loera-Velasco v. United
States (613 Fed. Appx. 391). C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5997. Massey v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5999. Cortez-Guzman v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 241.
No. 15–6000. Chin v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 538.
No. 15–6010. Villarreal-Flores v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6011. Williams v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6024. Merriweather v. Jones, Secretary, Florida
Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6034. Courville v. Colorado. Ct. App. Colo. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–173. Harr v. Brodhead et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consid-
936 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 13, 19, 2015 577 U. S.

eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 588 Fed.

Appx. 285.
No. 15–5895. White v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 160.
No. 15–5907. Payne v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.
No. 15–5973. King v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 825.
No. 15–6007. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
Rehearing Denied
No. 14–8938. Fields v. United States, 575 U. S. 976. Peti-
tion for rehearing denied.

October 19, 2015

Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 15–5722. Banks v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.
Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for fur-
ther consideration in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S.
591 (2015). Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 804.
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 15–5712. Manko v. Gabay et al. Ct. App. N. Y. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As peti-
tioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is
directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Reported below: 24 N. Y. 3d 1206,
28 N. E. 3d 22.
 ORDERS 937

577 U. S. October 19, 2015

Miscellaneous Orders
No. 15M35. Williams v. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security;
No. 15M36. Nynetjer El Bey v. Michigan;
No. 15M37. Ross v. United States et al.;
No. 15M38. Jones v. Department of Health and Human
Services;
No. 15M39. Rodriguez v. School Board of Polk County,
Florida, et al.; and
No. 15M40. Blades v. Blades. Motions to direct the Clerk
to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 14–940. Evenwel et al. v. Abbott, Governor of
Texas, et al. D. C. W. D. Tex. [Probable jurisdiction noted,
575 U. S. 1024.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to par-
ticipate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argu-
ment granted.
No. 14–1146. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo et al., Indi-
vidually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated.
C. A. 8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 576 U. S. 1003.] Motion of
the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as
amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
No. 15–5635. Stevens v. Nike, Inc. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion
of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
Petitioner is allowed until November 9, 2015, within which to pay
the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition
in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
No. 15–6238. In re Bluemel;
No. 15–6286. In re Cockerham; and
No. 15–6328. In re Smith. Petitions for writs of habeas cor-
pus denied.
No. 15–5890. In re Brown; and
No. 15–6061. In re Tatar. Petitions for writs of mandamus
denied.
No. 15–5684. In re Anderson. Petition for writ of manda-
mus and/or prohibition denied.
No. 15–5826. In re Salih El Bey. Motion of petitioner for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ
of prohibition dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
938 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 19, 2015 577 U. S.

Certiorari Granted
No. 14–614. Hughes, Chairman, Maryland Public Serv-
ice Commission, et al. v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC,
fka PPL EnergyPlus, LLC, et al.; and
No. 14–623. CPV Maryland, LLC v. Talen Energy Mar-
keting, LLC, fka PPL EnergyPlus, LLC, et al. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one
hour is allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 753 F. 3d
467.
No. 14–1513. Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electron-
ics, Inc., et al.; and
No. 14–1520. Stryker Corp. et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Motions of Independent Inventor Groups and
Nokia Technologies OY et al. for leave to file briefs as amici
curiae granted. Certiorari granted in No. 14–1513 limited to
Question 1 presented by the petition. Certiorari granted in
No. 14–1520. Cases consolidated, and a total of one hour is allot-
ted for oral argument. Reported below: No. 14–1513, 769 F. 3d
1371; No. 14–1520, 782 F. 3d 649.

Certiorari Denied
No. 14–1337. Manuel Diaz v. United States. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 591.
No. 14–10227. Ward v. Arkansas. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2015 Ark. 61, 455 S. W. 3d 818.
No. 15–36. Glasmann v. Washington. Sup. Ct. Wash. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 183 Wash. 2d 117, 349 P. 3d 829.
No. 15–48. Carswell, as Personal Representative of
the Estate of Abdullah v. Arena et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 389.
No. 15–176. Dische v. Preyer et al. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 121
App. Div. 3d 1216, 994 N. Y. S. 2d 449.
No. 15–185. Bodum, Inc. v. Meyer Intellectual Proper-
ties Ltd. et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 604 Fed. Appx. 931.
 ORDERS 939

577 U. S. October 19, 2015

No. 15–197. Allen v. Keller et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-

rari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 200.
No. 15–198. Oller v. Roussel et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 770.
No. 15–200. Taggart v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed.
Appx. 859.
No. 15–202. Uche v. Montgomery Hospice, Inc., et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed.
Appx. 97.
No. 15–205. Phipps v. Phipps. Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–220. Grazzini-Rucki, Individually and on Behalf
of Her Children, N. J. R. et al. v. Knutson et al. C. A.
8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 902.
No. 15–224. Garza-Mata v. United States et al. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 295.
No. 15–228. Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 99.
No. 15–240. Mizukami v. Don Quijote (USA) Co. Ltd. et al.
Int. Ct. App. Haw. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 134
Haw. 539, 345 P. 3d 205.
No. 15–258. Health Grades, Inc. v. Boyer et al. Sup. Ct.
Colo. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 359 P. 3d 25.
No. 15–268. Love v. Memphis-Shelby County Airport Au-
thority. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–286. Rogers et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 783 F. 3d 320.
No. 15–296. Onyango v. Nick & Howard, LLC, et al. C. A.
7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 552.
No. 15–301. Campbell v. North Carolina. Gen. Ct. Jus-
tice, Super. Ct. Div., Wake County, N. C. Certiorari denied.
940 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 19, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–312. Karagozian v. Commissioner of Internal

Revenue. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
595 Fed. Appx. 87.
No. 15–313. Cooper v. Bennett. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 621 Fed. Appx. 875.
No. 15–315. Overka et al. v. American Airlines, Inc.
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 36.
No. 15–317. Bost v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 821.
No. 15–325. Cahill v. Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d
1287.
No. 15–337. Conway et al. v. California State Water Re-
sources Control Board et al. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist.,
Div. 6. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 235 Cal. App. 4th
671, 185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 490.
No. 15–347. McCall v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5132. Huggins v. Florida et al. Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 161 So. 3d 335.
No. 15–5265. Nelson v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5299. Williams v. Louisiana. 19th Jud. Dist. Ct.
La., East Baton Rouge Parish. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5627. Crespin v. Texas (two judgments). Ct. Crim.
App. Tex. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5630. Perkins v. Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County, et al. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist.,
Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5632. Hill v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5634. Vos v. Gough et al. Ct. App. Ohio, 7th App.
Dist., Columbiana County. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 941

577 U. S. October 19, 2015

No. 15–5636. Sustaita v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2015 IL App (4th) 130445–U.
No. 15–5639. Eads v. Sexton, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5649. King v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5650. Q. O. v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 1st App. Dist.,
Hamilton County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014-
Ohio-3893.
No. 15–5657. Nelson v. Cain, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5658. Lake v. Robert et al. App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5661. Mitchell v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5662. Morris v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5666. Williams v. Ojelade et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5668. Johnson v. Colorado. Ct. App. Colo. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5673. LeBlanc v. Kalamazoo County, Michigan.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5674. Tyler v. Washington. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 120.
No. 15–5689. Hoffart v. Wiggins et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 261.
No. 15–5698. Maki v. New York et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 36.
942 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 19, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5699. Blankenship v. Birch. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-

rari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed. Appx. 629 and 785 F. 3d
1174.
No. 15–5703. Bolds v. Cavazos et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 307.
No. 15–5706. Savoie v. Bradshaw, Sheriff, Palm Beach
County, Florida, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5709. Palmer v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 2d App. Dist.,
Montgomery County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014-
Ohio-5266.
No. 15–5711. Booker-El v. Neal, Superintendent, Indi-
ana State Prison. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5715. Smith v. Biter, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15– 5718. Benitez v. Jones, Secretary, Florida
Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5719. Bolton v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5720. Brost v. Iowa. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5721. Hudson v. Hudson. Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 178 So. 3d 861.
No. 15–5730. White v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5731. Green v. Lester, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5732. Fullman v. Kistler et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 124.
No. 15–5733. Fullman v. Kistler et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 124.
No. 15–5743. Ross v. Trierweiler, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 943

577 U. S. October 19, 2015

No. 15–5744. Young v. Truman Medical Center, Adminis-

trative Department, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5750. Ewing v. Lucas County Department of Job
and Family Services. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5753. Rucano v. New York. Sup. Ct. N. Y., Rich-
mond County. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5757. Price v. Kirkegard, Warden, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 646.
No. 15–5793. Awoleye v. Lynch, Attorney General.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed.
Appx. 868.
No. 15–5797. McClinton v. Arkansas. Sup. Ct. Ark. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2015 Ark. 245, 464 S. W. 3d 913.
No. 15–5807. Ray v. Louisiana. Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 2014–1491 (La. 6/1/15), 171 So. 3d 928.
No. 15–5834. Kills On Top v. Kirkegard, Warden. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5850. Nunn v. Matthews et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 298.
No. 15–5854. Matthews v. Kline, Warden, et al. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx.
741.
No. 15–5870. Boswell v. Ector County Independent
School District Board of Trustees et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5900. White v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 310.
No. 15–5917. Elliott v. Johnson, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5925. DeShields v. Kerestes, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al. C. A.
3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
944 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 19, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5930. Brown v. Cartledge, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 102.
No. 15–5942. Kinney v. Clark. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5988. Nelson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 130.
No. 15–5990. Blackley, aka Blakely v. United States.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6013. Scott v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 126 App.
Div. 3d 1425, 3 N. Y. S. 3d 661.
No. 15–6015. Alisuretove v. United States. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d 1247.
No. 15–6018. Simpson v. United States et al. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6019. Simpson v. Coakley, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6021. Ivanez v. Wisconsin. Ct. App. Wis. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2015 WI App 28, 361 Wis. 2d 283,
862 N. W. 2d 618.
No. 15–6023. Garrett v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 71.
No. 15–6025. Goodrich v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 F. 3d 569.
No. 15–6029. A. M. G. v. Oregon Department of Human
Services. Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
270 Ore. App. 1, 346 P. 3d 1254.
No. 15–6032. Sosa v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 464.
No. 15–6035. Chantharath v. United States. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6036. Carabali-Diaz, aka Aponte-Ortiz v. United
States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603
Fed. Appx. 306.
 ORDERS 945

577 U. S. October 19, 2015

No. 15–6039. Welch v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied.
No. 15–6040. Ruchlewicz v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 204.
No. 15–6042. Myers v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6044. Davis v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 257.
No. 15–6045. Dicks v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 628.
No. 15–6047. Cesar Cardenas v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 246.
No. 15–6052. Mann v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 1244.
No. 15–6054. Starner v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 620 Fed. Appx. 156.
No. 15–6057. Casias v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 885.
No. 15–6058. Turner v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 149.
No. 15–6067. Smith v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6069. Rasgado v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6072. Estrada-Zolorzano v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 369.
No. 15–6073. Calix v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 419.
No. 15–6074. Chavez-Perez v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 403.
No. 15–6079. Escobar-Lopez v. United States. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 150.
946 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 19, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6083. Ushery v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 210.
No. 15–6085. Matthews v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 1232.
No. 15–6088. Heard v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 762 F. 3d 538.
No. 15–6089. Saenz-Aranda v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 417.
No. 15–6093. Jackson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 472.
No. 15–6095. Espinal v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 596 Fed. Appx. 800.
No. 15–6103. Trogdon v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 789 F. 3d 907.
No. 15–6108. Aleman Triana, aka Aleman, aka Aleman-
Triana v. United States (Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 376);
Ramos-Martinez v. United States (617 Fed. Appx. 287); and
Chan-Vicente v. United States (612 Fed. Appx. 240). C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6111. Gatewood v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 580.
No. 15–6112. Peppers v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6114. McLean v. Mansukhani, Warden. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 78.
No. 15–6118. Hill v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 1254.
No. 15–6129. Balice v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6132. Hopkins v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 637.
No. 15–6133. Faucette v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 5.
 ORDERS 947

577 U. S. October 19, 2015

No. 15–6135. Baker v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 431.
No. 15–6138. Chappelle v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 71.
No. 15–6140. Creighton v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6144. Cowan v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6157. Arafat v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 789 F. 3d 839.
No. 15–6159. Abbring v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d 565.
No. 15–6160. Andrews v. United States; and Andrews v.
United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania (Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 101). C. A.
3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6164. Cogdell v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 241.
No. 15–6169. Lara Madrid v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 359.
No. 15–6172. Cooper v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 764.
No. 15–6183. Garvin v. Wright et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 583 Fed. Appx. 287.
No. 15–193. Kane, Individually and as Personal Repre-
sentative of the Estate of Cornish v. Lewis et al. C. A.
4th Cir. Motions of Seth Stoughton and Cato Institute for leave
to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 229.
No. 15–203. Whitehead v. White & Case LLP et al. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. The Chief Justice took no part in
the consideration or decision of this petition.
Rehearing Denied
No. 14–9173. Moline v. CBS News Inc., 576 U. S. 1007. Pe-
tition for rehearing denied.
948 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

October 22, 29, 2015 577 U. S.

October 22, 2015

Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 15–345. Crawford et vir v. Household Finance
Corp. III. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari dismissed under this
Court’s Rule 46.1.
October 29, 2015
Certiorari Denied
No. 15–6551 (15A424). Correll v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla.
Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented
to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 184 So. 3d 478.
Justice Breyer, dissenting.
Jerry William Correll was sentenced to death on February 7,
1986, and has now been incarcerated on death row by the State
of Florida for over 29 years. Correll requests a stay of execution
to allow the Court to consider his claims that Florida’s sentencing
procedures violate the Sixth and Eighth Amendments and that
his lengthy period of incarceration under threat of execution con-
stitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
I remain convinced that the Court should consider whether
nearly 30 years of incarceration under sentence of death is cruel
and unusual punishment. See Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045
(1995) (Stevens, J., memorandum respecting denial of certiorari);
Knight v. Florida, 528 U. S. 990, 993 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissent-
ing from denial of certiorari); see also Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S.
863, 908 (2015) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
In addition, whether Florida’s sentencing procedures violate the
Sixth and Eighth Amendments is now pending before the Court.
Hurst v. Florida, No. 14–7505. [Reporter’s Note: See ante, p. 92.]
In my view, we should hold this petition for resolution of those
issues in Hurst.
I respectfully dissent from the order of the Court to deny the
application for stay of execution and the petition for a writ of
certiorari.
Justice Sotomayor, dissenting.
I agree with Justice Breyer that we should hold this petition
for resolution of the issues in Hurst v. Florida, No. 14–7505, now
pending before the Court. [Reporter’s Note: See ante, p. 92.]
 ORDERS 949

577 U. S. October 29, 30, November 2, 2015

I therefore respectfully dissent from the order of the Court to

deny the petition for a writ of certiorari and the application for
stay of execution.
October 30, 2015
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 14–419. Luis v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. [Cer-
tiorari granted, 576 U. S. 1003.] Motion out of time of Americans
for Forfeiture Reform for leave to participate in oral argument
as amicus curiae and for divided argument denied.
No. 14–613. Green v. Brennan, Postmaster General.
C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 575 U. S. 983.] Motion of
respondent for allocation of oral argument time granted.
No. 14–723. Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the Na-
tional Elevator Industry Health Beneąt Plan. C. A.
11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 575 U. S. 934.] Motion of the So-
licitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus
curiae and for divided argument granted.

Certiorari Granted
No. 14–10154. Voisine et al. v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by
the petition. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 176.

November 2, 2015
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 15–5970. Berry v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Re-
ported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 205; and
No. 15–5984. Caldwell v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 325. Motions of petitioners for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted,
judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration
in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591 (2015).

Certiorari Dismissed
No. 15–5776. Sherrill v. Estate of Pico. Int. Ct. App.
Haw. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-
950 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 2, 2015 577 U. S.

peris denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule

39.8. Reported below: 134 Haw. 305, 339 P. 3d 1106.
No. 15–5904. Fluker v. United States et al.; and Fluker
v. Reynolds American Inc. et al. C. A. 2d Cir.; and
No. 15–5905. Fluker v. Division of Youth and Family
Services. C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of petitioner for leave to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See
this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this
Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further
petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the dock-
eting fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submit-
ted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Co-
lumbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
No. 15–5923. Levi v. Perez, Secretary of Labor, et al.
C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule
39.8. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 926.
No. 15–6027. Howell v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As peti-
tioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is
directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 184.
No. 15–6165. DeSue v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari
dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 15A137. Mellouli v. Lynch, Attorney General.
C. A. 8th Cir. Joint motion to vacate the Court’s order of August
21, 2015, [576 U. S. 1089,] granting the application for stay is
granted. Stay of proceedings heretofore issued by the Court on
August 21, 2015, is hereby vacated.
No. D–2837. In re Discipline of Wyman. John H. Wyman,
of Plymouth, Mass., is suspended from the practice of law in this
 ORDERS 951

577 U. S. November 2, 2015

Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring

him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the
practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2838. In re Discipline of Beck. Daniel A. Beck, of
Saluda, N. C., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court,
and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to
show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of
law in this Court.
No. D–2839. In re Discipline of Allenbaugh. Mark H.
Allenbaugh, of Conneaut, Ohio, is suspended from the practice of
law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2840. In re Discipline of Broida. Charles Jeffrey
Broida, of Ellicott City, Md., is suspended from the practice of
law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2841. In re Discipline of Starr. Laurence M.
Starr, of West Roxbury, Mass., is suspended from the practice of
law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2842. In re Discipline of Tracia. Douglas Freder-
ick Tracia, of Wakefield, Mass., is suspended from the practice of
law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2843. In re Discipline of Hanlon. Richard S. Han-
lon, of Bayonne, N. J., is suspended from the practice of law in
this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, re-
quiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2844. In re Discipline of Armstrong. Jenny R.
Armstrong, of Madison, Wis., is suspended from the practice of
law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred
from the practice of law in this Court.
952 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 2, 2015 577 U. S.

No. D–2845. In re Discipline of Doran. Patricia Jamie

Doran, of Tiburon, Cal., is suspended from the practice of law in
this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, re-
quiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2846. In re Discipline of Purcell. Kevin Purcell,
of Rocky River, Ohio, is suspended from the practice of law in
this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, re-
quiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2847. In re Discipline of Kormanik. Paul Stephen
Kormanik, of Columbus, Ohio, is suspended from the practice of
law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2848. In re Discipline of Gottesman. Lee Daniel
Gottesman, of Toms River, N. J., is suspended from the practice
of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40
days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred
from the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2849. In re Discipline of Williams. Robert Langs-
ton Williams, of Pittsburgh, Pa., is suspended from the practice
of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40
days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred
from the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2850. In re Discipline of Anderson. Peter Floyd
Anderson, Jr., of Garnerville, N. Y., is suspended from the practice
of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40
days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred
from the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2851. In re Discipline of Katz. Gerald Isadore
Katz, of Bethesda, Md., is suspended from the practice of law in
this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, re-
quiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2852. In re Discipline of Donohue. James Francis
Donohue, of Butler, Pa., is suspended from the practice of law in
 ORDERS 953

577 U. S. November 2, 2015

this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, re-
quiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2853. In re Discipline of Biddle. James Marshall
Biddle, of Myrtle Beach, S. C., is suspended from the practice of
law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2854. In re Discipline of Cumberbatch. Lawrence
S. Cumberbatch, of Brooklyn, N. Y., is suspended from the prac-
tice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within
40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be dis-
barred from the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2855. In re Discipline of Halloran. Daniel James
Halloran III, of Bayside, N. Y., is suspended from the practice of
law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2856. In re Discipline of Weber. Dean Gary
Weber, of Hauppauge, N. Y., is suspended from the practice of
law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. 15M41. Rafferty v. United States;
No. 15M43. Prestidge v. United States; and
No. 15M45. Arness v. United States. Motions for leave to
proceed as veterans denied.
No. 15M42. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission. Motion for leave to file
petition for writ of certiorari with supplemental appendix under
seal granted.
No. 15M44. Talley v. Gore et al. Motion to direct the
Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 15–5767. Collie v. South Carolina Commission on
Lawyer Conduct. Sup. Ct. S. C.;
No. 15–5798. Schwager v. Schwager. Super. Ct. N. J.,
App. Div.;
954 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 2, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5867. Leon v. Columbia University Medical Cen-

ter. C. A. 2d Cir.; and
No. 15–6099. Fleming v. Shore Health System, Inc. Ct.
Sp. App. Md. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until Novem-
ber 23, 2015, within which to pay the docketing fees required by
Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1
of the Rules of this Court.
No. 15–6404. In re Amaro; and
No. 15–6501. In re Lal. Petitions for writs of habeas cor-
pus denied.
No. 15–5839. In re GwanJun Kim. Petition for writ of man-
damus denied.
No. 15–6241. In re Mackey. Petition for writ of mandamus
denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or
decision of this petition.
No. 15–6101. In re Michaels. Petition for writ of prohibi-
tion denied.

Certiorari Denied
No. 14–1306. Erwin v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 F. 3d 219.
No. 14–1499. DIRECTV, LLC, et al. v. Massachusetts
Department of Revenue. Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 470 Mass. 647, 25 N. E. 3d 258.
No. 14–1524. DIRECTV, Inc., et al. v. Roberts, Tennessee
Commissioner of Revenue. Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 477 S. W. 3d 293.
No. 14–1535. Georgiou v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 125.
No. 14–1536. IDT Corp. et al. v. Blackstone Advisory
Partners LP et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 58.
No. 14–9255. Sinclair v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 F. 3d 1148.
 ORDERS 955

577 U. S. November 2, 2015

No. 14–9438. Patterson v. Illinois. Sup. Ct. Ill. Certio-

rari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL 115102, 25 N. E. 3d 526.
No. 14–9448. Claiborne v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 12–1581–U.
No. 14–9453. Santos v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2013 IL App (1st) 111149–U.
No. 14–9504. Watson v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 121741–U.
No. 14–9505. Jenkins v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2013 IL App (1st) 103006–U.
No. 14–9508. Rodriguez v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 121736–U.
No. 14–9525. Harmon v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2013 IL App (2d) 120439, 26
N. E. 3d 344.
No. 14–9548. Pacheco v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2013 IL App (4th) 110409,
991 N. E. 2d 896.
No. 14–9552. Warren v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2013 IL App (1st) 11–3776–U.
No. 14–9554. Branch v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 111559–U.
No. 14–9560. Diaz v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 112586–U.
No. 14–9701. Mooney v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 123588–U.
No. 14–9723. Perry v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 727.
No. 14–10441. Anthony v. Wisconsin. Sup. Ct. Wis. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2015 WI 20, 361 Wis. 2d 116, 860
N. W. 2d 10.
No. 14–10473. Tomkins v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 338.
956 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 2, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–10. Loden v. Fisher, Commissioner, Mississippi De-

partment of Corrections. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–88. Boca Raton Fireąghters and Police Pension
Fund v. Bahash et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 574 Fed. Appx. 21.
No. 15–123. California Dump Truck Owners Assn. v.
Nichols et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 784 F. 3d 500.
No. 15–226. Shirvell v. Armstrong. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 596 Fed. Appx. 433.
No. 15–229. Price v. Independence Federal Savings
Bank et al. Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 110 A. 3d 567.
No. 15–230. Werkheiser, Individually and in His Ofą-
cial Capacity as Supervisor for Pocono Township, Penn-
sylvania v. Pocono Township, Pennsylvania, et al. C. A.
3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 172.
No. 15–234. Raimondo v. Village of Armada, Michigan,
et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–235. Karas v. Paramo, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–242. Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. Munchkin, Inc. C. A.
Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx.
958.
No. 15–247. Rechtzigel v. Fischer Sand & Aggregate,
LLP. Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–252. Scott v. Commodity Futures Trading Commis-
sion et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–254. Edwards v. Lockheed Martin Corp. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 648.
No. 15–256. Walker v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 587 Fed. Appx. 651.
No. 15–260. Anh Nguyet Tran et al. v. Bank of New
York, nka Bank of New York Mellon, et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 82.
 ORDERS 957

577 U. S. November 2, 2015

No. 15–262. Echeverry v. Deutsche Bank National

Trust Co. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 163 So. 3d 1216.
No. 15–263. Baloco et al. v. Drummond Co., Inc., et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 F. 3d
1229.
No. 15–264. A. V. E. L. A., Inc., et al. v. Fifty-Six Hope
Road Music, Ltd., et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 778 F. 3d 1059.
No. 15–273. Butler v. Balkamp Inc. et al. C. A. Fed. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 982.
No. 15–284. Barron v. University of Michigan et al.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed.
Appx. 480.
No. 15–295. Pierson v. Rogow et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 499.
No. 15–297. Pruitt v. ResCap Liquidating Trust. C. A.
2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–299. Russo v. New York City Department of Edu-
cation. Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 25
N. Y. 3d 946, 29 N. E. 3d 896.
No. 15–306. Cantu et ux. v. Schmidt, Trustee. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 253.
No. 15–310. Salem v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 789 F. 3d 547.
No. 15–320. Balfour v. Howes, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 862.
No. 15–326. Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. v.
Lee, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Of-
ące. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782
F. 3d 1376.
No. 15–333. Senne v. Village of Palatine, Illinois. C. A.
7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 444.
958 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 2, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–336. Bechtel et al. v. Sandel Avionics, Inc. Ct.

App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–341. Eisenstein v. Committee on Character and
Fitness, Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York,
Third Judicial Department. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud.
Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 123 App. Div. 3d
1371, 997 N. Y. S. 2d 332.
No. 15– 344. Thibeault v. Merit Systems Protection
Board. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
611 Fed. Appx. 975.
No. 15–350. Zook et al. v. Environmental Protection
Agency et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 611 Fed. Appx. 725.
No. 15–355. Charlton et vir v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
611 Fed. Appx. 91.
No. 15–360. Crayton v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 799 F. 3d 623.
No. 15–364. Milano v. Carter, Secretary of Defense,
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599
Fed. Appx. 767.
No. 15–373. Grant v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 448.
No. 15–382. Morawski v. Lightstorm Entertainment,
Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
599 Fed. Appx. 779.
No. 15–383. Laera v. Blanco GmbH + Co. KG. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 620 Fed. Appx. 718.
No. 15–391. Fondren v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 895.
No. 15–392. Hall v. Gilbert et al. Ct. App. Ohio, 8th App.
Dist., Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
2014-Ohio-4687.
No. 15–399. Pickett v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 774.
 ORDERS 959

577 U. S. November 2, 2015

No. 15–401. Ruggiero v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 791 F. 3d 1281.
No. 15–402. Rosin v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 873.
No. 15–409. Rosga v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 166.
No. 15–414. Williams v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 541.
No. 15–5368. Jones v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2013–1614 (La. App. 4 Cir.
8/20/14).
No. 15–5472. Leyva-Samaripa v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5595. Brown v. Marriott Hotel. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 726.
No. 15–5682. Edwards v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
612 Fed. Appx. 719.
No. 15–5742. Shuster v. Ohio (two judgments). Ct. App.
Ohio, 5th App. Dist., Morgan County. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 2014-Ohio-3486 (both judgments).
No. 15–5754. Shapiro v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App.
Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5758. Olive v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 162 So. 3d 1037.
No. 15–5760. Smith v. LaValley, Superintendent, Clin-
ton Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 23.
No. 15–5762. Jaimes v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (2d) 121368, 21
N. E. 3d 501.
No. 15–5774. Jackson v. Ohio. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 141 Ohio St. 3d 171, 2014-Ohio-3707, 23
N. E. 3d 1023.
960 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 2, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5775. Wood v. Clarke, Director, Virginia Depart-

ment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 140.
No. 15–5778. Fudge v. Arkansas. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2015 Ark. 230, 463 S. W. 3d 292.
No. 15–5780. Beling v. Ennis, Inc. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 924.
No. 15–5787. Johnson v. Woods, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5795. Beasley v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 162 So. 3d 986.
No. 15–5796. Sheppard v. Livingston et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5799. Parks v. Knight. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5801. Ware v. Zatecky, Superintendent, Pendle-
ton Correctional Facility. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5805. Dunn v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5813. Moore v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 105 A. 3d 796.
No. 15–5823. Maier v. Mahally, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5824. Jones v. Peery, Acting Warden, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 674.
No. 15–5825. Streeter v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 147 So. 3d 527.
No. 15–5827. Brown, as Next Friend of Carter v. Cor-
rections Corporation of America. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 586 Fed. Appx. 430.
 ORDERS 961

577 U. S. November 2, 2015

No. 15–5828. Zamarripa Alvarado v. Texas. Ct. Crim.

App. Tex. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5832. Moore v. Raemisch, Executive Director,
Colorado Department of Corrections, et al. Sup. Ct. Colo.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5835. White v. Cain, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5837. O’Kelley v. Chatman, Warden. Super. Ct.
Butts County, Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5840. Littleton v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 121950, 14
N. E. 3d 555.
No. 15–5842. Carter v. Michigan Department of Correc-
tions et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5845. Ellison v. Kazmierski, Supervising Judge,
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County, et al. Sup. Ct. Ill.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5846. Wilkins v. Ludwick, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5847. Staples v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 12th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5853. King v. Booker, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5856. Pleasant-Bey v. Tennessee. Sup. Ct. Tenn.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5858. Sparre v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 164 So. 3d 1183.
No. 15–5860. Johnson v. Beak et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5864. Vazquez v. Orange County Service Unit.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed.
Appx. 760.
962 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 2, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5865. Marco Ramirez v. Yates, Warden. C. A. 9th

Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5866. Study v. Indiana. Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 24 N. E. 3d 947.
No. 15–5869. Leafey v. Garman, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Rockview, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5875. Almeida v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5878. Wright v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5879. Taylor v. Valenzuela, Warden, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 688.
No. 15–5880. Taylor v. Fisher, Acting Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5882. Ragan v. Wilson et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5884. Curry v. Berger et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5898. Huckabone v. City of Jamestown, New York,
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5901. Baldwin v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 121725, 17
N. E. 3d 746.
No. 15–5906. Patterson v. United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5908. Moore v. Berghuis, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5910. Lopez v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5912. Kaprelian v. Barrett. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 583.
 ORDERS 963

577 U. S. November 2, 2015

No. 15–5914. Moran v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.

Dist., Div. 8. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5915. Paleologus v. Lopez, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5916. Carter v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5920. Harper-Bey v. Beard, Secretary, Califor-
nia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5926. Douglas v. Goodwin, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5941. McGowan v. Burt, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d 510.
No. 15–5969. Morin v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 171 So. 3d 737.
No. 15–5983. Burks v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 163 So. 3d 571.
No. 15–5995. Lessieur v. Massachusetts. Sup. Jud. Ct.
Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 472 Mass. 317, 34
N. E. 3d 321.
No. 15–6005. LeBaron v. Vidal, Superintendent, Souza-
Baranowski Correctional Center. C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6009. Wallis v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 157 So. 3d 1051.
No. 15–6028. Geer v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 200 So. 3d 1274.
No. 15–6033. Ingram v. Just Energy. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6041. Geer v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6062. Turner v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 217.
964 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 2, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6066. Shields v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 789 F. 3d 733.
No. 15–6077. Jean v. United States;
No. 15–6256. Ductant v. United States; and
No. 15–6337. Sereme v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 597.
No. 15–6086. Woods v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 1st App. Dist.,
Hamilton County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014-
Ohio-3892.
No. 15–6109. Sanchez-Hernandez, aka Sanchez v. United
States (Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 409); Rodriguez-Pena
v. United States (604 Fed. Appx. 381); Navarrete-Cordova v.
United States (607 Fed. Appx. 389); Subieta, aka Ulin, aka
Milton, aka Ulin-Zubieta v. United States (613 Fed. Appx.
353); Vasquez-Martinez v. United States (613 Fed. Appx.
356); Perez-Barra v. United States (613 Fed. Appx. 355);
Jimenez-Binagra v. United States (613 Fed. Appx. 394); and
Villarreal-De La Fuente v. United States (613 Fed. Appx.
368). C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6123. Soto v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 799 F. 3d 68.
No. 15–6125. Brunson v. Taylor, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 86.
No. 15–6162. Martin v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6170. Strouse v. Bureau of Prisons et al. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 329.
No. 15–6185. Holt v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6187. Hall v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 766.
No. 15–6188. Granados v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 586 Fed. Appx. 115.
No. 15–6189. Garcia-Hernandez v. United States. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 965

577 U. S. November 2, 2015

No. 15–6192. Lewis v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 332.
No. 15–6193. Lopez-Vasquez v. United States. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6197. Granado v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 247.
No. 15–6199. Villegas v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 277.
No. 15–6201. Starks v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6210. Rogers v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6213. Vergara-Escobar v. United States. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 586.
No. 15–6214. Arreola-Escalante v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 248.
No. 15–6217. Anderson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6220. Bell v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 505.
No. 15–6222. Muhammad v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 226.
No. 15–6229. Dixon v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 758.
No. 15–6230. Wright v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 189.
No. 15–6233. Kraemer v. United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6235. Davis v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 112.
No. 15–6240. Marshall v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 961.
966 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 2, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6243. Moore v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 572.
No. 15–6247. Ciacci v. United States. Ct. App. D. C. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 117 A. 3d 1043.
No. 15–6249. Brown v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6254. Norales v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 463.
No. 15–6260. Corrigan v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 177.
No. 15–6261. Munoz Rueda v. Clarke, Director, Virginia
Department of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 306.
No. 15–6265. Patterson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 594.
No. 15–6269. Guerino v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 117.
No. 15–6272. Bello-Urquiza v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 525.
No. 15–6273. Bonds v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 526.
No. 15–6291. Diaz-Rodriguez v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 636.
No. 15–6292. Bektas v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6295. Betancourt Mendoza v. United States.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed.
Appx. 506.
No. 15–6298. Melton v. Reinke, Director, Idaho Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6302. Rogers v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 602.
 ORDERS 967

577 U. S. November 2, 2015

No. 15–6311. Seifer v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 800 F. 3d 328.
No. 15–6316. Miranda-Martinez v. United States. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 270.
No. 15–6320. Mosti v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 451.
No. 15–6334. Valle Zuniga v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 558.
No. 15–6348. Fulton v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 683.
No. 15–6350. Nave v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 888.
No. 15–6353. Williams v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 221.
No. 15–6355. Dixon, aka Hadley v. United States. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6357. Rivera-Nevarez v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 209.
No. 15–6359. Taylor v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 934.
No. 15–6362. Jones v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6363. Herrera-Sanchez v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 278.
No. 15–6365. Gomez-Gutierrez v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 651.
No. 15–6366. Galluzzo v. City of Dayton, Ohio. Ct. App.
Ohio, 2d App. Dist., Montgomery County. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 2014-Ohio-4854.
No. 15–6368. Haoren Ma v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 397.
No. 15–6371. Wong v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 584.
968 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 2, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6372. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 586 Fed. Appx. 664.
No. 15–6374. Joyner v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 119.
No. 15–6375. Raymonda v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 105.
No. 15–6376. Reese v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 63.
No. 15–6378. Copeland v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 111 A. 3d 627.
No. 15–6379. Schumacher v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 337.
No. 15–6382. Blue v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 922.
No. 15–6396. Vann v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 776 F. 3d 746.
No. 15–6402. Thorne v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 646.
No. 15–6403. Ramirez-Saucedo v. United States. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx.
698.
No. 15–6406. Alegria-Mera v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 251.
No. 15–6409. Jones v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 831.
No. 15–6413. Mitchell v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 290.
No. 15–6414. Quinino-Salome v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 241.
No. 15–6417. Hoang Ai Le v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 598.
No. 15–6420. Taylor v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 315.
 ORDERS 969

577 U. S. November 2, 2015

No. 15–6431. Champagnie v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 625.
No. 15–6439. Butler v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6444. Rivero v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 619 Fed. Appx. 784.
No. 14–9590. J. D. T., Juvenile Male v. United States.
C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to file a reply brief
under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 F. 3d 984.
No. 15–50. Henry v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 4th Cir. Mo-
tion of Innocence Project New Orleans et al. for leave to file brief
as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
2013–0059 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/6/14), 147 So. 3d 1143.
No. 15–249. Whitehead v. White & Case LLP et al. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. The Chief Justice took no part in
the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 15–257. Wong v. Anderson et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari before judgment denied. Justice Breyer took no part
in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 15–292. Walsh v. Jones et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.
No. 15–304. Behrmann et ux. v. National Heritage Foun-
dation, Inc. C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of Jeffrey H. Hartje for
leave to file brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 107.
No. 15–351. Walsh v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan
took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 15–6338. Schwartz v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
Rehearing Denied
No. 14–10077. In re Christenson, ante, p. 814. Petition for
rehearing denied.
970 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 3, 4, 2015 577 U. S.

November 3, 2015
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 15A473. Johnson v. Lombardi et al. Application for
stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice
Alito, and by him referred to the Court, is treated as an applica-
tion for stay pending appeal in the Eighth Circuit. Application
granted pending disposition of petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner’s
complaint alleges that Missouri’s method of execution violates the
Eighth Amendment as applied to a person with his particular
medical condition. A supporting affidavit by a medical expert
states that “[a]s a result of Mr. Johnson’s brain tumor, brain de-
fect, and brain scar, a substantial risk of serious harm will occur
during his execution as a result of a violent seizure that may be
induced by [the] Pentobarbital injection.” Because petitioner’s
complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, the State
was not required to submit any evidence refuting this allegation.
In the currently pending appeal, the Court of Appeals will be
required to decide whether petitioner’s complaint was properly
dismissed for failure to state a claim or whether the case should
have been permitted to progress to the summary judgment stage.
No. 15A478. Johnson v. Grifąth, Warden. Application for
stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice
Alito, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

November 4, 2015
Miscellaneous Order
No. 14–916. Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United
States. C. A. Fed. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 576 U. S. 1034.]
Case removed from argument calendar for Monday, November 9,
2015. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs ad-
dressing the following question: “Whether the Department of Vet-
erans Affairs procurements at issue in this case have been fully
performed, and if so, whether the case is moot.” Briefs, limited
to 6,000 words each, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk
and served upon opposing counsel on or before Friday, November
20, 2015. Reply briefs, not to exceed 3,000 words each, are to be
filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing
counsel on or before Tuesday, December 1, 2015.
 ORDERS 971

577 U. S.

November 6, 2015
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 15–232. Omega S. A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1. Re-
ported below: 776 F. 3d 692.
Certiorari Granted
No. 15–145. Husky International Electronics, Inc. v.
Ritz. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 787
F. 3d 312.
No. 14–1418. Zubik et al. v. Burwell, Secretary of
Health and Human Services, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.;
No. 14–1453. Priests for Life et al. v. Department of
Health and Human Services et al. C. A. D. C. Cir.;
No. 14–1505. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington
et al. v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Serv-
ices, et al. C. A. D. C. Cir.;
No. 15–35. East Texas Baptist University et al. v. Bur-
well, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
C. A. 5th Cir.;
No. 15–105. Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the
Aged, Denver, Colorado, et al. v. Burwell, Secretary of
Health and Human Services, et al. C. A. 10th Cir.;
No. 15–119. Southern Nazarene University et al. v.
Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services,
et al. C. A. 10th Cir.; and
No. 15–191. Geneva College v. Burwell, Secretary of
Health and Human Services, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-
rari granted in No. 14–1418 limited to Question 1 presented by
the petition. Motion of Association of American Physicians and
Surgeons et al. for leave to file brief as amici curiae in No. 14–
1453 granted. Certiorari in Nos. 14–1453, 14–1505, 15–35, 15–119,
and 15–191 granted. Certiorari in No. 15–105 granted limited
to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition. The cases are
consolidated. Reported below: Nos. 14–1418 and 15–191, 778
F. 3d 422; Nos. 14–1453 and 14–1505, 772 F. 3d 229; No. 15–35,
793 F. 3d 449; Nos. 15–105 and 15–119, 794 F. 3d 1151.
No. 15–109. Simmons et al. v. Himmelreich. C. A. 6th Cir.
Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 766 F. 3d 576.
972 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 6, 9, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5238. Nichols v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by
the petition. Reported below: 775 F. 3d 1225.

November 9, 2015
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 14–1492. Pickens et al. v. Aldaba, Personal Repre-
sentative and Next of Kin of Manuel Leija, Deceased.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case
remanded for further consideration in light of Mullenix v. Luna,
ante, p. 7 (per curiam). Reported below: 777 F. 3d 1148.
Certiorari Granted—Reversed. (See No. 14–1143, ante, p. 7.)
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 15–5965. Tricome v. LaRiviere et al. Super. Ct. Pa.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As
petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk
is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Reported below: 106 A. 3d 178.
No. 15–6002. Moore v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. C. A. 2d Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–6177. Hill v. Contreras, Judge, United States
District Court for the District of Columbia. C. A. D. C.
Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 6.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. D–2829. In re Disbarment of Evola. Disbarment en-
tered. [For earlier order herein, see 576 U. S. 1051.]
No. D–2830. In re Disbarment of Flynn. Disbarment en-
tered. [For earlier order herein, see 576 U. S. 1051.]
 ORDERS 973

577 U. S. November 9, 2015

No. D–2831. In re Disbarment of Seguin. Disbarment en-

tered. [For earlier order herein, see 576 U. S. 1051.]
No. D–2832. In re Disbarment of Feldman. Disbarment
entered. [For earlier order herein, see 576 U. S. 1051.]
No. D–2833. In re Disbarment of Damon. Disbarment en-
tered. [For earlier order herein, see 576 U. S. 1051.]
No. D–2834. In re Disbarment of Lawton. Disbarment
entered. [For earlier order herein, see 576 U. S. 1051.]
No. D–2835. In re Disbarment of Cooper. Disbarment en-
tered. [For earlier order herein, see 576 U. S. 1051.]
No. D–2836. In re Disbarment of Fleming. Disbarment
entered. [For earlier order herein, see 576 U. S. 1051.]
No. 15M46. Jackson v. United States;
No. 15M48. Qin Zhang v. Google Inc. et al.;
No. 15M49. Reyes-Garcia v. Lynch, Attorney General;
and
No. 15M51. Hoelscher et al. v. Millers First Insurance
Co. et al. Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs
of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 15M47. Gossage v. Terrill et al. Motion for leave to
proceed as a veteran denied.
No. 15M50. Edwards v. Obadina. Motion to direct the Clerk
to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time under this Court’s
Rule 14.5 denied.
No. 13–1496. Dollar General Corp. et al. v. Mississippi
Band of Choctaw Indians et al. C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari
granted, 576 U. S. 1021.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave
to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided
argument granted.
No. 14–181. Gobeille, Chair of the Vermont Green
Mountain Care Board v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 576 U. S. 1053.] Motion of the
Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as ami-
cus curiae and for divided argument granted.
974 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 9, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5266. Jackson v. McDonald, Secretary of Veter-

ans Affairs. C. A. Fed. Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsid-
eration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis
[ante, p. 806] denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this motion.
No. 15–6070. Roup v. Commercial Research, LLC. Sup.
Ct. Colo.; and
No. 15–6491. Mabbett v. Commissioner of Internal Reve-
nue. C. A. 10th Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until Novem-
ber 30, 2015, within which to pay the docketing fees required by
Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1
of the Rules of this Court.
No. 15–6529. In re McDonald; and
No. 15–6562. In re Curtis. Petitions for writs of habeas
corpus denied.
No. 15–6559. In re James-Bey. Motion of petitioner for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ
of habeas corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As peti-
tioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is
directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

Certiorari Denied
No. 14–1413. Ministerio Roca Solida, Inc. v. United
States. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
778 F. 3d 1351.
No. 14–10311. Hall v. Tennessee. Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 461 S. W. 3d 469.
No. 15–8. Applied Underwriters, Inc., et al. v. Arrow
Recycling Solutions, Inc., et al. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–102. Politte et al. v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 587 Fed. Appx. 406.
 ORDERS 975

577 U. S. November 9, 2015

No. 15–146. Davis v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 498.
No. 15–152. Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris,
Attorney General of California. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 1307.
No. 15–156. Joseph et al. v. City of Burlington, Ver-
mont, et al. Sup. Ct. Vt. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
2015 VT 41, 198 Vt. 510, 117 A. 3d 457.
No. 15–163. Rochow et al., Personal Representatives of
the Estate of Rochow v. Life Insurance Company of
North America. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 780 F. 3d 364.
No. 15–265. Alabama Gas Corp. v. Gas Fitters Local
Union No. 548 of the United Association, AFL–CIO–CLC.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed.
Appx. 382.
No. 15–269. Whitaker v. Nash-Rocky Mount Board of Ed-
ucation et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 585 Fed. Appx. 60.
No. 15–327. Westgate Resorts, Ltd., L. P. v. Overton
et ux. Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–334. Baker et ux. v. Iowa City, Iowa, et al. Sup.
Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 867 N. W. 2d 44.
No. 15–346. Gonzalez-Acevedo et al. v. United States
et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–359. Greene v. Department of Education. C. A.
7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 F. 3d 667.
No. 15–366. Estes v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 277.
No. 15–377. Pardon v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 908.
No. 15–388. Silverthorne v. CitiMortgage, Inc. Dist. Ct.
App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 169
So. 3d 1186.
976 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 9, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–411. Makiel v. Butler, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 882.
No. 15–413. Searcy v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–425. Coffman et al. v. United States. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 278.
No. 15–435. City of Cleveland Board of Review et al.
v. Hillenmeyer (Reported below: 144 Ohio St. 3d 165, 2015-
Ohio-1623, 41 N. E. 3d 1164); and City of Cleveland Board of
Review et al. v. Saturday et ux. (142 Ohio St. 3d 528, 2015-
Ohio-1625, 33 N. E. 3d 46). Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–445. Clark v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 787 F. 3d 451.
No. 15–481. Bearing Fund LP et al. v. Pricewaterhouse-
Coopers LLP. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 611 Fed. Appx. 34.
No. 15–5918. Russell v. Contra Costa County Martinez
Detention Facility. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5919. Hall v. Prince, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5924. Johnson v. David, Warden, et al. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5927. Carey v. Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 293 Ga. 624, 748 S. E. 2d 891.
No. 15–5928. Evans v. Heyns, Director, Michigan Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5929. Cooper v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 100320–U.
No. 15–5933. Douglas v. Janda, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5934. Campbell v. Lee, Superintendent, Green
Haven Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
 ORDERS 977

577 U. S. November 9, 2015

No. 15– 5935. Edwards v. Cameron, Superintendent,

State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale, et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5944. Robinson v. Grifąth. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5945. Zelaya-Zelaya v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5946. Parks v. Cain, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–5948. Reeves v. Bryson, Commissioner, Georgia
Department of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–5954. Davis v. Thompson, Justice, Supreme Court
of New York, Bronx County, et al. Ct. App. N. Y. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 25 N. Y. 3d 907, 32 N. E. 3d 964.
No. 15–5957. Leonhart v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 4th App.
Dist., Washington County. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
2014-Ohio-5601.
No. 15–5959. Peredes v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 462 S. W. 3d 510.
No. 15–5961. Nobles v. Woods, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 487.
No. 15–5963. Wusiya, aka Johnson v. City of Miami Beach,
Florida, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 614 Fed. Appx. 389.
No. 15–5967. Koumjian v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5971. Stoll v. Washington. Sup. Ct. Wash. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 183 Wash. 2d 1013, 353 P. 3d 639.
No. 15–5974. Jackson v. Park Place Condominiums Assn.,
Inc. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 619
Fed. Appx. 699.
978 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 9, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5977. Ward v. Arkansas. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari

denied. Reported below: 2015 Ark. 62, 455 S. W. 3d 830.
No. 15–5986. Qureshi v. New York (two judgments). App.
Term, Sup. Ct. N. Y., 9th and 10th Jud. Dists. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 45 Misc. 3d 126, 998 N. Y. S. 2d 307 (first judg-
ment); 45 Misc. 3d 57, 996 N. Y. S. 2d 462 (second judgment).
No. 15–5987. Barnes v. Tumlinson et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 798.
No. 15–5996. Lisenby v. South Carolina. Sup. Ct. S. C.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6001. Morales v. Travelers Indemnity Company
of Connecticut. Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6008. Jones v. Artus, Superintendent, Attica
Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6046. Carreon v. McDowell, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 877.
No. 15–6048. El-Alamin v. Moats et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6056. Kornegay v. New York et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6065. Cunningham v. Berghuis, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6076. Krushwitz v. University of California.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed.
Appx. 714.
No. 15–6091. Sturdivant v. Lizarraga, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6097. Jones v. McDaniel, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 710.
No. 15–6100. Crump v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 125 App. Div.
3d 999, 1 N. Y. S. 3d 866.
 ORDERS 979

577 U. S. November 9, 2015

No. 15–6104. Pray v. Farwell, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th

Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 620 Fed. Appx. 561.
No. 15–6139. Cook v. Muniz, Acting Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6154. Dunigan v. Tennessee Department of Cor-
rection. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6156. Teal v. Campbell et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 820.
No. 15–6179. Hamilton v. Smarjesse et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6195. Cornett v. Madden, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 626.
No. 15–6209. Young v. Bowersox, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6225. SchefĆer v. Dohman, Commissioner, Minne-
sota Department of Public Safety, et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 1260.
No. 15–6252. Chong Su Yi v. Cable News Network. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 116.
No. 15–6276. Smith v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6312. Roberson v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 455 S. W. 3d 257.
No. 15–6331. Wallace v. Walker et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6342. Rodgers v. Munks et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 555.
No. 15–6367. Sullivan v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 136.
No. 15–6380. Rukes v. Frink, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 479.
No. 15–6451. Fields v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 101.
980 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 9, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6452. Gomez-Juarez v. United States. C. A. 4th

Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 155.
No. 15–6454. Fletes-Ramos v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 484.
No. 15–6455. Miles v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 610.
No. 15–6456. Castro-Gomez v. United States. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 1216.
No. 15–6461. Bender v. United States Parole Commission.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 802 F. 3d 690.
No. 15–6471. Sainz-Camacho v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 449.
No. 15–6475. Turner v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 374.
No. 15–6476. Marchan v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 448.
No. 15–6478. Lewandowski v. United States. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 168.
No. 15–6480. Ayala Lopez v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 3.
No. 15–6497. McLellan v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 200.
No. 15–6499. Padgett v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d 370.
No. 15–6500. Ridens v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 1270.
No. 15–6558. Lumpkin v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–157. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd., et al. v. Plano
Molding Co. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this peti-
tion. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 353.
No. 15–281. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., et al. v. Apotex Inc.; and
 ORDERS 981

577 U. S. November 9, 10, 12, 2015

No. 15–307. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Apotex Inc.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part
in the consideration or decision of these petitions. Reported
below: 781 F. 3d 1356.
No. 15–419. Cannon et al. v. District of Columbia. C. A.
D. C. Cir. Petition for relief denied. Reported below: 783
F. 3d 327.

Rehearing Denied
No. 14–10114. Sewell v. Strayer University, ante, p. 848.
Petition for rehearing denied.

November 10, 2015

Dismissals Under Rule 46
No. 15–412. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Collins Inkjet Corp.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.
Reported below: 781 F. 3d 264.
No. 15–6094. Colvin v. Thomas, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.

Miscellaneous Order
No. 143, Orig. Mississippi v. Tennessee et al. It is or-
dered that the Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., of London, Ky., is
appointed Special Master in this case with authority to fix the
time and conditions for the filing of additional pleadings, to direct
subsequent proceedings, to summon witnesses, to issue subpoenas,
and to take such evidence as may be introduced and such as he
may deem it necessary to call for. The Special Master is directed
to submit reports as he may deem appropriate. The cost of print-
ing his reports, and all other proper expenses, including travel
expenses shall be submitted to the Court. [For earlier order
herein, see, e. g., 576 U. S. 1052.]

November 12, 2015

Dismissals Under Rule 46
No. 15–140. Taylor v. Nakkhumpun. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46. Reported below:
782 F. 3d 1142.
982 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 12, 13, 16, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–323. Trinity Wall Street v. Wal-Mart Stores,

Inc. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule
46. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 323.

November 13, 2015

Miscellaneous Order
No. 15A475 (14–1516). Duncan, Warden v. Owens. Applica-
tion to recall and stay the mandate of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in case No. 14–1419, presented
to Justice Kagan, and by her referred to the Court, granted
pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Re-
quest seeking that respondent be returned to applicant’s custody
pending final disposition of this case denied, thus leaving that
determination for the state court.

Probable Jurisdiction Postponed

No. 14–1504. Wittman et al. v. Personhuballah et al.
Appeal from D. C. E. D. Va. Further consideration of question
of jurisdiction postponed to hearing of case on the merits. In
addition to the questions presented by the jurisdictional state-
ment, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following
question: “Whether appellants lack standing because none reside
in or represent the only congressional district whose constitution-
ality is at issue in this case.”

Certiorari Granted
No. 15–274. Whole Woman’s Health et al. v. Cole, Com-
missioner, Texas Department of State Health Services,
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 790
F. 3d 563.
November 16, 2015
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 15–6134. Maldonado v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case re-
manded for further consideration in light of Johnson v. United
States, 576 U. S. 591 (2015). Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx.
244.
 ORDERS 983

577 U. S. November 16, 2015

Certiorari Dismissed
No. 15–6087. Wilhelm v. Fisher, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–6122. Dixon v. United States; and Dixon v. United
States et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See
this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–6127. Brewer v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See
this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this
Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further
petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the dock-
eting fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is sub-
mitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of
Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 417.
No. 15–6205. Carlson v. Dayton, Governor of Minnesota,
et al. Sup. Ct. Minn. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this
Court’s Rule 39.8.

Miscellaneous Orders
No. 15A370 (15–6130). Israni v. Crystal Lake 960 Assn.,
Inc. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Application for stay, ad-
dressed to Justice Alito and referred to the Court, denied.
No. 15M52. Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates et al. Mo-
tion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out
of time denied.
No. 14–9973. Bergo v. Court of Appeal of California,
Third Appellate District, et al. Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of
petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed
in forma pauperis [ante, p. 810] denied.
No. 15–5149. Maki v. Anderson et al. Ct. App. Tex., 2d
Dist. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying
984 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 16, 2015 577 U. S.

leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted, and the order en-

tered October 5, 2015, [ante, p. 811] is vacated.
No. 15–5284. Mierzwa v. Wal-Mart, Inc., et al. Sup. Ct.
N. J. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying
leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 806] denied.
No. 15–5648. Dixon v. 24th District Court of Louisiana
et al. C. A. 5th Cir.;
No. 15–6060. Wood v. Florida Atlantic University Board
of Trustees. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist.;
No. 15–6068. Salahuddin v. Zoning Hearing Board of
West Chester et al. Commw. Ct. Pa.;
No. 15–6082. Hernandez v. Dignity Health. Ct. App. Cal.,
3d App. Dist.;
No. 15–6181. Faison v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.;
No. 15–6211. White v. Detroit East Community Mental
Health et al. Ct. App. Mich.; and
No. 15–6593. Morris v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied. Petitioners are allowed until December 7, 2015, within
which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to
submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of
this Court.
No. 15–6665. In re Tate. Petition for writ of habeas cor-
pus denied.
No. 15–6078. In re Johnson. Petition for writ of prohibi-
tion denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 14–10029. King v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed.
Appx. 956.
No. 14–10083. Glasgow v. Oregon Department of Reve-
nue. Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 356
Ore. 511, 340 P. 3d 653.
No. 14–10145. Bonilla v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 667.
No. 14–10150. Nelson v. Brazelton, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 985

577 U. S. November 16, 2015

No. 14–10178. Cruthirds v. Miller et al. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 146.
No. 14–10189. Flowers v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–11. Garay v. New York. Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 25 N. Y. 3d 62, 30 N. E. 3d 145.
No. 15–59. Cheadle v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 109 A. 3d 594.
No. 15–175. Amerijet International, Inc. v. Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 841.
No. 15–187. Castro Perez v. Stephens, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institu-
tions Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 784 F. 3d 276.
No. 15–227. Yamaha Motor Corp., U. S. A., et al. v. Mc-
Mahon. Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 183
So. 3d 145.
No. 15–282. Mathis v. City of Morrow, Georgia, et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed.
Appx. 805.
No. 15–288. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., et al. v.
Eidos Display, LLC, et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 779 F. 3d 1360.
No. 15–291. Arthrex, Inc. v. KFx Medical Corp. C. A.
Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx.
538.
No. 15–294. Raub v. Campbell. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 876.
No. 15–298. OMG, L. P., et al. v. Heritage Auctions, Inc.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed.
Appx. 207.
No. 15–300. Ellrich et al. v. Hays. Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 471 Mass. 592, 31 N. E. 3d
1064.
986 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 16, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–303. Zavala v. Texas et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-

rari denied.
No. 15–311. Houston et al. v. Queen et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 725.
No. 15–318. Baptiste v. C & F Properties, LLC. Sup. Ct.
Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 171 So. 3d 113.
No. 15–319. UnitedHealth Group Inc. et al. v. Denbo
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 798
F. 3d 125.
No. 15–322. Wu et ux. v. Capital One, N. A., et al. C. A.
3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 214.
No. 15–332. Lewicki et al. v. Washington County, Penn-
sylvania, et al. Commw. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 105 A. 3d 855.
No. 15–340. Raoul v. City of New York Police Depart-
ment et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–342. Thomas et al. v. U. S. Bank N. A. et al. C. A.
8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 789 F. 3d 900.
No. 15–343. Wong et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.,
et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 789
F. 3d 889.
No. 15–368. Beukes et ux. v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as
Successor in Interest to Homecomings Financial, LLC,
et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786
F. 3d 649.
No. 15–393. Long v. Libertywood Nursing Center et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed.
Appx. 224.
No. 15–417. Plews et al. v. Luhrsen et al. Dist. Ct. App.
Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 174 So. 3d
1001.
No. 15–427. Lee v. Cain, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
 ORDERS 987

577 U. S. November 16, 2015

No. 15–434. Davenport v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 120 A. 3d 1056.
No. 15–508. Sealed Appellant et al. v. BP Explora-
tion & Production, Inc., et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 584 Fed. Appx. 230.
No. 15–519. Aircraft Check Services Co. et al., Individ-
ually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Verizon Wireless et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 782 F. 3d 867.
No. 15–5164. Almanza v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 6th
App. Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 233 Cal. App.
4th 990, 183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 335.
No. 15–5171. O’Bryant v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 1006.
No. 15–5197. Pickett v. Gallagher et al. Ct. App. Miss.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 159 So. 3d 587.
No. 15–5443. Deppenbrook v. Pension Beneąt Guaranty
Corporation. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 778 F. 3d 166.
No. 15–5610. Liu v. Department of Industrial Relations.
Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Div. 5. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5989. Smith v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5998. Kim v. Montgomery, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 619.
No. 15–6003. Pinkard v. New York City Department of
Education et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6004. Osborne v. King, Superintendent, South
Mississippi Correctional Institution. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 308.
No. 15–6012. Wimberly v. Julius et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 309.
988 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 16, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6014. Bell v. New Jersey et al. C. A. 3d Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6017. Soto v. D’llio, Administrator, New Jersey
State Prison, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6020. Fields v. Stone. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6026. Ivy v. Brown, Superintendent, Wabash Val-
ley Correctional Facility. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6031. Tyson v. Cartledge, Warden, et al. Sup.
Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6038. Taylor v. Barnard et al.; and Taylor v. Rob-
inson, Clerk, Superior Court of Georgia, Fulton County.
Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6043. Hill v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6049. Smith v. Brown. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 764 F. 3d 790.
No. 15–6051. Riley v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App.
Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6055. Douglas, aka Houston v. Wright et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6059. Vega v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6071. Burfeindt v. Postupack et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6080. Watkins v. Stern et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6084. Jackson v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 121 A. 3d 1123.
No. 15–6096. Morris v. Court of Appeals of Texas, 11th
District. Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 989

577 U. S. November 16, 2015

No. 15–6102. Pickens v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-

rari denied.
No. 15–6105. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 582.
No. 15–6106. Moore v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6115. McCoy v. O’Neill et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 450.
No. 15–6116. Fox v. Minnesota. Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 868 N. W. 2d 206.
No. 15–6120. Evans v. Elmer’s Products, Inc., et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed.
Appx. 515.
No. 15–6124. Aziz v. New Jersey. Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6126. Breaux v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 106.
No. 15–6128. Bolds v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6130. Israni v. Crystal Lake 960 Assn., Inc. Dist.
Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6131. SchefĆer v. Minnesota. Ct. App. Minn.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6136. Cole v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 542.
No. 15–6153. Davis v. Stevenson, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 255.
No. 15–6158. Alston v. Kean University et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 216.
No. 15–6174. Garcia v. Mahally, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
990 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 16, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6203. Urosevic v. Department of Homeland Secu-

rity et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6227. Taylor v. Crowley, Superintendent, Or-
leans Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6246. Christian v. 43d District Court of Michigan
et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6255. McCormick v. Mahally, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6257. Lucas v. Cartledge, Warden. Sup. Ct. S. C.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6259. Johnson v. Department of Labor et al.
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed.
Appx. 545.
No. 15–6271. Flenoid v. Koster, Attorney General of
Missouri, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6274. Adams v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 173 So. 3d 960.
No. 15–6280. Riley v. Cartledge, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 308.
No. 15–6332. Watson v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6343. Adkins v. Wetzel, Secretary, Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6377. Gray v. New Hampshire. Super. Ct. N. H.,
Rockingham County. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6387. Fabian v. Thomas, Warden. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 203.
No. 15–6392. Mason v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 774 F. 3d 824.
 ORDERS 991

577 U. S. November 16, 2015

No. 15–6400. Lampkin v. Ajilon Professional Stafąng.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed.
Appx. 285.
No. 15–6415. Julison v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 635 Fed. Appx. 342.
No. 15–6416. Talik v. Thomas, Warden, et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 621 Fed. Appx. 94.
No. 15–6422. Shkambi v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 620 Fed. Appx. 260.
No. 15–6425. Zareck v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 588 Fed. Appx. 100.
No. 15–6428. Preciado-Ovalles v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 437.
No. 15–6433. Green v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6434. Brown v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 58.
No. 15–6446. Deese v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 200.
No. 15–6458. Williams v. Cartledge, Warden. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 196.
No. 15–6463. Vargas v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 462.
No. 15–6481. Lee v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 793 F. 3d 680.
No. 15–6487. Gonzales v. Utah. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 749.
No. 15–6489. Howton v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6502. Adams v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6503. Kilburg v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 386.
992 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 16, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6507. Askew v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 591 Fed. Appx. 910.
No. 15–6512. Pettaway v. Feather, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6513. Pirosko v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 F. 3d 358.
No. 15–6519. Wilson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d 1298.
No. 15–6522. James v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 626 Fed. Appx. 785.
No. 15–6523. Keatings v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 F. 3d 1197.
No. 15–6524. Masters v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 618.
No. 15–6525. Soto v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 634.
No. 15–6526. Camacho, aka Mendoza-Nunez v. United
States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612
Fed. Appx. 437.
No. 15–6527. Duque-Diaz, aka Medina, aka Gomez-Duval
v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 606 Fed. Appx. 133.
No. 15–6528. Pena-Aguilar v. United States. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6531. Rodriguez v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 619.
No. 15–6537. Cazy v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 569.
No. 15–6543. Richter v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 503.
No. 15–6545. Simmons v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 404.
 ORDERS 993

577 U. S. November 16, 2015

No. 15–6550. Kaiser v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied.
No. 15–6553. Luong et al. v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 598.
No. 15–6554. Ross v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 619 Fed. Appx. 453.
No. 15–6555. Tinker v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 635.
No. 15–6564. Rowe v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6569. Chibuko, aka Buckley, aka Pride, aka Buck-
eley v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 82.
No. 15–6570. Rice v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 748.
No. 15–6571. Martinez v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 692.
No. 15–6573. Outlaw v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 420.
No. 15–6577. Peel v. Sepanek, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6580. Tibbs v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 744.
No. 15–6585. Veliz v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 623 Fed. Appx. 538.
No. 15–6589. Taylor v. United States District Court for
the Northern District of Florida. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6592. McGee v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 351.
No. 15–6598. Trevino Morales v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 165.
994 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 16, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15– 6599. Dominguez-Valencia v. United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed.
Appx. 459.
No. 15–6601. Hernandez-Maldonado v. United States.
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 793 F. 3d 223.
No. 15–6604. Salam v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 110.
No. 15–6609. Herrera v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 621.
No. 15–6610. Franklin v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 1365.
No. 15–6614. Bullard v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 898.
No. 15–6616. Luis Castillo v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 754.
No. 15–6627. Robinson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6629. Hayes v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 673.
No. 14–1273. New Hampshire Right to Life v. Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 43.
Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C. § 552, re-
quires federal agencies to “make [agency] records promptly avail-
able to any person” who requests them, unless the information
that they contain falls under a specifically enumerated exemption.
§§ 552(a)(3)(A), (b). One of those exemptions, Exemption 4, au-
thorizes agencies to withhold documents that contain “trade se-
crets and commercial or financial information obtained from a
person and privileged or confidential.” § 552(b)(4).
We have long maintained that “FOIA reflects a general philoso-
phy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under
clearly delineated statutory language.” Department of Defense
v. FLRA, 510 U. S. 487, 494 (1994) (internal quotation marks omit-
 ORDERS 995

994 Thomas, J., dissenting

ted). And we have rejected interpretations of other FOIA ex-

emptions that diverge from the text. E. g., Milner v. Department
of Navy, 562 U. S. 562, 573 (2011) (rejecting interpretation due to
its “patent flaw: It is disconnected from Exemption 2’s text”).
Though we often have considered other FOIA exemptions, we
have never interpreted Exemption 4’s exception for “trade secrets
and commercial or financial information obtained from a person
and privileged or confidential.” § 552(b)(4). In the meantime,
Courts of Appeals have declined to interpret the word “confiden-
tial” in Exemption 4 according to its ordinary meaning. Here,
for instance, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld
the Department of Health and Human Services’ refusal to disclose
Planned Parenthood’s Manual of Medical Standards and Guide-
lines, a document that the Government had required Planned Par-
enthood to submit in connection with a noncompetitive grant ap-
plication. See 778 F. 3d 43, 49–52 (2015). The First Circuit
based this conclusion not on the ordinary meaning of the term
“confidential,” but on conjectures as to whether disclosure could
harm Planned Parenthood’s competitive position. The court
deemed the manual confidential because “[a] potential future com-
petitor could take advantage of the institutional knowledge con-
tained in the Manual” to compete with Planned Parenthood at
some later date. Id., at 51.
The decision below reflects a wider development. Courts of
Appeals have embraced varying versions of a convoluted test that
rests on judicial speculation about whether disclosure will cause
competitive harm to the entity from which the information was
obtained. In 1974, the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit
decided National Parks and Conservation Assn. v. Morton, 498
F. 2d 765, which construed the word “confidential” in Exemption
4 by looking to legislative history and the “legislative purpose
which underlies the exemption.” Id., at 767; see id., at 766–770.
That court determined that commercial information is “confiden-
tial” if, inter alia, disclosure would “cause substantial harm to
the competitive position of the person from whom the information
was obtained.” Id., at 770. The D. C. Circuit later elaborated
that there was no need to “show actual competitive harm,” and
that “[a]ctual competition and the likelihood of substantial compet-
itive injury” sufficed. Public Citizen Health Research Group v.
FDA, 704 F. 2d 1280, 1291 (1983) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted). Seven other Circuits adopted the National Parks test.
996 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

Thomas, J., dissenting 577 U. S.

See Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F. 2d 871, 876

(CADC 1992) (en banc) (collecting cases).
In 1992, the D. C. Circuit granted rehearing en banc to recon-
sider National Parks, after two judges of that court described
its test as “fabricated, out of whole cloth.” Critical Mass, 975
F. 2d, at 875 (internal quotation marks omitted). The full court
declined to overrule it entirely. Id., at 876–877, 880. Instead,
the court “confine[d]” the National Parks test “to information
that persons are required to provide the Government,” and
adopted a different test for voluntarily provided information. 975
F. 2d, at 872, 880.
Since then, every Court of Appeals to consider Exemption 4
has interpreted it by parsing National Parks’ nebulous language
about “actual competition” and a “substantial likelihood of compet-
itive harm.” The courts’ reliance on National Parks to deter-
mine whether information is “confidential” commercial informa-
tion has produced confusion. Courts cannot seem to agree on
what kind of “actual competition” must be shown. Some require
factual justifications and market definitions to show that there is
“actual competition in the relevant market” in which the entity
opposing the disclosure of its information operates. Watkins v.
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 643 F. 3d 1189, 1196
(CA9 2011). Others, including the First Circuit below, take an
expansive view of what the relevant market is, and do not require
any connection between that market and the context in which an
entity supplied the requested information. 778 F. 3d, at 51.
Courts of Appeals also disagree over what a “substantial likeli-
hood of competitive harm” means. In some courts, there must
be evidence that the entity whose information is being disclosed
would likely suffer some defined competitive harm (like lost mar-
ket share) if competitors used the information. E. g., McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Department of Air Force, 375 F. 3d 1182, 1187
(CADC 2004); GC Micro Corp. v. Defense Logistics Agency, 33
F. 3d 1109, 1115 (CA9 1994). But the First Circuit here accepted
that competitors’ possible use of the information alone constitutes
harm—even if this would not likely result in any negative conse-
quences for the entity whose information was disclosed. See 778
F. 3d, at 51. Similarly, some courts hold that competitive harm
exists if a competitor could use the disclosed information to pub-
licly embarrass the originator of the information. E. g., Nadler
v. FDIC, 92 F. 3d 93, 96–97 (CA2 1996). Others hold that this
 ORDERS 997

577 U. S. November 16, 2015

can never be competitive harm. E. g., United Technologies Corp.

v. Department of Defense, 601 F. 3d 557, 563–564 (CADC 2010).
We should not leave the meaning of Exemption 4 up to an atextual
test that has different limits in different Circuits.*
By failing to address the Courts of Appeals’ abrogation of Ex-
emption 4’s text, we have also created a disconcerting anomaly.
We have interpreted FOIA Exemption 5—applicable to agency
memoranda that “would not be available by law to a party . . . in
litigation with the agency,” § 552(b)(5)—to encompass a “privilege
for confidential commercial information” created by the Govern-
ment. Federal Open Market Comm. v. Merrill, 443 U. S. 340, 360
(1979). Yet, in that context, we defined confidential commercial
information to mean information “generated in the process of
awarding a contract,” which “would in fact be privileged in civil
discovery.” Id., at 361. It is odd for one definition of confidential
commercial information to apply to Government-generated rec-
ords and for a different test to apply if nongovernmental actors
created them. It is especially strange given our recognition that
the only difference between confidential commercial information
covered by Exemption 4 and Exemption 5 is that the latter “is
necessarily confined to information generated by the Federal Gov-
ernment itself.” Id., at 360.
* * *
The First Circuit’s decision warrants review. It perpetuates
an unsupported interpretation of an important federal statute and
further muddies an already amorphous test. For these reasons,
I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.
No. 15–510. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC, et al. v. Roche
Diagnostics GmbH et al. Sup. Ct. Del. Motion of Leonard
A. White et al. for leave to file brief as amici curiae granted.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 116 A. 3d 1244.
No. 15–6016. Brainerd v. Schlumberger Technology
Corp. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Alito took
no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported
below: 589 Fed. Appx. 406.
*The Government apparently agrees. Rather than defending the Courts
of Appeals’ tests, the Government’s brief opposing certiorari states that
every court that has adopted the National Parks definition of “confidential”
information has turned its back on the statutory text.
998 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 16, 17, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6494. Roundtree v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.

Rehearing Denied
No. 14–9860. Nixon v. Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al.,
ante, p. 839;
No. 14–10045. Ranteesi v. Arnold, Acting Warden, ante,
p. 844;
No. 14–10105. Ranteesi v. Constance et al., ante, p. 847;
No. 15–124. Bradley v. Sabree et al., ante, p. 874;
No. 15–172. Howard v. Railroad Retirement Board, ante,
p. 875;
No. 15–5077. Kearney v. Fischer, Commissioner, New
York Department of Correctional Services, et al., ante,
p. 881;
No. 15–5086. Nesselrode v. Department of Education,
ante, p. 881;
No. 15–5111. Lunz v. O’Meara, Superintendent, Gouver-
neur Correctional Facility, ante, p. 883;
No. 15–5201. Saunders v. Virginia, ante, p. 887;
No. 15–5212. Brown et al. v. Florida Department of
Children and Families, ante, p. 888;
No. 15–5295. Stevenson v. Saunders, ante, p. 892;
No. 15–5675. Vogt v. Iowa State Penitentiary et al., ante,
p. 929;
No. 15–5773. Turner v. United States, ante, p. 912;
No. 15–5848. Webb v. United States, ante, p. 931; and
No. 15–5939. Imperato v. Securities and Exchange Com-
mission, ante, p. 933. Petitions for rehearing denied.

November 17, 2015

Miscellaneous Order
No. 14–1418. Zubik et al. v. Burwell, Secretary of
Health and Human Services, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.;
No. 14–1453. Priests for Life et al. v. Department of
Health and Human Services et al. C. A. D. C. Cir.;
No. 14–1505. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington
et al. v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Serv-
ices, et al. C. A. D. C. Cir.;
 ORDERS 999

577 U. S. November 17, 18, 2015

No. 15–35. East Texas Baptist University et al. v. Bur-

well, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
C. A. 5th Cir.;
No. 15–105. Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the
Aged, Denver, Colorado, et al. v. Burwell, Secretary of
Health and Human Services, et al. C. A. 10th Cir.;
No. 15–119. Southern Nazarene University et al. v.
Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services,
et al. C. A. 10th Cir.; and
No. 15–191. Geneva College v. Burwell, Secretary of
Health and Human Services, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. [Certio-
rari granted, ante, p. 971.] Briefing proposal set forth in the
parties’ letter of November 16, 2015, adopted. Petitioners in Nos.
14–1418, 14–1453, and 14–1505 will file one consolidated opening
brief and one reply brief. Petitioners in Nos. 15–35, 15–105, 15–
119, and 15–191 will file one consolidated opening brief and one
reply brief. Petitioners’ opening briefs, not to exceed 20,000
words each, are to be filed on or before January 4, 2016. Re-
spondents will file one consolidated brief, not to exceed 22,500
words, on or before February 10, 2016. Petitioners’ reply briefs,
not to exceed 8,000 words each, are to be filed on or before March
11, 2016.
November 18, 2015
Certiorari Denied
No. 15–6956 (15A520). Holiday v. Stephens, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional In-
stitutions Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of ex-
ecution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by
him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 806 F. 3d 334.
Statement of Justice Sotomayor, respecting the application
for stay of execution and denial of certiorari.
A federal statute entitles defendants sentenced to death to
court-appointed counsel during “all available post-conviction proc-
ess.” 18 U. S. C. § 3599(e). This statute requires counsel to “rep-
resent the defendant in . . . proceedings for executive or other
clemency as may be available to the defendant.” Ibid.; see Har-
bison v. Bell, 556 U. S. 180, 185–186 (2009). Pursuant to § 3599,
Raphael Holiday asked his court-appointed counsel—Seth Kretzer
1000 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

Statement of Sotomayor, J. 577 U. S.

and James Volberding—to petition the State of Texas for clem-

ency. App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a. His attorneys declined, how-
ever, because of their belief that there was “no chance at all
that a clemency petition would be granted.” Id., at 11a (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Holiday asked a Federal District Court to appoint a new attor-
ney who would file his petition for clemency. The court denied
his request. The court recognized that § 3599 compelled it to
appoint new counsel if “the interests of justice” require. Ibid.
(quoting Martel v. Clair, 565 U. S. 648, 658 (2012); internal quota-
tion marks omitted). But given the “representations” of Holi-
day’s attorneys, the court found new counsel unwarranted. App.
to Pet. for Cert. 11a.
This denial was an abuse of discretion. When Congress author-
ized federally funded counsel to represent clients in clemency
proceedings, it plainly “did not want condemned men and women
to be abandoned by their counsel at the last moment and left to
navigate the sometimes labyrinthine clemency process from their
jail cells.” Harbison, 556 U. S., at 194 (quoting Hain v. Mullin,
436 F. 3d 1168, 1175 (CA10 2006) (en banc); internal quotation
marks omitted). Yet this is exactly what happened here. Al-
though the “ ‘interests of justice’ standard contemplates a pecu-
liarly context-specific inquiry,” Martel, 565 U. S., at 663, it surely
precludes a court from rejecting a substitution motion solely
because it agrees with the appointed attorneys’ premonitions
about clemency.
Executive clemency is fundamentally unpredictable. Clemency
officials typically have “complete discretion” to commute a defend-
ant’s sentence based on “a wide range of factors not compre-
hended by earlier judicial proceedings and sentencing determina-
tions.” Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U. S. 272,
278, 281 (1998) (principal opinion); see Tex. Const., Art. IV, § 11;
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 48.01 (Vernon Supp. 2014). By
granting death-eligible defendants an attorney, “Congress ensured
that no prisoner would be put to death without meaningful access
to th[is] ‘ “fail safe” ’ of our justice system.” Harbison, 556 U. S.,
at 194 (quoting Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390, 415 (1993)). So
long as clemency proceedings were “available” to Holiday,
§ 3599(e), the interests of justice required the appointment of at-
torneys who would represent him in that process. Cf. Christeson
v. Roper, 574 U. S. 373, 377 (2015) (per curiam) (reversing the
 ORDERS 1001

577 U. S. November 18, 19, 24, 2015

denial of a substitution motion under § 3599 despite the “host of

procedural obstacles” confronting the petitioner’s claims). The
District Court’s denial did not adequately account for Holiday’s
statutory right.
Despite the District Court’s error, I reluctantly join the Court’s
decision to deny Holiday’s petition for certiorari. After the court
rejected Holiday’s request for new counsel, his original attorneys
eventually submitted a clemency application on his behalf. This
application proved unsuccessful—and likely would have benefited
from additional preparation by more zealous advocates. Yet this
Court, unlike a state court, is likely to have no power to order
Texas to reconsider its clemency decision with new attorneys rep-
resenting Holiday.
November 19, 2015
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 14–471. Contorinis v. Securities and Exchange Com-
mission. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s
Rule 46. Reported below: 743 F. 3d 296.
Certiorari Denied
No. 15–7015 (15A535). Johnson v. Chatman, Warden. Sup.
Ct. Ga. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death,
presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court,
denied. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7022 (15A539). Johnson v. Chatman, Warden. C. A.
11th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death,
presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court,
denied. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 805 F. 3d 1317.

November 24, 2015

Miscellaneous Orders
No. 14–232. Harris et al. v. Arizona Independent Redis-
tricting Commission et al. D. C. Ariz. [Probable jurisdiction
noted, 576 U. S. 1082 and 1083.] Motion of appellee Arizona Sec-
retary of State Michele Reagan, in support of appellants, for di-
vided argument granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for
leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for
divided argument granted.
1002 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 24, 30, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–981. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

et al. C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 576 U. S. 1054.] Mo-
tion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argu-
ment as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted. Jus-
tice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this
motion.
November 30, 2015
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 15–587. Allergan plc, fka Actavis plc, et al. v. New
York, By and Through Schneiderman, Attorney General.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.
Reported below: 787 F. 3d 638.
Affirmed for Absence of Quorum
No. 15–454. Smith v. Scalia, Associate Justice, Supreme
Court of the United States, et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Because
the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. § 1, and since the only
qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard
and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is
affirmed under 28 U. S. C. § 2109, which provides that under these
circumstances “the court shall enter its order affirming the judg-
ment of the court from which the case was brought for review
with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided
court.” The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas,
and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision
of this petition.
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 15–6219. Baez-Martinez v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case re-
manded for further consideration in light of Johnson v. United
States, 576 U. S. 591 (2015). Reported below: 786 F. 3d 121.
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 15–6142. Clay v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this
Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this
 ORDERS 1003

577 U. S. November 30, 2015

Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further

petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the dock-
eting fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is sub-
mitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of
Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 261.
No. 15–6168. LeBlanc v. City of Kalamazoo, Michigan.
C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule
39.8.
No. 15–6228. Youngblood v. Superior Court of Califor-
nia, Butte County, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari
dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeat-
edly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to
accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from peti-
tioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and
the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Mar-
tin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992)
(per curiam). Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 664.
No. 15–6321. Mosley v. Harmon et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–6538. Chafe v. Florida Department of Children
and Families. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Motion of peti-
tioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certio-
rari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Reported below: 162
So. 3d 1025.

Miscellaneous Orders
No. 15M53. Wood v. United States;
No. 15M56. White v. Racette, Superintendent, Great
Meadow Correctional Facility;
No. 15M57. Chao Ho Lin et ux. v. Chi Chu Wu;
No. 15M58. Cohane v. National Collegiate Athletic
Assn. et al.;
No. 15M59. Esposito v. Esposito; and
1004 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 30, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15M60. Rowe v. Gonzalez et al. Motions to direct the

Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 15M54. McWane, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission;
and
No. 15M55. Norton v. Maine Department of Health and
Human Services et al. Motions for leave to file petitions for
writs of certiorari with supplemental appendixes under seal
granted.
No. 14–770. Bank Markazi, aka Central Bank of Iran v.
Peterson et al. C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 576 U. S.
1094.] Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing joint appen-
dix granted.
No. 14–915. Friedrichs et al. v. California Teachers
Assn. et al. C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 576 U. S. 1082.]
Motion of respondent Attorney General of California for divided
argument granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to
participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for enlargement
of time for oral argument, and for divided argument granted, and
the time is divided as follows: 40 minutes for petitioners, 15 min-
utes for Union Respondents, 15 minutes for respondent Attorney
General of California, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General.
No. 14–9753. Lavergne v. Sheriff’s Ofące of Lafayette
Parish. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration
of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 803]
denied.
No. 14–9816. McInerney v. Rensselaer Polytechnic In-
stitute et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsid-
eration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis
[ante, p. 812] denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the
consideration or decision of this motion.
No. 14–10084. Asbury v. South Carolina et al. Sup. Ct.
S. C. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying
leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 803] denied.
No. 15–118. Hernandez et al. v. Mesa. C. A. 5th Cir. The
Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing
the views of the United States.
No. 15–138. RJR Nabisco, Inc., et al. v. European Commu-
nity et al. C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 576 U. S. 1095.]
 ORDERS 1005

577 U. S. November 30, 2015

Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing joint appendix

granted. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration
or decision of this motion.
No. 15–5009. Tweed v. Scott, Governor of Florida, et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order
denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 805]
denied.
No. 15–5226. Williams v. Corizon, LLC, et al. C. A. 8th
Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying
leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 806] denied.
No. 15–5670. Aslanyan v. Obenland, Superintendent,
Monroe Correctional Complex. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of
petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed
in forma pauperis [ante, p. 811] denied.
No. 15–5826. In re Salih El Bey. Motion of petitioner for
reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris [ante, p. 937] denied.
No. 15–6244. Moore v. Montiel et al. C. A. 9th Cir.;
No. 15–6335. Van Houten v. Stephens, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institu-
tions Division. C. A. 5th Cir.;
No. 15–6341. Randolph-Kennedy v. Verizon Services
Corp. Sup. Ct. App. W. Va.;
No. 15–6384. Harrison v. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security. C. A. 4th Cir.;
No. 15–6492. Zammit v. City of New Baltimore, Michigan.
Cir. Ct. Macomb County, Mich.; and
No. 15–6493. Lan v. Comcast Corp., LLC. Ct. App. Cal., 1st
App. Dist., Div. 5. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until Decem-
ber 21, 2015, within which to pay the docketing fees required by
Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1
of the Rules of this Court.
No. 15–6163. In re Lambrix;
No. 15–6167. In re Rufus;
No. 15–6738. In re Cox;
No. 15–6759. In re Ramsey; and
1006 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 30, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6870. In re Mintz. Petitions for writs of habeas cor-

pus denied.
No. 15–6223. In re Shelton. Petition for writ of manda-
mus denied.
No. 15–6698. In re Solis; and
No. 15–6704. In re Solis. Motions of petitioner for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petitions for writs of
mandamus and/or prohibition dismissed. See this Court’s Rule
39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process,
the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in non-
criminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required
by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance
with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

Certiorari Denied
No. 14–1388. McDonough et al. v. Dupont. Sup. Ct. N. H.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 167 N. H. 429, 113 A. 3d
239.
No. 14–1543. Hines v. Alldredge et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 F. 3d 197.
No. 14–9708. Begolli v. Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. C. A.
7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 14–10355. Martinez-Lugo v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 198.
No. 14–10377. Wilson v. United States; and
No. 14–10407. Persaud v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 791.
No. 15–9. Cintron v. Massachusetts. Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–45. Birhanzl v. Oregon. Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 264 Ore. App. 466, 332 P. 3d 371.
No. 15–46. Davis et al. v. Abbott, Governor of Texas,
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781
F. 3d 207.
 ORDERS 1007

577 U. S. November 30, 2015

No. 15–69. Biolitec AG et al. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. (two

judgments). C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
780 F. 3d 420 (first judgment) and 429 (second judgment).
No. 15–101. Hardin v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 595 Fed. Appx. 460.
No. 15–132. Uveges v. Uveges. Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 103 A. 3d 825.
No. 15–155. State of Veracruz, Republic of Mexico,
et al. v. BP p. l. c. et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 784 F. 3d 1019.
No. 15–162. Paske v. Fitzgerald, Individually and in His
Ofącial Capacity as Chief of Police of Missouri City,
Texas, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 785 F. 3d 977.
No. 15–215. Yamada et al. v. Shoda, Chair and Member
of the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 1182.
No. 15–241. Fulghum et al. v. Embarq Corp. et al.; and
No. 15–244. Embarq Corp. et al. v. Fulghum et al. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 395.
No. 15–329. Grove v. South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control et al. Ct. App. S. C.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–335. Adams v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–352. Zaragoza Fuentes v. 245th Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas, et al. Sup. Ct. Tex. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–354. Carmichael v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.
Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–356. Clark v. City of Olathe, Kansas. Ct. App.
Kan. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 50 Kan. App. 2d xiii,
338 P. 3d 24.
1008 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 30, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–357. Tennant v. City of Georgetown, South Caro-

lina, et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 597 Fed. Appx. 752.
No. 15–358. Westlake Legal Group, dba Thomas K. Plof-
chan, Jr., PLLC, et al. v. Yelp, Inc. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 481.
No. 15–369. Pampattiwar v. Chitre. Ct. App. Ga. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 329 Ga. App. XXVII.
No. 15–395. Calhoun v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 968.
No. 15–400. Dauksh v. Lynch, Attorney General. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 640.
No. 15–444. Endencia v. Rush Behavioral Health et al.
App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014
IL App (1st) 132129–U.
No. 15–452. Leonard et ux. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 616 Fed. Appx. 677.
No. 15–459. Nagel v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–476. Johnson v. Cruz, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 161.
No. 15–477. Beckman v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 624 Fed. Appx. 909.
No. 15–482. Parr et ux., Individually and as Parents
and Natural Guardians of Parr v. Ford Motor Co. et al.
Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 109 A. 3d
682.
No. 15–487. Raysor v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–496. Rosario v. Saylor, Chief Justice of Pennsyl-
vania, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 799 F. 3d 216.
 ORDERS 1009

577 U. S. November 30, 2015

No. 15–503. Chabot et ux. v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 793 F. 3d 338.
No. 15–523. Solomon v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 956.
No. 15–540. Bala v. Virginia Department of Conserva-
tion and Recreation. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 636.
No. 15–561. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 F. 3d
1374.
No. 15–568. City of Concord, New Hampshire v. North-
ern New England Telephone Operations LLC. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 795 F. 3d 343.
No. 15–5047. Rodriguez-Bernal v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 F. 3d 1002.
No. 15–5172. Mobley v. Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 296 Ga. 876, 770 S. E. 2d 1.
No. 15–5222. Norris v. Foxx, Secretary of Transporta-
tion, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5235. Riscajche-Siquina v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 412.
No. 15–5317. Hollingsworth v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 F. 3d 556.
No. 15–5336. Lewis v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 587 Fed. Appx. 223.
No. 15–5686. Franco-Bardales v. Lynch, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599
Fed. Appx. 684.
No. 15–5696. Lambrix v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5738. Huff v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 1221.
1010 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 30, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5756. Tuomi v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 956.
No. 15–5770. Durante v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 129.
No. 15–5804. Tomikel v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6117. Ford v. Florida et al. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 168 So. 3d 224.
No. 15–6121. Carius v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 163 So. 3d 1204.
No. 15–6137. Lorenzo Esparza v. Stephens, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional In-
stitutions Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6141. Dillon v. Dooley, Warden, et al. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6145. Chuol v. Nebraska. Ct. App. Neb. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 22 Neb. App. xxii.
No. 15–6146. Croskey v. Crawford, aka C&B Association
Montgomery. Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 177 So. 3d 468.
No. 15–6147. Dotson v. Kiser, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 235.
No. 15–6148. Clark v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6149. Castro-Gutierrez v. Frauenheim, Warden.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 590 Fed.
Appx. 674.
No. 15–6150. Andy E. v. Doe et al. Sup. Ct. App. W. Va.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6151. D’Amico v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
 ORDERS 1011

577 U. S. November 30, 2015

No. 15–6152. Doleman v. Neven, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th

Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6155. Daniels v. Curtin, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6161. Banks v. Butler, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6166. Cooke v. New York. Ct. App. N. Y. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 24 N. Y. 3d 1196, 27 N. E. 3d 469.
No. 15–6171. Martin v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6173. Garivay v. Long, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6175. Ghee v. Alabama Department of Human Re-
sources et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 589 Fed. Appx. 486.
No. 15–6176. Hoever v. Porter, Warden, et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6178. Howard v. Strange, Governor of Alabama,
et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6180. Harrell v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 877.
No. 15–6182. Gamble v. Kenworthy et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 301.
No. 15–6184. Green v. Addison, Warden. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 704.
No. 15–6186. Holguin v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 8th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6190. Ramsey v. Muniz, Acting Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6194. Seibert v. Georgia. Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari
denied.
1012 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 30, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6196. Hart v. Salois et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-

rari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 694.
No. 15–6200. Talley v. Baker et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6204. Sivak v. Idaho. Ct. App. Idaho. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6207. Thurman v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6208. Terry v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6212. Thomas v. Goodwin, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 395.
No. 15–6215. Bryant v. South Carolina. Ct. Common
Pleas of Sumter County, S. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6216. Boone v. Howerton, Warden. Super. Ct. Ha-
bersham County, Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6218. Barksdale v. United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6226. Verlee v. Texas (two judgments). Ct. Crim.
App. Tex. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6231. Valencia v. City of Santa Fe, New Mexico,
et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599
Fed. Appx. 353.
No. 15–6232. Valencia v. De Luca et al. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 512.
No. 15–6234. Lee v. Hymowitz et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6237. Johnson v. Dauphanus et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15– 6239. Jack v. Virginia Bureau of Insurance.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed.
Appx. 295.
 ORDERS 1013

577 U. S. November 30, 2015

No. 15–6242. Mitchell v. Navarro et al. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6245. Salas v. Independent Electrical Contrac-
tors Inc. et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 603 Fed. Appx. 607.
No. 15–6248. Barstad v. Washington Department of Cor-
rections et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 609 Fed. Appx. 427.
No. 15–6250. Reid v. Washington. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 502.
No. 15–6253. Wheatley v. Smith et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 589.
No. 15–6262. Zavaleta Perez v. Perry, Secretary, North
Carolina Department of Public Safety. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 184.
No. 15–6263. Nurse v. Sheraton Atlanta Hotel et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed.
Appx. 987.
No. 15–6264. Neyland v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 6th App.
Dist., Wood County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2013-
Ohio-3065.
No. 15–6266. Lundahl v. American Bankers Insurance
Company of Florida. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 734.
No. 15–6267. Peyronel v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 465 S. W. 3d 650.
No. 15–6268. Pagan v. Massachusetts. Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 471 Mass. 537, 31 N. E. 3d
575.
No. 15–6270. Garrett v. Tennessee. Ct. Crim. App. Tenn.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6277. Wilson v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 173 So. 3d 968.
1014 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 30, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6279. Chong Su Yi v. Capital One, N. A. C. A. 4th

Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 124.
No. 15–6281. Reeves v. Chatman, Warden. Super. Ct.
Tattnall County, Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6285. King v. Mackie, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6293. Brock v. Cook, Warden. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 142 Ohio St. 3d 1473, 2015-Ohio-
2051, 31 N. E. 3d 652.
No. 15–6294. Azania v. Neal, Superintendent, Indiana
State Prison. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6313. Reeves v. Head, Warden, et al. Super. Ct.
Baldwin County, Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6314. Scales v. Harry, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6315. Nicholson v. Louisiana. Sup. Ct. La. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2013–0072 (La. 5/5/15), 169 So.
3d 344.
No. 15–6318. Olson v. Little, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 387.
No. 15–6322. Booker v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6323. Boyer v. Massachusetts. App. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 87 Mass. App. 1111, 26 N. E.
3d 1141.
No. 15–6324. Aikins v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 169 So. 3d 1191.
No. 15–6329. Washington v. William Morris Endeavor
Entertainment, LLC, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6333. Vargas v. Johnson, Administrator, New Jer-
sey State Prison, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 1015

577 U. S. November 30, 2015

No. 15–6339. Ruggles v. Yagong et al. Sup. Ct. Haw.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 135 Haw. 411, 353 P. 3d 953.
No. 15–6345. Rogers v. Perry, Secretary, North Caro-
lina Department of Public Safety. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 147.
No. 15–6347. Powers v. Tibbals, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6349. Esquivel v. Ramirez. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 661.
No. 15–6351. Wolfe v. Banks, Superintendent, South
Mississippi Correctional Institution. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6381. Boswell v. Boschini et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 581 Fed. Appx. 372.
No. 15–6383. Haddow v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 117.
No. 15–6385. Guadalupe Garcia v. Beard, Secretary, Cal-
ifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6388. Holmes v. Washington. Ct. App. Wash. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 183 Wash. App. 1037.
No. 15– 6393. Pridgen v. Kerestes, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al. C. A.
3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6397. Clark v. Allen & Overy, LLP. App. Div.,
Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 125 App. Div. 3d 497, 4 N. Y. S. 3d 20.
No. 15–6399. Jackson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. C. A. 7th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6419. Walker v. Beard, Secretary, California De-
partment of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 789 F. 3d 1125.
No. 15–6424. SchefĆer v. Messerli & Kramer, P. A.
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 791 F. 3d 847.
1016 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 30, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6440. Luna v. Cain, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-

rari denied.
No. 15–6441. Thomas v. Tennessee. Ct. Crim. App. Tenn.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6447. Harvey v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed. Appx. 455.
No. 15–6457. Yoak v. Sprint Nextel Corp. et al. C. A.
8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6466. Lopez Moreno v. California. Ct. App. Cal.,
2d App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6467. Paulson v. South Dakota. Sup. Ct. S. D.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2015 S.D. 12, 861 N. W. 2d
504.
No. 15–6470. Bland v. French et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6483. Harding v. Colorado. Ct. App. Colo. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6505. Brooks v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6509. Bell v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6511. Clum v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 922.
No. 15–6515. Strouse v. Wilson, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6532. Richardson v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 104 A. 3d 115.
No. 15–6556. Lobaito v. Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 599 Fed. Appx. 400.
No. 15–6572. McCann v. Federal Deposit Insurance Cor-
poration, as Receiver for Lakeside Community Bank.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 1017

577 U. S. November 30, 2015

No. 15–6590. Tiburcio v. United States Capitol. C. A.

D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx.
540.
No. 15–6595. Woodley v. Tatum, Warden. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6596. Thomas et al. v. United States. C. A. 7th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 794 F. 3d 705.
No. 15–6600. Figueroa-Lugo v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 793 F. 3d 179.
No. 15–6606. Antonio Montanez v. Jones, Secretary,
Florida Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6613. Yates v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 8th App. Dist.,
Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6617. Lovin v. Osborne, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6621. Bevill v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 180.
No. 15–6622. Taylor v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6623. Smith v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6624. Smith v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 340.
No. 15–6625. Moss v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6631. Beckford v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6634. Alston v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 730.
No. 15–6635. Bell v. Persson, Superintendent, Oregon
State Correctional Institution. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 619.
1018 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 30, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6636. Jones v. Clements, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6637. Kieffer v. Sauers, Warden. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 464.
No. 15–6644. Ramey v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 165.
No. 15–6647. Harvey v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 794 F. 3d 617.
No. 15–6649. Gonzalez v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 631.
No. 15–6650. Zar et al. v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 1036.
No. 15–6651. Davis v. Maryland State Department of Ed-
ucation Ofące of Child Care. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 222 Md. App. 709.
No. 15–6655. Whisnant v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6656. Ventura v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6658. Kirkland v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 133.
No. 15–6671. Short v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15– 6678. Medrano-Hernandez v. United States.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed.
Appx. 586.
No. 15–6680. Perez-Sanchez v. United States. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 626 Fed. Appx. 412.
No. 15–6690. Fay v. Maye, Warden. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 667.
No. 15–6702. LaPointe v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2015 IL App (2d) 130451, 40
N. E. 3d 72.
 ORDERS 1019

577 U. S. November 30, 2015

No. 15–6705. McClurkin v. Maryland. Ct. Sp. App. Md.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 222 Md. App. 461, 113 A.
3d 1111.
No. 15–115. Tyco Healthcare Group LP et al. v. Ethicon
Endo-Surgery, Inc. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Jus-
tice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this
petition. Reported below: 774 F. 3d 968.
No. 15–161. Rapelje, Warden v. Blackston. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 340.
Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas and Justice
Alito join, dissenting.
A criminal defendant “shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted
with the witnesses against him.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 6. We
have held that this right entitles the accused to cross-examine
witnesses who testify at trial, and to exclude certain out-of-court
statements that the defendant did not have a prior opportunity
to cross-examine. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36, 50–51
(2004); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U. S. 308, 315–317 (1974). We have
never held—nor would the verb “to confront” support the hold-
ing—that confrontation includes the right to admit out-of-court
statements into evidence. Nevertheless, the Sixth Circuit held
not only that the Confrontation Clause guarantees the right to
admit such evidence but that our cases have “clearly established”
as much. We should grant certiorari and summarily reverse.
Respondent Junior Fred Blackston was convicted in Michigan
state court of first-degree murder on the strength of the testi-
mony of five people, some of whom participated in the crime.
For reasons not relevant here, the court ordered a new trial.
Before Blackston’s retrial, however, two of the five witnesses
signed written statements recanting their trial testimony. The
prosecution called them at the second trial, but they refused to
answer any questions. The trial court therefore pronounced
them “unavailable” and, pursuant to a venerable hearsay excep-
tion, see Mich. Rule Evid. 804(b)(1) (2012); cf. 5 J. Wigmore, Evi-
dence § 1370, p. 55 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974), allowed their earlier
testimony to be read to the jury. But the court refused to admit
into evidence their written recantations.
Blackston was once again convicted of first-degree murder and
sentenced to life imprisonment. Affirming the conviction, the Su-
preme Court of Michigan held that the trial court’s exclusion of
1020 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

Scalia, J., dissenting 577 U. S.

the recantations was not error and, even if it was, was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt. 481 Mich. 451, 751 N. W. 2d 408
(2008).
This petition for federal habeas relief followed. The District
Court conditionally granted the writ, finding that the exclusion
of the recantations violated Blackston’s Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. 907 F. Supp. 2d 878 (ED Mich. 2012). A
divided Sixth Circuit panel affirmed. 780 F. 3d 340 (2015). In
the Court of Appeals’ view, “[t]here is a clearly established right
to impeach the credibility of an adverse witness using the wit-
ness’s own inconsistent statements.” Id., at 348. The recanta-
tions, reasoned the court, were inconsistent statements that had
obvious impeachment value.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA) prohibits federal courts from granting habeas relief un-
less the state court’s decision “involved an unreasonable applica-
tion of . . . clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1)
(emphasis added). As the dissenting judge below pointed out, no
case of ours establishes, clearly or otherwise, that the Confronta-
tion Clause bestows a right to admit this kind of evidence. 780
F. 3d, at 363–364 (opinion of Kethledge, J.). In fact we long ago
suggested just the opposite. Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S.
237, 245–250 (1895). Each of the cases the Sixth Circuit relied
on involved the defendant’s attempting during cross-examination
to impeach testifying witnesses, not unavailable declarants. See
Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U. S. 227, 230 (1988) (per curiam); Dela-
ware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 676 (1986); Alford v. United
States, 282 U. S. 687, 693 (1931). And just recently we said in
Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U. S. 505, 512 (2013) (per curiam), that
“this Court has never held that the Confrontation Clause entitles
a criminal defendant to introduce extrinsic evidence for impeach-
ment purposes.” The Sixth Circuit thought the recantations here
intrinsic, not extrinsic, and so beyond Jackson’s ambit. That is
quite irrelevant. The pertinent question under AEDPA is
whether our cases have clearly established a right, not whether
they have failed to clearly foreclose it.
There may well be a plausible argument why the recantations
ought to have been admitted under state law. See Mich. Rule
Evid. 806. But nothing in our precedents clearly establishes their
admissibility as a matter of federal constitutional law. AEDPA
 ORDERS 1021

577 U. S. November 30, 2015

“provides a remedy for instances in which a state court unreason-

ably applies this Court’s precedent; it does not require state
courts to extend that precedent or license federal courts to treat
the failure to do so as error.” White v. Woodall, 572 U. S.
415, 426 (2014). By framing the confrontation right at a high
level of generality (making it the right “to impeach the credibility
of an adverse witness”), the Sixth Circuit in effect “transform[ed]
. . . [an] imaginative extension of existing case law into ‘clearly
established’ ” law. Jackson, supra, at 512. That will not do.
The Sixth Circuit seems to have acquired a taste for disregard-
ing AEDPA. E. g., Woods v. Donald, 575 U. S. 312 (2015) (per
curiam); White v. Woodall, supra; Burt v. Titlow, 571 U. S. 12
(2013); Metrish v. Lancaster, 569 U. S. 351 (2013); Howes v. Fields,
565 U. S. 499 (2012). We should grant certiorari to discourage
this appetite.
No. 15–5628. Holland v. Florida. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 775 F. 3d 1294.
No. 15–6296. Mizner v. Grounds, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 591 Fed.
Appx. 577.
No. 15–6612. Martinez v. Jarvis, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 609 Fed.
Appx. 630.
Rehearing Denied
No. 14–1312. Jones v. Chatman, Warden, ante, p. 817;
No. 14–1316. Coulter v. Allegheny County Bar Assn.
et al.; Coulter v. Lope et al.; Coulter v. Ramsden et al.;
Coulter v. Doerr et al.; Coulter v. Gale et al.; Coulter
v. Mahood et al.; and Coulter v. Ramsden et al., ante,
p. 817;
No. 14–1318. Dix v. Clancy, Director, United States Se-
cret Service, et al., ante, p. 817;
No. 14–1353. NetAirus Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
ante, p. 819;
No. 14–1414. Lopez v. Newport Elementary School et
al., ante, p. 821;
1022 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 30, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–1427. In re Sabeniano, ante, p. 814;

No. 14–1479. Hollander v. Pembroke, ante, p. 824;
No. 14–1498. Lucas v. Humphrey, Warden, ante, p. 914;
No. 14–1509. LaCertosa v. Blackman Plumbing Supply
Co., Inc., et al., ante, p. 826;
No. 14–1518. Abram v. Fulton County, Georgia, ante,
p. 826;
No. 14–1521. Torres v. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash In-
dians, ante, p. 826;
No. 14–1537. Houston et al. v. 42d Judicial District
Court of Louisiana, ante, p. 827;
No. 14–7776. Dean v. Porsche Automobil Holdings SE
et al., ante, p. 828;
No. 14–8856. Bistrika et al. v. Oregon; and Bistrika v.
Oregon, ante, p. 828;
No. 14–9078. Barry v. Diallo, ante, p. 829;
No. 14–9175. Gutierrez v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, ante, p. 829;
No. 14–9239. Coles v. National Labor Relations Board
et al., ante, p. 829;
No. 14–9369. Garcia v. Texas, 576 U. S. 1038;
No. 14–9397. Hutchinson v. Razdan, 576 U. S. 1025;
No. 14–9489. Chalmers v. Tennessee, ante, p. 830;
No. 14–9676. In re Ervin, ante, p. 814;
No. 14–9685. Stamos v. Davey, Warden, ante, p. 834;
No. 14–9719. Bogany v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, ante, p. 834;
No. 14–9819. Paulk v. City of Orlando, Florida, et al.,
ante, p. 837;
No. 14–9997. Gonzalez v. Connecticut, ante, p. 843;
No. 14–10009. Thompson v. Ohio, ante, p. 843;
No. 14–10025. Melot et ux. v. United States, ante, p. 844;
No. 14–10038. Amrhein v. La Madeleine, Inc., et al., ante,
p. 844;
No. 14–10088. Jeep v. United States, ante, p. 846;
No. 14–10101. Cladek v. United States, ante, p. 847;
No. 14–10144. Rajkovic v. Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion et al., ante, p. 849;
No. 14–10195. Blick v. Deutsche Bank National Trust
Co., ante, p. 852;
 ORDERS 1023

577 U. S. November 30, 2015

No. 14–10218. Seaman v. Michigan, ante, p. 853;

No. 14–10224. Vieira v. Van Winkle, ante, p. 854;
No. 14–10259. Curry v. City of Mansąeld, Ohio, et al.,
ante, p. 855;
No. 14–10285. Speed v. United States, ante, p. 857;
No. 14–10289. Madura et ux. v. Bank of America, N. A.,
ante, p. 858;
No. 14–10357. Reid v. City of Flint, Michigan, ante, p. 861;
No. 14–10366. Fodor v. Eastern Shipbuilding Group (two
judgments), ante, p. 862;
No. 14–10367. Gibson v. Valley Avenue Drive-In Restau-
rant, LLC, ante, p. 862;
No. 14–10370. Lavenant v. United States, ante, p. 862;
No. 14–10412. Jordan v. Satterąeld et al., ante, p. 865;
No. 14–10440. Rowland v. Jones, Secretary, Florida
Department of Corrections, ante, p. 866;
No. 14–10462. Cameron v. Dolce, Superintendent, Or-
leans Correctional Facility, ante, p. 867;
No. 15–21. Cherkovsky v. Delgado, ante, p. 870;
No. 15–33. Deere v. Laxalt, Attorney General of Ne-
vada, et al., ante, p. 870;
No. 15–43. McBroom v. HR Director, Franklin County
Board of Elections, ante, p. 870;
No. 15–47. Bagdis v. United States, ante, p. 871;
No. 15–61. Langer v. Nilles, Ilvedson, Plambeck &
Selbo, Ltd., nka Nilles, Plambeck, Selbo & Harrie, Ltd.,
ante, p. 871;
No. 15–89. Bamdad v. United States, ante, p. 872;
No. 15–99. Shaikh v. Florida, ante, p. 873;
No. 15–5014. Augustus v. AHRC Nassau, ante, p. 877;
No. 15–5025. Villalta v. Lynch, Attorney General, et
al., ante, p. 878;
No. 15–5031. Brannon v. Stevenson, Warden, ante, p. 878;
No. 15–5051. In re Viray, ante, p. 814;
No. 15–5056. Smith v. Wood County District Attorney’s
Ofące et al., ante, p. 880;
No. 15–5078. Kelley v. Lazaroff, Warden, ante, p. 881;
No. 15–5116. Brunson v. Price, Warden, et al., ante,
p. 883;
No. 15–5124. Vogt v. Iowa et al., ante, p. 884;
No. 15–5191. Matthews v. Stewart, Warden, ante, p. 886;
1024 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

November 30, December 2, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5215. Basey v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-

ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion, ante, p. 888;
No. 15–5249. Boone v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, ante, p. 890;
No. 15–5250. Thompson v. United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, ante, p. 890;
No. 15–5256. Diehl v. United States, ante, p. 890;
No. 15–5261. Rogers v. United States, ante, p. 891;
No. 15–5293. Ladeairous v. Schneiderman, Attorney
General of New York, et al., ante, p. 892;
No. 15–5318. Douglas, aka Houston v. Bughrara et al.,
ante, p. 893;
No. 15–5359. Hood v. United States, ante, p. 896;
No. 15–5360. Farmer v. Potteiger et al., ante, p. 896;
No. 15–5410. Norman v. Florida, ante, p. 899;
No. 15–5416. Wright v. Wingard, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Somerset, et al., ante, p. 899;
No. 15–5422. Baker v. United States, ante, p. 900;
No. 15–5426. Scotton v. United States, ante, p. 900;
No. 15–5429. Cabrera Mejia v. Wal-Mart, ante, p. 900;
No. 15–5485. Williams v. City University of New York,
Brooklyn College, ante, p. 903;
No. 15– 5568. Wright v. United States Interagency
Council on Homelessness et al., ante, p. 927;
No. 15–5659. Kerr v. United States, ante, p. 909;
No. 15–5732. Fullman v. Kistler et al., ante, p. 942;
No. 15–5733. Fullman v. Kistler et al., ante, p. 942;
No. 15–5868. In re Jordan, ante, p. 921; and
No. 15–5890. In re Brown, ante, p. 937. Petitions for rehear-
ing denied.
December 2, 2015
Miscellaneous Order
No. 15A551. Akina et al. v. Hawaii et al. Application for
injunction pending appellate review, presented to Justice Ken-
nedy, and by him referred to the Court, granted. Respondents
are enjoined from counting the ballots cast in, and certifying the
winners of, the election described in the application, pending final
disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals
 ORDERS 1025

577 U. S. December 2, 3, 4, 2015

for the Ninth Circuit. Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer,

Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the
application.
December 3, 2015
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 15–28. Listecki, as Trustee of the Archdiocese of
Milwaukee Catholic Cemetery Perpetual Care Trust v.
Ofącial Committee of Unsecured Creditors. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1. Reported
below: 780 F. 3d 731.
December 4, 2015
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 15–436. In re Mellouli; and
No. 15– 437. Mellouli v. Lynch, Attorney General.
C. A. 8th Cir. Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition
and petition for writ of certiorari dismissed under this Court’s
Rule 46.1

Miscellaneous Order
No. 14–1382. Americold Logistics, LLC, et al. v. ConAgra
Foods, Inc., et al. C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 576
U. S. 1094.] Joint motion of the parties to dismiss Americold Lo-
gistics, LLC, as a dispensable party granted.

Certiorari Granted
No. 14–1375. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari
granted. Reported below: 774 F. 3d 1169.
No. 14–1457. Betterman v. Montana. Sup. Ct. Mont. Cer-
tiorari granted. Reported below: 378 Mont. 182, 342 P. 3d 971.
No. 15–7. Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United
States et al. ex rel. Escobar et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-
rari granted limited to Questions 2 and 3 presented by the peti-
tion. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 504.
No. 15–233. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al. v.
Franklin California Tax-Free Trust et al.; and
1026 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

December 4, 7, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–255. Acosta-Febo et al. v. Franklin California

Tax-Free Trust et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of Fundacion
Angel Ramos, Inc., et al. for leave to file brief as amici curiae in
No. 15–233 granted. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and
a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. Justice Alito
took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and
these petitions. Reported below: 805 F. 3d 322.

December 7, 2015
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 15–545. Freeman Marine Equipment, Inc. v. CHMM,
LLC. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s
Rule 46.1. Reported below: 791 F. 3d 1059.
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 15–24. France v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further
consideration in light of the confession of error by the Solicitor
General in his brief for the United States filed on November 6,
2015. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 820.
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 15–6373. Lancaster v. Texas (two judgments). Ct.
Crim. App. Tex. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this
Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this
Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further
petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the dock-
eting fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submit-
ted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Co-
lumbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 15A458 (15–595). Sorensen v. United States. C. A.
10th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice
and referred to the Court, denied.
No. 15A479. Wilkerson v. United States. Application for
release on bond pending appeal, addressed to Justice Ginsburg
and referred to the Court, denied.
 ORDERS 1027

577 U. S. December 7, 2015

No. D–2857. In re Discipline of Rosabianca. Luigi Ro-

sabianca, of New York, N. Y., is suspended from the practice of
law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2858. In re Discipline of Sepcich. Michael S. Sep-
cich, of Metairie, La., is suspended from the practice of law in
this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, re-
quiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2859. In re Discipline of Jefferson. William Jen-
nings Jefferson, of New Orleans, La., is suspended from the prac-
tice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within
40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be dis-
barred from the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2860. In re Discipline of Abadie. Alan John Ab-
adie, of Chalmette, La., is suspended from the practice of law in
this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, re-
quiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2861. In re Discipline of Trye. Shauntese Curry
Trye, of Baltimore, Md., is suspended from the practice of law in
this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, re-
quiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2862. In re Discipline of Zobrist. Gerry G. Zobrist,
of Las Vegas, Nev., is suspended from the practice of law in this
Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the
practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2863. In re Discipline of Koresko. John J. Koresko
V, of Bridgeport, Pa., is suspended from the practice of law in
this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, re-
quiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2864. In re Discipline of Rosen. Donald P. Rosen,
of Carpentersville, Ill., is suspended from the practice of law in
1028 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

December 7, 2015 577 U. S.

this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, re-
quiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2865. In re Discipline of Rozenstrauch. Daniel
Rozenstrauch, of Chicago, Ill., is suspended from the practice of
law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from
the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2866. In re Discipline of Neely. David E. Neely,
of Chicago, Ill., is suspended from the practice of law in this
Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring
him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the
practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2867. In re Discipline of McBeath. Carla Ruth
McBeath, of Fort Lee, N. J., is suspended from the practice of law
in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred
from the practice of law in this Court.
No. D–2868. In re Discipline of Brawley. Cheryl Rose
Brawley, of Honolulu, Haw., is suspended from the practice of law
in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days,
requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred
from the practice of law in this Court.
No. 15M61. Hardy v. Birkett, Warden; and
No. 15M62. Wilkinson v. GEO Group, Inc., et al. Motions
to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of
time denied.
No. 15–5527. Kearney v. New York Department of Cor-
rectional Services et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner
for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [ante, p. 919] denied.
No. 15–5748. Campbell v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of petitioner
for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [ante, p. 919] denied.
No. 15–5767. Collie v. South Carolina Commission on
Lawyer Conduct. Sup. Ct. S. C. Motion of petitioner for re-
 ORDERS 1029

577 U. S. December 7, 2015

consideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pau-

peris [ante, p. 953] denied.
No. 15–6027. Howell v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 950] denied.
No. 15–6370. Jackson v. White, Illinois Secretary of
State, et al. C. A. 7th Cir.; and
No. 15–6806. Dixon v. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs. C. A. Fed. Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until
December 28, 2015, within which to pay the docketing fees re-
quired by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with
Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
No. 15–6931. In re Gage;
No. 15–6955. In re Jones; and
No. 15–6972. In re Green. Petitions for writs of habeas cor-
pus denied.
No. 15–6807. In re Gonzalez Lora. Petition for writ of ha-
beas corpus denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition.
No. 15–6398. In re Ervin. Petition for writ of mandamus
denied.

Certiorari Denied
No. 14–1391. Bowden v. North Carolina. Sup. Ct. N. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 367 N. C. 680, 766 S. E. 2d
320.
No. 14–9299. Marshall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 580 Fed.
Appx. 896.
No. 14–10447. Fries v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 1137.
No. 15–65. Lizcano v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–147. Sullivan v. Glenn et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 378.
1030 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

December 7, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–210. Geoffrey v. Geoffrey. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th

Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 162 So. 3d 1025.
No. 15–245. Mann v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–270. Smiley v. Hartford Life & Accident Insur-
ance Co. et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 610 Fed. Appx. 8.
No. 15–272. Hawkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed.
Appx. 662.
No. 15–381. Fivetech Technology Inc. v. Southco, Inc.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed.
Appx. 681.
No. 15–384. Sitka Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Segarra
Miranda et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 795 F. 3d 288.
No. 15–385. Bond v. Holder et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–389. Dickey v. City of Boston Inspectional Serv-
ices Department et al. App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 87 Mass. App. 1119, 30 N. E. 3d 134.
No. 15–390. Ing v. Lee. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., Div. 4.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–394. Cunda v. Bank of New York Mellon. Sup.
Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 177 So. 3d 1264.
No. 15–396. Rouse v. II–VI Inc. et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 62.
No. 15–397. Racz v. Knipp, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–398. Petrella, Next Friend and Guardian of
Minor N. P. et al., et al. v. Brownback, Governor of Kan-
sas, et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
787 F. 3d 1242.
 ORDERS 1031

577 U. S. December 7, 2015

No. 15–407. Villegas et al. v. Schmidt, Trustee. C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d 156.
No. 15–408. Lipin v. Danske Bank et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–418. Wynn v. Callan Appraisal Inc. et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 584.
No. 15–422. Jones et al. v. Dancel et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 395.
No. 15–426. Evans, Executor of the Estate of Ringgold,
et al. v. McCullough, Special Administrator and Adminis-
trator With Will Annexed, et al. (Reported below: 600 Fed.
Appx. 577); Evans v. Carter (601 Fed. Appx. 527); Curtis
et al. v. Sankary (611 Fed. Appx. 893); Ringold et al. v.
Sankary (601 Fed. Appx. 529); and Ringgold-Lockhart et al.
v. Sankary et al. (600 Fed. Appx. 592). C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–431. Hunn v. Dan Wilson Homes Inc. et al. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 789 F. 3d 573.
No. 15–433. Crider v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 8th Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–441. Hill v. Curtin, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 670.
No. 15–455. Askew et ux. v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 1091.
No. 15–462. Wenthe v. Minnesota. Sup. Ct. Minn. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 865 N. W. 2d 293.
No. 15–542. Katz v. Cellco Partnership, dba Verizon
Wireless. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
794 F. 3d 341.
No. 15–5043. Gutierrez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 259.
No. 15–5147. Lara-Ruiz v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 919.
1032 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

December 7, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–5149. Maki v. Anderson et al. Ct. App. Tex., 2d

Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–5635. Stephens v. Nike, Inc. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 896.
No. 15–5740. Rayford v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
622 Fed. Appx. 315.
No. 15–5886. Pickens v. Ohio. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 141 Ohio St. 3d 462, 2014-Ohio-5445, 25
N. E. 3d 1023.
No. 15–5940. Gonzales v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
606 Fed. Appx. 767.
No. 15–5958. Plascencia-Acosta, aka Sanchez v. United
States (Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 419); Lopez-Merino v.
United States (608 Fed. Appx. 296); Garcia-Jasso v. United
States (608 Fed. Appx. 295); Zepeda-Rangel v. United States
(609 Fed. Appx. 216); Sarabia-Baltazar, aka Mercado v.
United States (609 Fed. Appx. 223); Ramos-Sorto, aka Ramos-
Mauricio v. United States (609 Fed. Appx. 248); Palacios-
Pascacio v. United States (609 Fed. Appx. 280); Alvarado-
Aranda v. United States (610 Fed. Appx. 402); Sepulveda-
Uribe v. United States (610 Fed. Appx. 413); Mendoza-Toledo
v. United States (610 Fed. Appx. 418); Ramirez-Bertran v.
United States (611 Fed. Appx. 838); Sarceno-Sarceno v.
United States (612 Fed. Appx. 251); Bautista-Sanchez v.
United States (613 Fed. Appx. 416); Espinoza-Nunez, aka Es-
pinoza v. United States (613 Fed. Appx. 375); Ortiz-Aguirre
v. United States (613 Fed. Appx. 386); Uresti-Garza v.
United States (613 Fed. Appx. 388); Rebollar-Bautista, aka
Luis Rebollar, aka Rebollar v. United States (613 Fed.
Appx. 398); Rosales-Vargas, aka Rosales v. United States
(613 Fed. Appx. 353); and Posas-Torres, aka Alonso Posas v.
United States (614 Fed. Appx. 225). C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–5964. Rodriguez-Rodriguez v. United States (Re-
ported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 255); Torres-Salas v. United
 ORDERS 1033

577 U. S. December 7, 2015

States (607 Fed. Appx. 416); Ramirez-Ballejo v. United

States (606 Fed. Appx. 268); Torres-Rodriguez, aka Manuel
Rodriguez v. United States (606 Fed. Appx. 276); De La
Cruz-Gutierrez, aka Taveras, aka Taveras De La Cruz-
Gutierrez v. United States (609 Fed. Appx. 263); Cortes v.
United States (610 Fed. Appx. 427); Jaimes-Jaimes v. United
States (611 Fed. Appx. 205); Rivera-Diaz v. United States
(611 Fed. Appx. 246); Gonzalez-Lopez, aka Lopez v. United
States (612 Fed. Appx. 247); Acosta-Juarez, aka Chavez, aka
Acosta v. United States (613 Fed. Appx. 380); and Castro
Gomez, aka Castro, aka Gomez v. United States (613 Fed.
Appx. 410). C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6282. Roberson v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6344. Parker v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 6th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6346. Escamilla v. Escamilla et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6352. Traylor v. McLaughlin, Warden. Super. Ct.
Macon County, Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6354. Leach v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 125 App.
Div. 3d 568, 5 N. Y. S. 3d 28.
No. 15–6358. Robles v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 6. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6364. Hudson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 915.
No. 15–6369. Wagner v. Burt, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 620 Fed. Appx. 375.
No. 15–6386. Hubbard v. Woods, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6389. Hegewald v. Glebe. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
1034 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

December 7, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6390. Goodman v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-

partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 82.
No. 15–6391. Gu v. Presence Saint Joseph Medical Cen-
ter et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
557 Fed. Appx. 581.
No. 15–6394. McBride v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6395. Davis v. Thomas et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 240.
No. 15–6405. Bernier v. Court of Appeal of California,
Fourth Appellate District, Division One, et al. Sup. Ct.
Cal. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6410. Villa v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 6th App.
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6411. Towery v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6412. Reid v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 166 So. 3d 809.
No. 15–6421. Tittle v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6423. Redman v. New York State Department of
Correctional Service et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6427. Laschkewitsch v. ReliaStar Life Insur-
ance Co. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
597 Fed. Appx. 159.
No. 15–6436. Adams v. Lynch, Attorney General. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6453. Gonzales v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6465. Bernier v. Court of Appeal of California,
Fourth Appellate District, Division One, et al. Sup. Ct.
Cal. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 1035

577 U. S. December 7, 2015

No. 15–6474. Gouch-Onassis v. United States. C. A. 9th

Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6477. Robinson v. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 603 Fed. Appx. 223.
No. 15–6486. Rene Gomez v. Gipson, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6498. Mayora Medrano v. Ryan, Director, Arizona
Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 351.
No. 15–6530. McNew v. Tibbals, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6533. Franco Palomar v. Barnes, Warden. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6534. Pappas v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 879.
No. 15–6542. White v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 25 N. E. 3d 107.
No. 15–6546. Rosado v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6547. Ponce Silva v. Lynch, Attorney General.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed.
Appx. 455.
No. 15–6576. Pedersen v. Richardson, Warden. C. A. 7th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6639. Puentes v. Santa Clara County, California,
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606
Fed. Appx. 339.
No. 15–6652. Robinson v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 453.
No. 15–6676. Hutcheson v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 300.
1036 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

December 7, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6692. Rose v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-

rari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 125.
No. 15–6707. Nwafor v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6715. Hardin v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 571 Fed. Appx. 480.
No. 15–6720. Hosseini v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6721. Guajardo v. McDonald, Secretary of Vet-
erans Affairs. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 607 Fed. Appx. 985.
No. 15–6726. Grifąn v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6727. Medrano v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 51.
No. 15–6728. Pappas v. Zickefoose, Warden. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 122.
No. 15–6729. Garcia-Rosas v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 652.
No. 15–6732. Allen v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6736. Cruell v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6737. Tran v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6739. Burgos-Montes v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 92.
No. 15–6741. Diaz v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 730.
No. 15–6742. Perkins v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 F. 3d 1329.
No. 15–6744. Rosales v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 778.
 ORDERS 1037

577 U. S. December 7, 2015

No. 15–6749. Lohse v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 797 F. 3d 515.
No. 15–6752. Moore v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15– 6770. Vickers v. Jones, Secretary, Florida
Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6771. Sandelier v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 163 So. 3d 1219.
No. 15–6772. Collins v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 799 F. 3d 554.
No. 15–6773. Johnson v. Lombardi et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 809 F. 3d 388.
No. 15–6775. Mauricio-Trujillo v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 716.
No. 15–6776. Medlock v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 700.
No. 15–6777. Kraeger v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 747.
No. 15–6780. Camick v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 796 F. 3d 1206.
No. 15–6781. Salazar-Espinoza v. Hastings, Warden.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6782. Johnson v. Grifąth, Warden. Sup. Ct. Mo.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6785. Calais v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6787. Rashid v. Ortiz, Warden. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 221.
No. 15–6791. Moore v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6795. Turner v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
1038 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

December 7, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6799. Cipra v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 795 F. 3d 735.
No. 15–6800. Armenta-Aguilar, aka Sanchez-Armenta v.
United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 610 Fed. Appx. 638.
No. 15–6803. Jackman v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6804. Brown et al. v. United States. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 108.
No. 15–6818. Woolsey v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 524.
No. 15–6819. Wadley v. Farley, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6820. Young v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6838. Williams v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 1059.
No. 15–6842. Shelikhova v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 4.
No. 15–6844. Butler v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6848. Rosales-Velasquez v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 399.
No. 15–6850. Lindsey v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6851. Lopez-Vences v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 226.
No. 15–6854. Montero-Ornelas v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 219.
No. 15–6855. Nino-Guerrero v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 1039

577 U. S. December 7, 2015

No. 15–133. Friedman et al. v. City of Highland Park,

Illinois. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
784 F. 3d 406.
Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting.
“[O]ur central holding in” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U. S. 570 (2008), was “that the Second Amendment protects a
personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most
notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. Chicago,
561 U. S. 742, 780 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald,
we recognized that the Second Amendment applies fully against
the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750; id., at
805 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals—including
the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision
below—have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of
Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d
406, 410–412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second
Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much
as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case.

I
The city of Highland Park, Illinois (City), bans manufacturing,
selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most
commonly owned semiautomatic firearms, which the City branded
“Assault Weapons. ” See Highland Park, Ill., City Code
§§ 136.001(C), 136.005 (2015), App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a, 71a. For
instance, the ordinance criminalizes modern sporting rifles (e. g.,
AR-style semiautomatic rifles), which many Americans own for
lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and target shooting.
The City also prohibited “Large Capacity Magazines,” a term the
City used to refer to nearly all ammunition feeding devices that
“accept more than ten rounds.” § 136.001(G), id., at 70a.
The City gave anyone who legally possessed “an Assault
Weapon or Large Capacity Magazine” 60 days to move these
items outside City limits, disable them, or surrender them for
destruction. § 136.020, id., at 73a. Anyone who violates the or-
dinance can be imprisoned for up to six months, fined up to $1,000,
or both. § 136.999, id., at 74a.
Petitioners—a Highland Park resident who sought to keep now-
prohibited firearms and magazines to defend his home, and an
1040 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

Thomas, J., dissenting 577 U. S.

advocacy organization—brought a suit to enjoin the ordinance on

the ground that it violates the Second Amendment. The District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judg-
ment to the City.
A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The panel
majority acknowledged that the prohibited weapons “can be bene-
ficial for self-defense because they are lighter than many rifles
and less dangerous per shot than larger-caliber pistols or revolv-
ers,” and thus “[h]ouseholders too frightened or infirm to aim
carefully may be able to wield them more effectively.” 784 F. 3d,
at 411.
The majority nonetheless found no constitutional problem with
the ordinance. It recognized that Heller “holds that a law ban-
ning the possession of handguns in the home . . . violates” the
Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 407. But beyond Heller’s re-
jection of banning handguns in the home, the majority believed,
Heller and McDonald “leave matters open” on the scope of the
Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 412. The majority thus
adopted a new test for gauging the constitutionality of bans on
firearms: “[W]e [will] ask whether a regulation bans weapons that
were common at the time of ratification or those that have some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia, . . . and whether law-abiding citizens retain
adequate means of self-defense.” Id., at 410 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Judge Manion dissented, reasoning that “[b]oth the ordinance
and this court’s opinion upholding it are directly at odds with the
central holdings of Heller and McDonald.” Id., at 412.

II
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We ex-
plained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment
“guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald,
supra, at 767–769. We excluded from protection only “those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he
very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of govern-
ment—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to de-
 ORDERS 1041

1039 Thomas, J., disstenting

cide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth

insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).
Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh
Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only
total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See
784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second
Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by
“the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But
Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that
“since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examina-
tion of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify
the entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635. We cautioned courts against
leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitu-
tional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood
to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future
legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too
broad.” Id., at 634–635.
Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt
free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates
many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald.
The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms
“were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at
410. But we said in Heller that “the Second Amendment ex-
tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable
arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.
The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned
firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regu-
lated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never
run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of
militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess
military-grade firearms.” Ibid. But that ignores Heller’s funda-
mental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independ-
ent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia
needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S.,
at 592, 627–629. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the
view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that “Con-
gress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not
States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second
Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state
1042 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

Thomas, J., dissenting 577 U. S.

governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to

delegate to States and localities the power to decide which fire-
arms people may possess.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether law-abiding cit-
izens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that
the City’s ban was permissible because “[i]f criminals can find
substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding
homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recog-
nized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not
save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did
not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long
guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate
means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is
not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-
defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of fire-
arms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether
alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a
distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted
to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shot-
guns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect
because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used
for lawful purposes. Roughly 5 million Americans own AR-style
semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The over-
whelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so
for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.
See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for
citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep
such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller,
supra, at 628–629.
The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common
semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s po-
tential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court
conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible
for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id.,
at 409. Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase
the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.”
Id., at 412. Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second
Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interest-
balancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illus-
trates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on
 ORDERS 1043

577 U. S. December 7, 2015

conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer
at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our
Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the
Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard
our other constitutional decisions. E. g., Maryland v. Kulbicki,
ante, at 1 (per curiam) (summarily reversing because the court
below applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984),
“in name only”); Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U. S. 306 (2015)
(per curiam) (summarily reversing a judgment inconsistent with
this Court’s recent Fourth Amendment precedents); Martinez
v. Illinois, 572 U. S. 833, 843 (2014) (per curiam) (summarily re-
versing judgment that rested on an “understandable” double
jeopardy holding that nonetheless “r[an] directly counter to our
precedents”).
There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amend-
ment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to pre-
vent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment
to a second-class right.
No. 15–416. Michigan v. Lockridge. Sup. Ct. Mich. Mo-
tion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 498 Mich. 358, 870
N. W. 2d 502.
No. 15–471. Energy and Environment Legal Institute
et al. v. Epel et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Motions of Pacific Legal
Foundation et al., Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America et al., and Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies
du Quebec et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 793 F. 3d 1169.
No. 15–6735. Barnett v. Maye, Warden. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 602 Fed.
Appx. 717.
No. 15–6758. Warren v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
1044 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

December 7, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6826. Gonzalez Lora v. United States. C. A. 4th

Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition.

Rehearing Denied
No. 14–8863. Debolt v. United States, 575 U. S. 974;
No. 14–9429. Hammonds v. Bo’s Food Store, 575 U. S. 1042;
No. 14–9590. J. D. T., Juvenile Male v. United States,
ante, p. 969;
No. 14–9691. Rodarte v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, ante, p. 834;
No. 14–9742. Elam v. Pastrana, Warden, ante, p. 835;
No. 14–9841. Dougherty v. Pruett, Warden; and Dou-
gherty v. Virginia et al., ante, p. 838;
No. 14–9853. Medley v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, ante, p. 839;
No. 14–9943. Tapp v. Eckard, Superintendent, State Cor-
rectional Institution at Huntingdon, ante, p. 841;
No. 14–10258. Cheek v. United States, ante, p. 855;
No. 14–10281. Turner v. Steward, Warden, ante, p. 857;
No. 14–10328. Jones v. Nuttall AFC Co. et al., ante,
p. 860;
No. 14–10420. In re Rowe, ante, p. 812;
No. 14–10444. Talley v. Simandle, Chief Judge, United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
ante, p. 866;
No. 15–53. Carpenter v. United States, ante, p. 871;
No. 15–112. Skipp-Tittle v. Tittle, ante, p. 874;
No. 15–160. Senci v. Bank of New York Mellon, ante,
p. 875;
No. 15–171. DeFazio et al. v. Hollister, Inc., et al., ante,
p. 923;
No. 15–279. Sone et al. v. Harvest Natural Resources,
Inc., ante, p. 925;
No. 15–5157. Kelly v. Bishop, Warden, et al., ante, p. 885;
No. 15–5362. Crayton v. Florida, ante, p. 896;
No. 15–5478. Jones v. Cartledge, Warden, ante, p. 903;
No. 15–5479. Fisher v. City of Ironton, Ohio, ante, p. 925;
No. 15–5541. Bramage v. Discover Bank, ante, p. 927;
 ORDERS 1045

577 U. S. December 7, 8, 10, 11, 2015

No. 15–5590. Moody v. City of Delray Beach, Florida,

et al., ante, p. 928;
No. 15–5747. Clugston v. Batista, Director, Montana De-
partment of Corrections, et al., ante, p. 930;
No. 15–5911. Lindor v. United States, ante, p. 933;
No. 15–5975. Jha v. United States, ante, p. 934; and
No. 15–6047. Cesar Cardenas v. United States, ante,
p. 945. Petitions for rehearing denied.

December 8, 2015
Certiorari Denied
No. 15–7279 (15A605). Terrell v. Chatman, Warden. Sup.
Ct. Ga. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death,
presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court,
denied. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7282 (15A606). Terrell v. Bryson, Commissioner,
Georgia Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented
to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 807 F. 3d 1276.

December 10, 2015

Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 15–5932. Beach v. Montana. Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari
dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46. Reported below: 379 Mont.
74, 348 P. 3d 629.
December 11, 2015
Certiorari Granted
No. 15–338. Sheriff et al. v. Gillie et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari granted. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 1091.
No. 15– 339. Ross v. Blake. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
granted. Reported below: 787 F. 3d 693.
No. 14–1468. Birchąeld v. North Dakota. Sup. Ct. N. D.;
No. 14–1470. Bernard v. Minnesota. Sup. Ct. Minn.; and
No. 14–1507. Beylund v. Levi, Director, North Dakota
Department of Transportation. Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari
granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for
1046 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

December 11, 14, 2015 577 U. S.

oral argument. Reported below: No. 14–1468, 2015 ND 6, 858

N. W. 2d 302; No. 14–1470, 859 N. W. 2d 762; No. 14–1507, 2015
ND 18, 859 N. W. 2d 403.
No. 15–290. United States Army Corps of Engineers v.
Hawkes Co., Inc., et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of National
Association of Home Builders for leave to file brief as amicus
curiae granted. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 782 F. 3d
994.
December 14, 2015
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 15–578. In re Butler. Petition for writ of habeas cor-
pus dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46.1.

Certiorari Granted—Reversed and Remanded. (See No. 14–

1372, ante, p. 73.)

Certiorari Dismissed
No. 15–6438. Allen v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Motion
of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Reported
below: 173 So. 3d 889.
No. 15–6618. Schmidt v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of peti-
tioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certio-
rari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has
repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not
to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from peti-
tioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and
the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Mar-
tin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992)
(per curiam).

Miscellaneous Orders
No. 15A522 (15–648). V. L. v. E. L.; and
No. 15A532 (15–648). Smith, Guardian ad Litem, as Repre-
sentative of Three Minor Children v. E. L. et al. Applica-
tions for recall and stay of the Supreme Court of Alabama’s cer-
tificate of judgment, in case No. 1140595, presented to Justice
 ORDERS 1047

577 U. S. December 14, 2015

Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending dis-

position of the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition
for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automat-
ically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted,
the stay shall terminate upon issuance of the mandate of this
Court.
No. 15M63. Mahoney v. Estate of McDonnell et al. Mo-
tion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out
of time denied.
No. 15M64. Spear v. Kirkland et al. Motion for leave to
proceed as a veteran denied.
No. 15M65. Ranza v. Nike, Inc., et al. Motion for leave to
file petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies
for the public record granted.
No. 14–1209. Sturgeon v. Frost, Alaska Regional Direc-
tor of the National Park Service, et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
[Certiorari granted, 576 U. S. 1094.] Motion of Alaska for leave
to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided
argument granted. Motion of petitioner to dispense with print-
ing joint appendix granted.
No. 15–6002. Moore v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. C. A. 2d Cir.
Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 972] denied.
No. 15–6490. Johnson v. Just Energy. C. A. 2d Cir.; and
No. 15–6517. Pongo et al. v. Bank of America et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until January
4, 2016, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule
38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the
Rules of this Court.
No. 15–651. In re MacNeill;
No. 15–7011. In re Wells; and
No. 15–7074. In re Young. Petitions for writs of habeas cor-
pus denied.
No. 15–465. In re Gould. Petition for writ of mandamus
denied.
1048 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

December 14, 2015 577 U. S.

Certiorari Granted
No. 15–420. United States v. Bryant. C. A. 9th Cir. Mo-
tion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 769 F. 3d 671.

Certiorari Denied
No. 14–9843. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 F. 3d 815.
No. 14–10376. Wheeler v. White, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 F. 3d 366.
No. 15–57. Hall v. North Carolina. Ct. App. N. C. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 238 N. C. App. 322, 768 S. E.
2d 39.
No. 15–58. City of Los Angeles, California, et al.
v. Contreras. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 603 Fed. Appx. 530.
No. 15–71. Agnew v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 12th Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–100. Apple American Group, LLC v. Salazar. Ct.
App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–158. Sun-Times Media, LLC v. Dahlstrom et al.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 937.
No. 15–236. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC
v. Areso. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–266. Romero-Escobar v. Lynch, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601
Fed. Appx. 484.
No. 15–267. Sonmez v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 684.
No. 15–277. Winget et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N. A. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602
Fed. Appx. 246.
 ORDERS 1049

577 U. S. December 14, 2015

No. 15–283. Galvis Mujica et al. v. Occidental Petro-

leum Corp. et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 771 F. 3d 580.
No. 15–287. Hawkins v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 F. 3d
877.
No. 15–429. Pelizzo v. Malibu Media, LLC. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 879.
No. 15–430. Aamodt et ux. v. Landis & Setzler, P. C.
Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 106 A. 3d
172.
No. 15–440. Diaz v. CitiMortgage, Inc. Sup. Ct. Fla. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 171 So. 3d 115.
No. 15–442. Hensley v. Hensley, nka Brinkley. Ct. App.
Wash. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 184 Wash. App. 1044.
No. 15–443. Grover et al. v. Choice Hotels Interna-
tional, Inc. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 792 F. 3d 753.
No. 15–453. Bonner et ux. v. City of Brighton, Michigan.
Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.
No. 15– 464. Groeber v. Friedman & Schuman, P. C.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed.
Appx. 69.
No. 15–472. Kalange v. Suter et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–475. Two Shields et al. v. Wilkinson et al. C. A.
8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 791.
No. 15–479. Bennett v. Maryland. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 222 Md. App. 706.
No. 15–506. Stanton v. Lassonde et al. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–524. Herbison v. Chase Bank USA, N. A. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 737.
1050 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

December 14, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–564. Ahlers et al. v. Scott, Governor of Florida,

et al. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 169 So. 3d 1164.
No. 15–596. Hansen v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 791 F. 3d 863.
No. 15–609. Occhiuto v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 862.
No. 15–621. Ferguson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 798 F. 3d 365.
No. 15–642. OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d
1359.
No. 15–5695. George v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 6th App.
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6426. Thomas v. Outlaw, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6429. Harris v. Arpaio, Sheriff, Maricopa County,
Arizona, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6432. Miller v. Kashani et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6435. Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller et al. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 445.
No. 15– 6437. Wehmhoefer v. Unnamed Defendants.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6442. Potts v. Beard, Secretary, California De-
partment of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6443. Peterka v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6445. Spencer v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
 ORDERS 1051

577 U. S. December 14, 2015

No. 15–6449. Gache v. Hill Realty Associates, LLC,

et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6459. Marsh v. Wynne et al.; and
No. 15–6460. Foster v. Wynne et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 469.
No. 15–6462. Turner v. Whitener, Correctional Adminis-
trator, Alexander Correctional Institution. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 214.
No. 15–6464. Burns v. Covenant Bank, fka Community
Bank of Lawndale. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6469. Placide v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6472. Saxon v. Lempke. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 10.
No. 15–6473. Soto v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 4. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6482. Horton v. North Carolina. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 156.
No. 15–6484. Furst v. Malloy, Governor of Connecticut.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6485. Antonio Gonzalez v. Holland, Warden.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6488. Hilbert v. Beard, Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6496. Miller v. Ofące of Children, Youth and
Families of Allegheny County. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 99.
No. 15–6510. Crowder v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6514. Polonczyk v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1052 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

December 14, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 15–6516. Morales-Lopez v. United States (Reported

below: 613 Fed. Appx. 377); Ramirez-Gandarilla v. United
States (609 Fed. Appx. 262); Munoz-Munoz v. United States
(607 Fed. Appx. 442); Gutierrez-Orozco, aka Gutierrez-
Orosco v. United States (610 Fed. Appx. 407); Urena-
Navarro v. United States (613 Fed. Appx. 372); Ramirez-
Garza v. United States (613 Fed. Appx. 359); Torres-Moreno
v. United States (613 Fed. Appx. 379); Garcia-Guia, aka Guia-
Llavero v. United States (613 Fed. Appx. 371); Machuca-
Secundino, aka Machuca v. United States (613 Fed. Appx.
401); De La Cruz Sepulveda-Gaytan, aka Sepulveda v.
United States (613 Fed. Appx. 396); Gomez-Guerrero v.
United States (613 Fed. Appx. 408); Martinez-Rubio v.
United States (613 Fed. Appx. 409); and Lara-Lorenzo, aka
Lara-Baltaza v. United States (609 Fed. Appx. 272). C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6544. Ramos v. Massachusetts. App. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 87 Mass. App. 1127, 31 N. E.
3d 1192.
No. 15–6586. Wilson v. Cook, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6683. Johnson v. Maryland. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 224 Md. App. 725.
No. 15–6686. Asturias v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 1st
App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6730. Silva v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6760. Katz v. Lew, Secretary of Treasury. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 543.
No. 15–6769. Gelin v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 128 App. Div.
3d 717, 8 N. Y. S. 3d 424.
No. 15–6805. Davis v. District of Columbia. C. A. D. C.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 793 F. 3d 120.
No. 15–6837. Worm v. Peterson. Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 379 Mont. 537, 353 P. 3d 507.
 ORDERS 1053

577 U. S. December 14, 2015

No. 15–6859. Hernandez v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-

partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6865. Gregory v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 795 F. 3d 735.
No. 15–6866. Haro v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 820.
No. 15–6867. Strum v. Kauffman, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Smithąeld, et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6882. Reese v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 961.
No. 15–6893. Munoz-Ramon v. United States. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 857.
No. 15–6902. Avila-Gonzalez v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 801.
No. 15–6920. Widmer v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 200.
No. 15–6997. Johnson v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7008. Dawson v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 169 So. 3d 1188.
No. 15–469. Scher v. City of Las Vegas, Nevada, et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.
No. 15–538. Allvoice Developments US, LLC v. Micro-
soft Corp. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. The Chief
Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this peti-
tion. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 1009.
No. 15–6869. Burke v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.

Rehearing Denied
No. 14–9012. Dickerson v. United Way of New York City
et al., ante, p. 829;
1054 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

December 14, 2015 577 U. S.

No. 14–9275. Frazier v. West Virginia, ante, p. 829;

No. 14–9632. Talley v. Gore et al., ante, p. 832;
No. 14–9648. Anderson v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, ante, p. 833;
No. 14–9823. Sampson v. Patton, Director, Oklahoma De-
partment of Corrections, ante, p. 837;
No. 14–9869. Ralston v. Texas, ante, p. 839;
No. 14–9885. Adams v. Ducart, Warden, ante, p. 840;
No. 14–9895. Williams v. Huha et al., ante, p. 840;
No. 14–9934. Corrales v. California, ante, p. 841;
No. 14–9961. Watson v. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security, ante, p. 842;
No. 14–10048. Warner v. United States, ante, p. 844;
No. 14–10364. Hall v. Tallie et al., ante, p. 862;
No. 14–10456. Hastings v. United States, ante, p. 867;
No. 15–4. Wyttenbach v. R. M. P., ante, p. 869;
No. 15–5016. In re Burrows, ante, p. 812;
No. 15–5073. Stewart v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, ante, p. 881;
No. 15–5216. Brayboy v. Napel, Warden, ante, p. 888;
No. 15–5269. Ruben v. Keith, Warden, ante, p. 891;
No. 15–5354. Hickman v. Oregon, ante, p. 896;
No. 15–5395. Strain v. United States District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana, ante, p. 898;
No. 15–5400. Lester v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, ante, p. 898;
No. 15–5641. Eleri v. Hartley, Warden, ante, p. 929;
No. 15–5662. Morris v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, ante, p. 941;
No. 15–5689. Hoffart v. Wiggins et al., ante, p. 941;
No. 15–5703. Bolds v. Cavazos et al., ante, p. 942;
No. 15–6061. In re Tatar, ante, p. 937; and
No. 15–6160. Andrews v. United States; and Andrews
v. United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, ante, p. 947. Petitions for rehearing denied.
No. 15–292. Walsh v. Jones et al., ante, p. 969; and
 ORDERS 1055

577 U. S. December 14, 2015, January 7, 8, 2016

No. 15–351. Walsh v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

et al., ante, p. 969. Petitions for rehearing denied. Justice
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of these
petitions.
January 7, 2016
Certiorari Denied
No. 15–7662 (15A699). Bolin v. Jones, Secretary, Florida
Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Appli-
cation for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to
Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 628 Fed. Appx. 728.
No. 15–7663 (15A700). Bolin v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Ap-
plication for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented
to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 184 So. 3d 492.

January 8, 2016
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 15–6834. Selmer v. Ofące of Lawyers Professional
Responsibility Board. Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari dismissed
under this Court’s Rule 46. Reported below: 866 N. W. 2d 893.

Miscellaneous Orders
No. 14–770. Bank Markazi, aka Central Bank of Iran v.
Peterson et al. C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 576 U. S.
1094.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in
oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument
granted.
No. 14–1280. Heffernan v. City of Paterson, New Jersey,
et al. C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 576 U. S. 1094.] Mo-
tion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argu-
ment as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
No. 14–1406. Nebraska et al. v. Parker et al. C. A. 8th
Cir. [Certiorari granted, 576 U. S. 1095.] Joint motion of re-
spondents for divided argument filed out of time granted.
No. 15–108. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez
Valle et al. Sup. Ct. P. R. [Certiorari granted, 576 U. S. 1095.]
1056 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 8, 11, 2016 577 U. S.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral

argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
Certiorari Granted
No. 15–6418. Welch v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.
Certiorari granted.
January 11, 2016
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 15–378. Ritz-Carlton Development Co., Inc., et al.
v. Narayan et al. Sup. Ct. Haw. Reported below: 136 Haw.
23, 356 P. 3d 1043;
No. 15–379. Ritz-Carlton Development Co., Inc., et al.
v. Nath et al. Sup. Ct. Haw. Reported below: 136 Haw. 23,
356 P. 3d 1043; and
No. 15–406. Ritz-Carlton Development Co., Inc., et al.
v. Narayan et al. Sup. Ct. Haw. Reported below: 135 Haw.
327, 350 P. 3d 995. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and
cases remanded for further consideration in light of DIRECTV,
Inc. v. Imburgia, ante, p. 47.
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 15–6565. Long v. Minton, Chief Justice, Supreme
Court of Kentucky, et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of peti-
tioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certio-
rari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–6581. Valenzuela v. Johnson et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–6582. Valenzuela v. Maricopa County Correc-
tional Health Services et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of peti-
tioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certio-
rari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–6674. Webb v. Kern et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Motion
of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–6762. LeBlanc v. Barber. C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
 ORDERS 1057

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–6763. LeBlanc v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–6764. LeBlanc v. Zimmer. C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–6765. LeBlanc v. Royster. C. A. 6th Cir. Motion
of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–6766. LeBlanc v. Branch. C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–6860. Farris v. Frazier et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As peti-
tioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is
directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 851.
No. 15– 6879. Nixon v. 301st Judicial Court, Dallas
County, Texas. Sup. Ct. Tex. Motion of petitioner for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed.
See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused
this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any fur-
ther petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the
docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is
submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District
of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
No. 15–6932. Stoller v. Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed.
See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused
this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any fur-
ther petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the
docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is
submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District
of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
1058 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

Miscellaneous Orders
No. 15A567. Bender v. Obama, President of the United
States, et al. Application for temporary injunction pending
disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari, addressed to Jus-
tice Scalia and referred to the Court, denied.
No. D–2851. In re Disbarment of Katz. Disbarment en-
tered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 952.]
No. 15M66. Thompson v. Alvarez et al.;
No. 15M67. Allen v. United States;
No. 15M68. Warren v. Shawnego;
No. 15M69. Hamilton v. United States;
No. 15M70. Frye v. Strange, Attorney General of
Alabama;
No. 15M71. McDowell Bey v. Vega;
No. 15M72. Cavin v. Michigan;
No. 15M73. Bejarano v. Macomber, Warden; and
No. 15M74. Nardella v. Philadelphia Gas Works et al.
Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari
out of time denied.
No. 14–10154. Voisine et al. v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 949.] Motion of petitioners for
appointment of counsel granted. Virginia G. Villa, Esq., of
St. Croix Falls, Wis., is appointed to serve as counsel for petition-
ers in this case.
No. 15–513. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United
States ex rel. Rigsby et al. C. A. 5th Cir. The Solicitor
General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views
of the United States.
No. 15–5776. Sherrill v. Estate of Pico. Int. Ct. App.
Haw. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying
leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 949] denied.
No. 15–6082. Hernandez v. Dignity Health. Ct. App. Cal.,
3d App. Dist. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order
denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 984]
denied.
No. 15–6127. Brewer v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
 ORDERS 1059

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsidera-

tion of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante,
p. 983] denied.
No. 15–6177. Hill v. Contreras, Judge, United States
District Court for the District of Columbia. C. A. D. C.
Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying
leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 972] denied.
No. 15–6205. Carlson v. Dayton, Governor of Minnesota,
et al. Sup. Ct. Minn. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration
of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante,
p. 983] denied.
No. 15–6538. Chafe v. Florida Department of Children
and Families. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Motion of peti-
tioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed
in forma pauperis [ante, p. 1003] denied.
No. 15–6566. Spence v. Willis. C. A. 4th Cir.;
No. 15–6567. Spence v. Willis. C. A. 11th Cir.;
No. 15–6578. Collie v. South Carolina Commission on
Lawyer Conduct et al. Sup. Ct. S. C.;
No. 15–6632. Avila v. County of Hidalgo, Texas. C. A.
5th Cir.;
No. 15–6660. Rivera v. Creech. Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div.;
No. 15–6673. Kessel-Revis v. Texas. Sup. Ct. Tex.;
No. 15–6761. Machulas v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.;
No. 15–6816. Okezie v. Leonard et al. C. A. 4th Cir.;
No. 15–6827. Emery v. Bogle et al. Dist. Ct. App. Fla.,
5th Dist.;
No. 15–6840. Thomas et ux. v. Chattahoochee Judicial
Circuit et al. C. A. 11th Cir.;
No. 15–6853. Duerst v. Placer County, California, et al.
C. A. 9th Cir.;
No. 15–6863. Fletcher et vir v. Park County, Montana.
Sup. Ct. Mont.;
No. 15–6880. Andrews v. Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County, et al. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist.,
Div. 7;
No. 15–6896. Kinney v. Clark. C. A. 9th Cir.; and
No. 15–6897. Kinney v. Chomsky et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Mo-
tions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
1060 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

Petitioners are allowed until February 1, 2016, within which to

pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit peti-
tions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
No. 15–759. In re Williams;
No. 15–7194. In re Bater;
No. 15–7239. In re Johnson;
No. 15–7311. In re Parks;
No. 15–7327. In re Spangler;
No. 15–7369. In re Peters; and
No. 15–7399. In re Walthall. Petitions for writs of habeas
corpus denied.
No. 15–626. In re Triplett. Petition for writ of habeas cor-
pus denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.
No. 15–646. In re Sharp. Motion of Law Professors for
leave to file brief as amici curiae granted. Petition for writ of
habeas corpus denied.
No. 15–7309. In re Cox; and
No. 15–7398. In re Rodriguez. Motions of petitioners for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petitions for writs
of habeas corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–498. In re Wolf et al.;
No. 15–758. In re Williams;
No. 15–6731. In re Strickland;
No. 15–6857. In re Ruppert; and
No. 15–7058. In re Schirripa. Petitions for writs of manda-
mus denied.
No. 15–625. In re Triplett; and
No. 15–6825. In re Boone. Petitions for writs of mandamus
denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or
decision of these petitions.
No. 15–6878. In re Campbell. Motion of petitioner for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of
mandamus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–6743. In re Wei Zhou; and
No. 15–6814. In re Kraemer. Petitions for writs of manda-
mus and/or prohibition denied.
 ORDERS 1061

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–6786. In re Thomas. Motion of petitioner for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of
mandamus and/or prohibition dismissed. See this Court’s Rule
39.8.
No. 15–7078. In re Williams; and
No. 15–7267. In re Delrio. Petitions for writs of prohibi-
tion denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 14–1168. Smith v. Aegon Companies Pension Plan.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 F. 3d 922.
No. 14–1531. Cowser-Grifąn, Executrix of the Estate
of Grifąn v. Grifąn. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 289 Va. 189, 771 S. E. 2d 660.
No. 14–9962. Burnett v. Burnett. Ct. App. Ohio, 6th App.
Dist., Sandusky County. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
2013-Ohio-5174.
No. 14–10427. Arzola v. Massachusetts. Sup. Jud. Ct.
Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 470 Mass. 809, 26
N. E. 3d 185.
No. 15–25. Sierra Paciąc Power Co. et al. v. Nevada De-
partment of Taxation et al. Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 130 Nev. 940, 338 P. 3d 1244.
No. 15–68. O’Hare et al. v. Harris, Individually and as
Guardian for K. H., a Minor. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 770 F. 3d 224.
No. 15–111. Zwicker & Associates, P. C., et al. v. Wise.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 F. 3d 710.
No. 15–126. Griep v. Wisconsin. Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2015 WI 40, 361 Wis. 2d 657, 863 N. W.
2d 567.
No. 15–141. American Freedom Defense Initiative et al.
v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority et al.
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 F. 3d 571.
No. 15–181. Ross v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 113.
1062 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–182. Farmer v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 525.
No. 15–196. Electronic Privacy Information Center v.
Department of Homeland Security. C. A. D. C. Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 518.
No. 15–216. Udren Law Ofąces, P. C. v. Kaymark. C. A.
3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 F. 3d 168.
No. 15–253. Stanąeld v. Idaho. Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 158 Idaho 327, 347 P. 3d 175.
No. 15–259. Zamiara et al. v. King. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d 207.
No. 15–280. Sam Francis Foundation et al. v. Christies,
Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
784 F. 3d 1320.
No. 15–289. Thompson v. Lynch, Attorney General.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d 638.
No. 15–308. City of New York, New York v. Newton.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 F. 3d 140.
No. 15–314. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annu-
ity and Beneąt Fund of the City of Chicago et al. v.
Bank of New York Mellon. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 775 F. 3d 154.
No. 15–321. Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc., et al. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 1335.
No. 15–348. Alexopoulos et vir v. Gordon Hargrove and
James, P. A., et al. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 195 So. 3d 385.
No. 15–349. Nestle U. S. A., Inc., et al. v. Doe et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766 F. 3d
1013.
No. 15–370. Bercovich et al. v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 416.
No. 15–376. Maricopa County, Arizona v. Ortega Melen-
dres et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
784 F. 3d 1254.
 ORDERS 1063

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–410. Mezerhane v. Republica Bolivariana de

Venezuela et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 785 F. 3d 545.
No. 15–432. Heinz et al. v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 365 and 607 Fed.
Appx. 53.
No. 15–461. SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Ofące Depot, Inc., et al.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 791 F. 3d
1317.
No. 15–466. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Healy. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 1112.
No. 15–473. Sorensen v. WD–40 Co. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 712.
No. 15–484. Hendry et ux. v. Georgelas Group, Inc.,
et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603
Fed. Appx. 222.
No. 15–485. Tetzlaff v. Educational Credit Manage-
ment Corporation. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 794 F. 3d 756.
No. 15–489. Gordon et al. v. City of New York, New
York, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
612 Fed. Appx. 629.
No. 15–490. Brown v. Lower Brule Community Develop-
ment Enterprise, LLC, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 626.
No. 15–492. Ash et al. v. Anderson Merchandisers LLC
et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 799
F. 3d 957.
No. 15–495. Original Talk Radio Network, Inc. v. Wie-
ner, aka Savage, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 620 Fed. Appx. 568.
No. 15–499. U. S. Bank N. A. v. Rosenberg. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 F. 3d 1254.
No. 15–500. Willis v. Mobley. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 171 So. 3d 739.
1064 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–501. Tonkin v. Shadow Management, Inc., dba

Platinum Plus. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 605 Fed. Appx. 194.
No. 15–502. Feaster v. Federal Express Corp. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 63.
No. 15–504. D’Antignac v. Deere & Co., dba John Deere
Commercial Products, Inc. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 875.
No. 15–509. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. et al. v.
County of Orange, California. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 520.
No. 15–512. Ackels v. Krause et al. Sup. Ct. Alaska.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–514. Mulero-Carrillo et al. v. Roman-Hernandez
et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790
F. 3d 99.
No. 15–515. Rizzo v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 107 A. 3d 228.
No. 15–516. Loan Phuong v. Thompson et al. Sup. Ct. Va.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–520. Haagensen, Personal Representative of
the Estate of Haagensen v. Wherry, Visiting Judge, Law-
rence County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania,
et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610
Fed. Appx. 210.
No. 15–521. Giampa v. Duckworth et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 586 Fed. Appx. 284.
No. 15–526. Phillips v. Ternes et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d 650.
No. 15–528. Michigan v. Stevens. Sup. Ct. Mich. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 498 Mich. 162, 869 N. W. 2d 233.
No. 15–529. Tsirelman v. Zucker, Commissioner, New
York Department of Health, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 794 F. 3d 310.
 ORDERS 1065

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–531. Doal v. Central Intelligence Agency et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed.
Appx. 63.
No. 15–532. Doe et al. v. Rosa. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 795 F. 3d 429.
No. 15–534. Hongyan Li v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 619 Fed. Appx. 298.
No. 15–535. KofĆey v. Fogel. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 219 Md. App. 712 and 714.
No. 15–536. Chamberlain v. Chamberlain. Ct. Sp. App.
Md. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 222 Md. App. 708.
No. 15–539. Guthrie v. City of New York, New York,
et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 618
Fed. Appx. 612.
No. 15–544. Keene v. Rossi et al. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 306 Mich. App. 252, 856 N. W. 2d
556.
No. 15–546. Braxton et vir v. Apperson, Crump & Max-
well, PLC, et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–548. Perkins v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–552. Mentor v. Rosenberg et al. Dist. Ct. App.
Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 163 So. 3d
1209.
No. 15–554. Stevenson et al. v. First American Title
Insurance Co. et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 789 F. 3d 197.
No. 15–562. NECA–IBEW Pension Trust Fund et al. v.
Lewis et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 607 Fed. Appx. 79.
No. 15–570. Kimca et al. v. Lynch, Attorney General.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed.
Appx. 54.
1066 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–575. Upshaw v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 949.
No. 15–576. Tian v. Aspen Technology, Inc. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–579. Lothian Cassidy, LLC, et al. v. Ransom et al.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–581. Thomas v. Johnson, Secretary of Homeland
Security. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
788 F. 3d 177.
No. 15–582. Dinh Ton That v. Alders Maintenance Assn.
Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–586. Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 34.
No. 15–589. United States ex rel. Barko v. Kellogg
Brown & Root, Inc., et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 796 F. 3d 137.
No. 15–593. Tesler v. Cacace et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 87.
No. 15–594. Chavis, Individually and on Behalf of the
Estate of Jones, Deceased v. Borden. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 621 Fed. Appx. 283.
No. 15–598. Arizona Libertarian Party et al. v. Reagan,
Arizona Secretary of State. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 798 F. 3d 723.
No. 15–601. Platas-Hernandez v. Lynch, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611
Fed. Appx. 404.
No. 15–602. Morgan et al. v. Global Trafąc Technolo-
gies LLC. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
620 Fed. Appx. 895.
No. 15–603. Menchu v. Lynch, Attorney General. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 592 Fed. Appx. 645.
No. 15–604. Brink et al. v. Continental Insurance Co.
et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
787 F. 3d 1120.
 ORDERS 1067

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–605. Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.,

et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 796
F. 3d 199.
No. 15–612. Ryskamp v. Commissioner of Internal Reve-
nue. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 797
F. 3d 1142.
No. 15–614. Dorsey v. Tennille et al., Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al.; and
No. 15–615. Nelson v. Tennille et al., Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 422.
No. 15–617. Kwan Ho Wu, aka Shui-Hui Wei, aka Kwan
He Wu, aka Ho Kwan Wu v. Lynch, Attorney General.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed.
Appx. 140.
No. 15–632. Cutler v. Department of Health and Human
Services et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 797 F. 3d 1173.
No. 15–634. Huffman v. Speedway LLC. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 621 Fed. Appx. 792.
No. 15–647. Ransom v. Grisafe et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 804.
No. 15–656. Kyung Choi v. Mabus, Secretary of the
Navy. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617
Fed. Appx. 669.
No. 15–669. Yi Hong Chen v. Lynch, Attorney General.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–670. Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597 Fed.
Appx. 1083.
No. 15–671. Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Roches-
ter, Minnesota, et al. Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 868 N. W. 2d 655.
No. 15–678. Bowling v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 235.
1068 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–679. Singh, as Next Friend for Singh, et al. v.

Caribbean Airlines Ltd. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 798 F. 3d 1355.
No. 15–687. Hykes v. Lew, Secretary of the Treasury.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–690. Layne Energy, Inc., et al. v. Catron. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–691. Arunachalam v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed.
Appx. 774.
No. 15–695. Bahaudin v. Fanning, Acting Secretary of
the Army. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–697. Rubin v. Fannie Mae et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 587 Fed. Appx. 273.
No. 15–699. Mullikin v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–702. Walker v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 799 F. 3d 1361.
No. 15–705. Bollinger v. Kansas. Sup. Ct. Kan. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 302 Kan. 309, 352 P. 3d 1003.
No. 15–713. Lazniarz et al. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
597 Fed. Appx. 900.
No. 15–718. Cean v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 621 Fed. Appx. 44.
No. 15–733. Decker v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 624 Fed. Appx. 959.
No. 15–5096. Bran v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 776 F. 3d 276.
No. 15–5156. Strunk et ux. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.,
et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 614
Fed. Appx. 586.
 ORDERS 1069

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–5267. Neal v. Louisiana. Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari

denied. Reported below: 2014–0259 (La. 4/17/15), 168 So. 3d 391.
No. 15–5399. Mosley v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 60 Cal. 4th 1044, 344 P. 3d 788.
No. 15–5421. Argyris v. New York. Ct. App. N. Y. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 24 N. Y. 3d 1138, 27 N. E. 3d 425.
No. 15–5645. King v. Department of the Army. C. A. Fed.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 812.
No. 15–5985. Everett v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 779 F. 3d 1212.
No. 15–6037. Roalson v. Wisconsin. Ct. App. Wis. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2014 WI App 90, 356 Wis. 2d 327,
855 N. W. 2d 492.
No. 15–6068. Salahuddin v. Zoning Hearing Board of
West Chester et al. Commw. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 103 A. 3d 888.
No. 15–6070. Roup v. Commercial Research, LLC. Sup.
Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 349 P. 3d 273.
No. 15–6090. Antomattei v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 33.
No. 15–6098. Foley et al. v. Beshear, Governor of Ken-
tucky, et al. Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 462 S. W. 3d 389.
No. 15–6110. Hammons v. United States; and Nix v. United
States. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6191. Lynch v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 776 F. 3d 1209.
No. 15–6198. Fields v. Kentucky. Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6211. White v. Detroit East Community Mental
Health et al. Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.
1070 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–6301. Rios Suarez v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 791 F. 3d 363 and 615 Fed.
Appx. 5.
No. 15–6360. Jackson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 438.
No. 15–6361. Dellosantos v. United States; and
No. 15–6407. Szpyt v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 785 F. 3d 31.
No. 15–6493. Lan v. Comcast Corp., LLC. Ct. App. Cal., 1st
App. Dist., Div. 5. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6504. Brady v. Williams, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6506. Beasley v. Woods, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6508. Bernard v. Cain, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6518. Ranteesi v. Arnold, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6521. Lattimore v. Banks, Superintendent, South
Mississippi Correctional Institution. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6535. McKeithen v. Jackson et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 937.
No. 15–6536. Robinson v. Haas, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6539. Denson v. Shepard, Warden. Super. Ct.
Montgomery County, Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6540. Kelley v. Winn, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6541. Wright v. Fisher, Commissioner, Mississippi
Department of Corrections. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
 ORDERS 1071

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–6548. Battaglia v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-

partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
621 Fed. Appx. 781.
No. 15–6552. Loon v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6563. Bolds v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6574. Burce v. Laughlin, Warden, et al. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6575. Butler v. Whitten et al. Ct. App. Tex., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6579. Zavalidroga et al. v. Oneida County Sher-
iff’s Department et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15– 6583. Williams v. Warrior, Interim Warden.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d
1184.
No. 15–6587. Wallace v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 128
App. Div. 3d 866, 7 N. Y. S. 3d 610.
No. 15–6588. Thomas v. Cape, Sheriff, Pulaski County,
Georgia. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6591. Chokchai Krongkiet v. Beard, Secretary,
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilita-
tion. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 597
Fed. Appx. 416.
No. 15–6594. Ortiz v. Court of Appeal of California,
Second Appellate District, et al. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6597. Johnson v. Santa Clara County, California.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6605. Diaz v. Unger, Superintendent, Wyoming
Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
1072 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–6607. Staton v. Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 632 Pa. 400, 120 A. 3d 277.
No. 15–6619. Churn v. Parkkila et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6620. Williams v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6626. Maxton v. Kerestes, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6628. Carson v. Millus. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 621 Fed. Appx. 787.
No. 15–6630. Cooper v. Director, Ofące of Workers’
Compensation Programs, Department of Labor, et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed.
Appx. 127.
No. 15–6633. Barnett v. Crockett et al. Ct. App. Tex.,
5th Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15– 6638. Smith v. American Mortgage Network
et al. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6640. J. P. v. Florida Department of Children and
Families et al. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 206 So. 3d 53.
No. 15– 6641. Peterson v. Cameron, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale, et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6642. Polk v. Nevada et al. Sup. Ct. Nev. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 131 Nev. 1334.
No. 15–6643. Pacheco v. Foulk, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6646. Hamilton et al. v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 237.
No. 15–6648. Freeman v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
 ORDERS 1073

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:

614 Fed. Appx. 180.
No. 15–6653. Zeedyk v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6654. Addison v. New Hampshire. Sup. Ct. N. H.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 167 N. H. 562, 116 A. 3d 551.
No. 15–6659. Jack v. Panuccio. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 287.
No. 15–6661. Mano v. McDowell, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6663. Smith v. Haugen et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 322.
No. 15–6664. Kusak v. Creeden et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6666. Whitehead v. South Carolina. Sup. Ct. S. C.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6667. Albritton v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6668. Bontrager v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 665.
No. 15–6672. Villareal Villanueva v. Frauenheim, War-
den. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6675. Kersey v. New Hampshire et al. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6677. Franklin v. Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6681. Jiles v. McLaughlin, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6682. Lewis v. Soto, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6684. Ngoc Duong v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 619 Fed. Appx. 580.
1074 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–6685. Cupp v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 237.
No. 15–6687. French v. Carter, Warden, et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 1259.
No. 15–6688. Lefkovitch v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d
App. Dist., Div. 6. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6689. Higgins v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6693. Armendariz Sandoval v. United States.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed.
Appx. 438.
No. 15–6694. Preston v. Attebury. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6695. Ford v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 105 A. 3d 45.
No. 15–6696. Hoskins v. Fayram, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6697. Hayes v. Cowans et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6699. May v. Schnurr, Warden. Ct. App. Kan.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 51 Kan. App. 2d xviii, 345
P. 3d 296.
No. 15–6700. Foules v. Santa Clara County Federal
Credit Union. Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6701. Grifąth v. Cash, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15– 6706. McCall v. Shock, Sheriff, Faulkner
County, Arkansas. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6708. Cardenas-Bucio v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 207.
No. 15–6709. Kokal v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
 ORDERS 1075

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–6710. Le v. Racette, Superintendent, Great

Meadow Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6711. Johnson v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 288.
No. 15–6712. Gaines v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6713. Hardy v. Adams et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6714. Foster v. Cain, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6716. Harris v. Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6717. Kronenberg v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 8th App.
Dist., Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
2015-Ohio-1020.
No. 15–6718. Rodriguez v. Beard, Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6722. Gates v. North Dakota. Sup. Ct. N. D. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2015 ND 177, 865 N. W. 2d 816.
No. 15–6723. Floyd v. Gorcyca. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6724. Sanders v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6725. Cuong Phu Le v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 463 S. W. 3d 872.
No. 15–6733. Henry v. Vasquez et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6734. Bell v. Perez et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 849.
1076 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–6740. Saenz v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-

rari denied.
No. 15–6745. Scott v. Hubert. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 433.
No. 15–6746. Cox v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 5th App.
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6747. Clay v. Bergh, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6748. Edwards v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6750. Manning v. Bowersox, Warden. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6751. Mines v. Barber et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 838.
No. 15–6754. Zavaleta v. Bergh, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6756. Jones v. Smith, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 801 F. 3d 556.
No. 15–6757. Thomas v. Lee, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 271.
No. 15–6767. Grifąn v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 787 F. 3d 1086.
No. 15–6774. Stricklen v. Burt, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6778. Kirby v. Morrissey, Judge, District Court
of Oklahoma, Tulsa County, et al. Sup. Ct. Okla. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6779. Esparza v. Falk, Warden, et al. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 938.
No. 15–6784. Crosby v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
 ORDERS 1077

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–6788. Smith v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 126 App.
Div. 3d 534, 5 N. Y. S. 3d 89.
No. 15–6789. Piper v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 6th App.
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6790. Portnoy v. City of Woodland, California,
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 611
Fed. Appx. 921.
No. 15–6792. Lewis v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2014 IL App (1st) 130687–U.
No. 15–6794. Thornton v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas
Department of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6796. Tillman v. Gastelo, Acting Warden. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6797. Thivel v. Butler, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6801. Serrano v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 163 So. 3d 513.
No. 15–6802. Lewis v. Berghuis, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6808. Jackson v. Denney, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6809. Roseberry v. Arizona. Sup. Ct. Ariz. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 237 Ariz. 507, 353 P. 3d 847.
No. 15–6810. Nelson v. Flemmer, Judge, Fifth Circuit
Court of South Dakota, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6811. McCall v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6812. McFadden v. Bush, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 309.
1078 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–6813. Jones v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-

partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6815. Oberwise v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6817. Viers v. Shepard, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 933.
No. 15–6822. Allen, aka Duncan, aka Fitzgerald v. Rolf,
Judge, Circuit Court of Missouri, Lafayette and Saline
Counties. Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6823. Barney v. Congoleum Corp. et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6824. Brumąel v. U. S. Bank N. A. et al. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx.
933.
No. 15–6828. Caison v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 177 So. 3d 1263.
No. 15–6829. Emerson v. Hutchinson, Governor of Ar-
kansas. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6830. Bradden v. Texas (two judgments). Ct. Crim.
App. Tex. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6831. Olague v. County of Sacramento, Califor-
nia, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
601 Fed. Appx. 557.
No. 15–6832. Nurse v. Richmond County Sheriff’s De-
partment et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6833. Murray v. Toal et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6835. Taylor v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6839. Jenkins v. Myrick, Superintendent, Two
Rivers Correctional Institution. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
 ORDERS 1079

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–6841. Rembert v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2015 IL App (1st) 131220–U.
No. 15–6843. Litschewski v. Dooley, Warden, et al. C. A.
8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 1012.
No. 15–6845. Alvarez v. Kansas. Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 50 Kan. App. 2d xxii, 336 P. 3d 922.
No. 15–6846. Aguilar v. Texas. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 245.
No. 15–6847. Abby v. Perry, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6849. Hardy v. Thompson et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6852. Charles v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 61 Cal. 4th 308, 349 P. 3d 990.
No. 15–6856. Hardy v. Peterman et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6858. Green v. Bush, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 235.
No. 15–6861. Hickingbottom v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 26 N. E. 3d 684.
No. 15–6862. Fields v. Giroux, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Albion, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6864. Thomas G. v. Sonya G. Sup. Ct. Alaska. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6868. Seals v. Capra, Superintendent, Sing Sing
Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6871. Nelson v. Flemmer, Judge, et al. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6872. Rojas v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6873. Raby v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
1080 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–6876. L. B. v. S. T. et al. Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari

denied. Reported below: 120 A. 3d 89.
No. 15–6877. Fairchild v. Warrior, Interim Warden.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d
702.
No. 15–6881. Lewis v. Smith, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6884. Jeffery v. California et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6885. Kidwell v. Ryan, Director, Arizona Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 546.
No. 15–6886. Johnson v. Cain, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6887. Krieger v. Minnesota. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6888. Littlebear v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App.
Okla. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6891. Perry v. Wenerowicz, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15– 6892. Mtoched v. Lynch, Attorney General.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d
1210.
No. 15–6894. Miller v. Sexton, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6895. Rayąeld v. Eagleton, Warden. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 135.
No. 15–6898. Ramirez v. Parker et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6901. Clark v. Foxx, Secretary of Transporta-
tion, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 1081

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–6908. Kusak v. Lambadola et al. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6909. Kusak v. Klein et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6912. Peoples v. Falk, Warden, et al. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 752.
No. 15–6915. Clemente v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6921. Taylor v. Memphis Area Legal Services
et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6923. Vaigasi v. Solow Management Corp. et al.;
and
No. 15–6924. Vaigasi v. Solow Management Corp. et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6926. Lewis v. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
621 Fed. Appx. 163.
No. 15–6928. Reedom v. Department of the Treasury
et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6929. Langley v. Internal Revenue Service.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed.
Appx. 585.
No. 15–6930. Pouyeh v. Board of Trustees of the Uni-
versity of Alabama et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 625 Fed. Appx. 495.
No. 15–6933. Diaz v. Kerestes, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6934. Robertson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 196.
No. 15–6935. Sandoval v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 645.
No. 15–6936. Casciola v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
1082 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–6940. Cornish v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 104.
No. 15–6941. Clark v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6945. DeCaro v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 593 Fed. Appx. 605.
No. 15–6946. Rauso v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6947. Duncan v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6948. De La Cruz-Quintana v. United States.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed.
Appx. 366.
No. 15–6951. Bush v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 594 Fed. Appx. 389.
No. 15–6952. Barron-Espinosa v. United States. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 140.
No. 15–6954. Coppola v. O’Brien, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 80.
No. 15–6960. Woodard v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 101.
No. 15–6961. Bowers v. Pollard, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6962. Jefferson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 621 Fed. Appx. 757.
No. 15–6964. Heath v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 622 Fed. Appx. 843.
No. 15–6967. Gonzalez-Martinez v. United States. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx.
587.
No. 15–6969. Green v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 623 Fed. Appx. 848.
 ORDERS 1083

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–6970. Gonzalez-Tejeda v. United States. C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 734.
No. 15–6973. Fowler v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 542 Fed. Appx. 647.
No. 15–6974. Robertson v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 125 A. 3d 444.
No. 15–6976. Brooks v. Raemisch, Executive Director,
Colorado Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 773.
No. 15–6977. Barkley v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 557.
No. 15–6978. Allen v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6979. Briscoe v. Wallace, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6982. Perez v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 777.
No. 15–6983. Lewis v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 306.
No. 15–6984. Sutton v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6985. Baldwin v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 620 Fed. Appx. 150.
No. 15–6986. Beckstrom v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 361.
No. 15–6987. Bailey v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 634 Fed. Appx. 473.
No. 15–6989. Walls v. Dillon County Detention Center.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed.
Appx. 696.
No. 15–6993. Gutierrez Rubio v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 514.
1084 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–6994. Lopez-Ilustre v. United States. C. A. 9th

Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 750.
No. 15–6998. Matias-Torres v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6999. Lopez v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–7000. Rumanek v. Independent School Manage-
ment, Inc. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
619 Fed. Appx. 71.
No. 15–7002. Luis Cruz v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 259.
No. 15–7006. Novack v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 623 Fed. Appx. 538.
No. 15–7007. Montoya-Correa v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 786.
No. 15–7010. James v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 752.
No. 15–7012. Thomas v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d 345.
No. 15–7014. Ollie v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 624 Fed. Appx. 807.
No. 15–7016. Cedillo-Martinez v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 385.
No. 15–7018. Nichols v. Beard, Secretary, California De-
partment of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 721.
No. 15–7019. Wannamaker v. Boulware, Warden. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 686.
No. 15–7020. Williams v. Johnson, Administrator, New
Jersey State Prison, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7025. Carbajal-Moreno v. United States. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 619 Fed. Appx.
767.
 ORDERS 1085

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–7028. Buck-Soltero v. United States. C. A. 5th

Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 628 Fed. Appx. 246.
No. 15–7029. Jimenez-Archaga v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 370.
No. 15–7031. Ortiz-Varela v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 350.
No. 15–7033. Norris v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7034. Guzman v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 745.
No. 15–7036. Hunter v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–7037. Hughes v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 829.
No. 15–7039. Gunnell v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 F. 3d 1079.
No. 15–7041. Holden v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 603 Fed. Appx. 744.
No. 15–7042. Horton v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 F. 3d 582.
No. 15–7045. Gray v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 622 Fed. Appx. 788.
No. 15–7046. Chatman v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 942.
No. 15–7047. Lockamy v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 227.
No. 15–7048. Maddox v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 803 F. 3d 1215.
No. 15–7051. Henoud v. Apker, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 621 Fed. Appx. 734.
No. 15–7052. Herrera-Sifuentes v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1086 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–7054. Holman v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 302.
No. 15–7055. Gonzalez Uribe v. United States. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7056. Hampton v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7057. Hernandez-Lopez v. United States. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 602 Fed. Appx. 921.
No. 15–7059. Neeley v. Edwards et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7060. McPike-McDyess v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N. A., et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7061. Missouri ex rel. Middleton v. Pash, Super-
intendent, Crossroads Correctional Center. Sup. Ct. Mo.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7062. Smith v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 624 Fed. Appx. 385.
No. 15–7063. Green v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7064. Gunn v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–7065. Hope v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–7066. Clark v. Foxx, Secretary of Transporta-
tion, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7067. Coskun v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 623 Fed. Appx. 663.
No. 15–7068. Reaves v. South Carolina. Sup. Ct. S. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 414 S. C. 118, 777 S. E. 2d
213.
No. 15–7071. Williams v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 1087

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–7076. Price v. Wall, Director, Rhode Island De-

partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–7080. Walker v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7081. Boykin v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 794 F. 3d 939.
No. 15–7088. Gioeli v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 796 F. 3d 176.
No. 15–7089. Martin Flores v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 639.
No. 15–7091. Johnson v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 256 So. 3d 684.
No. 15–7099. Velazco v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7100. Keelan v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 865.
No. 15–7105. Colon v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–7108. De La Rosa-Soto v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 600 Fed. Appx. 558.
No. 15–7109. Supreme-El, fka McLean v. Clarke, Direc-
tor, Virginia Department of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 279.
No. 15–7110. Irby v. Stevenson, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 278.
No. 15–7111. Fishman v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 711.
No. 15–7112. Fuentes-Majano v. United States. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7113. Cordovano v. Florida et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
1088 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–7114. Cruell v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7117. Duperval v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 F. 3d 1324.
No. 15–7120. Heddings v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 598 Fed. Appx. 500.
No. 15–7121. Krantz v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7123. Mangarella v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 89.
No. 15–7125. Leach v. Bickell, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7137. Murray v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7141. Garcia et al. v. United States. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 793 F. 3d 1194.
No. 15–7142. Gilmore v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 436.
No. 15–7145. Lagos-Maradiaga v. United States (Reported
below: 615 Fed. Appx. 185); Morales-Vega, aka Morales v.
United States (620 Fed. Appx. 322); Machuca-Anzaldo v.
United States (617 Fed. Appx. 370); De Jesus Martinez v.
United States (617 Fed. Appx. 361); Nunez-Pena v. United
States (620 Fed. Appx. 320); Netro-De Leon v. United States
(620 Fed. Appx. 337); Corona-Rosales v. United States (620
Fed. Appx. 324); Vargas-Alvarez v. United States (619 Fed.
Appx. 426); Salgado-Padilla v. United States (619 Fed. Appx.
439); Cantu-Moreno v. United States (619 Fed. Appx. 428);
Luna-Erives v. United States (620 Fed. Appx. 328); Paredes-
Carmona v. United States (620 Fed. Appx. 341); Cruz-
Granados v. United States (617 Fed. Appx. 356); Garcia-
Gaona v. United States (617 Fed. Appx. 360); Sanchez-
Rodriguez v. United States (617 Fed. Appx. 357); Villagran-
Pecina, aka Quintanilla v. United States (620 Fed. Appx.
333); Perez-De La Rosa v. United States (619 Fed. Appx. 436);
 ORDERS 1089

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

Aramburo-Moreno v. United States (620 Fed. Appx. 327);

Gomez-Lopez v. United States (620 Fed. Appx. 328); and Mora-
Patino v. United States (617 Fed. Appx. 359). C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7146. Bartley v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 439.
No. 15–7147. Wiggins v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7150. Guerrero-Gonzalez v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 779.
No. 15–7154. Rhodes v. Beckwith, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 302.
No. 15–7160. Arness v. United States. C. A. Armed
Forces. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 74 M. J. 441.
No. 15–7162. DeCarlo v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7168. Garcia-Gonzalez v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 791 F. 3d 1175.
No. 15–7169. Guevara v. Colorado. Ct. App. Colo. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–7170. Womble v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7171. Webb v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 601 Fed. Appx. 189.
No. 15–7178. McGowan v. Maine. Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–7180. Tam Tran Nguyen v. United States. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7185. Whitson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7187. Keller v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 622 Fed. Appx. 228.
1090 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–7191. Adeyi v. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans

Affairs. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
606 Fed. Appx. 1002.
No. 15–7193. Amaya v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 93.
No. 15–7195. Abbott v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 817.
No. 15–7201. Perez-Perez v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 626 Fed. Appx. 8.
No. 15–7206. Lobo-Lopez v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 607 Fed. Appx. 332.
No. 15–7208. Monell v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 801 F. 3d 34.
No. 15–7212. Larose v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 609 Fed. Appx. 629.
No. 15–7213. Keel v. Kansas. Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 302 Kan. 560, 357 P. 3d 251.
No. 15–7214. Dale v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 494.
No. 15–7218. Crook v. Galaviz et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 747.
No. 15–7219. Clark v. Kerestes, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7226. Mendez v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7228. Shannon v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 803 F. 3d 778.
No. 15–7229. Cantero-Perez v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 796.
No. 15–7230. Jabalera-Chavira v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 448.
 ORDERS 1091

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 15–7233. Rosenbaum v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 628 Fed. Appx. 923.
No. 15–7235. Adams v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7236. Dabbs v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 143.
No. 15–7241. Brumąeld v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 184.
No. 15–7243. Mercedes v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7247. Woodings v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 122 A. 3d 945.
No. 15–7248. True v. United States. Ct. App. D. C. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 116 A. 3d 938.
No. 15–7251. Barnett v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 122 A. 3d 946.
No. 15–7253. Adams v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 565.
No. 15–7257. Champion v. Holt, Warden. C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7258. Ruiz-Vazquez v. United States (Reported
below: 620 Fed. Appx. 339); Sobrevilla-Revolloso v. United
States (620 Fed. Appx. 340); Martinez-Garza v. United
States (617 Fed. Appx. 368); Ravell v. United States (619
Fed. Appx. 440); Medina v. United States (619 Fed. Appx. 431);
Cuevas-Medina v. United States (619 Fed. Appx. 433); Her-
nan De La Paz v. United States (620 Fed. Appx. 332); De
La Garza-Garza v. United States (620 Fed. Appx. 333); and
Hernandez v. United States (620 Fed. Appx. 326). C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7259. Cornejo-Macias, aka Cornejo, aka Little-
man v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 287.
No. 15–7265. Brown v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 625 Fed. Appx. 945.
1092 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–7272. Washington v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 546.
No. 15–7280. Cephas v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 14–1467. Glover v. Mathis et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Mo-
tion of Nevada Public Agency Insurance Pool et al. for leave to
file brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 591 Fed. Appx. 635.
No. 15–54. Schott v. Wenk et ux. C. A. 6th Cir. Motion
of Ohio School Boards Association et al. for leave to file brief as
amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783
F. 3d 585.
No. 15–305. Martinez Asignacion v. Rickmers Genoa
Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Cie KG. C. A. 5th Cir.
Motions of International Transport Workers’ Federation et al. and
Global Maritime Ministries, Inc. of New Orleans, Louisiana, et al.
for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 783 F. 3d 1010.
No. 15–328. Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc. C. A. 7th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 791 F.
3d 754.
No. 15–331. TIFD III–E, LLC v. United States. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Sotomayor and Justice
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this peti-
tion. Reported below: 604 Fed. Appx. 69.
No. 15–353. Siegelman v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 1322.
No. 15–365. Perez et al. v. Fredericksburg Care Co., LP.
Sup. Ct. Tex. Motion of Texas Chapters of the American Board
of Trial Advocates et al. for leave to file brief as amici curiae
granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 461 S. W. 3d 513.
No. 15–367. Bear Valley Mutual Water Co. et al. v. Jew-
ell, Secretary of the Interior, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Mo-
tions of Pacific Legal Foundation and Association of California
 ORDERS 1093

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

Water Agencies et al. for leave to file briefs as amici curiae

granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 977.
No. 15–387. Doe v. Board of County Commissioners of
Payne County, Oklahoma, et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America for leave to file brief
as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
613 Fed. Appx. 743.
No. 15–555. Bender v. Obama, President of the United
States, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari before judgment
denied.
No. 15–600. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., fka Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al. v. South Car-
olina ex rel. Wilson, Attorney General. Sup. Ct. S. C.
Certiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition. Reported below: 414 S. C. 33,
777 S. E. 2d 176.
No. 15–721. Watson v. Florida Judicial Qualiącations
Commission. Sup. Ct. Fla. Motion of Philip Busey et al. for
leave to file brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 174 So. 3d 364.
No. 15–6050. Jones v. Jarvis, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 598 Fed.
Appx. 678.
No. 15–6753. Davis v. Boeing Co. et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 604 Fed.
Appx. 565.
No. 15–6836. Turner v. Mahally, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
No. 15–6907. Richards v. Barnes, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
No. 15–6937. Choiniere v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
1094 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–6953. Baker v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 263.
No. 15–7004. Williams v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
No. 15–7262. March v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.
No. 15–7276. Scott v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 624 Fed. Appx. 850.

Rehearing Denied
No. 14–1446. Ragge v. Webster Bank, N. A., ante, p. 823;
No. 14–1529. Lilly v. Lewiston-Porter Central School
District et al., ante, p. 827;
No. 14–8890. Garcia v. Allison, Warden (two judgments),
575 U. S. 1001;
No. 14–9586. Futch v. United States, 576 U. S. 1010;
No. 14–9731. Jones v. Clarke, Director, Virginia Depart-
ment of Corrections, ante, p. 835;
No. 14–9754. Velez v. New York, ante, p. 835;
No. 14–9791. In re Schneider, ante, p. 814;
No. 14–9863. Allen v. Davey, Warden, ante, p. 839;
No. 14–9879. Kralovetz v. Spearman, Warden, ante,
p. 840;
No. 14–9894. Estrada v. Texas, ante, p. 840;
No. 14–10081. Aranda v. Dal-Tile Corp., ante, p. 846;
No. 14–10130. Shackelford v. Stephens, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institu-
tions Division, ante, p. 849;
No. 14–10141. Jordan v. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security, ante, p. 849;
No. 14–10215. Meriweather v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.,
et al., ante, p. 853;
No. 14–10256. Weinhaus v. Missouri, ante, p. 855;
No. 14–10282. Walthall v. McQuiggen, Warden, et al.,
ante, p. 857;
 ORDERS 1095

577 U. S. January 11, 2016

No. 14–10287. Rollins v. Louisiana Department of Cor-

rections Ofącials et al., ante, p. 857;
No. 14–10354. Lawshea v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas
Department of Correction, ante, p. 861;
No. 14–10389. In re Booth, ante, p. 812;
No. 14–10413. Brown v. Perez, Warden, ante, p. 865;
No. 14–10473. Tomkins v. United States, ante, p. 955;
No. 15–104. Nunez et al. v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Succes-
sor by Merger to ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc., ante,
p. 873;
No. 15–192. Henderson v. Town of Hope Mills, North
Carolina, et al., ante, p. 924;
No. 15–200. Taggart v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, et al.,
ante, p. 939;
No. 15–262. Echeverry v. Deutsche Bank National
Trust Co., ante, p. 957;
No. 15–295. Pierson v. Rogow et al., ante, p. 957;
No. 15–299. Russo v. New York City Department of Edu-
cation, ante, p. 957;
No. 15–311. Houston et al. v. Queen et al., ante, p. 986;
No. 15–322. Wu et ux. v. Capital One, N. A., et al., ante,
p. 986;
No. 15–332. Lewicki et al. v. Washington County, Penn-
sylvania, et al., ante, p. 986;
No. 15–392. Hall v. Gilbert et al., ante, p. 958;
No. 15–393. Long v. Libertywood Nursing Center et al.,
ante, p. 986;
No. 15–413. Searcy v. Merit Systems Protection Board,
ante, p. 976;
No. 15–5044. Ortega v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, ante, p. 879;
No. 15–5074. Rivas v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion, ante, p. 881;
No. 15–5125. In re Williamson, ante, p. 812;
No. 15–5209. Williams v. Illinois, ante, p. 888;
No. 15–5246. Woodard v. Fortress Insurance Co. et al.,
ante, p. 890;
No. 15–5403. LeBlanc v. Macomb Regional Facility, ante,
p. 898;
1096 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 11, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–5434. LeBlanc v. Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s De-

partment, ante, p. 900;
No. 15–5440. LeBlanc v. Michigan Department of Cor-
rections, ante, p. 901;
No. 15–5496. Cowart v. Sherman, Warden, ante, p. 926;
No. 15–5518. Thurston v. Maryland, ante, p. 904;
No. 15–5534. LaBelle v. United States, ante, p. 905;
No. 15–5542. Alfred v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al., ante, p. 927;
No. 15–5554. LeBlanc v. Kalamazoo County, Michigan,
ante, p. 905;
No. 15–5597. Pickens v. Perritt, Superintendent, Lum-
berton Correctional Institution, ante, p. 928;
No. 15–5612. Chambliss v. United States, ante, p. 907;
No. 15–5622. Boyd v. Mississippi, ante, p. 929;
No. 15–5698. Maki v. New York et al., ante, p. 941;
No. 15–5706. Savoie v. Bradshaw, Sheriff, Palm Beach
County, Florida, et al., ante, p. 942;
No. 15–5719. Bolton v. United States, ante, p. 942;
No. 15–5720. Brost v. Iowa, ante, p. 942;
No. 15–5839. In re GwanJun Kim, ante, p. 954;
No. 15–5842. Carter v. Michigan Department of Correc-
tions et al., ante, p. 961;
No. 15–5845. Ellison v. Kazmierski, Supervising Judge,
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County, et al., ante, p. 961;
No. 15–5847. Staples v. Texas, ante, p. 961;
No. 15–5860. Johnson v. Beak et al., ante, p. 961;
No. 15–5884. Curry v. Berger et al., ante, p. 962;
No. 15–5889. Balsam v. United States, ante, p. 932;
No. 15–5891. Jones v. United States, ante, p. 932;
No. 15–5943. Spencer, aka Buxton v. United States, ante,
p. 933;
No. 15–5974. Jackson v. Park Place Condominiums Assn.,
Inc., ante, p. 977;
No. 15–5986. Qureshi v. New York (two judgments), ante,
p. 978;
No. 15–6025. Goodrich v. United States, ante, p. 944;
No. 15–6056. Kornegay v. New York et al., ante, p. 978;
No. 15–6218. Barksdale v. United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, ante, p. 1012;
No. 15–6227. Taylor v. Crowley, Superintendent, Or-
leans Correctional Facility, ante, p. 990;
 ORDERS 1097

577 U. S. January 11, 12, 15, 2016

No. 15–6234. Lee v. Hymowitz et al., ante, p. 1012;

No. 15–6249. Brown v. United States, ante, p. 966;
No. 15–6255. McCormick v. Mahally, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al., ante,
p. 990;
No. 15–6259. Johnson v. Department of Labor et al.,
ante, p. 990;
No. 15–6348. Fulton v. United States, ante, p. 967;
No. 15–6367. Sullivan v. United States, ante, p. 979;
No. 15–6420. Taylor v. United States, ante, p. 968; and
No. 15–6564. Rowe v. United States, ante, p. 993. Petitions
for rehearing denied.
No. 14–1385. Cruz v. Citibank, N. A., ante, p. 820;
No. 15–78. Mirabal v. HSBC Bank USA, N. A., ante,
p. 872; and
No. 15–97. Dolz v. CitiMortgage, Inc., ante, p. 873. Mo-
tions of petitioners for leave to file petitions for rehearing denied.

January 12, 2016

Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 15–655. Downs et al. v. Van Orden, as Personal Rep-
resentative of the Estate of Bannister, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46. Reported
below: 609 Fed. Appx. 474.

January 15, 2016

Miscellaneous Orders
No. 14–1418. Zubik et al. v. Burwell, Secretary of
Health and Human Services, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.;
No. 14–1453. Priests for Life et al. v. Department of
Health and Human Services et al. C. A. D. C. Cir.;
No. 14–1505. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington
et al. v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Serv-
ices, et al. C. A. D. C. Cir.;
No. 15–35. East Texas Baptist University et al. v. Bur-
well, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
C. A. 5th Cir.;
No. 15–105. Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the
Aged, Denver, Colorado, et al. v. Burwell, Secretary of
Health and Human Services, et al. C. A. 10th Cir.;
1098 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 15, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–119. Southern Nazarene University et al. v.

Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services,
et al. C. A. 10th Cir.; and
No. 15–191. Geneva College v. Burwell, Secretary of
Health and Human Services, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. [Certio-
rari granted, ante, p. 971.] Motion of petitioners for divided ar-
gument and enlargement of time for oral argument granted.
No. 15–6418. Welch v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
[Certiorari granted, ante, p. 1056.] Helgi C. Walker, Esq., of
Washington, D. C., is invited to brief and argue this case, as
amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below. Briefs of other
amici curiae in support of affirmance are to be filed within seven
days after filing of the brief of the Court-appointed amicus
curiae.

Certiorari Granted
No. 15–214. Murr et al. v. Wisconsin et al. Ct. App. Wis.
Certiorari granted. Reported below: 2015 WI App 13, 359 Wis.
2d 675, 859 N. W. 2d 628.
No. 15–375. Kirtsaeng, dba Bluechristine99 v. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted. Re-
ported below: 605 Fed. Appx. 48.
No. 15–415. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 780 F. 3d
1267.
No. 15–446. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Prop-
erty and Director, Patent and Trademark Ofące. C. A.
Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 793 F. 3d 1268.
No. 15–577. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc.
v. Pauley, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Re-
sources. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below:
788 F. 3d 779.
No. 14–9496. Manuel v. City of Joliet, Illinois, et al.
C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis granted. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 590
Fed. Appx. 641.
 ORDERS 1099

577 U. S. January 15, 19, 2016

No. 15–457. Microsoft Corp. v. Baker et al. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari granted limited to the following question: “Whether a
federal court of appeals has jurisdiction under both Article III
and 28 U. S. C. § 1291 to review an order denying class certifica-
tion after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual
claims with prejudice.” Reported below: 797 F. 3d 607.
No. 15–474. McDonnell v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the peti-
tion. Reported below: 792 F. 3d 478.
January 19, 2016
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 15–85. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., et al. v.
NuVasive, Inc. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment
vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 575 U. S. 632 (2015).
Reported below: 778 F. 3d 1365.

Certiorari Dismissed
No. 15–6957. Greene v. California et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
No. 15–7124. Kumvachirapitag v. Obama, President of
the United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dis-
missed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. Reported below: 617 Fed.
Appx. 804.
No. 15–7326. Vieux v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As peti-
tioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is
directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat-
ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule
38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule
33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506
U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Kagan took no part in the
consideration or decision of this motion and this petition. Re-
ported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 891.
1100 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 19, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–7352. Adkins v. United States District Court for

the District of Kansas. C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari
dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 15A551. Akina et al. v. Hawaii et al. D. C. Haw.
Motion of applicants Keli’i Akina et al. for civil contempt denied.
No. D–2852. In re Donohue. James Francis Donohue, of
Butler, Pa., having requested to resign as a member of the Bar
of this Court, it is ordered that his name be stricken from the
roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court.
The rule to show cause, issued on November 2, 2015, [ante, p. 952]
is discharged.
No. 15M75. Biros v. Kane, Attorney General of Penn-
sylvania, et al. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of
certiorari under seal granted.
No. 15–497. Fry et vir, Next Friends of Minor E. F. v.
Napoleon Community Schools et al. The Solicitor General
is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the
United States.
No. 15–5495. Enriquez v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsidera-
tion of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante,
p. 919] denied.
No. 15–5648. Dixon v. 24th District Court of Louisiana
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration
of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante,
p. 984] denied.
No. 15–6142. Clay v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Di-
vision. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration
of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ante,
p. 1002] denied.
No. 15–6244. Moore v. Montiel et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [ante, p. 1005] denied.
 ORDERS 1101

577 U. S. January 19, 2016

No. 15–6492. Zammit v. City of New Baltimore, Michigan.

Cir. Ct. Macomb County, Mich. Motion of petitioner for reconsid-
eration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis
[ante, p. 1005] denied.
No. 15–6890. Stewart v. Treasure Bay Casino. C. A. 5th
Cir.;
No. 15–6916. Kinney v. Steele et al. Ct. App. Cal., 1st
App. Dist., Div. 4;
No. 15–7093. Phifer v. Sevenson Environmental Serv-
ices, Inc., et al. C. A. 3d Cir.;
No. 15–7153. Suteerachanon v. McDonald’s Restaurants
of Maryland, Inc. C. A. 4th Cir.;
No. 15–7304. Rauso v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.; and
No. 15–7406. Williams v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied. Petitioners are allowed until February 9, 2016, within
which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to
submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of
this Court.
Certiorari Granted
No. 15–458. Dietz v. Bouldin. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
granted. Reported below: 794 F. 3d 1093.
No. 15–628. Salman v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
Reported below: 792 F. 3d 1087.
No. 15–674. United States et al. v. Texas et al. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari granted. In addition to the questions pre-
sented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue
the following question: “Whether the Guidance violates the Take
Care Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, § 3.” Reported below:
809 F. 3d 134.
No. 15–6092. Mathis v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.
Certiorari granted. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 1068.
Certiorari Denied
No. 14–8071. Bernard v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 F. 3d 467.
1102 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 19, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–170. Morris v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied. Reported below: 784 F. 3d 870.
No. 15–186. McCoy v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 589 Fed. Appx. 169.
No. 15–362. Ortiz-Franco v. Lynch, Attorney General.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 F. 3d 81.
No. 15–428. Miller v. Federal Election Commission.
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 793 F. 3d 1.
No. 15–447. Schoeps et al. v. Free State of Bavaria, Fed-
eral Republic of Germany. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 611 Fed. Appx. 32.
No. 15–448. Beck, Chairperson, Arkansas State Medical
Board, et al. v. Edwards et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 786 F. 3d 1113.
No. 15–450. Angov v. Lynch, Attorney General. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 F. 3d 893.
No. 15–451. Fireąghters’ Retirement System et al. v.
Citco Group Ltd. et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 796 F. 3d 520.
No. 15–456. Jefferson et al. v. Certain Underwriters
of Lloyd’s, London. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–468. Whelan et ux. v. Pascale et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 610 Fed. Appx. 19.
No. 15–480. Town of Mocksville, North Carolina, et al.
v. Hunter et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 789 F. 3d 389.
No. 15–505. Townsend v. HSBC Bank USA, N. A. C. A. 7th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 793 F. 3d 771.
No. 15–560. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 778 F. 3d 142.
No. 15–567. Alps South, LLC v. Ohio Willow Wood Co.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 F. 3d
1379.
 ORDERS 1103

577 U. S. January 19, 2016

No. 15–613. Rodriguez v. American Home Mortgage Ser-

vicing. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 195 So. 3d 390.
No. 15–616. MedImmune, LLC v. Board of Trustees of
the University of Massachusetts, dba University of Mas-
sachusetts Biologic Laboratories. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 223 Md. App. 777 and 781.
No. 15–618. Varriale v. Maryland. Ct. App. Md. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 444 Md. 400, 119 A. 3d 824.
No. 15– 619. White v. White. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–624. Pellerin v. Nevada County, California,
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 635
Fed. Appx. 345.
No. 15–629. Hoffman et ux. v. Texas. County Ct. at Law
No. 2, Montgomery County, Tex. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–633. Duff et al. v. Lewis et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–636. Carrillo et al. v. Deutsche Bank National
Trust Co., as Trustee. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 171 So. 3d 114.
No. 15–637. Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working
Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation v. Environmental
Protection Agency et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 606 Fed. Appx. 6.
No. 15–643. Arpaio, Sheriff, Maricopa County, Arizona v.
Obama, President of the United States, et al. C. A. D. C.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 797 F. 3d 11.
No. 15–644. Dolan v. Penn Millers Insurance Co. et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 625 Fed.
Appx. 91.
No. 15–658. Hadsell v. Hadsell. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App.
Dist., Div. 5. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–661. Joseph v. Bernstein et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 551.
1104 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 19, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–663. Kratz v. CitiMortgage, Inc. Super. Ct. Pa.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 108 A. 3d 122.
No. 15–688. Frankel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. Super.
Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 120 A. 3d 392.
No. 15–701. Willaman v. Erie Satellite Ofące of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 620 Fed.
Appx. 88.
No. 15–714. Martinez et al. v. Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 177 So. 3d 1268.
No. 15–717. Dixon v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme
Court of New Mexico et al. Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–724. Nivia et al. v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC,
et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 620
Fed. Appx. 822.
No. 15–738. Mitchell v. Texas Medical Board. Ct. App.
Tex., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–752. Copley Fund, Inc. v. Securities and Ex-
change Commission. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 796 F. 3d 131.
No. 15–756. Ranza v. Nike, Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 793 F. 3d 1059.
No. 15–760. Schloff v. United States. C. A. Armed
Forces. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 74 M. J. 312.
No. 15–761. Lesher et al. v. Ellison, as Personal Repre-
sentative of the Estate of Ellison, Deceased. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 796 F. 3d 910.
No. 15–800. Brown et al. v. McCausland. Sup. Ct. App.
W. Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–823. Mira Overseas Consulting Ltd. et al. v.
Muse Family Enterprises, Ltd., et al. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
 ORDERS 1105

577 U. S. January 19, 2016

Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 237 Cal. App.

4th 378, 187 Cal. Rptr. 3d 858.
No. 15–5115. Clark v. Federal Labor Relations Author-
ity. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782
F. 3d 701.
No. 15–6022. Irick v. Carpenter, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6081. Hooper v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 621 Fed. Appx. 770.
No. 15–6119. Cade v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6221. Jennings v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
617 Fed. Appx. 315.
No. 15–6236. Kitterman v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 963.
No. 15–6557. Garcia v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
793 F. 3d 513.
No. 15–6883. Leteve v. Arizona. Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 237 Ariz. 516, 354 P. 3d 393.
No. 15–6899. Johnson v. Delaware et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6900. Johnson v. Brazelton, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6903. Boyd v. Boughton, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 798 F. 3d 490.
No. 15–6906. Cardelle v. Wilmington Trust, N. A. Dist.
Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 195
So. 3d 380
No. 15–6910. Nickerson v. Foulk, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
1106 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 19, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–6911. Parker v. Exeter Finance Corp. C. A. 5th

Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6913. Shaker v. Correctional Care Solutions
Medical Advisor et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6914. Richard v. Mohr et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–6917. Weisheit v. Indiana. Sup. Ct. Ind. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 26 N. E. 3d 3.
No. 15–6919. Williams v. Stephens, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6922. Thompkins v. Brown et al. Ct. App. Mich.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6925. Rigdon v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6927. Sims v. Louisiana. Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2014–1571 (La. 8/28/15), 175 So. 3d 398.
No. 15–6938. Cervantes Chavez v. Los Angeles County,
California, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 792.
No. 15–6939. Campbell v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 12th App.
Dist., Butler County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2014-
Ohio-5315.
No. 15–6942. Carr v. Stephens, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6943. Cowder v. Thompson, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Mercer. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6944. Davidson v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 6th
App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6949. Bernier v. Court of Appeal of California,
Fourth Appellate District, Division One, et al. Sup. Ct.
Cal. Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 1107

577 U. S. January 19, 2016

No. 15–6950. Beckham v. Allen, Warden. Sup. Ct. Va.

Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6958. Murray v. Wolf, Governor of Pennsylvania,
et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6959. Roman v. Los Angeles County Department
of Public Social Services et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 617 Fed. Appx. 726.
No. 15–6963. Smith v. Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 297 Ga. 214, 773 S. E. 2d 209.
No. 15–6965. Hurd v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 4. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6966. Magno Gana v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 4th
App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 236 Cal.
App. 4th 598, 186 Cal. Rptr. 3d 724.
No. 15–6968. Hoover v. Maine. Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2015 ME 109, 121 A. 3d 1281.
No. 15–6971. Henry v. Allen et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–6975. Jones v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 173 So. 3d 900.
No. 15–6980. Beelby v. Gidley, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6981. Study v. Brown, Superintendent, Wabash
Valley Correctional Facility. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–6991. Juarez v. Warren, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6995. Dias v. Peery, Acting Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–6996. Taylor v. Palmer, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 623 Fed. Appx. 783.
No. 15–7001. Wells v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 30 N. E. 3d 1256.
1108 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 19, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–7035. Holdridge v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 6th

App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7095. Pabon v. Kerestes, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7098. Yell v. White, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–7104. Levitan v. Morgan, Sheriff, Escambia
County, Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 172 So. 3d 872.
No. 15–7128. King v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7130. Cardenas v. Swarthout, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7135. Ramirez-Rivera, aka Pai v. United States;
and
No. 15–7374. Laureano-Salgado v. United States. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 800 F. 3d 1.
No. 15–7148. Wilson v. North Carolina. Ct. App. N. C.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7159. Gray v. Lee, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 172.
No. 15–7173. McAdam v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 599 Fed. Appx. 305.
No. 15–7192. Bowers v. Massachusetts. App. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 87 Mass. App. 1131, 32 N. E.
3d 370.
No. 15–7198. Johnson v. General Motors Corp. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7203. Orozco v. Reznichenko. Ct. App. Cal., 5th
App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7223. Todisco v. Massachusetts. App. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 87 Mass. App. 1117, 30 N. E.
3d 133.
 ORDERS 1109

577 U. S. January 19, 2016

No. 15–7225. Ramirez v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2015 IL App (1st) 121766–U.
No. 15–7227. Spivey v. New Jersey. Super. Ct. N. J., App.
Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7237. Cope v. Meko, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 15–7254. Johnson v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7271. Toler v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 15–7281. Coleman v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7284. Matson v. Hrabe. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 612 Fed. Appx. 926.
No. 15–7287. Sanchez Montes v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App.
Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 177 So. 3d
624.
No. 15–7296. St. John v. United States; and
No. 15–7314. St. John v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 625 Fed. Appx. 661.
No. 15–7299. Lee-Gutierrez v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 175.
No. 15–7301. Marquez-Esquivel, aka Marquez v. United
States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615
Fed. Appx. 197.
No. 15–7303. Castleman v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 795 F. 3d 904.
No. 15–7305. Drummondo-Farias v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 622 Fed. Appx. 616.
No. 15–7312. Hanson Mosteller v. United States. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 741 F. 3d 503.
1110 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 19, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–7315. Velez-Soto v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.

Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7316. Scott v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 576 Fed. Appx. 409.
No. 15–7317. Hales v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 375.
No. 15–7319. Hernandez-Diaz v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 171.
No. 15–7320. Iwuala v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 789 F. 3d 1.
No. 15–7321. Faraz v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 626 Fed. Appx. 395.
No. 15–7324. Howard v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 625 Fed. Appx. 934.
No. 15–7325. Firempong v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 624 Fed. Appx. 497.
No. 15–7328. Jones v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 229.
No. 15–7330. Jones v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 213.
No. 15–7335. Gunter v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 162.
No. 15–7337. Davis v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 742.
No. 15–7338. Cummings-Avila v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 797 F. 3d 45.
No. 15–7340. Meza-Garcia v. United States (Reported
below: 619 Fed. Appx. 429); Ortega v. United States (617 Fed.
Appx. 352); and Guajardo-Prieto v. United States (620 Fed.
Appx. 319). C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7357. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 1111

577 U. S. January 19, 2016

No. 15–7358. Mayele v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 314.
No. 15–7361. Oates v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 172.
No. 15–7362. Miller v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 796 F. 3d 843.
No. 15–7363. Vizcarra-Serrano v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 624 Fed. Appx. 874.
No. 15–7371. Singleton v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 626 Fed. Appx. 589.
No. 15–7372. Galvan Mireles v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 133.
No. 15–7373. Edmondson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7377. Jordan v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 619 Fed. Appx. 1.
No. 15–7379. Moreno Vargas et al. v. United States.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 629 Fed.
Appx. 415.
No. 15–7381. Williams v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 F. 3d 1240.
No. 15–7383. Cavazos v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2015 IL App (2d) 120171, 40
N. E. 3d 92.
No. 15–7385. Jenkins v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 113 A. 3d 535.
No. 15–7387. Kirkland v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 117 A. 3d 1042.
No. 15–7388. Jones v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 608 Fed. Appx. 712.
No. 15–7390. Serna v. Gray, Commandant, United States
Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
1112 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 19, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–7393. Berrones-Vargas v. United States. C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 135.
No. 15–7397. Vinson v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 10th App. Dist.,
Franklin County. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7410. Witzlib v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 796 F. 3d 799.
No. 15–7414. Brown v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 614 Fed. Appx. 120.
No. 15–7418. Bridges v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 626 Fed. Appx. 620.
No. 15–7421. Cole v. United States. Ct. App. D. C. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 117 A. 3d 583.
No. 15–7428. Malouff v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 613 Fed. Appx. 432.
No. 15–7429. Foreman v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 114 A. 3d 631.
No. 15–7433. Galan-Olavarria v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 799 F. 3d 134.
No. 15–7439. Simpson v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 796 F. 3d 548.
No. 15–7443. Jones et al. v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 625 Fed. Appx. 194.
No. 15–7444. Lopez v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 15–7450. Ramsey v. Stephenson, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7452. Bates v. United States. Ct. App. D. C. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 113 A. 3d 535.
No. 15–7454. Duranty-Moore, aka Collins, aka Duranty,
aka Moore, aka Proebstle v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 330.
No. 15–7455. Jackson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
 ORDERS 1113

577 U. S. January 19, 2016

No. 15–7459. Angel Cuevas v. United States. C. A. 8th

Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7462. Lane v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 616 Fed. Appx. 328.
No. 15–7486. Priestley v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 618 Fed. Appx. 222.
No. 15–7491. Villalonga v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 615 Fed. Appx. 945.
No. 15–122. Calderon-Cardona et al. v. Bank of New
York Mellon et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of Levin Judgment
Creditors for leave to file brief as amicus curiae granted. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 F. 3d 993.
No. 15–125. Hausler, as Successor Personal Repre-
sentative of the Estate of Fuller, Deceased v. JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N. A., et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of Levin
Judgment Creditors for leave to file brief as amicus curiae
granted. Certiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part in the
consideration or decision of this motion and this petition. Re-
ported below: 770 F. 3d 207.
No. 15–374. Kansas v. Aguirre. Sup. Ct. Kan. Motion of
respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 301 Kan. 950, 349 P. 3d 1245.
No. 15–449. Johnson & Johnson et al. v. Reckis et vir.
Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied. Justice Alito took no
part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported
below: 471 Mass. 272, 28 N. E. 3d 445.
No. 15–470. Livingston v. Frank, Clerk, Circuit Court
of Hillsborough County, Florida, et al. Dist. Ct. App. Fla.,
2d Dist. Motions of Cato Institute and Owners’ Counsel of
America for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 150 So. 3d 239.
No. 15–543. Sissel v. Department of Health and Human
Services et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of Daniel G. Anderson
et al. for leave to file brief as amici curiae out of time denied.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 760 F. 3d 1.
1114 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 19, 20, 2016 577 U. S.

No. 15–7118. Tippens v. Virginia. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari

before judgment denied.
No. 15–7351. Barnett v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition.
No. 15–7463. Pannell v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
Rehearing Denied
No. 14–9909. Ross v. Cobb, ante, p. 840;
No. 15–5855. Martin v. United States, ante, p. 931;
No. 15–6026. Ivy v. Brown, Superintendent, Wabash Val-
ley Correctional Facility, ante, p. 988;
No. 15–6125. Brunson v. Taylor, Warden, ante, p. 964;
No. 15–6158. Alston v. Kean University et al., ante,
p. 989;
No. 15–6237. Johnson v. Dauphanus et al., ante, p. 1012;
No. 15– 6393. Pridgen v. Kerestes, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al., ante,
p. 1015;
No. 15–6590. Tiburcio v. United States Capitol, ante,
p. 1017; and
No. 15–6791. Moore v. United States, ante, p. 1037. Peti-
tions for rehearing denied.

January 20, 2016

Miscellaneous Order
No. 15–7777 (15A750). In re Masterson. Application for
stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice
Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for
writ of habeas corpus denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 15–7767 (15A743). Masterson v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App.
Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, pre-
sented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court,
denied. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7768 (15A744). Masterson v. Texas. 178th Jud. Dist.
Ct. Tex., Harris County. Application for stay of execution of
 ORDERS 1115

577 U. S. January 20, 21, 2016

sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him re-

ferred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.
No. 15–7769 (15A745). Masterson v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App.
Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, pre-
sented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court,
denied. Certiorari denied.

January 21, 2016

Certiorari Denied
No. 15–7786 (15A755). Brooks v. Alabama. Sup. Ct. Ala.
Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented
to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
Certiorari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, con-
curring in the denial of certiorari.
This Court’s opinion upholding Alabama’s capital sentencing
scheme was based on Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U. S. 638 (1989)
(per curiam), and Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447 (1984), two
decisions we recently overruled in Hurst v. Florida, ante, p. 92.
See Harris v. Alabama, 513 U. S. 504 (1995). I nonetheless vote
to deny certiorari in this particular case because I believe proce-
dural obstacles would have prevented us from granting relief.
Justice Breyer, dissenting.
Christopher Eugene Brooks was sentenced to death in accord-
ance with Alabama’s procedures, which allow a jury to render an
“advisory verdict” that “is not binding on the court.” Ala. Code
§ 13A–5–47(e) (2015). For the reasons explained in my opinions
concurring in the judgment in Hurst v. Florida, ante, at 103, and
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584, 613–619 (2002), and my dissenting
opinion in Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U. S. 348, 358–366 (2004), I
dissent from the order of the Court to deny the application for
stay of execution and the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Moreover, we have recognized that Alabama’s sentencing
scheme is “much like” and “based on Florida’s sentencing
scheme.” Harris v. Alabama, 513 U. S. 504, 508 (1995). Flori-
da’s scheme is unconstitutional. See Hurst, ante, at 103
(Breyer, J., concurring in judgment). The unfairness inherent
in treating this case differently from others which used similarly
1116 OCTOBER TERM, 2015

January 21, 2016 577 U. S.

unconstitutional procedures only underscores the need to recon-

sider the validity of capital punishment under the Eighth Amend-
ment. See Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. 863, 908–909 (2015)
(Breyer, J., dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
No. 15–7787 (15A756). Brooks v. Dunn, Commissioner, Al-
abama Department of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Ap-
plication for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to
Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 810 F. 3d 812.