ORDER LIST 03/07/16 (2016)

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2016

CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

14-741     SELF-INSURANCE INST. OF AMERICA V. SNYDER, GOV. OF MI, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

14-824 ) CARP, RAYMOND C. V. MICHIGAN

)

14-8106 ) DAVIS, CORTEZ R. V. MICHIGAN

The motion of petitioner in No. 14-8106 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the Supreme Court of Michigan for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in these cases: The Court has held the petitions in these and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding these petitions and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioners' asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of these petitions does not reflect any view regarding petitioners' entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioners forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioners' sentences actually qualify as mandatory life without parole sentences.

14-1068 TYLER, GARY V. LOUISIANA

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the 29th Judicial District Court of Louisiana, Parish of St. Charles for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

14-1196 LEWIS, CHARLES V. MICHIGAN

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Michigan for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

14-1248 JONES, DONTE L. V. VIRGINIA

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Virginia for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).      

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

14-1478 SANCHEZ, DAVID J. V. PIXLEY, WARDEN

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

14-6673 TOLLIVER, RODNEY V. LOUISIANA

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

14-8047 TAPP, THILERO V. LOUISIANA

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

14-9077 BURGOS, JOSE M. V. MICHIGAN

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Michigan, Wayne County for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.     

14-9521 COOK, ROBERT C. V. MICHIGAN

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Michigan for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

14-9712 RILEY, BYRON V. LOUISIANA

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea     agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

14-9941 YOUNG, DWAINE V. LOUISIANA

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

14-9998 GIBSON, ALBERT V. LOUISIANA

14-10142 WILLIAMS, BARRY V. LOUISIANA

15-5004 JACOBS, LAWRENCE V. LOUISIANA

The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in these cases: The Court has held the petitions in these and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding these petitions and now vacating and remanding the judgments below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioners' asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of these petitions does not reflect any view regarding petitioners' entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioners forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioners' sentences actually qualify as mandatory life without parole sentences.

15-5278 LIVAS, GLENN V. LOUISIANA

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

15-5310 CONTRERAS, JASON M. V. DAVIS, WARDEN

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

15-5749 CLICK, JIMMY S. V. ALABAMA

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

15-6030 MARTIN, LaMONTE R. V. SMITH, WARDEN

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

15-6251 WILLIAMS, JIMMY V. ALABAMA

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Alabama for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

15-6278 WILSON, HARRIS V. ALABAMA

15-6283 MATTHEWS, KEITH V. ALABAMA

15-6287 DUNLAP, DENNIS V. ALABAMA

15-6288 BLACK, CHARLES E. V. ALABAMA

15-6297 PRATT, CHARLES V. V. ALABAMA

15-6299 STUBBS, TIMOTHY V. ALABAMA

15-6303 REEVES, JULIUS V. ALABAMA

15-6304 GARDNER, WILLIE L. V. ALABAMA

15-6305 HOGAN, EARNEST J. V. ALABAMA

15-6307 IIAMS, NICHOLAS V. ALABAMA

15-6308 FOSTER, BRANDON S. V. ALABAMA

15-6309 FLYNN, ANTONIO V. ALABAMA

15-6310 INGRAM, GERALD H. V. ALABAMA

15-6317 FORMAN, RICHARD V. ALABAMA

15-6319     McWILLIAMS, EMANUEL V. ALABAMA

15-6326 STOREY, BRIAN R. V. ALABAMA

The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in these cases: The Court has held the petitions in these and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding these petitions and now vacating and remanding the judgments below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioners' asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of these petitions does not reflect any view regarding petitioners' entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioners forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioners' sentences actually qualify as mandatory life without parole sentences.

15-6584 THOMPSON, STAFON E. V. ROY, COMM'R, MN DOC

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this ca0se: The Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding this petition and now vacating and remanding the judgment below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioner's asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioner forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioner's sentence actually qualifies as a mandatory life without parole sentence.

15-7255 BAKER, ALBERT V. ALABAMA

15-7441 DUKE, MARK V. ALABAMA

15-7550 PRESLEY, MARCUS D. V. ALABAMA

The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016).

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in these cases: The Court has held the petitions in these and many other cases pending the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). In holding these petitions and now vacating and remanding the judgments below, the Court has not assessed whether petitioners' asserted entitlement to retroactive relief "is properly presented in the case." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13). On remand, courts should understand that the Court's disposition of these petitions does not reflect any view regarding petitioners' entitlement to relief. The Court's disposition does not, for example, address whether an adequate and independent state ground bars relief, whether petitioners forfeited or waived any entitlement to relief (by, for example, entering into a plea agreement waiving any entitlement to relief), or whether petitioners' sentences actually qualify as mandatory life without parole sentences.

ORDERS IN PENDING CASES

15M88 VEHICLE INTELLIGENCE AND SAFETY V. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, ET AL.

The motion of Kevin Roe, pro se, to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari on behalf of Vehicle Intelligence and Safety is denied.

14-1091 DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY V. INDUSTRIAL POLYMERS, INC., ET AL.

The joint motion to hold petition in abeyance is granted.

14-1457     BETTERMAN, BRANDON THOMAS V. MONTANA

The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is granted.

14-9496 MANUEL, ELIJAH V. JOLIET, IL, ET AL.

The motion of petitioner for appointment of counsel is granted and Stanley B. Eisenhammer, Esquire, of Arlington Heights, Illinois, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.

15-446 CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES V. LEE, MICHELLE K.

The motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix is granted.

15-474 McDONNELL, ROBERT F. V. UNITED STATES

The motion of petitioner to deem the Court of Appeals joint appendix and supplemental appendix as the joint appendix in this Court is granted.

15-7091     JOHNSON, BART W. V. ALABAMA

The respondent is requested to file a response to the petition for rehearing within 30 days.

15-7304 RAUSO, GENNARO V. UNITED STATES

15-7406 WILLIAMS, TERRANCE V. UNITED STATES

The motions of petitioners for reconsideration of orders denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied.

15-7431 LIEBESKIND, MARC V. RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, ET AL.

15-7602 READE, WILLIAM F. V. GALVIN, WILLIAM F., ET AL.

15-7610 JOHNSSON, MARGARET A. V. RITTMANIC, MARK B.

15-7645 MUATHE, ERIC M. V. FIFTH THIRD BANK, ET AL.

15-7840 HANSEN, KATHLEEN V. DEPT. OF ARMY

The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied. Petitioners are allowed until March 28, 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 DENIED

15-276 KANSAS V. DULL, BRYCE M.

15-380 SALEM FINANCIAL, INC. V. UNITED STATES

15-438 ALLIANCE OF AUTO MANUFACTURERS V. CURREY, MELODY A., ET AL.

15-460 ONE BEACON INS. CO., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES

15-478 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP V. UNITED STATES

15-517 ) LOPEZ, GILBERT V. UNITED STATES

)

15-6608 ) KUHRT, MARK V. UNITED STATES

15-551 EASON, RICKY N. V. HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES

15-563 SHAMMAS, MILO V. HIRSHFELD, COMM'R FOR PATENTS

15-565 APPLE, INC. V. UNITED STATES, ET AL.

15-572 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON V. CIR

15-715 ADAR 980 REALTY V. SOFER, AVRAHAM, ET AL.

15-720 BILL, DANIEL, ET AL. V. BREWER, WARREN, ET AL.

15-735 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY V. FAIR, DELTON R.

15-741 KELLEY, DIR., AR DOC V. GORDON, ULONZO

15-841 DIXON, CARL J. V. COLUMBIA ASSOCIATION, INC.

15-844 EWING INDUSTRIES CORPORATION V. BOB WINES NURSERY, INC., ET AL.

15-845 DAHMS, CHARLES V. ILLINOIS

15-852 CLELAND, BRANDON, ET AL. V. BAYNES, ALAN

15-854 PADULA--WILSON, AMANDA V. WILSON, MICHAEL G.

15-878 CHINWEZE, INNOCENT O. V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

15-883 RUIZ-VIDAL, JOSE R. V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN.

15-890 KENTUCKY V. ROUSE, ANTWAN D.

15-902 NANIC, HAZRET, ET UX. V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN.

15-920 WAHAB, CHASSIB K. V. ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES, INC.

15-943 TOWLE, MARK V. DC COMICS

15-970 BALDEO, ALBERT V. UNITED STATES

15-972 DELACRUZ, DANIEL V. STATE BAR OF CA

15-5810 ) CROWE, RAYNARD V. V. UNITED STATES

)

15-5979 ) WINGATE, ALFRED R. V. UNITED STATES

15-6479 KELLY, ANDREAS J. V. SWARTHOUT, WARDEN

15-6520 WILSON, GENERAL GRANT V. WISCONSIN

15-6568 MALIK, MOHAMMED I. V. UNITED STATES

15-6691 LITTLE, TERRY L. V. UNITED STATES

15-6768 HODGES, CORTEZ T. V. UNITED STATES

15-7153 SUTEERACHANON, RUNGRUDEE V. McDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF MD

15-7222 WONG, HONG LEE V. UNITED STATES

15-7554 HARTLEY, KENNETH V. FLORIDA

15-7556 HENDERSON, MICHAEL J. V. ARTUS, SUPT., ATTICA

15-7566 DREIBELBIS, TERRY V. WENEROWICZ, SUPT., GRATERFORD

15-7569 HARRIS, FRANK V. BITER, WARDEN

15-7574 WHITT, JOHN A. V. SLEEPY HOLLOW GOLF CLUB, INC.

15-7577 BRANTLEY, ANTIONE V. ILLINOIS

15-7578 RUSS, ROY V. WITHROW, ROBERT

15-7585 GILES, HERBERT V. HAAS, WARDEN

15-7587 LAWSON, GEOFFREY L. V. CAMPBELL, WARDEN

15-7588 JOHNSON, THOMAS V. CAMPBELL, WARDEN

15-7589 LAMBERT, ANDREW J. V. MICHIGAN

15-7590 LISENBY, BILLY L. V. COHEN, WARDEN

15-7592 POTVIN, ANDREW F. V. POWERS, JERRY, ET AL.

15-7593 OTYANG, VINCENT V. SAN FRANCISCO, CA, ET AL.

15-7595 NELSON, SALUTA, ET AL. V. LOUISE, MAYOR, ET AL.

15-7596 PITTS, RONALD D. V. QUILTER, J. BERNIE, ET AL.

15-7597 GREEN, GERALD A. V. HILL, WARDEN

15-7598 STRAND, MICHAEL V. NUPETCO ASSOCIATES, LLC

15-7605 MUBITA, KANAY V. BLADES, WARDEN

15-7613 SANCHEZ, RICARDO E. V. STEPHENS, DIR., TX DCJ

15-7616 HOLLAND, JAMES V. RIVARD, WARDEN

15-7617 GUERRERO, VICENTE V. ILLINOIS

15-7618 HOLMES, MATTELLA V. STEPPIG MANAGEMENT

15-7619 SPENCER, RANDY L. V. FLORIDA

15-7620 CALDERON-LOPEZ, RICARDO J. V. GUMUSHYAN, TIGRAN, ET AL.

15-7621 MIMS, KENNETH V. CAIN, WARDEN

15-7627 WINFIELD, CAROLYN V. UNIV. OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER

15-7628 VALENTINE-MORALES, JOED V. MOONEY, SUPT., COAL TOWNSHIP

15-7636 LONG, RAYMOND O. V. QUALLS, WARDEN

15-7638 LORDMASTER, FRANKIE J. V. EPPS, KEITH, ET AL.

15-7641 AGUIRRE, HECTOR M. V. MONTGOMERY, WARDEN

15-7646 SPENCER, RANDY V. OLIN, MELISSA, ET AL.

15-7648 MAMMEN, ROBERT H. V. CHAPMAN, JUDGE, ETC.

15-7650 SUERO, ROGEL I. V. PENNSYLVANIA

15-7651 ROMERO, TRINITY J. V. COLORADO

15-7652 JAMES, AARON T. V. PHILLIPS, WARDEN

15-7655 TROGLIN, NELSON V. COOK, WARDEN

15-7657 McDONALD, DONALD L. V. ILLINOIS

15-7658 SACKS, AARON D. V. SHOPRITE SUPERMARKETS

15-7665 BLAKE, PRESTON J. V. WRIGLEY, WARDEN, ET AL.

15-7711 DIXON, GREGORY V. AYERS, WARDEN

15-7747 NY, VISITH V. LIND, RANDY, ET AL.

15-7782 WRIGHT, LORETTA V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.

15-7785 SZABO, KATALIN V. GOLDFARB, ALLAN

15-7791 JAMES, FRIDAY V. UNITED STATES

15-7826 BONEY, WILLIAM V. UNITED STATES

15-7837 BROWN, WILLIAM B. V. MANSUKHANI, WARDEN

15-7853 SAINT-SURIN, ANTOINE F. V. UNITED STATES

15-7862 COLLINS, BRIAN H. V. UNITED STATES

15-7864 BARNETT, DENNIS R. V. FOX, WARDEN

15-7867 BUTLER, JAMES V. USDC ED MI

15-7870 KIEFER, MARK R. V. UNITED STATES

15-7873 DANIELS, LAMIN L. V. UNITED STATES

15-7874 CHAFIN, RICHARD A. V. UNITED STATES

15-7877 SIMMONS, TODD V. UNITED STATES

15-7884 SPENCER, JOHN A. V. UNITED STATES

15-7890 WOODWARD, ELLO M. V. UNITED STATES

15-7895 MAYNOR, RICHARD K. V. UNITED STATES

15-7898 AVILA-CORREA, GEYEN V. UNITED STATES

15-7899 ANDREWS, ALBERT L. V. UNITED STATES

15-7906 NICHOLSON, DAMON D. V. UNITED STATES

15-7908 TORRES GUZMAN, IRVIN A. V. UNITED STATES

15-7916 BUMAGIN, SEMYON V. UNITED STATES

15-7917 WARREN, FELIX V. UNITED STATES

15-7922 DELGADO, LUIS A. V. UNITED STATES

15-7924 NAUGHTON, JEREMY V. UNITED STATES

15-7925 MYERS, LLOYD V. UNITED STATES

15-7930 DUDLEY, JOEL V. UNITED STATES

15-7947 FRANCES, ALBURY V. UNITED STATES

15-7951 RONDON, RAFAEL V. UNITED STATES

15-7961 JEAN-PIERRE, STEVEN V. UNITED STATES

15-7962 MADSEN, LAWRENCE V. UNITED STATES

15-7963 MARRERO, JUAN E. V. UNITED STATES

15-7966 McDONALD, NICHOLAS V. UNITED STATES

15-7975 CLAY, DONALD D. V. UNITED STATES

15-7976 SILER, RICHARD A. V. UNITED STATES

15-7979 SHOUMAN, MUJAHAD V. UNITED STATES

15-7983 HARLEY, DAVID L. V. UNITED STATES

15-7986 HARRELL, KENTON D. V. UNITED STATES

15-7990 KENNEDY, KEVIN J. V. UNITED STATES

15-7992 CHAPMAN, VERNON V. UNITED STATES

15-7996 WOMACK, CHRISTIAN D. V. USDC ED PA

15-7997 TASKOV, DRAGOMIR V. UNITED STATES

15-8011 ARNOLD, JASON P. V. UNITED STATES

15-8016 BARRERA-ESTRADA, GUSTAVO V. UNITED STATES

15-8021 HEDRICK, ROBERT L. V. UNITED STATES

15-8035 GUTIERREZ-JARAMILLO, JULIO C. V. UNITED STATES

15-8046 RAGHUNATHAN, SRIKANTH, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES

15-8053 ACCITUNO, MARIO L. V. UNITED STATES

15-8064 MEDINA, BRANDON L. V. UNITED STATES

15-8070 RAMOS, BALBINO V. UNITED STATES

15-8072 BROXON, DUSTI N. V. UNITED STATES

15-8073 TIPPINS, DEONDRAI A. V. UNITED STATES

15-8075 PEREZ, MICHAEL V. UNITED STATES

15-8115 DAVIS, DARLENE J. V. COMCAST CORP., INC., ET AL.

The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

14-639 NEW HAMPSHIRE V. SOTO, MICHAEL, ET AL.

The motion of respondents Robert Dingman and Eduardo Lopez, Jr., for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

14-1472 CONNECTICUT V. RILEY, ACKEEM

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

15-238 SEMPLE, COMM'R, CT DOC V. CASIANO, JASON

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in form pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

15-870 FLORIDA V. GRIDINE, SHIMEEK D.

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

15-5798 SCHWAGER, JOSHUA V. SCHWAGER, CHANA A.

The motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

15-7571 HAMILTON, JAN B. V. BIRD, DON, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.

15-7612 LeBLANC, JEFFREY R. V. CORPORATE MARATHON

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

15-7615 FOSTER, JOHN M. V. WILLIAMS, WARDEN

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the 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).

15-7631 WEBB, DAVID V. USDC UT

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

15-8054 BLANCO, RAMON V. UNITED STATES

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

HABEAS CORPUS DENIED

15-8155 IN RE GREGORY JAMES SHIVER

15-8182 IN RE RODOLFO ORTIZ

15-8193 IN RE CHARLES R. GETZ

15-8198 IN RE SHAWN KEVIN SMAAGE

The petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied.

15-8143 IN RE ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the 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).

MANDAMUS DENIED

15-7517 IN RE JIMMIE WHITE, II

15-7659 IN RE KEVIN D. RAY

15-7843 IN RE ANTHONY L. VIOLA

15-7956 IN RE ROBERT L. HEDRICK

The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied.

15-7591 IN RE JACK R. KOCH

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the 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).

PROHIBITION DENIED

15-8052 IN RE PATRICK BOYD

The petition for a writ of prohibition is denied.

REHEARINGS DENIED

15-593 TESLER, MICHAEL V. CACACE, SUSAN, ET AL.

15-633 DUFF, TYRONE, ET UX. V. LEWIS, RICHARD W., ET AL.

15-663 KRATZ, JEFFREY F. V. CITIMORTGAGE INC.

15-691 ARUNACHALAM, LAKSHMI V. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.

15-6075 FLETCHER, TIMOTHY W. V. FLORIDA

15-6211 WHITE, JOSEPH V. DETROIT EAST COMM. MENTAL HEALTH

15-6633 BARNETT, THERESA V. CROCKETT, DAVID S., ET AL.

15-6696 HOSKINS, WALTER V. FAYRAM, WARDEN

15-6718 RODRIGUEZ, DEAN C. V. BEARD, SEC. CA DOC

15-6787 RASHID, AMIN A. V. ORTIZ, WARDEN

15-6876 L. B. V. S. T., ET AL.

15-7104 LEVITAN, DANIEL J. V. MORGAN, SHERIFF

15-7235 ADAMS, MARVIN L. V. UNITED STATES

The petitions for rehearing are denied.

15-5579 FLORES-PEREZ, CIRILO V. UNITED STATES

The petition for rehearing is denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

D-2837 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF JOHN H. WYMAN

John H. Wyman, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued and served upon him requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that John H. Wyman is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2838 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF DANIEL A. BECK

Daniel A. Beck, of Saluda, North Carolina, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued and served upon him requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Daniel A. Beck is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2839 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF MARK H. ALLENBAUGH

Mark H. Allenbaugh, of Conneaut, Ohio, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Mark H. Allenbaugh is disbarred from the

practice of law in this Court.

D-2840 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF CHARLES JEFFREY BROIDA

Charles Jeffrey Broida, of Ellicott City, Maryland, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued and served upon him requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Charles Jeffrey Broida is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2841 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF LAURENCE M. STARR

Laurence M. Starr, of West Roxbury, Massachusetts, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued and served upon him requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Laurence M. Starr is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2842 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF DOUGLAS FREDERICK TRACIA

Douglas Frederick Tracia, of Wakefield, Massachusetts, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued and served upon him requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Douglas Frederick Tracia is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2843 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF RICHARD S. HANLON

Richard S. Hanlon, of Bayonne, New Jersey, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Richard S. Hanlon is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2844 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF JENNY R. ARMSTRONG

Jenny R. Armstrong, of Madison, Wisconsin, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Jenny R. Armstrong is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2845 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF PATRICIA JAMIE DORAN

Patricia Jamie Doran, of San Francisco, California, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued her requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Patricia Jamie Doran is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2846 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF KEVIN PURCELL

Kevin Purcell, of Rocky River, Ohio, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Kevin Purcell is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2847 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF PAUL STEPHEN KORMANIK

Paul Stephen Kormanik, of Columbus, Ohio, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Paul Stephen Kormanik is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2849 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF ROBERT LANGSTON WILLIAMS

Robert Langston Williams, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued and served upon him requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Robert Langston Williams is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2850 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF PETER FLOYD ANDERSON, JR.

Peter Floyd Anderson, Jr., of Garnerville, New York, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Peter Floyd Anderson, Jr. is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2853 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF JAMES MARSHALL BIDDLE

James Marshall Biddle, of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued and served upon him requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that James Marshall Biddle is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2855 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF DANIEL JAMES HALLORAN, III

Daniel James Halloran, III, of Flushing, New York, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Daniel James Halloran, III is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2856 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF DEAN GARY WEBER

Dean Gary Weber, of Hauppauge, New York, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of November 2, 2015; and a rule having been issued requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and the time to file a response having expired;

It is ordered that Dean Gary Weber is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.