Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC

589
1
of2
P R E L I M I N A R Y P R I N T
Vol. 589 (Pp. 1–153; 901–1247)
UNITED STATES REPORTS
Part 1
Volume 589 U. S. - Part 1
Pages 1–153; 901–1247
OFFICIAL REPORTS
OF
T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T
October 7, 2019, Through February 25, 2020
CHRISTINE LUCHOK FALLON
reporter of decisions
N O T I C E : 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,
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Publishing Offce
Washington, D.C. 20402

J U S T I C E S
of the
S U P R E M E C O U R T
during the time of these reports
JOHN G. ROBERTS, Jr., Chief 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.
NEIL M. GORSUCH, Associate Justice.
BRETT M. KAVANAUGH, Associate Justice.
retired
SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR, Associate Justice.
ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, Associate Justice.
DAVID H. SOUTER, Associate Justice.
ofcers of the court
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General.
NOEL J. FRANCISCO, 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 October 19, 2018, 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, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice.
For the Sixth Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice.
For the Seventh Circuit, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate
Justice.
For the Eighth Circuit, Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice.
For the Ninth Circuit, Elena Kagan, 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.
October 19, 2018.
(For next previous allotment, see 586 U. S., Pt. 1, p. iii.)
ii

DEATH OF JUSTICE STEVENS
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER, 7, 2019
Present: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsburg,
Justice Breyer, Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor,
Justice Kagan, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice
Kavanaugh.
The Chief Justice said:
I also want take a moment to pay tribute to our friend and
colleague John Paul Stevens, a retired Justice of this Court,
who died on July 16, 2019. Justice Stevens was nominated
to the Court by President Ford on November 28, 1975, and
was confrmed by the Senate less than 20 days later. He
was an active Member of the Court for more than 34 years.
At the time of his retirement on June 29, 2010, Justice Ste-
vens had become the third-longest serving Justice in the his-
tory of the Court.
Justice Stevens devoted his life to public service. He was
a commissioned offcer in the United States Navy from 1941-
1945, receiving a Bronze Star for his service. During the
1947 Term he was a law clerk to Justice Wiley Rutledge of
this Court. Before joining this Court, Justice Stevens
served fve years on the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.
His kindness, humility, independence, and wisdom have
left us a better Court. His commitment to justice has left
us a better Nation.
iii

iv DEA
TH OF JUSTICE STEVENS
Justice Stevens was a dear colleague and friend. Our con-
dolences
go out to his children, his extended family, and his
many admirers. At an appropriate time in the spring, the
traditional memorial observance of the Court and Bar will
be held in this courtroom.

I N D E X
(Vol. 589 U. S., Part 1)
AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS. See Federal Tax Law.
AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTOR DETERMINATIONS.
See Criminal Sentencing.
ALASKA. See Constitutional Law.
“AMERICAN RULE” AS TO AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES. See
Attorney's Fees.
ATTORNEY'S FEES.
Question whether “expenses” includes attorney's fees.—Patent and
Trademark Offce cannot recover salaries of its legal personnel as “ex-
penses” in civil actions brought by patent applicants pursuant to 35
U. S. C. § 145. Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., p. 23.
AUTOMATIC STAYS. See Finality of Judgments.
BANKRUPTCY LAW. See Finality of Judgments.
BIVENS ACTIONS.
Damages claim under Bivens—Plausible allegation law en forcement
offcer violated clearly established Constitutional rights.—A cross-border
shooting by a United States Border Patrol agent does not give rise to
damages claim pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents,
403 U. S. 388. Hernández v. Mesa, p. 93.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. See Criminal Sentencing.
CHILD CUSTODY. See Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of In-
ternational Child Abduction.
COLLATERAL REVIEW. See Criminal Sentencing.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See also Bivens Actions.
Freedom of speech—Alaska law regulating campaign contributions.—
Judgment is vacated, and case is remanded for Ninth Circuit to revisit
whether Alaska's political contribution limits are consistent with this
Court's First Amendment precedents. Thompson v. Hebdon, p. 1.
v

vi INDEX
CREDITORS AND DEBTORS. See Finality of Judgments.
CRI
MINAL SENTENCING.
Eddings error—Reweighing of evidence on jury resentencing.—When
a capital sentencing error under Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, is
found on collateral review, a state appellate court may conduct reweighing
of aggravating and mitigating evidence, as permitted by Clemons v. Mis-
sissippi, 494 U. S. 738, on collateral review. McKinney v. Arizona, p. 139.
DAMAGES CLAIMS. See Bivens Actions.
DEATH PENALTY. See Criminal Sentencing.
DEBT COLLECTION. See Federal Debt Collection Practices Act;
Finality of Judgments.
DUTY OF PRUDENCE. See Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974.
Allegations of harm from disclosure of alleged fraud—Pleading stand-
ard for ERISA claims.—Judgment is vacated, and case is remanded to
give Second Circuit opportunity to decide whether to entertain parties'
arguments on ERISA's duty of prudence. Retirement Plans Comm. of
IBM v. Jander, p. 49.
EMPLOYEE STOCK OW NERSHIP PLANS. See Employee Retire-
ment Income Security Act of 1974.
EQUITABLE TOLLING. See Federa l Debt Col lection Practices
Act.
EXTRATERRITORIALITY. See Bivens Actions.
FAMILY LAW. See Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of Interna-
tional Child Abduction.
FEDERAL COMMON LAW. See Federal Tax Law.
FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT.
Statute of limitations under Act—Question of when statute begins to
run.—Absent application of an equitable doctrine, Act's statute of limita-
tions for bringing a private civil action against debt collectors who engage
in certain prohibited practices, 15 U. S. C. § 1692k(d), begins to run when
alleged violation occurs, not when it is discovered. Rotkiske v. Klemm,
p. 8.
FEDERAL TAX LAW.
Federal common law—Ownership of tax refund to affliated group.—
Rule of In re Bob Richards Chrysler-Plymouth Corp., 473 F. 2d 262—

INDEX vii
FEDERAL
TAX LAW—Continued.
which specifes how federal tax refund proceeds should be allocated among
members
of an affliated group of corporations that fle a consolidated re-
turn—is not a legitimate exercise of federal common lawmaking. Rodri-
guez v. FDIC, p. 132.
FEDERAL TAX REFUNDS. See Federal Tax Law.
FIDUCIARY DUTIES OF INVESTMENT ADVISERS. See Em-
ployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
FIFTH AMENDMENT. See Bivens Actions.
FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS.
Order denying motion for relief from automatic stay—Question of f-
nality.—Bankruptcy court's order unreservedly denying relief from auto-
matic stay of creditor debt-collection efforts outside bankruptcy forum,
see 11 U. S. C. § 362(a), is fnal and immediately appealable under 28
U. S. C. § 158(a). Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, p. 35.
FIRST AMENDMENT. See Constitutional Law.
FOURTH AMENDMENT. See Bivens Actions.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH. See Constitutional Law.
HAGUE CONVENTION ON CIVIL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL
CHILD ABDUCTION.
“Habitual residence” under Hague Convention—Standard of review.—
Under Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduc-
tion, a child's “habitual residence” depends on totality of circumstances
specifc to case, not on categorical requirements such as an actual agree-
ment between parties. Monasky v. Taglieri, p. 68.
INCOME TAX. See Federal Tax Law.
INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION REMEDIES ACT. See
Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction.
IN TERNATIONA L CON V EN TIONS. See Hague Convention on
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
LAW ENFORCEMENT. See Bivens Actions.
NUNC PRO TUNC. See Removal Jurisdiction.
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. See Attorney's Fees.
PENSION PLANS. See Removal Jurisdiction.

viii INDEX
PLEADING STANDARDS. See Employee Retirement Income Secu-
rit
y Act of 1974.
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. See Constitutional Law.
PUERTO RICO. See Removal Jurisdiction.
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FROM SUIT. See Bivens Actions.
REMOVAL JURISDICTION.
Injunction ordering payment of retirement pensions by Catholic
Church—Corporate identity of parochial schools.—Puerto Rico trial
court had no jurisdiction to issue payment and seizure orders after a pen-
sion benefts proceeding was removed to Federal District Court but before
proceeding was remanded back to Puerto Rico court; thus orders are void.
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, p. 57.
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS. See Federal Debt Collection Prac-
tices Act.
SUPREME COURT.
1. Notation of the death of Justice Stevens (retired), p. III.
VENUE. See Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction.
WORDS AND PHRASES.
“[E]xpenses.” 35 U. S. C. § 145. Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., p. 23.
“[H]abitual residence.” International Child Abduction Remedies Act,
22 U. S. C. § 9001 et seq. Monasky v. Taglieri, p. 68.

TABLE OF CA SES REPORTED
(Vol. 589 U. S., Part 1)
Notes:
This volume provides the permanent United States Reports citation for
all reported cases. Cases reported before page 901 are those decided
with opinions of the Court or decisions per curiam. Cases reported on
page 901 et seq. are those in which orders were entered. Although the
Table of Cases Reported does not list orders denying a petition for writ
of certiorari, such orders are included chronologically in this volume.
The syllabus in a case constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court
but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience
of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200
U. S. 321, 337 (1906).
A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in a reported case, and who
were members of the Court's Bar at the time the case was argued, are
included in the United States Reports along with the Court's opinion in
the case.
Page
A. v. Leff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032,1101
Abshire v. Louisiana Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections . . . . 1161
Acevedo Feliciano; Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. 57
Adams v. Calhoun Cty., Mich. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
Adams; Carney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
Adams v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Adams v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118,1198
Addison v. Family and Social Servs. Admin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Addison v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Adebowale v. Wolf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Adelman v. Root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Adger; Cleveland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Adventist Health System/Sunbelt Inc.; Konieczko v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l 1119
Ahmed, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Alabama; Young v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Alessio v. United Airlines, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Allen; Bussey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
ix

x T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Allen v. Pennsylvania .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Arizona; McKinney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139,1067
Associate Judge, Circuit Ct. of Ill., Cook Cty.; Curry v. . . . . . . 913,1057
Attorney General; Biton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Attorney General.; Geimah v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Alliance for Open Society Int'l; Agency for Int'l Development v. 1119
Al Shimari; CACI Premier Technology, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1178
Amalgamated. For labor union, see name of trade.
AMC Networks Inc.; Sawicky v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913,1162
American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc.; Barr v. . . . . . . . . . 1127
American Family Ins. Co.; Jammal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1188
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200
Amerson v. U. S. Bankruptcy Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Ammiyhuwd v. Pompeo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Anderson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Andrews v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247
Anyanwu v. Barr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Apex Reporting Group, Inc.; Wilson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Appel, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Appellate Div., Super. Ct. of Cal., San Mateo Cty.; Drevaleva v. 1128
Aranoff v. Aranoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Archer & White Sales, Inc.; Henry Schein, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Arizona v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1199
Arizona v. Sackler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Arizona Dept. of Public Safety; Caldwell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Arlotta v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Armour v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Armstrong, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Armstrong v. Doe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Armstrong v. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Armstrong v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907,1067
Armstrong v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Arris Int'l, Ltd. v. Iancu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Arucan v. Cambridge East Healthcare Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Arunachalam v. International Business Machines Corp. . . . . . . . . 1097
Arunachalam v. Pazuniak Law Offce, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Arunachalam v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901,1096,1097
Ashley, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Associate Judge, Circuit Ct. of Ill., Cook Cty.; Santiago v. . . . . . . 1196
Atkinson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Atlantic Coast Pipeline v. Cowpasture River Preserv. Assn. . . . . 1189
Atlantic Richfeld Co. v. Christian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Attorney General v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc. 1127
Attorney General; Anyanwu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xi
Page
Attorney General; Hango v. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Attorney General; Pereida v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126,1200
Baca; Colorado Dept. of State v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165,1178
Barr; Pereida v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126,1200
Barrone; Harnage v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165
Barrow v. Willis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Attorney General.; Nasrallah v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Attorney General; Ogunsula v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Attorney General; Pratt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1197
Attorney General v. Roane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Attorney General; Sankara v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Attorney General of Ark. v. Pharmaceutical Care Mgmt. Assn. 1127
Attorney General of Cal.; Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. 1200
Attorney General of Cal.; Thomas More Law Center v. . . . . . . . . 1200
Attorney General of Ga.; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Austin v. Oakland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Avery, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Azar; Rogero v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Babb v. Wilkie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164
Bachiller v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Baldwin; Strother v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Baltimore Wash. Medical Center, Inc.; Porter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Banca UBAE, S. p. A. v. Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Bandemer; Ford Motor Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164
Banicki; Ibeabuchi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Banister v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Bank, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
Bank Markazi v. Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Bank of America Corp.; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Bank of America Corp. v. Miami, Fla. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041
Barla; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Barnes v. Commission, Lawyer Discip., State Bar of Tex. . . . . . . 911
Barnes v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Barr; Anyanwu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Barr; Biton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Barr; Geimah v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Barr; Hango v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Barr; Nasrallah v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Barr; Ogunsula v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Barr; Pratt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1197
Barr v. Roane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Barr; Sankara v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909

xii T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Bartlett v. Pineda .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Batalla Vidal; McAleenan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041
Battles v. Rotz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Baxter v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
B. D. v. Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Servs. . . . . . . . 1130
Bracken, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915,1166
Briggs; United States v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066,1130
Britton-Harr, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Becerra; Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200
Becerra; Thomas More Law Center v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200
Beckwith; Green v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Bedgood v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Beeks v. HMC Assets, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Benavente v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Bergen Cty. Prosecutor's Offce; Moretti v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Berger; Meier v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Berkebile; Couture v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Bern; McLaurine v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Berry, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Bhagat v. Iancu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Biel; St. James School v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Biton v. Barr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Biton v. United Airlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Biton v. Verrilli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Black v. Life Unlimited, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Blaher, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Bleau, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Blythe, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1176
BNSF R. Co. v. EEOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Board of Ed. of the Township of Teaneck; H. F. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Bonnell, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Bonnyman; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Booking.com B. V.; United States Patent and Trademark Offce v. 1055
Booth v. Nissan North America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Boyd v. California Public Util. Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200
BP P. L. C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . 1040
Bracy; Crank v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Braithwaite v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Brascom, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Brawner, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Bray v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Brende v.
Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Bressi v. Gembic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Bridges v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xiii
Page
Brockington v. Saul .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247
Brooks v. Gabriel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Brown v. Civil Serv. Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Brown v. Richmond, Va. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Brown v. Saul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Brown v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011,1078,1189
Brown v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Bruner, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Brunson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914,1119
Bryan, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Bryant, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914,1119
Bryant v. Department of Ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Bryant; West v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Buchwald; Lasher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Buhannic, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Burke v. Raven Elec., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Burlington Cty. College; Dinnerstein v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Bussey v. Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Butler v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Byrd, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1178
Cabrera-Cosme v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
CACI Premier Technology, Inc. v. Al Shimari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1178
Calderon-Lopez, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1167
Caldwell v. Arizona Dept. of Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Caldwell; Seibert v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Calhoun Cty., Mich.; Adams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
California; Arizona v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1199
California; Moon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
California; Schwartzmiller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
California v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
California; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
California Public Util. Comm'n; Boyd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200
Cambridge East Healthcare Center; Arucan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Campbell v. Campbell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Campbell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Capri, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Caputo v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Carelton Courtyard; Petko v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
Cargill, Inc. v. Doe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130
Carney v. Adams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
Carr, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Carr; Moore v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Carswell v. E. Pihl & Son . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Carter, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014

xiv T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Carter v. Davis .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Charles, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915,1078
Collier, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Collins v. Daniels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Carter v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
Casteel, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058
Caswell v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Caterbone v. Lancaster City Bureau of Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Caterbone v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Catholic Foundation of the Diocese of Lafayette; Sonnier v. . . . . . 1172
Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Central States, S. E. & S. W. Areas, Health Funds; Harris v. . . . 1129
Cerf; Pattishall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Cervantes Valencia v. Davey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Chabot v. Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Champion Mortgage Co. of Tex.; Larson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Chance v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Chaney v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Chapman v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
Chatfeld v. League of Women Voters of Mich. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Cherry v. Simons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Chesapeake, Va.; Wilson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
Chi v. Stover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120
Chiafalo v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165,1178
Chicago, Ill. v. Fulton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Chodosh v. Palm Beach Park Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Christian; Atlantic Richfeld Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Christian v. Dadmun. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Circuit Ct. of Ky., Laurel Cty.; Reynolds v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
CITGO Asphalt Refning Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd. . . . . . 1013
City. See name of city.
Civil Serv. Comm'n; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Clarke; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Clarke; Meyers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Clarke; Yilmaz v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Clayborne v. Hansen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
Clayton; Stanford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247
Clearstream Banking S. A. v. Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Cleveland v. Adger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Click-To-Call Technologies, LP; Dex Media, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Click-To-Call Technologies, LP; Thryv, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Clopton v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
Cochrun v.
Dooley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Colgate Palmolive Co.; Norton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xv
Page
Collins v. Gonzalez .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
Collins; United States v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066,1130
Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165,1178
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. See Commissioner.
Consumer Financial Prot. Bur.; Seila Law LLC v. . . . 1031,1041,1101,1190
Corrections Commissioner. See name of commissioner.
Crank v. Bracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Credit Acceptance Corp.; Rajapakse v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.; Cunningham v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
Comcast Corp. v. National Assn., African American-Owned Media 1014
Comier, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Commissioner; Herndon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Commissioner; Nelson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Commissioner; Schneider v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Commissioner; Waltner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Commission, Lawyer Discip., State Bar of Tex.; Barnes v. . . . . . . 911
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n; Fejokwu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Commonwealth. See name of Commonwealth.
Conner v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Contra Costa Cty. Children and Family Servs. Bureau; K. S. v. 909
Contreras v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Converteam SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC . . . . . . . . . 1100
Conyers v. Wilkie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Cook v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902,909
Cook Cty., Ill.; Wolf v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1190
Cooks; Lucy v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Cooks v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Los Angeles Cty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Cooper v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
Corbitt v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
CoreCivic Correctional Center; Marzan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Corizon Correctional Health Care; Tucker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Corrigan; Gullett-El v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Coulter v. Paulisick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
County. See name of county.
Court of Claims of Ill.; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Court of Common Pleas of Pa., Union Cty.; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . 1164
Courtright, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Couture v. Berkebile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P. C.; Gurvey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Cowpasture River Preserv. Assn.; Atlantic Coast Pipeline v. . . . . 1189
Cowpasture River Preserv. Assn.; United States Forest Serv. v. 1189
Cox, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Cox v. Old Republic Nat. Title Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Cox v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012

xvi T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Crick v. Key .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Cruz, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Cunningham v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
Cunningham v. Washington Cty., Ore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
Curry v. Lopez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913,1057
Cutler v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
D. v. Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Servs. . . . . . . . . . 1130
Department of Homeland Security v. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. 1013,1041
Dadmun; Christian v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Dahlem v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
DAL Global Servs.; Pittman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Dallas Cty., Tex.; Kam v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Danforth; Delebreau v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
Daniel v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Daniels; Collins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Dannewitz, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Dardanelle School Dist.; Doe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Davey; Cervantes Valencia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Davis; Banister v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Davis v. Bank of America Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Davis; Bridges v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Davis; Carter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Davis; Clopton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
Davis; Daniel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Davis; Flint v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
Davis; Gardner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Davis; Harvin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Davis v. Kia Motors America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Davis; Merryman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Davis; Robertson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Davis; Sikes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Davis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173
Davis v. Vannoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Davis; Vernon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Davis; Washington v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Day-Petrano v. Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Dean v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
DeCagna; Xiao Qing Liu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
DeCoito v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
DeKalb Cty. Assistant Public Defenders; Phillips v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Delaware; Windsor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Delebreau v. Danforth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
Department of Ed.; Bryant v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xvii
Page
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam .
. . . . . . . . . . 1030
Department of Justice; Simon v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Department of the Army; Domingo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Department of the Fam. of the Commw. of P. R.; Soto Nieves v. 1096
Derringer v. Saenz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
DeSantis, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1197
Deutsche Bank AG; Trump v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co.; Powe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1197
Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Diarra v. New York, N. Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Diaz-Hinirio, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Diaz Palencia; Velasquez Perez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Dinnerstein v. Burlington Cty. College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Director of penal or correctional institution. See name or title
of director.
Disbarment, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
District Court. See U. S. District Court.
District Judge. See U. S. District Judge.
District of Columbia; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
District of Columbia Offce of Human Rights; McCrea v. . . . . . . . 1197
Dixit v. Singh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Doe; Armstrong v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Doe; Cargill, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130
Doe v. Dardanelle School Dist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Doe v. Federal Election Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Doe; Nestle USA, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130
Doe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Domingo v. Department of the Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Donahue v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126,1189
Donahue v. Superior Ct. of Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
Donate-Cardona v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Dongarra v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Dooley; Cochrun v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Dore; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120
Douse v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Doyle, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043
Drake v. Parish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Drevaleva v. Appellate Div., Super. Ct. of Cal., San Mateo Cty. 1128
Ducey; Taebel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Duhart v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Du Ju v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Dummert v. Ngo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Durban, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Duriso v. West Gulf Maritime Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118

xviii T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Dutton v. McCrea .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Eaton, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Eccleston, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Eccleston v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Edmonds, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
Egland; House v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Elizabetas G. v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Enclarity Inc. v. Fulton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
English v. Roadhouse Holding Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Enow v. Foxwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
E. Pihl & Son; Carswell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
EEOC; BNSF R. Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Erwin, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Escourse-Westbrook v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101,1130
Everitt; Fuquen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Ex parte. See name of party.
Ezor, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
F. v. Board of Ed. of the Township of Teaneck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Fields, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102,1189
Florida; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Facebook, Inc.; Rope v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Fahring, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Family and Social Servs. Admin.; Addison v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Farmer; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Farthing, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
FDIC; Rodriguez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Federal Election Comm'n; Doe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Federal Nat. Mortgage Assn.; Higgins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
Fejokwu v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Feliciano; Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. . . . . . . . . . 57
Fenstermaker v. Halvorson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Fiat Chrysler; Ottah v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Finnegan, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
First Resolution Investment Corp.; Russell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Flint v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
Florida v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Florida; Jackson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Florida; Joseph v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Florida; Kahlow v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Florida; Littles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Florida; Palmer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164
Florida; Perez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
906

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xix
Page
Florida; Truesdale v. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011,1246
Florida; Viera v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Frakes; Nesbitt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906,1130
Florida Dept. of Children and Families; H. K. V. v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Ford, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Ford v. White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
Fordham Univ.; Rosenwasser v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. . . . . . . . . . . 1164
Forquer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Fortune v. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Fortune Society; Rochester v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Fowler v. Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Foxwell; Enow v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Francis, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Frank, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
French, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd.; CITGO Asphalt Refning Co. v. . . . . 1013
Fulton; Chicago, Ill. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Fulton; Enclarity Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Fulton v. Philadelphia, Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Fulton DeKalb Hospital Auth.; Oduok v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
Fuquen v. Everitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
G. v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Gabriel; Brooks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc.; Rubang v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Gardner v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Garrett; Pierce v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Gee v. June Medical Servs. L. L. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067,1164,1166
GE Energy Power Conversion v. Outokumpu Stainless USA . . . . 1100
Geimah v. Barr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Gembic; Bressi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
General Counsel of the Regents of the Univ. of Cal.; Touma v. . . . 1188
George, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Georgia; Florida v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Georgia; Rooney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Germany v. Philipp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
Ghelichkhani v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Gilbert v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Gillard v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Gilmore; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Glover; Kansas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Godert; Watson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120

xx T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Gomez; Stephens v. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Gonzalez; Collins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
Goodwin; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Gorman; Hayes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Gossage v. Merit Systems Protection Bd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Governor of Ariz.; Taebel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Governor of Del. v. Adams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
Governor of Ga.; Holland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Governor of Utah.; Schmidt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Goynes v. Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Grady Mem. Hospital; Oduok v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
Graham; Miller v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Grant v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910,1247
Green v. Beckwith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Greer v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Greiner v. Macomb Cty., Mich. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Griffn; Veteto v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
Grigalanz, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Guerrero Hernandez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121
Gullett-El v. Corrigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Gundy v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Gurvey v. Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Hadsell, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914,1125
Hale v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Hall, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Hall; Day-Petrano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Halvorson; Fenstermaker v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Hamilton, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Hamman, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Hango v. Barr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Hannah, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1197
Hanover, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Hansen; Clayborne v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
Harnage v. Barrone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165
Harris, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1178
Harris v. Central States, S. E. & S. W. Areas, Health Funds . . . . 1129
Harris v. McCumsey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Harsay v. University of Kan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Harvey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Harvin v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Hauser; Helm v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Hawaii State Judiciary; Yamano v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Hayes v. Gorman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xxi
Page
Head v. United States .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Hebdon; Thompson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
HEB Grocery Co., LP; Salazar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Helm v. Hauser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Helms v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Hepp; Reynolds v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Herb Chambers 1186, Inc.; Kersey v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Herbert; Parron v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Herbert; Schmidt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Hernandez v. Mesa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,1013
Hernandez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121
Herndon v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Herr; Santa v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Herrera v. Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Herrera v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Herrin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Hettinga v. Loumena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
H. F. v. Board of Ed. of the Township of Teaneck . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Hicks, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Higgins v. Federal Nat. Mortgage Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Hill; Santiago v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
Hing Wong, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Hinkson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
H. K. V. v. Florida Dept. of Children and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
HMC Assets, LLC; Beeks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912,1032
Holland v. Kemp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Holley; Wright v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Hood; Hudson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Hood; Raimondo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1188
Hospital Espanol Auxilio Mutuo de P. R., Inc.; Silva-Ramirez v. 1172
Hot Water Man; Linh Thi Minh Tran v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Hotze Health Wellness Center Int'l One, LLC, In re . . . . . . . . . . 1043
House v. Egland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Householder v. Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Howard v. San Diego Cty. Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117
Howell v. Southerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
HSBC Holdings PLC v. Picard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Huang v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Huang v. Pai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.; Xiaohua Huang v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Hudson v. Hood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Humbert v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902

xxii T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Hungary v. Simon .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
Illinois; Peters v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905,1030,1101
Jackson Masonry, LLC.; Ritzen Group, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,1032
Jander; Retirement Plans Comm. of IBM v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,1014
Johnson v. Inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Huntington Ingalls, Inc.; Kirkland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Hutchinson v. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Iancu; Arris Int'l, Ltd. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Iancu; Bhagat v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Ibeabuchi v. Banicki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Illinois; Adams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Illinois; Cutler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Illinois; Elizabetas G. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Illinois; Gillard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Inch; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Inch; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Inch; Marr v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Inch; Owens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Inch; Raghubir v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Inch; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117
Inch; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Indiana; Addison v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Indiana; Kaushal v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
ING Bank N. V.; NuStar Energy Servs., Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Inservco Ins. Servs.; Roberts v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Institutions for Life; Rollins v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. Sulyma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
International. For labor union, see name of trade.
International Business Machines Corp.; Arunachalam v. . . . . . . . 1097
Jackson v. Barla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Jackson v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Jackson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
James, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Jammal v. American Family Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1188
Jaye v. Oak Knoll Village Condominium Owners Assn., Inc. . . . . . 1096
Jefferson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Jefferson v. Supreme Ct. of Ga. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165
Jefferson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Jenkins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Jimenez; Scott v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Johnson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Johnson v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Johnson v. Court of Claims of Ill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Johnson v. Gilmore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
910

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xxiii
Page
Johnson; Robinson v. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.; Wazney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161,1246
June Medical Servs. L. L. C. v. Gee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067,1164,1166
Kim; Peters v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Johnson v. Saul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247
Johnson v. Severson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Johnson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031,1078
Johnston, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Joiner v. Sutton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Jones v. Bonnyman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Jones v. Goodwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Jones v. Inch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Jones v. Kentucky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Jones v. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Jones v. Wetzel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
Jones v. Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Joseph v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Joyner; Sheftall v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Ju v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Judge, Circuit Ct. of Ala., Montgomery Cty.; Veteto v. . . . . . . . . . 1128
Judge, Criminal Ct. for Sullivan Cty., Tenn.; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Judge, Superior Ct. of Ariz., Maricopa Cty.; Bartlett v. . . . . . . . . 904
June Medical Servs. L. L. C. v. Russo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200
Kahlow v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Kallis; Metcalf v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Kallis; Millis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Kam v. Dallas Cty., Tex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Kam v. Peyton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Kansas v. Glover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Kaul, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Kaur v. Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Kaushal v. Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Keita v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121
Kelly v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079,1121
Kemp; Holland v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Kentucky; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Servs.; N. B. D. v. . . . . 1130
Kersey v. Herb Chambers 1186, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Key; Crick v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Keyes, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Khan v.
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Kia Motors America, Inc.; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Kilroy; In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913

xxiv T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
King, In re .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
King v. District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
King v. Neall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Kinney v. Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Kirby; McIntosh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Kirkland v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Klein; Shields v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Klemm; Rotkiske v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
K. N. v. Montana Dept. of Public Health and Human Servs. . . . 909,1101
Knochel v. Mihaylo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1199
Konieczko v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Kossie, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914,1201
Kouyate v. United States Customs and Border Protection . . . . . . 1097
Kretser, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043
K. S. v. Contra Costa Cty. Children and Family Servs. Bureau . . 909
K. V. v. Florida Dept. of Children and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Kwasnik, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1176
Labor Union. See name of trade.
Lamprell v. Stuckey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Lancaster City Bureau of Police; Caterbone v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Land of Lincoln Mut. Health Ins. Co. v. United States . . . . . . . 912,1057
Lang, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Langston v. Missouri Bd. of Probation and Parole . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
La Rose; Stoutamire v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Larry, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Larson v. Champion Mortgage Co. of Tex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Larson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Larson v. Pacheco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Lasher v. Buchwald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Lasher v. Nebraska State Bd. of Pharmacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
Lasher v. Stavis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
Laventure v. United Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Law, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
Law Offces of Nina Ringgold, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102,1201
League of Women Voters of Mich.; Chatfeld v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Lee v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1190
Leff; T. A. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032,1101
Legrier v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Leonard, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1167
Lepre v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905,1057
Levy Gardens Partners 2007, L. P. v. Lewis Title Co., Inc. . . . . . 1079
Lewis v. Farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Lewis v. Lewis' Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Lewis; Mutond v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xxv
Page
Lewis v. Newburgh Housing Auth. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Lewis v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099,1163
Lewis; Weeks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909,1068
Lewis' Estate; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Lewis Title Co., Inc.; Levy Gardens Partners 2007, L. P. v. . . . . . 1079
Libby, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Life Unlimited, Inc.; Black v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Lin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Linear Controls, Inc.; Peterson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Linh Thi Minh Tran v. Stan the Hot Water Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Littles v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165
Liu v. DeCagna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Liu v. SEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041
Lloyd v. Presby's Inspired Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Logan v. Windsor, N. Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Lomax v. Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031,1190
Longmire v. Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP 1130
Lopez; Curry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913,1057
Louisiana; Dahlem v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
Louisiana; Hutchinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Louisiana Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections; Abshire v. . . . . 1161
Loumena; Hettinga v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
Love, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Lovett v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Lu v. Stanford Univ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Lucid Energy, Inc.; Rivera Rosado v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908,1200
Lucy v. Cooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Ludwick; Schreiber v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Lundy, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
Lussy, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102,1247
Lynch, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121,1177
Maalouf v. Praetorian Ins. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Macomb Cty., Mich.; Greiner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Macy's, Inc.; Mitchell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Madrid; Torres v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Maehr v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Magistrate Ct. of Troup Cty., Ga.; Stone v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Mahally; Wojnarowski v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Maine Community Health Options v. United States . . . . . . . . . 912,1056
Makdessi, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043,1189
Malachowski v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Manasquan Savings Bank; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030

xxvi T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Maricopa Cty. Attorney's Offce; Taebel v. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Marr v. Inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Martin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Martinez; Ombe v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Maryland; Kaur v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Marzan v. CoreCivic Correctional Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Massachusetts; Lomax v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Matsura v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1195
Matthews; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Mattison, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
May, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
May v. Wilkie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore; BP P. L. C. v. . . . . . . . . . . 1040
Mazars USA, LLP; Trump v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079,1120
McAleenan v. Batalla Vidal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041
McAleenan v. Vidal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
McBride, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
McCants v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
McCarthren v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
McCormick v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
McCrea v. District of Columbia Offce of Human Rights . . . . . . . . 1197
McCrea; Dutton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
McCumsey; Harris v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
McDonald, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043
McFadden; McGee v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
McGee v. McFadden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
McGinley; Spence v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
McGirt v. Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119,1178,1200
McGuire v. St. Louis Cty., Mo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247
McIntosh v. Kirby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
McKinney v. Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139,1067
McLaurine v. Bern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
McLeod, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
McNeil, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
McNeil v. Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117
Meier v. Berger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Mendoza v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Mergenthaler v. Osekavage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Merit Systems Protection Bd.; Gossage v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Merryman v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Mesa; Hernandez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,1013
Metcalf v. Kallis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Meyers v. Clarke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Meyers v. Swiney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xxvii
Page
Miami, Fla.; Bank of America Corp. v. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041
Mickens; Wimbush v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909,1196
Mitchell, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043,1163
Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912,1057
Montana Dept. of Public Health and Human Servs.; K. N. v. . . 909,1101
Montana Dept. of Revenue; Espinoza v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101,1130
Michigan; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Miguel Perez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Mihaylo; Knochel v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1199
Miles; Munt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Miller v. Graham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Milliman v. Randall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Millis v. Kallis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Mims v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Minaya v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041
Minh Tran v. Stan the Hot Water Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Missouri Bd. of Probation and Parole; Langston v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Mitchell v. Macy's, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Mnuchin; Sagar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Monasky v. Taglieri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,1042
Monsegue v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct.; Ford Motor Co. v. . . . . . . . . . . 1164
Montgomery v. Walgreen Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Moon v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Moore v. Carr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Morales, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Moran, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Mordaga; Moretti v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Moretti v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor's Offce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Moretti v. Mordaga. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Morgan v. Morgan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Morgan; Stoutamire v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Morris v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165
Morrissey-Berru; Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Morrow v. West Central Ga. Workforce Development Corp. . . . . . 1129
Mua v. O'Neal Firm, LLP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
Munt v. Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Munt v. Roy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Mutond v. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
Myles v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117
N. v. Montana Dept. of Public Health and Human Servs. . . . . . 909,1101
NantKwest, Inc.; Peter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Narvaez, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Nasrallah v. Barr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030

xxviii T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
NAACP; Trump v. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013,1041
National Assn., African American-Owned Media; Comcast Corp. v. 1014
National R. Passenger Corp.; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC; Larson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
N. B. D. v. Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Servs. . . . . . 1130
Neal; Taylor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Neall; King v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Neall; Xiao-Ying Yu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909,1118
Nebraska; Goynes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Nebraska; McNeil v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117
Nebraska State Bd. of Pharmacy; Lasher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
Nelson v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Nelson; Smeaton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Nelson v. Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
Nesbitt v. Frakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906,1130
Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130
Nevada; Thomas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Nevels v. Piggly Wiggly Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Newburgh Housing Auth.; Lewis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
New Jersey Dept. of Labor & Workforce Dev.; Osbourne v. . . . . . 911
New Mexico; Texas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911,1032,1130,1177
Newsome v. RSL Funding, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
New York; Caswell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
New York; Department of Homeland Security v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173
New York, N. Y.; Diarra v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
New York, N. Y.; New York State Rife & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. 911,1013
New York State Lottery; Rivas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
New York State Rife & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. New York, N. Y. . 911,1013
Ngo; Dummert v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Nicassio v. Viacom Int'l, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247
Nieves v. Department of the Family of the Commonwealth of P. R. 1096
Nissan North America, Inc.; Booth v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
North Carolina; Armstrong v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Norton v. Colgate Palmolive Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Nosair v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
NuStar Energy Servs., Inc. v. ING Bank N. V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Oak Knoll Village Condominium Owners Assn., Inc.; Jaye v. . . . . 1096
Oakland; Austin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Ocasio v. Perez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Oduok v. Fulton DeKalb Hospital Auth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
Oduok v. Grady Mem. Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
Ogunsula v. Barr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Ogunsula v. Staffng Now, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164
Ohio; Kinney v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xxix
Page
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst.; Chabot v. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst.; Householder v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901
Oklahoma; McGirt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119,1178,1200
Old Republic Nat. Title Ins. Co.; Cox v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Ombe v. Martinez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
O'Neal Firm, LLP.; Mua v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
Opati v. Republic of Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Oracle America, Inc.; Google LLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1066
Ornalez, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132
Ortiz-Marquez; Lomax v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031,1190
Osbourne v. New Jersey Dept. of Labor & Workforce Dev. . . . . . 911
Osekavage; Mergenthaler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Outokumpu Stainless USA; Converteam SAS v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Outokumpu Stainless USA; GE Energy Power Conversion v. . . . 1100
Owens v. Inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Owens v. University of S. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Pacheco; Larson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Packard, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Pai; Qihui Huang v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Palencia; Velasquez Perez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Palko; Rich v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Palm Beach Park Assn.; Chodosh v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Palmer v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164
Palomarez, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
Paramo; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Parish; Drake v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Parks, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1121,1246
Parks v. Stolc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Parks v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Parron v. Herbert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Patterson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043,1121
Patterson v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Pattishall v. Cerf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Paulisick; Coulter v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Pazuniak Law Offce, LLC; Arunachalam v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Pearson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Pearson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Pennsylvania; Allen v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Pennsylvania; Donahue v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126,1189
Pennsylvania; Lepre v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905,1057
Pennsylvania; Little Sisters of the Poor v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165
Pennsylvania; Trump v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165

xxx T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Pereida v. Barr .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126,1200
Perez v. Diaz Palencia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Perez v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906
Perez; Ocasio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Perez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Peters v. Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905,1030,1101
Peters v. Young Sun Kim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Peterson; Banca UBAE, S. p. A. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Peterson; Bank Markazi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Peterson; Central Bank of Iran v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Peterson; Clearstream Banking S. A. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Peterson v. Linear Controls, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014
Peterson; UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040
Petko v. Carelton Courtyard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
Petroleo Brasileiro S. A.-Petrobras v. Universities Superannuation
Scheme Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Peyton; Kam v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Pharmaceutical Care Mgmt. Assn.; Rutledge v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Philadelphia, Pa.; Fulton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
Philippe v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Phillips v. DeKalb Cty. Assistant Public Defenders . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Picard; HSBC Holdings PLC v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Piccone v. Supreme Ct. of Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Pierce v. Garrett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Piggly Wiggly Corp.; Nevels v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Pihl & Son; Carswell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Pima Cty., Ariz.; Webb v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Pineda; Bartlett v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Pittman v. DAL Global Servs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Pompeo; Ammiyhuwd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Porter v. Baltimore Wash. Medical Center, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Pouncy, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
Powe v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1197
Praetorian Ins. Co.; Maalouf v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Pratt v. Barr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1197
Presby's Inspired Life; Lloyd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
President of United States v. NAACP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013,1041
President of United States v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165
Pressley; Wells v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Price; Herrera v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Public.Resource.Org, Inc.; Georgia v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Puzey v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xxxi
Qihui Huang v. Pai .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Qing Liu v. DeCagna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Raburn; Rubio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
1246
1079
904
Raghubir, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014,1163
Raghubir v. Inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Raghubir v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Raimondo v. Hood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1188
Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Ram v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Rams Football Co., LLC v. St. Louis Regional Convention . . . . . 1012
Randall, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011,1166
Randall; Milliman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Randolph v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Rashid v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904,1101
Rauso v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Raven Elec., Inc.; Burke v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Rawnsley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Ray; Walton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Raymond v. Roy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Reddick v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Regents of Univ. of Cal.; Department of Homeland Security v. 1013,1041
Reina S. C., In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Rental Maintenance, Inc.; Robinson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Republic of Hungary v. Simon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
Republic of Sudan; Opati v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Retirement Plans Comm. of IBM v. Jander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,1014
Reynolds, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
Reynolds v. Circuit Ct. of Ky., Laurel Cty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Reynolds v. Hepp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Rhines; In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043
Rhines v. South Dakota Dept. of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Rhodes v. Swarth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
Rich v. Palko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Richards v. Vannoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Richmond, Va.; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,1032
Rivas v. New York State Lottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Rivera Cruz, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Rivera Rosado v. Lucid Energy, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908,1200
Roach v. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Roadhouse Holding Inc.; English v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Roane; Barr v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Roberson v. Rowlett Police Dept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Roberts, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915

xxxii T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Roberts v. Inservco Ins. Servs. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Roman, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914,1119
Rosa, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166,1201
Russell v. First Resolution Investment Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Russell; Wilson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Roberts v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173
Robertson v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Robinson v. Dore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120
Robinson v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Robinson v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Robinson v. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Robinson v. Rental Maintenance, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Robinson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Robinson v. Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Dix 1078
Rochester v. Fortune Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Rodriguez v. FDIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Rodriguez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Rodriguez Ornalez, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132
Rodriguez-Santana v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Rogero v. Azar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Rollins v. Institutions for Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago; Rosas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano . . 57
Romero, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Rooney v. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Root; Adelman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Rope v. Facebook, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Rosado v. Lucid Energy, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908,1200
Rosas v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Rosenwasser v. Fordham Univ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Rotkiske v. Klemm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Rotte v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247
Rotz; Battles v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Rowlett Police Dept.; Roberson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Roy; Munt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Roy; Raymond v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Rozberil; Scheib v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
RSL Funding, LLC; Newsome v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Rubang v. Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Rubang v. United Airlines, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
Rubin v. Sanchez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Rubio v. Raburn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Ruiz-Rivera., In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Rupak v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xxxiii
Page
Russo v. June Medical Servs. L. L. C. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Mgmt. Assn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
S. v. Contra Costa Cty. Children and Family Servs. Bureau . . . . . 909
Saul; Watson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910,1165
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Toole v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
SEC; Liu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041
Sackler; Arizona v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Saenz; Derringer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Sagar v. Mnuchin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
St. James School v. Biel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
St. Louis Cty., Mo.; McGuire v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247
St. Louis Regional Convention; Rams Football Co., LLC v. . . . . . 1012
Salazar v. HEB Grocery Co., LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Salerno, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Salinas v. United States R. Retirement Bd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127,1200
Samuels; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Sanchez; Rubin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
San Diego Cty. Counsel; Howard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117
Sang Hing Wong, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Sankara v. Barr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Santa v. Herr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Santiago v. Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
Saul; Brockington v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247
Saul; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Saul; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247
Saul; Valent v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Saul; Washington v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Sawicky v. AMC Networks Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913,1162
Schafer, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043,1102
Scheib v. Rozberil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Schmidt v. Herbert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Schneider v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Schreiber v. Ludwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Schwartzmiller v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Scott v. Jimenez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Scranage v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Secretary of Health and Human Servs.; Rogero v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Secretary of State; Ammiyhuwd v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Secretary of Treasury; Sagar v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Babb v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Conyers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; May v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910

xxxiv T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Seibert v. Caldwell .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Prot. Bur. . . . 1031,1041,1101,1190
Severson; Johnson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Sharbutt v. Vasquez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Shaw v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Sheftall v. Joyner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Shepard v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Sheppard v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119,1163
Shields v. Klein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Shimari; CACI Premier Technology, Inc. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1178
Shipman, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Shular v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Sikes v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Silberman, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Silva-Ramirez v. Hospital Espanol Auxilio Mutuo de P. R., Inc. 1172
Simmons v. Vannoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Simon v. Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Simon; Republic of Hungary v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
Simons; Cherry v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Simpson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
Sinceno v. Vannoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Singh; Dixit v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Sloop; White v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
Smeaton v. Nelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Smiley v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Smith, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014,1032,1177,1178
Smith v. Inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1117
Smith; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Smith v. Manasquan Savings Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Smith v. Matthews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Smith v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
Smith v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Smith v. Wilkie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Sneller, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Solomon v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Sonnier v. Catholic Foundation of the Diocese of Lafayette . . . . . 1172
Soto Nieves v. Department of the Fam. of the Commw. of P. R. 1096
South Dakota Dept. of Corrections; Rhines v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Southerland; Howell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Spence, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914,1119
Spence v. McGinley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Spencer, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1178
Stacy v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Staffng Now, Inc.; Ogunsula v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xxxv
Page
Stanford v. Clayton .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247
Stanford Univ.; Lu v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Stan the Hot Water Man; Linh Thi Minh Tran v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Staszak, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058,1189
Stavis; Lasher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
Steele, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080,1246
Stephens v. Gomez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Stewart, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914,1077
Stewart; Watson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Stolc; Parks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904
Stone, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Stone v. Magistrate Ct. of Troup Cty., Ga. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Stoutamire v. La Rose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
Stoutamire v. Morgan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Stover; Chi v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120
Strother v. Baldwin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Stuckey; Lamprell v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Stucks, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
Sudan; Opati v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Sulyma; Intel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1057
Summerhays v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Sun Kim; Peters v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Superior Ct. of Cal., Los Angeles Cty.; Cooks v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Superior Ct. of Cal., San Bernardino Cty.; Yaney v. . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Superior Ct. of Pa.; Donahue v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
Supreme Ct. of Ga.; Jefferson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165
Supreme Ct. of Pa.; Piccone v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Surles, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
Sutton, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1190
Sutton; Joiner v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Swarth; Rhodes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
Swiney; Meyers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
T. A. v. Leff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032,1101
Taebel v. Ducey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Taebel v. Maricopa Cty. Attorney's Offce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Taglieri; Monasky v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,1042
Tamez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Tanvir; Tanzin v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078,1130
Tanzin v. Tanvir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078,1130
Tate; Viola v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909,1079
Taylor v. Neal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Tchibassa, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
TCT Mobile Int'l Ltd., In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Texas; California v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166

xxxvi T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Texas; Lovett v. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Texas v. New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911,1032,1130,1177
Texas; Randolph v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Texas; Roberts v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173
Texas; Sheppard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119,1163
Texas; United States House of Representatives v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
Thi Minh Tran v. Stan the Hot Water Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Thomas v. Court of Common Pleas of Pa., Union Cty. . . . . . . . . . 1164
Thomas v. Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Thomas v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200
Thompson v. Hebdon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Thuraissigiam; Department of Homeland Security v. . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Tiburcio v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Toole v. Wilkie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Torres, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1197
Torres v. Madrid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Touma v. General Counsel of the Regents of the Univ. of Cal. . . . 1188
Town. See name of town.
Townsend v. Vasquez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Tran v. Stan the Hot Water Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127
Transit; Nelson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1189
Trudeau v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Truesdale v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011,1246
Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079,1120
Trump v. NAACP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013,1041
Trump v. Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165
Trump v. Vance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120,1200
Tucker v. Corizon Correctional Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 908
Tuttle v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Tweed, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Ugwuonye, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Uncapher, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102
United. For labor union. See name of trade.
United Airlines; Biton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
United Airlines, Inc.; Alessio v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
United Airlines, Inc.; Rubang v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1101
UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040
United Nations; Laventure v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
U. S. Bank N. A.; Thole v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
U. S. Bankruptcy Court; Amerson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xxxvii
Page
United States Customs and Border Protection; Kouyate v. .
. . . . 1097
U. S. District Court; Armstrong v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907,1096,1097
U. S. District Court; Arunachalam v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901,1097
U. S. District Court; Butler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
U. S. District Court; Corbitt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
U. S. District Court; Patterson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
U. S. District Court; Raghubir v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
U. S. District Court; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
U. S. District Court; Viola v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
U. S. District Court; Williams v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
U. S. District Judge; Hudson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
U. S. District Judge; Lasher v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
U. S. District Judge; Raimondo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1188
United States Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Preserv. Assn. 1189
United States House of Representatives v. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
United States Patent and Trademark Offce v. Booking.com B. V. 1055
United States R. Retirement Bd.; Salinas v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127,1200
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd.; Petroleo Brasileiro
S. A.-Petrobras v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
University of Kan.; Harsay v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
University of S. C.; Owens v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Upshaw v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Utah; Fowler v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Utah; Velasquez v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
V. v. Florida Dept. of Children and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Valencia v. Davey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Valent v. Saul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Valentine v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Vance; Trump v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120,1200
Vanderburg, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Vannoy; Davis v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Vannoy; Richards v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Vannoy; Simmons v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Vannoy; Sinceno v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Vannoy; Wills v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130
Vasquez; Sharbutt v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100
Vasquez; Townsend v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
Vazquez v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
Velasquez v. Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Velasquez Perez v. Diaz Palencia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Vernon v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Verrilli; Biton v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032
Veteto, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
Veteto v. Griffn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128

xxxviii T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Viacom Int'l, Inc.; Nicassio v. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1247
Vidal; McAleenan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014,1041
Viera v. Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Villalona v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
Viola v. Tate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909,1079
Viola v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Virginia; Armstrong v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Virginia; Brown v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
Virginia; Fortune v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119
Walgreen Co.; Montgomery v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Walker v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042,1066,1118,1121,1173
Waltner v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Walton v. Ray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Walton; United States v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Dix; Robinson v. 1078
Warren, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1080
Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP; Longmire v. 1130
Washington; Chiafalo v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165,1178
Washington v. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Washington; Du Ju v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Washington; Roach v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129
Washington v. Saul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Washington Cty., Ore.; Cunningham v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
Wasson v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120
Watkins v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031
Watson v. Godert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1120
Watson v. Saul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910,1165
Watson v. Stewart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
Watt, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1197
Wazney v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161,1246
Wazney v. Wazney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
Webb v. Pima Cty., Ariz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Webster v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Weeks v. Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909,1068
Wei Zhou, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
Wells v. Pressley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.; Forquer v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.; Helms v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200
West v. Bryant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
West Central Ga. Workforce Development Corp.; Morrow v. . . . . 1129
West Gulf Maritime Assn.; Duriso v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
West Virginia; Wright v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Wetzel; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1196
White; Ford v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131

T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
xxxix
Page
White v. Sloop .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099
Williams, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912,914,1058
Wimbush, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032,1131
Xiao-Ying Yu v. Neall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909,1118
Yamano v. Hawaii State Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
White v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011,1056,1100
Wilkie; Babb v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164
Wilkie; Conyers v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Wilkie; May v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042
Wilkie; Smith v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
Wilkie; Toole v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Wilkinson, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Williams v. California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
Williams v. Inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Williams v. National R. Passenger Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Williams v. Paramo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Williams v. Samuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Williams v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1055
Williams v. U. S. District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905
Willis; Barrow v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096
Wills v. Vannoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130
Wilmore v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1077
Wilson v. Apex Reporting Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1078
Wilson v. Chesapeake, Va. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1125
Wilson v. Russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
Wimbush v. Mickens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909,1196
Windsor v. Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Windsor, N. Y.; Logan v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Wisconsin; Jones v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1246
Wojnarowski v. Mahally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Wolf; Adebowale v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1201
Wolf v. Cook Cty., Ill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1190
Wong, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1068
Woodberry v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1056
Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.; Barnes v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Worthington, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
Wright v. Holley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1126
Wright v. West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1097
Wroten, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co.; Kaneka Corp. v. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1198
Xiaohua Huang v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
Xiao Qing Liu v. DeCagna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1079
Xing Lin v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902
Yaney v. Superior Ct. of Cal., San Bernardino Cty. . . . . . . . . . . . 907

xl T
ABLE OF CASES REPORTED
Page
Yilmaz v. Clarke.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
Zhou, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131
Zimmermann, In re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913,1068,1161
Young v. Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
Young; Brende v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1118
Young Sun Kim; Peters v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1067
Yu v. Neall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909,1118

CASES ADJUDGED
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
AT
OCTOBER TERM, 2019
THOMPSON et al. v. HEBDON, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE ALASKA PUBLIC
OFFICES COMMISSION, et al.
on petition for writ of certiorari to the united
states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 19–122. Decided November 25, 2019
Alaska law limits the amount an individual can contribute to a candidate
for political offce, or to an election-oriented group other than a political
party, to $500 per year. Alaska Stat. § 15.13.070(b)(1). Petitioners
Aaron Downing and Jim Crawford are Alaska residents who wanted
to contribute more than the permitted amount. They sued members
of the Alaska Public Offces Commission, contending that Alaska's
individual-to-candidate and individual-to-group contribution limits vio-
late the First Amendment. The District Court upheld the contribution
limits and the Ninth Circuit agreed. 909 F. 3d 1027. The Ninth Circuit
analyzed the contribution limits based on a standard established in Cir-
cuit precedent, although the court acknowledged that this Court's deci-
sions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310, and
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'n, 572 U. S. 185, “created some
doubt as to the continuing vitality of [this] standard.” 909 F. 3d, at
1034, n. 2. In upholding the challenged contribution limits, the Ninth
Circuit declined to apply this Court's precedent in Randall v. Sorrell,
548 U. S. 230, the last time the Court considered a non-aggregate contri-
bution limit.
1

2 TH
OMPSON v. HEBDON
Per Curiam
Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for the Ninth
Circuit
to revisit whether Alaska's contribution limits are consistent
with this Court's First Amendment precedents. In Randall, the Court
invalidated a Vermont law that limited individual contributions on a per-
election basis to: $400 to a candidate for Governor, Lieutenant Governor,
or other statewide offce; $300 to a candidate for state senator; and $200
to a candidate for state representative. The plurality observed that
“contribution limits that are too low can . . . harm the electoral process
by preventing challengers from mounting effective campaigns against
incumbent offceholders, thereby reducing democratic accountability,”
and proving “an obstacle to the very electoral fairness it seeks to pro-
mote.” 548 U. S., at 248–249. Randall identifed several “danger
signs” about Vermont's law that warranted closer review, id., at 249, and
the Court fnds Alaska's limit on campaign contributions shares some of
those characteristics. First, Alaska's $500 individual-to-candidate con-
tribution limit is “substantially lower than . . . the limits [the Court has]
previously upheld.” Id., at 253; see Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Govern-
ment PAC, 528 U. S. 377. Second, Alaska's individual-to-candidate con-
tribution limit is “substantially lower than . . . comparable limits in other
States,” Randall, 548 U. S., at 253, and applies uniformly to all state
offces, making it the most restrictive in the country in this regard.
Third, Alaska's $500 contribution limit is not adjusted for infation and
is the same as it was in 1996. 1996 Alaska Sess. Laws ch. 48, § 10(b)(1).
Finally, in Randall, the plurality noted that Vermont had failed to pro-
vide “any special justifcation that might warrant a contribution limit so
low.” 548 U. S., at 261. The parties dispute whether there are perti-
nent special justifcations here. In light of the foregoing, the case is
remanded for the Court of Appeals to revisit whether Alaska's contri-
buti on li mits are consistent w ith the Cour t's First Amendment
precedents.
Certiorari granted; 909 F. 3d 1027, vacated and remanded.
Per Curiam.
Alaska law limits the amount an individual can contribute
to a candidate for political offce, or to an election-oriented
group other than a political party, to $500 per year. Alaska
Stat. § 15.13.070(b)(1) (2018). Petitioners Aaron Downing
and Jim Crawford are Alaska residents. In 2015, they con-
tributed the maximum amounts permitted under Alaska law
to candidates or groups of their choice, but wanted to con-
tribute more. They sued members of the Alaska Public

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 1 (2019)
3
Per Curiam
Offces Commission, contending that Alaska's individual-to-
candidate
and individual-to-group contribution limits violate
the First Amendment.
The District Court upheld the contribution limits and the
Ninth Circuit agreed. 909 F. 3d 1027 (2018); Thompson v.
Dauphinais, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1023 (Alaska 2016). Applying
Circuit precedent, the Ninth Circuit analyzed whether the
contribution limits furthered a “suffciently important state
interest” and were “closely drawn” to that end. 909 F. 3d,
at 1034 (quoting Montana Right to Life Assn. v. Eddleman,
343 F. 3d 1085, 1092 (2003); internal quotation marks omit-
ted). The court recognized that our decisions in Citizens
United v. Federal Election Comm'n and McCutcheon v. Fed-
eral Election Comm'n narrow “the type of state interest
that justifes a First Amendment intrusion on political con-
tributions” to combating “actual quid pro quo corruption or
its appearance.” 909 F. 3d, at 1034 (citing McCutcheon v.
Federal Election Comm'n, 572 U. S. 185, 206–207 (2014); Cit-
izens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310,
359–360 (2010)). The court below explained that under its
precedent in this area “the quantum of evidence necessary
to justify a legitimate state interest is low: the perceived
threat must be merely more than `mere conjecture' and `not
. . . illusory.' ” 909 F. 3d, at 1034 (quoting Eddleman, 343
F. 3d, at 1092; some internal quotation marks omitted). The
court acknowledged that “McCutcheon and Citizens United
created some doubt as to the continuing vitality of [this]
standard,” but noted that the Ninth Circuit had recently
reaffrmed it. 909 F. 3d, at 1034, n. 2.
After surveying the State's evidence, the court concluded
that the individual-to-candidate contribution limit “ `focuses
narrowly on the state's interest,' `leaves the contributor free
to affliate with a candidate,' and `allows the candidate to
amass suffcient resources to wage an effective campaign,' ”
and thus survives First Amendment scrutiny. Id., at 1036
(quoting Eddleman, 343 F. 3d, at 1092; alterations omitted);

4 TH
OMPSON v. HEBDON
Per Curiam
see also 909 F. 3d, at 1036–1039. The court also found the
i
ndividual-to-group contribution limit valid as a tool for pre-
venting circumvention of the individual-to-candidate limit.
See id., at 1039–1040.
In reaching those conclusions, the Ninth Circuit declined
to apply our precedent in Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U. S. 230
(2006), the last time we considered a non-aggregate contribu-
tion limit. See 909 F. 3d, at 1037, n. 5. In Randall, we
invalidated a Vermont law that limited individual contribu-
tions on a per-election basis to: $400 to a candidate for Gover-
nor, Lieutenant Governor, or other statewide offce; $300 to
a candidate for state senator; and $200 to a candidate for
state representative. Justice Breyer's opinion for the
plurality observed that “contribution limits that are too low
can . . . harm the electoral process by preventing challengers
from mounting effective campaigns against incumbent of-
ficeholders, thereby reducing democratic accountability. ”
548 U. S., at 248–249; see also id., at 264–265 (Kennedy, J.,
concurring in judgment) (agreeing that Vermont's contribu-
tion limits violated the First Amendment); id., at 265–
273 (Thomas, J., joined by Scalia, J., concurring in judgment)
(agreeing that Vermont's contribution limits violated the
First Amendment while arguing that such limits should
be subject to strict scrutiny). A contribution limit that is
too low can therefore “prove an obstacle to the very elec-
toral fairness it seeks to promote.” Id., at 249 (plurality
opinion).*
*The court below declined to consider Randall “because no opinion com-
manded a majority of the Court,” 909 F. 3d, at 1037, n. 5, instead relying
on its own precedent predating Randall by three years. Courts of Ap-
peals from ten Circuits have, however, correctly looked to Randall in re-
viewing campaign fnance restrictions. See, e. g., National Org. for Mar-
riage v. McKee, 649 F. 3d 34, 60–61 (CA1 2011); Ognibene v. Parkes, 671
F. 3d 174, 192 (CA2 2012); Preston v. Leake, 660 F. 3d 726, 739–740 (CA4
2011); Zimmerman v. Austin, 881 F. 3d 378, 387 (CA5 2018); McNeilly v.
Land, 684 F. 3d 611, 617–620 (CA6 2012); Illinois Liberty PAC v. Madigan,
904 F. 3d 463, 469–470 (CA7 2018); Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life,

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 1 (2019)
5
Per Curiam
In Randall, we identifed several “danger signs” about
V
ermont's law that warranted closer review. Ibid. Alas-
ka's limit on campaign contributions shares some of those
characteristics. First, Alaska's $500 individual-to-candidate
contribution limit is “substantially lower than . . . the limits
we have previously upheld.” Id., at 253. The lowest cam-
paign contribution limit this Court has upheld remains the
limit of $1,075 per two-year election cycle for candidates
for Missouri state auditor in 1998. Id., at 251 (citing Nixon
v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377 (2000)).
That limit translates to over $1,600 in today's dollars.
Alaska permits contributions up to 18 months prior to the
general election and thus allows a maximum contribution of
$1,000 over a comparable two-year period. Alaska Stat.
§ 15.13.074(c)(1). Accordingly, Alaska's limit is less than
two-thirds of the contribution limit we upheld in Shrink.
Second, Alaska's individual-to-candidate contribution limit
is “substantially lower than . . . comparable limits in other
States.” Randall, 548 U. S., at 253. Most state contribu-
tion limits apply on a per-election basis, with primary and
general elections counting as separate elections. Because
an individual can donate the maximum amount in both the
primary and general election cycles, the per-election contri-
bution limit is comparable to Alaska's annual limit and 18-
month campaign period, which functionally allow contribu-
tions in both the election year and the year preceding it.
Only fve other States have any individual-to-candidate
contribution limit of $500 or less per election: Colorado,
Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, and Montana. Colo. Const.,
Art. XXVIII, § 3(1)(b); 8 Colo. Code Regs. 1505–6, Rule
10.17.1(b)(2) (2019); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9–611(a)(5) (2017);
Inc. v. Swanson, 640 F. 3d 304, 319, n. 9 (CA8 2011), rev'd in part on
other grounds, 692 F. 3d 864 (2012) (en banc); Independence Inst. v. Wil-
liams, 812 F. 3d 787, 791 (CA10 2016); Alabama Democratic Con ference
v. Attorney Gen. of Ala., 838 F. 3d 1057, 1069–1070 (CA11 2016); Holmes
v. Federal Election Comm'n, 875 F. 3d 1153, 1165 (CADC 2017).

6 TH
OMPSON v. HEBDON
Per Curiam
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25–4153(a)(2) (2018 Cum. Supp.); Me. Rev.
St
at. Ann., Tit. 21–A, § 1015(1) (2018 Cum. Supp.); Mont.
Code Ann. §§ 13– 37–216(1)(a)(ii), (iii) (2017). Moreover,
Alaska's $500 contribution limit applies uniformly to all of-
fces, including Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Alaska
Stat. § 15.13.070(b)(1). But Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas,
Maine, and Montana all have limits above $500 for candidates
for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, making Alaska's law
the most restrictive in the country in this regard. Colo.
Const., Art. XXVIII, § 3(1)(a)(I); 8 Colo. Code Regs. 1505–6,
Rule 10.17.1(b)(1)(A); Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9–611(a)(1), (2);
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25–4153(a)(1); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21–
A, § 1015(1); Mont. Code Ann. § 13–37–216(1)(a)(i).
Third, Alaska's contribution limit is not adjusted for infa-
tion. We observed in Randall that Vermont's “failure to
index limits means that limits which are already suspiciously
low” will “almost inevitably become too low over time.” 548
U. S., at 261. The failure to index “imposes the burden of
preventing the decline upon incumbent legislators who may
not diligently police the need for changes in limit levels
to ensure the adequate fnancing of electoral challenges.”
Ibid. So too here. In fact, Alaska's $500 contribution limit
is the same as it was 23 years ago, in 1996. 1996 Alaska
Sess. Laws ch. 48, § 10(b)(1).
In Randall, we noted that the State had failed to provide
“any special justifcation that might warrant a contribution
l i mit so low. ” 548 U. S., at 261. The par ties dispute
whether there are pertinent special justifcations here.
In light of all the foregoing, the petition for certiorari is
granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated,
and the case is remanded for that court to revisit whether
Alaska's contribution limits are consistent with our First
Amendment precedents.
It is so ordered.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 1 (2019)
7
Statement of Ginsburg, J.
Statement of Justice Ginsburg.
I
do not oppose a remand to take account of Randall v.
Sorrell, 548 U. S. 230 (2006). I note, however, that Alaska's
law does not exhibit certain features found troublesome in
Vermont's law. For example, unlike in Vermont, political
parties in Alaska are subject to much more lenient con-
tr ibuti on l i mits than i ndiv idua l donors. Alaska St at.
§ 15.13.070(d) (2018); see Randall, 548 U. S., at 256–259.
Moreover, Alaska has the second smallest legislature in the
country and derives approximately 90 percent of its revenues
from one economic sector—the oil and gas industry. As the
District Court suggested, these characteristics make Alaska
“highly, if not uniquely, vulnerable to corruption in politics
and government.” Thompson v. Dauphinais, 217 F. Supp.
3d 1023, 1029 (Alaska 2016). “[S]pecial justifcation” of this
order may warrant Alaska's low individual contribution limit.
See Randall, 548 U. S., at 261.

8 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Syllabus
ROTKISKE v. KLEMM et al.
certiorari
to the united states court of appeals for
the third circuit
No. 18–328. Argued October 16, 2019—Decided December 10, 2019
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) authorizes private civil
actions against debt collectors who engage in certain prohibited prac-
tices. An FDCPA action must be brought “within one year from the
date on which the violation occurs.” 15 U. S. C. § 1692k(d). Respond-
ent Klemm & Associates (Klemm) sued petitioner Rotkiske to collect an
unpaid debt and attempted service at an address where Rotkiske no
longer lived. An individual other than Rotkiske accepted service.
Rotkiske failed to respond to the summons, and Klemm obtained a de-
fault judgment in 2009. Rotkiske claims that he frst learned of this
judgment in 2014 when his mortgage application was denied. He then
fled suit against Klemm, alleging that Klemm violated the FDCPA by
contacting him without lawful ability to collect. Klemm moved to dis-
miss the action as barred by the FDCPA's one-year statute of limita-
tions. As relevant here, Rotkiske argued for the application of a “dis-
covery rule” to delay the beginning of the limitations period until the
date that he knew or should have known of the alleged FDCPA vio-
lation. Relying on the statute's plain language, the District Court
rejected Rotkiske's approach and dismissed the action. The Third Cir-
cuit affrmed.
Held: Absent the application of an equitable doctrine, § 1692k(d)'s statute
of limitations begins to run when the alleged FDCPA violation occurs,
not when the violation is discovered. Pp. 12–16.
(a) The plain text of § 1692k(d) unambiguously sets the date of the
violation as the event that starts the FDCPA's one-year limitations pe-
riod. Rotkiske argues for the application of a general discovery rule
as a principle of statutory interpretation that, in effect, would read a
discovery provision into § 1692k(d). But adopting this approach would
require improper atextual supplementation of the statute. Such sup-
plementation is particularly inappropriate when, as here, Congress has
shown that it knows how to adopt the omitted language or provision.
See, e. g., 12 U. S. C. § 3416. Pp. 13–15.
(b) Rotkiske cannot rely on the application of an equitable, fraud-
specifc discovery rule to excuse his otherwise untimely fling. This
Court has noted the existence of decisions applying a discovery rule in
fraud cases, see, e. g., Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U. S. 633, 644, and

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 8 (2019)
9
Opinion of the Court
has characterized these decisions as applying an equity-based doctrine,
see
, e. g., California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ
Securities, Inc., 582 U. S. 497, 509–510. Rotkiske, however, neither
preserved this issue before the Third Circuit nor raised it in his petition
for certiorari. P. 15.
890 F. 3d 422, affrmed.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J.,
and Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ.,
joined. Sotomayor, J., fled a concurring opinion, post, p. 16. Ginsburg,
J., fled an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment,
post, p. 17.
Scott E. Gant argued the cause for petitioner. With him
on the briefs was Matthew B. Weisberg.
Shay Dvoretzky argued the cause for respondents. With
him on the brief were Jeffrey R. Johnson and Amanda K.
Rice.
Jonathan C. Bond argued the cause for the United States
as amicus curiae urging affrmance. With him on the briefs
were Solicitor General Francisco, Deputy Attorney General
Stewart, and Steven Y. Bressler.*
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) author-
izes private civil actions against debt collectors who engage
in certain prohibited practices. 91 Stat. 881, 15 U. S. C.
§ 1692k(a). An action under the FDCPA may be brought
“within one year from the date on which the violation oc-
*Stuart T. Rossman fled a brief for the National Consumer Law Center
as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Briefs of amicus curiae urging affrmance were fled for ACA Interna-
tional by Megan S. Ben'Ary; for the Mortgage Bankers Association et al.
by Elaine J. Goldenberg and Daryl Joseffer; for the National Creditors
Bar Association by Misha Tseytlin; and for Receivables Management As-
sociation International, Inc., by Donald S. Maurice, Jr.
Stu ar t Banne r fi led a br ief for Samuel L. Bray et a l. as ami ci
curiae.

10 ROTKISKE
v. KLEMM
Opinion of the Court
curs.” § 1692k(d). This case requires us to determine when
the
FDCPA's limitations period begins to run. We hold
that, absent the application of an equitable doctrine, the stat-
ute of limitations in § 1692k(d) begins to run on the date on
which the alleged FDCPA violation occurs, not the date on
which the violation is discovered.
I
A
In 1977, Congress enacted the FDCPA “to eliminate abu-
sive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure
that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive
debt collection practices are not competitively disadvan-
taged, and to promote consistent State action to protect con-
sumers against debt collection abuses. ” § 1692(e). The
FDCPA pursues these stated purposes by imposing affrma-
tive requirements on debt collectors and prohibiting a range
of debt-collection practices. §§ 1692b–1692j.
The FDCPA authorizes the Federal Trade Commission,
the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and other
federal agencies to enforce its provisions. § 1692l. The
FDCPA also authorizes private civil actions against debt col-
lectors. § 1692k(a). These private civil actions “may be
brought in any appropriate United States district court with-
out regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other
court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the
date on which the violation occurs.” § 1692k(d).
B
Petitioner Kevin Rotkiske failed to pay approximately
$1,200 in credit card debt.
1
His credit card company re-
1
Because this case comes to us from a decision granting a motion to
dismiss, we assume the truth of the facts alleged in Rotkiske's operative
complaint. See, e. g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U. S. 506, 508,
n. 1 (2002).

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 8 (2019)
11
Opinion of the Court
ferred the debt to respondent Klemm & Associates (Klemm)
for
collection.
2
In March 2008, Klemm sued Rotkiske, seek-
ing to collect the unpaid debt. Klemm attempted service at
an address where Rotkiske no longer lived, and a person
whose description did not match Rotkiske's accepted service
of the complaint. Klemm later withdrew the suit.
Klemm refled suit in January 2009, and a process server
attempted service at the same address. Once again, some-
one other than Rotkiske accepted service. Rotkiske failed
to respond to the summons, and Klemm obtained a default
judgment. Rotkiske claims that he was not aware of
Klemm's 2009 debt-collection lawsuit until September 2014,
when he was denied a mortgage because of the default judg-
ment against him.
On June 29, 2015, more than six years after the default
judgment, Rotkiske brought suit against Klemm under the
FDCPA. Rotkiske's amended complaint alleged that equi-
table tolling excused his otherwise untimely fling because
Klemm purposely served process in a manner that ensured
he would not receive service. The sole FDCPA claim in the
complaint asserted that Klemm commenced the 2009 debt-
collection lawsuit after the state-law limitations period ex-
pired and therefore “violated the FDCPA by contacting
[Rotk iske] w ithout lawfu l abi l ity to col lec t. ” First
Amended Complaint in No. 2:15–cv–03638 (ED Pa.), Doc.
15, p. 4.
Klemm moved to dismiss the action as barred by the
FDCPA's one-year st atute of l i mit ati ons, 15 U. S. C.
§ 1692k(d). Rotkiske argued that the court should apply a
“discovery rule” to delay the beginning of the limitations
2
Paul Klemm, the managing partner of Klemm & Associates, moved to
a new frm named Nudelman, Nudelman & Ziering, which was later re-
named Nudelman, Klemm & Golub. Rotkiske has sued Paul Klemm,
Klemm & Associates, Nudelman, Klemm & Golub, and Nudelman, Nudel-
man & Ziering. For the sake of simplicity, we refer to the respondents
as Klemm.

12 ROTKISKE
v. KLEMM
Opinion of the Court
period until the date he knew or should have known of the
a
lleged FDCPA violation. To support this contention, Rot-
kiske relied on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Mangum v.
Action Collection Serv., Inc., 575 F. 3d 935 (2009). That
case held that, under the “discovery rule,” limitations peri-
ods in federal litigation generally begin to run when plain-
tiffs know or have reason to know of their injury. Id., at
940–941.
The District Court dismissed the action. It held that the
Ninth Circuit's general rule does not apply to § 1692k(d), re-
lying on the statute's plain language. The court also con-
cluded that Rotkiske was not entitled to equitable tolling
because, even accepting the truth of the allegations in the
complaint, he was not misled by Klemm's conduct.
On appeal, the Third Circuit sua sponte reviewed the case
en banc and unanimously affrmed. 890 F. 3d 422 (2018).
The court held that, under the text of § 1692k(d), the
FDCPA's one-year limitations period runs from the “date on
which the violation occurs,” not the date a potential plaintiff
discovers or should have discovered the violation. Id., at
425–426. The court expressly rejected the Ninth Circuit's
approach, stating that there is no default presumption that
all federal limitations periods run from the date of discovery.
Id., at 427. Rotkiske failed to raise the application of equita-
ble doctrines on appeal, so the court did not address that
issue. Id., at 428–429.
Given the confict between the Courts of Appeals, see id.,
at 427, we granted certiorari. 586 U. S. 1190 (2019).
II
The question before us is whether the “discovery rule” ap-
plies to the FDCPA's limitations period. The phrase “dis-
covery rule,” however, has no generally accepted meaning.
Rotkiske's arguments invoking the discovery rule implicate
two distinct concepts—the application of a general discovery
rule as a principle of statutory interpretation and the appli-

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 8 (2019)
13
Opinion of the Court
cation of a fraud-specifc discovery rule as an equitable doc-
tr
ine. We address each in turn.
A
When interpreting limitations provisions, as always, “we
begin by analyzing the statutory language.” Hardt v. Reli-
ance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U. S. 242, 251 (2010). If the
words of a statute are unambiguous, this frst step of the
interpretive inquiry is our last. Connecticut Nat. Bank v.
Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 254 (1992). If “there are two plausi-
ble constructions of a statute of limitations,” we generally
“adopt the construction that starts the time limit running
when the cause of action . . . accrues” because “Congress
legislates against the `standard rule that the limitations pe-
riod commences when the plaintiff has a complete and pres-
ent cause of action.' ” Graham County Soil & Water Con-
servation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U. S. 409,
418–419 (2005) (quoting Bay Area Laundry and Dry Clean-
ing Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U. S.
192, 201 (1997)).
Here, the text of § 1692k(d) clearly states that an FDCPA
action “may be brought . . . within one year from the date
on which the violation occurs.” That language unambig-
uously sets the date of the violation as the event that
starts the one-year limitations period. At the time of the
FDCPA's enactment, the term “violation” referred to the
“[a]ct or instance of violating, or state of being violated.”
Webster's New International Dictionary 2846 (2d ed. 1949)
(Webster's Second). The term “occur” meant “to happen,”
and, as Webster's Second explains, “occur” described “that
which is thought of as defnitely taking place as an event.”
Id., at 1684. Read together, these dictionary defnitions con-
frm what is clear from the face of § 1692k(d)'s text: The
FDCPA limitations period begins to run on the date the al-
leged FDCPA violation actually happened. We must pre-
sume that Congress “says in a statute what it means and

14 ROTKISKE
v. KLEMM
Opinion of the Court
means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat.
Bank
, 503 U. S., at 254.
Rotkiske does not contest the plain meaning of § 1692k(d)'s
text or claim that he brought suit within one year of the
alleged FDCPA violation. Instead, he suggests that we
should interpret § 1692k(d) to include a general “discovery
rule” that applies to all FDCPA actions. In effect, Rotkiske
asks the Court to read in a provision stating that § 1692k(d)'s
limitations period begins to run on the date an alleged
FDCPA violation is discovered.
This expansive approach to the discovery rule is a “bad
wine of recent vintage.” TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U. S.
19, 37 (2001) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). It is a fun-
damental principle of statutory interpretation that “absent
provision[s] cannot be supplied by the courts.” A. Scalia &
B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
94 (2012). To do so “ `is not a construction of a statute, but,
in effect, an enlargement of it by the court.' ” Nichols v.
United States, 578 U. S. 104, 110 (2016) (quoting Iselin v.
United States, 270 U. S. 245, 251 (1926)).
Atextual judicial supplementation is particularly inappro-
priate when, as here, Congress has shown that it knows how
to adopt the omitted language or provision. Congress has
enacted statutes that expressly include the language Rot-
kiske asks us to read in, setting limitations periods to run
from the date on which the violation occurs or the date of
discovery of such violation. See, e. g., 12 U. S. C. § 3416; 15
U. S. C. § 1679i. In fact, at the time Congress enacted the
FDCPA, many statutes included provisions that, in certain
circumstances, would begin the running of a limitations pe-
riod upon the discovery of a violation, injury, or some other
event. See, e. g., 15 U. S. C. § 77m (1976 ed.); 19 U. S. C.
§ 1621 (1976 ed.); 26 U. S. C. § 7217(c) (1976 ed.); 29 U. S. C.
§ 1113 (1976 ed.).
It is not our role to second-guess Congress' decision to
include a “violation occurs” provision, rather than a discov-
ery provision, in § 1692k(d). The length of a limitations pe-

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 8 (2019)
15
Opinion of the Court
riod “refects a value judgment concerning the point at which
the
interests in favor of protecting valid claims are out-
weighed by the interests in prohibiting the prosecution of
stale ones.” Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421
U. S. 454, 463–464 (1975). It is Congress, not this Court,
that balances those interests. We simply enforce the value
judgments made by Congress.
B
Narrowing his initial assertion and moving away from the
question on which we granted certiorari, Rotkiske also con-
tends that his fling should be treated as timely under an
equitable, fraud-specifc discovery rule, relying on a line of
decisions beginning with Bailey v. Glover, 21 Wall. 342
(1875). Rotkiske claims that Bailey and its progeny apply
an equitable doctrine that delays the commencement of the
statute of limitations in fraud actions, and that he has
pleaded (or could plead) a claim within the scope of this doc-
trine. This Court has noted the existence of decisions
applying a discovery rule in “fraud cases” that is distinct
from the traditional equitable tolling doctrine. Merck & Co.
v. Reynolds, 559 U. S. 633, 644 (2010); Gabelli v. SEC, 568
U. S. 442, 450 (2013) (referring to the “fraud discovery rule”).
And it has repeatedly characterized these decisions as apply-
ing an equity-based doctrine. California Public Employ-
ees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., 582 U. S.
497, 509–510 (2017); Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U. S. 1,
10–11 (2014); Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Sim-
monds, 566 U. S. 221, 226–227 (2012); Young v. United States,
535 U. S. 43, 49–50 (2002). Rotkiske failed to preserve this
issue before the Third Circuit, 890 F. 3d, at 428, and failed to
raise this issue in his petition for certiorari. Accordingly,
Rotkiske cannot rely on this doctrine to excuse his otherwise
untimely fling.
3
3
We do not decide whether the text of 15 U. S. C. § 1692k(d) permits the
application of equitable doctrines or whether the claim raised in this case
falls within the scope of the doctrine applied in Bailey and its progeny.

16 ROTKISKE
v. KLEMM
Sotomayor, J., concurring
***
F
or the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of
Appeals is affrmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Sotomayor, concurring.
Like my colleagues in both the majority and the partial
dissent, I agree that 15 U. S. C. § 1692k(d) is a one-year stat-
ute of limitations that typically begins to run when the al-
leged violation “occurs,” not when the plaintiff discovers it.
Compare ante, at 10, with post, at 17 (Ginsburg, J., dissent-
ing in part and from judgment). The only daylight between
the majority and dissenting opinions is whether petitioner
Rotkiske forfeited reliance on an “equitable, fraud-specifc
discovery rule” that forgives otherwise untimely flings.
Ante, at 15; cf. post, at 20–21. Because I believe the Court
of Appeals fairly found that Rotkiske failed to preserve an
equitable argument of this sort, see 890 F. 3d 422, 429, and
n. 5 (CA3 2018), and because the Court did not grant certio-
rari on that doctrine, I join the majority opinion.
I write separately to emphasize that this fraud-specifc
equitable principle is not the “ `bad wine of recent vintage' ”
of which my colleagues speak. Ante, at 14 (quoting TRW
Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U. S. 19, 37 (2001) (Scalia, J., concurring
in judgment)). Rather, the Court has long “recogni[zed]”
and applied this “historical exception for suits based on
fraud.” Id., at 37; see also id., at 27 (majority opinion) (not-
ing equitable discovery rule “in cases of fraud or conceal-
ment”); Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392 (1946); Explo-
ration Co. v. United States, 247 U. S. 435 (1918); Bailey v.
Glover, 21 Wall. 342 (1875); Sherwood v. Sutton, 21 F. Cas.
1303 (No. 12,782) (CC NH 1828) (Story, J.). Nothing in
today's decision prevents parties from invoking that well-
settled doctrine.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 8 (2019)
17
Opinion of Ginsburg, J.
Justice Ginsburg, dissenting from the opinion in part
and
from the judgment.
Generally, I agree with the Court, the “discovery rule”
does not apply to the one-year statute of limitations con-
tained in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA),
15 U. S. C. § 1692k(d). That limitations period ordinarily
commences to run on the date “the violation occurs,” ibid.
See TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U. S. 19, 28–33 (2001). But
the ordinarily applicable time trigger does not apply when
fraud on the creditor's part accounts for the debtor's failure
to sue within one year of the creditor's violation. Id., at
37 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). See also id., at 27
(majority opinion).
True, in the case at hand, debtor Rotkiske's FDCPA claim
does not rest on any fraud inhering in the claim creditor
Klemm stated in his debt-collection suit. Rather, debtor
Rotkiske alleges that creditor Klemm commenced the debt-
collection suit too late. But Rotkiske was disarmed from
asserting that defense in Klemm's suit, for he never received
notice of the suit and therefore had no opportunity to defend
against it. For the same reason, he was stopped from rais-
ing an FDCPA claim challenging Klemm's suit within the
one-year limitations period. By knowingly arranging for
service of the complaint against Rotkiske at an address
where Rotkiske no longer lived, and fling a false affdavit of
service, Rotkiske alleges, Klemm engaged in fraud. Such
fraud, I would hold, warrants application of the discovery
rule to time Rotkiske's FDCPA suit from the date he learned
of the default judgment against him.
As today's decision recognizes, see ante, at 15, this Court
long ago “adopted as its own the old chancery rule that
where a plaintiff has been injured by fraud and remains in
ignorance of it without any fault or want of diligence or care
on his part, the bar of the statute [of limitations] does not

18 ROTKISKE
v. KLEMM
Opinion of Ginsburg, J.
begin to run until the fraud is discovered.” Holmberg v.
Ar
mbrecht, 327 U. S. 392, 397 (1946) (internal quotation
marks omitted). See also Bailey v. Glover, 21 Wall. 342, 347
(1875) (“[W]hen the object of the suit is to obtain relief
against a fraud, the bar of the statute does not commence to
run until the fraud is discovered or becomes known to the
party injured by it.”). Like the general discovery rule that
lower courts have “appl[ied] . . . when a statute is silent on
the issue” of a claim's accrual, TRW Inc., 534 U. S., at 27
(quoting Rotella v. Wood, 528 U. S. 549, 555 (2000)), the
fraud-based discovery rule operates as a statutory presump-
tion “read into every federal statute of limitation,” Holm-
berg, 327 U. S., at 397. This circumscribed rule is distinct
from the general discovery rule in that it governs only
“case[s] of fraud.” Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U. S. 633,
644 (2010). Unlike the general discovery rule, there is no
reason to believe the FDCPA displaced the fraud-based dis-
covery rule. The Court does not hold otherwise.
The fraud-based discovery rule has a thrust different from
equitable tolling.* “Equitable tolling ” describes a doctrine
that pauses, or “tolls,” a statutory limitations period after it
has commenced. Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U. S. 1,
10 (2014). A litigant qualifes for equitable tolling only if he
establishes “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights dili-
*The two doctrines are often blended or confused. See Klehr v. A. O.
Smith Corp., 521 U. S. 179, 192 (1997). The Court has sometimes referred
to Bailey v. Glover, 21 Wall. 342 (1875), and Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327
U. S. 392 (1946), as equitable tolling decisions. See Lampf, Pleva, Lip-
kind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U. S. 350, 363 (1991); Lozano
v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U. S. 1, 10–11 (2014). And it has described
Holmberg as “stand[ing] for the proposition that equity tolls the statute
of limitations in cases of fraud or concealment.” TRW Inc. v. Andrews,
534 U. S. 19, 27 (2001). But as this Court recently clarifed, each doctrine
has an independent offce. See Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U. S. 442, 447, n. 2,
449 (2013) (addressing whether application of the fraud-based discovery
rule was appropriate after acknowledging that the plaintiff had expressly
waived equitable tolling).

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 8 (2019)
19
Opinion of Ginsburg, J.
gently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood
i
n his way and prevented timely fling.” Menominee Tribe
of Wis. v. United States, 577 U. S. 250, 255 (2016) (internal
quotation marks omitted). For example, in Burnett v. New
York Central R. Co., 380 U. S. 424 (1965), a plaintiff fled an
action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
in Ohio state court, alleging that he sustained a workplace
i n jury just under three years ear l ier. Ib i d. Severa l
months later, the state court dismissed the suit for improper
venue under state law. Id., at 425. The plaintiff promptly
brought an identical action in federal district court. That
court dismissed the action on the ground that the FELA's
three-year statute of limitations began to run when the
plaintiff was injured and had expired while his state-court
action was pending. Ibid. This Court reversed. Id., at
436. Yes, the limitations period began to run on the date of
the plaintiff's injury. But, the Court held, the clock tolled
during the pendency of the plaintiff's state-court suit. Ibid.
Subtracting the time consumed by the state-court suit, the
plaintiff's federal action was timely. Id., at 426, 434–436.
By contrast, the fraud-based discovery rule sets the time
at which a claim accrues, i. e., the time when the statute of
limitations commences to run. See Merck & Co., 559 U. S.,
at 644–645. It is “an exception to the standard rule” that
“a claim accrues when the plaintiff has a complete and pres-
ent cause of action.” Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U. S. 442, 448–
449 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly,
when a plaintiff is “injured by fraud . . . `the bar of the stat-
ute does not begin to run until the fraud is discovered.' ”
Holmberg, 327 U. S., at 397 (quoting Bailey, 21 Wall., at 348).
For example, in Exploration Co. v. United States, 247 U. S.
435 (1918), a company had unlawfully procured land from the
United States through a series of fraudulent transactions in
1902. Id., at 437, 438. The parties involved in the transac-
tions successfully concealed the scheme until 1909. Ibid.
When the Government brought suit to void the transactions,

20 ROTKISKE
v. KLEMM
Opinion of Ginsburg, J.
the company raised the six-year statute of limitations as a
defense
. Id., at 445. Applying the fraud-based discovery
rule, the Court held that the limitations period began to run
only upon the Government's discovery of the fraud. Id., at
449. The suit was fled within six years of that date and
was therefore timely. Ibid.
I do not agree that Rotkiske failed to preserve a fraud-
based discovery rule argument in the Court of Appeals.
See ante, at 15. Rotkiske did raise the issue; he argued that
“[a]t the very least, . . . the discovery rule applies to
[FDCPA] claims based on false or misleading misrepresenta-
tions or other self-concealing conduct.” Supp. Brief for Ap-
pellant in No. 16–1668 (CA3), p. 13 (citing Bailey, 21 Wall., at
350). The Court of Appeals apparently declined to address
that argument because Rotkiske had failed to raise “equita-
ble tolling ” in his appellate briefs. 890 F. 3d 422, 428–429,
and n. 5 (CA3 2018). But failure to raise “equitable tolling ”
should pose no obstacle to determining whether the discrete
fraud-based discovery rule applies to Rotkiske's claim.
Nor do I agree that Rotkiske forfeited the issue by not
raising it in his petition for certiorari. See ante, at 15.
Generously read, Rotkiske asked whether a discovery rule
of any kind applies to the FDCPA's one-year statute of limi-
tations. While hardly a model of the deft pleader's art, the
petition for certiorari stated that Rotkiske did not learn of
Klemm's debt-collection suit and default judgment until long
after their occurrence because of the “intended re-service [of
Klemm's complaint] at a known incorrect address.” Pet. for
Cert. 8. His brief on the merits in this Court noted: “Peti-
tioner is not advocating that the Court adopt a generally
applicable discovery rule.” Brief for Petitioner 16, n. 16.
His reply brief was more precise: “The default judgment ob-
tained by [Klemm] at issue in [Rotkiske's FDCPA] complaint
was made possible by the fling of a fraudulent Affdavit of
Service.” Reply Brief 15. Indeed, the Court recognizes

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 8 (2019)
21
Opinion of Ginsburg, J.
that Rotkiske's arguments included “a fraud-specifc discov-
ery
rule as an equitable doctrine.” Ante, at 13.
Rotkiske's FDCPA complaint, in my view, falls comfort-
ably within the fraud-based discovery rule's scope. See
Brief for Samuel L. Bray et al. as Amici Curiae 12–14. Rot-
kiske alleged that Klemm engaged in “sewer service”—
intentionally serving process in a manner designed to pre-
vent Rotkiske from learning of the collection suit. Klemm
did so, according to Rotkiske, in order to ensure that
Klemm's untimely suit would result in a default judgment
that would remain undiscovered until time to oppose that
judgment, and to commence an FDCPA suit, ran out.
Though Rotkiske did not allege that “sewer service” is itself
a practice independently proscribed by the FDCPA, such
service is nonetheless a fraudulent abuse that should trigger
the fraud-based discovery rule. See Reply Brief 15–17.
The Government urges that the fraud-based discovery rule
applies only when the fraudulent conduct is itself the basis
for the plaintiff 's claim for relief. Brief for United States as
Amicus Curiae 31–32. That is not so of Rotkiske's com-
plaint, the Government observes, for his claim is premised
on the assertion that Klemm's debt-collection suit was time
barred.
I do not view the fraud-based discovery rule as so confned
and would hold that the rule governs if either the conduct
giving rise to the claim is fraudulent, or if fraud infects the
manner in which the claim is presented. That understand-
ing of the rule is consistent with its equitable roots and
historic rationale. Nearly two centuries ago, Justice Story
explained the rule this way: “[E]very statute is to be ex-
pounded reasonably, so as to suppress, and not to extend,
the mischief[s] which it was designed to cure.” Sherwood v.
Sutton, 21 F. Cas. 1303, 1307 (No. 12,782) (CC NH 1828).
Because statutes of limitations “preven[t] fraudulent and un-
just claims from starting up at great distances of time,” a

22 ROTKISKE
v. KLEMM
Opinion of Ginsburg, J.
limitations provision “ought not . . . be so construed, as to
become
an instrument to encourage fraud, if it admits of any
other reasonable interpretation.” Ibid. “[C]ases of fraud,
therefore, form an implied exception [to a limitations pre-
scription],” so as not to “permi[t] the defendant to avail him-
self of his own fraud.” Ibid. This Court expressed the
same understanding of the fraud-based discovery rule in
Bailey. There, the Court stated: “To hold that by conceal-
ing a fraud, or by committing a fraud in a manner that it
concealed itself until such time as the party committing the
fraud could plead the statute of limitations to protect it, is
to make the law which was designed to prevent fraud the
means by which it is made successful and secure.” 21 Wall.,
at 349.
Klemm allegedly employed fraudulent service to obtain
and conceal the default judgment that precipitated Rot-
kiske's FDCPA claim. That allegation, if proved, should
suffce, under the fraud-based discovery rule, to permit adju-
dication of Rotkiske's claim on its merits.
***
For the reasons stated, I would vacate the judgment of the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and remand the case
for further proceedings.

OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
23
Syllabus
PETER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PATENT AND
TRADEMARK
OFFICE v. NANTKWEST, INC.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the federal circuit
No. 18–801. Argued October 7, 2019—Decided December 11, 2019
The Patent Act provides two mutually exclusive methods for challenging
an adverse decision by the Patent and Trademark Offce (PTO). A dis-
satisfed applicant may appeal directly to the Federal Circuit, 35 U. S. C.
§ 141, or, as relevant here, may fle a new civil action against the PTO
Director in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, § 145. Under this second proceeding, the applicant must pay
“[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings.” Ibid.
Respondent NantKwest, Inc., fled a § 145 civil action after its patent
application was denied. The District Court granted summary judg-
ment to the PTO, and the Federal Circuit affrmed. The PTO moved
for reimbursement of expenses, including the pro rata salaries of PTO
attorneys and a paralegal who worked on the case. The District Court
denied the motion, concluding that the statutory language referencing
expenses was not suffcient to rebut the “American Rule” presumption
that parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees. The en banc
Federal Circuit affrmed.
Held: The PTO cannot recover the salaries of its legal personnel under
§ 145. Pp. 28–34.
(a) The “American Rule”—the bedrock principle that “[e]ach litigant
pays his own attorney's fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract
provides otherwise,” Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U. S.
242, 253—provides the starting point for assessing whether § 145 au-
thorizes payment of the PTO's legal fees. Contrary to the Govern-
ment's view, this Court has never suggested that any statute is exempt
from the presumption against fee shifting or limited its American Rule
inquiries to prevailing-party statutes. Rather, it has developed a line
of precedents addressing statutory deviations from the American Rule
that do not limit attorney's fees awards to prevailing parties. See, e. g.,
id., at 254. The presumption against fee shifting is particularly impor-
tant here because reading § 145 to permit an unsuccessful government
agency to recover attorney's fees from a prevailing party “would be a
radical departure from longstanding fee-shifting principles adhered to
in a wide range of contexts.” Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U. S.
680, 683. Pp. 28–30.

24 PETER
v. NANTKWEST, INC.
Syllabus
(b) Section 145's plain text does not overcome the American Rule's
presumpti
on against fee shifting. Defnitions of “expenses,” while ca-
pacious enough to include attorney's fees, provide scant guidance. The
mere failure to foreclose a fee award “neither specifcally nor explicitly
authorizes courts to shift [fees].” Baker Botts L. L. P. v. ASARCO
LLC, 576 U. S. 121, 128. The complete phrase “expenses of the pro-
ceeding ” would not have been commonly understood to include attor-
ney's fees at the time § 145 was enacted. Finally, the modifer “all” does
not transform “expenses” to reach an outlay it would not otherwise
include.
In common statutory usage, the term “expenses” alone has never been
considered to authorize an award of attorney's fees with suffcient clarity
to overcome the American Rule presumption. The appearance of “ex-
penses” and “attorney's fees” together across various statutes indicates
that Congress understands the terms to be distinct and not inclusive of
each other. See, e. g., 11 U. S. C. § 363(n). Other statutes that refer to
attorney's fees as a subset of expenses show only that “expenses” can
include attorney's fees when so defned. See, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 361.
Nor do this Court's cases further the Government's position that the
Court has used “expenses” to mean “attorney's fees.” See, e. g., Tani-
guchi v. Kan Pacifc Saipan, Ltd., 566 U. S. 560, 573.
The Patent Act's history reinforces that Congress did not intend to
shift attorney's fees in § 145 actions. There is no evidence that the
original Patent Offce ever paid its personnel from sums collected from
adverse parties. Neither has the PTO, until this litigation, sought its
attorney's fees under § 145. When Congress intended to provide for
attorney's fees in the Patent Act, it has stated so explicitly. See, e. g.,
35 U. S. C. § 285. Pp. 30–34.
898 F. 3d 1177, affrmed.
Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Deputy Solicitor General Stewart argued the cause for
petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General
Francisco, Assistan t Att or ney General Hunt, Ma t thew
Guarnieri, Mark R. Freeman, Charles W. Scarborough,
Jayn i e L i ll ey, Sarah Har r is, Tho mas W. Krause, Wi l-
l i am LaMarca, Thomas L. Casagrande, and Mai-Trang
Dang.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 23 (2019)
25
Opinion of the Court
Morgan Chu argued the cause for respondent. With him
on
the brief were Gary N. Frischling, Alan J. Heinrich, and
Michael D. Harbour.*
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 145 of the Patent Act affords applicants “dissatis-
fed with the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”
an opportunity to fle a civil action in the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 35 U. S. C.
§ 145. The statute specifes that “[a]ll the expenses of the
proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.” Ibid. The
question presented in this case is whether such “expenses”
include the salaries of attorney and paralegal employees of
the United States Patent and Trademark Offce (PTO). We
hold that they do not.
I
A
The Patent Act creates two mutually exclusive pathways
to challenge an adverse decision by the PTO. The frst per-
*Charles Duan fled a brief for the R Street Institute as amicus curiae
urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for the American
Bar Association by Robert M. Carlson, Theodore H. Davis, Jr., and Mitch-
ell G. Stockwell; for the American Intellectual Property Law Association
by Jeffrey I. D. Lewis, Sheldon H. Klein, and Peter B. Siegal; for the
Association of Amicus Counsel et al. by Charles E. Miller, Robert J.
Rando, and Alan M. Sack; for the Association of the Bar of the City of
New York by Philip L. Hirschhorn, Timothy P. Heaton, Yin Huang, and
John Gladstone Mills III; for IEEE-USA by Rick Neifeld; for the Intel-
lectual Property Law Association of Chicago by Charles W. Shifey, Robert
Resis, and Margaret M. Duncan; for the Intellectual Property Owners
Association by Gregory A. Castanias and Kevin H. Rhodes; for the Interna-
tional Trademark Association by Lawrence K. Nodine and David S. Flem-
ing; and for the New York Intellectual Property Law Association by Charles
R. Macedo, David P. Goldberg, Colman B. Ragan, and Robert M. Isackson.
William P. Atkins fled a brief for the Federal Circuit Bar Association
as amicus curiae.

26 PETER
v. NANTKWEST, INC.
Opinion of the Court
mits judicial review by direct appeal to the United States
Cour
t of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. § 141. There is
“no opportunity for the applicant to offer new evidence” in a
§ 141 proceeding, and the Federal Circuit “must review the
PTO's decision on the same administrative record that was
before the [agency].” Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U. S. 431, 434
(2012); 35 U. S. C. § 144.
The second pathway allows applicants to fle a new civil
action against the Director of the PTO in federal district
court. § 145. Unlike § 141, § 145 “permits the applicant to
present new evidence . . . not presented to the PTO.” Kap-
pos, 566 U. S., at 435. The district court “acts as a factfnder
when new evidence is introduced in a § 145 proceeding ” and
must make de novo determinations that take into account
“both the new evidence and the administrative record before
the PTO.” Id., at 444, 446. The parties may appeal the
district court's fnal decision to the Federal Circuit. 28
U. S. C. § 1295(a)(4)(C).
Because § 145 does not limit an applicant's ability to intro-
duce new evidence to challenge the denial of a patent, Kap-
pos, 566 U. S., at 439, it can result in protracted litigation.
As a condition for permitting such extensive review, the Pat-
ent Act requires applicants who avail themselves of § 145 to
pay “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings.” 35 U. S. C. § 145.
B
After the PTO denied respondent NantKwest, Inc.'s pat-
ent application directed to a method for treating cancer,
NantKwest fled a complaint against the PTO Director in the
Eastern District of Virginia under § 145. The District Court
granted summary judgment to the PTO, and the Federal Cir-
cuit affrmed. NantKwest, Inc. v. Lee, 686 Fed. Appx. 864
(2017). The PTO moved for reimbursement of expenses that
included—for the frst time in the 170-year history of § 145—
the pro rata salaries of PTO attorneys and a paralegal who
worked on the case.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 23 (2019)
27
Opinion of the Court
The District Court denied the PTO's motion to recover its
pro
rata legal fees as “expenses” of the § 145 proceed-
i ng. The cour t concluded that the statutory lang uage
referencing expenses was not clear enough to rebut the
“American Rule”—the background principle that parties are
responsible for their own attorney's fees. NantKwest,
Inc. v. Lee, 162 F. Supp. 3d 540, 542 (ED Va. 2016). A
divided Federal Circuit panel reversed, with Judge Stoll
dissenti ng. Nan tKw est, Inc. v. Ma ta l, 860 F. 3d 1352
(2017). The majority expressed “substantial doub[t]” that
§ 145 even implicated the American Rule's presumpti on
against fee shifting in a case in which the payment was
not made to a prevailing party. Id., at 1355. The majority
concluded that, even assuming the American Rule pre-
sumption applied, the term “expenses” in § 145 “specif-
c[ally]” and “explicit[ly]” authorized an award of fees. Id.,
at 1356.
The en banc Federal Circuit voted sua sponte to rehear
the case and reversed the panel over a dissent. NantKwest,
Inc. v. Iancu, 898 F. 3d 1177, 1184 (2018). The majority
opinion—now authored by Judge Stoll—held that the Ameri-
can Rule presumption applied to § 145 because it is “the
starting point whenever a party seeks to shift fees from one
side to the other in adversarial litigation.” Id., at 1184
(citing Baker Botts L. L. P. v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U. S. 121,
126 (2015)). After examining the plain text and statutory
history of § 145, the judicial and congressional under-
standing of similar language, and overarching policy con-
siderations, the majority concluded that “[a]warding `[a]ll
the expenses' simply cannot supply the `specifc and expli-
cit' directive from Congress to shift attorneys' fees, and
nothing else in the statute evinces congressional intent to
make them available.” 898 F. 3d, at 1196 (quoting Alyeska
Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 260
(1975)). We granted certiorari, 586 U. S. 1207 (2019), and
now affrm.

28 PETER
v. NANTKWEST, INC.
Opinion of the Court
II
Th
is Court's “ `basic point of reference' when considering
the award of attorney's fees is the bedrock principle known
as the ` “American Rule” ': Each litigant pays his own attor-
ney's fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides
otherwise.” Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560
U. S. 242, 252–253 (2010) (quoting Ruckelshaus v. Sierra
Club, 463 U. S. 680, 683 (1983)). The American Rule has
“roots in our common law reaching back to at least the 18th
century.” Baker Botts, 576 U. S., at 126 (citing Arcambel v.
Wiseman, 3 Dall. 306 (1796)); see also Summit Valley Indus-
tries, Inc. v. Carpenters, 456 U. S. 717, 721 (1982) (observing
that the American Rule “has been consistently followed for
almost 200 years”); Alyeska Pipeline, 421 U. S., at 257 (refer-
ring to the presumption against shifting attorney's fees as a
“general” rule).
The Government does not dispute this principle or its pedi-
gree, but argues instead that it does not apply at all. Be-
cause the American Rule presumption is most often over-
come when a statute awards fees to a “prevailing party,”
the Government maintains, the presumption applies only to
prevailing-party statutes. And because § 145 requires one
party to pay all expenses regardless of outcome, the argu-
ment goes, it is not a statute subject to the presumption.
That view is incorrect. This Court has never suggested
that any statute is exempt from the presumption against fee
shifting. Nor has it limited its American Rule inquiries to
prevailing-party statutes. Indeed, the Court has developed
a “line of precedents” “addressing statutory deviations from
the American Rule that do not limit attorney's fees awards
to the `prevailing party.' ” Hardt, 560 U. S., at 254; see also
Baker Botts, 576 U. S., at 127–129 (analyzing a bankruptcy
provision that did not mention prevailing parties under the
American Rule's presumption against fee shifting).
Sebelius v. Cloer, 569 U. S. 369 (2013), confrms that the
presumption against fee shifting applies to all statutes—

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 23 (2019)
29
Opinion of the Court
even those like § 145 that do not explicitly award attorney's
fees
to “prevailing parties.” In Cloer, the Court interpreted
a provision of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
that permitted courts to “award attorney's fees . . . `incurred
[by a claimant] in any proceeding on' an unsuccessful vaccine-
injury `petition . . . brought in good faith [with] a reasonable
basis for the claim.' ” Id., at 371 (quoting 42 U. S. C.
§ 300aa–15(e)(1)). The Court held that the provision's clear
language authorized attorney's fees, even though the statute
exclusively applied to unsuccessful litigants. 569 U. S., at
372.
Cloer establishes two points: First, contrary to the Gov-
ernment's suggestion, Congress has indeed enacted fee-
shifting statutes that apply to nonprevailing parties. Sec-
ond, and again contrary to the Government's view, the
American Rule applies to such statutes. The Government
itself argued in Cloer that the presumption against fee shift-
ing applied by default, but maintained that the statute “de-
part[ed] so far from background principles about who pays a
litigant's attorneys' fees that it [could not] be justifed with-
out a clearer statement than the Act can supply.” Brief for
Petitioner in Sebelius v. Cloer, O. T. 2012, No. 12–236, p. 32.
The Court acknowledged the Government's position but con-
cluded that the “rul[e] of thumb” against fee shifting gave
way because the “words of [the] statute [were] unambigu-
ous.” Cloer, 569 U. S., at 380–381 (citing the Government's
brief ).
The dissenti ng en banc Federa l Circuit Judges a lso
doubted that the American Rule could apply to a § 145 action.
They characterized the proceeding as an intermediate step
in obtaining a patent and the payment of legal fees as a por-
tion of the application costs. 898 F. 3d, at 1200 (opinion of
Prost, C. J.). Yet § 145 has all the marks of the kind of ad-
versarial litigation in which fee shifting, and the presump-
tion against it, is common; the statute authorizes fling a sep-
arate civil action where new evidence can be introduced for

30 PETER
v. NANTKWEST, INC.
Opinion of the Court
de novo review by a district judge. Thus, the presumption
agai
nst fee shifting not only applies, but is particularly im-
portant because § 145 permits an unsuccessful government
agency to recover its expenses from a prevailing party.
Reading § 145 to award attorney's fees in that circumstance
“would be a radical departure from longstanding fee-shifting
principles adhered to in a wide range of contexts.” Ruckels-
haus, 463 U. S., at 683.
The American Rule thus provides the starting point for
assessing whether § 145 authorizes payment of the PTO's
legal fees.
III
To determine whether Congress intended to depart from
the American Rule presumption, the Court frst “look[s] to
the language of the section” at issue. Hardt, 560 U. S., at
254 (internal quotation marks omitted). While “[t]he ab-
sence of [a] specifc reference to attorney's fees is not disposi-
tive,” Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U. S. 809, 815
(1994), Congress must provide a suffciently “specifc and ex-
plicit” indication of its intent to overcome the American
Rule's presumption against fee shifting. Alyeska Pipeline,
421 U. S., at 260.
A
The reference to “expenses” in § 145 does not invoke attor-
ney's fees with the kind of “clarity we have required to devi-
ate from the American Rule.” Baker Botts, 576 U. S., at 126.
Defnitions of “expenses” provide scant guidance. The
term, standing alone, encompasses wide-ranging “expendi-
ture[s] of money, time, labor, or resources to accomplish a
result,” Black's Law Dictionary 698 (10th ed. 2014), “charges
or costs met with in . . . doing one's work,” Webster's New
World College Dictionary 511 (5th ed. 2014), and “outlay[s]”
for labor, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 180 (1996);
see also N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English
Language 319 (3d ed. 1830) (defning the term broadly to

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 23 (2019)
31
Opinion of the Court
include “the employment and consumption, as of time or
labor
,” or the “disbursing of money”). Though these defni-
tions are capacious enough to include attorney's fees, the
mere failure to foreclose a fee award “neither specifcally nor
explicitly authorizes courts to shift [fees].” Baker Botts,
576 U. S., at 128.
Reading the term “expenses” alongside neighboring words
in the statute, however, supports a conclusion excluding legal
fees from the scope of § 145. The complete phrase “expenses
of the proceeding ” is similar to the Latin expensñ litis, or
“expenses of the litigation.” This term has long referred to
a class of expenses commonly recovered in litigation to which
attorney's fees did not traditionally belong. See Black's
Law Dictionary 461 (1891) (defning “expensñ litis” to mean
“generally allowed” costs); 1 J. Bouvier, Law Dictionary 392
(1839) (defning the term to mean the “costs which are gener-
ally allowed to the successful party”); id., at 244 (excluding
from the defnition of “costs” the “extraordinary fees [a
party] may have paid counsel”). These defnitions suggest
that the use of “expenses” in § 145 would not have been com-
monly understood to include attorney's fees at its enactment.
Finally, the modifer “all” does not expand § 145's reach
to include attorney's fees. Although the word conveys
breadth, it cannot transform “expenses” to reach an outlay
it would not otherwise include. Cf. Rimini Street, Inc. v.
Oracle USA, Inc., 586 U. S. 334, 341 (2019) (“The adjective
`full' in § 505 therefore does not alter the meaning of the
word `costs.' Rather, `full costs' are all the `costs' otherwise
available under law”).
Section 145's plain text thus does not overcome the Ameri-
can Rule's presumption against fee shifting to permit the
PTO to recoup its legal personnel salaries as “expenses of
the proceedings.”
B
“The record of statutory usage” also illustrates how the
term “expenses” alone does not authorize recovery of attor-

32 PETER
v. NANTKWEST, INC.
Opinion of the Court
ney's fees. See West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v.
C
asey, 499 U. S. 83, 88 (1991) (looking to statutory usage to
determine whether attorney's fees and expert fees were dis-
tinct expenses in the fee-shifting context).
That “expenses” and “attorney's fees” appear in tandem
across various statutes shifting litigation costs indicates that
Congress understands the two terms to be distinct and not
inclusive of each other. See, e. g., 898 F. 3d, at 1188 (quoting
11 U. S. C. § 363(n) (allowing trustee to recover “any costs,
attorneys' fees, or expenses incurred”); 12 U. S. C. § 1786(p)
(permitting courts to “allow to any such party such reason-
able expenses and attorneys' fees as it deems just and
proper”); 25 U. S. C. § 1401(a) (allowing distribution of funds
after payment of “attorney fees and litigation expenses”); 26
U. S. C. § 6673(a)(2)(A) (authorizing recovery of “costs, ex-
penses, and attorneys' fees” against an attorney who “unrea-
sonably and vexatiously” multiplies proceedings); 31 U. S. C.
§ 3730(d)(1) (permitting recovery of “reasonable expenses . . .
plus reasonable attor neys' fees and costs”); 38 U. S. C.
§ 4323(h)(2) (allowing courts to award “reasonable attorney
fees, expert witness fees, and other litigation expenses”) (all
internal quotation marks omitted)).
While some other statutes refer to attorney's fees as a
subset of expenses, they show only that “expenses” can in-
clude attorney's fees when so defned. See, e. g., 28 U. S. C.
§ 361 (authorizing “reasonable expenses, including attorneys'
fees”); § 1447(c) (“An order remanding the case may require
payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including at-
torney fees, incurred as a result of the removal”); 29 U. S. C.
§ 1370(e)(1) (“[T]he court in its discretion may award all or a
portion of the costs and expenses incurred in connection with
such action, including reasonable attorney's fees”); 42 U. S. C.
§ 247d–6d(e)(9) (allowing a party to recover “reasonable ex-
penses incurred . . . , including a reasonable attorney's fee”).
The Government cites several decisions to argue how, on
occasion, this Court has used the term “expenses” to mean

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 23 (2019)
33
Opinion of the Court
“attorney's fees.” None of the cases furthers its position.
See
, e. g., Rimini Street, 586 U. S., at 339, 345 (reasoning that
the term “costs” in the general federal costs statutes does
not include attorney's fees); Taniguchi v. Kan Pacifc Sai-
pan, Ltd., 566 U. S. 560, 573 (2012) (mentioning that a party
may bear “expenses” related to attorneys, without specifying
whether these “expenses” include attorney's fees); Arlington
Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U. S. 291,
297–303 (2006) (distinguishing “attorney's fees” from “costs”
and “costs” from “expenses,” without indicating whether
“expenses” encompasses attorney's fees); Casey, 499 U. S., at
99 (suggesting that an explicit reference to “expert witness
fees” or “litigation expenses” could shift expert fees in addi-
tion to attorney's fees—not that the term “litigation ex-
penses” alone could shift attorney's fees).
Simply put, in common statutory usage, the term “ex-
penses” alone has never been considered to authorize an
award of attorney's fees with suffcient clarity to overcome
the American Rule presumption.
C
In fact, the Patent Act's history reinforces that Congress
did not intend to shift fees in § 145 actions.
There is no evidence that the Patent Offce, the PTO's
predecessor, originally paid its personnel from sums col-
lected from adverse parties in litigation, or that the Offce
initially even employed attorneys. See Act of July 4, 1836,
§ 9, 5 Stat. 121 (“[T]he moneys received into the Treasury
under this act shall constitute a fund for the payment of the
salaries of the offcers and clerks herein provided for, and all
other expenses of the Patent Offce, and to be called the pat-
ent fund”). That salaries of PTO employees might have
qualifed as an “expense” of the agency, however, does not
mean that they are an “expense” of a § 145 proceeding. Nei-
ther has the PTO, until this litigation, sought its attorney's
fees under § 145. That the agency has managed to pay its

34 PETER
v. NANTKWEST, INC.
Opinion of the Court
attorneys consistently suggests that fnancial necessity does
not
require reading § 145 to shift fees, either.
In later years, when Congress intended to provide for at-
torney's fees in the Patent Act, it stated so explicitly. See,
e. g., 35 U. S. C. § 285 (“The court in exceptional cases may
award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party”);
§ 271(e)(4) (“[A] court may award attorney fees under section
285”); § 273(f ) (same); § 296(b) (same); § 297(b)(1) (“Any cus-
tomer . . . who is found by a court to have been injured by
any material false or fraudulent statement . . . may recover
. . . reasonable costs and attorneys' fees”). Because Con-
gress failed to make its intention similarly clear in § 145, the
Court will not read the statute to “contravene fundamental
precepts of the common law.” United States v. Rodgers, 461
U. S. 677, 716 (1983).
The history of the Patent Act thus reaffrms the Court's
view that the statute does not specifcally or explicitly au-
thorize the PTO to recoup its lawyers' or paralegals' pro rata
salaries in § 145 civil actions.
***
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the PTO can-
not recover the pro rata salaries of its legal personnel under
§ 145 and therefore affrm the judgment of the Court of Ap-
peals for the Federal Circuit.
It is so ordered.

OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
35
Syllabus
RITZEN GROUP, INC. v. JACKSON MASONRY, LLC
certiorari
to the united states court of appeals for
the sixth circuit
No. 18–938. Argued November 13, 2019—Decided January 14, 2020
An appeal of right lies from “fnal judgments, orders, and decrees” entered
by bankruptcy courts “in cases and proceedings.” 28 U. S. C. § 158(a).
Bankruptcy court orders are considered fnal and immediately appeal-
able if they “dispose of discrete disputes within the larger [bankruptcy]
case.” Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U. S. 496, 501.
Ritzen Group, Inc. (Ritzen) sued Jackson Masonry, LLC (Jackson) in
Tennessee state court for breach of a land-sale contract. Jackson fled
for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The state-
court litigation was put on hold by operation of 11 U. S. C. § 362(a), which
provides that fling a bankruptcy petition automatically “operates as a
stay” of creditors' debt-collection efforts outside the umbrella of the
bankruptcy case. The Bankruptcy Court denied Ritzen's motion for re-
lief from the automatic stay fled pursuant to § 362(d). Ritzen did not
appeal that disposition. Instead, its next step was to fle a proof of
claim against the bankruptcy estate. The Bankruptcy Court subse-
quently disallowed Ritzen's claim and confrmed Jackson's plan of reor-
ganization. Ritzen then fled a notice of appeal in the District Court,
challenging the Bankruptcy Court's order denying relief from the auto-
matic stay. The District Court rejected Ritzen's appeal as untimely
under 28 U. S. C. § 158(c)(2) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure
8002(a), which require appeals from a bankruptcy court order to be fled
“within 14 days after entry of [that] order.” The Sixth Circuit affrmed,
concluding that the order denying Ritzen's motion to lift the stay was
fnal under § 158(a), and that the 14-day appeal clock therefore ran from
entry of that order.
Held: A bankruptcy court's order unreservedly denying relief from the
automatic stay constitutes a fnal, immediately appealable order under
§ 158(a). Pp. 41–48.
(a) This Court's application of § 158(a)'s fnality requirement is guided
by the opinion in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U. S. 496. Address-
ing repayment plan confrmations under Chapter 13, the Court held in
Bullard that a bankruptcy court's order rejecting a proposed plan was
not fnal because it did not conclusively resolve the relevant “proceed-
ing.” Rather, the proceeding would continue until approval of a plan.
Id., at 502. Pp. 41–42.

36 RITZEN
GROUP, INC. v. JACKSON MASONRY, LLC
Syllabus
(b) In applying Bullard's analysis here, the key inquiry is “how to
def
ne the immediately appealable `proceeding ' in the context of [stay-
relief motions].” 575 U. S., at 502. Adjudication of a creditor's motion
for relief from the stay is properly considered a discrete “proceeding.”
A bankruptcy court's order ruling on a stay-relief motion disposes of a
procedural unit anterior to, and separate from, claim-resolution proceed-
ings. It occurs before and apart from proceedings on the merits of
creditors' claims. And its resolution forms no part of the adversary
claims-adjudication process, proceedings typically governed by state
substantive law. Relief from bankruptcy's automatic stay thus presents
a discrete dispute qualifying as an independent “proceeding ” within the
meaning of § 158(a). Id., at 502–505. Pp. 42–44.
(c) Ritzen incorrectly characterizes denial of stay relief as determin-
ing nothing more than the forum for claim adjudication and thus a pre-
liminary step in the claims-adjudication process. Resolution of a stay-
relief motion can have large practical consequences, however, including
whether a creditor can isolate its claim from those of other creditors and
go it alone outside bankruptcy or the manner in which adversary claims
will be adjudicated. Moreover, bankruptcy's automatic stay stops even
nonjudicial efforts to obtain or control the debtor's assets, matters that
often do not concern the forum for, and cannot be considered part of,
any subsequent claim adjudication. Ritzen errs in arguing that the
order should nonetheless rank as nonfnal where, as here, the bank-
ruptcy court's decision turns on a substantive issue that may be raised
later in the litigation. Section 158(a) asks whether the order in ques-
tion terminates a procedural unit separate from the remaining case, not
whether the bankruptcy court has preclusively resolved a substantive
issue. Finally, rather than disrupting the effciency of the bankruptcy
process, immediate appeal may permit creditors to establish their rights
expeditiously outside the bankruptcy process, affecting the relief sought
and awarded later in the bankruptcy case. Pp. 44–47.
906 F. 3d 494, affrmed.
Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
James K. Lehman argued the cause for petitioner. With
him on the briefs were Shane G. Ramsey, James A. Haltom,
John T. Baxter, A. Mattison Bogan, William C. Wood, Jr.,
and G. Eric Brunstad, Jr.
Griffn S. Dunham argued the cause for respondent.
With him on the brief were Henry E. Hildebrand IV and
Jeffrey T. Green.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 35 (2020)
37
Opinion of the Court
Vivek Suri argued the cause for the United States as ami-
cu
s curiae urging affrmance. With him on the brief were
Solicitor General Francisco, Assistant Attorney General
Hun t, Depu ty So l ic i t o r Gene ra l Stew ar t, and Mark B.
Stern.*
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Bankruptcy Code, fling a petition for bank-
ruptcy automatically “operates as a stay” of creditors' debt-
collection efforts outside the umbrella of the bankruptcy
case. 11 U. S. C. § 362(a). The question this case presents
concerns the fnality of, and therefore the time allowed for
appeal from, a bankruptcy court's order denying a creditor's
request for relief from the automatic stay. In civil litigation
generally, a court's decision ordinarily becomes “fnal,” for
purposes of appeal, only upon completion of the entire case,
i. e., when the decision “terminate[s the] action” or “ends
the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court
to do but execute the judgment.” Gelboim v. Bank of
America Corp., 574 U. S. 405, 409 (2015) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The regime in bankruptcy is different. A
bankruptcy case embraces “an aggregation of individual con-
troversies.” 1 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶5.08[1][b], p. 5–43
(16th ed. 2019). Orders in bankruptcy cases qualify as
“fnal” when they defnitively dispose of discrete disputes
within the overarching bankruptcy case. Bullard v. Blue
Hills Bank, 575 U. S. 496, 501 (2015).
The precise issue the Court today decides: Does a credi-
tor's motion for relief from the automatic stay initiate a dis-
tinct proceeding terminating in a fnal, appealable order
when the bankruptcy court rules dispositively on the mo-
tion? In agreement with the courts below, our answer is
“yes.” We hold that the adjudication of a motion for relief
*Craig Goldblatt, Danielle Spinelli, Joel Millar, Ari Savitzky, Henry
J. Sommer, and Tara Twomey fled a brief for the National Association of
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys as amicus curiae urging affrmance.

38 RITZEN
GROUP, INC. v. JACKSON MASONRY, LLC
Opinion of the Court
from the automatic stay forms a discrete procedural unit
w
ithin the embracive bankruptcy case. That unit yields a
fnal, appealable order when the bankruptcy court unre-
servedly grants or denies relief.
I
In civil litigation generally, 28 U. S. C. § 1291 governs ap-
peals from “fnal decisions.” Under that provision, a party
may appeal to a court of appeals as of right from “fnal deci-
sions of the district courts.” Ibid. A “fnal decision”
within the meaning of § 1291 is normally limited to an order
that resolves the entire case. Accordingly, the appellant
must raise all claims of error in a single appeal. See In re
Saco Local Development Corp., 711 F. 2d 441, 443 (CA1 1983)
(Breyer, J.) (“Traditionally, every civil action in a federal
court has been viewed as a `single judicial unit,' from which
only one appeal would lie.”). This understanding of the
term “fnal decision” precludes “piecemeal, prejudgment ap-
peals” that would “undermin[e] effcient judicial administra-
tion and encroac[h] upon the prerogatives of district court
judges.” Bullard, 575 U. S., at 501 (quoting Mohawk Indus-
tries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U. S. 100, 106 (2009); internal
quotation marks omitted).
The ordinary understanding of “fnal decision” is not at-
tuned to the distinctive character of bankruptcy litigation.
A bankruptcy case encompasses numerous “individual con-
troversies, many of which would exist as stand-alone law-
suits but for the bankrupt status of the debtor.” Bullard,
575 U. S., at 501 (internal quotation marks omitted). It is
thus common for bankruptcy courts to resolve discrete
controversies defnitively while the umbrella bankruptcy
case remains pending. Delaying appeals from discrete,
controversy-resolving decisions in bankruptcy cases would
long postpone appellate review of fully adjudicated disputes.
Moreover, controversies adjudicated during the life of a
bankruptcy case may be linked, one dependent on the out-

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 35 (2020)
39
Opinion of the Court
come of another. Delaying appeal until the termination of
the
entire bankruptcy case, therefore, could have this unto-
ward consequence: Reversal of a decision made early on
could require the bankruptcy court to unravel later adjudica-
tions rendered in reliance on an earlier decision.
The provision on appeals to U. S. district courts from deci-
sions of bankruptcy courts is 28 U. S. C. § 158(a). Under
that provision, an appeal of right lies from “fnal judgments,
orders, and decrees” entered by bankruptcy courts “in cases
and proceedings.” Ibid. By providing for appeals from
fnal decisions in bankruptcy “proceedings,” as distinguished
from bankruptcy “cases,” Congress made “orders in bank-
ruptcy cases . . . immediately appeal[able] if they fnally dis-
pose of discrete disputes within the larger [bankruptcy]
case.” Bullard, 575 U. S., at 501 (quoting Howard Delivery
Service, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 547 U. S. 651, 657,
n. 3 (2006)); see In re Saco Local Development Corp., 711
F. 2d, at 444–447. In short, “the usual judicial unit for ana-
lyzing fnality in ordinary civil litigation is the case, [but] in
bankruptcy[,] it is [often] the proceeding.” Brief for United
States as Amicus Curiae 10.
Correct delineation of the dimensions of a bankruptcy
“proceeding ” is a matter of considerable importance. An er-
roneous identifcation of an interlocutory order as a fnal de-
cision may yield an appeal over which the appellate forum
lacks jurisdiction. Conversely, an erroneous identifcation of
a fnal order as interlocutory may cause a party to miss the
appellate deadline.
II
The dispute at hand involves a contract in which Ritzen
Group, Inc. (Ritzen) agreed to buy land in Nashville, Tennes-
see from Jackson Masonry, LLC (Jackson). The land sale
was never effected. Blaming Jackson for the deal's unravel-
ing, Ritzen sued for breach of contract in Tennessee state
court. After over a year of litigation, just days before trial
was to begin, Jackson fled for bankruptcy under Chapter 11

40 RITZEN
GROUP, INC. v. JACKSON MASONRY, LLC
Opinion of the Court
of the Bankruptcy Code. By operation of the Bankruptcy
Code'
s automatic stay provision, 11 U. S. C. § 362(a), the
state-court litigation was put on hold.
Ritzen fled a motion in the Federal Bankruptcy Court for
relief from the automatic stay, seeking an order allowing the
trial to proceed in state court. Ritzen argued that relief
would promote judicial economy and that Jackson had fled
for bankruptcy in bad faith. After a hearing, the Bank-
ruptcy Court denied the motion. The Bankruptcy Code and
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure require parties to
appeal from a fnal order “within 14 days after entry of the
. . . order . . . being appealed.” 28 U. S. C. § 158(c)(2); Fed.
Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 8002(a). Ritzen did not appeal from the
order refusing to lift the stay within the prescribed period.
In pursuit of the breach-of-contract claim initially com-
menced in state court, Ritzen fled a proof of claim against
the bankruptcy estate. Following an adversary proceeding,
the Bankruptcy Court found that Ritzen, not Jackson, was
the party in breach of the land-sale contract because Ritzen
failed to secure fnancing by the closing date. The court
therefore disallowed Ritzen's claim against the bankruptcy
estate. Without objection from Ritzen, the court confrmed
Jackson's plan of reorganization. The plan permanently en-
joined all creditors from the “commencement or continuation
of any . . . proceeding against [d]ebtor . . . on account of
[c]laims against [d]ebtor.” Debtor's Plan of Reorganization
in No. 3:16–bk–02065 (MD Tenn.), p. 15.
Thereafter, Ritzen fled two separate notices of appeal in
the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
First, Ritzen challenged the Bankruptcy Court's order deny-
ing relief from the automatic stay. Second, Ritzen chal-
lenged the court's resolution of its breach-of-contract claim.
The District Court rejected the frst of Ritzen's appeals as
untimely, holding that under § 158(c)(2) and Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a), time to appeal expired 14
days after the Bankruptcy Court's entry of the order deny-

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 35 (2020)
41
Opinion of the Court
ing relief from the automatic stay. Turning to the appeal
from
the Bankruptcy Court's rejection of Ritzen's breach-of-
contract claim, the District Court ruled against Ritzen on
the merits.
On further appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir-
cuit affrmed the District Court's dispositions. As to the
timeliness of the frst notice of appeal, the Court of Appeals
rendered this determination: Adjudication of Ritzen's motion
for relief from the automatic stay qualifed as a discrete “pro-
ceeding,” commencing with the fling of the motion, followed
by procedural steps, and culminating in a “[dispositive]
decision based on the application of a legal standard.”
In re Jackson Masonry, LLC, 906 F. 3d 494, 499–500 (2018).
1
The 14-day appeal clock, the Court of Appeals therefore
concluded, ran from the order denying the motion to lift
the stay, a disposition “(1) entered in a proceeding and (2)
fnal[ly] terminating that proceeding.” Id., at 499 (alter-
ations omitted).
We granted certiorari to resolve whether orders denying
relief from bankruptcy's automatic stay are fnal, therefore
immediately appealable under § 158(a)(1). 587 U. S. 1014
(2019).
III
A
This Court's opinion in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575
U. S. 496, guides our application of § 158(a)'s fnality require-
ment. Addressing repayment plan confirmations under
Chapter 13, we held in Bullard that a bankruptcy court's
order rejecting a proposed plan was not “fnal” under § 158(a)
because it did not conclusively resolve the relevant “proceed-
1
The “procedural steps” included Ritzen's provision of notice to Jackson
and the Bankruptcy Court's conduct of a hearing at which the parties
presented witness testimony and other evidence. App. to Pet. for Cert.
48a. The question under the “applicable legal standard”: Did Ritzen es-
tablish “cause” to permit the state-court litigation to proceed. See id., at
52a–67a; 11 U. S. C. § 362(d)(1).

42 RITZEN
GROUP, INC. v. JACKSON MASONRY, LLC
Opinion of the Court
ing.” Id., at 499, 502–503. The plan-confrmation process,
the
Bullard opinion explains, involves back and forth negoti-
ations. See id., at 502. Plan proposal rejections may be
followed by amended or new proposals. Only plan approval,
we observed, “alters the status quo and fxes the rights and
obligations of the parties.” Ibid. “Denial of confrmation
with leave to amend,” by contrast, leaves the “parties' rights
and obligations . . . unsettled,” and therefore cannot be typed
“fnal.” Id., at 503. The appropriate procedural unit for de-
termining fnality, we concluded, is not a plan proposal, it is
“the process of attempting to arrive at an approved plan.”
Id., at 502.
B
We take up next the application of Bullard's analysis to a
bankruptcy court's order denying relief from the automatic
stay. As earlier stated, see supra, at 37, under the Bank-
ruptcy Code, the fling of a bankruptcy petition automatically
halts efforts to collect prepetition debts from the bankrupt
debtor outside the bankruptcy forum. 11 U. S. C. § 362(a).
The stay serves to “maintai[n] the status quo and preven[t]
dismemberment of the estate” during the pendency of the
bankruptcy case. 1 Collier ¶1.05[1], p. 1–19; 3 id., ¶362.03,
p. 362–23. Among other things, the stay bars commence-
ment or continuation of lawsuits to recover from the debtor,
enforcement of liens or judgments against the debtor, and
exercise of control over the debtor's property. § 362(a).
A creditor may seek relief from the stay by fling in the
bankruptcy court a motion for an order “terminating, annul-
ling, modifying, or conditioning ” the stay, asserting in sup-
port of the motion either “cause” or the presence of specifed
conditions. § 362(d). A majority of circuits and the leading
treatises regard orders denying such motions as fnal, immedi-
ately appealable decisions.
2
We reach the same conclusion.
2
See, e. g., Rajala v. Gardner, 709 F. 3d 1031, 1034 (CA10 2013); In re
Excel Innovations, Inc., 502 F. 3d 1086, 1092 (CA9 2007); In re James
Wilson Assocs., 965 F. 2d 160, 166 (CA7 1992); In re Sonnax Industries,

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 35 (2020)
43
Opinion of the Court
Bullard instructs that we inquire “how to defne the im-
mediately
appealable `proceeding ' in the context of [stay-
relief motions].” 575 U. S., at 502. Jackson urges that,
as the Court of Appeals held, adjudication of a stay-relief
motion is a discrete “proceeding.” Ritzen urges that stay-
relief adjudication is properly considered a frst step in
the process of adjudicating a creditor's claim against the
estate.
We agree with the Court of Appeals and Jackson that the
appropriate “proceeding ” is the stay-relief adjudication. A
bankruptcy court's order ruling on a stay-relief motion dis-
poses of a procedural unit anterior to, and separate from,
claim-resolution proceedings. Adjudication of a stay-relief
motion, as just observed, occurs before and apart from pro-
ceedings on the merits of creditors' claims: The motion initi-
ates a discrete procedural sequence, including notice and
a hearing, and the creditor's qualifcation for relief turns
on the statutory standard, i. e., “cause” or the presence of
specifed conditions. § 362(d), (e); Fed. Rules Bkrtcy. Proc.
4001(a)(1) and (2), 9014 (describing procedure for adjudicat-
ing motions for relief from automatic stay). Resolution of
stay-relief motions does not occur as part of the adversary
claims-adjudication process, proceedings typically governed
by state substantive law. See Butner v. United States, 440
U. S. 48, 54–55 (1979). Under Bullard, a discrete dispute of
Inc., 907 F. 2d 1280, 1284–1285 (CA2 1990); In re Lieb, 915 F. 2d 180, 185,
n. 3 (CA5 1990); Grundy Nat. Bank v. Tandem Mining Corp., 754 F. 2d
1436, 1439 (CA4 1985), overruled in part on other grounds by United Sav.
Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365
(1988); In re American Mariner Industries, Inc., 734 F. 2d 426, 429 (CA9
1984), overruled in part on other grounds by Timbers of Inwood Forest
Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365; In re Leimer, 724 F. 2d 744, 745 (CA8 1984);
16 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 3926.2, p. 352, and nn. 39–40 (3d ed. 2012 and Supp. 2019) (“Automatic-
stay rulings by a bankruptcy judge or appellate panel should be appealable
as fnal decisions.”). See also 1 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶5.09, pp. 5–55 to
5–57 (16th ed. 2019).

44 RITZEN
GROUP, INC. v. JACKSON MASONRY, LLC
Opinion of the Court
this kind constitutes an independent “proceeding ” within the
meani
ng of 28 U. S. C. § 158(a). 575 U. S., at 502–505.
Our conclusion that the relevant “proceeding ” is the stay-
relief adjudication is consistent with statutory text. See id.,
at 503. A provision neighboring § 158(a), § 157(b)(2)(G),
types motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic
stay as “core proceedings” arising in a bankruptcy case.
Section 157(b)(2) lists those motions separately from the
“allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate.”
§ 157(b)(2)(B), (G). Although the discrete “core proceed-
ings” listings “hardly clinc[h] the matter,” as the “provision's
purpose is not to explain appealability,” they are a “tex-
tual clue” that Congress viewed adjudication of stay-relief
motions as “proceedings” distinct from claim adjudication.
Bullard, 575 U. S., at 503.
C
In Ritzen's view, the position Jackson advances and we
adopt “slic[es] the case too thin.” Id., at 502. Ritzen as-
serts that an order denying stay relief simply decides the
forum for adjudication of adversary claims—bankruptcy
court or state court—and therefore should be treated as
merely a preliminary step in the claims-adjudication process.
Brief for Petitioner 19–21, 26–28.
Courts, we agree, should not defne “proceeding ” to in-
clude disputes over minor details about how a bankruptcy
case will unfold. As we put it in Bullard, “[t]he concept of
fnality cannot stretch to cover, for example, an order resolv-
ing a disputed request for an extension of time.” 575 U. S.,
at 505.
But Ritzen incorrectly characterizes denial of stay relief
as determining nothing more than the forum for claim adju-
dication. Resolution of a motion for stay relief can have
large prac tica l consequences. See 3 Col l ier ¶362.03,
pp. 362–23 to 362–24. Disposition of the motion determines
whether a creditor can isolate its claim from those of other

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 35 (2020)
45
Opinion of the Court
creditors and go it alone outside bankruptcy. It can also
affec
t the manner in which adversary claims will be adjudi-
cated. See 11 U. S. C. § 502 (permitting summary adjudica-
tion or estimation of amounts due in bankruptcy claims adju-
dication). These are not matters of minor detail; they can
signifcantly increase creditors' costs. Leaving the stay in
place may, inter alia, delay collection of a debt or cause col-
lateral to decline in value. See Brief for United States as
Amicus Curiae 14.
Ruling on a motion for stay relief, it is true, will determine
where the adjudication of an adversary claim will take
place—in the bankruptcy forum or state court. But that ef-
fect does not render a ruling nonfnal. Orders denying a
plaintiff the opportunity to seek relief in its preferred forum
often qualify as fnal and immediately appealable, though
they leave the plaintiff free to sue elsewhere. Notably, dis-
missal for want of personal jurisdiction ranks as a fnal deci-
sion. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U. S. 117, 124–125
(2014). So too, dismissal for improper venue, or under the
doctrine of forum non conveniens. See United States v.
Wallace & Tiernan Co., 336 U. S. 793, 794–795, n. 1 (1949);
15A C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and
Procedure §§ 3914.6, 3914.12 (2d ed. 1992 and Supp. 2019) (col-
lecting cases on appealability of dismissal without prejudice
to fling in another forum).
3
Ritzen's position encounters a further shoal: Many motions
to lift the automatic stay do not involve adversary claims
against the debtor that would be pursued in another forum
but for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy's embracive automatic stay
stops even nonjudicial efforts to obtain or control the debt-
or's assets. See § 362(a). Motions for stay relief may, for
3
We note, however, that within the federal court system, when venue is
laid in the wrong district, or when the plaintiff chooses an inconvenient
forum, transfer rather than dismissal is ordinarily ordered if “in the inter-
est of justice.” 28 U. S. C. §§ 1404(a), 1406(a).

46 RITZEN
GROUP, INC. v. JACKSON MASONRY, LLC
Opinion of the Court
example, seek permission to repossess or liquidate collateral,
to
terminate a lease, or to set off debts. Ibid. These mat-
ters do not concern the forum for, and cannot be considered
part of, any subsequent claim adjudication. See Brief for
National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys as
Amicus Curiae 23–24. We see no good reason to treat stay
adjudication as the relevant “proceeding ” in only a subset of
cases. As we have held in another context, “the issue of
appealability” should “be determined for the entire category
to which a claim belongs.” Digital Equipment Corp. v.
Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U. S. 863, 868 (1994) (addressing
collateral order doctrine).
Ritzen alternatively argues that, even if an order denying
stay relief is not part of the claims-adjudication process, the
order should nonetheless rank as nonfnal where, as here, the
bankruptcy court's decision turns on a substantive issue that
may be raised later in the litigation. Brief for Petitioner
45. Specifcally, Ritzen stresses that it based its stay-relief
motion largely on an argument that Jackson fled for bank-
ruptcy in bad faith, an issue that could have been urged again
later in the bankruptcy case. Ibid.
That arg ument is misaddressed. Secti on 158(a) asks
whether the order in question terminates a procedural unit
separate from the remaining case, not whether the bank-
ruptcy court has preclusively resolved a substantive issue.
It does not matter whether the court rested its decision on
a determination potentially pertinent to other disputes in the
bankruptcy case, so long as the order conclusively resolved
the movant's entitlement to the requested relief.
Finally, Ritzen protests that the rule we adopt will encour-
age piecemeal appeals and unduly disrupt the effciency of
the bankruptcy process. Id., at 48–52. As we see it, classi-
fying as fnal all orders conclusively resolving stay-relief
motions will avoid, rather than cause, “delays and ineffcien-
cies.” Bullard, 575 U. S., at 504. Immediate appeal, if

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 35 (2020)
47
Opinion of the Court
successful, will permit creditors to establish their rights ex-
pediti
ously outside the bankruptcy process, affecting the re-
lief sought and awarded later in the bankruptcy case. The
rule Ritzen urges “would force creditors who lose stay-relief
motions to fully litigate their claims in bankruptcy court and
then, after the bankruptcy case is over, appeal and seek to
redo the litigation all over again in the original court.” 906
F. 3d, at 503.
This case is illustrative. After the Bankruptcy Court de-
nied Ritzen's motion for relief from the automatic stay, Rit-
zen fled a claim against Jackson in the Bankruptcy Court.
The parties and court expended substantial resources defn-
itively litigating the dueling breach-of-contract allegations,
and Ritzen lost. The Bankruptcy Court thereafter consid-
ered and confrmed Jackson's reorganization plan. By en-
deavoring now to appeal the stay-relief order, after forgoing
an appeal directly after the denial, Ritzen seeks to return to
square one. Its aim, to relitigate the opposing contract
claims in state court. Nevermind that the Bankruptcy
Court has fully adjudicated the contract claims and has,
without objection from Ritzen, approved Jackson's reorgani-
zation plan. The second bite Ritzen seeks scarcely advances
the fnality principle.
IV
Because the appropriate “proceeding ” in this case is the
adjudication of the motion for relief from the automatic stay,
the Bankruptcy Court's order conclusively denying that mo-
tion is “fnal.” The court's order ended the stay-relief adju-
dication and left nothing more for the Bankruptcy Court to
do in that proceeding.
4
The Court of Appeals therefore cor-
rectly ranked the order as fnal and immediately appealable,
4
We do not decide whether fnality would attach to an order denying
stay relief if the bankruptcy court enters it “without prejudice” because
further developments might change the stay calculus. Nothing in the rec-
ord before us suggests that this is such an order.

48 RITZEN
GROUP, INC. v. JACKSON MASONRY, LLC
Opinion of the Court
and correctly affrmed the District Court's dismissal of Rit-
zen'
s appeal as untimely.
***
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of
Appeals is
Affrmed.

OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
49
Syllabus
RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE OF IBM et al. v.
J
ANDER et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the second circuit
No. 18–1165. Argued November 6, 2019—Decided January 14, 2020
This Court held in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U. S. 409,
428, that “[t]o state a claim for breach of the duty of prudence” imposed
by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 “on the basis
of inside information, a plaintiff must plausibly allege an alternative
action that the defendant could have taken that would have been con-
sistent with the securities laws and that a prudent fduciary in the same
circumstances would not have viewed as more likely to harm the fund
than to help it.” The petition for certiorari in this case presents the
question whether D udenhoe ffer's “more harm than good” pleading
standard can be satisfed by generalized allegations that the harm of an
inevitable disclosure of an alleged fraud generally increases over time.
In their briefng on the merits, however, the petitioners (plan fduciar-
ies) and the Government (presenting the views of the Securities and
Exchange Commission as well as the Department of Labor) focus their
arguments primarily upon other matters not addressed by the Second
Circuit.
Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded. The Court
declines to consider arguments not addressed by the Court of Appeals.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S. A., 542 U. S. 155, 175.
Nevertheless, in light of the Court's statement in Dudenhoeffer that the
views of the SEC might “well be relevant” to discerning the content of
ERISA's duty of prudence in the context here, 573 U. S., at 429, the
Court of Appeals should have an opportunity to decide in the frst in-
stance whether to entertain the parties' arguments.
910 F. 3d 620, vacated and remanded.
Paul D. Clement argued the cause for petitioners. With
him on the briefs were George W. Hicks, Jr., C. Harker
Rhodes IV, Andrew C. Lawrence, Lawrence Portnoy, Mi-
chael S. Flynn, and David Toscano.
Jonathan Y. Ellis argued the cause for the United States
as amicus curiae urging vacatur. With him on the brief
were Solicitor General Francisco, Deputy Solicitor General

50 RETIREMENT
PLANS COMM. OF IBM v. JANDER
Per Curiam
Kneedler, G. William Scott, Robert B. Stebbins, Michael A.
C
onley, and David D. Lisitza.
Samuel E. Bonderoff argued the cause for respondents.
With him on the brief were Jacob H. Zamansky and James
Ostaszewski.*
Per Curiam.
In Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U. S. 409
(2014), we held that “[t]o state a claim for breach of the duty
of prudence” imposed on plan fduciaries by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) “on the
basis of inside information, a plaintiff must plausibly allege
an alternative action that the defendant could have taken
that would have been consistent with the securities laws and
that a prudent fduciary in the same circumstances would not
have viewed as more likely to harm the fund than to help
it.” Id., at 428. We then set out three considerations that
“inform the requisite analysis.” Ibid.
First, we pointed out that the “duty of prudence, under
ERISA as under the common law of trusts, does not require
a fduciary to break the law.” Ibid. Accordingly, “ERISA's
duty of prudence cannot require” the fduciary of an Em-
ployee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) “to perform an ac-
tion—such as divesting the fund's holdings of the employer's
stock on the basis of inside information—that would violate
the securities laws.” Ibid.
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the American
Benefts Council et al. by Russell L. Hirschhorn, John E. Roberts, and
Lindsey H. Chopin; for DRI–The Voice of the Defense Bar by Michael R.
Pennington and Scott Burnett Smith; and for the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association et al. by Nicole A. Saharsky, Brian D. Net-
ter, Matthew A. Waring, Nancy G. Ross, Kevin M. Carroll, and Daryl
Joseffer.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for the American
Association for Justice et al. by Matthew W. H. Wessler, Gregory A. Beck,
and Leah M. Nicholls; for Law Professors by Todd M. Schneider; and for
Occupy the SEC by Akshat Tewary.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 49 (2020)
51
Per Curiam
We then added that, where a complaint “faults fduciaries
for
failing to decide, on the basis of the inside information,
to refrain from making additional stock purchases or for fail-
ing to disclose that information to the public so that the stock
would no longer be overvalued, additional considerations
arise.” Id., at 429. In such cases, “[t]he courts should con-
sider the extent to which an ERISA-based obligation either
to refrain on the basis of inside information from making a
planned trade or to disclose inside information to the public
could confict with the complex insider trading and corporate
disclosure requirements imposed by the federal securities
laws or with the objectives of those laws.” Ibid. We noted
that the “U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission ha[d]
not advised us of its views on these matters, and we be-
lieve[d] those views may well be relevant.” Ibid.
Third, and fnally, we said that “lower courts faced with
such claims should also consider whether the complaint has
plausibly alleged that a prudent fduciary in the defendant's
position could not have concluded that stopping purchases—
which the market might take as a sign that insider fduciaries
viewed the employer's stock as a bad investment—or pub-
licly disclosing negative information would do more harm
than good to the fund by causing a drop in the stock price
and a concomitant drop in the value of the stock already held
by the fund.” Id., at 429–430.
The question presented in this case concerned what it
takes to plausibly allege an alternative action “that a pru-
dent fduciary in the same circumstances would not have
viewed as more likely to harm the fund than to help it.” Id.,
at 428. It asked whether Dudenhoeffer's “ `more harm than
good' pleading standard can be satisfed by generalized alle-
gations that the harm of an inevitable disclosure of an al-
leged fraud generally increases over time.” Pet. for Cert. i.
In their briefng on the merits, however, the petitioners
(fduciaries of the ESOP at issue here) and the Government
(presenting the views of the Securities and Exchange Com-

52 RETIREMENT
PLANS COMM. OF IBM v. JANDER
Kagan, J., concurring
mission as well as the Department of Labor), focused their
arg
uments primarily upon other matters. The petitioners
argued that ERISA imposes no duty on an ESOP fduciary
to act on inside information. And the Government argued
that an ERISA-based duty to disclose inside information
that is not otherwise required to be disclosed by the securi-
ties laws would “confict” at least with “objectives of ” the
“complex insider trading and corporate disclosure require-
ments imposed by the federal securities laws . . . .” Duden-
hoeffer, 573 U. S., at 429.
The Second Circuit “did not address the[se] argument[s],
and, for that reason, neither shall we.” F. Hoffmann-
La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S. A., 542 U. S. 155, 175 (2004)
(citation omitted); see Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718,
n. 7 (2005) (“[W]e are a court of review, not of frst view”).
See also 910 F. 3d 620 (CA2 2018). Nevertheless, in light of
our statement in Dudenhoeffer that the views of the “U. S.
Securities and Exchange Commission” might “well be rele-
vant” to discerning the content of ERISA's duty of prudence
in this context, 573 U. S., at 429, we believe that the Court
of Appeals should have an opportunity to decide whether
to entertain these arguments in the frst instance. For this
reason we vacate the judgment below and remand the case,
leaving it to the Second Circuit whether to determine their
merits, taking such action as it deems appropriate.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kagan, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
concurring.
Today's per curiam vacates and remands so that the Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit can decide whether to con-
sider two arguments that occupied most of the briefng in
this Court even though the lower courts had not addressed
them. I join the Court's opinion with two further notes.
First, the Court of Appeals may of course determine that
under its usual rules of waiver or forfeiture, it will not con-

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 49 (2020)
53
Kagan, J., concurring
sider those arguments. The per curiam is clear that the
Second
Circuit is to “decide whether to entertain” the argu-
ments in the frst instance. Ante, at 52. If the arguments
were not properly preserved, sound judicial practice points
toward declining to address them. See, e.g., Wood v. Mil-
yard, 566 U. S. 463, 473 (2012) (“For good reason, appel-
late courts ordinarily abstain from entertaining issues that
have not been raised and preserved”). That is so, contrary
to Justice Gorsuch’s suggestion, whether or not the issue
will come back in the future. See post, at 55 (concurring
opinion).
Second, if the Court of Appeals chooses to address the
merits of either argument, the opening question must be
whether it is consistent with this Court's decision in Fifth
Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U. S. 409 (2014). I can-
not see how. The petitioners argue that ERISA “imposes
no duty on an ESOP fduciary to act on insider information.”
Ante, at 52. But Dudenhoeffer makes clear that an ESOP
fduciary at times has such a duty; the decision sets out ex-
actly what a plaintiff must allege to state a claim that the
fduciary breached his duty of prudence by “failing to act on
inside information.” 573 U. S., at 423; see id., at 428; ante,
at 50. For its part, the Government argues that (absent ex-
traordinary circumstances) an ESOP fduciary has only the
duty to disclose inside information that the federal securities
laws already impose. See ante, at 52. But Dudenhoeffer
characterizes the relationship between ERISA's duty of pru-
dence and the securities laws differently. It recognizes that
a fduciary can have no obligation to take actions “violat[ing]
the securities laws” or “confict[ing]” with their “require-
ments” or “objectives.” 573 U. S., at 428–429; see ante, at
50–51. At the same time, the decision explains that when an
action does not so confict, it might fall within an ESOP fdu-
ciary's duty—even if the securities laws do not require it.
See 573 U. S., at 428. The question in that confict-free zone
is whether a prudent fduciary would think the action more

54 RETIREMENT
PLANS COMM. OF IBM v. JANDER
Gorsuch, J., concurring
likely to help than to harm the fund. See id., at 428, 430;
see
ante, at 50–51. The Government candidly acknowledges
that its approach would mostly wipe out that central aspect
of the Dudenhoeffer standard. See Brief for United States
as Amicus Curiae 22. That too does not accord with the
decision.*
Justice Gorsuch, concurring.
The gist of respondents' sole surviving claim is that cer-
tain ERISA fduciaries should have used their positions as
corporate insiders to cause the company to make an SEC-
regulated disclosure. But merely stating the theory sug-
gests a likely faw: In ordering up a special disclosure, the
defendants necessarily would be acting in their capacities as
corporate offcers, not ERISA fduciaries. Run-of-the-mill
ERISA fduciaries cannot, after all, order corporate disclo-
sures on behalf of their portfolio companies. Nor do even
all corporate insiders have that authority. These defend-
ants (allegedly) had the opportunity to make a corrective dis-
closure only because of the positions they happened to hold
within the organization. So while respondents are correct
to note that insider fduciaries are subject to the “same duty
of prudence that applies to ERISA fduciaries in general,”
Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U. S. 409, 412
(2014), at bottom they seek to impose an even higher duty
on fduciaries who have the authority to make or order SEC-
regulated disclosures on behalf of the corporation. Because
*Justice Gorsuch essays still another argument, but it also conficts
with Dudenhoeffer. He claims that an ESOP fduciary can never have a
duty under ERISA to make disclosures “in their capacities as corporate
offcers.” Post this page. But Dudenhoeffer spells out when ERISA
forecloses such a duty—when making the disclosure would confict with
the requirements and objectives of the securities laws. See 573 U. S., at
429. Absent a confict of that kind, there is no categorical exclusion: The
question, stated once again, is whether a prudent fduciary would think
the disclosure more likely to beneft than to harm the fund. See id., at
429–430.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 49 (2020)
55
Gorsuch, J., concurring
ERISA fduciaries are liable only for actions taken while
“ac
ting as a fduciary,” it would be odd to hold the same fdu-
ciaries liable for “alternative action[s they] could have taken”
only in some other capacity. Compare Pegram v. Herdrich,
530 U. S. 211, 225–226 (2000), with Dudenhoeffer, 573 U. S.,
at 428.
Despite its promise, this argument seemingly wasn't con-
sidered by lower courts before the case arrived in our Court.
In these circumstances, I agree with the Court's per curiam
that the better course is to remand the case to allow the
lower courts to address these matters in the frst instance.
But the payout of today's remand is really about timing: By
remanding rather than dismissing, we give the lower courts
the chance to answer this important question sooner rather
than later. To be sure, on remand respondents might try to
say this argument was waived or forfeited in earlier motions
practice. See ante, at 52–53 (Kagan, J., concurring). But
following respondents down that path would do no more than
briefy delay the task at hand. The argument before us in-
volves a pure question of law, raised in the context of a mo-
tion to dismiss. If it isn't addressed immediately on remand,
it will only prove unavoidable later, not just in other suits
but at later stages in this very litigation.
Of course, today's remand would be pointless if the argu-
ment before us were already foreclosed by Dudenhoeffer, as
Justice Kagan suggests. Ante, at 54, n. But I do not be-
lieve our remand is a wasted gesture, because I do not read
Dudenhoeffer so broadly. Dudenhoeffer held that an
ERISA plaintiff must plausibly allege “an alternative action
that the defendant could have taken that would have been
consistent with the securities laws and that a prudent fdu-
ciary . . . would not have viewed as more likely to harm the
fund than to help it.” 573 U. S., at 428. Put differently, the
Court held the plaintiff 's ability to identify a helpful action
that the defendant could have taken consistent with the secu-
rities laws is a necessary condition to an ERISA suit. But

56 RETIREMENT
PLANS COMM. OF IBM v. JANDER
Gorsuch, J., concurring
nowhere did Dudenhoeffer hold this is also a suffcient condi-
ti
on to suit, promising that a case may proceed anytime a
plaintiff is able to conjure a hypothetical helpful action that
would've been consistent with the securities laws.
The Court didn't consider whether other necessary condi-
tions to suit might exist because the question wasn't before
it. Dudenhoeffer did discuss some “additional considera-
tions” that might arise when a plaintiff tries to plead as “al-
ternative action[s]” either “refrain[ing] from making addi-
tional stock purchases” or “disclos[ing] inside information to
the public.” Id., at 428–429. But the Court singled out
these circumstances only because of their obvious potential
to “confict with the complex insider trading and corporate
disclosure requirements imposed by the federal securities
laws.” Id., at 429. So Dudenhoeffer made plain that suits
requiring fduciaries to violate the securities laws cannot
proceed. But only the most unabashed optimist could read
that as guaranteeing all other suits may.
The truth is, Dudenhoeffer was silent on the argument
now before us for the simple reason that the parties in
Dudenhoeffer were silent on it too. No one in that case
asked the Court to decide whether ERISA plaintiffs may
hold fduciaries liable for alternative actions they could have
taken only in a nonfduciary capacity. And it is beyond de-
bate that “[q]uestions which merely lurk in the record, nei-
ther brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon,
are not to be considered as having been so decided as to
constitute precedents.” Webster v. Fall, 266 U. S. 507, 511
(1925).

OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
57
Syllabus
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN JUAN,
PUER
TO RICO v. ACEVEDO FELICIANO et al.
on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme
court of puerto rico
No. 18–921. Decided February 24, 2020
Active and retired school employees fled complaints seeking injunctive
relief in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance based on their allega-
tion that the Pension Plan for Employees of Catholic Schools Trust
(Trust) had terminated their pension plan and eliminated their pension
benefts. Named defendants in the suit included the Roman Catholic
and Apostolic Church of Puerto Rico (alleged to be a legal entity with
supervisory authority over all Catholic institutions in Puerto Rico), the
Archdiocese of San Juan, the Superintendent of Catholic Schools, three
Catholic academies, and the Trust. Litigation proceeded in the Puerto
Rico courts regarding, among other issues, which defendants in the case
had legal personalities suffcient to subject them to suit. The Puerto
Rico Supreme Court ultimately upheld the award of preliminary injunc-
tive relief in favor of plaintiffs, and remanded the case to the Court
of First Instance to determine which entities would be responsible for
continuing to pay the pensions. After that, the Archdiocese removed
the case to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico, arguing that the litigation was suffciently related to the Trust's
pending Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings to give rise to federal juris-
diction. The Trust's bankruptcy proceeding was dismissed on March
13, 2018. On March 16, 2018, and based on its determination that the
Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in Puerto Rico was the only de-
fendant with separate legal personhood, the Court of First Instance or-
dered the Church to make payments to the employees in accordance
with the pension plan. On March 26 and March 27, 2018, the Court of
First Instance issued orders requiring the Church to deposit $4.7 million
in a court account within 24 hours and seizing certain Church assets.
See App. to Pet. for Cert. 224, 227, 241. Nearly fve months later on
August 20, 2018, the District Court remanded the case to the Court of
First Instance by way of a nunc pro tunc judgment stating that the
order “shall be effective as of March 13, 2018.” Ultimately, the Puerto
Rico Supreme Court upheld the preliminary injunction issued against
the Church. The Archdiocese petitioned this Court for a writ of certio-
rari, arguing that the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the

58 ROMAN
CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN JUAN
v. ACEVEDO FELICIANO
Per Curiam
First Amendment require courts to follow the Church's lead in recogniz-
i
ng the separate legal personalities of each Church entity.
Held: The Court does not reach the merits arguments presented because
the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction to issue the payment and
seizure orders at issue. Once a notice of removal is fled, “the State
court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.”
28 U. S. C. § 1446(d). The state court “los[es] all jurisdiction over the
case, and, being without jurisdiction, its subsequent proceedings and
judgment [are] not . . . simply erroneous, but absolutely void.” Kern v.
Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 485, 493. The Court of First Instance issued its
payment and seizure orders after the proceeding was removed to Fed-
eral District Court, but before that court remanded the proceeding back
to the Puerto Rico court. At the time those orders were entered, the
Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction over the proceeding, and
those orders are therefore void.
Two possible rejoinders lack merit. First, the Archdiocese did not
consent to the Court of First Instance's jurisdiction by fling motions in
that court after removal. See Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118,
122–123. Second, although the District Court remanded the case by
way of a nunc pro tunc judgment stating that the order “shall be effec-
tive as of March 13, 2018,” the case remained in federal court until Au-
gust 20, 2018, when the District Court rendered a decision about the
pending motion to remand. Federal courts may issue nunc pro tunc
orders, or “now for then” orders, Black's Law Dictionary, 1287, to “re-
fect[ ] the reality” of what has already occurred, Missouri v. Jenkins,
495 U. S. 33, 49. “Such a decree presupposes a decree allowed, or or-
dered, but not entered, through inadvertence of the court.” Cuebas y
Arredondo v. Cuebas y Arredondo, 223 U. S. 376, 390. But the court
“cannot make the record what it is not.” Jenkins, 495 U. S., at 49. The
Court of First Instance's actions before August 20—the date the Dis-
trict Court remanded the case—are void. The Court remands the case
to the Puerto Rico courts to consider how to proceed in light of the
jurisdictional defect identifed.
Certiorari granted; 200 D. P. R. 458, vacated and remanded.
Per Curiam.
In 1979, the Offce of the Superintendent of Catholic
Schools of the Archdiocese of San Juan created a trust to
administer a pension plan for employees of Catholic schools,
aptly named the Pension Plan for Employees of Catholic
Schools Trust (Trust). Among the participating schools

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 57 (2020)
59
Per Curiam
were Perpetuo Socorro Academy, San Ignacio de Loyola
A
cademy, and San Jose Academy.
In 2016, active and retired employees of the academies
fled complaints in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance
alleging that the Trust had terminated the plan, eliminating
the employees' pension benefts. The employees named as
a defendant the “Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church of
Puerto Rico,” which the employees claimed was a legal en-
tity with supervisory authority over all Catholic institutions
in Puerto Rico. App. to Pet. for Cert. 58–59, 152–153 (em-
phasis deleted).
1
The employees also named as defendants
the Archdiocese of San Juan, the Superintendent, the three
academies, and the Trust.
The Court of First Instance, in an order affrmed by the
Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, denied a preliminary injunc-
tion requiring the payment of benefts, but the Puerto Rico
Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme Court concluded
that “if the Trust did not have the necessary funds to meet
its obligations, the participating employers would be obli-
gated to pay.” Id., at 3. But, because “there was a dispute
as to which defendants in the case had legal personalities,”
the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of First
Instance to “determine who would be responsible for contin-
uing paying the pensions, pursuant to the preliminary in-
junction.” Ibid.
The Court of First Instance determined that the “Roman
Catholic and Apostolic Church in Puerto Rico” was the only
defendant with separate legal personhood. Id., at 239–240.
The Court held such personhood existed by virtue of the
Treaty of Paris of 1898, through which Spain ceded Puerto
Rico to the United States. The Court found that the Arch-
diocese of San Juan, the Superintendent, and the academies
1
The petition for a writ of certiorari includes certifed translations of
the opinions, originally in Spanish, of the Puerto Rico courts. See also
200 D. P. R. 458 (2018); App. to Pet. for Cert. 1–95, 97–220. We cite the
certifed translations.

60 ROMAN
CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN JUAN
v. ACEVEDO FELICIANO
Per Curiam
each constituted a “division or dependency” of the Church,
because
those entities were not separately incorporated.
Ibid.
As a result, the Court of First Instance ordered the
“Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in Puerto Rico” to
make payments to the employees in accordance with the pen-
sion plan. Id., at 241. Ten days later, the Court issued a
second order requiring the Church to deposit $4.7 million in
a court account within 24 hours. The next day, the Court
issued a third order, requiring the sheriff to “seize assets
and moneys of . . . the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic
Church, and any of its dependencies, that are located in
Puerto Rico.” Id., at 223.
The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals reversed. It held that
the “Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in Puerto Rico”
was a “legally nonexistent entity.” Id., at 136. But, the
Court concluded, the Archdiocese of San Juan and the Per-
petuo Socorro Academy could be ordered to make contribu-
tion payments. The Archdiocese enjoyed separate legal
personhood as the effective successor to the Roman Catholic
Church in Puerto Rico, the entity recognized by the Treaty
of Paris. Perpetuo Socorro Academy likewise constituted a
separate legal person because it had been incorporated in
accordance with Puerto Rico law, even though its registra-
tion was not active in 2016, when the orders were issued.
The two remaining academies, San Ignacio Academy and San
Jose Academy, were part of the same legal entity as “their
respective parishes,” but the employees could not obtain re-
lief against the parishes because they had not been named
as defendants. Id., at 167.
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court again reversed, reinstat-
ing the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court.
The Supreme Court frst held that the “relationship between
Spain, the Catholic Church, and Puerto Rico is sui generis,
given the particularities of its development and historical
context.” Id., at 5. The Court explained that the Treaty

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 57 (2020)
61
Per Curiam
of Paris recognized the “legal personality” of “the Catholic
Church”
in Puerto Rico. Id., at 6.
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court further observed that
“each entity created that operates separately and with a cer-
tain degree of autonomy from the Catholic Church is in real-
ity a fragment of only one entity that possesses legal person-
ality,” at least where the entities have not “independently
submitt[ed] to an ordinary incorporation process.” Id., at
13–14 (emphasis deleted). “In other words,” the Court con-
tinued, “the entities created as a result of any internal con-
fguration of the Catholic Church,” such as the Archdiocese
of San Juan, “are not automatically equivalent to the forma-
tion of entities with different and separate legal personalities
in the feld of Civil Law,” but “are merely indivisible frag-
ments of the legal personality that the Catholic Church has.”
Ibid. And Perpetuo Socorro Academy was not a registered
corporation in 2016, when the plan was terminated. Id., at
16. Therefore, under the Court's reasoning, the only de-
fendant with separate legal personality, and the only entity
that could be ordered to pay the employees' pensions, was
the “Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in Puerto Rico.”
Id., at 2.
Two Justices dissented. Justice Rodríguez Rodríguez
criticized the majority for “inappropriately interfer[ing] with
the operation of the Catholic Church by imposing on it a
legal personality that it does not hold in the feld of private
law.” Id., at 29. In her view, the Archdiocese of San Juan
and the fve other dioceses in Puerto Rico each has its own
“independent legal personality.” Id., at 52. Justice Colón
Pérez likewise determined that, under Puerto Rico law,
“each Diocese and the Archdiocese ha[s its] own legal person-
ality” and that no separate “legal personality” called the
“Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church” exists. Id., at 80,
90 (emphasis deleted).
The Archdiocese petitioned this Court for a writ of certio-
rari. The Archdiocese argues that the Free Exercise and

62 ROMAN
CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN JUAN
v. ACEVEDO FELICIANO
Per Curiam
Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment require
cour
ts to defer to “the Church's own views on how the
Church is structured.” Pet. for Cert. 1. Thus, in this case,
the courts must follow the Church's lead in recognizing the
separate legal personalities of each diocese and parish in
Puerto Rico. The Archdiocese claims that the Puerto Rico
Supreme Court decision violated the “religious autonomy
doctrine,” which provides: “[W]henever the questions of dis-
cipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have
been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to
which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must
accept such decisions as fnal, and as binding on them, in
their application to the case before them.” Id., at 20 (quot-
ing Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 727 (1872)).
We called for the Solicitor General's views on the petition.
588 U. S. 904 (2019). The Solicitor General argues that we
need not “reach [the Archdiocese's] broader theory in order
to properly dispose of this case,” because a different error
warrants vacatur and remand. Brief for United States as
Amicus Curiae on Pet. for Cert. 13–14 (Brief for United
States). Instead of citing “any neutral rule of Puerto Rico
law governing corporations, incorporated or unincorporated
associations, veil-piercing, joint-and-several liability, or vicari-
ous liability,” the Puerto Rico Supreme Court “relied on a spe-
cial presumption—seemingly applicable only to the Catholic
Church . . .—that all Catholic entities on the Island are `merely
indivisible fragments of the legal personality that the Catholic
Church has.' ” Id., at 9 (quoting App. to Pet. for Cert. 14).
The Solicitor General contends that the Puerto Rico Supreme
Court thus violated the fundamental tenet of the Free Exer-
cise Clause that a government may not “single out an individ-
ual religious denomination or religious belief for discrimina-
tory treatment.” Brief for United States 8 (citing Murphy
v. Collier, 587 U. S. 901 (2019) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring);
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 57 (2020)
63
Per Curiam
520, 524–525 (1993); Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U. S. 67,
69
(1953)).
We do not reach either argument because we fnd that the
Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction to issue the pay-
ment and seizure orders. On February 6, 2018, after the
Supreme Court of Puerto Rico remanded the case to the
Court of First Instance to determine the appropriate parties
to the preliminary injunction, the Archdiocese removed the
case to the United States District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico. Notice of Removal in Acevedo-Feliciano v.
Holy Catholic Church, No. 3:18–cv–01060. The Archdiocese
argued that the Trust had fled for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
and that this litigation was suffciently related to the bank-
ruptcy to give rise to federal jurisdiction. Id., at 5–6 (citing
28 U. S. C. §§ 1334(b), 1452). The Bankruptcy Court dis-
missed the Trust's bankruptcy proceeding on March 13, 2018.
Opinion and Order Granting Motions to Dismiss in In re
Catholic Schools Employee Pension Trust, No. 18–00108.
The Puerto Rico Court of First Instance issued the relevant
payment and seizure orders on March 16, March 26, and
March 27. App. to Pet. for Cert. 224, 227, 241. But the
District Court did not remand the case to the Puerto Rico
Court of First Instance until nearly fve months later, on
August 20, 2018. Order Granting Motion to Remand in
Acevedo-Feliciano v. Archdiocese of San Juan, No. 3:18–
cv–01060.
Once a notice of removal is fled, “the State court shall
proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.”
28 U. S. C. § 1446(d).
2
The state court “los[es] all jurisdiction
over the case, and, being without jurisdiction, its subsequent
2
“The laws of the United States relating to . . . removal of causes . . .
as between the courts of the United States and the courts of the several
States shall govern in such matters and proceedings as between the
United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the courts
of Puerto Rico.” 48 U. S. C. § 864.

64 ROMAN
CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN JUAN
v. ACEVEDO FELICIANO
Per Curiam
proceedings and judgment [are] not . . . simply erroneous,
but
absolutely void.” Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 485, 493
(1881). “Every order thereafter made in that court [is]
coram non judice,” meaning “not before a judge.” Steam-
ship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 122 (1882); Black's Law
Dictionary 426 (11th ed. 2019). See also 14C C. Wright, A.
Miller, E. Cooper, J. Steinman, & M. Kane, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 3736, pp. 727–729 (2018).
The Court of First Instance issued its payment and seizure
orders after the proceeding was removed to federal district
court, but before the federal court remanded the proceeding
back to the Puerto Rico court. At that time, the Court of
First Instance had no jurisdiction over the proceeding. The
orders are therefore void.
We note two possible rejoinders. First, the Puerto Rico
Court of Appeals suggested that the Archdiocese consented
to the Court of First Instance's jurisdiction by fling motions
in that court after removal. But we have held that a re-
moving party's right to a federal forum becomes “fxed”
upon fling of a notice of removal, and that if the remov-
ing party's “right to removal [is] ignored by the State court,”
the party may “make defence in that tribunal in every mode
recognized by the laws of the State, without forfeiting
or impairing, in the slightest degree, its right to a trial”
in federal court. Steamship Co., 106 U. S., at 122–123.
Such actions do not “restore[ ]” “the jurisdiction of the
State court.” Id., at 122. So, too, the Archdiocese's mo-
tions did not restore jurisdiction to the Court of First
Instance.
Second, the District Court remanded the case to the Court
of First Instance by way of a nunc pro tunc judgment
stating that the order “shall be effective as of March 13,
2018,” the date that the Trust's bankruptcy proceeding was
dismissed. Nunc Pro Tunc Judgt. in No. 3:18–cv–01060
(Aug. 8, 2018).

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 57 (2020)
65
Per Curiam
Federal courts may issue nunc pro tunc orders, or “now
for
then” orders, Black's Law Dictionary, at 1287, to “re-
fect[ ] the reality” of what has already occurred, Missouri v.
Jenkins, 495 U. S. 33, 49 (1990). “Such a decree presupposes
a decree allowed, or ordered, but not entered, through inad-
vertence of the court.” Cuebas y Arredondo v. Cuebas y
Arredondo, 223 U. S. 376, 390 (1912).
Put colorfully, “[n]unc pro tunc orders are not some Or-
wellian vehicle for revisionist history—creating `facts' that
never occurred in fact.” United States v. Gillespie, 666 F.
Supp. 1137, 1139 (ND Ill. 1987). Put plainly, the court “cannot
make the record what it is not.” Jenkins, 495 U. S., at 49.
Nothing occurred in the District Court case on March 13,
2018. See Order Granting Motion to Remand in No. 3:18–
cv–01060 (noting, on August 20, 2018, that the motion is
“hereby” granted and ordering judgment “accordingly”).
March 13 was when the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the
Trust's proceeding and thus the day that the Archdiocese's
argument for federal jurisdiction lost its persuasive force.
Even so, the case remained in federal court until that court,
on August 20, reached a decision about the motion to remand
that was pending before it. The Court of First Instance's
actions in the interim, including the payment and seizure
orders, are void.
The Solicitor General agrees that the Court of First In-
stance lacked jurisdiction but argues that this defect does
not prevent us from addressing additional errors, including
those asserted under the Free Exercise Clause. That may
be correct, given that the Puerto Rico courts do not exercise
Article III jurisdiction. But we think the preferable course
at this point is to remand the case to the Puerto Rico courts
to consider how to proceed in light of the jurisdictional defect
we have identifed.
The petition for certiorari and the motions for leave to
fle briefs amici curiae are granted, the judgment of the

66 ROMAN
CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN JUAN
v. ACEVEDO FELICIANO
Alito, J., concurring
Puerto Rico Supreme Court is vacated, and the case is re-
manded
for further proceedings not inconsistent with this
opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Alito, w ith whom Justice Thomas joi ns,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court but write separately to note
other important issues that may arise on remand.
First, the decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico is
based on an erroneous interpretation of this Court's old deci-
sion in Municipality of Ponce v. Roman Catholic Apostolic
Church in Porto Rico, 210 U. S. 296, 323–324 (1908). The
main question decided by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
below was whether the Catholic Church in Puerto Rico is a
single entity for civil law purposes or whether any subdivi-
sions, such as dioceses or parishes, or affliated entities, such
as schools and trusts, are separate entities for those pur-
poses. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico held that Ponce
decided that in Puerto Rico the Catholic Church is a single
entity for purposes of civil liability. That was incorrect.
The question in Ponce was whether the Catholic Church
or the municipality of Ponce held title to two churches that
had been built and maintained during the Spanish colonial
era using both private and public funds. The Church sued
to establish that it had title, and the municipality argued that
the Church could not bring suit because it was not a juridi-
cal person. 210 U. S., at 308–309. After considering the
Treaty of Paris, Dec. 10, 1898, 30 Stat. 1754, which ended
the Spanish-American War, this Court simply held that the
Church was a juridical person and thus could bring suit.
See 210 U. S., at 310–311, 323–324. This Court did not hold
that the Church is a single entity for purposes of civil liabil-
ity, but that is how the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico inter-
preted the decision. That court quoted Ponce's statement
that “ `[t]he Roman Catholic Church has been recognized as

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 57 (2020)
67
Alito, J., concurring
possessing legal personality by the treaty of Paris, and its
proper
ty rights solemnly safeguarded.' ” App. to Pet. for
Cert. 7 (quoting 210 U. S., at 323–324). Immediately there-
after it wrote: “Despite this, the intermediate appellate court
understood that each division of the Catholic Church in
Puerto Rico equals the creation of a different and separate
legal entity and did not recognize that legal personality of
the Catholic Church.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 8.
This is an incorrect interpretation of this Court's decision,
and it would have been appropriate for us to reverse the
decision below on that ground were it not for the juris-
dictional issue that the Court addresses. The assets that
may be reached by civil plaintiffs based on claims regarding
conduct by entities and individuals affliated in some way
with the Catholic Church (or any other religious body) is a
diffcult and important issue, but at least one thing is clear:
This Court's old decision in Ponce did not address that
question.
Second, as the Solicitor General notes, the Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment at a minimum demands that
all jurisdictions use neutral rules in determining whether
particular entities that are associated in some way with a
religious body may be held responsible for debts incurred
by other associated entities. See Brief for United States as
Amicus Curiae on Pet. for Cert. 8–13.
Beyond this lurk more diffcult questions, including (1) the
degree to which the First Amendment permits civil authori-
ties to question a religious body's own understanding of its
structure and the relationship between associated entities
and (2) whether, and if so to what degree, the First Amend-
ment places limits on rules on civil liability that seriously
threaten the right of Americans to the free exercise of reli-
gion as members of a religious body.
The Court does not reach these issues because of our juris-
dictional holding. But they are questions that may well
merit our review.

68 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Syllabus
MONASKY v. TAGLIERI
certiorari
to the united states court of appeals for
the sixth circuit
No. 18–935. Argued December 11, 2019—Decided February 25, 2020
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduc-
tion (Hague Convention or Convention), implemented in the United
States by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 22 U. S. C.
§ 9001 et seq., provides that a child wrongfully removed from her country
of “habitual residence” ordinarily must be returned to that country.
Petitioner Monasky, a U. S. citizen, asserts that her Italian husband,
respondent Taglieri, became abusive after the couple moved to Italy
from the United States. Two months after the birth of the couple's
daughter, A. M. T., in Italy, Monasky fed with the infant to Ohio. Tag-
lieri petitioned the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
for A. M. T.'s return to Italy under the Convention, pursuant to 22
U. S. C. § 9003(b), on the ground that the child had been wrongfully re-
moved from her country of “habitual residence.” The District Court
granted Taglieri's petition, concluding that the parents' shared intent
was for their daughter to live in Italy. Then two-year-old A. M. T.
was returned to Italy. The en banc Sixth Circuit affrmed. Under its
precedent, the court frst noted, an infant's habitual residence depends
on the parents' shared intent. It then reviewed the District Court's
habitual-residence determination for clear error and found none. In
doing so, the court rejected Monasky's argument that Italy could not
qualify as A. M. T.'s “habitual residence” in the absence of an actual
agreement by her parents to raise her there.
Held:
1. A child's habitual residence depends on the totality of the circum-
stances specifc to the case, not on categorical requirements such as an
actual agreement between the parents. Pp. 76–83.
(a) The inquiry begins with the Convention's text “and the context
in which the written words are used.” Air France v. Saks, 470 U. S.
392, 397. The Convention does not defne “habitual residence,” but, as
the Convention's text and explanatory report indicate, a child habitually
resides where she is at home. This fact-driven inquiry must be “sensi-
tive to the unique circumstances of the case and informed by common
sense.” Redmond v. Redmond, 724 F. 3d 729, 744. Acclimation of
older children and the intentions and circumstances of caregiving par-
ents are relevant considerations, but no single fact is dispositive across

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 68 (2020)
69
Syllabus
all cases. The treaty's “negotiation and drafting history” corroborates
that
habitual residence depends on the specifc circumstances of the par-
ticular case. Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491, 507. This interpretation
also aligns with habitual-residence determinations made by other na-
tions party to the Convention. Pp. 76–81.
(b) Monasky's arguments in favor of an actual-agreement require-
ment are unpersuasive. While an infant's “mere physical presence” is
not a dispositive indicator of an infant's habitual residence, a wide range
of facts other than an actual agreement, including those indicating that
the parents have made their home in a particular place, can enable a
trier to determine whether an infant's residence has the quality of being
“habitual.” Nor is adjudicating a dispute over whether an agreement
existed a more expeditious way of promoting returns of abducted chil-
dren and deterring would-be abductors than according courts leeway to
consider all the circumstances. Finally, imposing a categorical actual-
agreement requirement is unlikely to be an appropriate solution to the
serious problem of protecting children born into domestic violence, for
it would leave many infants without a habitual residence, and therefore
outside the Convention's domain. Domestic violence should be an issue
fully explored in the custody adjudication upon the child's return. The
Convention also has a mechanism for guarding children from the harms
of domestic violence: Article 13(b) allows a court to refrain from order-
ing a child's return to her habitual residence if “there is a grave risk
that [the child's] return would expose the child to physical or psycholog-
ical harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”
Pp. 81–83.
2. A frst-instance habitual-residence determination is subject to def-
erential appellate review for clear error. A trial court's habitual-
residence determination presents a mixed question of law and fact that
is heavily fact laden. The determination thus presents a task for fact-
fnding courts and should be judged on appeal by a clear-error review
standard. See U. S. Bank N. A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U. S.
387, 396. There is no “ h istor ical tradition” indicati ng otherw ise.
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 558. Clear-error review has a par-
ticular virtue in Hague Convention cases: By speeding up appeals, it
serves the Convention's emphasis on expedition. Notably, courts of
other treaty partners also review frst-instance habitual-residence de-
terminations deferentially. Pp. 83–84.
3. Given the circumstances of this case, it is unnecessary to disturb
the judgment below and remand the case to give the lower courts an
opportunity to apply the governing totality-of-the-circumstances stand-
ard in the frst instance. Pp. 85–86.

70 MON
ASKY v. TAGLIERI
Opinion of the Court
907 F. 3d 404, affrmed.
G
insburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts,
C. J., and Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ.,
joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined as to Parts I, III, and IV.
Thomas, J., post, p. 86, and Alito, J., post, p. 91, fled opinions concurring
in part and concurring in the judgment.
Amir C. Tayrani argued the cause for petitioner. With
him on the briefs were Melanie L. Katsur, Kellam M. Con-
over, Shannon U. Han, Joan S. Meier, Andrew A. Zashin,
Christopher R. Reynolds, and Amy M. Keating.
Sopan Joshi argued the cause for the United States as
amicus curiae urging vacatur. With him on the brief were
Solicitor General Francisco, Assistant Attorney General
Hunt, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Sharon Swingle,
and Lewis S. Yelin.
Andrew J. Pincus argued the cause for respondent. With
him on the brief were Charles A. Rothfeld, Paul W. Hughes,
Michael B. Kimberly, Eugene R. Fidell, John D. Sayre, and
Amy Berman Hamilton.*
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of In-
ternational Child Abduction (Hague Convention or Conven-
tion), Oct. 25, 1980, T. I. A. S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc.
No. 99–11 (Treaty Doc.), a child wrongfully removed from
her country of “habitual residence” ordinarily must be re-
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the Frederick
K. Cox International Law Center by David A. Carney, Michael P. Scharf,
Stephen J. Petras, Jr., Andrew S. Pollis, and Aleksandar Cuic; and for Sanc-
tuary for Families et al. by Michael A. F. Johnson and Dirk C. Phillips.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for the American
Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers by Peter M. Walzer; and for the Inter-
national Academy of Family Lawyers by Edwin Freedman, Dana Pres-
cott, and Richard Min.
Kelly A. Powers, Stephen J. Cullen, and Leah M. Hauser fled a brief of
amici curiae for the Reunite International Child Abduction Centre.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 68 (2020)
71
Opinion of the Court
turned to that country. This case concerns the standard for
deter
mining a child's “habitual residence” and the standard
for reviewing that determination on appeal. The petitioner,
Michelle Monasky, is a U. S. citizen who brought her infant
daughter, A. M. T., to the United States from Italy after
her Italian husband, Domenico Taglieri, became abusive to
Monasky. Tag lier i successfu lly petitioned the District
Court for A. M. T.'s return to Italy under the Convention,
and the Court of Appeals affrmed the District Court's order.
Monasky assails the District Court's determination that
Italy was A. M. T.'s habitual residence. First of the ques-
tions presented: Could Italy qualify as A. M. T.'s “habitual
residence” in the absence of an actual agreement by her
parents to raise her there? The second question: Should
the Court of Appeals have reviewed the District Court's
habitual-residence determination independently rather than
deferentially? In accord with decisions of the courts of
other countries party to the Convention, we hold that a
child's habitual residence depends on the totality of the cir-
cumstances specifc to the case. An actual agreement be-
tween the parents is not necessary to establish an infant's
habitual residence. We further hold that a frst-instance
habitual-residence determination is subject to deferential ap-
pellate review for clear error.
I
A
The Hag ue Conference on Private Internationa l Law
adopted the Hague Convention in 1980 “[t]o address the
problem of international child abductions during domestic
disputes.” Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U. S. 1, 4 (2014)
(internal quotation marks omitted). One hundred one coun-
tries, including the United States and Italy, are Convention
sig nator ies. Hag ue Conference on Pr ivate Int'l Law,
Convention of 25 Oct. 1980 on the Civil Aspects of Int'l
Child Abduction, Status Table, https://www.hcch.net/en/

72 MON
ASKY v. TAGLIERI
Opinion of the Court
instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=24. The Interna-
ti
onal Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 102 Stat.
437, as amended, 22 U. S. C. § 9001 et seq., implements our
Nation's obligations under the Convention. It is the Con-
vention's core premise that “the interests of children . . . in
matters relating to their custody” are best served when cus-
tody decisions are made in the child's country of “habitual
residence.” Convention Preamble, Treaty Doc., at 7; see
Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U. S. 1, 20 (2010).
To that end, the Convention ordinarily requires the
prompt return of a child wrongfully removed or retained
away from the country in which she habitually resides. Art.
12, Treaty Doc., at 9 (cross-referencing Art. 3, id., at 7). The
removal or retention is wrongful if done in violation of the
custody laws of the child's habitual residence. Art. 3, ibid.
The Convention recognizes certain exceptions to the return
obligation. Prime among them, a child's return is not in
order if the return would place her at a “grave risk” of harm
or otherwise in “an intolerable situation.” Art. 13(b), id.,
at 10.
The Convention's return requirement is a “provisional”
remedy that fxes the forum for custody proceedings. Sil-
berman, Interpreting the Hague Abduction Convention: In
Search of a Global Jurisprudence, 38 U. C. D. L. Rev. 1049,
1054 (2005). Upon the child's return, the custody adjudica-
tion will proceed in that forum. See ibid. To avoid delay-
ing the custody proceeding, the Convention instructs con-
tracting states to “use the most expeditious procedures
available” to return the child to her habitual residence. Art.
2, Treaty Doc., at 7. See also Art. 11, id., at 9 (prescribing
six weeks as normal time for return-order decisions).
B
In 2011, Monasky and Taglieri were married in the United
States. Two years later, they relocated to Italy, where they
both found work. Neither then had defnite plans to return

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 68 (2020)
73
Opinion of the Court
to the United States. During their frst year in Italy, Mon-
asky
and Taglieri lived together in Milan. But the marriage
soon deteriorated. Taglieri became physically abusive,
Monasky asserts, and “forced himself upon [her] multiple
times.” 907 F. 3d 404, 406 (CA6 2018) (en banc).
About a year after their move to Italy, in May 2014, Mon-
asky became pregnant. Taglieri thereafter took up new em-
ployment in the town of Lugo, while Monasky, who did not
speak Italian, remained about three hours away in Milan.
The long-distance separation and a diffcult pregnancy fur-
ther strained their marriage. Monasky looked into return-
ing to the United States. She applied for jobs there, asked
about U. S. divorce lawyers, and obtained cost information
from moving companies. At the same time, though, she and
Taglieri made preparations to care for their expected child
in Italy. They inquired about childcare options there, made
purchases needed for their baby to live in Italy, and found a
larger apartment in a Milan suburb.
Their daughter, A. M. T., was born in February 2015.
Shortly thereafter, Monasky told Taglieri that she wanted to
divorce him, a matter they had previously broached, and that
she anticipated returning to the United States. Later, how-
ever, she agreed to join Taglieri, together with A. M. T., in
Lugo. The parties dispute whether they reconciled while
together in that town.
On March 31, 2015, after yet another heated argument,
Monasky fed with her daughter to the Italian police and
sought shelter in a safe house. In a written statement to
the police, Monasky alleged that Taglieri had abused her and
that she feared for her life. Two weeks later, in April 2015,
Monasky and two-month-old A. M. T. left Italy for Ohio,
where they moved in with Monasky's parents.
Taglieri sought recourse in the courts. With Monasky ab-
sent from the proceedings, an Italian court granted Taglieri's
request to terminate Monasky's parental rights, discredit-
ing her statement to the Italian police. App. 183. In the

74 MON
ASKY v. TAGLIERI
Opinion of the Court
United States, on May 15, 2015, Taglieri petitioned the U. S.
D
istrict Court for the Northern District of Ohio for the re-
turn of A. M. T. to Italy under the Hague Convention, pursu-
ant to 22 U. S. C. § 9003(b), on the ground that Italy was her
habitual residence.
The District Court granted Taglieri's petition after a four-
day bench trial. Sixth Circuit precedent at the time, the
District Court observed, instructed courts that a child habit-
ually resides where the child has become “acclimatiz[ed]” to
her surroundings. App. to Pet. for Cert. 85a (quoting Rob-
ert v. Tesson, 507 F. 3d 981, 993 (CA6 2007)). An infant,
however, is “too young ” to acclimate to her surroundings.
App. to Pet. for Cert. 87a. The District Court therefore
proceeded on the assumption that “the shared intent of the
[parents] is relevant in determining the habitual residence of
an infant,” though “particular facts and circumstances . . .
might necessitate the consideration [of] other factors.” Id.,
at 97a. The shared intention of A. M. T.'s parents, the Dis-
trict Court found, was for their daughter to live in Italy,
where the parents had established a marital home “with no
defnitive plan to return to the United States.” Ibid. Even
if Monasky could change A. M. T.'s habitual residence unilat-
erally by making plans to raise A. M. T. away from Italy, the
District Court added, the evidence on that score indicated
that, until the day she fed her husband, Monasky had “no
defnitive plans” to raise A. M. T. in the United States. Id.,
at 98a. In line with its fndings, the District Court ordered
A. M. T.'s prompt return to Italy.
The Sixth Circuit and this Court denied Monasky's re-
quests for a stay of the return order pending appeal. 907
F. 3d, at 407. In December 2016, A. M. T., nearly two years
old, was returned to Italy and placed in her father's care.
1
1
Taglieri represents that “[a]n order issued by the Italian court in De-
cember 2018 awarded legal custody of A. M. T., on an interim basis, to the
Lugo municipality . . . with placement at [Taglieri's] residence; and pro-
vided that mother-daughter visits would continue under the plan pre-

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 68 (2020)
75
Opinion of the Court
In the United States, Monasky's appeal of the District
Cour
t's return order proceeded. See Chafn v. Chafn, 568
U. S. 165, 180 (2013) (the return of a child under the Hague
Convention does not moot an appeal of the return order). A
divided three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit affrmed the
District Court's order, and a divided en banc court adhered
to that disposition.
The en banc majority noted frst that, after the District
Court's decision, a precedential Sixth Circuit opinion, Ahmed
v. Ahmed, 867 F. 3d 682 (2017), established that, as the Dis-
trict Court had assumed, an infant's habitual residence de-
pends on “shared parental intent.” 907 F. 3d, at 408 (quot-
ing Ahmed, 867 F. 3d, at 690). The en banc majority then
reviewed the District Court's habitual-residence determina-
tion for clear error and found none. Sustaining the District
Court's determination that A. M. T.'s habitual residence was
Italy, the majority rejected Monasky's argument that the
District Court erred because “she and Taglieri never had a
`meeting of the minds' about their child's future home.” 907
F. 3d, at 410.
No member of the en banc court disagreed with the major-
ity's rejection of Monasky's proposed actual-agreement re-
quirement. Nor did any judge maintain that Italy was not
A. M. T.'s habitual residence. Judge Boggs wrote a concur-
ring opinion adhering to the reasoning of his three-judge
panel majority opinion: “[A]bsent unusual circumstances,
where a child has resided exclusively in a single country,
especially with both parents, that country is the child's habit-
ual residence.” Id., at 411. The dissenters urged two dis-
crete objections. Some would have reviewed the District
Court's habitual-residence determination de novo. See id.,
at 419 (opinion of Moore, J.). All would have remanded for
the District Court to reconsider A. M. T.'s habitual residence
in light of the Sixth Circuit's Ahmed precedent. See 907
scribed in a court order issued earlier in 2018.” Brief for Respondent
56, n. 13.

76 MON
ASKY v. TAGLIERI
Opinion of the Court
F. 3d, at 419–420; id., at 421–422 (opinion of Gibbons, J.); id.,
at
423 (opinion of Stranch, J.).
We granted certiorari to clarify the standard for habitual
residence, an important question of federal and international
law, in view of differences in emphasis among the Courts of
Appeals. 587 U. S. 1051 (2019). Compare, e. g., 907 F. 3d,
at 407 (case below) (describing inquiry into the child's accli-
matization as the “primary” approach), with, e. g., Mozes v.
Mozes, 239 F. 3d 1067, 1073–1081 (CA9 2001) (placing greater
weight on the shared intentions of the parents), with, e. g.,
Redmond v. Redmond, 724 F. 3d 729, 746 (CA7 2013) (reject-
ing “rigid rules, formulas, or presumptions”). Certiorari
was further warranted to resolve a division in Courts of Ap-
peals over the appropriate standard of appellate review.
Compare, e. g., 907 F. 3d, at 408–409 (case below) (clear
error), with, e. g., Mozes, 239 F. 3d, at 1073 (de novo).
II
The frst question presented concerns the standard for ha-
bitual residence: Is an actual agreement between the parents
on where to raise their child categorically necessary to estab-
lish an infant's habitual residence? We hold that the deter-
mination of habitual residence does not turn on the existence
of an actual agreement.
A
We begin with “the text of the treaty and the context in
which the written words are used.” Air France v. Saks, 470
U. S. 392, 397 (1985). The Hague Convention does not defne
the term “habitual residence.” A child “resides” where she
lives. See Black's Law Dictionary 1176 (5th ed. 1979). Her
residence in a particular country can be deemed “habitual,”
however, only when her residence there is more than transi-
tory. “Habitual” implies “[c]ustomary, usual, of the nature
of a habit.” Id., at 640. The Hague Convention's text alone
does not defnitively tell us what makes a child's residence suf-
fciently enduring to be deemed “habitual.” It surely does

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 68 (2020)
77
Opinion of the Court
not say that habitual residence depends on an actual agree-
ment
between a child's parents. But the term “habitual”
does suggest a fact-sensitive inquiry, not a categorical one.
The Convention's explanatory report confrms what the
Convention's text suggests. The report informs that habit-
ual residence is a concept “well-established . . . in the Hague
Conference.” 1980 Conférence de La Haye de droit interna-
tional privé, Enlèvement d'enfants, E. Pérez-Vera, Explana-
tory Report in 3 Actes et documents de la Quatorzième ses-
sion, p. 445, ¶66 (1982) (Pérez-Vera).
2
The report refers to
a child's habitual residence in fact-focused terms: “the family
and social environment in which [the child's] life has devel-
oped.” Id., at 428, ¶11. What makes a child's residence
“habitual” is therefore “some degree of integration by the
child in a social and family environment.” OL v. PQ, 2017
E. C. R. No. C–111/17, ¶42 (Judgt. of June 8); accord Offce
of the Children's Lawyer v. Balev, [2018] 1 S. C. R. 398, 421,
¶43, 424 D. L. R. (4th) 391, 410, ¶43 (Can.); A v. A, [2014]
A. C., ¶54 (2013) (U. K.). Accordingly, while Federal Courts
of Appeals have diverged, if only in emphasis, in the stand-
ards they use to locate a child's habitual residence, see supra,
at 76, they share a “common” understanding: The place
where a child is at home, at the time of removal or retention,
ranks as the child's habitual residence. Karkkainen v. Ko-
valchuk, 445 F. 3d 280, 291 (CA3 2006).
2
According to an analysis provided by the Department of State to the
Senate during the ratifcation process, the “explanatory report is recog-
nized by the [Hague] Conference as the offcial history and commentary
on the Convention and is a source of background on the meaning of the
provisions of the Convention.” Hague International Child Abduction
Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, 51 Fed. Reg. 10503 (1986). The
explanatory report notes, however, that “it has not been approved by the
Conference, and it is possible that, despite the Rapporter's [sic] efforts to
remain objective, certain passages refect a viewpoint which is in part
subjective.” Pérez-Vera 427–428, ¶8. See Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U. S. 1,
19 (2010) (“We need not decide whether this Report should be given
greater weight than a scholarly commentary.”).

78 MON
ASKY v. TAGLIERI
Opinion of the Court
Because locating a child's home is a fact-driven inquiry,
cour
ts must be “sensitive to the unique circumstances of the
case and informed by common sense.” Redmond, 724 F. 3d,
at 744. For older children capable of acclimating to their
surroundings, courts have long recognized, facts indicating
acclimatization will be highly relevant.
3
Because children,
especially those too young or otherwise unable to acclimate,
depend on their parents as caregivers, the intentions and
circumstances of caregiving parents are relevant considera-
tions. No single fact, however, is dispositive across all
cases. Common sense suggests that some cases will be
straightforward: Where a child has lived in one place with
her family indefnitely, that place is likely to be her habitual
residence. But suppose, for instance, that an infant lived in
a country only because a caregiving parent had been coerced
into remaining there. Those circumstances should fgure in
the calculus. See Karkkainen, 445 F. 3d, at 291 (“The in-
quiry into a child's habitual residence is a fact-intensive de-
termination that cannot be reduced to a predetermined for-
mula and necessarily varies with the circumstances of each
case.”).
The treaty's “negotiation and drafting history” corrobo-
rates that a child's habitual residence depends on the specifc
circumstances of the particular case. Medellín v. Texas, 552
U. S. 491, 507 (2008) (noting that such history may aid
treaty interpretation). The Convention's explanatory re-
port states that the Hague Conference regarded habitual
residence as “a question of pure fact, differing in that respect
3
Facts courts have considered include: “a change in geography combined
with the passage of an appreciable period of time,” “age of the child,”
“immigration status of child and parent,” “academic activities,” “social en-
gagements,” “participation in sports programs and excursions,” “meaning-
ful connections with the people and places in the child's new country,”
“language profciency,” and “location of personal belongings.” Federal
Judicial Center, J. Garbolino, The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction: A Guide for Judges 67–68 (2d
ed. 2015).

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 68 (2020)
79
Opinion of the Court
from domicile.” Pérez-Vera 445, ¶66. The Conference de-
l
iberately chose “habitual residence” for its factual character,
making it the foundation for the Convention's return remedy
in lieu of formal legal concepts like domicile and nationality.
See Anton, The Hague Convention on International Child
Abduction, 30 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 537, 544 (1981) (history of
the Convention authored by the drafting commission's chair-
man). That choice is instructive. The signatory nations
sought to afford courts charged with determining a child's
habitual residence “maximum fexibility” to respond to
the particular circumstances of each case. P. Beaumont &
P. McEleavy, The Hague Convention on International Child
Abduction 89–90 (1999) (Beaumont & McEleavy). The aim:
to ensure that custody is adjudicated in what is presump-
tively the most appropriate forum—the country where the
child is at home.
Our conclusion that a child's habitual residence depends on
the particular circumstances of each case is bolstered by the
views of our treaty partners. ICARA expressly recognizes
“the need for uniform international interpretation of the
Convention.” 22 U. S. C. § 9001(b)(3)(B). See Lozano, 572
U. S., at 13; Abbott, 560 U. S., at 16. The understanding that
the opinions of our sister signatories to a treaty are due “con-
siderable weight,” this Court has said, has “special force” in
Hague Convention cases. Ibid. (quoting El Al Israel Air-
lines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U. S. 155, 176 (1999), in
turn quoting Air France, 470 U. S., at 404). The “clear
trend” among our treaty partners is to treat the determi-
nation of habitual residence as a fact-driven inquiry into
the particular circumstances of the case. Balev, [2018] 1
S. C. R., at 423, ¶50, 424 D. L. R. (4th), at 411, ¶50.
Lady Hale wrote for the Supreme Court of the United
Kingdom: A child's habitual residence “depends on numerous
factors . . . with the purposes and intentions of the parents
being merely one of the relevant factors. . . . The essentially
factual and individual nature of the inquiry should not be

80 MON
ASKY v. TAGLIERI
Opinion of the Court
glossed with legal concepts.” A, [2014] A. C., at ¶54. The
Cour
t of Justice of the European Union, the Supreme Court
of Canada, and the High Court of Australia agree. See OL,
2017 E. C. R. No. C–111/17, ¶42 (the habitual residence of
a child “must be established . . . taking account of all the
circumstances of fact specifc to each individual case”); Balev,
[2018] 1 S. C. R., at 421, 423–430, ¶¶43, 48–71, 424 D. L. R.
(4th), at 410–417, ¶¶43, 48–71 (adopting an approach to habit-
ual residence under which “[t]he judge considers all relevant
links and circumstances”); LK v. Director-General, Dept. of
Community Servs., [2009] 237 C. L. R. 582, 596, ¶35 (Austl.)
(“to seek to identify a set list of criteria that bear upon
where a child is habitually resident . . . would deny the sim-
ple observation that the question of habitual residence will
fall for decision in a very wide range of circumstances”). In-
termediate appellate courts in Hong Kong and New Zealand
have similarly stated what “habitual residence” imports.
See LCYP v. JEK, [2015] 4 H. K. L. R. D. 798, 809–810, ¶7.7
(H. K.); Punter v. Secretary for Justice, [2007] 1 N. Z. L. R.
40, 71, ¶130 (N. Z.). Tellingly, Monasky has not identifed a
single treaty partner that has adopted her actual-agreement
proposal. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 9.
4
The bottom line: There are no categorical requirements for
establishing a child's habitual residence—least of all an
4
Monasky disputes that foreig n cour ts apply a tot a lity-of-the-
circumstances standard to in fants, as opposed to older children. In this
regard, she points out, the Court of Justice of the European Union in-
structs that, “where `the infant is in fact looked after by her mother,' `it
is necessary to assess the mother's integration in her social and family
environment' in the relevant country.” Reply Brief 5–6 (quoting Mer-
credi v. Chaffe, 2010 E. C. R. I–14309, I–14379, ¶55). True, a caregiving
parent's ties to the country at issue are highly relevant. But the Court
of Justice did not hold that the caregiver's ties are the end of the inquiry.
Rather, the deciding court must “tak[e] account of all the circumstances
of fact specifc to each individual case.” Id., ¶56 (emphasis added) (also
considering, among other factors, the infant's physical presence and dura-
tion of time in the country).

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 68 (2020)
81
Opinion of the Court
actual-agreement requirement for infants. Monasky's pro-
posed
actual-agreement requirement is not only unsupported
by the Convention's text and inconsistent with the leeway
and international harmony the Convention demands; her
proposal would thwart the Convention's “objects and pur-
poses.” Abbott, 560 U. S., at 20. An actual-agreement re-
quirement would enable a parent, by withholding agreement,
unilaterally to block any fnding of habitual residence for an
infant. If adopted, the requirement would undermine the
Convention's aim to stop unilateral decisions to remove chil-
dren across international borders. Moreover, when parents'
relations are acrimonious, as is often the case in controver-
sies arising under the Convention, agreement can hardly be
expected. In short, as the Court of Appeals observed below,
“Monasky's approach would create a presumption of no habit-
ual residence for infants, leaving the population most vulner-
able to abduction the least protected.” 907 F. 3d, at 410.
B
Monasky counters that an actual-agreement requirement
is necessary to ensure “that an infant's mere physical pres-
ence in a country has a suffciently settled quality to be
deemed `habitual.' ” Brief for Petitioner 32. An infant's
“mere physical presence,” we agree, is not a dispositive indi-
cator of an infant's habitual residence. But a wide range of
facts other than an actual agreement, including facts indicat-
ing that the parents have made their home in a particular
place, can enable a trier to determine whether an infant's
residence in that place has the quality of being “habitual.”
Monasky also argues that a bright-line rule like her pro-
posed actual-agreement requirement would promote prompt
returns of abducted children and deter would-be abductors
from “tak[ing] their chances” in the frst place. Id., at 35,
38. Adjudicating a winner-takes-all evidentiary dispute
over whether an agreement existed, however, is scarcely
more expeditious than providing courts with leeway to make

82 MON
ASKY v. TAGLIERI
Opinion of the Court
“a quick impression gained on a panoramic view of the evi-
dence
.” Beaumont & McEleavy 103 (internal quotation
marks omitted). When all the circumstances are in play,
would-be abductors should fnd it more, not less, diffcult to
manipulate the reality on the ground, thus impeding them
from forging “artifcial jurisdictional links . . . with a view to
obtaining custody of a child.” Pérez-Vera 428, ¶11.
Finally, Monasky and amici curiae raise a troublesome
matter: An actual-agreement requirement, they say, is neces-
sary to protect children born into domestic violence. Brief
for Petitioner 42–44; Brief for Sanctuary for Families et al.
as Amici Curiae 11–20. Domestic violence poses an “intrac-
table” problem in Hague Convention cases involving care-
giving parents feeing with their children from abuse. Hale,
Taking Flight—Domestic Violence and Child Abduction, 70
Current Legal Prob. 3, 11 (2017). We doubt, however, that
imposing a categorical actual-agreement requirement is an
appropriate solution, for it would leave many infants without
a habitual residence, and therefore outside the Convention's
domain. See supra, at 80–81. Settling the forum for adju-
dication of a dispute over a child's custody, of course, does
not dispose of the merits of the controversy over custody.
Domestic violence should be an issue fully explored in the
custody adjudication upon the child's return.
The Hague Convention, we add, has a mechanism for
guarding children from the harms of domestic violence: Arti-
cle 13(b). See Hale, 70 Current Legal Prob., at 10–16 (on
Hague Conference working group to develop a best-practices
guide to the interpretation and application of Article 13(b) in
cases involving domestic violence). Article 13(b), as noted
supra, at 72, allows a court to refrain from ordering a child's
return to her habitual residence if “there is a grave risk that
[the child's] return would expose the child to physical or psy-
chological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable
situation.” Art. 13(b), Treaty Doc., at 10. Monasky raised
below an Article 13(b) defense to Taglieri's return petition.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 68 (2020)
83
Opinion of the Court
In response, the District Court credited Monasky's “deeply
troubl[i
ng]” allegations of her exposure to Taglieri's physical
abuse. App. to Pet. for Cert. 105a. But the District Court
found “no evidence” that Taglieri ever abused A. M. T. or
otherwise disregarded her well-being. Id., at 103a, 105a.
That court also followed Circuit precedent disallowing con-
sideration of psychological harm A. M. T. might experience
due to separation from her mother. Id., at 102a. Monasky
does not challenge those dispositions in this Court.
III
Turning to the second question presented: What is the ap-
propriate standard of appellate review of an initial adjudica-
tor's habitual-residence determination? Neither the Con-
vention nor ICARA prescribes modes of appellate review,
other than the directive to act “expeditiously.” Art. 11,
Treaty Doc., at 9; see Federal Judicial Center, J. Garbolino,
The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Interna-
tional Child Abduction: A Guide for Judges 162 (2d ed. 2015)
(the Convention's “emphasis on prompt disposition applies to
appellate proceedings”).
5
Absent a treaty or statutory prescription, the appropriate
level of deference to a trial court's habitual-residence deter-
mination depends on whether that determination resolves a
question of law, a question of fact, or a mixed question of law
and fact. Generally, questions of law are reviewed de novo
and questions of fact, for clear error, while the appropriate
standard of appellate review for a mixed question “depends
. . . on whether answering it entails primarily legal or factual
5
Monasky contends that only de novo review can satisfy “the need for
uniform international interpretation of the Convention. ” 22 U. S. C.
§ 9001(b)(3)(B). See Brief for Petitioner 19–21. However, ICARA's rec-
ognition of the need for harmonious international interpretation is hardly
akin to the “clear statutory prescription” on the standard of appellate re-
view that Congress has provided “[f]or some few trial court determina-
tions.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 558 (1988).

84 MON
ASKY v. TAGLIERI
Opinion of the Court
work.” U. S. Bank N. A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 583
U
. S. 387, 396 (2018).
A child's habitual residence presents what U. S. law types
a “mixed question” of law and fact—albeit barely so. Id., at
395. The inquiry begins with a legal question: What is the
appropriate standard for habitual residence? Once the trial
court correctly identifies the gover ning tota lity-of-the-
circumstances standard, however, what remains for the court
to do in applying that standard, as we explained supra, at
76–80, is to answer a factual question: Was the child at home
in the particular country at issue? The habitual-residence
determination thus presents a task for factfnding courts, not
appellate courts, and should be judged on appeal by a clear-
error review standard deferential to the factfnding court.
In selecting standards of appellate review, the Court has
also asked whether there is “a long history of appellate prac-
tice” indicating the appropriate standard, for arriving at the
standard from frst principles can prove “uncommonly diff-
cult.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 558 (1988). Al-
though some Federal Courts of Appeals have reviewed
habitual-residence determinations de novo, there has been no
uniform, reasoned practice in this regard, nothing resem-
bling “a historical tradition.” Ibid. See also supra, at 76
(noting a Circuit split). Moreover, when a mixed question
has a factual foundation as evident as the habitual-residence
inquiry here does, there is scant cause to default to historical
practice.
Clear-error review has a particular virtue in Hague Con-
vention cases. As a deferential standard of review, clear-
error review speeds up appeals and thus serves the Conven-
tion's premium on expedition. See Arts. 2, 11, Treaty Doc.,
at 7, 9. Notably, courts of our treaty partners review frst-
instance habitual-residence determinations deferentially.
See, e. g., Balev, [2018] 1 S. C. R., at 419, ¶38, 424 D. L. R.
(4th), at 408, ¶38; Punter, [2007] 1 N. Z. L. R., at 88, ¶204;
AR v. RN, [2015] UKSC 35, ¶18.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 68 (2020)
85
Opinion of the Court
IV
Although
agreeing with the manner in which the Court
has resolved the two questions presented, the United States,
as an amicus curiae supporting neither party, suggests re-
manding to the Court of Appeals rather than affrming that
court's judgment. Brief for United States as Amicus Cu-
riae 28. Ordinarily, we might take that course, giving the
lower courts an opportunity to apply the governing totality-
of-the-circumstances standard in the frst instance.
Under the circumstances of this case, however, we decline
to disturb the judgment below. True, the lower courts
viewed A. M. T.'s situation through the lens of her parents'
shared intentions. But, after a four-day bench trial, the
District Court had before it all the facts relevant to the dis-
pute. Asked at oral argument to identify any additional fact
the District Court did not digest, counsel for the United
States offered none. Tr. of Oral Arg. 38. Monasky and
Taglieri agree that their dispute “requires no `further factual
development,' ” and neither party asks for a remand. Reply
Brief 22 (quoting Brief for Respondent 54).
Monasky does urge the Court to reverse if it rests
A. M. T.'s habitual residence on all relevant circumstances.
She points to her “absence of settled ties to Italy” and the
“unsettled and unstable conditions in which A. M. T. resided
in Italy.” Reply Brief 19 (internal quotation marks and al-
teration omitted). The District Court considered the com-
peting facts bearing on those assertions, however, including
the fraught circumstances in which the parties' marriage un-
raveled. That court nevertheless found that Monasky had
suffcient ties to Italy such that “[a]rguably, [she] was a habit-
ual resident of Italy.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 91a. And, de-
spite the rocky state of the marriage, the District Court
found beyond question that A. M. T. was born into “a marital
home in Italy,” one that her parents established “with no
defnitive plan to return to the United States.” Id., at 97a.

86 MON
ASKY v. TAGLIERI
Opinion of Thomas, J.
Nothing in the record suggests that the District Court would
appraise
the facts differently on remand.
A remand would consume time when swift resolution is
the Convention's objective. The instant return-order pro-
ceedings began a few months after A. M. T.'s birth. She
is now fve years old. The more than four-and-a-half-year
duration of this litigation dwarfs the six-week target time
for resolving a return-order petition. See Art. 11, Treaty
Doc., at 9. Taglieri represents that custody of A. M. T. has
so far been resolved only “on an interim basis,” Brief for
Respondent 56, n. 13, and that custody proceedings, including
the matter of Monasky's parental rights, remain pending in
Italy. Tr. of Oral Arg. 60–61. Given the exhaustive record
before the District Court, the absence of any reason to antici-
pate that the District Court's judgment would change on a
remand that neither party seeks, and the protraction of pro-
ceedings thus far, fnal judgment on A. M. T.'s return is in
order.
***
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Ap-
peals for the Sixth Circuit is
Affrmed.
Justice Thomas, concurring in part and concurring in
the judgment.
The Court correctly concludes that an actual agreement
between parents is not necessary to establish the habitual
residence of an infant who is too young to acclimatize.* I
also agree with the Court's conclusion that the habitual-
*The Court states that we “granted certiorari to clarify the standard
for habitual residence,” ante, at 76, and the opinion contains language that
may be read to apply to older children, see, e. g., ante, at 78. But the
relevant question presented focuses exclusively on the habitual residence
of “an infant [who] is too young to acclimate to her surroundings.” Pet.
for Cert. i. I would confne our analysis to that distinct question, which
is the only one briefed by the parties.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 68 (2020)
87
Opinion of Thomas, J.
residence inquiry is intensely fact driven, requiring courts to
t
ake account of the unique circumstances of each case. I
write separately, however, because I would decide this case
principally on the plain meaning of the treaty's text.
I
This case requires us to interpret the Hague Convention
on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct.
25, 1980, T. I. A. S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99–11, as
implemented by the International Child Abduction Reme-
dies Act (ICARA), as amended, 22 U. S. C. § 9001 et seq. Ar-
ticle 3 of the Convention provides that the “removal or the
retention of a child is to be considered wrongful” when “it is
in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person . . .
under the law of the State in which the child was habitually
resident immediately before the removal or retention” and
“at the time of removal or retention those rights were actu-
ally exercised.” S. Treaty Doc. No. 99–11, at 7. Under
ICARA, a parent may petition a federal or state court to
return an abducted child to the child's country of habitual
residence. § 9003(b). ICARA does not defne habitual resi-
dence; it merely states that the petitioning parent must “es-
tablish by a preponderance of the evidence . . . that the child
has been wrongfully removed or retained within the mean-
ing of the Convention.” § 9003(e)(1)(A). The Convention
also does not defne the phrase.
“ `The interpretation of a treaty, like the interpretation
of a statute, begins with its text.' ” Abbott v. Abbott,
560 U. S. 1, 10 (2010) (quoti ng Medellín v. Texas, 552
U. S. 491, 506 (2008)). The Court recognizes this fact, but
it concludes that the text only “suggests” that habitual
residence is a fact-driven inquiry, and ultimately relies
on atextual sources to “confr[m] what the Convention's
text suggests.” Ante, at 77. In my view, the ordinary
meaning of the relevant language at the time of the treaty's
enactment prov ides strong ev idence that the habitua l-

88 MON
ASKY v. TAGLIERI
Opinion of Thomas, J.
residence inquiry is inherently fact driven. See Schindler
El
evator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 563 U. S. 401,
407 (2011).
In 1980, as today, “habitual” referred to something that
was “[c]ustomary” or “usual.” Black's Law Dictionary 640
(5th ed. 1979); see also 6 Oxford English Dictionary 996 (2d
ed. 1989) (“existing as a settled practice or condition; con-
stantly repeated or continued; customary”); Webster's Third
New International Dictionary 1017 (1976) (similar). And
“residence” referred to a “[p]ersonal presence at some place
of abode,” Black's Law Dictionary, at 1176, “one's usual
dwelling-place,” 13 Oxford English Dictionary, at 707, or
“the act or fact of abiding or dwelling in a place for some
time,” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, at
1931; see also ibid. (“a temporary or permanent dwelling
place, abode, or habitation”).
These defnitions demonstrate that the concept of habitual
residence for a child too young to acclimatize cannot be re-
duced to a neat set of necessary and suffcient conditions.
Answering the question of what is customary or usual, for
instance, requires judges to consider a host of facts, such
as the presence or absence of bank accounts and driver's
licenses, the length and type of employment, and the
strength and duration of other community ties. Determin-
ing whether there is a residence involves the consideration
of factors such as the presence or absence of a permanent
home, the duration in the country at issue, and, in some
cases, an actual agreement between the parents to reside in
a particular place. Accordingly, the ordinary meaning of the
phrase “habitual residence” provides strong support for the
conclusion that an objective agreement between the child's
parents is not required. This plain meaning should serve
as the primary guide for our interpretation. See Water
Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 581 U. S. 271, 276 (2017); Olympic
Airways v. Husain, 540 U. S. 644, 649 (2004).

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 68 (2020)
89
Opinion of Thomas, J.
II
Th
is case exemplifes the wisdom of frmly anchoring our
discussion in the text before turning to the decisions of sister
signatories—especially when those decisions are not contem-
poraneous with the treaty's passage. Here, the Court fnds
it meaningful that foreign courts have interpreted the
phrase “habitual residence” as a fact-driven inquiry. Ante,
at 79–80. Though a “ `clear trend' ” has certainly emerged
in foreign courts, ante, at 79, this consensus appears to have
developed only within the past decade.
Lady Hale of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
noted as much in the 2013 decision cited by the Court. As
she explained, for many years “the English courts [had] been
tempted to overlay the factual concept of habitual residence
with legal constructs,” creating legal rules that dictated a
child's habitual residence. A v. A, [2014] A. C. ¶39 (2013)
(U. K.); see also id., ¶37. According to one commentator
writing in 2001, though “academics and judges” had stressed
“that the term should not be treated as a term of art and
should not be complicated by technical legal requirements
similar to those applicable to the concept of domicile,” “in
some cases these statements seem[ed] to have been pure lip-
service, since many courts [were] unable to resist the temp-
tation to `legalise' the concept.” Schuz, Habitual Residence
of Children Under the Hague Child Abduction Convention—
Theory and Practice, 13 Child & Family L. Q. 1, 4 (2001).
Thus, until recently, “[t]he approach of many [foreign] courts
[had] been to focus exclusively on the purpose of the parents
in relocating,” an inquiry that speaks to the legal concept of
domicile. Schuz, Policy Considerations in Determining the
Habitual Residence of a Child and the Relevance of Context,
11 J. Transnat'l L. & Pol'y 101, 103 (2001) (footnote omitted).
It seems, then, that it took approximately 30 years from
the time of the Convention's enactment in 1980 for foreign
jurisdictions to coalesce around an interpretation of habitual

90 MON
ASKY v. TAGLIERI
Opinion of Thomas, J.
residence. This relatively recent evolution brings into bold
rel
ief the risk of relying too heavily on the decisions of for-
eign courts in lieu of a fulsome textual analysis. Because
the decisions are not contemporaneous with the treaty's pas-
sage, they do not necessarily provide the best evidence of
the original understanding of the phrase. And refexively
looking to foreign courts raises the question whether this
Court would have resolved this case differently had the issue
been presented in 1990, 2000, or even 2010, before the clear
trend emerged.
The Court attempts to sidestep this diffculty by point-
ing to a statement in ICARA's preamble that stresses
“the need for uniform international interpretation of the
Convention.” 22 U. S. C. § 9001(b)(3)(B); see ante, at 79.
It should go without saying that if our independent assess-
ment of habitual residence led to a conclusion that diverged
from the emerging consensus, invocation of this prefatory
language to force agreement at the expense of plain meaning
would be unfounded. By relying too heavily on the judicial
decisions of the treaty's other signatories, rather than on
a more thorough textual analysis, we risk being persuaded
to reach the popular answer, but perhaps not the correct
one. In short, “we should not substitute the judgment
of other courts for our own.” Abbott, 560 U. S., at 43 (Ste-
vens, J., dissenting); see also Olympic Airways, 540 U. S., at
655, n. 9.
To avoid these potential pitfalls, I would rely on the plain
meaning of “habitual residence” to conclude that an actual
agreement is not necessary. See supra, at 87–88. That
conclusion is bolstered by the Convention's explanatory re-
port. Interpretations from the courts of sister signatories,
though recent, also support the conclusion because they align
with the meaning of the text and our own independent judg-
ment. Because the Court places insuffcient weight on the
treaty's text, I cannot join Part II of its opinion.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 68 (2020)
91
Opinion of Alito, J.
Justice Alito, concurring in part and concurring in the
judg
ment.
I agree with the Court on almost all the issues in this
case. Specifcally, I agree (1) that analysis of the question
of “habitual residence” should be based on a range of factors
and should be attentive to the particular facts of each case,
(2) that a child may have a habitual residence in a country
without a parental agreement to that effect, (3) that our in-
terpretation of habitual residence should take into account
the interpretations of other signatory nations, (4) that a dis-
trict court's decision on habitual residence is entitled to def-
erence on appeal, and (5) that the judgment below should be
affrmed. I also agree with Justice Thomas that we must
independently interpret the meaning of “habitual residence.”
So what does it mean? The term “habitual” is used to
refer to a cluster of related concepts. It can be used to refer
to things done by habit, as well as things that are “constantly
repeated or continued,” “usual,” or “accustomed.” 6 Oxford
English Dictionary 996 (2d ed. 1989); see also Webster's
Third New International Dictionary 1017 (1976). If taken
in isolation, each of these understandings might lead to a
different analysis in applying the concept of “habitual resi-
dence” under the Convention. See Hague Convention on
the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25,
1980, T. I. A. S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99–11. But I
think the Court accurately captures what the term means
under the Convention when it says that a child's habitual
residence is the child's “home.” Ante, at 77, 79, 84.
Of course the concept of “home” is also multifaceted. It
can be used to signify the place where a person generally
sleeps, eats, works, and engages in social and recreational
activities, but it can also mean the place where a person feels
most comfortable and the place to which the person has the
strongest emotional ties. See 7 Oxford English Dictionary,
at 322–323; Webster's Third New International Dictionary,

92 MON
ASKY v. TAGLIERI
Opinion of Alito, J.
at 1082. As best I can determine, the concept of “habitual
residence”
under the Convention embraces all of these mean-
ings to some degree. If forced to try to synthesize them, I
would say it means the place where the child in fact has been
living for an extended period—unless that place was never
regarded as more than temporary or there is another place
to which the child has a strong attachment. I think this is
the core of what courts have made of the concept of “habitual
residence,” and it appears to represent the best distillation of
the various shades of meaning of the term taken in context.
So interpreted, “habitual residence” is not a pure question
of fact, at least as we understand that concept in our legal
system. But it does involve a heavily factual inquiry. For
these reasons, I would say that the standard of review on
appeal is abuse of discretion, not clear error. As a practical
matter, the difference may be no more than minimal. The
important point is that great deference should be afforded to
the District Court's determination.

OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
93
Syllabus
HERNANDEZ et al. v. MESA
certiorari
to the united states court of appeals for
the fth circuit
No. 17–1678. Argued November 12, 2019—Decided February 25, 2020
Respondent, United States Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr., shot and
killed Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old Mexican na-
tional, in a tragic and disputed cross-border incident. Mesa was stand-
ing on U. S. soil when he fred the bullets that struck and killed Hernán-
dez, who was on Mexican soil, after having just run back across the
border following entry onto U. S. territory. Agent Mesa contends that
Hernández was part of an illegal border crossing attempt, while peti-
tioners, Hernández's parents, claim he was playing a game with his
friends that involved running back and forth across the culvert separat-
ing El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The shooting drew
international attention, and the Department of Justice investigated, con-
cluded that Agent Mesa had not violated Customs and Border Patrol
policy or training, and declined to bring charges against him. The
United States also denied Mexico's request for Agent Mesa to be extra-
dited to face criminal charges in Mexico.
Petitioners sued for damages in U. S. District Court under Bivens v.
Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, alleging that Mesa
violated Hernández's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The Dis-
trict Court dismissed their claims, and the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Fifth Circuit affrmed. After this Court vacated that deci-
sion and remanded for further consideration in light of Ziglar v. Abbasi,
582 U. S. 120, the Fifth Circuit again affrmed, refusing to recognize a
Bivens claim for a cross-border shooting.
Held: Bivens' holding does not extend to claims based on a cross-border
shooting. Pp. 99–114.
(a) In Bivens, the Court implied a Fourth Amendment claim for dam-
ages even though no federal statute authorized such a claim. The
Court later extended Bivens' reach to cover claims under the Fifth and
Eighth Amendments. See Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228; Carlson v.
Green, 446 U. S. 14. But Bivens' expansion has since become “a `disfa-
vored' judicial activity,” Abbasi, supra, at 135, and the Court has gener-
ally expressed doubt about its authority to recognize causes of action
not expressly created by Congress, see, e. g., Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC,
584 U. S. 241, 264–265. When considering whether to extend Bivens, the
Court uses a two-step inquiry that frst asks whether the request in-

94 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Syllabus
volves a claim that arises in a “new context” or involves a “new cate-
gory
of defendants.” Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S.
61, 68. If so, the Court then asks whether there are any “special fac-
tors [that] counse[ l] hesitation” about granting the extension. Abbasi,
supra, at 136. Pp. 99–102.
(b) Petitioners' Bivens claims arise in a new context. Their claims
are based on the same constitutional provisions as claims in cases in
which damages remedies were previously recognized, but the context—
a cross-border shooting—is signifcantly “different . . . from previous
Bivens cases.” Abbasi, 582 U. S., at 139. It involves a “risk of disrup-
tive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches.”
Id., at 140. P. 103.
(c) Multiple, related factors counsel hesitation before extending
Bivens remedies into this new context. Pp. 103–114.
(1) The expansion of a Bivens remedy that impinges on foreign
relations—an arena “so exclusively entrusted to the political branches
. . . as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry,” Haig v. Agee, 453
U. S. 280, 292—risks interfering with the Executive Branch's “lead role
in foreign policy,” Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491, 524. A cross-border
shooting affects the interests of two countries and, as happened here,
may lead to disagreement. It is not for this Court to arbitrate between
the United States and Mexico, which both have legitimate and impor-
tant interests at stake and have sought to reconcile those interests
through diplomacy. Pp. 103–106.
(2) Another factor is the risk of undermining border security. The
U. S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is responsible for prevent-
ing the illegal entry of dangerous persons and goods into the United
States, and the conduct of their agents positioned at the border has a
clear and strong connection to national security. This Court has not
extended Bivens where doing so would interfere with the system of
military discipline created by statute and regulation, see, e. g., Chappell
v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296, and a similar consideration is applicable to the
framework established by the political branches for addressing cases in
which it is alleged that lethal force at the border was unlawfully em-
ployed by a border agent. Pp. 107–109.
(3) Moreover, Congress has repeatedly declined to authorize the
award of damages against federal offcials for injury inficted outside
U. S. borders. For example, recovery under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 is avail-
able only to “citizen[s] of the United States or other person[s] within the
jurisdiction thereof.” The Federal Tort Claims Act bars “[a]ny claim
arising in a foreign country.” 28 U. S. C. § 2680(k). And the Torture
Victim Protection Act of 1991, note following 28 U. S. C. § 1350, cannot
be used by an alien to sue a United States offcer. When Congress has

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
95
Syllabus
provided compensation for injuries suffered by aliens outside the United
St
ates, it has done so by empowering Executive Branch offcials to make
payments under circumstances found to be appropriate. See, e. g., For-
eign Claims Act, 10 U. S. C. § 2734. Congress's decision not to allow
suit in these contexts further indicates that the Judiciary should not
create a cause of ac ti on that extends across U. S. borders either.
Pp. 109–113.
(4) These factors can all be condensed to the concern for respecting
the separation of powers. The most important question is whether
Congress or the courts should create a damages remedy. Here the an-
swer is Congress. Congress's failure to act does not compel the Court
to step into its shoes. Pp. 113–114.
885 F. 3d 811, affrmed.
Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J.,
and Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., fled a
concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined, post, p. 114. Ginsburg,
J., fled a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan,
JJ., joined, post, p. 118.
Steph en I. V l adeck arg ued the cause for petiti oners.
With him on the briefs were Leah M. Litman, Cristobal M.
Galindo, Robert C. Hilliard, Marion M. Reilly, Steve D.
Shadowen, and Matthew C. Weiner.
Randolph J. Ortega argued the cause for respondent.
With him on the brief were Louis Elias Lopez, Jr., and Ga-
briel Perez.
Deputy Solicitor General Wall argued the cause for the
United States as amicus curiae urging affrmance. With
him on the brief were Solicitor General Francisco, Assistant
Attorney General Hunt, Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Mooppan, Morgan L. Ratner, Mark B. Stern, Katherine Two-
mey Allen, Mary Hampton Mason, and Siegmund F. Fuchs.*
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the American
Civil Liberties Union et al. by Cody Wofsy, Cecillia Wang, Lee Gelernt,
Omar C. Jadwat, David D. Cole, Andre I. Segura, and Maria Martinez
Sanchez; for Amnesty International USA et al. by Hope Metcal f and John
W. Whitehead; for Brady by Sean A. Lev, Joshua Hafenbrack, Frederick
Gaston Hall, and Jonathan E. Lowy; for the Constitutional Accountability
Center by Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brianne J. Gorod, and David H. Gans; for

96 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Opinion of the Court
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court.
W
e are asked in this case to extend Bivens v. Six Un-
known Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), and cre-
ate a damages remedy for a cross-border shooting. As we
have made clear in many prior cases, however, the Constitu-
tion's separation of powers requires us to exercise caution
before extending Bivens to a new “context,” and a claim
based on a cross-border shooting arises in a context that is
markedly new. Unlike any previously recognized Bivens
claim, a cross-border shooting claim has foreign relations and
national security implications. In addition, Congress has
been notably hesitant to create claims based on allegedly tor-
tious conduct abroad. Because of the distinctive character-
istics of cross-border shooting claims, we refuse to extend
Bivens into this new feld.
I
The facts of this tragic case are set forth in our earlier
opinion in this matter, Hernández v. Mesa, 582 U. S. 548
(2017) (per curiam). Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a
15-year-old Mexican national, was with a group of friends in
Former Offcials of U. S. Customs and Border Protection Agency by Kelsi
Brown Corkran and Thomas M. Bondy; for the Government of the United
Mexican States by Donald Francis Donovan and Carl J. Micarelli; for
Immigrant and Civil Rights Organizations by Matthew E. Price, Trina
Realmuto, Mary A. Kenney, and Matt Adams; for the Institute for Justice
by Robert Frommer and Darpana Sheth; for the Tahirih Justice Center
et al. by Sharon Katz and Julie Goldscheid; for Douglas Laycock et al. by
Joshua Matz; for Alan Mygatt-Tauber by Mr. Mygatt-Tauber, pro se; for
Gregory C. Sisk by Ari J. Savitzky and David Sapir Lesser; and for Carlos
M. Vazquez et al. by Hyland Hunt and Ruthanne M. Deutsch.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for APA Watch by
Lawrence J. Joseph; and for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by
Kent S. Scheidegger and Kymberlee C. Stapleton.
Briefs of amici curiae were fled for the Border Network for Human
Rights et al. by Arleigh P. Hel fer III and Stephen A. Fogdall; for Border
Scholars by Joshua S. Lipshutz and Ethan D. Dettmer; and for the Coun-
cil on American-Islamic Relations et al. by Lena F. Masri and Justin
Sadowsky.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
97
Opinion of the Court
a concrete culvert that separates El Paso, Texas, from Ciu-
dad
Juarez, Mexico. The border runs through the center of
the culvert, which was designed to hold the waters of the
Rio Grande River but is now largely dry. Border Patrol
Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr., detained one of Hernández's friends
who had run onto the United States' side of the culvert.
After Hernández, who was also on the United States' side,
ran back across the culvert onto Mexican soil, Agent Mesa
fred two shots at Hernández; one struck and killed him on
the other side of the border.
Petitioners and Agent Mesa disagree about what Her-
nández and his friends were doing at the time of shooting.
According to petitioners, they were simply playing a game,
running across the culvert, touching the fence on the U. S.
side, and then running back across the border. According
to Agent Mesa, Hernández and his friends were involved in
an illegal border crossing attempt, and they pelted him
with rocks.
1
The shooting quickly became an international incident,
with the United States and Mexico disagreeing about how
the matter should be handled. On the United States' side,
the Depar tment of Justice conducted an investigati on.
When it fnished, the Department, while expressing regret
over Hernández's death, concluded that Agent Mesa had not
violated Customs and Border Patrol policy or training, and
it declined to bring charges or take other action against him.
Mexico was not and is not satisfed with the U. S. investiga-
tion. It requested that Agent Mesa be extradited to face
criminal charges in a Mexican court, a request that the
United States has denied.
Petitioners, Hernández's parents, were also dissatisfed
and therefore brought suit for damages in the United States
1
See App. to Pet. for Cert. 198–199; Dept. of Justice, Federal Offcials
Close Investigation Into the Death of Sergio Hernandez-Guereca (Apr. 27,
2012), https://www.justice.gov/opa /pr/federal-officials-close-investigation-
death-sergio-hernandez-guereca (hereinafter DOJ Press Release).

98 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Opinion of the Court
District Court for the Western District of Texas. Among
other
claims, they sought recovery of damages under Bivens,
alleging that Mesa violated Hernández's Fourth and Fifth
Amendment rights. The District Court granted Mesa's mo-
tion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir-
cuit sitting en banc has twice affrmed this dismissal.
On the frst occasion, the court held that Hernández was
not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection because he
was “a Mexican citizen who had no `signifcant voluntary con-
nection' to the United States” and “was on Mexican soil at
the time he was shot.” Hernandez v. United States, 785
F. 3d 117, 119 (CA5 2015) (per curiam). It further con-
cluded that Mesa was entitled to qualifed immunity on peti-
tioners' Fifth Amendment claim. Id., at 120.
After granting review, we vacated the Fifth Circuit's de-
cision and remanded the case, instructing the court “to
consider how the reasoning and analysis” of Ziglar v. Abbasi,
582 U. S. 120 (2017), our most recent explication of Bivens,
“[might] bear on this case.” Hernández, 582 U. S., at 553.
We found it “appropriate for the Court of Appeals, rather
than this Court, to address the Bivens question in the frst
instance.” Ibid. And with the Bivens issue unresolved, we
thought it “imprudent” to resolve the “sensitive” question
whether the Fourth Amendment applies to a cross-border
shooting. 582 U. S., at 554. In addition, while rejecting the
ground on which the Court of Appeals had held that Agent
Mesa was entitled to qualifed immunity, we declined to de-
cide whether he was entitled to qualifed immunity on a dif-
ferent ground or whether petitioners' claim was cognizable
under the Fifth Amendment. Id., at 554–555.
On remand, the en banc Fifth Circuit evaluated petition-
ers' case in light of Abbasi and refused to recognize a Bivens
claim for a cross-border shooting. 885 F. 3d 811 (2018).
The court reasoned that such an incident presents a “ `new
context' ” and that multiple factors—including the incident's
relationship to foreign affairs and national security, the ex-

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
99
Opinion of the Court
traterritorial aspect of the case, and Congress's “repeated
refusa
ls” to create a damages remedy for injuries incurred
on foreign soil––counseled against an extension of Bivens.
885 F. 3d, at 816–823.
We granted certiorari, 587 U. S. 1025 (2019), and now affrm.
II
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403
U. S. 388, the Court broke new ground by holding that a per-
son claiming to be the victim of an unlawful arrest and search
could bring a Fourth Amendment claim for damages against
the responsible agents even though no federal statute au-
thorized such a claim. The Court subsequently extended
Bivens to cover two additional constitutional claims: in
Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228 (1979), a former congres-
sional staffer's Fifth Amendment claim of dismissal based on
sex, and in Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14 (1980), a federal
prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim for failure to provide
adequate medical treatment. After those decisions, how-
ever, the Court changed course.
Bivens, Davis, and Carlson were the products of an era
when the Court routinely inferred “causes of action” that
were “not explicit” in the text of the provision that was
allegedly violated. Abbasi, 582 U. S., at 132. As Abbasi
recounted:
“During this `ancien regime,' . . . the Court assumed it
to be a proper judicial function to `provide such reme-
dies as are necessary to make effective' a statute's pur-
pose . . . . Thus, as a routine matter with respect to
statutes, the Court would imply causes of action not ex-
plicit in the statutory text itself.” Ibid. (quoting Alex-
ander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 287 (2001); J. I. Case
Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 433 (1964)).
Bivens extended this practice to claims based on the Consti-
tution itself. 582 U. S., at 131–132; Bivens, 403 U. S., at 402
(Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (Court can infer availabil-

100 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Opinion of the Court
ity of damages when, “in its view, damages are necessary to
e
ffec tuate” the “pol icy under pi nni ng the subst antive
provisio[n]”).
In later years, we came to appreciate more fully the ten-
sion between this practice and the Constitution's separation
of legislative and judicial power. The Constitution grants
legislative power to Congress; this Court and the lower fed-
eral courts, by contrast, have only “judicial Power.” Art.
III, § 1. But when a court recognizes an implied claim for
damages on the ground that doing so furthers the “purpose”
of the law, the court risks arrogating legislative power. No
law “ `pursues its purposes at all costs.' ” American Ex-
press Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U. S. 228, 234
(2013) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U. S. 522,
525–526 (1987) (per curiam)). Instead, lawmaking involves
balancing interests and often demands compromise. See
Board of Governors, FRS v. Dimension Financial Corp.,
474 U. S. 361, 373–374 (1986). Thus, a lawmaking body that
enacts a provision that creates a right or prohibits specifed
conduct may not wish to pursue the provision's purpose to
the extent of authorizing private suits for damages. For
this reason, fnding that a damages remedy is implied by a
provision that makes no reference to that remedy may upset
the careful balance of interests struck by the lawmakers.
See ibid.
This problem does not exist when a common-law court,
which exercises a degree of lawmaking authority, feshes out
the remedies available for a common-law tort. Analogizing
Bivens to the work of a common-law court, petitioners and
some of their amici make much of the fact that common-law
claims against federal offcers for intentional torts were once
available. See, e. g., Brief for Petitioners 10–20. But Erie
R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, 78 (1938), held that “[t]here
is no federal general common law,” and therefore federal
courts today cannot fashion new claims in the way that they
could before 1938. See Alexander, 532 U. S., at 287 (“ `Rais-

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
101
Opinion of the Court
ing up causes of action where a statute has not created them
may
be a proper function for common-law courts, but not for
federal tribunals' ”).
With the demise of federal general common law, a federal
court's authority to recognize a damages remedy must rest
at bottom on a statute enacted by Congress, see id., at 286
(“private rights of action to enforce federal law must be cre-
ated by Congress”), and no statute expressly creates a
Bivens remedy. Justice Harlan's Bivens concurrence ar-
gued that this power is inherent in the grant of federal ques-
tion jurisdiction, see 403 U. S., at 396 (majority opinion); id.,
at 405 (opinion of Harlan, J.), but our later cases have de-
manded a clearer manifestation of congressional intent, see
Abbasi, 582 U. S., at 134–135.
In both statutory and constitutional cases, our watchword
is caution. For example, in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584
U. S. 241, 264–265 (2018) we expressed doubt about our au-
thority to recognize any causes of action not expressly cre-
ated by Congress. See also Abbasi, 582 U. S., at 133 (“If
the statute does not itself so provide, a private cause of
action will not be created through judicial mandate”). And
we declined to recognize a claim against a foreign corpor-
ation under the Alien Tort Statute. Jesner, 584 U. S.,
at 274.
In constitutional cases, we have been at least equally re-
luctant to create new causes of action. We have recognized
that Congress is best positioned to evaluate “whether, and
the extent to which, monetary and other liabilities should be
imposed upon individual offcers and employees of the Fed-
eral Government” based on constitutional torts. Abbasi,
582 U. S., at 134. We have stated that expansion of Bivens
is “a `disfavored' judicial activity,” 582 U. S., at 135 (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 675 (2009)), and have gone
so far as to observe that if “the Court's three Bivens cases
[had] been . . . decided today,” it is doubtful that we would
have reached the same result, 582 U. S., at 134. And for

102 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Opinion of the Court
almost 40 years, we have consistently rebuffed requests to
add
to the claims allowed under Bivens. See 582 U. S., at
146; Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U. S. 118 (2012); Wilkie
v. Robbins, 551 U. S. 537 (2007); Correctional Services Corp.
v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61 (2001); FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U. S.
471 (1994); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U. S. 412 (1988);
United States v. Stanley, 483 U. S. 669 (1987); Chappell v.
Wallace, 462 U. S. 296 (1983); Bush v. Lucas, 462 U. S. 367
(1983).
When asked to extend Bivens, we engage in a two-step
inquiry. We frst inquire whether the request involves a
claim that arises in a “new context” or involves a “new cate-
gory of defendants.” Malesko, 534 U. S., at 68. And our
understanding of a “new context” is broad. We regard a
context as “new” if it is “different in a meaningful way from
previous Bivens cases decided by this Court.” Abbasi, 582
U. S., at 139.
When we fnd that a claim arises in a new context, we
proceed to the second step and ask whether there are any
“ ` “special factors [that] counse[l] hesitation” ' ” about grant-
ing the extension. Id., at 136 (quoting Carlson, 446 U. S., at
18, in turn quoting Bivens, 403 U. S., at 396). If there are––
that is, if we have reason to pause before applying Bivens in
a new context or to a new class of defendants—we reject
the request.
We have not attempted to “create an exhaustive list” of
factors that may provide a reason not to extend Bivens,
but we have explained that “central to [this] analysis” are
“separation-of-powers principles.” Abbasi, 582 U. S., at 135.
We thus consider the risk of interfering with the authority
of the other branches, and we ask whether “there are sound
reasons to think Congress might doubt the effcacy or neces-
sity of a damages remedy,” id., at 137, and “whether the Judi-
ciary is well suited, absent congressional action or instruc-
tion, to consider and weigh the costs and benefts of allowing
a damages action to proceed,” id., at 136.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
103
Opinion of the Court
III
A
The
Bivens claims in this case assuredly arise in a new
context. Petitioners contend that their Fourth and Fifth
Amendment claims do not involve a new context because
Bivens and Davis involved claims under those same two
Amendments, but that argument rests on a basic misunder-
standing of what our cases mean by a new context. A claim
may arise in a new context even if it is based on the same
constitutional provision as a claim in a case in which a dam-
ages remedy was previously recognized. Compare Carlson,
446 U. S., at 16–18 (allowing Bivens remedy for an Eighth
Amendment claim for failure to provide adequate medical
treatment), with Malesko, 534 U. S., at 71–74 (declining to
create a Bivens remedy in similar circumstances because the
suit was against a private prison operator, not federal off-
cials). And once we look beyond the constitutional provi-
sions invoked in Bivens, Davis, and the present case, it is
glaringly obvious that petitioners' claims involve a new con-
text, i. e., one that is meaningfully different. Bivens con-
cerned an allegedly unconstitutional arrest and search car-
ried out in New York City, 403 U. S., at 389; Davis concerned
alleged sex discrimination on Capitol Hill, 442 U. S., at 230.
There is a world of difference between those claims and peti-
tioners' cross-border shooting claims, where “the risk of dis-
ruptive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of
other branches” is signifcant. Abbasi, 582 U. S., at 140; see
Parts III–B and III–C, infra.
Because petitioners assert claims that arise in a new con-
text, we must proceed to the next step and ask whether
there are factors that counsel hesitation. As we will ex-
plain, there are multiple, related factors that raise warning
fags.
B
The frst is the potential effect on foreign relations. “The
political branches, not the Judiciary, have the responsibility

104 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Opinion of the Court
and institutional capacity to weigh foreign-policy concerns.”
J
esner, 584 U. S., at 265. Indeed, we have said that “matters
relating `to the conduct of foreign relations . . . are so exclu-
sively entrusted to the political branches of government as
to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.' ”
Haig v. Agee, 453 U. S. 280, 292 (1981) (quoting Harisiades
v. Shaughnessy, 342 U. S. 580, 589 (1952)). “Thus, unless
Congress specifcally has provided otherwise, courts tradi-
tionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of
the Executive in [these matters].” Department of Navy v.
Egan, 484 U. S. 518, 530 (1988). We must therefore be espe-
cially wary before allowing a Bivens remedy that impinges
on this arena.
A cross-border shooting is by defnition an international
incident; it involves an event that occurs simultaneously in
two countries and affects both countries' interests. Such an
incident may lead to a disagreement between those coun-
tries, as happened in this case.
The United States, through the Executive Branch, which
has “ `the lead role in foreign policy,' ” Medellín v. Texas, 552
U. S. 491, 524 (2008) (alteration omitted), has taken the posi-
tion that this incident should be handled in a particular
way—namely, that Agent Mesa should not face charges in
the United States nor be extradited to stand trial in Mexico.
As noted, the Executive decided not to take action against
Agent Mesa because it found that he “did not act inconsist-
ently with [Border Patrol] policy or training regarding use
of force.” DOJ Press Release. We presume that Border
Patrol policy and training incorporate both the Executive's
understanding of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of
unreasonable seizures and the Executive's assessment of
circumstances at the border. Thus, the Executive judged
Agent Mesa's conduct by what it regards as reasonable con-
duct by an agent under the circumstances that Mesa faced
at the time of the shooting, and based on the application of

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
105
Opinion of the Court
those standards, it declined to prosecute. The Executive
does
not want a Mexican criminal court to judge Agent
Mesa's conduct by whatever standards would be applicable
under Mexican law; nor does it want a jury in a Bivens
action to apply its own understanding of what constituted
reasonable conduct by a Border Patrol agent under the cir-
cumstances of this case. Such a jury determination, the
Executive claims, would risk the “ ` “embarrassment of our
government abroad” through “multifarious pronouncements
by various departments on one question.” ' ” Brief for
United States as Amicus Curiae 18 (quoting Sanchez-
Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F. 2d 202, 209 (CADC 1985)
(Scalia, J.)).
The Government of Mexico has taken a different view of
what should be done. It has requested that Agent Mesa be
extradited for criminal prosecution in a Mexican court under
Mexican law, and it has supported petitioners' Bivens suit.
In a brief fled in this Court, Mexico suggests that shootings
by Border Patrol agents are a persistent problem and argues
that the United States has an obligation under international
law, specifcally Article 6(1) of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 19, 1966, S. Treaty Doc.
No. 95–20, 999 U. N. T. S. 174, to provide a remedy for the
shooting in this case. Brief for Government of United Mexi-
can States as Amicus Curiae 2, 20–22. Mexico states that
it “has a responsibility to look after the well-being of its na-
tionals” and that “it is a priority to Mexico to see that the
United States provides adequate means to hold the agents
accountable and to compensate the victims.” Id., at 3.
Both the United States and Mexico have legitimate and
important interests that may be affected by the way in which
this matter is handled. The United States has an interest
in ensuring that agents assigned the diffcult and important
task of policing the border are held to standards and judged
by procedures that satisfy United States law and do not un-

106 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Opinion of the Court
dermine the agents' effectiveness and morale. Mexico has
an
interest in exercising sovereignty over its territory and
in protecting and obtaining justice for its nationals. It is
not our task to arbitrate between them.
In the absence of judicial intervention, the United States
and Mexico wou ld attempt to reconci le their i nterests
through diplomacy––and that has occurred. The broad issue
of violence along the border, the occurrence of cross-border
shootings, and this particular matter have been addressed
through diplomatic channels. In 2014, Mexico and the
United States established a joint Border Violence Prevention
Council, and the two countries have addressed cross-border
shootings through the United States-Mexico bilateral Human
Rights Dialogue.
2
Following the Justice Department inves-
tigation in the present case, the United States reaffrmed its
commitment to “work with the Mexican government within
existing mechanisms and agreements to prevent future inci-
dents.” DOJ Press Release.
For these reasons, petitioners' assertion that their claims
have “nothing to do with the substance or conduct of U. S.
foreign . . . policy,” Brief for Petitioners 29, is plainly wrong.
3
2
See Dept. of Homeland Security, Written Testimony for House Commit-
tee on Oversight and Govt. Refor m Heari ng (Sept. 9, 2015), https://
www.dhs.gov/news/2015/09/09/written-testimony-dhs-southern-border-
and-approaches-campaign-joint-task-force-west (discussing creation of
Border Violence Prevention Council); Dept. of Homeland Security, Border
Vi olence Prevention Council Fact Sheet, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/
default/fles/publications/ bvpc-fact-sheet.pdf (outlining areas of collabora-
tion); Dept. of State, Joint Statement on the U. S.-Mexico Bilateral High
Level D ia log ue on Human Rights (Oc t. 27, 2016), https://2009-2017.
state.gov/r/pa /prs/ps/2016/10/263759.htm (noting discussion of “the use of
force at the border”).
3
It is no answer to argue, as Mexico does, that refusing to extend Bivens
“is what [would] negatively affect international relations.” Brief for Gov-
ernment of United Mexican States as Amicus Curiae 12. When a third
party intervenes and takes sides in a dispute between two countries, one
country is likely to be pleased and the other displeased. But no matter
which side the third party supports, it will have injected itself into their
relations.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
107
Opinion of the Court
C
P
etitioners are similarly incorrect in deprecating the Fifth
Circuit's conclusion that the issue here implicates an element
of national security.
One of the ways in which the Executive protects this coun-
try is by attempting to control the movement of people and
goods across the border, and that is a daunting task. The
United States' border with Mexico extends for 1,900 miles,
and every day thousands of persons and a large volume of
goods enter this country at ports of entry on the southern
border.
4
The lawful passage of people and goods in both di-
rections across the border is benefcial to both countries.
Unfortunately, there is also a large volume of illegal cross-
border traffc. During the last fscal year, approximately
850,000 persons were apprehended attempting to enter the
United States illegally from Mexico,
5
and large quantities of
drugs were smuggled across the border.
6
In addition, pow-
erful criminal organizations operating on both sides of the
border present a serious law enforcement problem for both
countries.
7
4
See Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Transp. Statistics, Border Crossing/
Entry Data, https://explore.dot.gov/views/ BorderCrossingData /Monthly
(detailing the millions of individuals and vehicles that cross the U. S.-
Mexico border each month); U. S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, The Year in Trade
2018, p. 190 (USITC Pub. No. 4986, 2019) (explaining that in 2018 the
United States imported $346.5 billion of goods from Mexico).
5
Dept. of Homeland Security, U. S. Customs and Border Protection,
Southwest Border Migration FY 2019, https://cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/
sw-border-migration/fy-2019.
6
Dept. of Homeland Security, U. S. Customs and Border Protection,
CBP Enforcement Statistics FY2019, https://cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-
enforcement-statistics-fy2019 (explaining that in FY2019, Border Patrol
offcers seized 11,682 pounds of cocaine, 266,882 pounds of marijuana, and
14,434 pounds of methamphetamine).
7
Cong. Research Serv., Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Traffcking
Organizations, Summary (2019) (“Mexican drug traffcking organizations
. . . pose the greatest crime threat to the United States”); Dept. of Justice,
Drug Enforcement Admin., 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment 97
(DEA–DCT–DIR–032–18) (explaining that “Mexican [transnational crimi-

108 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Opinion of the Court
On the United States' side, the responsibility for attempt-
i
ng to prevent the illegal entry of dangerous persons and
goods rests primarily with the U. S. Customs and Border
Protection Agency, and one of its main responsibilities is to
“detect, respond to, and interdict terrorists, drug smugglers
and traffckers, human smugglers and traffckers, and other
persons who may undermine the security of the United
States.” 6 U. S. C. § 211(c)(5). While Border Patrol agents
often work miles from the border, some, like Agent Mesa,
are stationed right at the border and have the responsibility
of attempting to prevent illegal entry. For these reasons,
the conduct of agents positioned at the border has a clear and
strong connection to national security, as the Fifth Circuit
understood. 885 F. 3d, at 819.
Petitioners protest that “ `shooting people who are just
walking down a street in Mexico' ” does not involve national
security, Brief for Petitioners 28, but that misses the point.
The question is not whether national security requires such
conduct––of course, it does not––but whether the Judiciary
should alter the framework established by the political
branches for addressing cases in which it is alleged that
lethal force was unlawfully employed by an agent at the
border. Cf. Abbasi, 582 U. S., at 142 (explai ni ng that
“[n]ational-security policy is the prerogative of the Congress
and President”).
We have declined to extend Bivens where doing so would
interfere with the system of military discipline created by
statute and regulation, see Chappell, 462 U. S. 296; Stanley,
483 U. S. 669, and a similar consideration is applicable here.
Since regulating the conduct of agents at the border unques-
tionably has national security implications, the risk of under-
mining border security provides reason to hesitate before
extending Bivens into this feld. See Abbasi, 582 U. S.,
at 142 (“Judicial inquiry into the national-security realm
nal organizations] maintain the greatest drug traffcking infuence in the
United States”).

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
109
Opinion of the Court
raises `concerns for the separation of powers' ” (quoting
C
hristopher v. Harbury, 536 U. S. 403, 417 (2002))).
D
Our reluctance to take that step is reinforced by our sur-
vey of what Congress has done in statutes addressing related
matters. We frequently “loo[k] to analogous statutes for
g uidance on the appropr iate boundar ies of judge-made
causes of action.” Jesner, 584 U. S., at 265 (opinion of Ken-
nedy, J.). When foreign relations are implicated, it “is even
more important . . . `to look for legislative guidance before
exercising innovative authority over substantive law.' ”
Ibid. (quoting Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U. S. 692, 726
(2004)). Accordingly, it is “telling,” Abbasi, 582 U. S., at 144,
that Congress has repeatedly declined to authorize the
award of damages for injury inficted outside our borders.
A leading example is Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983,
which permits the recovery of damages for constitutional vio-
lations by offcers acting under color of state law. We have de-
scribed Bivens as a “more limited” “federal analog ” to § 1983.
Hartman v. Moore, 547 U. S. 250, 254, n. 2 (2006). It is there-
fore instructive that Congress chose to make § 1983 available
only to “citizen[s] of the United States or other person[s] within
the jurisdiction thereof.” It would be “anomalous to impute
. . . a judicially implied cause of action beyond the bounds
[Congress has] delineated for [a] comparable express caus[e]
of action.” Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421
U. S. 723, 736 (1975). Thus, the limited scope of § 1983
weighs against recognition of the Bivens claim at issue here.
Section 1983's express limitation to the claims brought by
citizens and persons subject to United States jurisdiction is
especially signifcant, but even if this explicit limitation were
lacking, we would presume that § 1983 did not apply abroad.
See RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U. S.
325, 335 (2016) (“Absent clearly expressed congressional in-
tent to the contrary, federal laws will be construed to have

110 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Opinion of the Court
only domestic application”). We presume that statutes do
not
apply extraterritorially to “ensure that the Judiciary
does not erroneously adopt an interpretation of U. S. law that
carries foreign policy consequences not clearly intended by
the political branches.” Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
Co., 569 U. S. 108, 116 (2013); see also EEOC v. Arabian
American Oil Co., 499 U. S. 244, 248 (1991).
If this danger provides a reason for caution when Congress
has enacted a statute but has not provided expressly
whether it applies abroad, we have even greater reason for
hesitation in deciding whether to extend a judge-made cause
of action beyond our borders. “[T]he danger of unwar-
ranted judicial interference in the conduct of foreign policy
is magnifed” where “the question is not what Congress has
done but instead what courts may do.” Kiobel, 569 U. S., at
116. Where Congress has not spoken at all, the likelihood of
impinging on its foreign affairs authority is especially acute.
Congress's treatment of ordinary tort claims against fed-
eral offcers is also revealing. As petitioners and their
amici stress, the traditional way in which civil litigation ad-
dressed abusive conduct by federal offcers was by subject-
ing them to liability for common-law torts. See Brief for
Petitioners 10–17. For many years, such claims could be
raised in state or federal court,
8
and this Court occasionally
considered tort suits against federal offcers for extraterrito-
rial injuries. See, e. g., Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. 115
(1852) (affrming award in trespass suit brought by U. S. citi-
zen against U. S. Army offcer who seized personal property
in Mexico during the Mexican-American war). After Erie,
federal common-law claims were out, but we recognized the
continuing viability of state-law tort suits against federal of-
fcials as recently as Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U. S. 292 (1988).
8
State-law claims could be asserted in federal court if the parties' citi-
zenship was diverse, and federal common-law claims could be raised until
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938).

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
111
Opinion of the Court
In response to that decision, Congress passed the so-called
W
estfall Act, formally the Federal Employees Liability Re-
form and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, 28 U. S. C. § 2679.
That Act makes the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) “the
exclusive remedy for most claims against Government em-
ployees arising out of their offcial conduct.” Hui v. Cas-
taneda, 559 U. S. 799, 806 (2010).
9
Thus, a person injured by
a federal employee may seek recovery directly from the
United States under the FTCA, but the FTCA bars “[a]ny
claim arising in a foreign country.” § 2680(k).
10
The upshot
is that claims that would otherwise permit the recovery of
damages are barred if the injury occurred abroad.
Yet another example is provided by the Torture Victim
Protection Act of 1991, note following 28 U. S. C. § 1350,
which created a cause of action that may be brought by an
alien in a U. S. court under the Alien Tort Statute, § 1350.
Under the Torture Victim Protection Act, a damages action
may be brought by or on behalf of a victim of torture or an
extrajudicial killing carried out by a person who acted under
9
The Act also permits claims “brought for a violation of the Constitu-
tion.” 28 U. S. C. § 2679(b)(2)(A). By enacting this provision, Congress
made clear that it was not attempting to abrogate Bivens, but the provi-
sion certainly does not suggest, as one of petitioners' amici contends, that
Congress “intended for a robust enforcement of Bivens remedies.” Brief
for Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae 21. Instead, the provision sim-
ply left Bivens where it found it. It is not a license to create a new
Bivens remedy in a context we have never before addressed, see Correc-
tional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61, 68 (2001).
10
Petitioners contend that Congress excluded claims arising abroad in
order to avoid subjecting the United States to liability under foreign law,
something that cannot occur under Bivens. Reply Brief 11. But neither
the legislative history recounted in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U. S.
692, 707 (2004), nor anything else offered by petitioners shows that this
was the only reason for this limitation. And the fact remains that the
FTCA does not permit claims for torts committed abroad, a limitation that
is consistent with Congress's general practice of avoiding extraterritorial
legislation. See, e. g., Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U. S. 108,
115–116 (2013).

112 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Opinion of the Court
the authority of a foreign state. Consequently, this pro-
v
ision, which is often employed to seek redress for acts
committed abroad,
11
cannot be used to sue a United States
offcer. See Meshal v. Higgenbotham, 804 F. 3d 417, 430
(CADC 2015) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).
These statutes form a pattern that is important for pres-
ent purposes. When Congress has enacted statutes creat-
ing a damages remedy for persons injured by United States
Government offcers, it has taken care to preclude claims for
injuries that occurred abroad.
Instead, when Congress has provided compensation for in-
juries suffered by aliens outside the United States, it has
done so by empowering Executive Branch offcials to make
payments under circumstances found to be appropriate.
Thus, the Foreign Claims Act, 10 U. S. C. § 2734, frst enacted
during World War II, ch. 645, 55 Stat. 880, allows the Secre-
tary of Defense to appoint claims commissions to settle and
pay claims for personal injury and property damage result-
ing from the noncombat activities of the Armed Forces out-
side this country. § 2734(a). Similarly, § 2734a allows the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Secu-
rity to make payments pursuant to “an international agree-
ment which provides for the settlement or adjudication and
cost sharing of claims against the United States” that arise
out of “acts or omissions” of the Armed Forces. § 2734a(a);
see also 22 U. S. C. § 2669(b) (State Department may settle
and pay certain claims for death, injury, or property loss or
damage “for the purpose of promoting and maintaining
friendly relations with foreign countries”); § 2669–1 (Secre-
tary of State has authority to pay tort claims arising in for-
eign countries in connection with State Department opera-
11
See, e. g., Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U. S. 305, 308 (2010) (bringing claim
under the Torture Victim Protection Act against the former First Vice
President and Minister of Defense of Somalia for alleged torture and ex-
trajudicial killing in Somalia).

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
113
Opinion of the Court
tions); 21 U. S. C. § 904 (Attorney General has authority to
pay
tort claims arising in connection with the operations of
the Drug Enforcement Administration abroad).
This pattern of congressional action—refraining from au-
thorizing damages actions for injury inficted abroad by Gov-
ernment offcers, while providing alternative avenues for
compensation in some situations—gives us further reason to
hesitate about extending Bivens in this case.
E
In sum, this case features multiple factors that counsel
hesitation about extending Bivens, but they can all be con-
densed to one concern—respect for the separation of powers.
See Abbasi, 582 U. S., at 135–136. “Foreign policy and na-
tional security decisions are `delicate, complex, and involve
large elements of prophecy' for which `the Judiciary has nei-
ther aptitude, facilities[,] nor responsibility.' ” Jesner, 584
U. S., at 284 (Gorsuch, J., concurring in part and concurring
in judgment) (quoting Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v.
Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103, 111 (1948)). To avoid
upsetting the delicate web of international relations, we typi-
cally presume that even congressionally crafted causes of ac-
tion do not apply outside our borders. These concerns are
only heightened when judges are asked to fashion constitu-
tional remedies. Congress, which has authority in the feld
of foreign affairs, has chosen not to create liability in similar
statutes, leaving the resolution of extraterritorial claims
brought by foreign nationals to executive offcials and the
diplomatic process.
Congress's decision not to provide a judicial remedy does
not compel us to step into its shoes. “The absence of statu-
tory relief for a constitutional violation . . . does not by any
means necessarily imply that courts should award money
damages against the offcers responsible for the violation.”
Schweiker, 487 U. S., at 421–422; see also Stanley, 483 U. S.,

114 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Thomas, J., concurring
at 683 (“[I]t is irrelevant to a `special factors' analysis
whether
the laws currently on the books afford [plaintiff] an
`adequate' federal remedy for his injuries”).
12
When evaluating whether to extend Bivens, the most im-
portant question “is `who should decide' whether to provide
for a damages remedy, Congress or the courts?” Abbasi,
582 U. S., at 135 (quoting Bush, 462 U. S., at 380). The cor-
rect “answer most often will be Congress.” 582 U. S., at
135. That is undoubtedly the answer here.
***
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit is affrmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins,
concurring.
The Court correctly applies our precedents to conclude
that the implied cause of action created in Bivens v. Six Un-
known Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), should
not be extended to cross-border shootings. I therefore join
its opinion.
I write separately because, in my view, the time has come
to consider discarding the Bivens doctrine altogether. The
foundation for Bivens—the practice of creating implied
causes of action in the statutory context—has already been
abandoned. And the Court has consistently refused to ex-
tend the Bivens doctrine for nearly 40 years, even going so
far as to suggest that Bivens and its progeny were wrongly
decided. Stare decisis provides no “veneer of respectability
to our continued application of [these] demonstrably in-
correct precedents.” Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S.
12
Indeed, in Abbasi we explained that existence of alternative remedies
was merely a further reason not to create Bivens liability. See 582 U. S.,
at 145 (“[W]hen alternative methods of relief are available, a Bivens rem-
edy usually is not”).

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
115
Thomas, J., concurring
678, 711 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring). To ensure that we
are
not “perpetuat[ing] a usurpation of the legislative
power,” id., at 718, we should reevaluate our continued rec-
ognition of even a limited form of the Bivens doctrine.
“ `Bivens is a relic of the heady days in which this Court
assumed common-law powers to create causes of action.' ”
Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U. S. 537, 568 (2007) (Thomas, J., con-
curring) (quoting Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko,
534 U. S. 61, 75 (2001) (Scalia, J., concurring)). In the decade
preceding Bivens, the Court believed that it had a duty “to
be alert to provide such remedies as are necessary to make
effective” Congress' purposes in enacting a statute. J. I.
Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 433 (1964). Accordingly,
the Court freely created implied private causes of action for
damages under federal statutes. See, e. g., Sullivan v. Lit-
tle Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U. S. 229, 239 (1969); Allen v.
State Bd. of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 557 (1969).
This misguided approach to implied causes of action in the
statutory context formed the backdrop of the Court's deci-
sion in Bivens. There, the Court held that federal offcers
who conducted a warrantless search and arrest in violation
of the Fourth Amendment could be sued for damages.
Bivens, 403 U. S., at 397. The Court acknowledged that
Congress had not provided a statutory cause of action for
damages against federal offcers and that “the Fourth
Amendment does not in so many words provide for its en-
forcement by an award of money damages.” Id., at 396–
397. But it concluded, consistent with the then-prevailing
understanding of implied causes of action in the statutory
context, that federal courts could infer such a “remedial
mechanism.” Id., at 397 (citing Borak, 377 U. S., at 433).
This holding “broke new ground.” Ante, at 99. From the
ratifcation of the Bill of Rights until 1971, the Court did not
create “implied private action[s] for damages against federal
offcers alleged to have violated a citizen's constitutional
rights.” Malesko, 534 U. S., at 66. Suits to recover such

116 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Thomas, J., concurring
damages were generally brought under state tort law. See
W
heeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U. S. 647, 652 (1963). Bivens thus
opened the door to a new avenue for recovering damages
from federal offcers. In the wake of that decision, the
Court recognized an implied cause of action for damages
against a Member of Congress accused of sex discrimination
in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause,
Davis v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228 (1979), and against prison
offcials accused of denying medical care in violation of the
Eighth Amendment's Cr uel and Unusua l Punishments
Clause, Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14 (1980). Given this
Court's trend of creating implied causes of action, “there was
a possibility that the Court would keep expanding Bivens
until it became the substantial equivalent of 42 U. S. C.
§ 1983.” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. 120, 132 (2017) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
The Court, however, eventually corrected course. In the
statutory context, the Court “retreated from [its] previous
willingness to imply a cause of action where Congress has
not provided one.” Malesko, 534 U. S., at 67, n. 3. After a
series of decisions limiting courts' discretion to create statu-
tory causes of action, we renounced the Court's freewheeling
approach in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275 (2001), ex-
plicitly repudiating the precedent used to support Bivens,
532 U. S., at 287 (abrogating Borak, 377 U. S. 426). We ex-
plained that, “[l]ike substantive federal law itself, private
rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by
Congress.” 532 U. S., at 286. “The judicial task is to inter-
pret the statute Congress has passed to determine whether
it displays an intent to create not just a private right but also
a private remedy.” Ibid. Without such intent, “a cause of
action does not exist and courts may not create one, no mat-
ter how desirable that might be as a policy matter, or how
compatible with the statute.” Id., at 286–287.
The Court's method of implying causes of action for dam-
ages in the statutory context provided the foundation for the

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
117
Thomas, J., concurring
approach taken in Bivens. Therefore, as the Court backed
away
from creating statutory causes of action, it also effec-
tively cabined the Bivens doctrine to the facts of Bivens,
Davis, and Carlson. For nearly 40 years, the Court has
“ `consistently refused to extend Bivens liability to any new
context or new category of defendants.' ” Abbasi, 582 U. S.,
at 135 (quoting Malesko, 534 U. S., at 68); see also ante, at 102.*
In doing so, our decisions have undermined the validity of
the Bivens doctrine. As the Court recognizes, “[w]e have
stated that expansion of Bivens is a disfavored judicial activ-
ity.” Ante, at 101 (internal quotation marks omitted). And
we have now repeatedly acknowledged the shaky foundation
on which Bivens rests, stating that “in light of the changes to
the Court's general approach to recognizing implied damages
remedies, it is possible that the analysis in the Court's three
Bivens cases might have been different if they were decided
today.” Abbasi, 582 U. S., at 134; see also ante, at 101 (not-
ing that it is “doubtful that we would have reached the same
result” if Bivens were decided today). Thus, it appears that
we have already repudiated the foundation of the Bivens
doctrine; nothing is left to do but overrule it.
Our continued adherence to even a limited form of the
Bivens doctrine appears to “perpetuat[e] a usurpation of the
legislative power.” Gamble, 587 U. S., at 718 (Thomas, J.,
concurring). Federal courts lack the authority to engage in
the distinctly legislative task of creating causes of action for
damages to enforce federal positive law. We have clearly
recognized as much in the statutory context. See supra, at
116. I see no reason for us to take a different approach if the
right asserted to recover damages derives from the Consti-
*See, e. g., ante, at 114; Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. 120 (2017); Minneci
v. Pollard, 565 U. S. 118 (2012); Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U. S. 537 (2007);
Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61 (2001); FDIC v.
Meyer, 510 U. S. 471 (1994); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U. S. 412 (1988);
United States v. Stanley, 483 U. S. 669 (1987); Bush v. Lucas, 462 U. S. 367
(1983); Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296 (1983).

118 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
tution, rather than from a federal statute. Either way, we
are
exercising legislative power vested in Congress. Cf.
Carlson, 446 U. S., at 51 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (“The pol-
icy questions at issue in the creation of any tort remedies,
constitutional or otherwise, involve judgments as to diverse
factors that are more appropriately made by the legislature
than by this Court in an attempt to fashion a constitutional
common law”).
This usurpation of legislative power is all the more trou-
bling because Congress has demonstrated that it knows how
to create a cause of action to recover damages for constitu-
tional violations when it wishes to do so. In 42 U. S. C.
§ 1983, Congress provided a cause of action that allows per-
sons to recover damages for certain deprivations of constitu-
tional rights by state offcers. Congress has chosen not to
provide such a cause of action against federal offcers. In
fact, it has pre-empted the state tort suits that traditionally
served as the mechanism by which damages were recovered
from federal offcers. 28 U. S. C. § 2679(b); Minneci v. Pol-
lard, 565 U. S. 118, 126 (2012). “[I]t is not for us to fll any
hiatus Congress has left in this area.” Wheeldin, 373 U. S.,
at 652.
***
The analysis underlying Bivens cannot be defended. We
have cabined the doctrine's scope, undermined its foundation,
and limited its precedential value. It is time to correct this
Court's error and abandon the doctrine altogether.
Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Breyer, Jus-
tice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan join, dissenting.
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403
U. S. 388 (1971), this Court held that injured plaintiffs could
pursue claims for damages against U. S. offcers for conduct
disregarding constitutional constraints. The instant suit, in-
voking Bivens, arose in tragic circumstances. In 2010, the
complaint alleges, a Mexican teenager was playing with

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
119
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
friends in a culvert along the United States-Mexico border.
A
U. S. Border Patrol agent, in violation of instructions con-
trolling his offce and situated on the U. S. side of the border,
shot and killed the youth on the Mexican side. The boy's
parents sued the offcer for damages in federal court, alleg-
ing that a rogue federal law enforcement offcer's unreason-
able use of excessive force violated the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments. At the time of the incident, it is uncontested,
the offcer did not know whether the boy he shot was a U. S.
national or a citizen of another land. See Hernández v.
Mesa, 582 U. S. 548, 554 (2017) (per curiam).
When the case frst reached this Court, the Court re-
manded it, instructing the Court of Appeals to resolve a
threshold question: Is a Bivens remedy available to nonciti-
zens (here, the victim's parents) when the U. S. offcer acted
stateside, but the impact of his alleged wrongdoing was suf-
fered abroad? To that question, the sole issue now before
this Court, I would answer “yes.” Rogue U. S. offcer con-
duct falls within a familiar, not a “new,” Bivens setting.
Even if the setting could be characterized as “new,” plaintiffs
lack recourse to alternative remedies, and no “special fac-
tors” counsel against a Bivens remedy. Neither U. S. for-
eign policy nor national security is in fact endangered by the
litigation. Moreover, concerns attending the application of
our law to conduct occurring abroad are not involved, for
plaintiffs seek the application of U. S. law to conduct occur-
ring inside our borders. I would therefore hold that the
plaintiffs' complaint crosses the Bivens threshold.
I
Because this case was resolved on a motion to dismiss, I
accept the complaint's allegations, next set out, as true. In
2010, Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old citizen
of Mexico, was playing with his friends in the dry culvert
that divides El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.
The international boundary line runs down the center of the

120 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
culvert, but the only visible border-related features are
fences
and border-crossing posts that sit atop each side. See
Hernández, 582 U. S., at 557 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The
game Hernández and his friends were playing involved run-
ning up the embankment on the United States side, touching
the barbed-wire fence, and running back down to the Mexi-
can side. While the game was ongoing, Border Patrol Agent
Jesus Mesa, Jr., appeared on his bicycle and detained one of
Hernández's friends as he was running down the embank-
ment on the U. S. side. Hernández, who was unarmed, re-
treated into Mexican territory. Mesa pointed his weapon
across the border, “seemingly taking careful aim,” and fred
at least two shots. App. to Pet. for Cert. 199. At least one
of the shots struck Hernández in the face, killing him.
Hernández's parents brought suit under Bivens, asserting,
inter alia, that Mesa had violated their son's Fourth and
Fifth Amendment rights. The United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas granted Mesa's motion to
dismiss. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit affrmed the dismissal of the parents'
Fourth Amendment claim but held that their Fifth Amend-
ment claim could proceed.
The Court of Appeals reheard the case en banc and af-
frmed the District Court's dismissal of the parents' claims.
The full court agreed with the panel that Hernández lacked
Fourth Amendment rights. Hernandez v. United States,
785 F. 3d 117, 119 (2015) (per curiam) (citing United States
v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259 (1990)).
1
It declined,
1
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259 (1990), is not disposi-
tive of the Fourth Amendment claim in this case. There, the Court held
that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to federal agents' warrantless
search of a Mexican drug traffcker's home in Mexico. Id., at 262, 274–
275. Verdugo-Urquidez's practical concerns, among them, that a warrant
issued by a U. S. judge “would be a dead letter outside the United States,”
id., at 274, do not bear on the complaint fled by Hernández's parents. In
contrast to Verdugo-Urquidez, it would not be “impracticable” or “anoma-
lous” to subject Mesa's U. S.-based conduct to Fourth Amendment scru-

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
121
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
however, to resolve whether Mesa's conduct violated the
Fi
fth Amendment, concluding that, in any event, Mesa was
entitled to qualifed immunity. 785 F. 3d, at 120–121.
This Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and
remanded with several instructions. First, the Court di-
rected the Court of Appeals to address the “antecedent”
question whether the suit could be premised on Bivens in
light of the Court's recent decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582
U. S. 120, 126 (2017). Hernández, 582 U. S., at 553. The
Court also identifed error in the Court of Appeals' qualifed-
immunity analysis. Id., at 553–554. That analysis had cen-
tered on Hernández's status as an alien with no signifcant
connections to the United States, but it is “undisputed . . .
that Hernández's nationality and the extent of his ties to
the United States were unknown to Mesa at the time of the
shooting.” Id., at 554. The Court declined to address
whether Hernández had stated a valid Fourth Amendment
clai m. Ib i d. But see i d., at 556 – 562 (Breyer, J.,
dissenting).
On remand, the Court of Appeals, again sitting en banc,
affrmed the District Court's dismissal of the suit. The ac-
tion presented a “new context” for Bivens, the court con-
cluded, and special factors counseled its hesitation. 885
F. 3d 811, 816–823 (CA5 2018). Dissenting, Judge Prado
( joined by Judge Graves) urged that the majority had been
“led astray from the familiar circumstances of this case by
empty labels of national security, foreign affairs, and extra-
territoriality.” Id., at 825.
II
The plaintiff in Bivens alleged that, during an unjustifed
search of his home, rogue federal law enforcement offcers
unlawfully seized him, employing “unreasonable force . . . in
making the arrest.” 403 U. S., at 389. This Court afforded
tiny. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 759–760 (2008) (quoting Verdugo-
Urquidez, 494 U. S., at 278 (Kennedy, J., concurring)).

122 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
him a federal damages remedy against the federal agents
who
had disregarded the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions
against unreasonable searches and seizures. Id., at 390–397.
The Court did so directly under the Constitution, for Con-
gress had provided no statutory claim for relief to redress
the wrongful conduct. See ibid. “Historically,” the Court
observed, “damages have been regarded as the ordinary
remedy for an invasion of personal interests in liberty.” Id.,
at 395. Given the circumstances presented in Bivens, the
Court found “no special factors counselling hesitation [de-
spite] the absence of affrmative action by Congress.” Id.,
at 396. Justice Harlan concurred in the judgment, empha-
sizing that damages were “the only possible remedy for
someone in [the plaintiff 's] alleged position.” Id., at 409–
410 (injunctions could not “obviate the harm” done, the
United States was “immune to suit,” and the exclusionary
r u le was “ irrelevant” for those “ innocen[t] of the crime
charged”).
The Cour t has extended Bi v en s tw ice. See Dav is v.
Passman, 442 U. S. 228 (1979) (sex-discrimination claim
against a congressman under the Fifth Amendment's Due
Process Clause); Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14 (1980) (inade-
quate medical treatment claim against federal prison offcials
under the Eighth Amendment). Though the Cour t has
more recently declined to extend Bivens to new contexts,
see Abbasi, 582 U. S., at 135–136, Bivens remains the law of
the land in settings in which the decision has been held to
apply, see Abbasi, 582 U. S., at 134.
In Abbasi, former immigration detainees alleged mistreat-
ment and discrimination following the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks. Id., at 128–130. Invoking Bivens, the
plaintiffs sued the former Attorney General, Federal Bureau
of Investigation Director, and Immigration and Naturalization
Service Commissioner, as well as detention-facility wardens,
under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. 582 U. S., at 129–
130. Though recognizing that one of the plaintiffs' Bivens

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
123
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
claims might be viable, 582 U. S., at 146–149,
2
the
Court held
that the other claims could not proceed under Bivens. A
lawsuit challenging “a high-level executive policy” framed in
response to “a major terrorist attack,” the Court observed,
bore “little resemblance to” previous Bivens settings. 582
U. S., at 140. As considerations counseling hesitation to ex-
tend Bivens to the setting in Abbasi, the Court stressed the
impropriety of using Biv ens to challenge governmental
policies, the risk of judicial disruption of national-security
decision-making, and the availability of alternative remedies.
582 U. S., at 140–146.
Concerning future invocations of Bivens, Abbasi provided
several guides. On whether a case presents a new Bivens
context, the Court stated: “If the case is different in a mean-
ingful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this
Court, then the context is new.” 582 U. S., at 139. And on
whether to extend Bivens to a new context, Abbasi identifed
as the critical inquiry: Is “the Judiciary . . . well suited, ab-
sent congressional action or instruction, to consider and
weigh the costs and benefts of allowing a damages action to
proceed”? 582 U. S., at 136.
While reining in this Court's Bivens jurisprudence, the
Court cautioned in Abbasi that its “opinion is not intended
to cast doubt on the continued force, or even the necessity,
of Bivens in the search-and-seizure context in which it
arose.” 582 U. S., at 134. “The settled law of Bivens in this
common and recurrent sphere of law enforcement, and the
undoubted reliance upon it as a fxed principle in the law, are
powerful reasons to retain it in that sphere.” Ibid. The
Court also reiterated that suits against “the individual off-
cial for his or her own acts” deter behavior incompatible with
2
The detainees had alleged, inter alia, that one of the wardens violated
the Fifth Amendment by allowing prison guards to abuse them. Ziglar
v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. 120, 146 (2017). The Court remanded this claim for
the Court of Appeals to conduct a special-factors analysis in the frst in-
stance. Id., at 149.

124 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
constitutional norms, a consideration key to the Bivens deci-
si
on. 582 U. S., at 140 (emphasis added). “[I]ndividual in-
stances of . . . law enforcement overreach,” the Court recog-
nized, are by “their very nature . . . diffcult to address except
by way of damages actions after the fact.” Id., at 144 (em-
phasis added).
III
Plaintiffs' Bivens action arises in a setting kin to Bivens
itself: Mesa, plaintiffs allege, acted in disregard of instruc-
tions governing his conduct and of Hernández's constitu-
tional rights. Abbasi acknowledged the “fxed principle”
that plaintiffs may bring Bivens suits against federal law
enforcement offcers for “seizure[s]” that violate the Fourth
Amendment. 582 U. S., at 134; supra, at 123.
3
Using lethal
force against a person who “poses no immediate threat to
the offcer and no threat to others” surely qualifes as an
unreasonable seizure. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1, 11
(1985). The complaint states that Mesa engaged in that
very conduct; it alleged, specifcally, that Hernández was un-
armed and posed no threat to Mesa or others. For these rea-
sons, as Mesa acknowledged at oral argument, Hernández's
parents could have maintained a Bivens action had the bullet
hit Hernández while he was running up or down the United
States side of the embankment. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 50.
3
Unlike Abbasi, this case does not meaningfully differ from Bivens v.
Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), with respect to
the “rank of the offcers involved; the constitutional right at issue; the
generality or specifcity of the offcial action; the extent of judicial guid-
ance as to how an offcer should respond to the problem or emergency to
be confronted; [or] the statutory or other legal mandate under which the
offcer was operating.” Abbasi, 582 U. S., at 140. As differences material
to a new-context determination, Abbasi also lists: “the risk of disruptive
intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches . . . or
the presence of potential special factors that previous Bivens cases did not
consider.” Ibid. These considerations overlap with the special-factors
inquiry to which I turn in Part IV.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
125
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
The only salient difference here: the fortuity that the bul-
let
happened to strike Hernández on the Mexican side of the
embankment. But Hernández's location at the precise mo-
ment the bullet landed should not matter one whit. After
all, “[t]he purpose of Bivens is to deter the offcer.” Abbasi,
582 U. S., at 140 (internal quotation marks omitted); supra,
at 123 –124. And pr i mary conduc t constrai ned by the
Fourth Amendment is an offcer's unjustifed resort to exces-
sive force. See Garner, 471 U. S., at 20–22. Mesa's alleg-
edly unwarranted deployment of deadly force occurred on
United States soil. It scarcely makes sense for a remedy
trained on deterring rogue offcer conduct to turn upon a
happenstance subsequent to the conduct—a bullet landing in
one half of a culvert, not the other.
Nor would it make sense to deem some culvert locations
“new settings” for Bivens purposes, but others (those inside
the United States), familiar territory. As recounted in Jus-
tice Breyer's dissent earlier in this litigation, the culvert
“does not itself contain any physical features of a border”; it
consists of wide swaths of “concrete-lined empty space” with
fencing on each side. Hernández, 582 U. S., at 557. See
also id., at 560 (noting “the near irrelevance of [the] midcul-
vert line . . . for most border-related purposes”). It is not
asserted that Mesa “knew on which side of the boundary line
[his] bullet would land.” Id., at 557.
Finally, although the bullet happened to land on the Mexi-
can side of the culvert, the United States, as in Bivens, un-
questionably has jurisdiction to prescribe law governing a
Border Patrol agent's conduct. That prescriptive jurisdic-
tion reaches “conduct that . . . takes place within [United
States] territory.” Restatement (Third) of Foreign Rela-
tions Law of the United States § 402 (1986). The place of a
rogue offcer's conduct “has peculiar signifcance” to choice
of the applicable law where, as here, “the primary purpose
of the tort rule involved is to deter or punish misconduct.”

126 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
Restatement (Second) of Confict of Laws § 145, Comment e,
p
. 420 (1969).
4
IV
Even accepting, arguendo, that the setting in this case
could be characterized as “new,” there is still no good reason
why Hernández's parents should face a closed courtroom
door. As in Bivens, plaintiffs lack recourse to alternative
remedies. And not one of the “special factors” the Court
identifes weigh any differently based on where a bullet hap-
pens to land.
A
It was “of central importance” to the Court's disposition
in Abbasi that the case was “[un]like Bivens . . . in which `it
[was] damages or nothing.' ” 582 U. S., at 144 (quoting
Bivens, 403 U. S., at 410 (Harlan, J., concurring in judg-
ment)). Here, as Judge Prado, dissenting below, observed,
“[i]t is uncontested that plaintiffs fnd no alternative relief
in Mexican law, state law, the Federal Tort Claims Act
(`FTCA'), the Alien Tort Statute (`ATS'), or federal criminal
law.” 885 F. 3d, at 827. While the absence of alternative
remedies, standing alone, does not warrant a Bivens action,
cf. 582 U. S., at 137, it remains a signifcant consideration
under Abbasi's guidelines.
B
The special factors featured by the Court relate, in the
main, to foreign policy and national security. But, as sug-
gested earlier, see supra, at 124, no policies or policymakers
4
The Court of Appeals typed the setting of this case “new” because it
was unsure whether the asserted constitutional rights extended “to for-
eign citizens on foreign soil.” 885 F. 3d 811, 817 (CA5 2018). But that
question is appropriately addressed in deciding this case on the merits.
The Court of Appeals' uncertainty does not mean a claim arises in a “new”
context for Bivens purposes, for “[t]here will always be at least some un-
certainty as to whether[, once factual allegations are tested at trial,] a
plaintiff is ultimately going to prevail on his constitutional claims.” Brief
for Petitioners 24.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
127
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
are challenged in this case. Plaintiffs target the rogue ac-
ti
ons of a rank-and-fle law enforcement offcer acting in
violati on of r u les control l i ng h is office. See 8 CFR
§ 287.8(a)(2)(ii) (2019) (limiting use of deadly force). The sit-
uati on here presented resembles cases Abbasi disti n-
guished—cases involving “individual instances of . . . law en-
forcement overreach.” 582 U. S., at 144.
The Court nevertheless asserts that the instant suit has a
“potential effect on foreign relations” because it invites
courts “to arbitrate between” the United States and Mexico.
Ante, at 103, 106. Plaintiffs, however, have brought a civil
damages action, no different from one a federal court would
entertain had the fatal shot hit Hernández before he reached
the Mexican side of the border. True, cross-border shoot-
ings spark bilateral discussion, but so too does a range of
smuggling and other border-related issues that courts rou-
tinely address “concurrently with whatever diplomacy may
also be addressing them.” Rodriguez v. Swartz, 899 F. 3d
719, 747 (CA9 2018). The Government has identifed no del-
eterious effect on diplomatic negotiations in any case after
the Ninth Circuit held that the mother of a boy killed in a
cross-border shooting could institute a Bivens action. See
899 F. 3d, at 734.
Moreover, the Court, in this case, cannot escape a “poten-
tial effect on foreign relations,” ante, at 103, by declining
to recognize a Bivens action. As the Mexican Government
alerted the Court: “[R]efus[al] to consider [Hernández's] par-
ents' claim on the merits . . . is what has the potential to
negatively affect international relations.” Brief for Govern-
ment of United Mexican States as Amicus Curiae 12.
Notably, recognizing a Bivens suit here honors our Na-
tion's international commitments. Article 9(5) of the Inter-
national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
Dec. 19, 1966, S. Treaty Doc. No. 95–20, 999 U. N. T. S. 176,
provides that “[a]nyone who has been the victim of unlawful
arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to com-

128 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
pensation.” The United States ratifed the ICCPR with the
“underst
andin[g]” that Article 9(5) “require[s] the provision
of effective and enforceable mechanisms by which a victim
of an unlawful arrest or detention or a miscarriage of justice
may seek and, where justifed, obtain compensation from
either the responsible individual or the appropriate govern-
mental entity.” U. S. Reservations, Declarations, and Un-
derstandings, ICCPR, 138 Cong. Rec. 8071 (1992). See also
1676 U. N. T. S. 544 (entered into force Sept. 8, 1992). One
ftting mechanism to obtain compensation is a Bivens ac-
tion. See Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, ICCPR,
S. Exec. Rep. No. 102–23, p. 15 (1992).
The Court also asserts, as cause for hesitation, “the risk of
undermining border security.” Ante, at 108. But the Court
speaks with generality of the national-security involvement
of Border Patrol offcers. It does not home in on how a
Bivens suit for an unjustifed killing would in fact undermine
security at the border. Abbasi cautioned against invoca-
tions of national security of this very order: “[N]ational-
security concerns must not become a talisman used to ward
off inconvenient claims—a `label' used to `cover a multitude
of sins.' ” 582 U. S., at 143 (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472
U. S. 511, 523 (1985)). Instructions regulating Border Pa-
trol agents tell them to guard against deploying unjustifed
deadly force. See 8 CFR § 287.8(a)(2)(ii). Given that in-
struction, I do not grasp how allowing a Bivens action here
would intrude upon the political branches' national-security
prerogatives.
Congress, although well aware of the Court's opinion in
Bivens, see, e. g., S. Exec. Rep. No. 102–23, at 15, has not
endeavored to dislodge the decision. The Court cites sev-
eral statutes in support of the argument that affording a
Bivens action to Hernández's parents would be inconsistent
with measures Congress has taken. None of the cited stat-
utes should stand in plaintiffs' way.
Section 1983 actions, the Court points out, are available
only to “person[s] within the jurisdiction” of the United

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
129
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
States. 42 U. S. C. § 1983.
5
That
statute has, as its prove-
nance, Reconstruction-era policies aiming to secure to for-
mer slaves federal rights and to ward off state and local in-
cursion on those rights. See Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S.
225, 238–239, and n. 30 (1972). “It is inconceivable that . . .
Congress [then] thought about (and deliberately excluded lia-
bility for) cross-border incidents involving federal offcials.”
Rodriguez, 899 F. 3d, at 742.
The FTCA is also inapposite. Its exclusion of “claim[s]
arising in a foreign country,” 28 U. S. C. § 2680(k), refects
“Congress's `unwilling[ness] to subject the United States to
liabilities depending upon the laws of a foreign power.' ”
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U. S. 692, 707 (2004) (quoting
United States v. Spelar, 338 U. S. 217, 221 (1949)). Here,
however, the suit arises under U. S. law. Even as the West-
fall Act amended the FTCA to make it the “exclusive” rem-
edy for scope-of-employment claims against Government of-
fcers, § 2679(b)(1), Congress carved out an exception for
Bivens suits, § 2679(b)(2)(A) (excepting civil claims “brought
for a violation of the Constitution of the United States”).
The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 applies exclu-
sively to wrongdoers acting under color of foreign law. 28
U. S. C. § 1350 Note. The conduct of federal and state off-
cers is outside that Act's purview.
6
Nor are concerns sometimes attending application of our
law abroad implicated in this case. True, the Court has ap-
5
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983 reads: “Every person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory
or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen
of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to
the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at
law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
6
The Torture Victim Protection Act sought to codify a Second Circuit
opinion recognizing “a right of action against foreign torturers” under the
Alien Tort Claims Act. H. R. Rep. No. 102–367, pp. 3–4 (1991) (discussing
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 (CA2 1980)). “Domestic offcials
were not at issue.” Rodriguez v. Swartz, 899 F. 3d 719, 743 (CA9 2018).

130 HERN
ANDEZ v. MESA
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
plied a “presumption against extraterritorial application” to
st
atutes that do not make plain their governance beyond
U. S. borders. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569
U. S. 108, 115 (2013). But plaintiffs in this case allege a tort
stemming from stateside conduct. Cf. id., at 124–125 (if con-
duct at issue “touch[es] and concern[s] the territory of the
United States . . . with suffcient force,” the presumption
against extraterritoriality is displaced). This case scarcely
resembles those in which applying “U. S. law . . . to conduct
in foreign countries” might spark “international discord.”
RJR Nab isco, Inc. v. Euro pean Co mmun i ty, 579 U. S.
325, 335 (2016). Quite the opposite. Withholding a Bivens
suit here threatens to exacerbate bilateral relations, see
supra, at 127, and in no way fosters our international com-
mitments, see supra, at 127–128.
V
Regrettably, the death of Hernández is not an isolated inci-
dent. Cf. Rodriguez, 899 F. 3d, at 727 (complaint alleged
that border agent fred 14 to 30 bullets across the border,
killing a 16-year-old boy); Brief for Immigrant and Civil
Rights Organizations as Amici Curiae 26–28 (describing var-
ious incidents of allegedly unconstitutional conduct by bor-
der and immigration offcers); Brief for Border Network for
Human Rights et al. as Amici Curiae 8–15 (listing individu-
als killed by border agents). One report reviewed over 800
complaints of alleged physical, verbal, or sexual abuse lodged
against Border Patrol agents between 2009 and 2012; in 97%
of the complaints resulting in formal decisions, no action was
taken. D. Martínez, G. Cantor, & W. Ewing, No Action
Taken: Lack of CBP Accountability in Responding to Com-
plaints of Abuse, American Immigration Council 1–8 (2014),
americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/
No%20Action%20Taken_Final.pdf. According to amici for-
mer Customs and Border Protection offcials, “the United
States has not extradited a Border Patrol agent to stand trial

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 93 (2020)
131
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
in Mexico, and to [amici's] knowledge has itself prosecuted
only
one agent in a cross-border shooting.” Brief for For-
mer Offcials of U. S. Customs and Border Protection Agency
as Amici Curiae 4. These amici warn that, “[w]ithout the
possibility of civil liability, the unlikely prospect of discipline
or criminal prosecution will not provide a meaningful deter-
rent to abuse at the border.” Ibid. In short, it is all too
apparent that to redress injuries like the one suffered here,
it is Bivens or nothing.
***
I resist the conclusion that “nothing ” is the answer re-
quired in this case. I would reverse the Fifth Circuit's judg-
ment and hold that plaintiffs can sue Mesa in federal court
for violating their son's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

132 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Syllabus
RODRIGUEZ, as chapter 7 trustee for the BANK-
R
UPTCY ESTATE OF UNITED WESTERN BANCORP,
INC. v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE COR-
PORATION, as receiver for UNITED
WESTERN BANK
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the tenth circuit
No. 18–1269. Argued December 3, 2019—Decided February 25, 2020
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allows an affliated group of corpora-
tions to fle a consolidated federal return. See 26 U. S. C. § 1501. The
IRS issues any refund as a single payment to the group's designated
agent. The tax regulations say very little about how the group mem-
bers should then distribute that refund among themselves. If a dispute
arises and the members have no tax allocation agreement in place, fed-
eral courts normally turn to state law to resolve the distribution ques-
tion. Some courts, however, have crafted their own federal common
law rule, known as the Bob Richards rule. See In re Bob Richards
Chrysler-Plymouth Corp., 473 F. 2d 262. The rule initially provided
that, in the absence of an agreement, a refund belongs to the group
member responsible for the losses that led to it. But it has since
evolved, in some jurisdictions, into a general rule that is always followed
unless an agreement unambiguously specifes a different result. Soon
after United Western Bank suffered huge losses, its parent, United
Western Bancorp, Inc., was forced into bankruptcy. When the IRS is-
sued the group a $4 million tax refund, the bank's receiver, respondent
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the parent corpora-
tion's bankruptcy trustee, petitioner Simon Rodriguez, each sought to
claim it. The dispute wound its way through a bankruptcy court and a
federal district court before the Tenth Circuit examined the parties'
tax allocation agreement, applied the more expansive version of Bob
Richards, and ruled for the FDIC.
Held: The Bob Richards rule is not a legitimate exercise of federal com-
mon lawmaking. Federal judges may appropriately craft the rule of
decision in only limited areas, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U. S. 692,
729, and claiming a new area is subject to strict conditions. One of the
most basic is that federal common lawmaking must be “ `necessary to
protect uniquely federal interests.' ” Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff
Materials, Inc., 451 U. S. 630, 640. The Bob Richards rule has not sat-

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 132 (2020)
133
Opinion of the Court
isfed this condition. The federal courts applying and extending Bob
Ri
chards have not pointed to any signifcant federal interest suffcient
to support the Bob Richards rule. Nor have the parties in this case.
State law is well equipped to handle disputes involving corporate prop-
erty rights, even in cases, like this one, that involve federal bankruptcy
and a tax dispute. Whether this case might yield the same or a differ-
ent result without Bob Richards is a matter the court of appeals may
take up on remand. Pp. 136–138.
914 F. 3d 1262, vacated and remanded.
Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Mitchell P. Reich argued the cause for petitioner. With
him on the briefs were Neal Kumar Katyal, Colleen E. Roh
Sinzdak, Thomas P. Schmidt, and Mark E. Haynes.
Michael R. Huston argued the cause for respondent.
With him on the brief were Solicitor General Francisco, As-
sistant Attorney General Hunt, Deputy Solicitor General
Stewart, Colleen J. Boles, and J. Scott Watson.
Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case grows from a fght over a tax refund. But the
question we face isn't who gets the money, only how to decide
the dispute. Should federal courts rely on state law, to-
gether with any applicable federal rules, or should they de-
vise their own federal common law test? To ask the ques-
tion is nearly to answer it. The cases in which federal
courts may engage in common lawmaking are few and far
between. This is one of the cases that lie between.
The trouble here started when the United Western Bank
hit hard times, entered receivership, and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation took the reins. Not long after that,
the bank's parent, United Western Bancorp, Inc., faced its
own problems and was forced into bankruptcy, led now by
a trustee, Simon Rodriguez. When the Internal Revenue
Service issued a $4 million tax refund, each of these newly
assigned caretakers understandably sought to claim the
money. Unable to resolve their differences, they took the

134 RODRIGUEZ
v. FDIC
Opinion of the Court
matter to court. The case wound its way through a bank-
r
uptcy court and a federal district court before eventually
landing in the Tenth Circuit. At the end of it all, the court
of appeals ruled for the FDIC, as receiver for the subsidiary
bank, rather than for Mr. Rodriguez, as trustee for the corpo-
rate parent.
How could two separate corporate entities both claim enti-
tlement to a single tax refund? For many years, the IRS
has allowed an affliated group of corporations to fle a
consolidated federal return. See 26 U. S. C. § 1501. This
serves as a convenience for the government and taxpayers
alike. Unsurprisingly, though, a corporate group seeking to
fle a single return must comply with a host of regulations.
See 26 U. S. C. § 1502; 26 CFR § 1.1502–0 et seq. (2019).
These regulations are pretty punctilious about ensuring the
government gets all the taxes due from corporate group
members. See, e. g., § 1.1502–6. But when it comes to the
distribution of refunds, the regulations say considerably less.
They describe how the IRS will pay the group's designated
agent a single refund. See § 1.1502–77(d)(5). And they
warn that the IRS's payment discharges the government's
refund liability to all group members. Ibid. But how
should the members distribute the money among themselves
once the government sends it to their designated agent? On
that, federal law says little.
To fll the gap, many corporate groups have developed “tax
allocation agreements.” These agreements usually specify
what share of a group's tax liability each member will pay,
along with the share of any tax refund each member will
receive. But what if there is no tax allocation agreement?
Or what if the group members dispute the meaning of the
terms found in their agreement? Normally, courts would
turn to state law to resolve questions like these. State law
is replete with rules readymade for such tasks—rules for
interpreting contracts, creating equitable trusts, avoiding
unjust enrichment, and much more.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 132 (2020)
135
Opinion of the Court
Some federal courts, however, have charted a different
course
. They have crafted their own federal common law
rule—one known to those who practice in the area as the
Bob Richards rule, so named for the Ninth Circuit case from
which it grew: In re Bob Richards Chrysler-Plymouth Corp.,
473 F. 2d 262 (1973). As initially conceived, the Bob Rich-
ards rule provided that, in the absence of a tax allocation
agreement, a refund belongs to the group member responsi-
ble for the losses that led to it. See id., at 265. With the
passage of time, though, Bob Richards evolved. Now, in
some jurisdictions, Bob Richards doesn't just supply a stop-
gap rule for situations when group members lack an alloca-
tion agreement. It represents a general rule always to be
followed unless the parties' tax allocation agreement unam-
biguously specifes a different result.
At the urging of the FDIC and consistent with circuit
precedent, the Tenth Circuit employed this more expansive
version of Bob Richards in the case now before us. Because
the parties did have a tax allocation agreement, the court
of appeals explained, the question it faced was whether the
agreement unambiguously deviated from Bob Richards's de-
fault rule. In re United Western Bancorp, Inc., 914 F. 3d
1262, 1269–1270 (2019). After laying out this “analytical
framework” for decision, id., at 1269 (emphasis deleted), the
court proceeded to hold that the FDIC, as receiver for the
bank, owned the tax refund.
Not all circuits, however, follow Bob Richards. The Sixth
Circuit, for example, has observed that “federal common law
constitutes an unusual exercise of lawmaking which should
be indulged . . . only when there is a signifcant confict be-
tween some federal policy or interest and the use of state
law.” FDIC v. AmFin Financial Corp., 757 F. 3d 530, 535
(2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the Sixth Cir-
cuit's view, courts employing Bob Richards have simply “by-
passed th[is] threshold question.” 757 F. 3d, at 536. And
any fair examination of it, the Sixth Circuit has submitted,

136 RODRIGUEZ
v. FDIC
Opinion of the Court
reveals no confict that might justify resort to federal com-
mon
law. Ibid. We took this case to decide Bob Richards's
fate. 588 U. S. 919 (2019).
Judicial lawmaking in the form of federal common law
plays a necessarily modest role under a Constitution that
vests the federal government's “legislative Powers” in Con-
gress and reserves most other regulatory authority to the
States. See Art. I, § 1; Amdt. 10. As this Court has put it,
there is “no federal general common law.” Erie R. Co. v.
Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, 78 (1938). Instead, only limited
areas exist in which federal judges may appropriately craft
the rule of decision. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U. S.
692, 729 (2004). These areas have included admiralty dis-
putes and certain controversies between States. See, e. g.,
Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 543
U. S. 14, 23 (2004); Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry
Creek Ditch Co., 304 U. S. 92, 110 (1938). In contexts like
these, federal common law often plays an important role.
But before federal judges may claim a new area for common
lawmaking, strict conditions must be satisfed. The Sixth
Circuit correctly identifed one of the most basic: In the ab-
sence of congressional authorization, common lawmaking
must be “ `necessary to protect uniquely federal interests.' ”
Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U. S.
630, 640 (1981) (quoting Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabba-
tino, 376 U. S. 398, 426 (1964)).
Nothing like that exists here. The federal government
may have an interest in regulating how it receives taxes from
corporate groups. See, e. g., 26 CFR §§ 1.1502–6, –12, –13.
The government also may have an interest in regulating the
delivery of any tax refund due a corporate group. For ex-
ample and as we've seen, the government may wish to en-
sure that others in the group have no recourse against fed-
eral coffers once it pays the group's designated agent. See
§ 1.1502–77(d)(5). But what unique interest could the fed-
eral government have in determining how a consolidated cor-

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 132 (2020)
137
Opinion of the Court
porate tax refund, once paid to a designated agent, is distrib-
u
ted among group members?
The Sixth Circuit correctly observed that Bob Richards
offered no answer—it just bypassed the question. Nor have
the courts applying and extending Bob Richards provided
satisfactory answers of their own. Even the FDIC, which
advocated for the Bob Richards rule in the Tenth Circuit,
failed to point that court to any unique federal interest the
rule might protect. In this Court, the FDIC, now repre-
sented by the Solicitor General, has gone a step further, ex-
pressly conceding that federal courts “should not apply a fed-
eral common law rule to . . . put a thumb on . . . the scale”
when deciding which corporate group member owns some or
all of a consolidated refund. Tr. of Oral Arg. 40; see also id.,
at 32–36.
Understandably too. Corporations are generally “crea-
tures of state law,” Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66, 84 (1975), and
state law is well equipped to handle disputes involving corpo-
rate property rights. That cases like the one now before us
happen to involve corporate property rights in the context
of a federal bankruptcy and a tax dispute doesn't change
much. As this Court has long recognized, “Congress has
generally left the determination of property rights in the
assets of a bankrupt's estate to state law.” Butner v. United
States, 440 U. S. 48, 54 (1979). So too with the Internal Rev-
enue Code—it generally “ `creates no property rights.' ”
United States v. National Bank of Commerce, 472 U. S. 713,
722 (1985) (quoting United States v. Bess, 357 U. S. 51, 55
(1958)). If special exceptions to these usual rules sometimes
might be warranted, no one has explained why the distribu-
tion of a consolidated corporate tax refund should be among
them.
Even if the Tenth Circuit's reliance on Bob Richards's ana-
lytical framework was mistaken, the FDIC suggests we
might affrm the court's judgment in this case anyway. The
FDIC points out that the court of appeals proceeded to con-

138 RODRIGUEZ
v. FDIC
Opinion of the Court
sult applicable state law—and the FDIC assures us its result
fol
lows naturally from state law. The FDIC also suggests
that the IRS regulations concerning the appointment and du-
ties of a corporate group's agent found in 26 CFR §§ 1.1502–
77(a) and (d) tend to support the court of appeals's judgment.
Unsurprisingly, Mr. Rodriguez disagrees with these assess-
ments and contends that, absent Bob Richards, the Tenth
Circuit would have reached a different outcome.
Who is right about all this we do not decide. Some,
maybe many, cases will come out the same way under state
law or Bob Richards. But we did not take this case to de-
cide how this case should be resolved under state law or to
determine how IRS regulations might interact with state
law. We took this case only to underscore the care federal
courts should exercise before taking up an invitation to try
their hand at common lawmaking. Bob Richards made the
mistake of moving too quickly past important threshold
questions at the heart of our separation of powers. It sup-
plies no rule of decision, only a cautionary tale. Whether
this case might yield the same or a different result without
Bob Richards is a matter the court of appeals may consider
on remand. See, e. g., Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U. S. 506,
521–522 (2010); Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America
v. Pacifc Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U. S. 443, 455–456 (2007); Gon-
zales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U. S. 183, 194 (2007).
The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated, and the
case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
It is so ordered.

OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
139
Syllabus
McKINNEY v. ARIZONA
certiorari
to the supreme court of arizona
No. 18–1109. Argued December 11, 2019—Decided February 25, 2020
An Arizona jury convicted petitioner James McKinney of two counts of
frst-degree murder. The trial judge found aggravating circumstances
for both murders, weighed the aggravating and mitigating circum-
stances, and sentenced McKinney to death. Nearly 20 years later, the
Ninth Circuit held on habeas review that the Arizona courts violated
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, by failing to properly consider as
relevant mitigating evidence McKinney's posttraumatic stress disorder.
McKinney's case then returned to the Arizona Supreme Court. McKin-
ney argued that he was entitled to a jury resentencing, but the Arizona
Supreme Court itself reweighed the aggravating and mitigating circum-
stances, as permitted by Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738, and up-
held both death sentences.
Held: A Clemons reweighing is a permissible remedy for an Eddings
error, and when an Eddings error is found on collateral review, a state
appellate court may conduct a Clemons reweighing on collateral review.
McKinney's argument that a jury must resentence him does not square
with Clemons, where the Court held that a reweighing of the aggravat-
ing and mitigating evidence may be conducted by an appellate court.
494 U. S., at 741. Because Clemons involved an improperly considered
aggravating circumstance, McKinney maintains that it is inapposite
here, where the case involves an improperly ignored mitigating circum-
stance. Clemons, however, did not depend on any unique effect of ag-
gravators as distinct from mitigators. For purposes of appellate re-
weighing, there is no meaningful difference between subtracting an
aggravator from one side of the scale and adding a mitigator to the other
side. McKinney also argues that Clemons is no longer good law in the
wake of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584, and Hurst v. Florida, 577
U. S. 92, where the Court held that a jury must fnd the aggravating
circumstance that makes the defendant death eligible. But that does
not mean that a jury is constitutionally required to weigh the aggravat-
ing and mitigating circumstances or to make the ultimate sentencing
decision within the relevant sentencing range. See Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 481. McKinney notes that the Arizona trial court,
not the jury, made the initial aggravating circumstance fnding that
made him eligible for the death penalty. But McKinney's case became
fnal on direct review long before Ring and Hurst, which do not apply

140 Mc
KINNEY v. ARIZONA
Syllabus
retroactively on collateral review, see Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U. S.
348,
358, and the Arizona Supreme Court's 2018 decision reweighing the
aggravators and mitigators did not constitute a reopening of direct re-
view. Pp. 142–147.
245 Ariz. 225, 426 P. 3d 1204, affrmed.
Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts,
C. J., and Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., fled
a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ.,
joined, post, p. 147.
Neal Kumar Ka tyal arg ued the cause for petiti oner.
With him on the briefs were Katherine B. Wellington, Shar-
mila Roy, Amy L. Marshak, Joshua A. Geltzer, and Mary
B. McCord.
Oramel H. Skinner, Solicitor General of Arizona, argued
the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Mark
Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, Kate B. Sawyer,
Assistant Solicitor General, and Katherine H. Jessen, As-
sistant Attorney General, Joseph A. Kanefeld, Chief Deputy
and Chief of Staff, Brunn W. Roysden III, Lacey Stover
Gard, Ginger Jarvis, and Laura Chiasson.*
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for Advocates for
Human Rights et al. by Amy Bergquist; for the American Civil Liberties
Union et al. by Lisa S. Blatt, Amy Mason Saharia, Tanya M. Abrams,
David D. Cole, and Brian W. Stull; for the Arizona Capital Representation
Project by Natman Schaye; for the Capital Punishment Center of the
University of Texas School of Law by Jordan M. Steiker, Jim Marcus,
and Raoul D. Schonemann; for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law by John Fleming, Alex P. Fuchs, Kristen Clarke, and Jon M.
Greenbaum; for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by
John Mills; and for the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center by
Amir H. Ali.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for the State of Utah
et al. by Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General of Utah, Tyler R. Green, Solici-
tor General, Thomas B. Brunker, Deputy Solicitor General, and Tera J.
Peterson, Assistant Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General of
their respective States as follows: Steve Marshall of Alabama, Leslie Rut-
ledge of Arkansas, Ashley Moody of Florida, Christopher M. Carr of Geor-

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 139 (2020)
141
Opinion of the Court
Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court.
Over
a 4-week span in early 1991, James McKinney and his
half brother, Charles Hedlund, burglarized fve residences in
the Phoenix, Arizona, area. During one of the burglaries,
McKinney and Hedlund beat and repeatedly stabbed Chris-
tine Mertens. McKinney then shot Mertens in the back of
the head, fatally wounding her. In another burglary, Mc-
Kinney and Hedlund killed Jim McClain by shooting him in
the back of the head with a sawed-off rife.
In 1992, an Arizona jury convicted McKinney of two counts
of frst-degree murder. Under this Court's precedents, a de-
fendant convicted of murder is eligible for a death sentence
if at least one aggravating circumstance is found. See Tui-
laepa v. California, 512 U. S. 967 (1994); Zant v. Stephens,
462 U. S. 862 (1983); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976).
McKinney's trial judge found aggravating circumstances for
both murders. For the Mertens murder, the judge found
that McKinney committed the murder for pecuniary gain and
that McKinney killed Mertens in an especially heinous, cruel,
or depraved manner. For the McClain murder, the judge
found that McKinney committed the murder for pecuniary
gain and that McKinney had been convicted of another of-
fense with a potential sentence of life imprisonment or death
(the Mertens murder).
The trial judge then weighed the aggravating and mitigat-
ing circumstances and sentenced McKinney to death for both
murders. In 1996, the Arizona Supreme Court affrmed Mc-
Kinney's death sentences.
gia, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Curtis T. Hill, Jr., of Indiana, Derek
Schmidt of Kansas, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Douglas J. Peterson of Ne-
braska, Dave Yost of Ohio, Mike Hunter of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson of
South Carolina, Jason R. Ravnsborg of South Dakota, and Herbert H.
Slatery III of Tennessee; for Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory
Council by Sheila Sullivan Polk; for Arizona Voice for Crime Victims Inc.
by Colleen Clase; and for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent
S. Scheidegger and Kymberlee C. Stapleton.

142 Mc
KINNEY v. ARIZONA
Opinion of the Court
Nearly 20 years later, on federal habeas corpus review, an
en
banc panel of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit decided by a 6 to 5 vote that, in sentencing McKinney,
the Arizona courts had failed to properly consider McKin-
ney's posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and had thereby
run afoul of this Court's decision in Eddings v. Oklahoma,
455 U. S. 104 (1982). In Eddings, this Court held that a capi-
tal sentencer may not refuse as a matter of law to consider
relevant mitigating evidence. Id., at 113–114.
McKinney's case then returned to the Arizona Supreme
Court. In that court, McKinney argued that he was entitled
to resentencing by a jury. By contrast, the State asked that
the Arizona Supreme Court itself conduct a reweighing of
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as permitted
by Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738 (1990). The Ari-
zona Supreme Court agreed with the State. The court itself
reviewed the evidence in the record and reweighed the rele-
vant aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including
McKinney's PTSD. The court upheld both death sentences.
245 Ariz. 225, 426 P. 3d 1204 (2018).
McKinney petitioned for certiorari in this Court. Be-
cause of the importance of the case to capital sentencing in
Arizona, we granted certiorari. 587 U. S. 1050 (2019).
The issue in this case is narrow. McKinney contends that
after the Ninth Circuit identifed an Eddings error, the Ari-
zona Supreme Court could not itself reweigh the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances. Rather, according to McKin-
ney, a jury must resentence him.
McKinney's argument does not square with this Court's
decision in Clemons. In Clemons, a Mississippi jury sen-
tenced the defendant to death based in part on two aggravat-
ing circumstances. After the Mississippi Supreme Court
determined that one of the aggravators was unconstitution-
ally vague, the defendant argued that he was entitled to re-
sentencing before a jury so that the jury could properly
weigh the permissible aggravating and mitigating evidence.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 139 (2020)
143
Opinion of the Court
This Court disagreed. The Court concluded that the Missis-
sippi
Supreme Court could itself reweigh the permissible ag-
gravating and mitigating evidence. 494 U. S., at 745–750.
This Court stated that “the Federal Constitution does not
prevent a state appellate court from upholding a death sen-
tence that is based in part on an invalid or improperly
defned aggravating circumstance either by reweighing of
the aggravating and mitigating evidence or by harmless-
error review.” Id., at 741. The Court explained that a
Clemons reweighing is not a resentencing but instead is akin
to harmless-error review in that both may be conducted by
an appellate court.
McKinney contends that Clemons does not apply here.
He raises two basic arguments.
First, McKinney maintains that Clemons involved an im-
properly considered aggravating circumstance, whereas his
case involves what the Ninth Circuit said was an improperly
ignored mitigating circumstance. But the Court's analysis
in Clemons hinged on its assessment of appellate courts'
ability to weigh aggravating and mitigating evidence, not on
any unique effect of aggravators as distinct from mitigators.
After noting that the “primary concern in the Eighth
Amendment context has been that the sentencing decision
be based on the facts and circumstances of the defendant, his
background, and his crime,” the Court explained that noth-
ing “inherent in the process of appellate reweighing is incon-
sistent” with that objective. Id., at 748. Indeed, the Court
explicitly rejected the argument that “appellate courts are
unable to fully consider and give effect to the mitigating evi-
dence presented by defendants at the sentencing phase in a
capital case.” Ibid. And the Court concluded that a state
appellate court may uphold the death sentence after a “re-
weighing of the aggravating and mitigating evidence.” Id.,
at 741.
In deciding whether a particular defendant warrants a
death sentence in light of the mix of aggravating and mitigat-

144 Mc
KINNEY v. ARIZONA
Opinion of the Court
ing circumstances, there is no meaningful difference for pur-
poses
of appellate reweighing between subtracting an aggra-
vator from one side of the scale and adding a mitigator to
the other side. Both involve weighing, and the Court's deci-
sion in Clemons ruled that appellate tribunals may perform
a “reweighing of the aggravating and mitigating evidence.”
Ibid. In short, a Clemons reweighing is a permissible rem-
edy for an Eddings error.
Second, the Court decided Clemons back in 1990, and Mc-
Kinney argues that Clemons is no longer good law in
the wake of this Court's decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536
U. S. 584 (2002), and Hurst v. Florida, 577 U. S. 92 (2016).
According to McKinney, appellate courts may no longer
reweigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances in deter-
mining whether to uphold a death sentence. McKinney is
incorrect.
In Ring, this Court held that capital defendants “are enti-
tled to a jury determination of any fact on which the legisla-
ture conditions an increase in their maximum punishment”—
in particular, the fnding of an aggravating circumstance.
536 U. S., at 589. In Hurst, the Court applied Ring and de-
cided that Florida's capital sentencing scheme impermissibly
allowed “a sentencing judge to fnd an aggravating circum-
stance, independent of a jury's factfnding, that is necessary
for imposition of the death penalty.” 577 U. S., at 102.
Under Ring and Hurst, a jury must fnd the aggravating
circumstance that makes the defendant death eligible. But
importantly, in a capital sentencing proceeding just as in an
ordinary sentencing proceeding, a jury (as opposed to a
judge) is not constitutionally required to weigh the aggravat-
ing and mitigating circumstances or to make the ultimate
sentencing decision within the relevant sentencing range.
In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), this Court
carefully avoided any suggestion that “it is impermissible for
judges to exercise discretion—taking into consideration vari-

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 139 (2020)
145
Opinion of the Court
ous factors relating both to offense and offender—in impos-
i
ng a judgment within the range prescribed by statute.”
Id., at 481. And in the death penalty context, as Justice
Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, explained in his concur-
rence in Ring, the decision in Ring “has nothing to do with
jury sentencing. What today's decision says is that the jury
must fnd the existence of the fact that an aggravating factor
existed.” 536 U. S., at 612; see also Kansas v. Carr, 577
U. S. 108, 118–120 (2016). Therefore, as Justice Scalia ex-
plained, the “States that leave the ultimate life-or-death de-
cision to the judge may continue to do so.” Ring, 536 U. S.,
at 612.
In short, Ring and Hurst did not require jury weighing of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and Ring and
Hurst did not overrule Clemons so as to prohibit appellate
reweighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
In addition to those two arguments about Clemons, Mc-
Kinney advances an additional argument based on Ring and
Hurst. This argument focuses not on the weighing of ag-
gravators and mitigators, but rather on the Arizona trial
court's initial 1993 fnding of the aggravating circumstances
that made McKinney eligible for the death penalty. McKin-
ney points out that a jury did not fnd the aggravating cir-
cumstances, as is now required by Ring and Hurst.
The hurdle is that McKinney's case became fnal on direct
review in 1996, long before Ring and Hurst. Ring and
Hurst do not apply retroactively on collateral review. See
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U. S. 348, 358 (2004). Because
this case comes to us on state collateral review, Ring and
Hurst do not apply.
McKinney says, however, that this case has a twist. He
asserts that the Arizona Supreme Court's 2018 decision re-
weighing the aggravators and mitigators constituted a re-
opening of direct review. Because this case (as McKinney
sees it) is again on direct review, McKinney argues that

146 Mc
KINNEY v. ARIZONA
Opinion of the Court
he should receive the beneft of Ring and Hurst—namely, a
jury
resentencing with a jury determination of aggravating
circumstances.
But the premise of that argument is wrong because the
Arizona Supreme Court's reweighing of the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances occurred on collateral review, not
direct review. In conducting the reweighing, the Arizona
Supreme Court explained that it was conducting an inde-
pendent review in a collateral proceeding. The court cited
its prior decision in State v. Styers, 227 Ariz. 186, 254 P. 3d
1132 (2011), which concluded that Arizona could conduct such
an independent review in a collateral proceeding. See also
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13–755 (2010); State v. Hedlund, 245
Ariz. 467, 470–471, 431 P. 3d 181, 184–185 (2018). Under
these circumstances, we may not second-guess the Arizona
Supreme Court's characterization of state law. See Mulla-
ney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684, 691 (1975); see also Jimenez v.
Quarterman, 555 U. S. 113, 120, n. 4 (2009); Styers v. Ryan,
811 F. 3d 292, 297, n. 5 (CA9 2015). As a matter of state law,
the reweighing proceeding in McKinney's case occurred on
collateral review.
McKinney responds that the state label of collateral re-
view cannot control the fnality question; that a Clemons re-
weighing is a sentencing proceeding; and that a Clemons
reweighing therefore may occur only on direct review (or
on reopening of direct review). But Clemons itself, over a
vigorous dissent, stated that an appellate reweighing is not
a sentencing proceeding that must be conducted by a jury.
See 494 U. S., at 741, 744–755. The appellate reweighing is
akin to harmless-error review. Courts routinely conduct
harmless-error review in collateral proceedings. Cf., e. g.,
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 638 (1993). There is
no good reason—and McKinney supplies none—why state
courts may not likewise conduct a Clemons reweighing on
collateral review. As relevant here, when an Eddings error
is found on collateral review, a state court may conduct a

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 139 (2020)
147
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
Clemons reweighing on collateral review.* Here, therefore,
the
Arizona Supreme Court permissibly conducted a Clem-
ons reweighing on collateral review.
***
This Court's precedents establish that state appellate
courts may conduct a Clemons reweighing of aggravating
and mitigating circumstances, and may do so in collateral
proceedings as appropriate and provided under state law.
We affrm the judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court.
It is so ordered.
Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Breyer, Jus-
tice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan join, dissenting.
Petitioner James Erin McKinney, convicted in Arizona of
two counts of frst-degree murder, was sentenced to death in
1993. At that time, Arizona assigned capital sentencing to
trial judges. To impose a death sentence, the judge had to
fnd at least one aggravating circumstance and “no mitigat-
ing circumstances suffciently substantial to call for le-
niency.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13–703(E) (1993). In 2002,
in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584 (2002), this Court held Ari-
zona's capital sentencing regime unconstitutional. The “ag-
gravating factors” that render a defendant eligible for capital
punishment in Arizona, the Court reasoned, “operate as `the
functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense.' ”
Id., at 609 (quoting Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466,
494, n. 19 (2000)). “[T]he Sixth Amendment [therefore] re-
quires that [such aggravating factors] be found by a jury.”
*Moreover, the District Court's conditional writ in this case merely re-
quired Arizona to correct a purported Eddings error. As we have ex-
plained, an Eddings error may be remedied on appeal or on collateral
review. Our holding here does not suggest that a State, by use of a collat-
eral label, may conduct a new trial proceeding in violation of current con-
stitutional standards.

148 Mc
KINNEY v. ARIZONA
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
536 U. S., at 609; see Hurst v. Florida, 577 U. S. 92, 94 (2016)
(“
The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to fnd
each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death.”). Here
in dispute, does Ring apply to McKinney's case?
1
If it does,
then McKinney's death sentences—imposed based on aggra-
vating factors found by a judge, not a jury—are unlawful.
The Constitution, this Court has determined, requires the
application of new rules of constitutional law to cases on di-
rect review. Griffth v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314, 322–323
(1987). Such rules, however, do not apply retroactively to
cases on collateral review unless they fall within one of two
exceptions. Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 310 (1989) (plu-
rality opinion).
2
This Court has already held that Ring does
not fall within those exceptions. See Schriro v. Summerlin,
542 U. S. 348, 358 (2004). Thus, the pivotal question: Is Mc-
Kinney's case currently on direct review, in which case Ring
applies, or on collateral review, in which case Ring does not
apply?
3
I would rank the Arizona Supreme Court's pro-
ceeding now before this Court for review as direct in charac-
ter. I would therefore hold McKinney's death sentences un-
constitutional under Ring, and reverse the judgment of the
Arizona Supreme Court.
1
McKinney's primary argument rests on Ring. See Brief for Petitioner
19–33. Curiously, the Court devotes most of its opinion, ante, at 142–
144, to McKinney's alternative argument: that Eddings error cannot be
corrected by an appellate court. Brief for Petitioner 33–47 (discussing
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104 (1982)). Because I conclude that
Ring is dispositive here, I do not reach McKinney's fallback argument.
2
“[S]ubstantive” rules—“rules according constitutional protection to an
actor's primary conduct” or “placing a certain class of individuals beyond
the State's power to punish” in a particular manner—apply on collateral
review. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 329–330 (1989). The same is
true of “watershed rules of criminal procedure.” Teague, 489 U. S., at 311.
3
Direct review immediately challenges a conviction; collateral review,
occurring after a completed appeal, “is secondary and limited.” Brecht
v. Abraham so n, 507 U. S. 619, 633 (1993) ( i nter na l quot ation marks
omitted).

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 139 (2020)
149
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
I
Upon
the imposition of a death sentence in Arizona, a de-
fendant's appeal bypasses the intermediate appellate court
and moves directly from the trial court to the Arizona Su-
preme Court. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13–4031 (2010).
4
The statute governing such an appeal, § 13–755, instructs:
“The supreme court shall review all death sentences. On
review, the supreme court shall independently review the
trial court's fndings of aggravation and mitigation and the
propriety of the death sentence.” § 13–755(A).
5
Independ-
ent review under § 13–755 entails “review[ing] the entire rec-
ord” without deference to the factfnder, to determine,
de novo, “whether a capital sentence is not only legally cor-
rect, but also appropriate.” State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz.
507, 509–510, 353 P. 3d 847, 849–850 (2015). In 1996, the
Arizona Supreme Court reviewed McKinney's sentences
under the foregoing scheme and affrmed the trial court's
dispositions.
McKinney then sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal
court. In 2015, the en banc United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Arizona Supreme
Court, when it independently reviewed McKinney's sen-
tences in 1996, committed constitutional error. Specifcally,
the state court, in violation of Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455
U. S. 104, 113–114 (1982),
6
refused to consider as mitigating
4
“Arizona's capital sentencing statutes were reorganized and renum-
bered in 2008.” State v. Chappell, 225 Ariz. 229, 234, n. 3, 236 P. 3d 1176,
1181, n. 3 (2010). This opinion cites a statute's current version when ma-
terially identical to the text in effect at the relevant time.
5
Section 13–755 remains in effect for crimes committed before August
1, 2002. State v. Morris, 215 Ariz. 324, 340, 160 P. 3d 203, 219 (2007).
6
In Eddings, the sentencing judge and appellate court found mitigating
evidence about the defendant's “family history” irrelevant as a matter of
law. 455 U. S., at 113. This Court held: “Just as the State may not by
statute preclude the sentencer from considering any mitigating factor, nei-
ther may the sentencer refuse to consider, as a matter of law, any relevant
mitigating evidence.” Id., at 113–114.

150 Mc
KINNEY v. ARIZONA
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
evidence the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) McKin-
ney
suffered as a result of his horrifc childhood. See Mc-
Kinney v. Ryan, 813 F. 3d 798, 804. Reversing the District
Court's judgment denying the writ of habeas corpus, the
Court of Appeals remanded the case “with instructions to
grant the writ with respect to McKinney's sentence unless
the state, within a reasonable period, either corrects the con-
stitutional error in his death sentence or vacates the sen-
tence and imposes a lesser sentence consistent with law.”
Id., at 827. This Court denied the State's petition for certio-
rari. Ryan v. McKinney, 580 U. S. 908 (2016).
The State thereupon asked the Arizona Supreme Court
to “conduct a new independent review of McKinney's death
sentenc[e]” “to cure any error in [the prior] independent re-
view.” App. 389. Granting the State's motion in 2018, Ari-
zona's highest court again did as the independent-review
statute instructs. See supra, at 149. Specifcally, the court
frst determined that “no reasonable doubt” existed “as to
the aggravating circumstances found by the trial court.”
245 Ariz. 225, 227, 426 P. 3d 1204, 1206 (2018). It then noted
that “McKinney [had] proved several mitigating circum-
stances,” including “PTSD . . . caused by the abuse and
trauma he experienced as a child.” Ibid. “Given the ag-
gravating circumstances,” however, the court “conclude[d]
that McKinney's mitigating evidence [wa]s not suffciently
substantial to warrant leniency.” Ibid. It therefore “af-
frm[ed] McKinney's death sentences” for a second time.
Id., at 229, 426 P. 3d, at 1208.
II
A
Beyond doubt, the Arizona Supreme Court engaged in di-
rect review in 1996. A defendant's frst opportunity to ap-
peal his conviction and sentence is the archetype of direct

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 139 (2020)
151
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
review. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 633 (1993)
(“D
irect review is the principal avenue for challenging a
conviction.”).
The Arizona Supreme Court's 2018 proceeding was essen-
tially a replay of the initial direct review proceeding. The
State's request for “a new independent review,” App. 389
(emphasis added), asked the Arizona Supreme Court to re-
sume and redo direct review, this time in accord with Ed-
dings. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary
1522 (2002) (“new”: “beginning or appearing as the recur-
rence, resumption, or repetition of a previous act or thing ”).
The Arizona Supreme Court proceeded accordingly. That
court retained for its “new independent review” the docket
number earlier assigned to its initial review, App. 1, 6–11,
and docket entries show that the original 1996 appeal was
“Reinstated,” id., at 1. In its 2018 review, the Arizona Su-
preme Court “examine[d] `the trial court's fndings of aggra-
vation and mitigation and the propriety of the death sen-
tence' ” afresh, treating that court's 1996 decision as though
it never issued. 245 Ariz., at 227, 426 P. 3d, at 1206 (quoting
§ 13–755). See also supra, at 150.
Renewal of direct review cannot sensibly be characterized
as anything other than direct review. The Arizona Supreme
Court's 2018 proceeding retread ground traversed in 1996;
the two proceedings differed only in that the court's 2018
review was free of Eddings error. If, as the State does not
contest, the court's 1996 review ranked as review direct in
character, so, too, did its 2018 do-over.
7
7
Further, the reason new rules do not apply on collateral review—
namely, that “considerations of fnality” weigh heavily when “trials and
appeals conformed to then-existing constitutional standards,” Teague v.
Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 309–310 (1989) (plurality opinion)—has little purchase
here, where the replay of direct review was occasioned by constitutional
error in the frst appeal. See McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F. 3d 798, 804, 822–
823 (CA9 2015).

152 Mc
KINNEY v. ARIZONA
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
B
The
State urges that the Arizona Supreme Court's deci-
sion in State v. Styers, 227 Ariz. 186, 254 P. 3d 1132 (2011),
compels a different classifcation of that court's 2018 proceed-
ing. In Styers, as here, the Arizona Supreme Court con-
ducted a new independent review to correct Eddings error
in its previous decision affrming the defendant's death sen-
tence. 227 Ariz., at 187, 254 P. 3d, at 1133. The Arizona
Supreme Court regarded its second look in Styers as a collat-
eral review for retroactivity purposes, id., at 187–188, and
n. 1, 254 P. 3d, at 1133–1134, and n. 1, and followed suit in its
2018 renewed examination in this case, 245 Ariz., at 226–227,
426 P. 3d, at 1205–1206. This Court, the State maintains,
is bound by that state-law classifcation. Brief for Respond-
ent 22–25. The State's argument should be unavailing.
Whether the Constitution requires the application of law
now in force is a question of federal constitutional law, not
an issue subject to state governance. See Griffth, 479 U. S.,
at 322–323.
C
The Court does not today hold that the classifcation a
state supreme court assigns to a proceeding is inevitably
dispositive of a retroactivity question of the kind this case
presents. See ante, at 147, n. Instead, the Court looks
frst to the State's classifcation of a proceeding, and then
asks whether the character of the proceeding warrants the
classi ficati on. See an te, at 146 (rev iew was “ak i n to
harmless-error review,” which may be conducted on collat-
eral review).
Accepting “collateral” as a ft description of the 2018 Ari-
zona Supreme Court review proceeding, the Court relies on
Clemons v. Mississippi, a decision holding that appellate
courts can reweigh aggravating and mitigating factors as a
form of “harmless-error analysis” when the factfnder “relied
in part on an invalid aggravating circumstance.” 494 U. S.

Cite
as: 589 U. S. 139 (2020)
153
Ginsburg, J., dissenting
738, 744, 752 (1990). Here, however, the Ninth Circuit en-
gaged
in harmless-error review when that court evaluated
McKinney's federal habeas petition—and found the Arizona
Supreme Court's 1996 Eddings error harmful. McKinney,
813 F. 3d, at 822–824. The State accordingly asked the Ari-
zona Supreme Court “to cure [that] error” by conducting a
new independent review proceeding. App. 389 (emphasis
added). In determining de novo in 2018 whether McKin-
ney's death sentences were “not only legally correct, but
also appropriate,” Roseberry, 237 Ariz., at 509, 353 P. 3d, at
849, the Arizona Supreme Court was not conducting garden-
variety harmless-error review of a lower court decision; it
was rerunning direct review to correct its own prior harm-
ful error.
***
Dissenting in Styers, then-Justice Hurwitz explained:
“[I]ndependent review is the paradigm of direct re-
view—we determine, de novo, whether the trial court,
on the facts before it, properly sentenced the defendant
to death. Thus, what the State sought in this case—
and what the Court has granted—is a new direct review
of the death sentence, designed to obviate a constitu-
tional error occurring in the original appeal.” 227
Ariz., at 191, 254 P. 3d, at 1137 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Exactly right. Because Ring controls post-2002 direct re-
view proceedings, I would apply that precedent here and re-
verse the judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court.

Reporter’s Note
The next page is purposely numbered 901. The numbers between 153
and 901 were intentionally omitted, in order to make it possible to publish
the orders with permanent page numbers, thus making the offcial cita-
tions available upon publication of the preliminary prints of the United
States Reports.

ORDERS
FOR OCTOBER 7, 2019, THROUGH
FEBRUARY 24, 2020
October 7, 2019
Affrmed for Absence of Quorum
No. 18 –9383. Arunachalam v. United States District
Court for the Northern District of California et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. § 1,
and since the qualifed Justices are of the opinion that the case
cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court,
the judgment is affrmed under 28 U. S. C. § 2109, which provides
that under these circumstances “the court shall enter its order
affrming the judgment of the court from which the case was
brought for review with the same effect as upon affrmance by
an equally divided court.” Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg,
Justice Breyer, Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, and Jus-
tice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this
petition.
Vacated and Remanded on Appeal
No. 19–70. Householder et al. v. Ohio A. Philip Ran-
dolph Institute et al.; and
No. 19–110. Chabot et al. v. Ohio A. Philip Randolph
Institute et al. Appeals from D. C. S. D. Ohio. Motion of
Stephen M. Shapiro for leave to fle brief as amicus curiae
granted. Judgment vacated, and cases remanded for further con-
sideration in light of Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U. S. 684
(2019). Reported below: 373 F. Supp. 3d 978.
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 18–1258. Enclarity Inc. et al. v. Fulton. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded
for further consideration in light of PDR Network, LLC v. Carl-
ton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 588 U. S. 1 (2019). Reported
below: 907 F. 3d 948.
901

902 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–7572. Webster v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Moti
on of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case re-
manded for further consideration in light of the decision of the
Supreme Court of Wisconsin in United States v. Franklin, 2019
WI 64, 387 Wis. 2d 259, 928 N. W. 2d 545 (2019). Reported below:
730 Fed. Appx. 396.
No. 18–8737. Bachiller v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.;
No. 18–9210. Solomon v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Reported below: 911 F. 3d 1356;
No. 18 – 9211. Escourse-Westbrook v. United States.
C. A. 11th Cir.;
No. 18 –9234. Mendoza v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 25;
No. 18–9244. Herrera v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Reported below: 752 Fed. Appx. 944;
No. 18–9266. Rodriguez v. United States; Rivera-Lopez
v. United States; and Torres v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.;
No. 18–9302. Xing Lin v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Re-
ported below: 752 Fed. Appx. 106; and
No. 18 –9323. Duhart v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Reported below: 752 Fed. Appx. 954. Motions of petitioners for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted,
judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration
in light of United States v. Davis, 588 U. S. 445 (2019).
No. 18–8911. Humbert v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.;
No. 18–9425. Contreras v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 286;
No. 18–9444. Greer v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Re-
ported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 886;
No. 18 – 9589. Gilbert v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 491;
No. 18–9707. Cook v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Re-
ported below: 914 F. 3d 545;
No. 18–9726. Hale v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Re-
ported below: 758 Fed. Appx. 344;
No. 19–5196. Robinson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Reported below: 714 Fed. Appx. 275;
No. 19– 5260. Jackson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Reported below: 750 Fed. Appx. 811;

ORDERS 903
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5270. McCormick v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Repor
ted below: 765 Fed. Appx. 4; and
No. 19–5330. Parks v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Re-
ported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 509. Motions of petitioners for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted,
judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration
in light of Rehaif v. United States, 588 U. S. 225 (2019).
No. 18 –9185. Martin v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Moti on of petiti oner for leave to proceed in fo r ma paupe r is
granted. Certiorari granted, judg ment vacated, and case re-
manded for further consideration in light of Uni ted States v.
Davis, 588 U. S. 445 (2019). Justice Kagan took no part in the
consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 18–9023. Brooks v. Gabriel 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. Justice
Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this
motion and this petition. Reported below: 738 Fed. Appx. 927.
No. 18–9098. Munt v. Miles, Warden. 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. 18–9119. Gardner v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed
in forma pauper is denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this
Court's Rule 39.8.
No. 18 –9186. Williams v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d
App. Dist., Div. 1. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed
in forma pauper is denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this
Court's Rule 39.8.
No. 18–9232. Ibeabuchi v. Banicki 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. Re-
ported below: 741 Fed. Appx. 509.
No. 18–9287. Scheib v. Rozberil. Super. Ct. Pa. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and

904 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 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). Justice Alito took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this motion and this petition. Reported
below: 183 A. 3d 1056.
No. 18–9412. Rashid v. United States. C. A. 3d 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 Alito took no part in the
consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
No. 18–9435. Seibert v. Caldwell, Warden. Sup. Ct. Ga.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
No. 18–9482. Rubio v. Raburn et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
No. 18–9520. Bartlett v. Pineda, Judge, Superior Court
of Arizona, Maricopa County, et al. Ct. App. Ariz. 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).
No. 18–9528. Parks v. Stolc, Warden, 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.

ORDERS 905
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9535. Ocasio v. Perez 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 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: 735 Fed. Appx. 418.
No. 18–9569. Munt v. Roy 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. 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. 18–9585. Williams v. United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas. 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 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. 18–9689. King v. Neall, Secretary, Maryland De-
partment of Health, et al. C. A. 4th Cir. 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: 749
Fed. Appx. 182.
No. 18–9706. Peters v. Illinois. Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
No. 18–9730. Lepre v. Pennsylvania et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.

906 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9751. Nesbitt v. Frakes, Director, Nebraska De-
p
artment of Correctional Services. 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. 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. 18–9777. Harris v. McCumsey 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. Re-
ported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 634.
No. 18–9835. Perez v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist.
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: 266 So. 3d 851.
No. 18–9846. Metcalf v. Kallis, Warden. C. A. 4th 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). Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 220.
No. 19–5044. Moon v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. 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

ORDERS 907
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
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. 19–5165. Yaney v. Superior Court of California, San
Bernardino County. Sup. Ct. Cal. Motion of petitioner for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dis-
missed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
No. 19–5205. Smith v. Matthews 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. Reported
below: 768 Fed. Appx. 591.
No. 19–5213. Armstrong v. United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. C. A. 3d 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 Alito took no part in the
consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
No. 19–5228. Caterbone v. Lancaster City Bureau of Po-
lice et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See
this Court's Rule 39.8. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 91.
No. 19–5235. Arlotta v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8. Re-
ported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 729.
No. 19–5240. Butler v. United States District Court for
the Eastern District of 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. 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

908 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
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. 19–5249. Kersey v. Herb Chambers 1186, Inc., et al.
C. A. 1st Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
pauper is denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's
Rule 39.8.
No. 19–5284. Moretti v. Bergen County Prosecutor’s Of-
ce. Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Motion of petitioner for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed.
See this Court's Rule 39.8. Justice Alito took no part in the
consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
No. 19–5299. Rivera Rosado v. Lucid Energy, Inc. C. A.
11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
pauper is denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's
Rule 39.8.
No. 19–5304. Puzey 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. Reported
below: 764 Fed. Appx. 330 and 331.
No. 19– 5342. Tucker v. Corizon Correctional Health
Care et al. 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. 19–5372. Day-Petrano v. Hall et al. 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: 267 So. 3d 355.
No. 19–5395. Cleveland v. Adger. C. A. 4th Cir. Motion
of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See th is Cour t's Rule 39.8. Reported
below: 746 Fed. Appx. 235.
No. 19–5496. Moretti v. Mordaga. C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8. Justice Alito
took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and
this petition. Reported below: 747 Fed. Appx. 898.

ORDERS 909
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5519. Weeks v. Lewis, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir. Mo-
ti
on of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
No. 19–5659. Viola v. Tate, Warden. C. A. 3d Cir. Motion
of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See th is Cour t's Rule 39.8. Reported
below: 753 Fed. Appx. 122.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 18A718. Stoutamire v. La Rose, Warden. Application
for certifcate of appealability, addressed to Justice Breyer and
referred to the Court, denied.
No. 19A56 (19– 5005). Sankara v. Barr, Attorney Gen-
eral. Application for stay of removal, addressed to The Chief
Justice and referred to the Court, denied.
No. 19A102. Xiao-Ying Yu v. Neall, Secretary, Maryland
Department of Health, et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Application
for stay, addressed to Justice Alito and referred to the Court,
denied.
No. 19A132 (19–22). Newsome v. RSL Funding, LLC, et al.
Sup. Ct. Tex. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Soto-
mayor and referred to the Court, denied.
No. 19A141 (19–5209). Wimbush v. Mickens, Warden. Ap-
plication for bail, addressed to Justice Sotomayor and referred
to the Court, denied.
No. 19A143 (19–165). Morgan v. Morgan. Super. Ct. Pa.
Application for stay, addressed to Justice Breyer and referred
to the Court, denied.
No. D–3052. In re Disbarment of Franks. Disbarment
entered. [For earlier order herein, see 588 U. S. 938.]
No. 19M2. K. S. v. Contra Costa County Children and
Family Services Bureau; and K. S. v. California;
No. 19M19. Smiley v. United States;
No. 19M31. Herrin v. United States;
No. 19M50. Cook et al. v. United States; and
No. 19M51. K. N. et ux. v. Montana Department of Pub-
lic Health and Human Services. Motions for leave to fle

910 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
petitions for writs of certiorari with supplemental appendixes
under
seal granted.
No. 19M3. Monsegue v. United States;
No. 19M4. Crick v. Key, Superintendent, Airway Heights
Corrections Center;
No. 19M5. Conyers v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs;
No. 19M16. Douse v. United States et al.; and Douse v.
Bain;
No. 19M21. Domingo v. Department of the Army et al.;
No. 19M30. Watson v. Saul, Commis sioner of Social
Security;
No. 19M38. Jackson v. Florida et al.;
No. 19M39. Smith v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Af-
fairs; and
No. 19M44. Grant v. United States. Motions for leave to
proceed as veterans denied.
No. 19M6. Richards v. Vannoy, Warden;
No. 19M7. Armour v. United States;
No. 19M8. Wells v. Pressley, Warden, et al.;
No. 19M10. Adams v. Illinois;
No. 19M11. Beeks v. HMC Assets, LLC;
No. 19M12. Couture v. Berkebile, Warden, et al.;
No. 19M13. Dixit v. Singh et al.;
No. 19M14. Rawnsley v. United States;
No. 19M15. DeCoito v. United States;
No. 19M17. Rauso v. United States;
No. 19M18. Tiburcio v. United States et al.;
No. 19M22. Mergenthaler v. Osekavage et al.;
No. 19M23. Rollins v. Institutions for Life;
No. 19M24. Johnson v. Gilmore, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Greene, et al.;
No. 19M26. Austin v. City of Oakland et al.;
No. 19M27. Cherry v. Simons;
No. 19M29. Herndon v. Commis sioner of Internal
Revenue;
No. 19M32. McLaurine v. Bern et al.;
No. 19M33. Davis v. Vannoy, Warden;
No. 19M34. Porter v. Baltimore Washington Medical
Center, Inc.;

ORDERS 911
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19M35. Sheftall v. Joyner, Warden;
N
o. 19M36. Elizabetas G. v. Illinois;
No. 19M42. Benavente v. United States;
No. 19M43. Miller v. Graham, Superintendent, Auburn
Correctional Facility;
No. 19M46. Sinceno v. Vannoy, Warden;
No. 19M48. Yilmaz v. Clarke, Director, Virginia Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al.; and
No. 19M49. Stone v. Magistrate Court of Troup County,
Georgia, et al. Motions to direct the Clerk to fle petitions for
writs of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 19M9. Robertson v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion; and
No. 19M28. Arris International, Ltd. v. Iancu, Director,
United States Patent and Trademark Ofce, et al. Mo-
tions for leave to fle petitions for writs of certiorari under seal
with redacted copies for the public record granted.
No. 19M20. Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler et al.;
No. 19M25. Battles v. Rotz et al.;
No. 19M37. Osbourne v. New Jersey Department of
Labor and Workforce Development;
No. 19M41. Smeaton v. Nelson et al.;
No. 19M45. Barnes v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
of the State Bar of Texas; and
No. 19M47. Lomax v. Massachusetts et al. Motions to di-
rect the Clerk to fle petitions for writs of certiorari out of time
under this Court's Rule 14.5 denied.
No. 19M40. Caputo v. United States. Motion for leave to
fle petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies
for the public record 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 $22,924.06, for the period July 1, 2018, through
June 30, 2019, to be paid equally by the parties. [For earlier
order herein, see, e. g., 587 U. S. 1038.]
No. 18–280. New York State Rie & Pistol Assn., Inc.,
et al. v. City of New York, New York, et al. C. A. 2d Cir.

912 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
[Certiorari granted, 586 U. S. 1126.] Respondents' suggestion of
mootness
denied. Question of mootness will be subject to further
consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be pre-
pared to discuss it.
No. 18–556. Kansas v. Glover. Sup. Ct. Kan. [Certiorari
granted, 587 U. S. 918.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave
to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided
argument granted.
No. 18 –1023. Maine Community Health Options v.
United States;
No. 18–1028. Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States;
Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina v. United
States; and
No. 18–1038. Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance
Co. v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 588
U. S. 905.] Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing joint
appendix granted.
No. 18–1139. BNSF Railway Co. v. Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of Russell Holt
for leave to intervene as a respondent and to fle brief in opposi-
tion granted.
No. 18–6662. Shular v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
[Certiorari granted, 588 U. S. 920.] Motion of petitioner to dis-
pense with printing joint appendix granted.
No. 18–7739. Holguin-Hernandez v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 587 U. S. 1039.] Motion of peti-
tioner for appointment of counsel granted, and Philip J. Lynch,
Esq., of San Antonio, Tex., is appointed to serve as counsel for
petitioner in this case.
No. 18–8804. Raymond v. Roy et al. Ct. App. Tex., 4th
Dist. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying
leave to proceed in forma pauperis [587 U. S. 1050] denied.
No. 18–8872. In re Surles. Motion of petitioner for recon-
sideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis
[587 U. S. 984] denied.
No. 18–8907. In re Williams. Motion of petitioner for re-
consideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris [587 U. S. 984] denied.

ORDERS 913
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9035. In re Avery. Motion of petitioner for reconsid-
erati
on of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [587
U. S. 1013] denied.
No. 18–9201. Amerson et al. v. United States Bank-
ruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. C. A. 10th
Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 28, 2019, 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 Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision
of this motion.
No. 18–9337. Barnes v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals
Board et al. C. A. 9th Cir.;
No. 18–9395. Brown v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Se-
curity. C. A. 6th Cir.;
No. 18–9429. Washington v. Saul, Commissioner of Social
Security. C. A. 4th Cir.;
No. 18–9532. Bray v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.;
No. 18–9582. In re Zimmermann;
No. 18–9663. In re Kilroy;
No. 18–9669. Chodosh et al. v. Palm Beach Park Assn.
Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3;
No. 18–9679. Harvey et ux. v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir.;
No. 18–9750. Curry v. Lopez, Associate Judge, Circuit
Court of Illinois, Cook County, et al. C. A. 7th Cir.;
No. 19–5052. Greiner v. Macomb County, Michigan, et al.
Ct. App. Mich.;
No. 19–5206. Sawicky v. AMC Networks Inc. C. A. 9th
Cir.;
No. 19–5329. Williams v. Samuels. Sup. Ct. Fla.; and
No. 19–5512. Green v. Beckwith, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied. Petitioners are allowed until October 28, 2019, 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. 19–5282. Baxter v. United States. C. A. D. C. Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied. Petitioner is allowed until October 28, 2019, within which

914 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a
petiti
on in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision
of this motion.
No. 18–9542. In re Hinkson;
No. 18–9561. In re Stewart;
No. 18–9575. In re Love;
No. 18–9656. In re Kossie;
No. 18–9659. In re Bryan;
No. 18–9671. In re Ashley;
No. 19–14. In re Williams;
No. 19–5200. In re Roman;
No. 19–5218. In re Williams;
No. 19–5225. In re Brunson;
No. 19–5587. In re Spence;
No. 19–5677. In re May;
No. 19–5704. In re Larry;
No. 19–5724. In re Salerno; and
No. 19–5756. In re Bryant. Petitions for writs of habeas
corpus denied.
No. 19–5433. In re Bleau; and
No. 19–5559. In re King. Petitions for writs of habeas cor-
pus denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or
decision of these petitions.
No. 18–9626. In re Tweed. 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. 18–1472. In re Hadsell;
No. 18–1497. In re McNeil;
No. 18–9334. In re Grigalanz;
No. 18–9384. In re Pearson;
No. 18–9421. In re Veteto;
No. 18–9826. In re Keyes;
No. 19–130. In re George;
No. 19–5064. In re Reina S. C.;

ORDERS 915
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5073. In re Rivera Cruz;
N
o. 19–5094. In re Sneller;
No. 19–5257. In re Johnson;
No. 19–5295. In re Charles;
No. 19–5364. In re Courtright;
No. 19–5371. In re Capri;
No. 19–5380. In re Cox;
No. 19–5390. In re Narvaez; and
No. 19–5687. In re Morales. Petitions for writs of manda-
mus denied.
No. 18–9107. In re Bracken;
No. 18–9452. In re McBride; and
No. 19–5203. In re Ruiz-Rivera. 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. 18–9296. In re Dannewitz;
No. 19–206. In re Ford; and
No. 19–5382. In re Roberts. Petitions for writs of manda-
mus and/or prohibition denied.
No. 18–9332. In re Ahmed. 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. 19–5288. In re Brascom. 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. 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).
No. 18–9479. In re Stucks;
No. 19–5058. In re Tchibassa; and
No. 19–5504. In re Diaz-Hinirio. Petitions for writs of pro-
hibition denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 18–735. Maricopa County, Arizona v. Ortega Melen-
dres et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
897 F. 3d 1217.

916 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–893. West Virginia House of Delegates v. West
V
irginia ex rel. Workman et al.; and
No. 18–1189. Carmichael, President of the West Vir-
ginia Senate, et al. v. West Virginia ex rel. Workman.
Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 241
W. Va. 105, 819 S. E. 2d 251.
No. 18–1043. Zilm v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–1067. Ambac Assurance Corp. v. U. S. Bank N. A.
Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1069. Diebold Foundation, Inc., Transferee v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 57.
No. 18–1085. Martinez-de Ryan v. Barr, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 909
F. 3d 247.
No. 18–1111. Kaufman v. Walker et al. Ct. App. Wis.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 WI App 37, 382 Wis.
2d 774, 915 N. W. 2d 193.
No. 18–1154. Integrity Stafng Solutions, Inc., et al. v.
Busk et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer ti orar i denied. Repor ted
below: 905 F. 3d 387.
No. 18–1170. Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., dba
KLA-Tencor, Inc. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 916 F. 3d 429.
No. 18–1182. Ogle v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–1210. Chronister, Sheriff, Hillsborough County,
Florida v. Freyre et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 910 F. 3d 1371.
No. 18–1219. Illinois v. Bonilla. Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2018 IL 122484, 120 N. E. 3d 930.
No. 18–1230. Zamudio v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 909 F. 3d 172.
No. 18–1240. Kerpen et al. v. Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 907 F. 3d 152.

ORDERS 917
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–1245. Oglala Sioux Tribe et al. v. Fleming et al.
C
. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 904 F. 3d 603.
No. 18–1267. Leeman v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18 –1280. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane
Laboratories, Inc., et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 903 F. 3d 1310.
No. 18–1283. Montano v. Texas. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 315.
No. 18–1285. Hyatt et al. v. Iancu, Director, United
States Patent and Trademark Ofce. C. A. Fed. Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 904 F. 3d 1361.
No. 18–1298. Woodward v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 276 So. 3d 713.
No. 18–1299. Gillispie v. Regionalcare Hospital Part-
ners, Inc., et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 892 F. 3d 585.
No. 18–1308. KPMG, LLP v. Singing River Health System,
aka Singing River Hospital System (Reported below: 283
So. 3d 662); and KPMG, LLP v. Jackson County, Mississippi
(278 So. 3d 1124). Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1341. Robertson v. United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1344. Thomas v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 908 F. 3d 68.
No. 18–1350. Maria S., as Next Friend for E. H. F. et al.,
Minors, et al. v. Garza. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 912 F. 3d 778.
No. 18–1353. McCabe et al. v. Lifetime Entertainment
Services, LLC. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 761 Fed. Appx. 38.
No. 18–1354. C. P. et al. v. C. A. Ct. App. Cal., 3d App.
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 29 Cal. App. 5th 27,
240 Cal. Rptr. 3d 38.

918 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–1355. Kramer v. Vitti et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rar
i denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 1.
No. 18–1357. Cummings et al. v. Bussey et al. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 913 F. 3d 1227.
No. 18–1362. Hall v. Merrill, Alabama Secretary of
State. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 902
F. 3d 1294.
No. 18–1366. Estate of Roman v. City of Newark, New
Jersey, et al.; and
No. 18–1372. City of Newark, New Jersey v. Estate of
Roman. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 914
F. 3d 789.
No. 18–1367. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Sumner.
Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 297 Va. 35, 822
S. E. 2d 809.
No. 18–1369. Anderson v. Washington. Ct. App. Wash.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 4 Wash. App. 2d 1059.
No. 18–1373. Rechtzigel v. City of Apple Valley, Minne-
sota. Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1374. Jaye v. Oak Knoll Village Condominium
Owners Assn., Inc., et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 751 Fed. Appx. 293.
No. 18–1375. Greene v. Independent Pilots Assn. et al.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1376. Gabriel Irazu v. Margarita O. App. Ct.
Conn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 187 Conn. App. 902,
200 A. 3d 226.
No. 18–1380. Gannon v. Riverwatch Condominium Own-
ers’ Assn. et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 757 Fed. Appx. 178.
No. 18–1382. American Eagle Express, Inc., dba AEX
Group v. Bedoya et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 914 F. 3d 812.
No. 18–1384. Bradley v. Alco Oil & Gas Co., LLC, et al.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 743 Fed.
Appx. 33.

ORDERS 919
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–1387. Lloyd v. Doherty, Judge, Court of Common
Pleas,
Portage County, Ohio, et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–1388. Lloyd v. City of Streetsboro, Ohio, et al.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18 –1389. Financial Oversight and Management
Board for Puerto Rico v. Andalusian Global Designated
Activity Co. et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 914 F. 3d 694.
No. 18–1393. Walters v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 910 F. 3d 11.
No. 18 –1394. Waterfront Marine Construction, Inc.,
et al. v. Heard Construction, Inc. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–1395. Fraternal Order of Police Chicago Lodge
No. 7 v. Illinois. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 912 F. 3d 979.
No. 18 –1399. Damon v. Cincinnati Bar Assn. Sup. Ct.
Ohio. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 154 Ohio St. 3d 1503,
2019-Ohio-357, 116 N. E. 3d 156.
No. 18–1404. Wallace v. Wallace et al. Ct. App. Ga.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 345 Ga. App. 764, 813 S. E.
2d 428.
No. 18–1406. Bethell v. Stephens et al. Ct. App. Ariz.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1407. Barrow v. Willis et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–1409. Emami v. Bridenstine, Administrator, Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration, et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 742 Fed.
Appx. 751.
No. 18–1410. Jackson v. Lawson. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 394.
No. 18–1411. Isaacs v. Trustees of Dartmouth College
et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

920 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–1412. Porter v. Texas. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
Reported below: 729 Fed. Appx. 358.
No. 18–1413. Woodruff v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1414. Wildhaber v. EFV et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 745 Fed. Appx. 141.
No. 18 –1415. ASARCO LLC v. United Steel, Paper
and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union,
AFL–CIO, CLC. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 910 F. 3d 485.
No. 18–1416. Bereki v. Humphreys et ux. Ct. App. Cal.,
4th App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1417. Yankton County, South Dakota v. United
States. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
753 Fed. Appx. 905.
No. 18–1418. Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., et al. v.
Akorn, Inc. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 733 Fed. Appx. 1024.
No. 18–1422. Michael B. v. Tennessee Department of
Children’s Services. Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1426. Coleman v. Schneider Electric USA, Inc.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed.
Appx. 247.
No. 18–1427. Laventure et al. v. United Nations et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 746 Fed.
Appx. 80.
No. 18–1428. Gatehouse Media New York Holdings, Inc.,
et al. v. New York et al. Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 32 N. Y. 3d 1203, 122 N. E. 3d 1104.
No. 18–1429. Stahl York Ave. Co., LLC v. City of New
York, New York, et al. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud.
Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 162 App. Div. 3d 103,
77 N. Y. S. 3d 57.

ORDERS 921
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–1435. Minard v. Cruise-Gulyas. C. A. 6th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 494.
No. 18–1437. Winston & Strawn LLP v. Ramos et al. Ct.
App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 28 Cal. App. 5th 1042, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 679.
No. 18–1439. Patel v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 8. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1440. Hogen et al. v. Hogen, as Personal Repre-
sentative of the Estate of Hogen, Deceased, et al. Sup.
Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 ND 17, 921
N. W. 2d 672.
No. 18–1441. Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) v. Edwards,
Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court, et al. Sup. Ct. Ky. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 566 S. W. 3d 175.
No. 18–1442. Reema Consulting Services, Inc. v. Parker.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 297.
No. 18–1443. Young v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 916 F. 3d 368.
No. 18–1444. Soto Nieves et al. v. Department of the
Family of Puerto Rico et al. Sup. Ct. P. R. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–1445. Seeberger v. Davenport Civil Rights Com-
mission et al. Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 923 N. W. 2d 564.
No. 18–1448. Glasswall Solutions Ltd. et al. v. Clear
swift Ltd. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 754 Fed. Appx. 996.
No. 18–1449. Harvey v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 260 So. 3d 906.
No. 18–1450. Sequeira v. Gate Safe, Inc., et al. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx.
792.
No. 18–1452. Perez v. Physician Assistant Board et al.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed.
Appx. 960.

922 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–1456. Mauldin, Individually and as Representa-
tive
of the Estate of Gibson, Deceased v. Allstate Insur-
ance Co. et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 757 Fed. Appx. 304.
No. 18–1457. May v. United States et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 744 Fed. Appx. 994.
No. 18–1458. Vernier v. Gallegos. Ct. App. N. M. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2019–NMCA–020, 458 P. 3d 533.
No. 18–1459. Flores Anyosa v. Barr, Attorney General.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 758 Fed.
Appx. 88.
No. 18–1461. Delebreau v. Danforth et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 743 Fed. Appx. 43.
No. 18–1462. Rozanova et al. v. Uribe. Ct. App. Cal., 6th
App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1465. County of San Diego, California v. Mann
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 907
F. 3d 1154.
No. 18–1466. County of Sonoma, California, et al. v.
Mateos Sandoval et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 912 F. 3d 509.
No. 18–1470. Feehan v. Marcone et al. Sup. Ct. Conn.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 331 Conn. 436, 204 A. 3d 666.
No. 18–1471. Hall v. Securities and Exchange Commis-
sion. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759
Fed. Appx. 877.
No. 18–1473. Rivas v. New York State Lottery. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 745 Fed. Appx. 192.
No. 18–1474. Sunoco, Inc. v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 908 F. 3d 710.
No. 18–1476. Carney v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 150.
No. 18–1479. Stinson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 729 Fed. Appx. 891.

ORDERS 923
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–1480. Caissie v. Mississippi. Ct. App. Miss. Certio-
rar
i denied. Reported below: 254 So. 3d 849.
No. 18 –1481. Strohmeyer v. Surface Transportation
Board et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1482. Cunningham v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 203.
No. 18–1484. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., et al. v.
United States District Court for the Northern District
of California et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1485. Kansler et al. v. Mississippi Department of
Revenue. Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
263 So. 3d 641.
No. 18–1486. Marshall v. Indiana. Sup. Ct. Ind. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 117 N. E. 3d 1254.
No. 18–1487. Mercer County Board of Education et al.
v. Deal et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 911 F. 3d 183.
No. 18–1488. Cammalleri v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla.,
4th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 270 So. 3d 369.
No. 18–1489. Caffey et al. v. Bowers, Chapter 7 Trustee.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 916 F. 3d 566.
No. 18–1491. Nguyen v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 750 Fed. Appx. 613.
No. 18–1492. Miller v. Inslee, Governor of Washington,
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 916
F. 3d 783.
No. 18–1493. Montrois, Class of More than 700,000 Simi-
larly Situated Individual s and Busines ses, et al. v.
United States. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 916 F. 3d 1056.
No. 18–1494. Beeman v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 231.
No. 18–1495. Stirling, Director, South Carolina Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. v. Williams. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 914 F. 3d 302.

924 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–1499. Kaushal v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari
denied.
Reported below: 112 N. E. 3d 1138.
No. 18–1502. Burmaster v. Eli Lilly & Co. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1504. Giles v. Godinez et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 914 F. 3d 1040.
No. 18–1505. C. S. v. L. S. Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–1507. Zambrano v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1508. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v.
Apple Inc. C. A. Fed. Cir. Cer ti orar i denied. Repor ted
below: 905 F. 3d 1341.
No. 18 –1510. Rodriguez-Garcia v. Pichardo de Veloz
et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756
Fed. Appx. 869.
No. 18–1511. Ahuja v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 736 Fed. Appx. 20.
No. 18–1512. McClain et al. v. California Department of
Tax and Fee Administration et al. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 6 Cal. 5th 951, 435 P. 3d 424.
No. 18–1513. Michigan v. Frederick et al. Ct. App. Mich.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1517. Hosseini v. McAleenan, Acting Secretary
of Homeland Security, et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 911 F. 3d 366.
No. 18–1518. Save Tacoma Water v. Port of Tacoma et al.
Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 4 Wash.
App. 2d 562, 422 P. 3d 917.
No. 18–1520. Tricarichi, Transferee v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 908 F. 3d 588 and 752 Fed. Appx. 455.
No. 18–1523. Gannon v. City of Eugene, Oregon. Ct. App.
Ore. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 294 Ore. App. 819, 432
P. 3d 1141.

ORDERS 925
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–1524. Shimota et vir v. Wegner et al. C. A. 8th
Cir
. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 539.
No. 18–1525. Andrade v. City of Hammond, Indiana, et al.
Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 114 N. E. 3d
507.
No. 18–1526. Tobin v. City and County of San Francisco,
California. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer ti orar i denied. Repor ted
below: 747 Fed. Appx. 584.
No. 18–1527. Nath v. New Jersey. Super. Ct. N. J., App.
Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1528. Heiney v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 6th App. Dist.,
Lucas County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018-Ohio-
3408, 117 N. E. 3d 1034.
No. 18–1529. Koerner, Individually and as Assignee of
Meade v. CMR Construction & Roong, L. L. C. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 910 F. 3d 221.
No. 18–1532. Johnston v. Mortgage Electronic Registra-
tion Systems, Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 749 Fed. Appx. 601.
No. 18 –1533. Starret t v. City of Richardson, Texas.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed.
Appx. 108.
No. 18–1535. Letica Land Co., LLC v. Anaconda-Deer
Lodge County, Montana. Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 394 Mont. 218, 435 P. 3d 634.
No. 18–1536. Cox v. Old Republic National Title Insur-
ance Co. et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 743 Fed. Appx. 104.
No. 18–1537. Ziankovich v. Colorado. Sup. Ct. Colo. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–1539. Domino’s Pizza, LLC v. Robles. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 913 F. 3d 898.
No. 18–1540. VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc., et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 723.

926 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–1541. Baouch et al. v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.,
dba
Werner Trucking, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 908 F. 3d 1107.
No. 18–1542. Johnson v. North Carolina. Sup. Ct. N. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 371 N. C. 870, 821 S. E. 2d
822.
No. 18–1544. Hallmark Care Services, Inc., et al. v. Su-
perior Court of Washington, Spokane County. Ct. App.
Wash. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 5 Wash. App. 2d
1044.
No. 18–1546. Century III Mall PA LLC v. Sears Roe-
buck & Co. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
758 Fed. Appx. 242.
No. 18–1547. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of
Corrections, et al. v. Jensen et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 486.
No. 18–1548. Alcantar v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (1st) 162771–U.
No. 18–1549. Zimmer, Inc., et al. v. Stryker Corp. et al.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 745 Fed.
Appx. 167.
No. 18–1550. Ramos v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 758 Fed. Appx. 316.
No. 18–1551. Mirarchi v. Ofce of Disciplinary Counsel.
Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 651 Pa. 324,
204 A. 3d 918.
No. 18–1553. Hanson, as Trustee for the Next of Kin
of Layton v. Best et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 915 F. 3d 543.
No. 18–1555. Boyler v. City of Lackawanna, New York,
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765
Fed. Appx. 493.
No. 18 –1556. Edwards et al. v. Louisiana Workforce
Commission et al. Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 2017–0844 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/19/18), 266 So. 3d
368.

ORDERS 927
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–1557. James et al. v. Hunt et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 975.
No. 18–1558. Spiegel v. McClintic et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 916 F. 3d 611.
No. 18–1559. Brooks v. Industrial Claim Appeals Ofce
et al. Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1560. Neal v. Neal et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 745 Fed. Appx. 683.
No. 18–1561. Armament Services International, Inc.,
et al. v. Barr, Attorney General, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 114.
No. 18–1562. Fisher v. Huckabee; and Fisher v. Huckabee
et al. Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1563. Bias v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed.
Appx. 38.
No. 18–1564. LA JIM, LLC, et al. v. General Electric Co.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 933.
No. 18–1567. Benzemann v. Houslanger & Associates,
PLLC, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 924 F. 3d 73.
No. 18–1568. Hager-Reilly v. Reilly. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 166
App. Div. 3d 825, 88 N. Y. S. 3d 83.
No. 18–1569. Chamberlain et ux. v. New York State De-
partment of Taxation and Finance et al. App. Div., Sup.
Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 166
App. Div. 3d 1112, 88 N. Y. S. 3d 257.
No. 18–1570. Edelman et ux. v. New York State Depart-
ment of Taxation and Finance et al. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 162
App. Div. 3d 574, 80 N. Y. S. 3d 241.
No. 18–1571. Moyer v. Kansas. Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 309 Kan. 268, 434 P. 3d 829.

928 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–1573. Petko et al. v. Carelton Courtyard. Sup.
Ct.
Tex. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1574. Starrett v. Department of Defense et al.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed.
Appx. 383.
No. 18–1575. McNeil v. Oklahoma. Sup. Ct. Okla. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–1576. Budri v. Humphreys. Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1578. Pzer Inc. v. Adamyan et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18 –1579. Ricks v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 6th D ist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1580. Ross et al. v. Board of Trustees of Califor-
nia State University. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 741 Fed. Appx. 442.
No. 18–1582. Krumm v. Drug Enforcement Administra-
tion. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 739
Fed. Appx. 655.
No. 18–1583. Carter v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 735 Fed. Appx. 111.
No. 18–1588. Cooke v. Jackson National Life Insurance
Co. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919
F. 3d 1024.
No. 18–1589. Collins v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1590. Smith et al. v. Schwarzenegger, Former
Governor of California, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 914 F. 3d 1218.
No. 18–1591. R. F., a Minor Child, By and Through Her
Parents and Next Friends, E. F. et al., et al. v. Cecil
County Public Schools. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 919 F. 3d 237.
No. 18–1593. Gracia-Cantu v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 252.

ORDERS 929
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–7201. Snarr v. United States; and
N
o. 18–7482. Baltazar Garcia v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–7262. Ovsepian et al. v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 739 Fed. Appx. 448.
No. 18–7485. Noel v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 893 F. 3d 1294.
No. 18–7489. Kadamovas v. United States; and
No. 18–7835. Mikhel v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 889 F. 3d 1003.
No. 18–7694. Crespo v. New York. Ct. App. N. Y. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 32 N. Y. 3d 176, 112 N. E. 3d 1243.
No. 18–8055. Ventura v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 742 Fed. Appx. 575.
No. 18–8064. Luviano v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 906 F. 3d 784.
No. 18–8076. Arthur v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 750 Fed. Appx. 540.
No. 18–8128. Collie v. South Carolina Commission on
Lawyer Conduct. Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–8132. Phillips v. Hoffner, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 481.
No. 18–8148. Hawthorne v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 729 Fed. Appx. 765.
No. 18 – 8191. Burke, Mother of Caudle, Deceased v.
Raven Electric, Inc., et al. Sup. Ct. Alaska. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 420 P. 3d 1196.
No. 18–8301. Cuero v. Diaz, Acting Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 904 F. 3d 865.
No. 18–8309. Zoch v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–8314. Nino-Carreon v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 910 F. 3d 194.

930 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–8419. Hernandez v. Davis, Director, Texas De-
p
artment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
750 Fed. Appx. 378.
No. 18–8429. Beatty v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 755
Fed. Appx. 343.
No. 18–8431. Brewster v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 250 So. 3d 99.
No. 18–8441. Dinelle v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 737 Fed. Appx. 49.
No. 18–8466. Hunt v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 286 So. 3d 18.
No. 18–8472. Eapmon v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 758 Fed. Appx. 370.
No. 18–8561. Wood v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–8604. Vazquez-Gonzalez v. United States. C. A.
7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–8636. Hoskins v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 905 F. 3d 97.
No. 18–8642. Hill v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 779.
No. 18–8670. Frazier v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 279 So. 3d 39.
No. 18–8677. Lloyd v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 901 F. 3d 111.
No. 18–8682. Carter v. Jackson-Mitchell, Warden. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 900 F. 3d 754.
No. 18–8692. Adams v. Neuschmid, Acting Warden. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 749 Fed. Appx. 499.
No. 18–8712. Hummel v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-

ORDERS 931
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 908
F
. 3d 987.
No. 18–8719. Redmond v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 760.
No. 18–8723. Bench v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 OK CR 31, 431 P. 3d
929.
No. 18–8742. Birchette v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 908 F. 3d 50.
No. 18–8753. Powell v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 6 Cal. 5th 136, 425 P. 3d 1006.
No. 18–8773. Germain v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 866.
No. 18–8785. Pope v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 910 F. 3d 413.
No. 18–8818. Reynolds v. Hepp, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 902 F. 3d 699.
No. 18–8845. Ochoa v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 750
Fed. Appx. 365.
No. 18–8892. Hernandez Machin v. United States. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–8930. Gurvey v. Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P. C.,
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757
Fed. Appx. 62.
No. 18–8938. Budagova v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 152.
No. 18–8941. Jackson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 736 Fed. Appx. 825.
No. 18–8977. Schmidt v. Foster, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 911 F. 3d 469.
No. 18–8987. Kariuki v. Washington. Ct. App. Wash. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 4 Wash. App. 2d 1059.

932 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–8988. Sykes v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 914 F. 3d 615.
No. 18–8989. Stoutamire v. Morgan, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–8993. Cote v. Asuncion, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9005. Cummins v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Se-
curity. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759
Fed. Appx. 551.
No. 18–9007. Weir v. Monteore Medical Center et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9009. Adelman v. Root et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9011. Jordan v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9013. Crenshaw v. Illinois. Sup. Ct. Ill. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9014. McNeil v. Nebraska et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18 –9018. Wilson v. City of Chesapeake, Virginia.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 738 Fed.
Appx. 169.
No. 18–9019. Gatwas v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 910 F. 3d 362.
No. 18–9021. Arroyo v. Zamora et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 569.
No. 18–9025. Newton v. Louisiana. Sup. Ct. La. Certio-
rar i denied. Repor ted below: 2017–1997 (La. 1 /28/19), 262
So. 3d 274.
No. 18–9029. James v. Kansas. Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9030. Reyes Rivera v. Davis, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 933
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9034. Shillings v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9039. Vu Phan v. National Jewish Health et al.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed.
Appx. 502.
No. 18–9040. Arroyo v. Colbert et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9045. Robinson v. Johnson, Administrator, New
Jersey State Prison. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9051. Golston v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9059. Gilmore v. Harry, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9064. Lindsay v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9066. Rojas v. Lane, Superintendent, State Cor-
rectional Institution at Fayette, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18 – 9067. Ross v. Miller, Superintendent, Great
Meadow Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9068. Rydbom v. Boggs et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 746 Fed. Appx. 215.
No. 18–9070. Urzua Sanchez v. United States. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9073. Grayton v. California et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9075. Howard v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing
Alabama. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
754 Fed. Appx. 798.
No. 18–9076. Glenn v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.

934 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9077. Walton v. North Carolina Department of
Heal
th and Human Services, Disability Determination
Services. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
765 Fed. Appx. 1.
No. 18–9080. Carter v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9087. Farrow v. Hooks et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 736 Fed. Appx. 409.
No. 18–9088. Gray v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 122 N. E. 3d 457.
No. 18–9090. Howard v. San Diego County Counsel et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9093. Ferguson v. Hall, Commissioner, Mississippi
Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9094. Hebert v. Louisiana. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 745 Fed. Appx. 227.
No. 18 –9095. Hall v. Brookdale University Hospital
Medical Center et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9096. Glaser v. City and County of Denver, Colo-
rado, et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 755 Fed. Appx. 852.
No. 18–9099. Pierre v. Alliance Security Services et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9100. Mency v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 244 So. 3d 203.
No. 18–9102. Bazan v. Whiteld et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 280.
No. 18–9108. Mitchell v. Johnson, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9110. Murphy v. New Jersey. Super. Ct. N. J., App.
Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9113. Moore v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 935
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9114. George v. Nagy, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied.
No. 18–9115. Arunachalam v. Pazuniak Law Ofce, LLC,
et al. Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 198
A. 3d 177.
No. 18–9118. Fields v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 741
Fed. Appx. 284.
No. 18–9122. Hawkins v. Gaughan. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9125. Wardrick v. Benton, Warden, et al. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9126. Doering v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 556.
No. 18 – 9127. Hampton v. PROF– 2013– S3 Legal Title
Trust et al. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9128. Erpelding v. Frakes, Director, Nebraska
Department of Correctional Services. Sup. Ct. Neb. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9129. Booth v. Bobbitt, Warden, et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9134. Clopton v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9135. Malcomb v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 183 A. 3d 1098.
No. 18–9137. Hickingbottom v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9138. Gullett-El v. Corrigan et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9140. Ingram v. Clements et al. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 705 Fed. Appx. 721.

936 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9141. Grifn v. Gregoline et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 727 Fed. Appx. 397.
No. 18–9142. Harrell v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 1st
App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9144. Heard v. Baldwin, Director, Illinois De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 732 Fed. Appx. 472.
No. 18–9145. Fletcher v. Inmate Bank et al. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 752 Fed. Appx. 683.
No. 18–9146. Ivery v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 9th App. Dist.,
Summit County. Cer ti orari denied. Repor ted below: 2018-
Ohio-2177.
No. 18–9147. Flint v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9152. Reid v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18 – 9153. Randolph v. Texas. Ct. Cr i m. App. Tex.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9156. Sisneros v. Arnold, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9157. Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority. C. A.
7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 738 Fed. Appx. 355.
No. 18–9158. Lynn v. McKee, Judge, United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9159. Brown v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9160. Twardowski v. Bismarck Police Department
et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754
Fed. Appx. 492.
No. 18–9162. Worley v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9165. Warren v. Ramage et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 937
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9166. Ortiz v. Baughman, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir
. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9167. Pendleton v. Hainsworth, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Somerset. Sup. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9170. Ortiz v. Perry et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9171. Priestley v. Two Houses, in Buckeye, Mari-
copa County, Arizona, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9173. Posey v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9174. Myles v. Nebraska. Ct. App. Neb. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 26 Neb. App. –––.
No. 18–9175. Milledge v. English, Assistant Warden.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 760 Fed.
Appx. 741.
No. 18–9176. Pierce v. Allbaugh, Director, Oklahoma
Department of Corrections. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.
No. 18–9177. Murphy v. Neal, Superintendent, Indiana
State Prison. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9178. Alford v. Hooks, Secretary, North Caro-
lina Department of Safety, et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 746 Fed. Appx. 216.
No. 18–9179. Thomas v. Blake et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9182. Mateen-El v. Bell, Judge, Superior Court
of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, et al. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 747 Fed. Appx. 169.
No. 18–9184. White v. Corcoran, Trustee, et al. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9189. Conley v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 2019 Ark. 23, 566 S. W. 3d 116.

938 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9190. Smith v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment
of Corrections, et al. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9191. Bargo v. Naylor et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 746 Fed. Appx. 603.
No. 18–9194. Espada v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 565 S. W. 3d 326.
No. 18–9195. Bullard v. Jackson, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9198. Naasz v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9199. Perez v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9204. Brown v. Florida Department of Revenue
et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766
Fed. Appx. 929.
No. 18–9206. Brooks v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 282.
No. 18–9207. Winston v. Allbaugh, Director, Oklahoma
Department of Corrections. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 743 Fed. Appx. 257.
No. 18–9209. H. F. v. Board of Education of the Township
of Teaneck. Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9214. Phillips v. Alabama. Sup. Ct. Ala. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 287 So. 3d 1179.
No. 18–9216. Hopkins v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App.
Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
No. 18 – 9220. Handfield v. Garman, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Rockview, et al. C. A.
3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9222. Harriot v. Waizenhofer et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 743 Fed. Appx. 540.
No. 18–9223. Gamble v. Greater Cleveland Regional
Transit Authority. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 939
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9225. Raihala v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rar
i denied.
No. 18–9229. DeRyan v. East Valley School District.
Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9235. McMillan v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 263 So. 3d 32.
No. 18 – 9237. Barksdale v. United States Executive
Branch. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9238. Brown v. Washington. Ct. App. Wash. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 5 Wash. App. 2d 1037.
No. 18–9239. Shoop v. Terry, Acting Warden. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 735 Fed. Appx. 83.
No. 18–9246. Bryant v. Department of Education et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed.
Appx. 344.
No. 18–9247. Ombe v. Martinez et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 754.
No. 18 – 9249. Drevaleva v. Department of Veterans
Affairs et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9251. Atkins v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9252. Foster v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 258 So. 3d 1248.
No. 18–9253. Saylor v. Brown, Superintendent, Wabash
Valley Correctional Facility. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9254. Rubin v. Sanchez et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 751 Fed. Appx. 948.
No. 18–9262. Wood v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 568 S. W. 3d 678.
No. 18 –9265. Meza Segundo v. Davis, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institu-

940 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
tions Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below:
757 Fed. Appx. 333.
No. 18–9267. Reese v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 261 So. 3d 1246.
No. 18–9268. Mejia Rivera v. McKinney et al. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9269. Reynolds v. Circuit Court of Kentucky,
Laurel County. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9270. Antonio Rodriguez v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 260 So. 3d 146.
No. 18–9271. Kholost et al. v. Department of Housing
And Urban Development et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9272. Larson v. Dahlstrom, Commissioner, Alaska
Department of Corrections. Ct. App. Alaska. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9274. Thompson v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 261 So. 3d 1255.
No. 18–9280. Jusino et al. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9281. Burke v. Prosper, Acting Warden, et al.
Sup. Ct. V. I. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 70 V. I. 866.
No. 18–9282. Kimble v. Hooks, Secretary, North Caro-
lina Department of Public Safety. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 311.
No. 18–9283. Russell v. First Resolution Investment
Corp. Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
285 So. 3d 792.
No. 18–9285. Schwartzmiller v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9286. Rupert v. Bowers et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9290. Hamilton v. Jurban et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 941
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9294. Lee v. Goodwin, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied.
No. 18–9295. Sanchez v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9298. Barry et al. v. Massachusetts. Sup. Jud.
Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 481 Mass. 388,
116 N. E. 3d 554.
No. 18–9299. Washington v. Johnson, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 751 Fed. Appx. 1032.
No. 18–9307. Scott v. Goodwin, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9308. Scranage v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 742 Fed. Appx. 745.
No. 18–9309. Spataru v. Harmony Healing Center. Sup.
Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 746 Fed. Appx.
290.
No. 18–9310. Nieto Cruz v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9311. Matthews v. Saul, Commissioner of Social
Security. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9316. Banegas Hernandez v. Barr, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9317. Lasher v. Buchwald, Judge, United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9318. Dunlap v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9319. Gray v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9320. Howard v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 752 Fed. Appx. 519.
No. 18–9321. Dolmo-Alvarez v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 324.

942 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9322. Crosby v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 325.
No. 18–9324. Johnstone v. Nevada et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9326. Marshall v. Wisconsin. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9330. Hammond v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 658.
No. 18–9331. Ahmed v. Shoop, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9333. Gomez v. California. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9338. Corbitt v. United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9339. Yates v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 5th App.
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9341. Whitten v. Gunter et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 235.
No. 18–9342. Tiner v. Cockrell et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 482.
No. 18–9344. Yarber v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 1103.
No. 18–9345. Drake v. Parish, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18 –9346. Arunachalam v. United States District
Court for the Northern District of California et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9347. Sims v. Kansas. Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 308 Kan. 1488, 431 P. 3d 288.
No. 18–9348. Williams v. Welch et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 32.
No. 18–9349. McConnell v. Gittere, Warden, et al. Sup.
Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 134 Nev. 978, 426
P. 3d 31.

ORDERS 943
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9350. Whitehead v. Davis, Director, Texas De-
p
artment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9351. Bassett v. DeSantis, Governor of Florida.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 749 Fed.
Appx. 955.
No. 18–9353. Rodriguez v. Nationwide Homes, Inc., et al.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed.
Appx. 782.
No. 18–9354. Reddick v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 512.
No. 18–9355. Robinson v. Rental Maintenance, Inc. Cir.
Ct. Baltimore City, Md. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9361. Clemons v. Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 650 Pa. 467, 200 A. 3d 441.
No. 18–9363. Robinson v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 260 So. 3d 1011.
No. 18–9364. Street v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 310.
No. 18–9365. Ramirez-Jaramillo v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 338.
No. 18–9366. Rivera v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 260 So. 3d 920.
No. 18–9367. Ramsey v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 166
App. Div. 3d 1520, 87 N. Y. S. 3d 772.
No. 18–9369. Webb v. County of Pima, Arizona, et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed.
Appx. 498.
No. 18–9370. Blankenship v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 712.
No. 18–9372. Bryan v. Shoop, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18 – 9373. Shu v. Brennan, Postmaster General.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

944 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9374. Walton v. Ray, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 744 Fed. Appx. 828.
No. 18–9375. Elamin v. Superior Court of the District
of Columbia. Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9376. Davis v. United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 287.
No. 18–9377. Donohue v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18 – 9379. Light v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 63.
No. 18–9380. Leal v. Ryan, Director, Arizona Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.
No. 18–9381. Youte v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 685.
No. 18–9382. Wofford v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 576.
No. 18–9385. Nicholson v. Cook, Commissioner, Connecti-
cut Department of Correction. App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 186 Conn. App. 398, 199 A. 3d 573.
No. 18 –9386. Arunachalam v. United States District
Court for the Northern District of California et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9387. Schipke v. Connecticut et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9390. Aranoff v. Aranoff. Ct. App. N. Y. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 33 N. Y. 3d 1011, 125 N. E. 3d 151.
No. 18–9391. McGowan v. Walmart Stores. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 786.
No. 18–9392. Lovett v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9393. McIlwain v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 945
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9397. Angel Barron v. Madden, Warden. C. A.
9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9398. Cisse v. New York. Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 32 N. Y. 3d 1198, 120 N. E. 3d 364.
No. 18–9400. Martin v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9401. Jones v. Kentucky et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9402. Jackson v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 3d App.
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9404. Lunn v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 707 Fed. Appx. 176.
No. 18–9405. Mack v. Nelsen, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 302.
No. 18–9406. Grant v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 164.
No. 18–9408. Hennington v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9409. Guerrero v. Biter, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 370.
No. 18–9410. Sanders v. Walmart Stores East, L. P. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx.
935.
No. 18–9414. Royce v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 266 So. 3d 826.
No. 18–9415. Neely v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 770.
No. 18–9416. Williams v. Florida. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9418. Bandara v. Mann et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 745 Fed. Appx. 488.
No. 18–9419. Waiters v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 156.

946 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9420. Burris v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 386.
No. 18–9422. McCown v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 732.
No. 18–9423. Angle v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 775.
No. 18–9426. Duriso v. West Gulf Maritime Assn. et al.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 741 Fed.
Appx. 235.
No. 18–9427. Saxby v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 161.
No. 18–9428. Jenkins v. Hall, Commissioner, Mississippi
Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 910 F. 3d 828.
No. 18–9430. Turner v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 6th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9432. Rowe v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9433. Stubbs v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 682.
No. 18–9434. Carlos Rodriguez v. United States. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx.
712.
No. 18–9436. Branham v. Baca, Warden. Ct. App. Nev.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 134 Nev. 814, 434 P. 3d 313.
No. 18–9438. Woods v. Stewart, Warden, et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9439. Addison v. Indiana, dba Family and Social
Services Administration. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9440. Dixie v. Harrington, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 750.
No. 18 – 9441. Lewis v. Newburgh Housing Authority
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 947
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9442. Loston v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9443. Campbell v. Campbell, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9446. Bennett v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 738 Fed. Appx. 140.
No. 18–9447. Brown v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9448. Brady v. St. Pierre et al. Sup. Ct. N. H.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9449. McCrea v. District of Columbia Police and
Fireghters’ Retirement and Relief Board. Ct. App.
D. C. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 199 A. 3d 208.
No. 18–9450. Pizzarelli v. Grewal, Attorney General of
New Jersey, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9451. Pittman v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (1st) 152030,
104 N. E. 3d 485.
No. 18–9453. Pisciotta v. Harmon, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 634.
No. 18–9454. Brown v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 193 A. 3d 1090.
No. 18–9455. Dummert v. Ngo. Ct. App. Nev. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 134 Nev. 933.
No. 18–9456. Lynn v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 212.
No. 18–9457. McMillan v. Rackley, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9458. Musa v. United States District Court for
the District of Arizona. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9459. Nanez-Rivera v. United States. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 778.
No. 18–9460. Perry v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 908 F. 3d 1126.

948 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9461. Tillmon v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 954 F. 3d 628.
No. 18–9462. Kilgore v. Pash, Warden, et al. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9464. Finney v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 260 So. 3d 231.
No. 18–9465. Galloway v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 631.
No. 18–9466. Govea-San Roman v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 304.
No. 18–9467. Allen v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9468. Bonnell v. Shoop, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9469. Watson v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9470. Thompson v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 OK CR 3, 438 P. 3d 373.
No. 18–9471. Viola v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9472. Rice v. Cockell et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9473. Antonio Contreras v. Washington. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9475. Kennedy v. Washburn, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9477. Roberts v. DuPage County Circuit Court.
Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9478. Rothenberg v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla.,
4th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 256 So. 3d 202.
No. 18–9480. Roberts v. Inservco Insurance Services.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed.
Appx. 656.

ORDERS 949
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9481. Shrubb v. Clark, Superintendent, State
Correctional
Institution at Albion, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9483. Alford v. Neven, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 673.
No. 18–9484. Taylor v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (1st) 152072–U.
No. 18–9486. Abshire v. Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections. Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2017–0005 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/15/17).
No. 18–9487. Johnson v. Cain, Superintendent, Snake
River Correctional Institution. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9488. Lumpkin v. Moody, Attorney General of
Florida, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9489. Bressi v. Gembic et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 752 Fed. Appx. 113.
No. 18–9491. Trudeau v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9492. Spataru v. Ramsay. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 239 So. 3d 763.
No. 18–9493. Santillan v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 296.
No. 18–9494. Awad v. Ryan, Director, Arizona Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.
No. 18–9496. Johnson v. Hoober et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9497. Austin v. Amsberry. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9498. Lane v. Swain, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 910 F. 3d 1293.
No. 18–9499. Austin v. Stewart, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 741 Fed. Appx. 944.

950 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9500. Linh Thi Minh Tran v. Tri-County Metro-
polit
an Transit District of Oregon. Ct. App. Ore. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 292 Ore. App. 777, 430 P. 3d 216.
No. 18–9501. Ennis v. Nevada. Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 135 Nev. 640, 433 P. 3d 263.
No. 18–9502. Vazquez Capistran v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 427.
No. 18–9503. Boswell v. Louisiana et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9504. Barrett v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9505. Parra Perez v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 562 S. W. 3d 676.
No. 18–9507. Smith v. Charleston County Domestic Re-
lations et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 748 Fed. Appx. 570.
No. 18–9508. Scott v. Jimenez. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 169.
No. 18–9509. Lehmann v. Kernan, Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9510. Raheem v. United States;
No. 18–9534. Mewase v. United States; and
No. 18–9558. Ayelotan v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 394.
No. 18–9511. Stepp v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9512. Reid v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 749 Fed. Appx. 190.
No. 18–9513. Reid v. Donnelly et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9514. Polgar v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 951
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9515. Pierre v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 747 Fed. Appx. 968.
No. 18–9516. Palmer v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 264 So. 3d 140.
No. 18–9518. Williams v. City of Austin, Texas, et al.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 752 Fed.
Appx. 194.
No. 18–9519. Wesley v. New York. Sup. Ct., Crim. Term,
Queens County, N. Y. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9521. Jones v. Nevada. Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 135 Nev. 668, 433 P. 3d 267.
No. 18–9522. Lopez-Galvan v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9523. Levi v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 778.
No. 18–9524. Lowery v. Whitten, Warden. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 617.
No. 18–9525. Harris v. Peery, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 616.
No. 18–9527. Branagan v. Baca, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9529. Del Valle-Hiraldo v. United States. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9530. Margheim v. Buck et al. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 752 Fed. Appx. 685.
No. 18–9531. Deyerle v. West Virginia Department of
Health and Human Resources. Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9533. Tilahun v. Premo, Superintendent, Oregon
State Penitentiary. Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 290 Ore. App. 172, 412 P. 3d 1253.
No. 18–9537. Henry v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.

952 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9538. Head v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 747 Fed. Appx. 266.
No. 18–9539. Brown v. Walmart Stores, Inc. C. A. 7th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 575.
No. 18–9540. Harvin v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9541. Gilkey v. Burton, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9543. Haney v. Jackson, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9544. Henry v. Carlin, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9545. Hercenberger v. Proctor. Sup. Ct. Ore.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 363 Ore. 727, 429 P. 3d 383.
No. 18–9548. Tatum v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9549. Lucas-Lopez v. Trierweiler, Warden. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9550. Grimes v. Avis Budget Group. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 130.
No. 18–9551. Iotova et al. v. McCabe, Weisberg & Con-
way, LLC. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9552. Gill v. Nyack College et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9553. Jones v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9555. Thomas v. Marsh, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Benner Township. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9556. Willard v. California Department of Cor-
rections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.

ORDERS 953
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9557. Brewington v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App.
Okla.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9559. Ayala v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 752.
No. 18–9560. Wright v. Lassiter et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 413.
No. 18–9562. Simms v. Garman, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Rockview, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9563. Sorrels v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 436.
No. 18–9565. Stoermer v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 2d App.
Dist., Clark County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018-
Ohio-4522.
No. 18–9566. Sain v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18 – 9568. Mullins v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9570. Morgan v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9572. Cox v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 720.
No. 18 – 9573. Betancourt-Carrillo v. United States.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed.
Appx. 383.
No. 18–9574. Abu-Aish v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 758 Fed. Appx. 798.
No. 18–9576. Weekly v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9577. Pena v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9578. Parrish v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 440.

954 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9579. Tench v. Ohio. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari de-
nied.
Reported below: 156 Ohio St. 3d 85, 2018-Ohio-5205, 123
N. E. 3d 955.
No. 18–9580. Devers v. Iowa. Ct. App. Iowa. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 927 N. W. 2d 677.
No. 18–9581. Evans v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9583. Vasquez v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 1st
App. Dist., Div. 4. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9584. Miller v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 245 Ariz. 323, 429 P. 3d 556.
No. 18–9586. Watkins v. Green, Secretary, Maryland
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services,
et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 758
Fed. Appx. 325.
No. 18–9587. Liviz v. Supreme Judicial Court of Massa-
chusetts. Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9588. Lacey v. Gomez, Warden. Sup. Ct. Ill. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9590. Mayer v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 793.
No. 18–9591. Taylor v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 7th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 555 S. W. 3d 765.
No. 18–9592. Favors v. Michigan. Sup. Ct. Mich. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 503 Mich. 946, 922 N. W. 2d 120.
No. 18–9593. Hayes v. Gorman et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 519.
No. 18–9594. Davis v. 7-Eleven, Inc. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 133.
No. 18–9595. Du Trieu v. Martel, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 624.
No. 18–9596. Groah v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 236.

ORDERS 955
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18 – 9597. Berrum v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9598. Guy v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 10th App. Dist.,
Franklin County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018-
Ohio-4836.
No. 18–9599. D. R. v. M. R. et al. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 6. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9600. Sledge v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 433.
No. 18–9601. Strickland v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 544.
No. 18–9602. Simmons v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 331.
No. 18–9603. Steel v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9604. Fuentes Ramos v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 986.
No. 18–9605. Ferguson v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9606. Givens v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9607. Hemans v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A.
2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9608. Garcia v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 909 F. 3d 228.
No. 18–9609. Charles L. v. Ames, Superintendent, Mount
Olive Correctional Complex. Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9610. Wromas v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 239 So. 3d 748.
No. 18–9611. Weir v. United States et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9612. Rayford v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (1st) 160650–U.

956 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9613. Smeltzer v. King. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 747.
No. 18–9614. Rhoades v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 914
F. 3d 357.
No. 18–9616. Riojas-Ordaz v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 498.
No. 18–9617. Austin v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 920.
No. 18–9618. Mata-Jimenez v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 749 Fed. Appx. 664.
No. 18 –9619. Lagi v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9620. Miller v. Martinez, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9621. Onafeko v. Great Britain et al. C. A. D. C.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 14.
No. 18–9622. McDaniel v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
738 Fed. Appx. 523.
No. 18–9623. Wazney v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 736 Fed.
Appx. 53.
No. 18–9624. Wazney v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 735 Fed.
Appx. 113.
No. 18–9625. Tyson v. Texas (two judgments). Ct. Crim.
App. Tex. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9627. Tucker v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 358.
No. 18–9628. Horn v. CRC Health Group, Inc. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 393.
No. 18–9629. Hale v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed.
Appx. 741.

ORDERS 957
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9630. Brown v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied.
No. 18–9631. Campbell v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 1340.
No. 18–9632. Hudson v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18 –9633. Gonzalez-Reyes v. Barr, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757
Fed. Appx. 21.
No. 18–9634. Frederick v. Collier, Executive Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, et al. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9635. Antonio Flores v. United States. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 733 Fed. Appx. 89.
No. 18–9636. Furtys v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 238 So. 3d 754.
No. 18–9637. Jenkins v. Kansas. Ct. App. Kan. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 56 Kan. App. 2d xli, 419 P. 3d 104.
No. 18–9638. Luis Barboza v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 7th
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9640. Lawson v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
762 Fed. Appx. 179.
No. 18–9641. Brigham v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 165.
No. 18–9642. Benton v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 477.
No. 18–9643. Paul v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9644. Castleberry v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla.,
2d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 266 So. 3d 157.
No. 18–9646. Webb v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

958 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9647. Tustin v. Livingston et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 174.
No. 18–9649. Pleasant-Bey v. Tennessee Department of
Corrections et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9650. Pinson v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 11th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9651. Patino-Restrepo v. Department of Justice
et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9652. McDonald v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9654. Ross v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 740.
No. 18–9655. Ekwunife v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 756 Fed. Appx. 165.
No. 18–9657. Davis v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 397.
No. 18 – 9658. Doyle v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9660. Windsor v. Delaware. Sup. Ct. Del. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 202 A. 3d 1126.
No. 18–9661. Kostopoulos v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 875.
No. 18–9662. Lane v. Salazar, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 911 F. 3d 942.
No. 18–9666. Hernandez v. Massachusetts. Sup. Jud. Ct.
Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 481 Mass. 189, 113
N. E. 3d 828.
No. 18–9667. Alford v. Ballard et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 340.
No. 18–9668. Angel Arias v. Moody et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9670. Trice v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 840.

ORDERS 959
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9672. LeBlanc v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9673. Jakubec v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9675. Bullcoming v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 804.
No. 18–9676. Halprin v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 911
F. 3d 247.
No. 18–9677. Arreola Zavala v. United States. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 82.
No. 18–9678. Hankton v. Boutte, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9680. Middlebrook v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9681. Godfrey v. United States District Court
for the District of Montana. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9682. Forbes v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9683. Hango v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9684. Prien-Pinto v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 1155.
No. 18–9685. Clarke v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A.
2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9686. Bordelon v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 582 S. W. 3d 436.
No. 18–9688. Rivera-Martinez v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill.,
1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9690. Lockett v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th
Dist. Certiorari denied.

960 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9691. Stallings v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 160.
No. 18–9694. Douce v. New York. App. Term, Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 62
Misc. 3d 143, 113 N. Y. S. 3d 457.
No. 18–9695. Wagner v. Premo, Superintendent, Oregon
State Penitentiary. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9696. Hughes v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9697. Gordon v. Premo, Superintendent, Oregon
State Penitentiary. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 627.
No. 18–9698. Perez Gomez v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 6 Cal. 5th 243, 430 P. 3d 791.
No. 18–9700. Gatson v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 744 Fed. Appx. 97.
No. 18–9701. Gause v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 292.
No. 18–9702. Funk-Vaughn v. Tennessee Department of
Children’s Services. Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari denied.
No. 18 – 9703. Kelton v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18 – 9704. Portee v. Department of Agriculture
et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 758
Fed. Appx. 333.
No. 18–9705. Moore v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9708. Smith v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 1.
No. 18–9709. Walker v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9711. Meyers v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 961
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9712. Juarez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 492.
No. 18–9713. Brende v. Young, Warden, et al. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 907 F. 3d 1080.
No. 18–9714. Routt v. Howard et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 762.
No. 18–9715. Bedgood v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9716. Hunter v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018–0206 (La. App. 4 Cir.
8/22/18), 252 So. 3d 1053.
No. 18–9717. Findlay v. HSBC Bank USA, N. A., et al.
Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9718. Iotova v. Farmer et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9719. Lund v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 913 F. 3d 665.
No. 18–9720. Banks v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 255.
No. 18–9721. Banks v. Walker, United States Marshal,
et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9722. Meier v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 523.
No. 18–9723. Cardenas v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 34.
No. 18–9724. Winkles v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9725. Munoz v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 547.
No. 18–9727. Phillips-Berry v. Trump, President of the
United States, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 402.

962 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9728. Sung Ho Park v. Foss, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir
. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9729. Overby v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 284.
No. 18–9731. Geringer-Ganor v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 737.
No. 18–9732. Etemad v. North Dakota. Sup. Ct. N. D.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 ND 240, 919 N. W. 2d
192.
No. 18–9733. McReynolds v. Glenn et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 426.
No. 18 – 9734. Dominguez-Gabriel, aka Bellefleur v.
United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9735. Darden v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 910 F. 3d 1064.
No. 18–9737. Kellam v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 751 Fed. Appx. 184.
No. 18–9738. Gonzalez Jose v. United States. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9739. Malone v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 758 Fed. Appx. 354.
No. 18–9740. Jessie v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9741. Brown v. City of Richmond, Virginia. Sup.
Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9742. Butler v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 194.
No. 18–9743. Tizeno v. Janda, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 214.
No. 18–9747. Damond v. Louisiana. Sup. Ct. La. Certio-
rar i denied. Repor ted below: 2019 – 0020 (La. 2/25/19), 266
So. 3d 291.
No. 18–9748. Hernandez v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 595.

ORDERS 963
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9749. Joseph El v. All Local Law Enforcement
in
General. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9752. Pemberton v. Layden, Chief Judge, 18th
Judicial District Court of Oklahoma. Sup. Ct. Okla. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9753. Brooks v. Colorado Department of Correc-
tions et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 762 Fed. Appx. 551.
No. 18–9754. Teitelbaum v. Turner, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9755. Araya v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 199.
No. 18–9756. Lozano v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 444.
No. 18–9757. Phillips-Berry v. Scurlock et al. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 170.
No. 18–9758. Conerly v. Chapman, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9759. Rodriguez v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 IL App (1st) 151938–B,
127 N. E. 3d 1089.
No. 18–9760. Dixon v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9763. Heaton v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 598.
No. 18–9764. Hausa v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 129.
No. 18–9765. Kinard v. United States District Court for
the District of Columbia. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9766. Lewis v. Farmer, Sheriff, Sumter County,
Florida, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9767. Johnson v. White, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

964 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9768. Talbert v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (1st) 160157,
122 N. E. 3d 739.
No. 18–9769. Wahid v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9770. Toye v. Racette, Superintendent, Great
Meadows Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9771. Robinson v. Moody, Attorney General of
Florida, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9773. Redeker v. Neven, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 606.
No. 18–9774. Tseng v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 30 Cal. App.
5th 117, 241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 194.
No. 18–9775. Washington v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 279.
No. 18–9776. Ponce-Recendiz v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 758 Fed. Appx. 367.
No. 18–9778. Xue Jie He v. Ofce of the New York City
Comptroller. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9779. Xue Jie He v. Trinity Church et al. C. A.
2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9780. Hannigan v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9781. Winarske v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 913 F. 3d 765.
No. 18–9782. Daily v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9784. Iotova et al. v. Demisa et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9785. Hussar v. Reynolds et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 965
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9786. Francisco et al. v. Texas Department of
F
amily and Protective Services. Ct. App. Tex., 9th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9788. Cardwell v. South Carolina. Sup. Ct. S. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 425 S. C. 595, 824 S. E. 2d
451.
No. 18–9789. Pizarro v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 458.
No. 18–9790. Monzoni v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 747 Fed. Appx. 547.
No. 18–9792. Mensah v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 183.
No. 18–9795. Barto v. Garmon, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Rockview, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9797. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9798. Lee v. United States. Ct. App. D. C. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 193 A. 3d 750.
No. 18–9799. Rivera v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9800. Adams v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 741 Fed. Appx. 157.
No. 18–9802. Benson v. Utah Labor Commission et al.
Ct. App. Utah. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 UT
App 228, 437 P. 3d 1253.
No. 18–9803. Galvan v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 744 Fed. Appx. 422.
No. 18–9804. Gomez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 181.
No. 18–9805. Carver v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 916 F. 3d 398.
No. 18–9806. Tones et al. v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 579.

966 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9808. Reyes v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied.
No. 18–9809. Strong v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 164 App.
Div. 3d 1637, 84 N. Y. S. 3d 290.
No. 18–9810. Ward v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9811. Sloan v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 739.
No. 18–9812. Spotted Horse v. United States. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 916 F. 3d 686.
No. 18–9813. Brown v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9814. Wazney v. Wazney. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 735 Fed. Appx. 835.
No. 18–9815. Bowles v. Florida Department of Correc-
tions et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18 – 9816. Djenasevic, aka Genase, aka Kraja v.
United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9817. Kelly v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 6th Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9818. Echols v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9819. Rodriguez-Reyes v. United States. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d 558.
No. 18–9820. Edick v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9822. Noel v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 530.
No. 18–9823. Morris v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9824. Patten v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 967
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9825. Orr v. Neal, Superintendent, Indiana State
Prison
. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9827. Lamoureaux v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9828. Magluilo v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 52,227 (La. App. 2 Cir.
9/26/18), 256 So. 3d 424.
No. 18–9829. Wilmore v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9830. Einfeldt v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9831. Melcher v. Richardson. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9833. Mone v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 979.
No. 18–9834. Ochoa-Orozco v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 386.
No. 18–9836. Brown v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 902.
No. 18–9837. Bustos v. Bexar Appraisal District et al.
Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9838. Floyd v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9839. King v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9840. Fernandez v. Nevada et al. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9841. Hines v. JTH Tax, Inc. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 740 Fed. Appx. 49.
No. 18–9843. Fountain v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9844. Wood v. Parish, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.

968 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9845. Vanzant v. Yordy, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 18–9847. Petitta v. Paramo, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–1. Khan v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 952.
No. 19 – 2. Lawson v. FMR LLC, dba Fidelity Invest-
ments, et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5. Arnaldo Baez v. Davis, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–9. Villafana Quevedo v. Barr, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766
Fed. Appx. 345.
No. 19–10. Smith v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 639.
No. 19 –11. Rountree v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC,
et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757
Fed. Appx. 514.
No. 19–12. Sewell v. Maryland. Ct. App. Md. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 463 Md. 291, 205 A. 3d 966.
No. 19–15. Bank of Louisiana et al. v. Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 919 F. 3d 916.
No. 19–17. Baker v. Baker. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist.,
Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–18. Navarrette-Lopez v. Barr, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919
F. 3d 951.
No. 19–19. Kianpour v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 499.
No. 19–20. Andreoli et al. v. Youngevity International
Corp. et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 749 Fed. Appx. 634.

ORDERS 969
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–21. Owens v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-
rar
i denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 26.
No. 19–22. Newsome v. RSL Funding, LLC, et al. Sup.
Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 569 S. W. 3d 116.
No. 19–24. Rose et ux. v. Reaves, Chapter 7 Trustee.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed.
Appx. 572.
No. 19–25. Rosas v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chi-
cago. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748
Fed. Appx. 64.
No. 19–26. Collins et al. v. Daniels et al. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 916 F. 3d 1302.
No. 19–29. Beemer v. University of Southern California
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 755
Fed. Appx. 714.
No. 19–31. Kam v. Dallas County, Texas, et al. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 455.
No. 19–32. Stroh v. Saturna Capital Corp. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 746 Fed. Appx. 639.
No. 19–33. Wallace v. Andeavor Corp. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 916 F. 3d 423.
No. 19–34. Maravelias v. DePamphilis. Sup. Ct. N. H.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–36. Fontanillas Lopez v. Morell Bauza Cart-
agena & Dapena, LLC, et al. Sup. Ct. P. R. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–37. Freeman v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–38. McGee v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 610.
No. 19–39. Bell v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 901 F. 3d 455.
No. 19–40. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New
York, Inc. v. J. W., a Minor. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div.

970 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
2. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 29 Cal. App. 5th 1142,
241
Cal. Rptr. 3d 62.
No. 19–45. Nexus Services, Inc., et al. v. Moran, Individ-
ually and in His Ofcial Capacity as Deputy Sheriff of
Augusta County, Virginia, et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 750 Fed. Appx. 241.
No. 19–48. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 445.
No. 19–49. Simons v. Boston Scientic et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 773.
No. 19–50. DeRaffele v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 53. Branded LLC v. Iancu, Director, United
States Patent and Trademark Ofce. C. A. Fed. Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 916.
No. 19–56. Milner et al. v. Mares, Executive Director,
New Mexico Racing Commission, et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 777.
No. 19–57. Dewees v. United States. C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 4.
No. 19–58. Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., dba KLA-
Tencor, Inc. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 767 Fed. Appx. 1008.
No. 19–59. Loop AI Labs, Inc., et al. v. Gatti et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 742 Fed. Appx. 286.
No. 19–60. Kerton v. Society Hill at Droyers Point Con-
dominium Assn. et al. Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–63. Painter v. Evans. Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2018–1289 (La. App. 1 Cir.
12/26/18).
No. 19–65. Jonna Corp., dba Premier Recycling Co. v.
City of Sunnyvale, California. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 592.

ORDERS 971
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–69. Weissburg v. Los Angeles Unied School Dis-
trict
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 765 Fed. Appx. 379.
No. 19–72. PennyMac Financial Services, Inc., et al. v.
Smigelski. Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–74. Willner et al. v. Dimon et al. C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 1.
No. 19–77. Caring For Montanans, Inc., et al. v. Depot,
Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
915 F. 3d 643.
No. 19–78. Doe, aka Davis v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 166.
No. 19–79. Albrecht v. Albrecht. Sup. Ct. N. H. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19 – 80. Shreveport Chapter #237 of the United
Daughters of the Confederacy v. Caddo Parish Commis-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756
Fed. Appx. 460.
No. 19–82. Cannon v. Bank of America, N. A., et al. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–84. Mulligan v. Jalbert et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 70.
No. 19–85. LC v. MG. Sup. Ct. Haw. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 143 Haw. 302, 430 P. 3d 400.
No. 19–86. Jordan v. Director, Ofce of Workers’ Com-
pensation Programs, Department of Labor, et al. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–87. Burgess v. Hall, Warden. Sup. Ct. Ga. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 305 Ga. 633, 827 S. E. 2d 271.
No. 19–88. Nader et ux. v. City of Papillion, Nebraska,
et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917
F. 3d 1055.
No. 19 – 89. Newman v. York. Ct. App. Ind. Cer ti orari
denied.

972 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–91. Buckner, Warden v. Allen. Ct. App. Mo.,
Souther
n Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 570 S. W.
3d 601.
No. 19–92. Alfaro-Alfaro v. Barr, Attorney General.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–93. Walton v. First Merchants Bank et al. C. A.
7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx.
349.
No. 19–94. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp.
v. Ingram Barge Co. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 918 F. 3d 967.
No. 19–95. Bolton et vir v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 908 F. 3d 75.
No. 19–96. Rymer v. Lemaster et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–97. Stein v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 906 F. 3d 823.
No. 19–98. Kennard v. Means Industries, Inc. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–100. Crown Asset Management LLC v. Barbato.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 916 F. 3d 260.
No. 19–101. Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Sam-
sung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 974.
No. 19–103. StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. v. Secure-
Auth Corp. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Repor ted
below: 753 Fed. Appx. 914.
No. 19–104. Tamez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–105. Caramadre v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–106. R. S. et ux. v. Kentucky Cabinet for Health
and Family Services. Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 570 S. W. 3d 538.

ORDERS 973
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–111. Fernando I. v. Margarita O. App. Ct. Conn.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 189 Conn. App. 448, 207 A.
3d 548.
No. 19–112. Hiran et al. v. Jelinis, LLC. Ct. App. Tex.,
14th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 557 S. W. 3d 159.
No. 19–113. Holdner v. Coba et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 735.
No. 19–115. Lawrence v. United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 467.
No. 19–116. Marlowe v. City and County of San Fran-
cisco, California, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 479.
No. 19 –117. Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical
INPROTSA, S. A. v. Del Monte International GmbH. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 1291.
No. 19–118. Intermessage Communications, Inc. v. Ameri-
tech Mobile Communications, Inc., et al. Sup. Ct. Ohio.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 155 Ohio St. 3d 463, 2018-
Ohio-5023, 122 N. E. 3d 144.
No. 19–120. IBG LLC et al. v. Trading Technologies
International, Inc. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 1004.
No. 19–121. Miller v. Ferguson, Attorney General of
Washington. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–124. Smith v. United States et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–126. Oram v. City of Dillon, Montana, et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed.
Appx. 685.
No. 19 –127. Calgaro v. St. Louis County, Minnesota,
et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919
F. 3d 1054.
No. 19–128. Maye v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 882.

974 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–132. Fejokwu v. Commodity Futures Trading Com-
mis
sion. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757
Fed. Appx. 119.
No. 19–133. Sagar v. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treas-
ury. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–134. Blanca Telephone Co. v. Federal Communi-
cations Commission et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–135. Smith v. University of Maryland, Baltimore,
et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770
Fed. Appx. 50.
No. 19–136. Saban Rent-A-Car LLC et al. v. Arizona De-
partment of Revenue et al. Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 246 Ariz. 89, 434 P. 3d 1168.
No. 19–137. Vibe Micro, Inc. v. SIG Capital, LLC. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 1193.
No. 19–140. Rheinstein v. Attorney Grievance Commis-
sion of Maryland. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer ti orar i denied.
Reported below: 750 Fed. Appx. 225.
No. 19–141. Fairbanks v. Indiana. Sup. Ct. Ind. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 119 N. E. 3d 564.
No. 19–142. Harry et al. v. American Brokers Conduit
et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–143. Gossage v. Merit Systems Protection Board.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–144. Ryan v. Department of Defense. C. A. Fed.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 990.
No. 19–145. Mastanduno v. National Freight Industries
et al. Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 262
N. C. App. 77, 821 S. E. 2d 592.
No. 19–146. Kelly v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance
Co. et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
764 Fed. Appx. 160.
No. 19–148. 7 West 57th Street Realty Co., LLC v. Citi-
group, Inc., et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 771 Fed. Appx. 498.

ORDERS 975
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–149. Fort Bend Mechanical, Ltd., et al. v. Gil
Ramirez
Group, L. L. C., et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 970.
No. 19–150. Lumbard et al. v. City of Ann Arbor, Michi-
gan. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 913
F. 3d 585.
No. 19–157. Baggett v. Oncor Electric Delivery Co.,
LLC. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769
Fed. Appx. 163.
No. 19–160. Singleton et al. v. Fairhurst, Chief Justice,
Supreme Court of Washington, et al. Sup. Ct. Wash. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–162. Richards v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 201 A. 3d 823.
No. 19–172. Harsay v. University of Kansas. Sup. Ct.
Kan. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 308 Kan. 1371, 430
P. 3d 30.
No. 19–173. Quinn, Individually and as Guardian ad
Litem for H. Q., a Minor Child, et al. v. Truck Insurance
Exchange et al. Sup. Ct. S. D. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–175. Francis et al. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
770 Fed. Appx. 303.
No. 19–179. Ben-Dov v. Sragow et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 735 Fed. Appx. 455.
No. 19–180. Bucsek v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d
184.
No. 19–182. Guillen v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 461.
No. 19–183. Robison v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–186. Mira v. Argus Medis et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.

976 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–192. Herrick v. Grindr LLC et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 586.
No. 19–193. Hogen et al. v. Hogen. Sup. Ct. N. D. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2019 ND 141, 927 N. W. 2d 474.
No. 19–194. Delacruz v. State Bar of California et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed.
Appx. 635.
No. 19–196. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co.,
dba Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana v. Encompass
Ofce Solutions, Inc. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 919 F. 3d 266.
No. 19–200. Hawk et al. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
924 F. 3d 821.
No. 19–203. Greenberg v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 50.
No. 19–209. McDonald, Chapter 13 Trustee v. Wenzloff
et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–213. Fischer v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–214. Presley et al. v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 557.
No. 19–216. Persaud v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–242. Nichols v. Reliance Standard Life Insur-
ance Co. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
924 F. 3d 802.
No. 19 – 243. Camacho v. United States. C. A. Ar med
Forces. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 79 M. J. 90.
No. 19–245. GEFT Outdoor L. L. C. v. City of Westeld,
Hamilton County, Indiana. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 922 F. 3d 357.
No. 19–256. Abramov v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 741 Fed. Appx. 531.

ORDERS 977
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–272. Cooks v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 735.
No. 19–295. Fawcett v. Citizens Bank, N. A. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 133.
No. 19–305. Wilkins et al. v. Soler et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 383.
No. 19–308. Arizmendi v. Gabbert. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 891.
No. 19–5001. Dulcero v. Neven, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5002. Cruse v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5003. Cruz-Olavarria v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 661.
No. 19–5004. Stamps v. Miller. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 686.
No. 19–5005. Sankara v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A.
2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5006. Rosato v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5007. Sikes v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5008. Johnson v. Massachusetts. Sup. Jud. Ct.
Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 481 Mass. 710, 119
N. E. 3d 669.
No. 19–5009. Nixon v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 1265.
No. 19–5011. Phipps v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 168 App. Div.
3d 881, 91 N. Y. S. 3d 466.
No. 19–5012. Sarcona v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

978 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5013. Santana-Dones v. United States; and
N
o. 19–5028. Vasquez v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 70.
No. 19–5015. Kelley v. Peters et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5016. Salazar v. HEB Grocery Co., LP, et al. Ct.
App. Tex., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5017. Phillips-Berry v. Louisiana et al. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 88.
No. 19–5018. Mintz v. Ryan, Director, Arizona Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5019. Perez v. Dwyer. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 271 So. 3d 1116.
No. 19–5020. Lambert v. Settles, Acting Warden. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5021. Boling v. United States Parole Commission
et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 5022. Banks v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 17–358 (La. App. 5 Cir.
3/14/18), 241 So. 3d 1240.
No. 19–5023. Walker v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5026. Andrews v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 189.
No. 19–5029. Calhoun v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 901.
No. 19–5030. Mathew v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 5th App. Dist.,
Muskingum County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018-
Ohio-3405.
No. 19– 5031. Ismael Conde v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5032. Felder v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 74.

ORDERS 979
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19– 5033. Arunachalam v. International Business
Ma
chines Corp. et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 927.
No. 19–5034. Dudley v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Cer ti orar i denied. Repor ted below: 2018 IL App (1st)
152039–U.
No. 19–5038. Willems v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5039. Ortiz v. Delaware. Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 203 A. 3d 765.
No. 19–5040. Lu v. Stanford University. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 497.
No. 19–5041. Jamison v. Cohen, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 265.
No. 19 – 5042. Jones v. Griffin, Circuit Clerk, Chicot
County, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5043. Panus v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5045. Hathorn v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 982.
No. 19–5046. Armistead v. Millis, Superintendent, Hyde
Correctional Institution. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 331.
No. 19–5047. Toole v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Af-
fairs, et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 738 Fed. Appx. 6.
No. 19–5048. Dolph v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765
Fed. Appx. 986.
No. 19–5049. Wilson v. Hatton, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5050. Asmodeo v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 75.

980 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5051. Duarte Islas v. Ryan, Director, Arizona
Dep
artment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5053. Hicks v. Baker, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5054. Hendershott v. Strong, Warden, et al.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed.
Appx. 320.
No. 19–5055. Harris v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5056. Fisher v. Richmond, The American Interna-
tional University in London, Inc. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 15.
No. 19–5057. Fletcher v. Corizon Health Services et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 700 Fed.
Appx. 724.
No. 19–5059. Viera v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 266 So. 3d 852.
No. 19–5060. Washington v. Mici, Commissioner, Massa-
chusetts Department of Correction. C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19 – 5061. Young v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5062. Jones v. Tennessee. Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 568 S. W. 3d 101.
No. 19–5063. Barriera-Vera v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5065. Crank v. Bracy, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5066. Dongarra v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5067. Dixon v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5068. Trimble v. Hansen, Warden, et al. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx.
721.

ORDERS 981
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5069. Thompson v. Garman, Superintendent, State
Correctional
Institution at Rockview, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5070. Mitchell v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 772.
No. 19–5071. Burley v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 886.
No. 19–5072. Bridges v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5074. Mileham v. Premo, Superintendent, Oregon
State Penitentiary. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5075. Makau v. Meyer, Judge, District Court of
North Carolina, Wake County, et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 292.
No. 19–5076. Daugherty v. White, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5077. Cabot v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 75.
No. 19–5078. Capalbo v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 904.
No. 19–5079. Blackwell v. Georgia. Ct. App. Ga. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 346 Ga. App. 833, 815 S. E. 2d 288.
No. 19–5080. Vega v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5081. Morel v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 1.
No. 19–5082. Tolentino v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 121.
No. 19–5083. McVea v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 377.
No. 19–5084. Iotova et al. v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

982 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5086. McClain v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
et
al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764
Fed. Appx. 299.
No. 19–5087. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 223.
No. 19 – 5088. Hinson-Gribble v. Office of Personnel
Management et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 385.
No. 19–5090. Du Ju v. Washington et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 744 Fed. Appx. 507.
No. 19–5091. Colbourn v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 3d
App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5092. Stephenson v. Connecticut. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5093. Smith v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5095. Salerno v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5096. Rivera v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 861.
No. 19–5097. Fabricant v. United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Ninth Circuit. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5099. Thompson v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 274 So. 3d 1088.
No. 19–5100. Karahalios v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5101. Puderer v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5103. Findlay v. Star Lakes Assn., Inc. Sup. Ct.
Fla. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5104. Arrington v. Davis, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 983
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5105. Espudo v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 623.
No. 19–5106. Karella v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC.
App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018
IL App (2d) 170423–U.
No. 19–5107. Karahalios v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5108. Covington v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5109. English v. Roadhouse Holding Inc. et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 750 Fed.
Appx. 186.
No. 19–5110. Bays v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 945.
No. 19–5111. Blodgett v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5112. Stoffel v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 247 So. 3d 89.
No. 19–5113. Sethi v. Securities and Exchange Commis-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 910
F. 3d 198.
No. 19–5115. Seals v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 1203.
No. 19 – 5116. Stewart v. Dartmouth Hitchcock Mary
Hitchcock Memorial Hospital. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5117. Hudson v. Hood, Chief Judge, United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19– 5118. Mathison v. Washington. Sup. Ct. Wash.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 5119. Arucan v. Cambridge East Healthcare
Center et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 763 Fed. Appx. 415.

984 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5120. Alford v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Se-
curity
. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
767 Fed. Appx. 662.
No. 19–5121. Wagoner v. North Carolina. Ct. App. N. C.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5122. Westereld v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 6 Cal. 5th 632, 433 P. 3d 914.
No. 19–5123. Parrish v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 1043.
No. 19–5124. Durham v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5126. Garcia v. Ferguson, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Phoenix, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5127. Dunne v. Bissett, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 735 Fed. Appx. 405.
No. 19–5128. Salcedo v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 747 Fed. Appx. 555.
No. 19–5130. McConico v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 885.
No. 19–5131. Rackley v. Sloan, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5132. Sills v. Precythe, Director, Missouri De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5134. Brunstorff v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 48.
No. 19–5135. Ballard v. Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections. Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2017–0460 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/1/17), 233
So. 3d 642.
No. 19–5136. Haines v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 694.
No. 19–5137. Gray v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 938.

ORDERS 985
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19 – 5138. Gonzalez Gonzalez, aka Gonzalez, aka
Alonzo
Gonzalez, aka Soto v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 49.
No. 19–5139. Morris v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 552.
No. 19–5140. Raghubir v. United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19 – 5141. Wade v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 870.
No. 19–5142. Ball v. Slagle. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 353.
No. 19–5143. S. T. v. Washington Department of Social
and Health Services. Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 4 Wash. App. 2d 1016.
No. 19–5144. Uribe v. Diaz, Secretary, California De-
partment of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5145. Apodaca v. Doe et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 927.
No. 19–5146. Gilliam v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5147. Hawkins v. SunTrust Bank et al. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 289.
No. 19–5148. Raghubir v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5149. Rojas-Marceleno v. Kansas. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 428.
No. 19–5150. Phillips v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 474.
No. 19–5151. Maehr v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 914.
No. 19–5152. Shumake v. Virginia. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.

986 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19 – 5153. Ramirez v. Washington. Ct. App. Wash.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 5 Wash. App. 2d 118, 425
P. 3d 534.
No. 19 – 5155. Russell v. KS Ventures, LLC. Sup. Ct.
Mont. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 395 Mont. 519, 432
P. 3d 715.
No. 19–5156. Logan v. Town of Windsor, New York, et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5157. Horner v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 528.
No. 19–5158. Higgins v. Federal National Mortgage As-
sociation. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5159. Grant v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 432.
No. 19–5160. Geer v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 265 So. 3d 589.
No. 19–5161. Vernon v. CBS Television Studios et al.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed.
Appx. 574.
No. 19–5162. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 440.
No. 19–5163. Kelley v. Gerth. Ct. App. Ohio, 10th App.
Dist., Franklin County. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
2018-Ohio-4080.
No. 19–5164. Stewart v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5166. Vazquez Valois v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 717.
No. 19–5167. Hood v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 456.
No. 19–5168. Smith v. Jackson et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5169. Stratton v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss. Cer-
tiorari denied.

ORDERS 987
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5170. Rosenblum v. Biter, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5173. Kirkland v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 758 Fed. Appx.
345.
No. 19 – 5174. Lewis et al. v. Estate of Lewis et al.
Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 193 A. 3d
139.
No. 19–5175. Green v. Wilson, Attorney General of
South Carolina. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 770 Fed. Appx. 159.
No. 19–5176. Chambliss v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 751.
No. 19–5177. Chaney v. United States; and
No. 19–5180. Chaney v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 572.
No. 19–5178. Lester v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 8th App. Dist.,
Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018-
Ohio-3041.
No. 19–5179. Pattishall v. Cerf et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 40.
No. 19–5183. Grado v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 623.
No. 19–5184. Courtney v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 730 Fed. Appx. 287.
No. 19–5185. Taylor v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5186. Warner v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5187. Igbinovia v. Cox et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5188. Tart v. United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 746 Fed. Appx. 270.

988 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5189. Tyler v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed.
Appx. 264.
No. 19–5190. Williams v. National Railroad Passenger
Corporation et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5191. Davenport v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 188 A. 3d 500.
No. 19–5192. Massaquoi v. American Credit Acceptance.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed.
Appx. 183.
No. 19–5194. Hector v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5195. Hines v. Grifth, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5197. Roden v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5198. Rang v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 113.
No. 19–5199. Roberson v. Rowlett Police Department
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769
Fed. Appx. 145.
No. 19–5201. Medenbach v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 729 Fed. Appx. 606.
No. 19–5202. Zambrano-Ruiz v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 615.
No. 19–5204. Loya Quezada v. Raemisch, Executive Di-
rector, Colorado Department of Corrections, et al.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed.
Appx. 442.
No. 19–5207. Regassa v. Cimino et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 573.
No. 19–5208. Torres v. Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth
District, et al. Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 989
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5209. Wimbush v. Mickens, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5210. Wimbush v. Carr, Attorney General of
Georgia, et al. Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5211. Anyanwu v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A.
8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5212. Brown v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5214. Downs v. Northam, Governor of Virginia.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed.
Appx. 217.
No. 19–5215. Neal v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5216. Pagliuca v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 93.
No. 19–5221. Potts v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 638.
No. 19–5222. Meeks v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5223. Minnis v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 900.
No. 19–5224. Chang v. Wisconsin. Ct. App. Wis. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2018 WI App 8, 379 Wis. 2d 767,
909 N. W. 2d 210.
No. 19–5226. Caldwell v. Arizona Department of Public
Safety et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 744 Fed. Appx. 509.
No. 19–5227. Lechner v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5229. Marzan v. CoreCivic Correctional Center
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5230. Wlodarz v. Phillips, Warden. Ct. Crim.
App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.

990 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5231. Thomas v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N
. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 165
App. Div. 3d 1636, 85 N. Y. S. 3d 322.
No. 19–5232. Malone v. Sharp, Interim Warden. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 911 F. 3d 1022.
No. 19 – 5233. Leyva Valdez v. Montgomery, Warden.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 687.
No. 19–5234. Dowdney v. Washington. Ct. App. Wash.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 5 Wash. App. 2d 1036.
No. 19–5236. Nolen v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 398.
No. 19–5237. Cowan v. Lilly et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5238. Lopez v. Irvine Company Apartment Commu-
nities, Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5239. Traylor v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19– 5242. Clary v. Guyer, Warden. Sup. Ct. Mont.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 396 Mont. 546, 449 P. 3d 793.
No. 19–5243. Marvel v. Delaware. Sup. Ct. Del. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 207 A. 3d 1128.
No. 19–5244. Davis v. Daniel et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 739 Fed. Appx. 363.
No. 19–5245. Lamb v. Norwood et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 899 F. 3d 1159.
No. 19–5248. West v. Bryant, Warden. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 652.
No. 19–5250. Yoder v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed.
Appx. 822.
No. 19–5251. Cascio v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 91.
No. 19 – 5252. Wright v. West Virginia. Sup. Ct. App.
W. Va. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 991
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5253. Wright v. Holley, Acting Commissioner of
the
West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. Sup.
Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5254. Arroyo v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (1st) 152602–U.
No. 19–5255. Lobacz v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 1.
No. 19–5256. Livingstone v. United States. C. A. Armed
Forces. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 79 M. J. 41.
No. 19–5258. Morris v. Pennsylvania. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19 – 5259. Hernandez-Castillo v. United States.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed.
Appx. 74.
No. 19–5261. Baez v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5263. Stroud v. Brewer, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5264. Hyungseop Shim v. Sexton, Warden. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5265. Schreiber v. Ludwick et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 501.
No. 19 – 5266. Scot t v. Johnson, Administrator, New
Jersey State Prison, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5268. Bois v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5271. Cooper v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5272. Kizzee v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 62.
No. 19–5273. Lee v. Weirich et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.

992 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5275. Mathisen v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 258.
No. 19–5276. Taylor v. Neal, Superintendent, Indiana
State Prison. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5277. Kowalski v. Executive Committee of the
United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer ti orar i denied. Repor ted
below: 765 Fed. Appx. 139.
No. 19 – 5278. Chaney v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 895.
No. 19–5279. Esparza-Salazar v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 176.
No. 19–5280. Tuttoilmondo v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 4th
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5281. Jiles v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5283. Korte v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 750.
No. 19–5285. Meier v. Berger et al. Ct. App. Mich. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5286. Patton v. Arkansas. Ct. App. Ark. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2019 Ark. App. 63, 569 S. W. 3d
906.
No. 19–5287. Daley v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 192.
No. 19–5289. Brazell v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2017–0032 (La. App. 4 Cir.
4/18/18), 245 So. 3d 15.
No. 19– 5290. Mason v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5291. Jordan v. Ryan, Director, Arizona Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.

ORDERS 993
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5292. Joseph v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 275 So. 3d 744.
No. 19–5293. Owens v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.
No. 19–5294. Augustin v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5296. Davis v. McGinley, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Coal Township, et al. C. A.
3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5297. Appolon v. Arizona. Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19 – 5300. Santana v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5302. Williams v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5303. Benitez-Pineda v. United States. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 742 Fed. Appx. 792.
No. 19–5305. Lynch v. Nelson. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 764.
No. 19 – 5306. Murray v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 273.
No. 19–5310. Cantu v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 111.
No. 19–5311. Dodev v. Bank of New York Mellon. Ct.
App. Ariz. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 246 Ariz. 1, 433
P. 3d 549.
No. 19–5313. Kahlow v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 266 So. 3d 852.
No. 19– 5314. Barrera v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5317. Vernon v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 63.

994 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5318. Brown v. Bernhardt, Secretary of the In-
t
erior, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 741 Fed. Appx. 413.
No. 19 – 5319. Barnes v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 167
App. Div. 3d 1589, 88 N. Y. S. 3d 364.
No. 19–5320. Dobbins v. Allbaugh, Director, Oklahoma
Department of Corrections. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 743 Fed. Appx. 225.
No. 19– 5321. Collins v. Shoop, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5322. Cummings v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5323. De Juan v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 249 So. 3d 681.
No. 19–5324. Chambers v. Schmidts et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5326. Franke v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 264 So. 3d 132.
No. 19–5327. Howell v. Social Security Administration.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 5328. Harrison v. Moultrie County, Illinois,
et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770
Fed. Appx. 295.
No. 19–5331. Lee v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 886 F. 3d 1161.
No. 19–5332. Tibbs v. Grounds, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 710.
No. 19–5335. Brunette v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
741 Fed. Appx. 783.
No. 19–5336. Benchick v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 725 Fed. Appx. 361.
No. 19–5337. Bussey v. Allen, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 995
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5338. Agolli v. District of Columbia et al. Ct.
App
. D. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5339. Ganzer v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 579.
No. 19–5340. Prostell v. Zook, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 380.
No. 19–5341. Whitehead v. Florida Department of Cor-
rections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5344. Chujoy, aka Alvarado v. United States.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed.
Appx. 33.
No. 19–5345. Mustafa v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 22.
No. 19–5347. Davis v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 220.
No. 19–5348. Oliver v. Johnson et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 828.
No. 19–5349. Condon v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (3d) 150793–U.
No. 19–5352. Black v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5353. Vennes v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5354. Brown v. Luther, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Smitheld, et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5355. Regalado v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 270.
No. 19 – 5356. Washington v. Nebraska. Sup. Ct. Neb.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 301 Neb. 420, 918 N. W. 2d
597.
No. 19–5357. Cookson v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 1079.

996 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5358. Collazo-Gonzalez v. United States. C. A.
5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 104.
No. 19–5359. Vu Phan v. Colorado Legal Services et al.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed.
Appx. 520.
No. 19–5360. Nairn v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5361. Cabrera Mejia v. Walmart. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5362. Deleston v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5363. Curtis v. Wainwright, Warden. Sup. Ct.
Ohio. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 156 Ohio St. 3d 357,
2019-Ohio-942, 126 N. E. 3d 1125.
No. 19–5365. DeMarco v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
914 F. 3d 383.
No. 19–5366. Curry v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5367. Duarte v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5368. Conner v. Hoem et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 560.
No. 19–5369. Chambers v. Hall, Warden. Sup. Ct. Ga.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 305 Ga. 363, 825 S. E. 2d 162.
No. 19–5370. Medina Castillon v. California. Ct. App.
Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5373. Suarez Clark v. Castellon Cueva et al.
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed.
Appx. 12.
No. 19–5374. Coriolant v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 997
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5375. Daniels v. Jackson, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5376. Doering v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 768.
No. 19–5377. Earls v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 581.
No. 19–5378. Deere v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5379. Crowley v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 11th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5381. Quatrine v. Berghuis, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 751 Fed. Appx. 885.
No. 19–5385. Rodgers v. McDaniel et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5386. Sussman v. Florida Department of Correc-
tions. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 264 So. 3d 123.
No. 19–5387. Browne v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 251.
No. 19–5388. Edwards v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 702.
No. 19–5389. Barteaux v. Premo, Superintendent, Ore-
gon State Penitentiary. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5393. Eiermann v. Bowers et al. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5394. Bell v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 7 Cal. 5th 70, 439 P. 3d 1102.
No. 19–5396. Anzalone v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 1.
No. 19–5397. Donelson v. Tanner et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 573.
No. 19–5398. Williams v. United States et al. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied.

998 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5399. Williams v. United States et al. C. A. 2d
Cir
. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5400. Alston v. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc., dba
Luvel. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770
Fed. Appx. 247.
No. 19–5401. Lewis v. United States; and Young v. United
States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5402. Mason v. Mason. Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 4 Wash. App. 2d 1063.
No. 19–5403. Charriez-Rolon v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 45.
No. 19–5404. Hoff v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 8. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5406. Coleman v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5407. Delgado v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 144.
No. 19–5408. Daniels v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5409. Daniel v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5411. Keshler v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 169.
No. 19–5412. McKenzie v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 333.
No. 19–5414. Whitley v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5415. Williams v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5416. Wilson v. Apex Reporting Group, Inc., et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 999
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5418. Brown v. Deal, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5419. Wiggins v. Pearson, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 166.
No. 19–5420. Terrell v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5422. Webb v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 633 Fed. Appx. 627.
No. 19–5425. Riley v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 735 Fed. Appx. 89.
No. 19–5426. Stansberry v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5427. Reaves v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5431. Cherry v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 1126.
No. 19–5432. Beltowski v. Brewer, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 218.
No. 19–5434. Gordillo v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 1292.
No. 19–5435. Eason v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5441. Mercado v. Sorey, Warden, et al. Dist. Ct.
App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 272
So. 3d 751.
No. 19–5444. Moorehead v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 963.
No. 19–5446. Balint v. Santoro, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 722.
No. 19–5447. Botello, aka Botello-Alanis, aka Garcia v.
United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 769 Fed. Appx. 147.
No. 19–5448. Torres Abonza v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 165.

1000 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5449. Shelley v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 657.
No. 19–5450. Suarez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 174.
No. 19–5453. Revelo Salcedo v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 193.
No. 19–5455. Rios-Garza v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 186.
No. 19–5463. Dean v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5464. Ciavarella v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 855.
No. 19–5465. Campos v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 749 Fed. Appx. 555.
No. 19–5466. Farrell v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 116.
No. 19–5469. Fish v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 91.
No. 19 – 5472. Avalos-Rico, aka Blanco-Garcia, aka
Cruz-Tulum, aka Tamayo v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 571.
No. 19–5474. Carlson v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 400.
No. 19–5479. Hayes v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 318.
No. 19–5481. Williams v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 73.
No. 19–5483. McAdams v. Washington. Ct. App. Wash.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5486. Williams v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5498. Page v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.

ORDERS 1001
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5500. Woolls v. Virginia. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 154.
No. 19 – 5505. Hernandez-Carbajal v. United States.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed.
Appx. 43.
No. 19–5508. Powell v. Medical Department Cuyahoga
County Correctional Center et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5509. Harrison v. Maldonado. C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 752 Fed. Appx. 6.
No. 19–5510. Fortune v. Virginia. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 749 Fed. Appx. 200.
No. 19–5513. Head v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5515. Sanders v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5516. Robertson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5521. Cox v. Nevada. Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 135 Nev. 632, 441 P. 3d 83.
No. 19–5522. Marius v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5523. Maldonado Aguilar v. United States. C. A.
8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5524. Tong Lor v. Jackson, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5527. Munir v. Rhode Island. Sup. Ct. R. I. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 209 A. 3d 545.
No. 19–5528. Chester v. West Virginia. Sup. Ct. App.
W. Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5529. Dotstry v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 745 Fed. Appx. 662.
No. 19–5530. Lyons v. Winn, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.

1002 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5531. Reinwand v. National Electrical Benet
Fund
. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756
Fed. Appx. 638.
No. 19–5532. Sparrow v. Washburn, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5536. Seay v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 739 Fed. Appx. 193.
No. 19–5538. Burns v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 187.
No. 19–5540. Wright v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 5541. Canada v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co.
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766
Fed. Appx. 74.
No. 19–5543. Mathis v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5548. Thomas v. Woods, Warden, et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5549. Collins v. Lara, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 106.
No. 19–5550. Duncan v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 604.
No. 19–5551. MacDonald v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 911 F. 3d 723.
No. 19–5554. Soto v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 544 and 769 Fed.
Appx. 519.
No. 19–5556. Lewis v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5562. Kouyate v. United States Customs and
Border Protection. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5566. Miller v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.

ORDERS 1003
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5567. Neely v. Georgia Department of Human Re-
sources.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
745 Fed. Appx. 890.
No. 19–5569. Brown v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 200 A. 3d 567.
No. 19–5571. Garcia-Garcia v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 231.
No. 19–5577. Salcedo v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 172.
No. 19–5578. Shands v. South Carolina. Ct. App. S. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 424 S. C. 106, 817 S. E. 2d
524.
No. 19–5581. Stephens v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 89.
No. 19–5586. Morales v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5588. Ordonez-Vega v. United States. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 908 F. 3d 920.
No. 19–5589. Porch v. Watson, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 198.
No. 19–5595. Malachowski v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5597. Lord v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 1009.
No. 19–5598. Bigelow, aka Gore v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5600. Tello v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 782.
No. 19–5603. Javier Aleman v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5605. Macomber v. Kansas. Sup. Ct. Kan. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 309 Kan. 907, 441 P. 3d 479.
No. 19–5609. Chin et al. v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 209 A. 3d 71.

1004 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5611. Howze v. California Department of Cor-
rections
and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 399.
No. 19–5613. Samayoa-Castillo v. United States. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx.
846.
No. 19–5614. Ricks v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 841.
No. 19–5618. Singletary v. Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19 – 5622. Lopez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5624. Hicks v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 357.
No. 19–5629. Shabazz, fka Singer v. United States. C. A.
2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 73.
No. 19–5630. Stolden v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5631. Fernandez v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 52.
No. 19–5634. Marquez v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 744 Fed. Appx. 337.
No. 19–5635. Greer v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5636. Garcia v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5641. Gordon v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 754.
No. 19–5642. Brown et al. v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 581.
No. 19–5646. Caputo v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 400.
No. 19–5647. Door v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 1146.

ORDERS 1005
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5648. Murray v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment
of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5654. Brooks v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 670.
No. 19–5661. Robinson v. Warden, Federal Correctional
Institution, Fort Dix, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5663. Robinson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 338.
No. 19–5666. Day v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 155.
No. 19–5667. Blodgett v. Gaffney, Superintendent, Old
Colony Correctional Center. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.
No. 19–5668. Ellis v. Barlow-Hust, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5669. Davis v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5670. James v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 700.
No. 19–5673. Calo v. Chambers-Smith, Director, Ohio De-
partment of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al. Sup.
Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 157 Ohio St. 3d
16, 2019-Ohio-1962, 131 N. E. 3d 16.
No. 19–5675. Whitaker v. Premo, Superintendent, Ore-
gon State Penitentiary. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5679. Delgado v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5683. Legall v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5685. Moore v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 11.
No. 19–5686. Payne v. United States. Ct. App. D. C. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 207 A. 3d 178.

1006 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5689. Calhoun v. Villa et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 297.
No. 19–5691. Carpenter v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 1172 and 772 Fed.
Appx. 419.
No. 19–5695. Hudson v. Bradley, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 494.
No. 19–5698. Orozco v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 32 Cal. App.
5th 802, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 337.
No. 19–5700. Brito-Tejeda v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5701. Masson v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 268 So. 3d 133.
No. 19–5706. Armistead v. Watson et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 293.
No. 19–5710. Ezeobi v. Jamison, Warden. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 106.
No. 19–5711. Fritsche v. Legrand, Warden, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5717. Brown v. Macomber, Warden, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 749.
No. 19–5718. Salazar v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 697.
No. 19–5722. Shepard v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5728. Hardy v. Santoro, Acting Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 621.
No. 19–5730. Lynde v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 275.
No. 19–5732. Luque-Rodriguez v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 578.
No. 19–5738. Perez-Crisostomo v. United States. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 899 F. 3d 73.

ORDERS 1007
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19–5743. Hegwood v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 414.
No. 19–5750. Okafor v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5751. Massengill v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 342.
No. 19–5753. Bell v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 750 Fed. Appx. 941.
No. 18–1044. PharMerica Corp. v. United States ex rel.
Silver. C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America et al. for leave to fle brief as amici
curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 903 F. 3d 78.
No. 18–1207. In re Twelve Grand Jury Subpoenas. C. A.
9th Cir. Motion for leave to fle brief in opposition under seal
with redacted copies for the public record granted. Motion for
leave to fle reply brief under seal with redacted copies for the
public record granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 908
F. 3d 525.
No. 18–1306. Anderson v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 257 So. 3d 355.
Justice Sotomayor, dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Reynolds v. Florida, 586
U. S. 1004, 1011 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial
of certiorari).
No. 18–1320. Baker, Warden v. Turner. C. A. 9th Cir.
Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 1236.
No. 18–1338. United States v. Simms. C. A. 4th Cir. Mo-
tion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 914 F. 3d 229.
No. 18–1346. Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition. Reported below: 914 F. 3d 480.
No. 18–1368. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. California
Public Utilities Commission. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist.,

1008 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
Div. 1. Motions of Southern California Edison Company, Edison
Elec
tric Institute, and Shareholders in California Investor-Owned
Utilities for leave to fle briefs as amici curiae granted. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–1398. Ashbourne v. Hansberry et al. C. A. D. C.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in
the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below:
894 F. 3d 298.
No. 18–1431. Frank G. v. Renee P.-F. et al. App. Div., Sup.
Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Motions of New Yorkers for Constitu-
tional Freedoms et al., Marriage Law Foundation, Adam J. Mac-
Leod, and Them Before Us for leave to fle briefs as amici curiae
granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 161 App. Div. 3d
1163, 79 N. Y. S. 3d 45.
No. 18–1434. United States v. Lovo et al. C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 898
F. 3d 36.
No. 18 –1503. Nagel Rice, LLP, et al. v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or deci-
sion of this petition. Reported below: 914 F. 3d 623.
No. 18–9187. Brooks v. Hanson, Warden, et al. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the
consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 741
Fed. Appx. 599.
No. 18–9203. Thomas v. Court of Common Pleas of Penn-
sylvania, Union County. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of
this petition. Reported below: 755 Fed. Appx. 98.
No. 18–9327. Brown v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition. Reported below: 752 Fed.
Appx. 108.
No. 18–9389. Shields v. Klein. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari be-
fore judgment denied.

ORDERS 1009
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 18–9417. Lay v. United States et al. C. A. 10th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition.
No. 18–9490. Brown v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 140.
No. 18–9536. Gieswein v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition. Reported below: 765 Fed.
Appx. 418.
No. 18–9653. Ricks 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: 756 Fed. Appx. 488.
No. 18–9783. Ghelichkhani v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 740 Fed.
Appx. 978.
No. 18–9842. Gonzalez v. Hanson, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition. Reported below: 747 Fed.
Appx. 244.
No. 19–8. McDonald v. Federal Communications Commis-
sion et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.
No. 19–54. Givens et al. v. Mountain Valley Pipeline,
LLC. C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of Niskanen Center for leave to
fle brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 915 F. 3d 197.
No. 19–81. Rader et vir v. Citibank, N. A., et al. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Gorsuch took no part in
the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below:
766 Fed. Appx. 632.
No. 19–83. Ogunsula v. Stafng Now, Inc. C. A. D. C.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in
the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below:
736 Fed. Appx. 1.

1010 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–90. Lexington H–L Services, Inc., dba Lexington
Herald
Leader v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov-
ernment. C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of CNHI, LLC, et al. for leave
to fle brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 920 F. 3d 1126.
No. 19–129. Feinberg et al. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Gor-
such took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Reported below: 916 F. 3d 1330.
No. 19–325. Columbian Financial Corp. v. Kemp, Bank
Commissioner of Kansas, et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or
decision of this petition. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 847.
No. 19–5024. Thrower 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: 914
F. 3d 770.
No. 19–5035. James v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari before judgment denied.
No. 19–5036. Toaz v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.
No. 19–5193. Burrs v. United Technologies Corp. et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer and Justice
Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this peti-
tion. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 97.
No. 19–5220. Medina-Villegas v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition.
No. 19–5405. Williams v. United States et al. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.
No. 19–5468. Glass v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari before judgment denied.
No. 19–5499. Thompson v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.

ORDERS 1011
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 7, 2019
No. 19 – 5517. Sanders v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC.
C
. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer took no part
in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below:
764 Fed. Appx. 294.
No. 19–5608. Cantu v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.
No. 19–5754. Brown v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 1200.
Rehearing Denied
No. 18–1281. Milliman v. Randall, 587 U. S. 1052;
No. 18–1340. Fowler v. Utah et al., 588 U. S. 908;
No. 18–7277. McGee v. McFadden, Warden, 588 U. S. 923;
No. 18–7300. Millis v. Kallis, Warden, 586 U. S. 1168;
No. 18–7785. Derringer v. Saenz, 587 U. S. 942;
No. 18–8173. Herrera v. Price, 587 U. S. 948;
No. 18–8462. Truesdale v. Florida et al., 587 U. S. 1017;
No. 18–8735. Meyers v. Swiney et al., 587 U. S. 1044;
No. 18–8745. Piccone v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,
587 U. S. 1044;
No. 18–8802. Vernon, aka Mims v. Davis, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institu-
tions Division, 587 U. S. 1065;
No. 18–8806. Dutton v. McCrea, 587 U. S. 1065;
No. 18–8835. Davis v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 587 U. S.
1066;
No. 18–8874. White, aka Braithwaite, aka Valentine,
aka Brown v. United States, 587 U. S. 1032;
No. 18–8906. Wilson v. Russell et al., 587 U. S. 1067;
No. 18–8925. Cooks v. Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, et al., 588 U. S. 911;
No. 18–8927. Gillard v. Illinois, 588 U. S. 911;
No. 18–8945. Black v. Life Unlimited, Inc., 588 U. S. 912;
No. 18–8973. Johnson v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections, 588 U. S. 912;
No. 18–9054. Forquer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., 588
U. S. 913;
No. 18–9258. Shaw v. United States, 587 U. S. 1069;
No. 18–9388. In re Randall, 587 U. S. 1062; and

1012 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 7, 8, 15, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9476. In re Anderson, 588 U. S. 904. Petitions for
rehear
ing denied.
No. 18–1275. Xiaohua Huang v. Huawei Technologies Co.,
Ltd., 587 U. S. 1016. Motion for leave to fle petition for rehear-
ing denied.
October 8, 2019
Miscellaneous Order
No. 19A335. Rams Football Co., LLC, et al. v. St. Louis
Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority
et al. Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Application for stay, pre-
sented to Justice Gorsuch, and by him referred to the Court,
denied.
October 15, 2019
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 17–664. Petroleo Brasileiro S. A.-Petrobras et al.
v. Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd. et al. C. A.
2d Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46.1. Re-
ported below: 862 F. 3d 250.
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 19–5014. Donate-Cardona v. United States. C. A. 3d
Cir. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 748;
No. 19–5025. Thomas v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 758;
No. 19–5027. Cox v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Re-
ported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 423;
No. 19–5383. Stacy v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Re-
ported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 956;
No. 19–5456. McCants v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Reported below: 920 F. 3d 169;
No. 19–5565. Miguel Perez v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 791; and
No. 19–5572. Atkinson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 174. Motions of petitioners for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted,
judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration
in light of Rehaif v. United States, 588 U. S. 225 (2019).

ORDERS 1013
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 15, 2019
Certiorari Dismissed
N
o. 19–5520. Watson v. Stewart 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.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 19M52. Goynes v. Nebraska. Motion for leave to fle
petition for writ of certiorari with supplemental appendix under
seal granted.
No. 19M53. Parron v. Herbert et al.; and
No. 19M55. Pittman v. DAL Global Services et al. Mo-
tions to direct the Clerk to fle petitions for writs of certiorari
out of time denied.
No. 19M54. Doe et al. v. Federal Election Commission.
Motion for leave to fle petition for writ of certiorari under seal
with redacted copies for the public record granted.
No. 17–1678. Hernandez et al. v. Mesa. C. A. 5th Cir.
[Certiorari granted, 587 U. S. 1025.] Motion of the Solicitor Gen-
eral for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae
and for divided argument granted.
No. 18–280. New York State Rie & Pistol Assn., Inc.,
et al. v. City of New York, New York, et al. C. A. 2d
Cir. [Certiorari granted, 586 U. S. 1126.] Motion of the Solicitor
General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus cu-
riae and for divided argument granted. Motion of Neal Goldfarb
for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and
for divided argument denied.
No. 18–565. CITGO Asphalt Rening Co. et al. v. Fres-
cati Shipping Co., Ltd., et al. C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari
granted, 587 U. S. 960.] Motion of the Solicitor General for di-
vided argument granted.
No. 18–587. Department of Homeland Security et al.
v. Regents of the University of California et al. C. A.
9th Cir.;
No. 18–588. Trump, President of the United States,
et al. v. National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People et al. C. A. D. C. Cir.; and

1014 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 15, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–589. McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security
, et al. v. Batalla Vidal et al. C. A. 2d Cir. [Cer-
tiorari granted, 588 U. S. 919.] Joint motion of respondents for
enlargement of time for oral argument and for divided argument
granted in part, and the time is divided as follows: 30 minutes
for the Solicitor General, 15 minutes for private respondents and
15 minutes for state respondents. Motion of Texas et al. for
enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in
oral argument as amici curiae, and for divided argument denied.
No. 18–1165. Retirement Plans Committee of IBM et al.
v. Jander et al. C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 587 U. S.
1039.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in
oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument
granted.
No. 18–1171. Comcast Corp. v. National Association of
African American-Owned Media et al. C. A. 9th Cir. [Cer-
tiorari granted, 587 U. S. 1051.] Motion of the Solicitor General
for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and
for divided argument granted.
No. 18–1401. Peterson v. Linear Controls, Inc. C. A. 5th
Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to fle a brief in this case
expressing the views of the United States.
No. 19–5943. In re Smith;
No. 19–5964. In re Carter; and
No. 19–6014. In re Comier. Petitions for writs of habeas
corpus denied.
No. 19–171. In re Finnegan; and
No. 19–5627. In re Raghubir. Petitions for writs of manda-
mus denied.
No. 19–5626. In re Raghubir. Petition for writ of manda-
mus and/or prohibition denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 18–1162. Swaney et al. v. Lopez (Reported below: 741
Fed. Appx. 486); and Swaney et al. v. Montijo (754 Fed. Appx.
522). C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1203. Courthouse News Service v. Brown, Clerk,
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 908 F. 3d 1063.

ORDERS 1015
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 15, 2019
No. 18–1276. Levert v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 932.
No. 18–1438. Wood v. Arnold et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 308.
No. 18–1531. South Carolina v. United States et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 720.
No. 18–1534. Harrington et al. v. Saul, Commissioner of
Social Security. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 906 F. 3d 561.
No. 18–1545. Guerin v. Fowler et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 899 F. 3d 1112.
No. 18–8739. Lopez v. Massachusetts. App. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 93 Mass. App. 1121, 110 N. E.
3d 1218.
No. 18–8826. Miller v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 752 Fed. Appx. 51.
No. 18–9273. Wardlow v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
750 Fed. Appx. 374.
No. 18–9277. Morman v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9343. Ziglar v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 886.
No. 18–9359. Diaz v. New York. Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 33 N. Y. 3d 92, 122 N. E. 3d 61.
No. 18–9360. Veliz v. Flournoy, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9399. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 991.
No. 18–9564. Suniga v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9736. Kinney v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 8th App. Dist.,
Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019-
Ohio-629.

1016 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 15, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–30. Spencer v. Virginia State University et al.
C
. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 199.
No. 19–41. Tucker et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
766 Fed. Appx. 132.
No. 19–42. North Carolina Utilities Commission v. Fed-
eral Energy Regulatory Commission. C. A. D. C. Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 9.
No. 19 –147. Mason v. Paramo, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–155. Johnson v. Winfrey. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 66.
No. 19–163. Norton v. Colgate Palmolive Co. Sup. Ct.
N. J. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 236 N. J. 27, 197 A.
3d 660.
No. 19–165. Morgan v. Morgan. Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 193 A. 3d 999.
No. 19–166. Rosenwasser v. Fordham University et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed.
Appx. 1.
No. 19–167. Suppes v. Curators of the University of Mis-
souri. Ct. App. Mo., Western Dist. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 583 S. W. 3d 49.
No. 19–174. Rich, Representative for Depuis-Mays, an
Incapacitated Person v. Palko et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 288.
No. 19–176. Weisskopf v. Jewish Agency for Israel et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 709.
No. 19–187. Muhammad v. AT&T, Inc., et al. Sup. Ct. Ala.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–188. Okorie v. Crawford et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 430.
No. 19–189. Christian-Hart v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.
Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1017
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 15, 2019
No. 19–190. McLaughlin v. National Elevator Industry
Heal
th Benet Plan Board of Trustees. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 671.
No. 19–195. Snyder v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–198. Budri v. Department of Labor, Administra-
tive Review Board. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer ti orar i denied.
Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 431.
No. 19–212. Williams v. Succession of Houston. Ct. App.
La., 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 52,181 (La.
App. 2 Cir. 8/15/18), 253 So. 3d 836.
No. 19 – 219. Demarest v. HSBC Bank USA, N. A., as
Trustee for the Registered Holders of Nomura Home
Equity Loan, Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 920 F. 3d 1223.
No. 19–244. Isaacson/ Weaver Family Trust v. Fresno
County Employees’ Retirement Association et al. C. A.
2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d 63.
No. 19–249. Lampkin et al. v. UBS Financial Services,
Inc., fka UBS Painewebber, Inc., et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d 727.
No. 19–260. Lue v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al. C. A.
2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 7.
No. 19–261. Waltner et al. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
748 Fed. Appx. 162.
No. 19–271. Stouffer et al. v. Union Pacic Railroad
Co. Ct. App. Tex., 11th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 530 S. W. 3d 782.
No. 19–301. Republic of Kazakhstan v. Stati et al. C. A.
D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx.
627.
No. 19–310. Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. Kardashian et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d
704.

1018 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 15, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–313. Venckiene v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 843.
No. 19–321. Mills v. City of Covina, California, et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d
1161.
No. 19–322. Medical Center at Elizabeth Place, LLC v.
Atrium Health System et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 713.
No. 19–323. Schneider v. Commissioner of Internal Rev-
enue. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–326. Mitchell et al. v. City of New York et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 749 Fed.
Appx. 75.
No. 19–327. Hairston v. Ohio et al. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 156 Ohio St. 3d 363, 2019-Ohio-
1622, 126 N. E. 3d 1132.
No. 19–328. Brennan v. White County, Arkansas. Ct.
App. Ark. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 Ark. App.
146, 573 S. W. 3d 577.
No. 19–336. Hill v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed.
Appx. 277.
No. 19–341. Pacheco et al. v. Honeywell International
Inc. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 918
F. 3d 961.
No. 19 – 5298. Simpson v. Carpenter, Interim Warden.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d
542.
No. 19–5413. Rooney v. Georgia. Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5423. Carr v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19 – 5424. Sullivan v. City of Missoula, Montana.
Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1019
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 15, 2019
No. 19–5428. Duckett v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5438. Meders v. Ford, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 911 F. 3d 1335.
No. 19–5439. Strachan v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.
No. 19–5440. McCollum v. Peterkin et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 69.
No. 19–5442. Phillips-Berry v. Kenner Police Depart-
ment et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 748 Fed. Appx. 633.
No. 19–5443. Vu Phan v. Jackson, Judge. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 630.
No. 19–5454. Scott v. Carlson et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 136.
No. 19–5459. Carter v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5461. Pierce v. Garrett et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 333.
No. 19–5462. Pettaway v. Clark, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Albion. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5467. Murray v. Collins et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5470. Holloway v. Michigan. Sup. Ct. Mich. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 503 Mich. 889, 918 N. W. 2d
811.
No. 19–5471. J. A. M. v. New Jersey. Super. Ct. N. J., App.
Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5473. Benzant v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

1020 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 15, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5475. Taebel v. Maricopa County Attorney’s Of-

ce et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5476. Williams v. American Airlines, Inc., et al.
Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Div. 4. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5477. Waugh v. MedStar Georgetown University
Hospital. Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
203 A. 3d 784.
No. 19–5482. Jefferson v. OneWest Bank, FSB. Super. Ct.
N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5484. Murphy v. Asuncion, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 788.
No. 19–5485. Thrasher v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5488. Jackson v. Barla et al. Sup. Ct. Del. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 210 A. 3d 687.
No. 19–5492. Washington v. Saad, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5494. Iskander v. Borders, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5495. Gray v. Bryant, Governor of Mississippi,
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5502. Anderson v. Strode et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5503. Gill v. Mercy College et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 128.
No. 19 – 5506. Fisher v. Doe. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.
No. 19–5507. Fennell v. Munger et al. Ct. App. Cal., 1st
App. Dist., Div. 4. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5511. Hill v. Jassen et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5518. Sayyed v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1021
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 15, 2019
No. 19–5525. Jacobs v. Atlanta Police Department et al.
C
. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 5533. de Sabrevois, aka Alexander v. Perry
et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5534. Royster v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5537. Escobedo v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5542. Maloy v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5544. Thompson v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5545. Wheeler v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5546. Yates v. Harper. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 746 Fed. Appx. 255.
No. 19–5547. Williams v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5552. Sutton v. Nevada. Ct. App. Nev. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 135 Nev. 724.
No. 19–5555. Lacey v. Gomez, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5557. English v. Campagnolo, Individually and in
His Ofcial Capacity as Judge of the Maricopa County
Superior Court, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 747 Fed. Appx. 653.
No. 19–5558. Johnson v. Correct Care Solutions et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed.
Appx. 343.
No. 19–5560. Davis v. United States et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 412.
No. 19–5564. Benjamin v. Thomas. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 834.

1022 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 15, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5573. Whitehead v. Marcantel et al. C. A. 10th
Cir
. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 691.
No. 19–5576. Taylor v. Brown, Superintendent, Wabash
Valley Correctional Facility. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5583. Ryzhov v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5584. Simmons v. Grissom et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5585. Cutts v. New York. Sup. Ct. N. Y., New York
County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 62 Misc. 3d 411, 88
N. Y. S. 3d 332.
No. 19–5590. Spence v. McGinley, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Coal Township, et al. C. A.
3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5591. Saintcalle v. Uttecht, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 424.
No. 19–5593. Swisher v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
758 Fed. Appx. 939.
No. 19–5594. Davis v. Texas Children’s Hospital. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 381.
No. 19–5599. Gillard v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (1st) 173036–U.
No. 19–5602. McBride v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5604. Bellon v. Neven, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 856.
No. 19–5606. Enow v. Foxwell, Warden, et al. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 744 Fed. Appx. 186.
No. 19–5607. Summers v. Wetzel, Secretary, Pennsylva-
nia Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.

ORDERS 1023
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 15, 2019
No. 19–5610. Felton v. Goguen, Superintendent, North
Central
Correctional Institution. C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5612. Isbel v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5616. Rope v. Facebook, Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5619. German v. Goodwin, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5620. Hyde v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (1st) 152644.
No. 19–5621. Green v. Barr, Attorney General, et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 744 Fed.
Appx. 802.
No. 19–5625. Jones v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5655. Barner v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (3d) 160023–U.
No. 19–5656. Mena v. Ndoh, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 339.
No. 19–5657. Rogero et al. v. Azar, Secretary of Health
and Human Services. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 996.
No. 19–5658. Burgie v. Arkansas. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2019 Ark. 77.
No. 19–5681. Person v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 222.
No. 19–5688. L. D. R., a Minor, by His Mother and Guard-
ian, Wagner v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d
1146.
No. 19–5690. DiSanto v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 962.

1024 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 15, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5702. Walker v. Green Bay Correctional Institu-
tion
Health Services Unit et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5705. Curtis v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5714. Carter v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 300.
No. 19–5729. Flowers v. Foulk, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 1019.
No. 19–5731. Mesa Madueno v. California. Ct. App. Cal.,
5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5739. Pope v. Frakes, Director, Nebraska De-
partment of Correctional Services. Dist. Ct. Neb., Lancas-
ter County. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5741. Saldana-Reyes v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 891.
No. 19–5742. Rand v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 758 Fed. Appx. 596.
No. 19–5744. Smith v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d 410.
No. 19–5746. Grifth v. New York. Ct. App. N. Y. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 32 N. Y. 3d 1196, 119 N. E. 3d
787.
No. 19–5747. Gibson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5757. Flete-Garcia v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d 17.
No. 19–5758. Hanson v. Wisconsin. Sup. Ct. Wis. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2019 WI 63, 387 Wis. 2d 233, 928
N. W. 2d 607.
No. 19–5759. Jenkins v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 335.
No. 19–5761. Martin v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 327.

ORDERS 1025
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 15, 2019
No. 19–5766. Tham Bui v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 6th
App
. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5767. Bailey v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 1289.
No. 19–5770. Banks v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 814.
No. 19–5771. Haensgen v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 284.
No. 19–5772. Saldivar Gutierrez v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 363.
No. 19–5774. Neiss v. Montana. Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 396 Mont. 1, 443 P. 3d 435.
No. 19–5777. Ross v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 552.
No. 19–5778. Smadi v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5780. Robinson v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5781. Cha v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 435.
No. 19–5782. Christian v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d 305.
No. 19–5785. Zapata-Dominguez v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx.
549.
No. 19–5788. Nunley v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 554.
No. 19–5791. Jackson v. Laughlin, Warden, et al. Sup.
Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5793. Alexander v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5794. Young v. Quintana, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

1026 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 15, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5795. Lickers v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 609.
No. 19–5798. Davis v. John Hancock Mutual Funds Ac-
counts. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5801. Chiles v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 31.
No. 19–5808. Donahue v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 195 A. 3d 1018.
No. 19–5810. Lopez DeJesus v. Premo, Superintendent,
Oregon State Penitentiary. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 775.
No. 19–5811. Edger v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 1011.
No. 19–5812. Pastor v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 162.
No. 19–5813. Plaza-Montecillo v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 84.
No. 19–5814. Mesta v. Myrick. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 1032.
No. 19–5816. Maalouf v. Praetorian Insurance Co. Ct.
App. Nev. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 134 Nev. 975.
No. 19–5818. Riley v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 200.
No. 19–5819. Rathburn v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 614.
No. 19–5822. Tuttle v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5825. Garcia-Zavala v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 108.
No. 19– 5831. Davis v. Illinois. Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5833. Copeland v. Kansas. Ct. App. Kan. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 56 Kan. App. 2d xxxiv, 422 P. 3d
1208.

ORDERS 1027
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 15, 2019
No. 19 – 5835. Martinez-Hernandez et al. v. United
St
ates. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932
F. 3d 1198.
No. 19–5837. Mollica v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5838. Smith v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 91.
No. 19–5842. Spencer v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19 – 5844. Ros s v. Myrick, Superintendent, Two
Rivers Correctional Institution, et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5847. White v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 10th App. Dist.,
Franklin County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2017-
Ohio-810, 85 N. E. 3d 1170.
No. 19–5853. Tkhilaishvili v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 1.
No. 19–5854. Davis v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. Sup.
Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5856. Villarreal Heredia v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 758 Fed. Appx. 625.
No. 19–5857. Flom v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 27.
No. 19–5861. Saine v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5866. Loera v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 907.
No. 19–5870. Crawford v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 563.
No. 19–5871. Jones v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5872. Wentzel v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

1028 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 15, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5874. Kirkland v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5876. Dressler v. Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Ra-
cine County. Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5877. Faulkner v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 266.
No. 19–5878. Jackson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 400.
No. 19–5880. Larson v. Pacheco, Warden. Sup. Ct. Wyo.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5883. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 920.
No. 19–5884. Carson v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 467.
No. 19–5888. Tkhilaishvili v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 1.
No. 19–5890. Cabral-Varela v. Massachusetts. App. Ct.
Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 95 Mass. App. 1102,
124 N. E. 3d 158.
No. 19–5891. Island v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 916 F. 3d 249.
No. 19 – 5895. Eady v. Massachuset ts. App. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 95 Mass. App. 1116, 125 N. E.
3d 802.
No. 19–5897. Lema Nogales v. United States. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 747 Fed. Appx. 182.
No. 19–5909. Talman v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 268 So. 3d 705.
No. 19–5918. Thomas v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5922. Munoz, aka Munoz Ruiz v. United States.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed.
Appx. 119.

ORDERS 1029
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 15, 2019
No. 19–5931. Allen v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 203 A. 3d 343.
No. 19–5938. Beckman v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5941. Cha v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 254.
No. 19–5944. Scott v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5953. Juan Vallejo v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 129.
No. 19–5961. Whitehead v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 755.
No. 19–5975. Tull-Abreu v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 294.
No. 19–5983. Llamas-Delgado v. United States. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 702.
No. 19–6008. Tippens v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 383.
No. 18–1509. Department of Homeland Security et al.
v. Ibrahim. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to fle reply brief
under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.
Certiorari denied. Justice Alito would grant the petition for
writ of certiorari. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this motion and this petition. Reported
below: 912 F. 3d 1147.
No. 18–1522. Doe v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion
for leave to fle brief in opposition under seal with redacted copies
for the public record granted. Motion for leave to fle reply brief
under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 747 Fed. Appx. 575.
No. 19–275. Schultz v. Roberts, Chief Justice, Supreme
Court of the United States, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. The Chief Justice took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition. Reported below: 740 Fed.
Appx. 628.

1030 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 15, 17, 18, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5796. Beltran Leyva v. United States. C. A. D. C.
Cir
. Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in
the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below:
916 F. 3d 14.
No. 19–5911. Butts v. Wilson, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition. Reported below: 772 Fed.
Appx. 56.
No. 19–5928. Santiago 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. 18–7647. Smith et vir v. Manasquan Savings Bank,
587 U. S. 1041;
No. 18–8422. Young v. Alabama, 587 U. S. 992; and
No. 18–9038. Peters v. Illinois, 587 U. S. 1067. Petitions
for rehearing denied.
No. 18–277. Bhagat v. Iancu, Director, United States
Patent and Trademark Ofce, 586 U. S. 981. Motion for
leave to fle petition for rehearing denied.
October 17, 2019
Dismissals Under Rule 46
No. 18–1211. NuStar Energy Services, Inc. v. ING Bank
N. V. et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this
Court's Rule 46. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 245.
No. 18–1224. NuStar Energy Services, Inc. v. ING Bank
N. V. et al. (two judgments). C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 911 F. 3d 646 (frst judgment); 745 Fed. Appx.
414 (second judgment).
October 18, 2019
Certiorari Granted
No. 18 –1432. Nasrallah v. Barr, At torney General.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 762 Fed.
Appx. 638.
No. 19–161. Department of Homeland Security et al. v.
Thuraissigiam. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported
below: 917 F. 3d 1097.

ORDERS 1031
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 18, 21, 2019
No. 18–8369. Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez et al. C. A. 10th
Cir
. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari granted limited to the following question:
“Does a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim
count as a strike under 28 U. S. C. § 1915(g)?” Reported below:
754 Fed. Appx. 756.
No. 19–7. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protec-
tion Bureau. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of United States House of
Representatives for leave to fle brief as amicus curiae out of
time granted. Motion of Alan B. Morrison for leave to fle brief
as amicus curiae out of time granted. Certiorari granted. In
addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are
directed to brief and argue the following question: “If the Con-
sumer Financial Protection Bureau is found unconstitutional on
the basis of the separation of powers, can 12 U. S. C. § 5491(c)(3) be
severed from the Dodd-Frank [Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection] Act?” Reported below: 923 F. 3d 680.
October 21, 2019
Vacated and Remanded on Appeal
No. 19–220. Chateld et al. v. League of Women Voters
of Michigan et al. Appeal from D. C. E. D. Mich. Judgment
vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of
Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U. S. 684 (2019). Reported below:
373 F. Supp. 3d 867.
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 19–5181. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Reported below: 913 F. 3d 793;
No. 19–5217. Watkins v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.;
and
No. 19–5623. Legrier v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Re-
ported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 48. Motions of petitioners for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judg-
ments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in
light of Rehaif v. United States, 588 U. S. 225 (2019).
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 19–5971. Schmidt v. Herbert, Governor of Utah.
C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

1032 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 21, 2019 589 U. S.
pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule
39.8.
Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 596.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. D–3044. In re Disbarment of Smith. Disbarment en-
tered. [For earlier order herein, see 588 U. S. 933.]
No. 19M56. Velasquez Perez v. Diaz Palencia; and
No. 19M57. Doe v. Dardanelle School District. Motions
for leave to fle petitions for writs of certiorari with supplemental
appendixes under seal granted.
No. 19M58. Biton v. Barr, Attorney General, et al.; and
No. 19M59. Biton v. Verrilli et al. Motions to direct the
Clerk to fle petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 65, Orig. Texas v. New Mexico. Conditional motion of
Texas for review of the Special Master's 2019 fnal determination
granted. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 589 U. S. 911.]
No. 18–938. Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC.
C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 587 U. S. 1014.] Motion of
the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as
amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
No. 18–7739. Holguin-Hernandez v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 587 U. S. 1039.] Motion of the So-
licitor General for divided argument granted, and the time is
divided as follows: 15 minutes for petitioner, 15 minutes for the
Solicitor General in support of vacatur, and 30 minutes for Court-
appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below.
No. 19–5632. T. A. et al. v. Leff et al.; and Kramer et al.
v. Dane et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioners for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until
November 12, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee re-
quired by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with
Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
No. 19–421. In re Hamman;
No. 19–6066. In re Collier;
No. 19–6093. In re Stone et al.; and
No. 19–6134. In re Wimbush et ux. Petitions for writs of
habeas corpus denied.
No. 19–338. In re Appel et al. Petition for writ of manda-
mus denied.

ORDERS 1033
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 21, 2019
Certiorari Denied
N
o. 18 –1446. Sexton ex rel. Appalachian Regional
Healthcare, Inc. v. Kentucky Cabinet for Health and
Family Services et al. Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 566 S. W. 3d 185.
No. 18–1506. Martin v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 910 F. 3d 320.
No. 18–1515. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Erndergemeinschaft
UroPep GbR. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 739 Fed. Appx. 643.
No. 18–1543. Katz, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Cellco Partnership, dba Ver-
izon Wireless. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 756 Fed. Appx. 103.
No. 18–1554. Blessinger v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 752 Fed. Appx. 765.
No. 19–73. Gahagan v. Citizenship and Immigration Serv-
ices. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 911
F. 3d 298.
No. 19–75. Garner v. Colorado. Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 436 P. 3d 1107.
No. 19 –76. Marquardt, Deputy Sheriff v. Fletcher.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed.
Appx. 449.
No. 19–170. E Co. et al. v. Trustees of the Suburban
Teamsters of Northern Illinois Pension Fund. C. A. 7th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 914 F. 3d 1037.
No. 19–201. Hanson v. Allert. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App.
Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–204. Carrick v. Rice et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 749 Fed. Appx. 615.
No. 19–207. Grober et al. v. Mako Products, Inc. C. A. Fed.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 745 Fed. Appx. 159.
No. 19–210. Olaechea, aka Simmonds v. Olaechea. Dist.
Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 260
So. 3d 387.

1034 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 21, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–215. Nevels v. Piggly Wiggly Corp. et al. Ct. Civ.
App
. Ala. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 298 So. 3d 485.
No. 19 – 217. DaVinci Aircraft, Inc. v. United States
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926
F. 3d 1117.
No. 19–218. Xiu Jian Sun v. Wu Hua Jing et al. App.
Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–226. Smith v. Carusos. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–231. Perkins v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–236. Ammiyhuwd v. Pompeo, Secretary of State,
et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772
Fed. Appx. 345.
No. 19–246. Jallali v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–258. Katzin et al. v. United States. C. A. Fed.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 908 F. 3d 1350.
No. 19–262. Xiao-Ying Yu v. Neall, Secretary, Maryland
Department of Health, et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 561.
No. 19–270. Rodriguez v. LPP Mortgage Ltd., LP. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 741 Fed. Appx. 428.
No. 19 – 316. Hansen v. Salt Lake City Corporation.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed.
Appx. 770.
No. 19–334. Diamond v. United States et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 377.
No. 19–344. Qihui Huang v. Pai, Chairman of Federal
Communications Commission, et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–349. Swisher International, Inc. v. Trendsettah
USA, Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 761 Fed. Appx. 714.

ORDERS 1035
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 21, 2019
No. 19–364. Williams v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
N
o. 19–366. Lange v. Commissioner of Internal Reve-
nue. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748
Fed. Appx. 635.
No. 19–372. Jenkins et al. v. Chance et al. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 450.
No. 19–374. Byrns v. Maryland. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 240 Md. App. 724.
No. 19–419. Saulsberry v. Lee, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 644.
No. 19–5246. Rosado v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5592. Spaulding v. Ohio. Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 155 Ohio St. 3d 1455, 2019-Ohio-1759,
122 N. E. 3d 216.
No. 19– 5615. Remenar v. Remenar, nka Solberg. Ct.
App. Ore. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 294 Ore. App.
885, 431 P. 3d 105.
No. 19–5628. Rochester v. New York State Division of
Human Rights et al. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5637. Wilson v. Marion Police Department et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed.
Appx. 289.
No. 19–5639. Crawford v. Georgia. Ct. App. Ga. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5644. Cumbee v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5649. O’Brien v. Hacker-Agnew, Warden, et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 749 Fed.
Appx. 632.
No. 19–5650. Williams v. Paramo, Warden, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

1036 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 21, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19– 5660. Sanchez v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 193 A. 3d 1124.
No. 19–5664. Sheppard v. Texas (two judgments). Ct. Crim.
App. Tex. Certiorari denied.
No. 19– 5674. Teague v. Regent Financial Group, Inc.,
et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770
Fed. Appx. 770.
No. 19– 5680. Curry v. Vancouver Housing Authority
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753
Fed. Appx. 499.
No. 19–5692. Cochrun v. Dooley, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5694. Farley v. Diaz, Secretary, California De-
partment of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5696. Williams v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5703. Massey v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 121.
No. 19–5709. Newman v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2016–0842 (La. App. 4 Cir.
6/27/18), 249 So. 3d 142.
No. 19–5768. Villalona v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 272 So. 3d 1277.
No. 19–5802. Matthews v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 196 A. 3d 242.
No. 19–5840. Stuckey v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5879. Joe v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department
of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5912. Meraz Leon v. Ryan, Director, Arizona De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.

ORDERS 1037
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 21, 2019
No. 19–5913. Smith v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 273 So. 3d 942.
No. 19–5917. Castro v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5919. Carter v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018–0078 (La. App. 1 Cir.
12/17/18).
No. 19–5932. Myers v. United States. Ct. App. D. C. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 179 A. 3d 868.
No. 19–5951. Harris v. Smith, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5955. Heilman v. Blades, Warden, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5956. Apodaca v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 462.
No. 19–5959. Fergerson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 694 Fed. Appx. 685.
No. 19–5962. Tjader v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 483.
No. 19–5963. Yugopicio-Rojas v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 671.
No. 19–5969. Banks v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 132.
No. 19–5970. Razzaq v. Kansas. Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 309 Kan. 544, 439 P. 3d 903.
No. 19–5974. O’Malley v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 462.
No. 19–5976. Dedmon v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5982. Caballero De La Torre v. United States.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed.
Appx. 167.

1038 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 21, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5996. Potter v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 446.
No. 19–6018. Little v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 719.
No. 19–6019. Antonio Murillo v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 166.
No. 19–6020. Romeu v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 496.
No. 19–6021. Valles De La Rosa v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 210.
No. 19–6027. Combs v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6030. Elias v. Capozza, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 745.
No. 19–6035. Espinal-Rivera v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6052. Lee v. Florida et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6064. Cole v. Rackley, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1386. Lipschultz, Commissioner of the Minnesota
Public Utilities Commission, et al. v. Charter Advanced
Services (MN), LLC, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision
of this petition. Reported below: 903 F. 3d 715.
Justice Thomas, w ith whom Justice Gorsuch joi ns,
concurring.
Char ter Advanced Serv ices prov ides Voice over Inter net
Protocol services, which allow users to place voice calls over an
Internet connection. After the Minnesota Public Utilities Com-
mission attempted to regulate Charter's provision of these serv-
ices, Charter brought suit in federal court, arguing that the state
regulation was pre-empted. The District Court granted sum-
mary judgment to Charter. The Eighth Circuit affrmed, reason-

ORDERS 1039
1038
Thomas,
J., concurring
ing that the Federal Communications Commission's “policy of non-
reg
ulation” of these services pre-empted state law. Charter
Advanced Servs. (MN), LLC v. Lange, 903 F. 3d 715, 718 (2018)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
I agree with the Court's determination that this case does not
satisfy our criteria for certiorari. I write to explain why, in an
appropriate case, we should consider whether a federal agency's
policy can pre-empt state law.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Con-
stitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstand-
ing.” Art. VI, cl. 2.
The Clause contains a non obstante provision, a common device
used by 18th-century legislatures to signal the implied repeal of
conficting statutes. See PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U. S. 604,
621 (2011); see also Nelson, Preemption, 86 Va. L. Rev. 225, 237–
242, 245–246 (2000). At the time of the founding, this Clause
would have been understood to pre-empt state law only if the law
logically contradicted the “Constitution,” the “Laws of the United
States,” or “Treaties.” See id., at 260.
It is doubtful whether a federal policy—let alone a policy of
nonregulation—is “Law” for purposes of the Supremacy Clause.
Under our precedent, such a policy likely is not fnal agency action
because it does not mark “the consummation of the agency's deci-
sionmaking process” or determine Charter's “rights or obliga-
tions.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 177–178 (1997) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
v. Albrecht, 587 U. S. 299, 322 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring).
Even if it were fnal agency action, the Supremacy Clause “re-
quires that pre-emptive effect be given only to those federal
standards and policies that are set forth in, or necessarily follow
from, the statutory text that was produced through the constitu-
tionally required bicameral and presentment procedures.” Wyeth
v. Levine, 555 U. S. 555, 586 (2009) (Thomas, J., concurring in
judgment); see also Department of Transportation v. Associa-
tion of American Railroads, 575 U. S. 43, 86 (2015) (same)

1040 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
October 21, 22, 2019 589 U. S.
(“The Government may create generally applicable rules of pri-
vate
conduct only through the proper exercise of legislative
power”).
Giving pre-emptive effect to a federal agency policy of nonregu-
lation thus expands the power of both the Executive and the
Judiciary. It authorizes the Executive to make “Law” by declin-
ing to act, and it authorizes the courts to conduct “a freewheeling
judicial inquiry” into the facts of federal nonregulation, rather
than the constitutionally proper “inquiry into whether the ordi-
nary meanings of state and federal law confict,” Wyeth, supra, at
588 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment) (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted). Because this petition does not clearly
challenge the underlying basis of the pre-emption theory, how-
ever, I concur in the denial of certiorari.
No. 19–6. New York v. Jones. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d
Jud. Dept. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 166 App.
Div. 3d 803, 88 N. Y. S. 3d 88.
No. 19–232. New Mighty U. S. Trust et al. v. Shi, as Ex-
ecutor of the Will of Yueh-Lan Wang, et al. C. A. D. C.
Cir. Motion of Professor George A. Bermann for leave to fle
brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Justice
Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this
motion and this petition. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 944.
No. 19–274. Buchanan v. Alexander et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Motion of National Coalition Against Censorship et al. for leave to
fle brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 919 F. 3d 847.
October 22, 2019
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 18 –1498. UnitedHealth Group Inc. et al. v. Pe-
terson, on Behalf of Patient E et al., et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46.1. Reported
below: 913 F. 3d 769.
Miscellaneous Order
No. 19A368. BP P. L. C. v. Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore. D. C. Md. Application for stay, presented to The
Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Jus-

ORDERS 1041
589 U. S.
Oc
tober 22, 23, 30, November 1, 4, 2019
tice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this
appl
ication.
October 23, 2019
Miscellaneous Order
No. 19–7. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protec-
tion Bureau. C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 589 U. S.
1031.] Paul D. Clement, Esq., of Washington, D. C., is invited to
brief and argue this case as amicus curiae in support of judgment
below on the question presented by the petition.
October 30, 2019
Miscellaneous Order
No. 19A429. Bank of America Corp. et al. v. City of
Miami, Florida. C. A. 11th Cir. Application for stay, presented
to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.
November 1, 2019
Miscellaneous Order
No. 18–587. Department of Homeland Security et al.
v. Regents of the University of California et al. C. A.
9th Cir.;
No. 18 – 588. Trump, President of the United States,
et al. v. National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People et al. C. A. D. C. Cir.; and
No. 18–589. McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security, et al. v. Batalla Vidal et al. C. A. 2d Cir. [Cer-
tiorari granted, 588 U. S 919.] A total of 80 minutes is allotted
for oral argument, and the time is divided as follows: 40 minutes
for the Solicitor General, 20 minutes for private respondents, and
20 minutes for state respondents.
Certiorari Granted
No. 18–1501. Liu et al. v. Securities and Exchange Com-
mission. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below:
754 Fed. Appx. 505.
November 4, 2019
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 19–5308. Minaya v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.

1042 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 4, 2019 589 U. S.
Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for fur-
ther
consideration in light of United States v. Davis, 588 U. S.
445 (2019). Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 53.
No. 19 – 5333. Walker v. United States. C. A. 4th 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 Rehaif v. United
States, 588 U. S. 225 (2019). Reported below: 922 F. 3d 239.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 19A486. Rhines v. South Dakota Department of Cor-
rections et al. Application for stay of execution of sentence
of death, presented to Justice Gorsuch, and by him referred to
the Court, denied.
No. 19M60. Larson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, dba
Champion Mortgage Company of Texas, et al. Motion to
direct the Clerk to fle petition for writ of certiorari out of time
denied.
No. 19M61. Lamprell v. Stuckey. Motion for leave to fle
petition for writ of certiorari with supplemental appendix under
seal granted.
No. 19M62. May v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Af-
fairs. Motion to direct the Clerk to fle petition for writ of
certiorari out of time under this Court's Rule 14.5 denied.
No. 17–1498. Atlantic Richeld Co. v. Christian et al.
Sup. Ct. Mont. [Certiorari granted, 587 U. S. 1050.] Motion of
the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as
amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
No. 18–935. Monasky v. Taglieri. C. A. 6th Cir. [Certio-
rari granted, 587 U. S. 1051.] Motion of the Solicitor General for
leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for
divided argument granted.
No. 18–1150. Georgia et al. v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 588 U. S. 904.] Motion of
the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as
amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.

ORDERS 1043
589 U. S.
N
ovember 4, 2019
No. 19–5721. In re Schafer. Motion of petitioner for leave
to
proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until
November 25, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee re-
quired by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with
Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
No. 19–441. In re Patterson;
No. 19–6247. In re McDonald; and
No. 19–6251. In re Makdessi. Petitions for writs of habeas
corpus denied.
No. 19–6173. In re Kretser. Petition for writ of habeas
corpus denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.
No. 19–6479 (19A484). In re Rhines. Application for stay of
execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Gorsuch,
and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of
habeas corpus denied.
No. 19–238. In re Hotze Health Wellness Center In-
ternational One, LLC, et al. Petition for writ of manda-
mus denied.
No. 19–5684. In re Mitchell; and
No. 19–6031. In re Doyle. Petitions for writs of mandamus
and/or prohibition denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 18–963. Hill v. City of Jackson, Michigan, et al.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 751 Fed.
Appx. 772.
No. 18–1343. Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Adobe Inc.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 913 F. 3d
1342.
No. 18–1490. Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania,
Bucks County, et al. v. Piasecki. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 161.
No. 18–1500. Bell v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-
rari denied.

1044 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 4, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–1530. Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semi-
conductor
Co., Ltd. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 909 F. 3d 398.
No. 18–1565. Rogers v. SWEPI LP et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 497.
No. 18–1566. Scoville v. Securities and Exchange Com-
mission. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
913 F. 3d 1204.
No. 18–7806. Berka v. City of Middletown, Connecticut.
App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 181 Conn.
App. 159, 185 A. 3d 596.
No. 18–8951. Proctor v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 2018 Ark. 382, 562 S. W. 3d 837.
No. 18–9043. Binkholder v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 909 F. 3d 215.
No. 18–9062. King v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 749 Fed. Appx. 309.
No. 18–9407. Verduzco-Magana v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9411. Rockett v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 752 Fed. Appx. 448.
No. 18–9431. Smith v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 733 Fed. Appx. 415.
No. 18–9485. Taylor v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 158 App.
Div. 3d 1095, 72 N. Y. S. 3d 256.
No. 18–9567. De Leon v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 494.
No. 18–9571. Jones v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9648. Armstrong v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 6 Cal. 5th 735, 433 P. 3d 987.
No. 18–9664. Jones v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App.
Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1045
589 U. S.
N
ovember 4, 2019
No. 18–9791. Moreno-Pena v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir
. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 184.
No. 18–9801. Long v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 906 F. 3d 720.
No. 18–9832. Murphy v. Collier, Executive Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, et al. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 913.
No. 19–3. Begay v. New Mexico. Ct. App. N. M. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–119. Staples, Inc., et al. v. Comptroller of the
Treasury of Maryland. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–138. First State Community Action Agency v.
Robinson. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
920 F. 3d 182.
No. 19–139. Hardy v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 610.
No. 19–222. Valderas v. City of Lubbock, Texas, et al.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 384.
No. 19–230. Prade v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 9th App. Dist.,
Summit County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018-Ohio-
3551, 107 N. E. 3d 1268.
No. 19–233. Luke v. CPlace Forest Park SNF, L. L. C.,
dba Nottingham Regional Rehab Center. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 747 Fed. Appx. 978.
No. 19–237. LaFrieda et al. v. Gilbert. Sup. Ct. Nev.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 135 Nev. 674, 435 P. 3d 665.
No. 19–240. Ballard v. Ballard. Ct. App. Tenn. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–252. Booth v. Nissan North America, Inc. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 387.
No. 19–254. Shophar v. Kansas et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 723 Fed. Appx. 579.
No. 19–269. Flores v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed.
Appx. 139.

1046 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 4, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–280. Long v. Alameda Unied School District.
C
. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed.
Appx. 585.
No. 19–290. Renobato v. Bureau of the Fiscal Service.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–297. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP v. Malibu Tex-
tiles, Inc. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
922 F. 3d 946.
No. 19–298. Juarez v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–306. Cushman & Wakeeld, Inc. v. Rinsky. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 8.
No. 19–318. Bottini et al. v. City of San Diego, Califor-
nia, et al. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 27 Cal. App. 5th 281, 238 Cal. Rptr.
3d 260.
No. 19–324. Technology Properties Ltd. LLC et al. v.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 750 Fed. Appx. 1003.
No. 19–346. Madura et ux. v. BAC Home Loans Servicing,
L. P., et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 773 Fed. Appx. 1053.
No. 19–381. Rainbow Ridge Resort, LLC, et al. v. Branch
Banking & Trust Co. Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 582 S. W. 3d 221.
No. 19–393. Stein v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 828.
No. 19–394. Mejia-Duarte v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 730.
No. 19–398. LMP Services, Inc. v. City of Chicago, Illi-
nois. Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 IL
123123, 160 N. E. 3d 822.
No. 19–412. Cianchette et al. v. Cianchette et al. Sup.
Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 ME 87,
209 A. 3d 745.

ORDERS 1047
589 U. S.
N
ovember 4, 2019
No. 19–427. Brockett et al. v. Orso, as Receiver for
REX
Venture Group, LLC, dba ZeekRewards.com. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 502.
No. 19–450. Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Inc., et al. v.
Perrigo Co. et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 995.
No. 19–5010. Nelson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 917.
No. 19–5098. White v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 1195.
No. 19–5114. Rodriguez v. United States; and
No. 19–5172. Hilario-Bello v. United States. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 53.
No. 19–5312. Burke v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 746 Fed. Appx. 951.
No. 19 – 5343. Dupree v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 181.
No. 19–5392. Myrie v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5430. Jackson v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
756 Fed. Appx. 418.
No. 19–5436. Araiza-Jacobo v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 360.
No. 19–5662. Stephens v. Gomez et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 597.
No. 19–5665. Doyle v. Baughman, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5707. Narciso v. Narciso. Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 292 So. 3d 372.
No. 19–5708. Phillips v. DeKalb County Assistant Pub-
lic Defenders et al. Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5712. Vasquez v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 4th
App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.

1048 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 4, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5713. Owens v. Saddlers et al. (three judgments).
D
ist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
295 So. 3d 1166 (frst judgment); 292 So. 3d 439 (second judgment);
279 So. 3d 95 (third judgment).
No. 19–5716. Dupuy v. Unknown. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 315.
No. 19–5720. Scott v. Moon et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 138.
No. 19–5723. Thompson v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5725. Rochester v. Fortune Society. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5726. Robinson v. Raintree Tower Apartments
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5733. Boyd v. United States (Reported below: 773
Fed. App. 702); Boyd v. South Carolina et al. (773 Fed. App.
678); and Boyd v. Diangikes (773 Fed. Appx. 689). C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5734. Williams v. Millard, Former Judge, Dis-
trict Court of Texas, Harris County. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5735. Williams v. Reagin. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5736. Ahadzadah v. Superior Court of Califor-
nia, Contra Costa County. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Div.
3. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5740. Miller v. Brittain, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Frackville, et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5745. Ryan v. Connelly et al. Sup. Ct. R. I. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 206 A. 3d 127.
No. 19–5748. Mitchell v. Macy’s, Inc., et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5752. Anderson v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 7th Dist.
Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1049
589 U. S.
N
ovember 4, 2019
No. 19–5760. Toure v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
1st
Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 169 App.
Div. 3d 439, 91 N. Y. S. 3d 883.
No. 19–5762. Jackson v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 272 So. 3d 1270.
No. 19–5764. Dickens v. Illinois et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 390.
No. 19–5765. Brown v. California Department of Motor
Vehicles et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5769. Whitt v. Buckner, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5773. Kenney v. Brazelton, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5775. Soldan v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5776. Schwarz v. Meinberg et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 732.
No. 19–5779. Rodriguez-Lopez v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App.
Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 268 So. 3d
827.
No. 19–5783. Townsend v. Vasquez. Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 569 S. W. 3d 796.
No. 19–5786. Nowland v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5787. Millan-Rodriguez v. Barr, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771
Fed. Appx. 434.
No. 19–5792. Turner v. Tennessee. Sup. Ct. Tenn. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5797. Martin v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 11th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 570 S. W. 3d 426.
No. 19–5799. Coddington v. Davids, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

1050 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 4, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5800. Denson v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5803. Johnson v. Stanley, Superintendent, War-
ren Correctional Institution. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 55.
No. 19–5809. Dubry v. Kansas. Sup. Ct. Kan. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 309 Kan. 1229, 444 P. 3d 328.
No. 19–5815. Parker v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5821. Robinson v. Arizona et al. Sup. Ct. Ariz.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5823. Alston v. Eastman. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5824. Kennedy v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5826. Perez v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5827. Peluso v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5828. Ball v. City of Marion, Illinois. App. Ct.
Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5830. Danielson v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 170
App. Div. 3d 1430, 96 N. Y. S. 3d 754.
No. 19–5832. Durain v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 268 So. 3d 706.
No. 19–5834. McWaters v. Ryan, Director, Arizona De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5836. Johnson v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1051
589 U. S.
N
ovember 4, 2019
No. 19–5841. Shakouri v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
923 F. 3d 407.
No. 19–5846. Townley v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5850. Yamano v. Hawaii State Judiciary et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed.
Appx. 198.
No. 19–5851. Brown v. United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5855. Greer v. Michigan. Cir. Ct. Wayne County,
Mich. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5858. Crittenden v. Butts, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5859. Wesby v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 262 So. 3d 818.
No. 19–5860. Washington v. Davis, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5868. Burgess v. Bowers et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 238.
No. 19 – 5882. Chacon v. Nevada (Repor ted below: 135
Nev. 625); Chavez v. Nevada (135 Nev. 626); Cooper v. Gentry,
Warden (135 Nev. 631); and Salva Mercado v. Nevada (135
Nev. 686). Ct. App. Nev. Certiorari denied.
No. 19– 5898. Howell v. Southerland et al. Ct. App.
Tenn. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5900. Ison v. Brown, Superintendent, Wabash
Valley Correctional Facility. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5904. Dennis v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

1052 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 4, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5910. Carpenter v. Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certio-
rar
i denied. Reported below: 305 Ga. 725, 827 S. E. 2d 250.
No. 19–5920. Pogue v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5930. Blake v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5933. Alejandro Mendez v. California. Sup. Ct.
Cal. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 7 Cal. 5th 680, 443
P. 3d 896.
No. 19–5954. Irive v. Gentry, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 466.
No. 19–5966. Heard v. Tilden et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 985.
No. 19–5981. Truesdale v. Florida. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5986. Whitaker v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 278 So. 3d 604.
No. 19–5992. Chatman v. Demoura. C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5993. James v. Pollard, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 536.
No. 19–6029. Jeffs v. Overmyer, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Forest, et al. Sup. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6041. Thompson v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 360.
No. 19–6045. Summerhays v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6048. Pillier v. Massachusetts. App. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 95 Mass. App. 1112, 125 N. E.
3d 799.
No. 19–6049. Tyler v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.

ORDERS 1053
589 U. S.
N
ovember 4, 2019
No. 19– 6050. Vizcarrondo-Casanova v. United States.
C
. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6053. Fernandez Hano v. United States. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 1272.
No. 19–6057. Peters v. Arnold, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 389.
No. 19–6058. Philippe v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6059. Arnold v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 183.
No. 19–6060. Mathews v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 968.
No. 19–6065. Fusco v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6067. Suarez v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 542.
No. 19–6071. Morgan v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6073. Jones v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 626.
No. 19–6079. Vega-Botello v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 201.
No. 19–6081. Gillman v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6082. Matheny v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 198.
No. 19–6084. Mendoza Montoya v. United States. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx.
525.
No. 19–6088. Madero-Diaz v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 752 Fed. Appx. 537.

1054 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 4, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6137. Widmyer v. Ballard, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 324.
No. 19–6152. Owens v. Mickens, Warden, et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6154. Johnson v. Missouri. Ct. App. Mo., Western
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 576 S. W. 3d 205.
No. 19–6170. Ritterbush v. Benzon. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 483.
No. 19–211. Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al. v. Sprint
Communications Co., L. P. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision
of this petition. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 977.
No. 19–407. Miles v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 798.
No. 19–6477 (19A482). Rhines v. Young, Warden. C. A. 8th
Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, pre-
sented to Justice Gorsuch, and by him referred to the Court,
denied. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 941 F. 3d 894.
Statement of Justice Sotomayor respecting the denial of
certiorari.
In 1993, a South Dakota jury sentenced petitioner Charles
Rhines to death for murdering his co-worker. In order to assist
them in preparing a state clemency application, Rhines' federal
habeas attorneys retained medical experts to evaluate Rhines.
State offcials, as well as a state court, refused to grant the ex-
perts access to Rhines in prison. The Federal District Court
below also denied Rhines' request for access. It reasoned, among
other things, that the federal public defender statute, 18 U. S. C.
§ 3599, did not give it authority to “supervise or control a state's
clemency process” and that South Dakota did not violate Rhines'
due process rights by denying his experts access to the prison.
2018 WL 2390130, *9 (D SD, May 25, 2018).
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit did not address
the bulk of Rhines' contentions. It instead dismissed the appeal,
concluding that the expert-access issue was “either moot or . . .
not . . . fully exhausted.” 941 F. 3d 894, 896 (2019) (per curiam).
In essence, because Rhines' execution was imminent and his clem-
ency application pending before the Governor of South Dakota,

ORDERS 1055
589 U. S.
N
ovember 4, 5, 8, 2019
the court found that Rhines should have previously asked the
Gover
nor to allow his experts access to the prison—or that he
could still do so. Id., at 895–896. The Eighth Circuit reached that
conclusion even though the anticipated expert report was, in Rhines'
view, an important predicate for the clemency application itself.
It is unclear from this record whether an expert evaluation
is necessary to Rhines' clemency application. Although Rhines'
experts believed there were additional grounds for investigation—
including traumatic events that Rhines suffered earlier in his
life—Rhines, as the State notes, has already been evaluated by
several psychiatric experts in a different context. For that rea-
son, I do not dissent from the denial of certiorari. I write sepa-
rately, however, to note that this Court's denial of certiorari
does not represent an endorsement of the lower courts' opinions.
I also write separately to emphasize that clemency is not “a mat-
ter of mercy alone,” but rather is the “ `fail safe' in our criminal
justice system.” Harbison v. Bell, 556 U. S. 180, 192 (2009) (quot-
ing Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390, 415 (1993)). By closing the
prison doors in this context, a State risks rendering this funda-
mental process an empty ritual.
Rehearing Denied
No. 18–8890. Jones v. Smith, Warden, et al., 588 U. S. 911;
No. 18–8901. Jones v. Goodwin, Judge, Criminal Court
for Sullivan County, Tennessee, 588 U. S. 911;
No. 18–8972. Joiner v. Sutton, Warden, 587 U. S. 1056;
No. 18–9024. Littles v. Florida, 587 U. S. 1045;
No. 18–9389. Shields v. Klein, 589 U. S. 1008; and
No. 19–5405. Williams v. United States et al., 589 U. S.
1010. Petitions for rehearing denied.
November 5, 2019
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 19–6111. Khan v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46.1. Reported below:
928 F. 3d 1264.
November 8, 2019
Certiorari Granted
No. 19–46. United States Patent and Trademark Ofce
et al. v. Booking.com B. V. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.
Reported below: 915 F. 3d 171.

1056
November 12, 2019
C
ertiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 19–5501. Woodberry v. United States. C. A. 4th 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 Rehaif v. United
States, 588 U. S. 225 (2019). Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx.
319.
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 19–5863. Biton v. United Airlines et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 147.
No. 19–5881. Armstrong v. Virginia et al.;
No. 19–5886. Armstrong v. North Carolina et al.; and
No. 19–5887. Armstrong v. Doe. C. A. 4th Cir. Motions of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
No. 19–5984. Jones v. Bonnyman et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
No. 19–6138. White 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.
No. 19–6182. Caterbone v. United States. 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.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 18–916. Thryv, Inc., fka Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-To-
Call Technologies, LP, et al. [Certiorari granted sub nom.
Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, 588 U. S.
905.] C. A. Fed. Cir. Motion of the Solicitor General for divided
argument granted.
No. 18 –1023. Maine Community Health Options v.
United States;

ORDERS 1057
589 U. S.
N
ovember 12, 2019
No. 18–1028. Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States;
and
Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina v. United
States; and
No. 18–1038. Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance
Co. v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 588
U. S. 905.] Motion of petitioners for enlargement of time for oral
argument and for divided argument denied.
No. 18–1116. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Com-
mittee et al. v. Sulyma. C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted,
587 U. S. 1050.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to
participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided
argument granted.
No. 18–6943. Banister v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. [Cer ti orar i granted, 588 U. S. 905.]
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral
argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
No. 18–9730. Lepre v. Pennsylvania et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [589 U. S. 905] denied.
No. 18–9750. Curry v. Lopez, Associate Judge, Circuit
Court of Illinois, Cook County, et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [589 U. S. 913] denied.
No. 19–5843. Rubang v. Gallagher Bassett Services,
Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir.; and
No. 19–5958. Helm v. Hauser. Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Mo-
tions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
Petitioners are allowed until December 3, 2019, 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. 19–6317. In re Shipman. Petition for writ of habeas cor-
pus denied.
No. 19–449. In re Ezor;
No. 19–5873. In re Kaul;
No. 19–5901. In re Hamilton;

1058 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 12, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6121. In re Staszak; and
N
o. 19–6227. In re Williams. Petitions for writs of manda-
mus denied.
No. 19–6258. In re Casteel. 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. 19–6169. In re Brawner. Petition for writ of manda-
mus and/or prohibition denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 18–1139. BNSF Railway Co. v. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 902 F. 3d 916.
No. 18–1400. E. V. v. Robinson, Lieutenant Colonel, U. S.
Marine Corps, Military Judge. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 906 F. 3d 1082.
No. 18–9424. Eady v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18 – 9532. Bray v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 774.
No. 18–9692. White v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 405.
No. 18–9794. Vallejo v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–23. Rockwood Casualty Insurance Co. v. Direc-
tor, Ofce of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Depart-
ment of Labor, et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 917 F. 3d 1198.
No. 19 – 99. Northern Kentucky Area Development
District v. Snyder. Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 570 S. W. 3d 531.
No. 19 –131. Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria of
Northern Paiute Indians et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 892.

ORDERS 1059
589 U. S.
N
ovember 12, 2019
No. 19–154. Zafer Construction Co. v. Army Corps of
Engineers.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 753 Fed. Appx. 909.
No. 19–164. Samarripa et al. v. Kizziah, Warden, et al.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 515.
No. 19–168. Remington Arms Co., LLC, et al. v. Soto, Ad-
ministratrix of the Estate of Soto, et al. Sup. Ct. Conn.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 331 Conn. 53, 202 A. 3d 262.
No. 19–178. Laul v. Los Alamos National Laboratories.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed.
Appx. 434.
No. 19–191. Page v. Hicks et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 514.
No. 19–259. Maron Pictures Ltd. v. Eigen et al. Ct. App.
Cal., 2d App. Dist., Div. 8. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–299. G. D. P. v. N. G. P. Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–300. Maze, Circuit Judge v. Kentucky Judicial
Conduct Commission. Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 575 S. W. 3d 204.
No. 19–302. Bornemann v. Kekona, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Kekona, De-
ceased. Int. Ct. App. Haw. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–303. Rodriguez Bautista v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App.
Tex. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–314. Chiu v. Jui-Chien Lin. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–317. Gokool v. Oklahoma City University. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx.
894.
No. 19–319. Cruickshank-Wallace et vir v. CNA Finan-
cial Corp. et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 769 Fed. Appx. 77.

1060 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 12, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–355. Kohlberg Ventures, LLC v. Wojciechowski.
C
. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 685.
No. 19 – 365. Barth v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–378. Lam et al. v. City and County of San Fran-
cisco, California, et al.;
No. 19–379. Lam et al. v. City and County of San
Francisco, California, et al.; and
No. 19–380. Lam et al. v. City and County of San Fran-
cisco, California, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 619.
No. 19–429. Hunter v. United States et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 329.
No. 19–437. Paterno v. City of New York et al. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 15.
No. 19–456. Buncich v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 361.
No. 19–479. Kam v. Peyton. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 784.
No. 19–480. Hankins et al. v. Seifman et al. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 304.
No. 19–5125. Gallegos-Lopez v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 745 Fed. Appx. 679.
No. 19–5206. Sawicky v. AMC Networks Inc. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 501.
No. 19–5460. Ortega v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 730.
No. 19–5489. Aquart v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 1.
No. 19–5491. Woods v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5493. Taylor v. Oregon. Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 364 Ore. 364, 434 P. 3d 331.
No. 19–5737. Burnam v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 195 A. 3d 1022.

ORDERS 1061
589 U. S.
N
ovember 12, 2019
No. 19–5839. Mays v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rar
i denied.
No. 19–5845. Thomas v. Slusher et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5849. Elyas v. Johnston et al. Ct. App. Mich.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5862. Alberto Ramirez v. Davis, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institu-
tions Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 756 Fed. Appx. 463.
No. 19–5864. Jones v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (1st) 160045–U.
No. 19–5867. Krasny v. Krasny. Super. Ct. N. J., Chan. Div.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5885. Collins v. Gonzalez et al. Ct. App. Cal., 2d
App. Dist., Div. 5. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5892. Titus et ux. v. Alaeddin et al. App. Ct. Ill.,
3d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (3d)
170400, 118 N. E. 3d 707.
No. 19–5893. Pfeiffer v. Massachusetts. Sup. Jud. Ct.
Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 482 Mass. 110, 121
N. E. 3d 1130.
No. 19–5894. Bentley v. Horton, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5896. Dinnerstein v. Burlington County Col-
lege. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764
Fed. Appx. 214.
No. 19–5899. House et ux. v. Egland et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5902. Mister v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 2019 Ark. 187, 575 S. W. 3d 410.
No. 19–5903. Ogden v. Digital Intelligence Systems. Ct.
App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.

1062 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 12, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19 – 5906. Taebel v. Ducey, Governor of Arizona,
et
al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5915. Varnauskas v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (3d) 150654, 117
N. E. 3d 424.
No. 19–5916. Matias Torres v. Diaz, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5939. Montero v. Tulsa Airport Improvements
Trust. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770
Fed. Appx. 439.
No. 19–5960. Bane v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 119.
No. 19–5977. Dalton v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 7 Cal. 5th 166, 441 P. 3d 283.
No. 19–6005. Malone v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 281.
No. 19–6017. Cordero v. Guzman et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 784.
No. 19–6034. Castillo v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 11.
No. 19 – 6036. Dominguez-Calderon v. United States.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed.
Appx. 178.
No. 19–6038. Bateman v. Mississippi. Ct. App. Miss. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 267 So. 3d 793.
No. 19–6089. Signore v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 685.
No. 19–6104. Pearson v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 687.
No. 19–6107. Ledbetter v. United States;
No. 19–6155. Ussury v. United States; and
No. 19–6176. Harris v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 338.

ORDERS 1063
589 U. S.
N
ovember 12, 2019
No. 19–6115. Aguirre-Ganceda v. United States. C. A.
9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 403.
No. 19–6116. Evans v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 21.
No. 19–6119. Sainmelus v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 893.
No. 19–6123. Gonzales v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6124. Hill v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 195.
No. 19–6127. Villalona v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6128. McCarthren v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 707 Fed. Appx. 951.
No. 19–6131. Estell v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 1291.
No. 19–6132. Chavez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6135. Townsend v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6141. Jose v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 464.
No. 19–6142. Leone v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6143. Scott v. Beasley, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6144. Smith v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 708.
No. 19–6146. Rosario-Rivera v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6149. Williams v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 568.

1064 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 12, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6150. Cutler v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (4th) 150846–U.
No. 19–6159. Womack v. Windsor et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 415.
No. 19–6162. Terry v. Swift Transportation. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 245.
No. 19–6164. McCain v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 510.
No. 19–6177. Flores v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 443.
No. 19–6178. Gonzalez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 228.
No. 19–6179. Felix-Heras v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 404.
No. 19–6185. Smiley v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 750 Fed. Appx. 226.
No. 19–6187. Kaiser v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 441.
No. 19–6188. Herrin v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6196. Monsegue v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6197. Reynolds v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6201. Sterling v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6202. Rodriguez-Santana v. United States. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6205. Navarrete-Felix v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 392.
No. 19–6208. Lussier v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6209. Hudson v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1065
589 U. S.
N
ovember 12, 2019
No. 19–6217. Hall v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
C
. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed.
Appx. 572.
No. 19–6221. Brown v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19– 6224. Philong Huynh v. Brennan, Postmaster
General. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
773 Fed. Appx. 4.
No. 19–6225. Hall v. Andrews. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 130.
No. 19–6232. Neiheisel v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 935.
No. 19–6234. Melton v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 171.
No. 19–6238. Taylor v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 346.
No. 19–6240. Norris v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6241. Petruk v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 952.
No. 19–6242. Pineda Penaloza v. United States. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 341.
No. 19–6253. Strege v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6255. Redd v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 112.
No. 19 – 6256. Simon v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6266. Jones v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 573.
No. 19–315. Glenn v. Moss et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx.
589.

1066 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 12, 13, 15, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6189. Brown v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.
Rehearing Denied
No. 18–9683. Hango v. Barr, Attorney General, 589 U. S.
959. Petition for rehearing denied.
No. 18–9111. Nosair v. United States, 587 U. S. 1047. Mo-
tion for leave to fle petition for rehearing denied.
November 13, 2019
Certiorari Denied
No. 19–6570 (19A520). Cromartie v. Shealy 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: 941 F. 3d 1244.
No. 19–6604 (19A534). Cromartie v. Ford, 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: 795 Fed. Appx. 663.
November 15, 2019
Dismissals Under Rule 46
No. 19–371. Stephen S. Wise Temple v. Su. Ct. App. Cal.,
2d App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari dismissed under this Court's
Rule 46.1. Reported below: 32 Cal. App. 5th 1159, 244 Cal. Rptr.
3d 546.
No. 19–5579. Eccleston v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46.
No. 19–5580. In re Eccleston. Petition for writ of manda-
mus dismissed under this Court's Rule 46.
Certiorari Granted
No. 19–373. Walker v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari granted. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 195.
No. 18–956. Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. C. A.
Fed. Cir. Motion of 78 Computer Scientists for leave to fle brief

ORDERS 1067
589 U. S.
N
ovember 15, 18, 2019
as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted. Reported below:
886
F. 3d 1179.
No. 19–108. United States v. Briggs; and
No. 19–184. United States v. Collins; and United States
v. Daniels. C. A. Armed Forces. Certiorari granted, cases con-
solidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
Reported below: No. 19–108, 78 M. J. 289; No. 19–184, 78 M. J.
415 (frst judgment) and 79 M. J. 199 (second judgment).
November 18, 2019
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 19–5940. Peters v. Young Sun Kim. C. A. 7th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 19M63. Moore v. Carr, At torney General of
Georgia;
No. 19M64. Wojnarowski v. Mahally, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al.; and
No. 19M65. Malachowski v. United States. Motions to di-
rect the Clerk to fle petitions for writs of certiorari out of time
denied.
No. 18–1109. McKinney v. Arizona. Sup. Ct. Ariz. [Cer-
tiorari granted, 587 U. S. 1050.] Motion of Criminal Justice Legal
Foundation for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave
to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, and for divided
argument denied.
No. 18–1323. June Medical Services L. L. C. et al. v. Gee,
Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospi-
tals; and
No. 18–1460. Gee, Secretary, Louisiana Department of
Health and Hospitals v. June Medical Services L. L. C.
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 588 U. S. 948.] Mo-
tion of petitioners for leave to fle the joint appendix pursuant to
this Court's Rule 33.2 with one volume under seal granted.
No. 19–5213. Armstrong v. United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. C. A. 3d Cir.

1068 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 18, 2019 589 U. S.
Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to
proceed
in forma pauperis [589 U. S. 907] denied. Justice
Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
No. 19–5519. Weeks v. Lewis, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [589 U. S. 909] denied.
No. 19–5967. Thomas v. Nevada. Sup. Ct. Nev. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Peti-
tioner is allowed until December 9, 2019, 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. 19–5980. In re Sang Hing Wong. Petition for writ of
mandamus denied.
No. 18–9582. In re Zimmermann. Petition for writ of man-
damus and/or prohibition denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 18–1424. Thomas v. Anderson et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 971.
No. 18–9337. Barnes v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals
Board et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9665. Hernandez-Delgado v. California. Ct. App.
Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9687. Lucio-Garza v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 190.
No. 18–9744. Quinn v. Vannoy, Warden. Sup. Ct. La. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2018–1103 (La. 3/18/19), 265
So. 3d 760.
No. 19 – 68. Unity HealthCare v. Azar, Secretary of
Health and Human Services. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 571.
No. 19–197. Behm v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Sup.
Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 ND 139, 927
N. W. 2d 865.

ORDERS 1069
589 U. S.
N
ovember 18, 2019
No. 19–253. Straight Path IP Group, LLC v. Apple Inc.
et
al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748
Fed. Appx. 1027.
No. 19–279. Johnson v. New Destiny Christian Center
Church, Inc., et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 991.
No. 19–289. County of San Diego, California, et al. v.
Soler. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762
Fed. Appx. 383.
No. 19–332. Davis et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–335. Chawla v. Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 482
Mass. 1001, 120 N. E. 3d 326.
No. 19–339. Sonnier v. Catholic Foundation of the Dio-
cese of Lafayette et al. Ct. App. La., 3d Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2018–289 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/27/18), 261
So. 3d 965.
No. 19–340. Ebert v. DeJoria et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 690.
No. 19–342. McCaffrey v. Chapman et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 159.
No. 19–354. Easterday v. Estate of Easterday. Sup. Ct.
Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 653 Pa. 143, 209 A. 3d
331.
No. 19–356. Robinson v. Robinson. Ct. App. Colo. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–362. Jones v. Jones. Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 18–589 (La. App. 5 Cir.
1/30/19), 265 So. 3d 957.
No. 19–363. Nash v. Nash et al. Ct. App. Ark. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2019 Ark. App. 173, 574 S. W. 3d 171.
No. 19–375. Newman v. York, as Personal Representa-
tive, et al. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
119 N. E. 3d 238.

1070 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 18, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19 – 383. Raimondo v. Hood, Chief Judge, United
St
ates District Court for the Eastern District of Michi-
gan, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–384. Taylor v. City of Sherman, Texas, et al.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed.
Appx. 250.
No. 19–390. James et al. v. Hunt et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 968.
No. 19–396. Simon v. Department of Justice et al. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–397. Levy v. BASF Metals Ltd. et al. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 106 and 755
Fed. Appx. 29.
No. 19–408. Nehrke v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. Dist.
Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 273
So. 3d 998.
No. 19–424. James v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 326 Mich. App. 98, 931 N. W. 2d 50.
No. 19–443. Kinney v. Gutierrez, Judge, United States
District Court for the Central District of California.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–444. Hoch v. MBI Energy Services. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 506.
No. 19–489. Hutchins v. United States. C. A. Armed
Forces. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 78 M. J. 437.
No. 19–491. Kumar v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 420.
No. 19–495. Shkreli v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 38.
No. 19–499. Posada v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 930 F. 3d 881.
No. 19–535. Flowers v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed.
Appx. 33.

ORDERS 1071
589 U. S.
N
ovember 18, 2019
No. 19–5085. Lee v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 345.
No. 19–5089. Gandy v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 1333.
No. 19–5171. Saldano v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759
Fed. Appx. 276.
No. 19–5182. Loyola-Villegas v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 53.
No. 19–5512. Green v. Beckwith, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 158.
No. 19–5553. Roy v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 85.
No. 19–5570. Barton v. Strange, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5914. Lasher v. Stavis et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5925. Rhodes v. Swarth et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5927. Rivera v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 7 Cal. 5th 306, 441 P. 3d 359.
No. 19–5934. Merryman v. Davis, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
781 Fed. Appx. 325.
No. 19–5935. Brown v. Civil Service Commission. Ct.
App. Mich. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5937. Johnson v. Credit One Bank et al. Cir. Ct.
Prince George's County, Md. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5945. Sampson v. Garrett et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 880.
No. 19–5947. Kennedy v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

1072 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 18, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–5950. Medina-Martinez v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5952. Gordon v. Lee et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5957. Haynes v. Riverside Presbyterian Apart-
ments. Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 198
A. 3d 457.
No. 19–5965. Hill v. Washington. Ct. App. Wash. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 7 Wash. App. 2d 1027.
No. 19–5972. Robinson v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5973. Sheppard v. Texas (two judgments). Ct. App.
Tex., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5978. Chancellor v. Select Portfolio Servicing,
Inc., et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
762 Fed. Appx. 336.
No. 19–5985. Carballo v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5987. Brown v. Washington. Sup. Ct. Wash. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 193 Wash. 2d 280, 440 P. 3d 962.
No. 19–5991. White v. Aranas et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 776.
No. 19–5994. Brownlee v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 3d
App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 5997. Williams v. Mas sachuset ts. Super. Ct.
Mass., Middlesex County. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6000. Kelley v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 IL App (4th) 160598,
133 N. E. 3d 641.
No. 19–6001. Packer v. Capozza, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1073
589 U. S.
N
ovember 18, 2019
No. 19–6004. Taylor v. United States District Court for
the
Northern District of Texas. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6007. DeLima v. Massachusetts et al. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6013. Daniel v. T&M Protection Resources, LLC.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed.
Appx. 123.
No. 19–6026. Simon v. California et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6028. Lane v. Nading et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 1018.
No. 19–6040. Weems v. Baylor Scott & White Medical
Center-Hillcrest. Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 575 S. W. 3d 357.
No. 19–6051. Whiteld v. Brookhart, Warden. C. A. 7th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6080. Marcus H. v. Connecticut. App. Ct. Conn.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 190 Conn. App. 332, 210 A.
3d 607.
No. 19–6085. Amodeo v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 916 F. 3d 967.
No. 19–6102. Moore v. Asuncion, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6109. Mata v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6117. Ignacio Estrada v. Biter, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 1041.
No. 19–6133. Cochran v. Maryland. Ct. Sp. App. Md.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 218 Md. App. 743.
No. 19–6160. Caswell v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 171
App. Div. 3d 1572, 97 N. Y. S. 3d 546.

1074 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 18, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6167. Saunders v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 201 A. 3d 857.
No. 19–6211. Clark v. Gwyn et al. Ct. App. Tenn. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6231. Chapman v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 708 Fed. Appx. 126.
No. 19–6243. Patrick v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6244. Williams v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6254. Shanahan v. Idaho. Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 165 Idaho 343, 445 P. 3d 152.
No. 19–6262. Young v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6267. Goynes v. Nebraska. Sup. Ct. Neb. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 303 Neb. 129, 927 N. W. 2d 346.
No. 19–6268. Grimon v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 1302.
No. 19–6269. Romero Martinez v. United States. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 712.
No. 19–6270. Odell v. Minnesota. Sup. Ct. Minn. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 931 N. W. 2d 103.
No. 19–6272. Lara-Bonilla v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 406.
No. 19–6275. Jones v. Massachusetts. Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6276. Wilson v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App.
Dist., Div. 4. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 33 Cal. App.
5th 559, 245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 256.
No. 19–6278. Spangle v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6280. Soto v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 472.

ORDERS 1075
589 U. S.
N
ovember 18, 2019
No. 19–6283. Scott v. United States. C. A. D. C. Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied.
No. 19–6284. Cabrera-Cosme v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6292. Muhammad v. Taylor et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 815.
No. 19–6295. Flores v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 107.
No. 19–6301. Jenkins v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6305. Soriano Nunez v. United States. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 240.
No. 19–6307. Oreckinto v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 698.
No. 19–6309. Bagwell v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 899.
No. 19–6310. Velasquez Perez v. Diaz Palencia. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 1333.
No. 19–6311. Boylen v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6312. Smith v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6313. Smith v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 930 F. 3d 978.
No. 19–6315. Stahlman v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 1199.
No. 19–6331. Delancy v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 256 So. 3d 940.
No. 19–6334. Arellano-Banuelos v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 355.
No. 19–6335. Balagia v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6338. Nelson v. Commissioner of Internal Reve-
nue. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

1076 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 18, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6341. Stagner v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 823.
No. 19–6353. Buluc, aka Celibi v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 930 F. 3d 383.
No. 19 – 6364. Duffy, aka Duffy-Carrasco v. United
States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773
Fed. Appx. 947.
No. 19–6384. Jacques v. Jones, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 18–9201. Amerson et al. v. United States Bank-
ruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the
consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 710
Fed. Appx. 789.
No. 19–16. Peithman et al. v. United States. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 635.
Justice Sotomayor, dissenting.
In Honeycutt v. United States, 581 U. S. 443 (2017), this Court
held that joint-and-several liability is not permitted under 98 Stat.
2045, 21 U. S. C. § 853(a)(1), which mandates forfeiture of “ `prop-
erty constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person ob-
tained, directly or indirectly, as the result of ' ” certain drug
crimes. 581 U. S., at 445. The Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has since held that the reasoning of Honeycutt “appl[ies]
with equal force” to 18 U. S. C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which is worded
almost identically to 21 U. S. C. § 853(a)(1). United States v.
Gjeli, 867 F. 3d 418, 428 (2017).
In th is case, the Cour t of Appea ls for the Eighth Circuit
reached a contrary conclusion. 917 F. 3d 635, 652–653 (2019). It
upheld a joint-and-several forfeiture order against petitioners
under § 981(a)(1)(C), reasoning that Honeycutt does not apply to
that provision. See 917 F. 3d, at 652–653. The Government now
concedes error. According to the Government, there is no “dis-
tinguishing 18 U. S. C. 981 from 21 U. S. C. 853 for purposes of
joint and several liability.” Brief in Opposition 6; see also id.,
at 10 (“[T]he government has agreed that Honeycutt's reasoning
applies to Section 981(a)(1)(C)”). Nevertheless, the Government

ORDERS 1077
589 U. S.
N
ovember 18, 2019
maintains that there is an independent ground for the imposition
o
f joint-and-several liability under § 981(a)(1)(C). See id., at
6–9. The Eighth Circuit, however, never addressed that prof-
fered alternative ground for affrmance.
Because the Government now concedes that the rationale of
Honeycutt applies equally to § 981(a)(1)(C) as it does to § 853(a)(1),
I would grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment
below, and remand the case to allow the Eighth Circuit to recon-
sider its decision in light of the Government's concession.
No. 19–239. Benzon, Warden v. Kell. C. A. 10th Cir. Mo-
tion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d 448.
No. 19–498. Rogers v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 768 Fed.
Appx. 862.
No. 19–5942. Lay v. Oklahoma Department of Correc-
tions et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Gor-
such took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Reported below: 746 Fed. Appx. 777.
No. 19–6293. Knowles v. United States. C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 921
F. 3d 263.
Rehearing Denied
No. 18–1536. Cox v. Old Republic National Title Insur-
ance Co. et al., 589 U. S. 925;
No. 18–9045. Robinson v. Johnson, Administrator, New
Jersey State Prison, 589 U. S. 933;
No. 18–9246. Bryant v. Department of Education et al.,
589 U. S. 939;
No. 18–9401. Jones v. Kentucky et al., 589 U. S. 945;
No. 18–9538. Head v. United States, 589 U. S. 952;
No. 18–9561. In re Stewart, 589 U. S. 914;
No. 18–9829. Wilmore v. United States, 589 U. S. 967;
No. 19–104. Tamez v. United States, 589 U. S. 972;
No. 19–143. Gossage v. Merit Systems Protection Board,
589 U. S. 974;

1078 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 18, 22, 25, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19 – 5119. Arucan v. Cambridge East Healthcare
Center
et al., 589 U. S. 983;
No. 19–5199. Roberson v. Rowlett Police Department
et al., 589 U. S. 988;
No. 19–5285. Meier v. Berger et al., 589 U. S. 992;
No. 19–5292. Joseph v. Florida, 589 U. S. 993;
No. 19–5295. In re Charles, 589 U. S. 915;
No. 19 – 5416. Wil son v. Apex Reporting Group, Inc.,
et al., 589 U. S. 998; and
No. 19–5661. Robinson v. Warden, Federal Correctional
Institution, Fort Dix, et al., 589 U. S. 1005. Petitions for
rehearing denied.
No. 18–9255. Ram v. United States, 587 U. S. 1068. Motion
for leave to fle petition for rehearing denied.
No. 18–9490. Brown v. United States, 589 U. S. 1009. Peti-
tion for rehearing denied. Justice Alito took no part in the
consideration or decision of this petition.
November 22, 2019
Certiorari Granted
No. 19–71. Tanzin et al. v. Tanvir et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari granted. Reported below: 894 F. 3d 449.
November 25, 2019
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded. (See also Thomp-
son v. Hebdon, 589 U. S. 1 (2019) (per curiam).)
No. 19–151. United States v. Walton. C. A. 5th Cir. Mo-
ti on of respondent for leave to proceed in fo r m a paupe r is
granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case re-
manded for further consideration in light of Quarles v. United
States, 587 U. S. 645 (2019). Reported below: 743 Fed. Appx. 552.
No. 19–6016. Chance v. United States. C. A. 11th 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 United States v.
Davis, 588 U. S. 445 (2019). Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 893.
No. 19–6033. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case re-

ORDERS 1079
589 U. S.
N
ovember 25, 2019
manded for further consideration in light of Rehaif v. United
Sta
tes, 588 U. S. 225 (2019). Reported below: 920 F. 3d 628.
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 19–6193. Smith v. United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia. C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See th is Cour t's Rule 39.8. Reported
below: 770 Fed. Appx. 76.
No. 19–6401. Viola v. United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York. 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.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 19A545. Trump et al. v. Mazars USA, LLP, et al.
Application for stay of mandate, presented to The Chief Jus-
tice, and by him referred to the Court, granted. Issuance of the
mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit, case No. 19–5142, is stayed pending the fling
and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari, if such petition
is fled on or before December 5, 2019, by noon. Should the
petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate
automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is
granted, the stay shall terminate upon the issuance of the judg-
ment of this Court. If no petition for writ of certiorari is fled
on or before December 5, 2019, by noon, the stay shall terminate.
No. 19M66. Doe v. United States. Motion for leave to fle
petition for writ of certiorari with supplemental appendix under
seal granted.
No. 19M67. Levy Gardens Partners 2007, L. P. v. Lewis
Title Co., Inc., et al.;
No. 19M68. Johnson v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al.;
No. 19M69. Xiao Qing Liu v. DeCagna et al.; and
No. 19M70. Kelly v. United States. Motions to direct the
Clerk to fle petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 19–5659. Viola v. Tate, Warden. C. A. 3d Cir. Motion
of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed
in forma pauperis [589 U. S. 909] denied.

1080 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 25, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6484. In re Steele. Petition for writ of habeas cor-
pus
denied.
No. 19–6358. In re Warren. Petition for writ of manda-
mus denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 18–1592. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Rivera et al.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 913 F. 3d 603.
No. 18–6852. Caldwell v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 746 Fed. Appx. 518.
No. 18–9669. Chodosh et al. v. Palm Beach Park Assn.
Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–9679. Harvey et ux. v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 738 Fed. Appx. 469.
No. 18–9710. Turner v. Louisiana. Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2016–1841 (La. 12/5/18), 263 So. 3d 337.
No. 18–9761. Givens v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (1st) 152031–U.
No. 18–9762. Insaidoo v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 522.
No. 18–9793. Gould v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–153. Daniel, Individually and as Special Adminis-
trator of the Estate of Haughton v. Armslist, LLC, et al.
Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 WI 47,
386 Wis. 2d 449, 926 N. W. 2d 710.
No. 19–169. Doe v. Iowa. Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 927 N. W. 2d 656.
No. 19–225. United States ex rel. Strubbe et al. v.
Crawford County Memorial Hospital et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 1158.
No. 19–227. Syed v. Maryland. Ct. App. Md. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 463 Md. 60, 204 A. 3d 139.

ORDERS 1081
589 U. S.
N
ovember 25, 2019
No. 19 – 228. United States ex rel. Perry v. Hooker
Creek
Asphalt & Paving, LLC, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 318.
No. 19–241. UMB Bank, N. A., et al. v. Landmark Towers
Assn., Inc. Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
436 P. 3d 1139.
No. 19–278. Pzer Inc. et al. v. Superior Court of Cali-
fornia, County of Los Angeles, et al. Ct. App. Cal., 2d
App. Dist., Div. 5. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–345. Johnson v. City of Ferguson, Missouri, et al.
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 504.
No. 19–360. Konieczko et al. v. Adventist Health Sys-
tem/Sunbelt Inc. et al. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–367. Smith v. Kansa Technology, L. L. C. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 143.
No. 19–370. Silva-Ramirez v. Hospital Espanol Auxilio
Mutuo de Puerto Rico, Inc., et al. Sup. Ct. P. R. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–377. Kast v. Erickson Productions, Inc., et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed.
Appx. 482.
No. 19–382. Teets v. Great-West Life & Annuity Insur-
ance Co. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
921 F. 3d 1200.
No. 19–388. Korman v. Iglesias. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 680.
No. 19–395. Alessio v. United Airlines, Inc. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–405. Schiano, dba HotWireMedia.com, et al. v.
Friedman et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 777 Fed. Appx. 324.
No. 19–413. Robert W. Mauthe, M. D., P. C. v. Optum, Inc.,
et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925
F. 3d 129.

1082 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 25, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–415. Ernesto Melendez v. McAleenan, Acting
Secret
ary of Homeland Security, et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 425.
No. 19–420. Hamman v. University of Central Florida
Board of Trustees. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–425. Ogunsula v. Barr, Attorney General, et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 641 Fed.
Appx. 260.
No. 19–445. Neology, Inc. v. International Trade Com-
mission et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 767 Fed. Appx. 937.
No. 19–461. Corral Valenzuela v. United States. C. A.
7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 931 F. 3d 605.
No. 19–472. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, et al. v. Hunt
et al. Ct. App. Ohio, 8th App. Dist., Cuyahoga County. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2019-Ohio-1115, 128 N. E. 3d
265.
No. 19–513. Mardosas v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 257 So. 3d 540.
No. 19–528. Scantlebury et al. v. United States. C. A.
D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 241.
No. 19–553. Diarra v. City of New York, New York.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed.
Appx. 69.
No. 19–5262. Knight v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 750 Fed. Appx. 604.
No. 19–5269. Gilbert v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 126.
No. 19–5274. Hill v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 669.
No. 19–5334. Valencia-Cortez v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 419.
No. 19–5351. Johnson v. Sperfslage. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 592.

ORDERS 1083
589 U. S.
N
ovember 25, 2019
No. 19–5429. Burwell v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 840.
No. 19–5437. Alexopoulos v. Goldsmith, P. A., et al. Dist.
Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 264
So. 3d 163.
No. 19–5445. Coleman v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 450.
No. 19–5645. Potts v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 6 Cal. 5th 1012, 436 P. 3d 899.
No. 19–5676. Jordan v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 119.
No. 19–5678. Beyers v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5699. Gray v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 685.
No. 19 – 5988. Chalmers v. Tennes see. Ct. Cr i m. App.
Tenn. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5999. Delima v. YouTube, Inc., et al. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6002. McCrea v. Devan et al. Ct. Sp. App. Md.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 240 Md. App. 728 and 737.
No. 19–6003. Christian v. Dadmun et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 741.
No. 19–6012. Anderson v. Greene et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 694.
No. 19–6022. Rodriguez v. Heit et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6023. Ringle v. Jackson, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6024. Rogers v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App.
Dist., Div. 5. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6032. Langston v. Missouri Board of Probation
and Parole. Ct. App. Mo., Western Dist. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 575 S. W. 3d 744.

1084 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 25, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19 – 6043. Cash v. Laughlin, Warden. Sup. Ct. Ga.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6044. Stevenson v. TND Homes I LLC. Sup. Jud.
Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 482 Mass. 1006,
120 N. E. 3d 1181.
No. 19–6046. Sanders v. Beck et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6047. Stompingbear v. Brown et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6061. Jones v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 9th App. Dist.,
Summit County. Cer ti orari denied. Repor ted below: 2019-
Ohio-289.
No. 19–6068. Sites v. West Virginia. Sup. Ct. App. W. Va.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 241 W. Va. 430, 825 S. E.
2d 758.
No. 19–6069. Skaggs v. Baker, Warden, et al. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 421.
No. 19–6070. McClenon v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6072. Eppelsheimer v. Davis, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institu-
tions Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 6074. Nel son v. Amalgamated Transit Union
Local 1181–1061, AFL–CIO, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6075. Kelly v. Bishop, Warden, et al. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 741 Fed. Appx. 939.
No. 19–6077. Moreno Herrera v. Diaz, Secretary, Cali-
fornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6083. Molinaro v. Molinaro. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 33 Cal. App.
5th 824, 245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 402.

ORDERS 1085
589 U. S.
N
ovember 25, 2019
No. 19–6101. Johnson v. Sharp, Interim Warden. C. A.
10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 895.
No. 19–6140. Gant v. U. S. Bank Trust et al. Super. Ct.
N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6207. Henderson v. Bottom, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6279. Sanchez v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 940 F. 3d 526.
No. 19–6288. Whitley v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 176.
No. 19–6294. Mattei v. Medeiros, Superintendent, Mas-
sachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6297. Gray v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 141.
No. 19–6308. Winder v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 1251.
No. 19–6314. Savoie v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6316. Shelton v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6318. Locke v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 715.
No. 19–6322. Miles v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6332. Glenn v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 931 F. 3d 424.
No. 19–6333. Angulo-Cabrera v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6340. Neuhard v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 251.
No. 19–6345. Lucy v. Cooks. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.

1086 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 25, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6347. Alvarado v. Lawrence, Warden. App. Ct.
I
ll., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App
(5th) 170278–U.
No. 19–6348. Grifn v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 329.
No. 19 – 6352. Coon v. Nooth, Superintendent, Snake
River Correctional Institution. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19 – 6356. Larock v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 794.
No. 19 – 6357. Turner v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 856.
No. 19–6360. Pugh v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 273 So. 3d 941.
No. 19–6362. Nunez v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 201 A. 3d 879.
No. 19–6368. Kalinowski v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 IL App (4th) 170823–U.
No. 19–6373. Peppin v. Washington. Ct. App. Wash. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 4 Wash. App. 2d 1066.
No. 19–6375. Giam Nguyen et al. v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 452.
No. 19–6376. Solis v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 202.
No. 19–6377. Gaskin v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 434.
No. 19– 6378. Gentile v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 559.
No. 19–6393. Gamarra v. United States. C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 940 F. 3d 1315.
No. 19–6402. Villarreal Silva v. United States. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 931 F. 3d 330.

ORDERS 1087
589 U. S.
N
ovember 25, 2019
No. 19–6414. Vega-Torres v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 356.
No. 19 – 6419. Wilson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 715.
No. 19–6455. Nedd v. Clarke, Director, Virginia Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 281.
No. 17–8830. Paul v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 718 Fed. Appx. 360.
Statement of Justice Kavanaugh respecting the denial of
certiorari.
I agree with the denial of certiorari because this case ultimately
raises the same statutory interpretation issue that the Court re-
solved last Term in Gundy v. United States, 588 U. S. 128 (2019).
I write separately because Justice Gorsuch's scholarly analysis
of the Constitution's nondelegation doctrine in his Gundy dissent
may warrant further consideration in future cases. Justice
Gorsuch's opinion built on views expressed by then-Justice
Rehnquist some 40 years ago in Industrial Union Dept., AFL–
CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S. 607, 685–686
(1980) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment). In that case,
Justice Rehnquist opined that major national policy decisions
must be made by Congress and the President in the legislative
process, not delegated by Congress to the Executive Branch.
In the wake of Justice Rehnquist's opinion, the Court has not
adopted a nondelegation principle for major questions. But the
Court has applied a closely related statutory interpretation doc-
trine: In order for an executive or independent agency to exercise
regulatory authority over a major policy question of great eco-
nomic and political importance, Congress must either: (i) ex-
pressly and specifcally decide the major policy question itself and
delegate to the agency the authority to regulate and enforce; or
(ii) expressly and specifcally delegate to the agency the authority
both to decide the major policy question and to regulate and
enforce. See, e. g., Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573
U. S. 302 (2014); FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529
U. S. 120 (2000); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American
Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U. S. 218 (1994); Breyer, Judicial

1088 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 25, 2019 589 U. S.
Review of Questions of Law and Policy, 38 Admin. L. Rev. 363,
370
(1986).
The opinions of Justice Rehnquist and Justice Gorsuch would
not allow that second category—congressional delegations to
agencies of authority to decide major policy questions—even if
Congress expressly and specifically delegates that author ity.
Under their approach, Congress cou ld delegate to agencies
the authority to decide less-major or fll-up-the-details decisions.
Like Justice Rehnquist's opinion 40 years ago, Justice Gor-
such's thoughtful Gundy opinion raised important points that
may warrant further consideration in future cases.
No. 18–1451. National Review, Inc. v. Mann; and
No. 18–1477. Competitive Enterprise Institute et al. v.
Mann. Ct. App. D. C. Motions of Southeastern Legal Founda-
tion for leave to fle briefs as amicus curiae granted. Certio-
rari denied.
Justice Alito, dissenting.
The petition in this case presents questions that go to the very
heart of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and
freedom of the press: the protection afforded to journalists and
others who use harsh language in criticizing opposing advocacy
on one of the most important public issues of the day. If the
Court is serious about protecting freedom of expression, we
should grant review.
I
Penn State professor Michael Mann is internationally known
for his academic work and advocacy on the contentious subject of
climate change. As part of this work, Mann and two colleagues
produced what has been dubbed the “hockey stick” graph, which
depicts a slight dip in temperatures between the years 1050 and
1900, followed by a sharp rise in temperature over the last cen-
tury. Because thermometer readings for most of this period are
not available, Mann attempted to ascertain temperatures for the
earlier years based on other data such as growth rings of ancient
trees and corals, ice cores from glaciers, and cave sediment cores.
The hockey stick graph has been prominently cited as proof that
human activity has led to global warming. Particularly after
emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research
Unit were made public, the quality of Mann's work was called
into question in some quarters.

ORDERS 1089
1088
Alito,
J., dissenting
Columnists Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn criticized Mann, the
hockey
stick graph, and an investigation conducted by Penn State
into allegations of wrongdoing by Mann. Simberg 's and Steyn's
comments, which appeared in blogs hosted by the Competitive
Enterprise Institute and National Review Online, employed pun-
gent language, accusing Mann of, among other things, “miscon-
duct,” “wrongdoing,” and the “manipulation” and “tortur[e]” of
data. App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 18–1451, pp. 94a, 98a (App.).
Mann responded by fling a defamation suit in the District of
Columbia's Superior Court. Petitioners moved for dismissal, re-
lying in part on the District's anti-SLAPP statute, D. C. Code
§ 16–5502(b) (2012), which requires dismissal of a defamation claim
if it is based on speech made “in furtherance of the right of
advocacy on issues of public interest” and the plaintiff cannot
show that the claim is likely to succeed on the merits. The Supe-
rior Court denied the motion, and the D. C. Court of Appeals
affrmed. 150 A. 3d 1213, 1247, 1249 (2016). The petition now
before us presents two questions: (1) whether a court or jury
must determine if a factual connotation is “provably false” and
(2) whether the First Amendment permits defamation liability for
expressing a subjective opinion about a matter of scientifc or
political controversy. Both questions merit our review.
II
The first questi on is impor tant and has divided the lower
courts. See 1 R. Smolla, Law of Defamation §§ 6.61, 6.62, 6.63
(2d ed. 2019); 1 R. Sack, Defamation § 4:3.7 (5th ed. 2019). Fed-
eral courts have held that “[w]hether a communication is action-
able because it contained a provably false statement of fact is a
question of law.” Chambers v. Travelers Cos., 668 F. 3d 559, 564
(CA8 2012); see also, e. g., Madison v. Frazier, 539 F. 3d 646, 654
(CA7 2008); Gray v. St. Martin's Press, Inc., 221 F. 3d 243, 248
(CA1 2000); Moldea v. New York Times Co., 15 F. 3d 1137, 1142
(CADC 1994). Some state courts, on the other hand, have held
that “it is for the jury to determine whether an ordinary reader
would have understood [expression] as a factual assertion.” Good
Govt. Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles
Cty., 22 Cal. 3d 672, 682, 586 P. 2d 572, 576 (1978); see also, e. g.,
Aldoupolis v. Globe Newspaper Co., 398 Mass. 731, 734, 500 N. E.
2d 794, 797 (2014); Caron v. Bangor Publishing Co., 470 A. 2d
782, 784 (Me. 1984). In this case, it appears that the D. C. Court

1090 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Alito, J., dissenting 589 U. S.
of Appeals has joined the latter camp, leaving it for a jury to
decide
whether it can be proved as a matter of fact that Mann
improperly treated the data in question. See App. 29a, 52a–53a,
65a, n. 46.
Respondent does not deny the existence of a confict in the
decisions of the lower courts. See Brief in Opposition 30. Nor
does he dispute the importance of the question. Instead, he ar-
gues that the D. C. Court of Appeals followed the federal rule,*
but the D. C. Court of Appeals' opinion repeatedly stated other-
wise. See App. 29a (asking what “a jury properly instructed on
the applicable legal and constitutional standards could reasonably
fnd”); id., at 52a–53a (repeatedly describing what a jury “could
fnd”); id., at 65a, n. 46 (stating that in a case like this one,
involving what it characterized as a claim of “ `ordinary libel,' ”
“the standard is `whether a reasonable jury could fnd that the
challenged statements were false' ” (emphasis in original)). This
last statement is especially revealing because it appears in a foot-
note that was revised in response to petitioners' petition for re-
hearing, see id., at 1a, n. *, which disputed the correctness of the
standard that asks what a jury could fnd, see id., at 65a, n. 46.
We therefore have before us a decision on an indisputably impor-
tant question of constitutional law on which there is an acknowl-
edged split in the decisions of the lower courts. A question of
this nature deserves a place on our docket.
This question—whether the courts or juries should decide
whether an allegedly defamatory statement can be shown to be
untrue—is delicate and sensitive and has serious implications for
the right to freedom of expression. And two factors make the
question especially important in the present case.
First, the question that the jury will apparently be asked to
decide—whether petitioners' assertions about Mann's use of scien-
tifc data can be shown to be factually false—is highly technical.
Whether an academic's use and presentation of data falls within
the range deemed reasonable by those in the feld is not an easy
matter for lay jurors to assess.
*Respondent's lead argument in opposition to certiorari is that we lack
jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1257, see Brief in Opposition 27–30, but peti-
tioners have a strong argument that we have jurisdiction under Cox Broad-
casting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975). If the Court has doubts on this
score, the question of jurisdiction can be considered together w ith the
merits.

ORDERS 1091
1088
Alito,
J., dissenting
Second, the controversial nature of the whole subject of climate
change
exacerbates the risk that the jurors' determination will be
colored by their preconceptions on the matter. When allegedly
defamatory speech concerns a political or social issue that arouses
intense feelings, selecting an impartial jury presents special diff-
culties. And when, as is often the case, allegedly defamatory
speech is disseminated nationally, a plaintiff may be able to bring
suit in whichever jurisdiction seems likely to have the highest
percentage of jurors who are sympathetic to the plaintiff 's point
of view. See Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U. S. 770, 781
(1984) (regular circulation of magazines in forum State suffcient
to support jurisdiction in defamation action). For these reasons,
the frst question presented in the petition calls out for review.
III
The second question may be even more important. The consti-
tutional guarantee of freedom of expression serves many pur-
poses, but its most important role is protection of robust and
uninhibited debate on important political and social issues. See
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 451–452 (2011); New York Times
Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). If citizens cannot speak
freely and without fear about the most important issues of the
day, real self-government is not possible. See Garrison v. Loui-
siana, 379 U. S. 64, 74–75 (1964) (“[S]peech concerning public
affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-
government”). To ensure that our democracy is preserved and
is permitted to fourish, this Court must closely scrutinize any
restrictions on the statements that can be made on important
public policy issues. Otherwise, such restrictions can easily be
used to silence the expression of unpopular views.
At issue in this case is the line between, on the one hand, a
pungently phrased expression of opinion regarding one of the
most hotly debated issues of the day and, on the other, a state-
ment that is worded as an expression of opinion but actually
asserts a fact that can be proven in court to be false. Milkovich
v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U. S. 1 (1990). Under Milkovich, state-
ments in the frst category are protected by the First Amend-
ment, but those in the latter are not. Id., at 19–20, 22. And
Milkovich provided examples of statements that fall into each
category. As explained by the Court, a defamation claim could
be asserted based on the statement: “In my opinion John Jones

1092 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Alito, J., dissenting 589 U. S.
is a liar.” Id., at 18. This statement, the Court noted, implied
knowledge
that Jones had made particular factual statements that
could be shown to be false. Ibid. As for a statement that could
not provide the basis for a valid defamation claim, the Court gave
this example: “In my opinion Mayor Jones shows his abysmal
ignorance by accepting the teachings of Marx and Lenin.” Id.,
at 20.
When an allegedly defamatory statement is couched as an ex-
pression of opinion on the quality of a work of scholarship relating
to an issue of public concern, on which side of the Milkovich line
does it fall? This is a very important question that would greatly
beneft from clarifcation by this Court. Although Milkovich as-
serted that its hypothetical statement about the teachings of
Marx and Lenin would not be actionable, it did not explain pre-
cisely why this was so. Was it the lack of specifcity or the nature
of statements about economic theories or all scholarly theories or
perhaps something else?
In recent years, the Court has made a point of vigilantly enforc-
ing the Free Speech Clause even when the speech at issue made
no great contribution to public debate. For example, last Term,
in Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U. S. 388 (2019), we upheld the right of
a manufacturer of jeans to register the trademark “F-U-C-T.”
Two years before, in Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. 218 (2017), we held
that a rock group called “The Slants” had the right to register
its name.
In earlier cases, the Court went even further. In United
States v. Alvarez, 567 U. S. 709 (2012), the Court held that the
First Amendment protected a man's false claim that he had won
the Congressional Medal of Honor. In Snyder, the successful
party had viciously denigrated a deceased soldier outside a church
during his funeral. 562 U. S., at 448–449. In United States v.
Stevens, 559 U. S. 460, 466 (2010), the First Amendment claimant
had sold videos of dog fghts.
If the speech in all these cases had been held to be unprotected,
our Nation's system of self-government would not have been
seriously threatened. But as I noted in Brunetti, 588 U. S., at
399 (concurring opinion), the protection of even speech as trivial
as a naughty trademark for jeans can serve an important pur-
pose: It can demonstrate that this Court is deadly serious
about protecting freedom of speech. Our decisions protecting the

ORDERS 1093
589 U. S.
N
ovember 25, 2019
speech at issue in that case and the others just noted can serve
a
s a promise that we w i l l be v ig i lant when the freedom of
speech and the press are most ser i ously impl icated, that is,
in cases involving disfavored speech on important political or so-
cial issues.
This is just such a case. Climate change has staked a place
at the very center of this Nation's public discourse. Politicians,
journalists, academics, and ordinary Americans discuss and debate
various aspects of climate change daily—its causes, extent, ur-
gency, consequences, and the appropriate policies for addressing
it. The core purpose of the constitutional protection of freedom
of expression is to ensure that all opinions on such issues have a
chance to be heard and considered.
I do not suggest that speech that touches on an important and
controversial issue is always immune from challenge under state
defamation law, and I express no opinion on whether the speech
at issue in this case is or is not entitled to First Amendment
protection. But the standard to be applied in a case like this is
immensely important. Political debate frequently involves claims
and counterclaims about the validity of academic studies, and
today it is something of an understatement to say that our public
discourse is often “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New
York Times Co., 376 U. S., at 270.
I recognize that the decision now before us is interlocutory and
that the case may be reviewed later if the ultimate outcome below
is adverse to petitioners. But requiring a free speech claimant
to undergo a trial after a ruling that may be constitutionally
fawed is no small burden. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn,
420 U. S. 469, 485 (1975) (observing that “there should be no trial
at all” if the statute at issue offended the First Amendment). A
journalist who prevails after trial in a defamation case will still
have been required to shoulder all the burdens of diffcult litiga-
tion and may be faced with hefty attorney's fees. Those pros-
pects may deter the uninhibited expression of views that would
contribute to healthy public debate.
For these reasons, I would grant the petition in this case, and
I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.
No. 18–9517. Isom v. Arkansas. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2018 Ark. 368, 563 S. W. 3d 533.

1094 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Statement of Sotomayor, J. 589 U. S.
Statement of Justice Sotomayor respecting the denial of
cer
tiorari.
Petitioner Kenneth Isom was thrice charged with burglary and
theft offenses by Drew County, Arkansas, prosecutor Sam Pope.
Isom was acquitted on two of those occasions, but was convicted
on the third. After Isom was granted parole three years into his
sentence, Prosecutor Pope met with the Offce of the Governor to
express his concern and to inquire whether Isom could somehow
be returned to prison, but to no avail.
Seven years later, a jury convicted Isom of capital murder in a
case presided over by Pope himself—now a Drew County judge.
Isom sought postconviction relief, which was denied, also by
Judge Pope. The Arkansas Supreme Court later granted Isom
leave to fle a writ of coram nobis to challenge the State's sup-
pression of critical evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S.
83 (1963). That suppressed evidence pertained to, among other
things, a suggestive photo identifcation and the inconsistent testi-
mony of a state witness.
Again, Judge Pope presided. Isom fled a recusal motion, alleg-
ing that Pope's prior efforts to prosecute Isom (and to rescind his
parole) created, at the very least, an appearance of bias requiring
recusal under the Due Process Clause. Judge Pope denied the
motion. After crediting testimony that supported his original
photo-identifcation ruling, and after limiting discovery relevant
to the inconsistent-testimony issue, Judge Pope also denied coram
nobis relief.
The Arkansas Supreme Court affrmed. 2018 Ark. 368, 563
S. W. 3d 533. Justices Hart and Wood dissented, concluding that
there was at least an appearance of bias that required recusal.
Justice Hart reasoned that the unusual coram nobis posture pre-
sented an especially compelling case for recusal, because Judge
Pope was in the “untenable position” of evaluating his own prior
fndings about whether the photo identifcation should have been
suppressed. Id., at 550. Justice Hart also considered it signif-
cant that, after a state witness appeared to become confused dur-
ing cross-examination, Judge Pope rehabilitated the witness and
ordered a recess, after which the witness testifed that his prior
statements were mistaken. Id., at 551. Justice Wood, in turn,
found it diffcult to afford Judge Pope the usual deference ex-
tended to the close, discretionary decisions of circuit court judges,
given his “extensive history” with Isom. Id., at 552.

ORDERS 1095
1094
St
atement of Sotomayor, J.
Our precedents require recusal where the “ `probability of ac-
tua
l bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to
be constitutionally tolerable.' ” Rippo v. Baker, 580 U. S. 285, 287
(2017) (per curiam) (quoting Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U. S. 35, 47
(1975)). The operative inquiry is objective: whether, “considering
all the circumstances alleged,” Rippo, 580 U. S., at 287, “the aver-
age judge in [the same] position is likely to be neutral, or whether
there is an unconstitutional potential for bias,” Williams v. Penn-
sylvania, 579 U. S. 1, 8 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
This Court has “not set forth a specifc test” or required recusal
as a matter of course when a judge has had prior involvement
with a defendant in his role as a prosecutor. Cf. ibid. Nor has
it found that “opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts
introduced or events occurring in the course of . . . prior proceed-
ings” constitute a basis for recusal in the ordinary case. Liteky
v. United States, 510 U. S. 540, 555 (1994). Indeed, “it may be
necessary and prudent to permit judges to preside over successive
causes involving the same parties or issues.” Id., at 562 (Ken-
nedy, J., concurring).
At the same time, the Court has acknowledged that “[a]llowing
a decisionmaker to review and evaluate his own prior decisions
raises problems,” Withrow, 421 U. S., at 58, n. 25, perhaps because
of the risk that a judge might “ `be so psychologically wedded' to
his or her previous position” that he or she will “ `consciously or
unconsciously avoid the appearance of having erred or changed
position.' ” Williams, 579 U. S., at 9 (quoting Withrow, 421 U. S.,
at 57). And it has warned that a judge's “personal knowledge
and impression” of a case may sometimes outweigh the parties'
arguments. In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 138 (1955).
The allegations of bias presented to the Arkansas Supreme
Court are concerning. But they are complicated by the fact that
Isom did not raise the issue of Judge Pope's prior involvement in
his prosecutions, either at his capital trial or for nearly 15 years
thereafter during his postconviction proceedings. Although the
Arkansas Supreme Court did not base its recusal decision on this
point, it is a consideration in evaluating whether there was an
“unconstitutional potential for bias” in this case suffcient to war-
rant the grant of certiorari. Williams, 579 U. S., at 8 (internal
quotation marks omitted). I therefore do not dissent from the
denial of certiorari. I write, however, to encourage vigilance
about the risk of bias that may arise when trial judges peculiarly

1096 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
November 25, 2019 589 U. S.
familiar with a party sit in judgment of themselves. The Due
Process
Clause's guarantee of a neutral decisionmaker will mean
little if this form of partiality is overlooked or underestimated.
No. 19–234. Libertarian National Committee Inc. v. Fed-
eral Election Commission. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or
decision of this petition. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 533.
No. 19–418. Brookens v. Pizzella, Acting Secretary of
Labor. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan
took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Rehearing Denied
No. 18–1374. Jaye v. Oak Knoll Village Condominium
Owners Assn., Inc., et al., 589 U. S. 918;
No. 18–1407. Barrow v. Willis et al., 589 U. S. 919;
No. 18–1427. Laventure et al. v. United Nations et al.,
589 U. S. 920;
No. 18–1444. Soto Nieves et al. v. Department of the
Family of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al., 589
U. S. 921;
No. 18–1473. Rivas v. New York State Lottery, 589 U. S.
922;
No. 18–1499. Kaushal v. Indiana, 589 U. S. 924;
No. 18 – 8191. Burke, Mother of Caudle, Deceased v.
Raven Electric, Inc., et al., 589 U. S. 929;
No. 18–8930. Gurvey v. Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P. C.,
et al., 589 U. S. 931;
No. 18–9009. Adelman v. Root et al., 589 U. S. 932;
No. 18–9115. Arunachalam v. Pazuniak Law Ofce, LLC,
et al., 589 U. S. 935;
No. 18 – 9138. Gullet t-El v. Corrigan et al., 589 U. S.
935;
No. 18 –9346. Arunachalam v. United States District
Court for the Northern District of California et al., 589
U. S. 942;
No. 18–9355. Robinson v. Rental Maintenance, Inc., 589
U. S. 943;
No. 18–9369. Webb v. County of Pima, Arizona, et al., 589
U. S. 943;

ORDERS 1097
589 U. S.
N
ovember 25, December 5, 6, 2019
No. 18 –9386. Arunachalam v. United States District
Court
for the Northern District of California et al., 589
U. S. 944;
No. 18–9480. Roberts v. Inservco Insurance Services,
589 U. S. 948;
No. 18–9660. Windsor v. Delaware, 589 U. S. 958;
No. 19–26. Collins et al. v. Daniels et al., 589 U. S. 969;
No. 19–31. Kam v. Dallas County, Texas, et al., 589 U. S.
969;
No. 19–132. Fejokwu v. Commodity Futures Trading Com-
mission, 589 U. S. 974;
No. 19–133. Sagar v. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treas-
ury, 589 U. S. 974;
No. 19–172. Harsay v. University of Kansas, 589 U. S. 975;
No. 19–5033. Arunachalam v. International Business
Machines Corp. et al., 589 U. S. 979;
No. 19–5065. Crank v. Bracy, Warden, 589 U. S. 980;
No. 19–5151. Maehr v. United States, 589 U. S. 985;
No. 19–5173. Kirkland v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 589
U. S. 987;
No. 19–5252. Wright v. West Virginia, 589 U. S. 990; and
No. 19–5562. Kouyate v. United States Customs and Bor-
der Protection, 589 U. S. 1002. Petitions for rehearing denied.
No. 17–6086. Gundy v. United States, 588 U. S. 128. Peti-
tion for rehearing denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in
the consideration or decision of this petition.
December 5, 2019
Miscellaneous Order
No. 19–6860 (19A626). In re Hall. Application for stay of
execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Sotomayor,
and by her referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of
habeas corpus denied.
December 6, 2019
Miscellaneous Order
No. 19A615. Barr, Attorney General, et al. v. Roane
et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Application for stay or vacatur, presented
to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

1098 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 6, 2019 589 U. S.
We expect that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit
will render its decision with appropriate dispatch.
Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Gorsuch
and Justice Kavanaugh join, respecting the denial of stay or
vacatur.
The District Court for the District of Columbia has preliminar-
ily enjoined the Federal Government from carrying out the execu-
tion of four prisoners who were convicted in federal court more
than 15 years ago for exceptionally heinous murders. In this
action, none of the four is contesting his guilt or his sentence, but
the District Court enjoined the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) from
carrying out these executions based on its interpretation of a
statute, 18 U. S. C. § 3596(a), directing that federal executions be
implemented “in the manner prescribed by the law of the State
in which the sentence is imposed.” This means, the Government
contends, that the mode of execution (i.e., by lethal injection,
electrocution, etc.) must be the same as that called for under the
law of the State in question, but the District Court held instead
that a federal execution must follow all the procedures that would
be used in an execution in that State—down to the selection of
the way a catheter is inserted.
The Government has shown that it is very likely to prevail
when this question is ultimately decided. The centerpiece of the
District Court's reasoning was that Congress referred to the
“manner” and not the “method” of execution, but there is strong
evidence that this reading is not supported either by the ordinary
meaning of these two terms or by the use of the term “manner”
in prior federal death penalty statutes. Moreover, the District
Court's interpretation would lead to results that Congress is un-
likely to have intended. It would require the BOP to follow pro-
cedures that have been attacked as less safe than the ones the
BOP has devised (after extensive study); it would demand that
the BOP pointlessly copy minor details of a State's protocol; and it
could well make it impossible to carry out executions of prisoners
sentenced in some States.
Vacating the stay issued by the District Court for the District
of Columbia would not necessarily mean that the prisoners in
question would be executed before the merits of their Administra-
tive Procedure Act claim is adjudicated. They remain free to
seek review on other grounds. Nevertheless, in light of what is

ORDERS 1099
589 U. S.
D
ecember 6, 9, 2019
at stake, it would be preferable for the District Court's decision
to
be reviewed on the merits by the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit before the executions are carried out.
The Court has expressed the hope that the Court of Appeals
will proceed with “appropriate dispatch,” and I see no reason why
the Court of Appeals should not be able to decide this case, one
way or the other, within the next 60 days. The question, though
important, is straightforward and has already been very ably
briefed in considerable detail by both the Solicitor General and
by the prisoners' 17-attorney legal team. For these reasons, I
would state expressly in the order issued today that the denial
of the application to vacate is without prejudice to the fling of
a renewed application if the injunction is still in place 60 days
from now.
Certiorari Granted
No. 19–309. Carney, Governor of Delaware v. Adams.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted. In addition to the questions
presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and
argue the following question: “Whether respondent has demon-
strated Article III standing.” Reported below: 922 F. 3d 166.
December 9, 2019
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 19–5804. Lewis v. United States. C. A. 11th 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 United States v. Davis, 588 U. S.
445 (2019). Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 786.
No. 19–5852. Cooper v. United States. C. A. 11th 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 Rehaif v. United
States, 588 U. S. 225 (2019). Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 371.
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 19–6158. White v. Sloop et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Motion
of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See th is Cour t's Rule 39.8. Reported
below: 772 Fed. Appx. 334.

1100 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 9, 2019 589 U. S.
Miscellaneous Orders
N
o. 19A21. Geimah v. Barr, Attorney General. Applica-
tion for stay, addressed to justice Ginsburg and referred to the
Court, denied.
No. D–3051. In re disbarment of Lang. Disbarment en-
tered. [For earlier order herein, see 588 U. S. 934.]
No. 19M71. McIntosh v. Kirby, Warden, et al. Motion to
direct the Clerk to fle petition for writ of certiorari out of time
denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or deci-
sion of this motion.
No. 19M72. Sharbutt v. Vasquez, Warden;
No. 19M73. Carswell et al. v. E. Pihl & Son et al.; and
No. 19M74. Johnson v. Court of Claims of Illinois. Mo-
tions to direct the Clerk to fle petitions for writs of certiorari
out of time denied.
No. 19M75. White v. United States. Motion for leave to
fle petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies
for the public record granted.
No. 19M76. Upshaw v. United States. Motion for leave to
proceed as a veteran denied.
No. 151, Orig. Arizona v. Sackler et al. Motion for leave
to fle bill of complaint denied.
No. 17–1268. Opati, in Her Own Right, and as Executrix
of the Estate of Opati, Deceased, et al. v. Republic of
Sudan et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 588 U. S.
919.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in
oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument
granted. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration
or decision of this motion.
No. 17–1712. Thole et al. v. U. S. Bank N. A. et al. C. A.
8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 588 U. S. 919.] Motion of the Solici-
tor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus
curiae and for divided argument granted.
No. 18–1048. GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS,
Corp., fka Converteam SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA,
LLC, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 588 U. S. 918.]

ORDERS 1101
589 U. S.
D
ecember 9, 2019
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral
arg
ument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
No. 18–1195. Espinoza et al. v. Montana Department of
Revenue et al. Sup. Ct. Mont. [Certiorari granted, 588 U. S.
920.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in
oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument
granted.
No. 18–9412. Rashid v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Mo-
tion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [589 U. S. 904] denied. Justice
Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
No. 18–9706. Peters v. Illinois. Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion of
petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed
in forma pauperis [589 U. S. 905] denied.
No. 19–7. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protec-
tion Bureau. C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 589 U. S.
1031.] Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing joint appen-
dix granted.
No. 19–277. HSBC Holdings PLC et al. v. Picard et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to fle a brief in
this case expressing the views of the United States.
No. 19–5632. T. A. et al. v. Leff et al.; and Kramer et al.
v. Dane et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioners for reconsid-
eration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [589
U. S. 1032] denied.
No. 19–6172. Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corp. et al.
C. A. 6th Cir.;
No. 19–6191. K. N. et ux. v. Montana Department of Pub-
lic Health and Human Services. Sup. Ct. Mont.;
No. 19–6198. Rubang v. United Airlines, Inc., et al.
C. A. 9th Cir.; and
No. 19–6214. Fuquen v. Everitt. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Mo-
tions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
Petitioners are allowed until December 30, 2019, 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.

1102 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 9, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6591. In re Uncapher; and
N
o. 19–6645. In re Armstrong. Petitions for writs of ha-
beas corpus denied.
No. 19–359. In re Law Ofces of Nina Ringgold et al.;
No. 19–410. In re Fields;
No. 19–481. In re Lussy;
No. 19–5721. In re Schafer; and
No. 19–6112. In re Pouncy. Petitions for writs of manda-
mus denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 18–1519. Correa v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 908 F. 3d 208.
No. 18–1538. Cherk et al. v. Marin County, California.
Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
No. 18–1552. Alfano et al. v. United States; and
No. 18–1581. Lowry et al. v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 913 F. 3d 332.
No. 18–1572. Priset v. Pennsylvania. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 18–1586. Gibson, aka Lynn v. Collier et al. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 212.
No. 18–9263. Felipe Valencia v. United States; and
No. 18–9328. Portocarrero Valencia v. United States.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d
717.
No. 19–4. Jackson National Life Insurance Co. v. Lin-
denburg, Individually and as Natural Guardian of Her
Minor Children ZTL et al.; and
No. 19–13. Tennessee v. Lindenburg, Individually and
as Natural Guardian of Her Minor Children ZTL et al.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 348.
No. 19–47. Morgan v. Schott et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 914 F. 3d 1115.
No. 19–109. Montijo-Dominguez v. United States. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx.
870.

ORDERS 1103
589 U. S.
D
ecember 9, 2019
No. 19–152. Amarin Pharma, Inc., et al. v. International
Trade
Commission et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 923 F. 3d 959.
No. 19–158. Turner et al. v. Hines et al. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 201 A. 3d 578.
No. 19–159. Tapia v. New York. Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 33 N. Y. 3d 257, 124 N. E. 3d 210.
No. 19–248. Jammal et al. v. American Family Insurance
Co. et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
914 F. 3d 449.
No. 19–263. Ross v. Rochell. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 588.
No. 19–276. Luis Garza et al. v. City of Donna, Texas.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 626.
No. 19–283. City of Trinidad, Colorado v. Hamer. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 1093.
No. 19–285. Butler v. Board of County Commissioners
for San Miguel County et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 651.
No. 19–286. Cranston Police Retirees Action Committee
v. City of Cranston, Rhode Island. Sup. Ct. R. I. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 208 A. 3d 557.
No. 19–287. Medina v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A.
D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 913 F. 3d 152.
No. 19–291. Block v. Washington State Bar Assn. et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed.
Appx. 729.
No. 19–293. TKC Aerospace Inc. v. Muhs. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 377.
No. 19–304. Ranger American of the V. I., Inc., et al. v.
Balboni. Sup. Ct. V. I. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 70
V. I. 1048.
No. 19–406. Touma v. General Counsel of the Regents
of the University of California et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.

1104 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 9, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–417. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P. S. C.,
et
al. v. Meier. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 920 F. 3d 421.
No. 19–436. T. R. C. v. Wisconsin. Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2019 WI App 26, 387 Wis. 2d 686, 928
N. W. 2d 809.
No. 19–439. CTIA–The Wireless Assn. v. City of Berke-
ley, California, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 928 F. 3d 832.
No. 19–448. Plourde v. Doe. Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2019 ME 109, 211 A. 3d 1153.
No. 19–451. Arnold v. McCord, Commissioner, Tennessee
Department of Labor and Workforce Development. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–452. Clark v. Clark. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 972.
No. 19–457. Xia Bi et al. v. McAuliffe et al. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–458. Schickel et al. v. Troutman et al. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d 858.
No. 19–459. Texas Brine Co., LLC v. Florida Gas Trans-
mission Co., LLC; Texas Brine Co., LLC v. Pontchartrain
Natural Gas System et al.; Texas Brine Co., LLC v. Cross-
tex Energy Services, LP, et al.; Texas Brine Co., LLC v.
Florida Gas Transmission Co., LLC; and Texas Brine Co.,
LLC v. Florida Gas Transmission Co., LLC. Ct. App. La.,
1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 460. Usenko, Derivatively on Behalf of the
SunEdison Semiconductor Ltd. Retirement Savings Plan
v. MEMC LLC et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 926 F. 3d 468.
No. 19–463. Wilbur-Ellis Co. LLC v. United States Dis-
trict Court for the Eastern District of Missouri et al.
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–467. Pavel v. University of Oregon et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx.
1022.

ORDERS 1105
589 U. S.
D
ecember 9, 2019
No. 19–468. Frye v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rar
i denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 137.
No. 19–474. Respect Washington v. Global Neighbor-
hood et al. Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 7 Wash. App. 2d 354, 434 P. 3d 1024.
No. 19–478. Sowe v. Pall Corp. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 20.
No. 19–482. ASAP Copy and Print et al. v. Canon Solu-
tions America, Inc. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., Div. 2. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–485. Perez et al. v. City of Sweetwater, Florida.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed.
Appx. 967.
No. 19–492. Adame-Hernandez v. Barr, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929
F. 3d 1020.
No. 19 – 501. Rutland v. Warden, Smith State Prison.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed.
Appx. 581.
No. 19–530. Schlosser v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 749 Fed. Appx. 145.
No. 19–533. River Birch, Inc., et al. v. Waste Manage-
ment of Louisiana, L. L. C. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 920 F. 3d 958.
No. 19–536. Bocilla Island Seaport, Inc., fka Highpoint
Tower Technology, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Reve-
nue. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 931
F. 3d 1050.
No. 19–538. Hee v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–571. Intel Corp. et al. v. Continental Circuits
LLC. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 915
F. 3d 788.
No. 19 – 576. Interior Glas s Systems, Inc. v. United
States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 927
F. 3d 1081.

1106 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 9, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–579. Boateng v. BP, P. L. C., et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 217.
No. 19–585. Stoltz v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 297 Va. 529, 831 S. E. 2d 164.
No. 19–594. Thiam v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 89.
No. 19–612. Abpikar v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–613. W&T Offshore, Inc. v. Apache Deepwater,
L. L. C. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 930
F. 3d 647.
No. 19–5391. McCarthan v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5643. Wright v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 913 F. 3d 364.
No. 19–5693. Hutchinson v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018–445 (La. App. 3
Cir. 12/12/18), 261 So. 3d 927.
No. 19–6090. Wells v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 885.
No. 19–6091. Toney v. Dickson et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6092. Prather v. Gilmore, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Greene, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6096. Simmons v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6097. Reynolds v. Virginia et al. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 151.
No. 19–6098. Rosado-Sanchez v. Puerto Rico Department
of Education et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6099. Stafford v. New Jersey. Super. Ct. N. J.,
App. Div. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1107
589 U. S.
D
ecember 9, 2019
No. 19–6103. Popal v. New York. Ct. App. N. Y. Certio-
rar
i denied. Reported below: 34 N. Y. 3d 936, 133 N. E. 3d 422.
No. 19–6105. Perry v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A., et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 734 Fed.
Appx. 533.
No. 19–6106. Johnson v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6118. Brent v. Workman. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6122. Stevenson v. Woods, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6126. Youssef v. Schuette et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6129. Guzman Pena v. Barr, Attorney General.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6130. Fisher v. Mermelstein et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6136. Bias v. Martin, Warden. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 549.
No. 19– 6139. Stevenson v. Horton, Warden. Ct. App.
Mich. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6145. Smith v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6147. Sardakowski v. Romero, Warden. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 979.
No. 19–6153. Nelson v. Burt, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6161. Connolly v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 288 So. 3d 638.
No. 19– 6163. Olivares Polanco v. Lincoln Community
Healthcare. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Repor ted
below: 775 Fed. Appx. 131.

1108 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 9, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6165. Davis v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
N
o. 19–6166. Strandberg v. Palmer, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6168. Robinson v. Burton, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6171. Sanchez-Rodriguez v. Louisiana. Ct. App.
La., 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018–0578 (La.
App. 4 Cir. 12/12/18).
No. 19–6174. Lee v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6175. K. S. v. Contra Costa County Children and
Family Services Bureau. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Div. 4.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6180. Farnum v. Frauenheim, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 680.
No. 19–6181. Robertson v. Davis, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
763 Fed. Appx. 378.
No. 19–6183. Chatman v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 254 So. 3d 328.
No. 19–6184. Johnson v. Severson, Warden, et al. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 6192. Junious v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 201 A. 3d 895.
No. 19–6194. Sneed v. Wetzel, Secretary, Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6203. Barrass v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 760.
No. 19–6204. Biela v. Nevada. Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 135 Nev. 615, 439 P. 3d 396.

ORDERS 1109
589 U. S.
D
ecember 9, 2019
No. 19–6206. Davenport v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
p
artment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6210. Jackson v. Nagy, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6212. Edwards v. Attorney Grievance Commis-
sion. Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 504
Mich. 949, 931 N. W. 2d 333.
No. 19–6215. Haynes v. Assets Protection, Inc. Super.
Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 200 A. 3d 558.
No. 19–6216. Herring v. McEwen, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6218. Boone v. Maryland. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 227 Md. App. 778.
No. 19–6219. C. B. v. Fischgrund. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 264 So. 3d 152.
No. 19–6222. Hearns v. Harrington, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6223. Harris v. Bracy, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6226. Ackbar v. Connor et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 141.
No. 19–6235. Erskine v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 7 Cal. 5th 279, 440 P. 3d 1112.
No. 19–6246. Jones v. Wisconsin. Ct. App. Wis. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6260. Cross v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 277 So. 3d 94.
No. 19–6261. Marion v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6263. Velasquez v. Utah et al. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 420.
No. 19–6274. Kovalev v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 775 Fed. Appx. 72.

1110 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 9, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6299. Lopez v. Sterling Correctional Facility
et
al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 745
Fed. Appx. 91.
No. 19–6302. Douglas v. Gilbert, Superintendent, Staff-
ord Creek Corrections Center. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6303. Cooper v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 718.
No. 19–6323. Taffaro v. New Jersey. Super. Ct. N. J., App.
Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6344. Altschuler v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla.,
5th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 277 So. 3d 109.
No. 19–6350. Dobson-El v. Michigan. Sup. Ct. Mich. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 504 Mich. 948, 931 N. W. 2d 307.
No. 19–6351. Elkington v. Clark, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Albion, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6366. Curtiss v. North Dakota. Sup. Ct. N. D.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 ND 120, 926 N. W. 2d
707.
No. 19–6367. Keiser v. Foxwell, Warden, et al. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 740.
No. 19–6371. Jefferson v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas
Department of Correction, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6380. Beverly v. Burt, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6383. Kesoyan v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 576.
No. 19–6385. Grenning v. Key, Superintendent, Airway
Heights Corrections Center. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6390. Collins v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.

ORDERS 1111
589 U. S.
D
ecember 9, 2019
No. 19–6391. Chin v. Capozza, Superintendent, State
Correctional
Institution at Fayette, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6392. Evers v. Foster, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6394. Villafana v. Padrick. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 314.
No. 19–6397. Gomez-Aguilar v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 412.
No. 19 – 6400. Wazney v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A.
Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6404. Curtis v. Hooks, Secretary, North Carolina
Department of Public Safety. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 752.
No. 19–6408. Strege v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19 – 6415. Nava v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 190.
No. 19–6418. Morris v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19 – 6420. Heath v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 170.
No. 19–6421. Fox v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 1275.
No. 19–6423. Uhuru v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 242.
No. 19–6424. Stokes v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 242.
No. 19–6433. Torres v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 497.
No. 19–6436. Padmanabhan v. Drug Enforcement Admin-
istration. C. A. D. C. Cir. Cer ti orar i denied. Repor ted
below: 762 Fed. Appx. 6.

1112 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 9, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6444. Harris v. Moyer, Secretary, Maryland De-
p
artment of Public Safety and Correctional Services,
et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6445. Cox v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 527.
No. 19–6448. Door v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 520.
No. 19–6450. Mahmoud v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 9th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6456. Baggett v. Spearman, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6461. Collins v. Maryland. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 240 Md. App. 726.
No. 19–6471. Lozano-Perez v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 459.
No. 19–6474. Tank v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6476. Blunt v. Campbell, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6478. Garba et al. v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 565 and 770 Fed.
Appx. 342.
No. 19–6481. Rotte v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6485. Stevenson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6486. Bangiyev v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 328.
No. 19 – 6487. Donahue v. Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6489. Wallace v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 223.

ORDERS 1113
589 U. S.
D
ecember 9, 2019
No. 19–6490. Al-Maqablh v. Kentucky. Cir. Ct. Trimble
County
, Ky. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6491. Shaffer v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 404.
No. 19–6494. Staten v. D. R. Horton Inc. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6497. Morillo-Cruz v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 103.
No. 19–6503. Moreno-Garcia v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 218.
No. 19–6505. Ingram v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 1084.
No. 19–6509. Gaudet v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 933 F. 3d 11.
No. 19–6511. Del Carpio Frescas v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 324.
No. 19–6515. Anderson v. Janssen, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6525. Barnes v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 62.
No. 19–6527. Valdes v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6529. Tyson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 154.
No. 19–6530. Williams v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6533. Basey v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 497.
No. 19–6538. Grifn v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 881.
No. 19–6539. Haizlip v. Valliere. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 157.

1114 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 9, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6540. Grant v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 740 Fed. Appx. 412.
No. 19–6541. Fortes v. Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services et al. Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6547. Sterling v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 63.
No. 19–6549. Salgado v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 933 F. 3d 20.
No. 19–6550. Gieseke v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6551. Aho v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 613.
No. 19–6552. Atkinson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 164.
No. 19–6554. Leal v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 933 F. 3d 426.
No. 19–6555. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 72.
No. 19–6557. Nygren v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 933 F. 3d 76.
No. 19–6560. Lucio v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 348.
No. 19–6569. Carraway v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 251.
No. 19–6571. Illarramendi v. Carney et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 88.
No. 19–6572. Hills v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6573. Gonzalez v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6576. Reed v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 305.

ORDERS 1115
589 U. S.
D
ecember 9, 2019
No. 19–6583. Killen v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 567.
No. 19–6584. Williams v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 Fed. Appx. 8.
No. 19–6587. Helguera-Del Rio v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 838.
No. 19–6597. Galitsa v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 758 Fed. Appx. 224.
No. 18–8341. Schexnayder v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
Statement of Justice Sotomayor respecting the denial of
certiorari.
In 2007, a former employee of Louisiana's Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeal shot himself in his courthouse offce. The employee
left a suicide note claiming that he had been tormented by his
involvement in that Court of Appeal's secret, 13-year policy of
summarily denying pro se appeals. Purpura, Fifth Circuit Or-
dered To Review Appeals; Due Process Denied, Supreme Court
Says, New Orleans, La., Times-Picayune, Oct. 7, 2008, p. B1. The
note reportedly stated that no judge had reviewed a habeas appli-
cation fled by a pro se inmate during that time; instead, court-
house staff prepared rulings that judges signed “without so much
as a glance” at the underlying petitions or any review of the
applications' merits. Johnson v. Parish of Jefferson, 2009 WL
1808718, *4 (ED La., June 19, 2009).
In response to this revelation, the Louisiana Supreme Court
approved a procedure whereby a three-judge panel—drawn from
the same pool of Court of Appeal judges who had allegedly sum-
marily rejected pro se flings—would re-review hundreds of pro se
submissions that had been dismissed without consideration.
State v. Cordero, 2008–1717 (La. 10/3/08), 993 So. 2d 203. Justice
John L. Weimer dissented from that decision, arguing that the
cases should be assigned to judges sitting on other courts of
appeal to “avoid any appearance of impropriety.” Id., at 214.
Petitioner's case, which primarily challenges the effectiveness
of his counsel and various trial errors, was one of the many
matters swept up in the Louisiana Court of Appeal's original
review process and the re-review remedy ordered by the Louisi-

1116 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 9, 2019 589 U. S.
ana Supreme Court. After the state courts dismissed his claims,
petiti
oner fled for federal habeas relief. He argued that the Lou-
isiana courts did not fairly review his flings on the merits—
either originally or through the re-review process—and so he was
entitled to de novo federal review without any of the deference
ordinarily afforded to state-court rulings under the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The Magis-
trate Judge dismissed the habeas petition after applying AEDPA
deference.
Petitioner, who was pro se during various stages of the lower
court proceedings, did not clearly set forth his claim that he was
entitled to habeas review without AEDPA deference when he
sought a certifcate of appealability from the District Court and,
later, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals was not fairly presented with
the opportunity to resolve the issue that petitioner now presents
to this Court. For this reason, I do not dissent from this Court's
denial of certiorari. The re-review procedure adopted by the
Louisiana courts, however, raises serious due process concerns.
I expect that lower federal courts will examine the issue of what
deference is due to these decisions when it is properly raised.
No. 18–8862. White v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 1st Cir.
Motion of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers for
leave to fle brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 2017–1256 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/16/18), 243 So. 3d 12.
No. 18–9261. Cottier v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 908 F. 3d 1141.
Statement of Justice Sotomayor respecting the denial of
certiorari.
For his alleged role in a group beating, petitioner Calmer Cot-
tier was charged with, among other things, second-degree murder
by an Indian in Indian country. Two other participants accepted
plea deals with the Government; as part of their pleas, the partici-
pants signed statements—known as factual-basis statements—
that implicated Cottier in the murder. A federal prosecutor also
signed those inculpatory statements to vouch for their veracity.
Then, that same prosecutor offered those same incriminating
statements as evidence at Cottier's trial.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ob-
served that the court in which Cottier was prosecuted “routinely”

ORDERS 1117
589 U. S.
D
ecember 9, 2019
sends unredacted factual-basis statements into the jury room.
908
F. 3d 1141, 1149 (2018). I agree with the Eighth Circuit that
this practice is “troubling.” Ibid. By presenting the jury with
a factual-basis statement signed by the Government, the prosecu-
tion improperly expresses its “ `personal belief ' ” in the truth of
the witness' statements—a stamp of approval, an assurance from
the Government itself, that the witness is to be believed. United
States v. Young, 470 U. S. 1, 7–8 (1985). In this case, however,
Cottier's attorney did not object to the statements' admission
and used them as part of Cottier's defense. For that reason and
others expressed by the Eighth Circuit in affrming Cottier's con-
victions, I do not dissent from the denial of certiorari but instead
echo its admonition that the admission of such statements “is not
a favored practice.” 908 F. 3d, at 1149.
No. 19–257. California Trout et al. v. Hoopa Valley
Tribe et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Ka-
vanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this
petition. Reported below: 913 F. 3d 1099.
No. 19–426. Pennsylvania v. Hicks. Sup. Ct. Pa. Motion
of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 652 Pa. 353, 208 A. 3d 916.
No. 19–432. All American Check Cashing, Inc., et al.
v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari before judgment denied.
No. 19–470. Jones v. Department of Justice et al. C. A.
D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part
in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 19–560. Nicassio v. Viacom International, Inc., et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer took no part
in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below:
776 Fed. Appx. 761.
Rehearing Denied
No. 18–9014. McNeil v. Nebraska et al., 589 U. S. 932;
No. 18–9017. Myles v. United States, 587 U. S. 1045;
No. 18 – 9090. Howard v. San Diego County Counsel
et al., 589 U. S. 934;
No. 18–9190. Smith v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al., 589 U. S. 938;

1118 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 9, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9209. H. F. v. Board of Education of the Township
of
Teaneck, 589 U. S. 938;
No. 18–9254. Rubin v. Sanchez et al., 589 U. S. 939;
No. 18–9283. Russell v. First Resolution Investment
Corp., 589 U. S. 940;
No. 18–9354. Reddick v. United States, 589 U. S. 943;
No. 18–9374. Walton v. Ray, Warden, 589 U. S. 944;
No. 18–9390. Aranoff v. Aranoff, 589 U. S. 944;
No. 18–9426. Duriso v. West Gulf Maritime Assn. et al.,
589 U. S. 946;
No. 18–9631. Campbell v. United States, 589 U. S. 957;
No. 18–9709. Walker v. United States, 589 U. S. 960;
No. 18–9713. Brende v. Young, Warden, et al., 589 U. S.
961;
No. 18–9800. Adams v. United States, 589 U. S. 965;
No. 19–163. Norton v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 589 U. S.
1016;
No. 19–174. Rich, Representative for Depuis-Mays, an
Incapacitated Person v. Palko et al., 589 U. S. 1016;
No. 19–215. Nevels v. Piggly Wiggly Corp. et al., 589
U. S. 1034;
No. 19–261. Waltner et al. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 589 U. S. 1017;
No. 19–262. Xiao-Ying Yu v. Neall, Secretary, Maryland
Department of Health, et al., 589 U. S. 1034;
No. 19–323. Schneider v. Commissioner of Internal Rev-
enue, 589 U. S. 1018;
No. 19–5040. Lu v. Stanford University, 589 U. S. 979;
No. 19–5047. Toole v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Af-
fairs, et al., 589 U. S. 979;
No. 19–5059. Viera v. Florida, 589 U. S. 980;
No. 19–5066. Dongarra v. United States, 589 U. S. 980;
No. 19–5072. Bridges v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion, 589 U. S. 981;
No. 19–5090. Du Ju v. Washington et al., 589 U. S. 982;
No. 19 – 5156. Logan v. Town of Windsor, New York,
et al., 589 U. S. 986;
No. 19–5179. Pattishall v. Cerf et al., 589 U. S. 987;
No. 19–5190. Williams v. National Railroad Passenger
Corporation et al., 589 U. S. 988;

ORDERS 1119
589 U. S.
D
ecember 9, 10, 11, 13, 2019
No. 19–5200. In re Roman, 589 U. S. 914;
N
o. 19–5211. Anyanwu v. Barr, Attorney General, 589
U. S. 989;
No. 19–5225. In re Brunson, 589 U. S. 914;
No. 19–5265. Schreiber v. Ludwick et al., 589 U. S. 991;
No. 19–5313. Kahlow v. Florida, 589 U. S. 993;
No. 19–5413. Rooney v. Georgia, 589 U. S. 1018;
No. 19–5510. Fortune v. Virginia, 589 U. S. 1001;
No. 19–5587. In re Spence, 589 U. S. 914;
No. 19–5657. Rogero et al. v. Azar, Secretary of Health
and Human Services, 589 U. S. 1023;
No. 19–5664. Sheppard v. Texas (two judgments), 589 U. S.
1036;
No. 19–5756. In re Bryant, 589 U. S. 914;
No. 19–5816. Maalouf v. Praetorian Insurance Co., 589
U. S. 1026;
No. 19–5822. Tuttle v. United States, 589 U. S. 1026; and
No. 19–5931. Allen v. Pennsylvania, 589 U. S. 1029. Peti-
tions for rehearing denied.
December 10, 2019
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 19–221. Valent v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Secu-
rity. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court's
Rule 46.1. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 516.
December 11, 2019
Certiorari Denied
No. 19–6875 (19A639). Runnels v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App.
Tex. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, pre-
sented to Justice Alito, and by him referred to the Court, de-
nied. Certiorari denied.
December 13, 2019
Certiorari Granted
No. 18–9526. McGirt v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
granted. Certiorari granted.
No. 19–177. Agency for International Development
et al. v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.,

1120 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 13, 16, 2019 589 U. S.
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted. Justice Kagan took
no
part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported
below: 911 F. 3d 104.
No. 19–635. Trump v. Vance, District Attorney of the
County of New York, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer ti orari
granted. Case will be set for argument in the March 2020 argu-
ment session. Reported below: 941 F. 3d 631.
No. 19–715. Trump et al. v. Mazars USA, LLP, et al.
C. A. D. C. Cir.; and
No. 19–760 (19A640). Trump et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari in No. 19–715 granted. Appli-
cation (19A640) for stay, presented to Justice Ginsburg, and by
her referred to the Court, granted, and it is ordered that the
mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, case No. 19–1540, is hereby stayed pending further order
of the Court. In addition, the application is treated as a petition
for writ of certiorari, and certiorari is granted. Cases consoli-
dated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
Cases will be set for argument in the March 2020 argument ses-
sion. Reported below: No. 19–715, 940 F. 3d 710; No. 19–760, 943
F. 3d 627.
December 16, 2019
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 19–6228. Chi v. Stover 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. 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: 706 Fed. Appx. 835.
No. 19–6237. Watson v. Godert, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 19M77. Wasson v. United States et al.;
No. 19M79. Robinson v. Dore; and

ORDERS 1121
589 U. S.
D
ecember 16, 2019
No. 19M80. Keita v. United States et al.; Keita v. Citi-
bank
N. A. et al.; and Keita v. IBM et al. Motions to direct
the Clerk to fle petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 19M78. Guerrero Hernandez v. United States. Mo-
tion for leave to fle petition for writ of certiorari with supplemen-
tal appendix under seal denied.
No. 18–1059. Kelly v. United States et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
[Certiorari granted, 588 U. S. 919.] Motion of respondent William
Baroni for divided argument granted.
No. 19–373. Walker v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1066.] Motion of petitioner to dis-
pense with printing joint appendix granted.
No. 19–655. In re Patterson. Petition for writ of habeas
corpus denied.
No. 19–6248. In re Parks; and
No. 19–6441. In re Lynch. Petitions for writs of manda-
mus denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 19 –181. Pat terson v. Indiana Family and Social
Services Administration. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 119 N. E. 3d 99.
No. 19–202. McLemore v. City of Shoreline, Washington.
Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 193 Wash.
2d 225, 438 P. 3d 1161.
No. 19–235. Jordan et al. v. Virginia Department of Cor-
rections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
921 F. 3d 180.
No. 19–247. City of Boise, Idaho v. Martin et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 584.
No. 19–281. Capital Associated Industries, Inc. v. Stein,
Attorney General of North Carolina, et al. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 198.
No. 19–462. A Top New Casting Inc. v. Bodum USA, Inc.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 486.

1122 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 16, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–469. Hsu v. City of Berkeley, California. Ct.
App
. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Div. 5. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 471. Fermin v. Priest of Saint Mary-Marfa,
Texas, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 775 Fed. Appx. 162.
No. 19–473. Dasler v. Dasler. Sup. Ct. Vt. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–476. Jain et vir v. Barker et al. (Reported below:
265 So. 3d 633); and Jain, as Trustee, and Its Successors or
Successor Trustees Under the Manohar Jain Trust Dated
July 1, 2000, et al. v. Bay Hill Property Owners Assn., Inc.
(268 So. 3d 142). Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–477. Kurowski v. Estate of Kurowski et al. C. A.
7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 649.
No. 19–483. Marino v. Nadel, dba Law Ofces of Jef-
frey Nadel, et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 305.
No. 19–496. DISH Network L. L. C. v. Krakauer, Individ-
ually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d
643.
No. 19–504. Bowes v. Melito et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 85.
No. 19–519. Psara Energy Ltd. v. ST Shipping & Trans-
port Pte. Ltd. et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 45.
No. 19–524. De La Fuente v. Padilla, California Secre-
tary of State, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 930 F. 3d 1101.
No. 19–540. Jenkins v. City of Cleveland, Ohio. Ct. App.
Ohio, 8th App. Dist., Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 2019-Ohio-458.
No. 19–545. Coulter v. Paulisick et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 180.

ORDERS 1123
589 U. S.
D
ecember 16, 2019
No. 19–614. Vizcarra et al. v. Ortiz, Individually and as
Co-Succes
sor in Interest to Decedent Pena, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 450.
No. 19–617. Superville v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 28.
No. 19 – 621. Sweeney v. Merit Systems Protection
Board. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776
Fed. Appx. 788.
No. 19–644. Ford v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–5574. Welch v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 188.
No. 19–6157. Brockington v. Saul, Commissioner of So-
cial Security. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 740 Fed. Appx. 332.
No. 19–6239. Laws v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6245. Wilkins, aka Brown v. Stanislaus County,
California, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 739.
No. 19– 6250. Father v. Maternal Grandparents. Ct.
App. Ohio, 8th App. Dist., Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 2017-Ohio-9165.
No. 19–6257. Lovett v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19 – 6259. Chrichlow v. Met zger, Warden, et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6281. Sanders v. Obama et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6411. Bareeld v. Arkansas. Sup. Ct. Ark. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 Ark. 149, 574 S. W. 3d 142.
No. 19–6438. Tapia-Fierro v. Barr, Attorney General,
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754
Fed. Appx. 634.

1124 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 16, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 19–6442. Yeager v. National Public Radio et al.
C
. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed.
Appx. 1030.
No. 19–6581. Leon v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 1021.
No. 19–6600. Davis v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6601. Battle v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 160.
No. 19–6602. Ackies v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 190.
No. 19–6606. Root v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 536.
No. 19–6610. Alberto Rubi v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 865.
No. 19–6615. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6616. Magi v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 324.
No. 19–6619. Whitted v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 948.
No. 19–6620. Waldrip v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 369.
No. 19–6621. Walters v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 25.
No. 19–6623. Fultz v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 1192.
No. 19–6626. Dodson v. United States (Reported below: 775
Fed. Appx. 442); Six v. United States (775 Fed. Appx. 443);
Williams v. United States (775 Fed. Appx. 449); Gibson, aka
Worth v. United States (775 Fed. Appx. 446); Bolduan v.
United States (775 Fed. Appx. 455); and Englehart v. United
States (772 Fed. Appx. 722). C. A. 10th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.

ORDERS 1125
589 U. S.
D
ecember 16, 2019
No. 19–6627. Williamson v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6635. Borowski v. Bechelli et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 338.
No. 19–6639. Andrews v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 197.
No. 19–6640. Bradley v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 476.
No. 19–6641. Clayton v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 630.
No. 19–6643. Forrest v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 775.
No. 19–6665. Kingsbury v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 680.
No. 19–223. Smyth v. Conservation Commission of Fal-
mouth et al. App. Ct. Mass. Motion of National Federation
of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center et al. for
leave to fle brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 94 Mass. App. 790, 119 N. E. 3d 1188.
No. 19–5282. Baxter v. United States. C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition.
Rehearing Denied
No. 18–1461. Delebreau v. Danforth et al., 589 U. S. 922;
No. 18–1472. In re Hadsell, 589 U. S. 914;
No. 18–1573. Petko et al. v. Carelton Courtyard, 589
U. S. 928;
No. 18–1583. Carter v. United States, 589 U. S. 928;
No. 18–9018. Wilson v. City of Chesapeake, Virginia, 589
U. S. 932;
No. 18–9134. Clopton v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion, 589 U. S. 935;
No. 18–9147. Flint v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
589 U. S. 936;

1126 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
December 16, 18, 2019 589 U. S.
No. 18–9489. Bressi v. Gembic et al., 589 U. S. 949;
N
o. 18–9540. Harvin v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion, 589 U. S. 952;
No. 18–9593. Hayes v. Gorman et al., 589 U. S. 954;
No. 19–236. Ammiyhuwd v. Pompeo, Secretary of State,
et al., 589 U. S. 1034;
No. 19–5007. Sikes v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
589 U. S. 977;
No. 19–5253. Wright v. Holley, Acting Commissioner of
the West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, 589
U. S. 991;
No. 19–5278. Chaney v. United States, 589 U. S. 992;
No. 19–5302. Williams v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, 589 U. S. 993;
No. 19–5409. Daniel v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, 589 U. S. 998;
No. 19–5459. Carter v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion, 589 U. S. 1019;
No. 19–5722. Shepard v. United States, 589 U. S. 1006; and
No. 19–5808. Donahue v. Pennsylvania, 589 U. S. 1026. Pe-
titions for rehearing denied.
No. 18–9783. Ghelichkhani v. United States, 589 U. S.
1009. Petition for rehearing denied. Justice Kagan took no
part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
December 18, 2019
Certiorari Granted
No. 19–292. Torres v. Madrid et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari granted. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 654.
No. 19–357. City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton et al.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 926 F. 3d
916.
No. 19–438. Pereida v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A.
8th Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 916 F. 3d 1128.
No. 19–267. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-
Berru; and

ORDERS 1127
589 U. S.
D
ecember 18, 2019, January 10, 13, 2020
No. 19–348. St. James School v. Biel, as Personal Repre-
sent
ative of the Estate of Biel. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for
oral argument. Reported below: No. 19–267, 769 Fed. Appx. 460;
No. 19–348, 911 F. 3d 603.
January 10, 2020
Certiorari Granted
No. 18–540. Rutledge, Attorney General of Arkansas
v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Assn. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari granted. Reported below: 891 F. 3d 1109.
No. 19–199. Salinas v. United States Railroad Retire-
ment Board. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported
below: 765 Fed. Appx. 79.
No. 19–631. Barr, Attorney General, et al. v. American
Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari granted. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 159.
January 13, 2020
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 17–1529. Clearstream Banking S. A. v. Peterson
et al.;
No. 17–1530. Banca UBAE, S. p. A. v. Peterson et al.; and
No. 17–1534. Bank Markazi, aka Central Bank of Iran v.
Peterson et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment
vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 133
Stat. 1198. Reported below: 876 F. 3d 63.
No. 18–9325. Jefferson 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 the court to consider the First Step Act of 2018, 132
Stat. 5194. Reported below: 911 F. 3d 1290.
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 19–6285. Linh Thi Minh Tran v. Stan the Hot Water
Man. Ct. App. Ore. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this

1128 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
Court's Rule 39.8. Reported below: 294 Ore. App. 512, 429
P
. 3d 450.
No. 19–6291. Mua v. O’Neal Firm, LLP. Ct. App. D. C.
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).
No. 19–6435. Oduok v. Fulton DeKalb Hospital Author-
ity, dba Grady Memorial Hospital, et al. Sup. Ct. Ga. Mo-
tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied,
and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
No. 19–6516. Veteto v. Grifn, Judge, Circuit Court of
Alabama, Montgomery County, et al. 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.
No. 19–6544. Cunningham v. Columbia Pictures Indus-
tries, Inc., 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: 765 Fed. Appx.
395.
No. 19–6545. Cunningham v. Washington County, Oregon,
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. 19–6629. King v. District of Columbia et al. Ct. App.
D. C. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule
39.8. Reported below: 203 A. 3d 767.
No. 19–6631. Drevaleva v. Appellate Division of the Su-
perior Court of California, San Mateo County, et al. Ct.
App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Div. 1. Motion of petitioner for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed.
See this Court's Rule 39.8.

ORDERS 1129
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
Miscellaneous Orders
N
o. D–3054. In re Discipline of Hanover. Sean Regan
Hanover, of Fairfax, Va., 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–3055. In re Discipline of Frank. Barry N. Frank,
of Ridgefeld, 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–3056. In re Discipline of James. Michael L. James,
of Louisville, Ky., 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–3057. In re Discipline of Blaher. Neal Jonathan
Blaher, of Orlando, Fla., 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–3058. In re Discipline of Romero. Douglas L. Ro-
mero, of Denver, Colo., 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. 19M81. Fenstermaker v. Halvorson, Warden;
No. 19M83. Roach v. Washington;
No. 19M84. Harris v. Central States, Southeast and
Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Pension Funds;
No. 19M85. Conner v. United States;
No. 19M86. Marr v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections;
No. 19M87. Montgomery v. Walgreen Co.; and
No. 19M89. Lloyd v. Presby’s Inspired Life et al. Mo-
tions to direct the Clerk to fle petitions for writs of certiorari
out of time denied.
No. 19M82. Morrow v. West Central Georgia Workforce
Development Corporation. Motion to direct the Clerk to fle

1130 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
petition for writ of certiorari out of time under this Court's Rule
14.5
denied.
No. 19M88. Longmire v. Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schle-
singer & Kuh, LLP. Motion for leave to fle petition for writ
of certiorari with supplemental appendix under seal denied.
No. 141, Orig. Texas v. New Mexico et al. Second Interim
Report of the Special Master on the motion of Nathan Boyd Es-
tate et al. for leave to intervene received and ordered fled. Mo-
tion of Nathan Boyd Estate et al. for leave to intervene denied.
[For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 587 U. S. 1061.]
No. 18–1195. Espinoza et al. v. Montana Department of
Revenue et al. Sup. Ct. Mont. [Certiorari granted, 588 U. S.
920.] Motion of Agudath Israel of America for leave to fle brief
as amicus curiae out of time denied.
No. 18–9546. Wills v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Motion for leave to fle an amended petition for writ of certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–9751. Nesbitt v. Frakes, Director, Nebraska De-
partment of Correctional Services. C. A. 8th Cir. Motion
of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed
in forma pauperis [589 U. S. 906] denied.
No. 19–71. Tanzin et al. v. Tanvir et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1078.] Motion of petitioners to dis-
pense with printing joint appendix granted.
No. 19–108. United States v. Briggs; and
No. 19–184. United States v. Collins; and United States
v. Daniels. C. A. Armed Forces. [Certiorari granted, 589 U. S.
1067.] Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing joint appen-
dix granted.
No. 19–416. Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe et al.; and
No. 19–453. Cargill, Inc. v. Doe et al. C. A. 9th Cir. The
Solicitor General is invited to fle a brief in this case expressing
the views of the United States.
No. 19–638. N. B. D. v. Kentucky Cabinet for Health and
Family Services. Sup. Ct. Ky. Motion of Nelida Maribel Diaz
Juarez for leave to intervene as petitioner granted. The Solicitor

ORDERS 1131
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
General is invited to fle a brief in this case expressing the views
of
the United States.
No. 19–6447. Donelson v. Hardy et al. C. A. 7th Cir.; and
No. 19–6593. Ford v. White et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Motions
of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
Petitioners are allowed until February 3, 2020, 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. 19–6831. In re Wroten;
No. 19–6854. In re Palomarez;
No. 19–6887. In re Edmonds;
No. 19–6889. In re Law; and
No. 19–6993. In re Lundy. Petitions for writs of habeas cor-
pus denied.
No. 19–6946. In re Reynolds. 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).
No. 19–544. In re Bank;
No. 19–6556. In re Wimbush et vir; and
No. 19–6580. In re Simpson. Petitions for writs of manda-
mus denied.
No. 19–6564. In re Wei Zhou. 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. 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. 19–6526. In re Worthington. Petition for writ of man-
damus and/or prohibition denied.

1132 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6659. In re Rodriguez Ornalez. Petition for writ
of
prohibition denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 18–415. HP Inc., fka Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Berk-
heimer. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
881 F. 3d 1360.
No. 18–817. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. et al. v.
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 887 F. 3d 1117.
No. 18–926. Putnam Investments, LLC, et al. v. Brother-
ston, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 907 F. 3d 17.
No. 18–1140. Avco Corp. v. Sikkelee, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Sikkelee, De-
ceased, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 907 F. 3d 701.
No. 18–1222. Vialva v. United States; and
No. 18–6992. Bernard v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 904 F. 3d 356.
No. 18–9495. Jones v. Underwood, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 293.
No. 18–9645. Black v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 902 F. 3d 541.
No. 18–9750. Curry v. Lopez, Associate Judge, Circuit
Court of Illinois, Cook County, et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 649.
No. 19 – 35. Mo jica v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–43. Power Analytics Corp. v. Operation Technol-
ogy, Inc., et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 748 Fed. Appx. 334.
No. 19–44. Deocampo v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 766 Fed. Appx. 555.

ORDERS 1133
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–51. Branch et al. v. Massachusetts Department
of
Labor Relations et al. Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 481 Mass. 810, 120 N. E. 3d 1163.
No. 19–52. Walker v. English, Warden. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 430.
No. 19 – 61. Maritime Life Caribbean Ltd. v. United
States. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
913 F. 3d 1027.
No. 19–62. Carter v. Massachusetts. Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 481 Mass. 352, 115 N. E. 3d
559.
No. 19–64. Lilley et al. v. New Hampshire. Sup. Ct.
N. H. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 171 N. H. 766, 204
A. 3d 198.
No. 19–102. Baca v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 724.
No. 19–125. Zamore v. Deutsche Bank National Trust
Co., Individually and as Trustee for JP Morgan Mortgage
Acquisition Trust 2007–CH5 Asset Backed Pass-Through
Certicates Series 2007–CH5, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 996.
No. 19–156. Islas v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 562 S. W. 3d 191.
No. 19–208. Beckham v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 1059.
No. 19–224. Strother v. Baldwin, Adjutant General,
California Army National Guard, et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 1016.
No. 19–268. Park Properties Associates, L. P., et al. v.
United States. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 916 F. 3d 998.
No. 19–288. Sanchez et al. v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx. 533.
No. 19–312. Ekhlassi v. National Lloyds Insurance Co.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 130.

1134 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–329. Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind v.
PDS
Consultants, Inc., et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 907 F. 3d 1345.
No. 19–331. Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC v. Gingras
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 922
F. 3d 112.
No. 19–337. Regents of the University of Minnesota v.
LSI Corp. et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 926 F. 3d 1327.
No. 19–343. New York Republican State Committee v.
Securities and Exchange Commission. C. A. D. C. Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 499.
No. 19–352. Brindle et al. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., et al.
Sup. Ct. R. I. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 211 A. 3d 930.
No. 19–358. Perez-Cazun et al. v. Barr, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 763
Fed. Appx. 591.
No. 19–361. Smith et al. v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 1215.
No. 19–376. Thompson v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Se-
curity. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919
F. 3d 1033.
No. 19–385. Qorane v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 904.
No. 19–386. Monroe County Commission v. A. A. Nettles,
Sr. Properties Ltd., et al. Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 288 So. 3d 452.
No. 19–387. Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Financial Over-
sight and Management Board for Puerto Rico et al.
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 597.
No. 19–391. Assured Guaranty Corp. et al. v. Financial
Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico et al.
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 121.
No. 19–400. Garmin USA, Inc., et al. v. Cellspin Soft,
Inc. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 927
F. 3d 1306.

ORDERS 1135
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–403. Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas v. Texas.
C
. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 440.
No. 19–409. City of Cleveland, Ohio, et al. v. Jackson
et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925
F. 3d 793.
No. 19–428. Courtade v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 186.
No. 19–430. Athena Diagnostics, Inc., et al. v. Mayo Col-
laborative Services, LLC, dba Mayo Medical Labora-
tories, et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 915 F. 3d 743.
No. 19–435. SIH Partners LLLP, Explorer Corp. v. Com-
missioner of Internal Revenue. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 296.
No. 19–464. Veterans Contracting Group, Inc. v. United
States. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
920 F. 3d 801.
No. 19–490. Metcalf v. Fitzgerald et al. Sup. Ct. Conn.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 333 Conn. 1, 214 A. 3d 361.
No. 19–493. Maksimuk v. Connor Sport Court Interna-
tional, LLC. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 771 Fed. Appx. 1001.
No. 19–502. Baatz et al. v. Columbia Gas Transmission,
LLC. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929
F. 3d 767.
No. 19–503. Apache Corp. v. Rhea. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–505. Rupert v. Bond et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 777.
No. 19–509. Doe v. Dardanelle School District. C. A.
8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 722.
No. 19–523. Williams v. Baptist Health, dba Baptist
Health Medical Center, et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 781.

1136 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–525. Cooley et al. v. National Abortion Federa-
tion
. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926
F. 3d 534.
No. 19–526. Edwards, dba Edwards Land and Cattle v.
Genex Cooperative, Inc. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 613.
No. 19–529. Turner v. Thomas et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 930 F. 3d 640.
No. 19–531. Levin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A., et al.
App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 161 App. Div. 3d 966, 77 N. Y. S. 3d 437.
No. 19–537. Thomas v. Solomon et al. Ct. App. Cal., 2d
App. Dist., Div. 8. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–539. Ofce of Recovery Services v. Latham.
Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 UT 51,
448 P. 3d 1241.
No. 19–542. Jarrett v. State Bar of California. Sup. Ct.
Cal. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–543. Lusk, Individually and as Executor of the
Estate of Lusk, Deceased v. Crown Pointe Care Center
et al. Ct. App. Ohio, 10th App. Dist., Franklin County. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2019-Ohio-1326, 135 N. E. 3d 414.
No. 19–548. Mullins v. Corcoran et al. App. Ct. Mass.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 95 Mass. App. 1107, 124 N. E.
3d 706.
No. 19–552. Salzwedel v. California et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 165.
No. 19–554. 50 Murray Street Acquisition LLC v. Kuz-
mich et al. Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 34 N. Y. 3d 84, 132 N. E. 3d 624.
No. 19–555. Fulmer v. Fifth Third Equipment Finance
Co. et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
931 F. 3d 730.
No. 19 – 556. Newnam v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 209 A. 3d 530.

ORDERS 1137
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–558. Montville Township Board of Education v.
Zurich
American Insurance Co. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 235.
No. 19–559. Reardon v. Hillman et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 658.
No. 19–561. Rosier v. Strobel. Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–562. Burke v. New York City Transit Authority
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 758
Fed. Appx. 192.
No. 19–565. Passaro v. Virginia et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 935 F. 3d 243.
No. 19–567. Pierre v. Macy’s, Inc., et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–570. Elofson v. Bivens et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 409.
No. 19–577. Lamprell v. Stuckey. Ct. App. N. M. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–578. Hale v. United States et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 216.
No. 19–580. Jun Xiao v. Regents of the University of
Minnesota et al. Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–581. Dovin et ux. v. Sweitzer et al. Commw. Ct.
Pa. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–583. Estate of Cunningham et al. v. McGuire.
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 240.
No. 19 – 584. Nuvo Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Desig-
nated Activity Co. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc.
et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923
F. 3d 1368.
No. 19–588. Madden-Grammer v. Industrial Claim Ap-
peals Ofce et al. Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–589. Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed.
Appx. 707.

1138 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–590. Deem v. Colangelo et al. Ct. App. N. Y.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 33 N. Y. 3d 1039, 126 N. E.
3d 1052.
No. 19 – 591. Chestnut Hill Sound Inc. v. Apple Inc.
et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774
Fed. Appx. 676.
No. 19–593. City of Camden, New Jersey v. Forrest.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 930 F. 3d 93.
No. 19–596. Hale v. United States et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 213.
No. 19–598. Spurr v. Pope, Chief Judge, Tribal Court of
the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi, et al. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 936 F. 3d 478.
No. 19–599. Mohorne v. Beal Bank et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 846.
No. 19–602. Saunders v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–606. Ukraine v. Pao Tatneft. C. A. D. C. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 9.
No. 19–610. Mushkin, Inc. v. Anza Technology, Inc. C. A.
Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 1359.
No. 19–615. Ward v. City of New York, New York, et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed.
Appx. 540.
No. 19–620. Narkiewicz-Laine v. Doyle et al. C. A. 7th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 930 F. 3d 897.
No. 19–625. Guerrero, Individually and as the Special
Administrator of the Estate of Guerrero v. BNSF Rail-
way Co. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929
F. 3d 926.
No. 19–628. Michael Cetta, Inc., dba Sparks Restaurant
v. National Labor Relations Board. C. A. D. C. Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 805 Fed. Appx. 2.

ORDERS 1139
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–630. Hurst, Personal Representative of the Es-
t
ate of Hurst and on Behalf of the Estate of Hurst
Deceased and the Statutory Wrongful Death Survivor
of Hurst v. United States et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 978.
No. 19 – 641. Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment, Division of Workers’ Compensation v. Dami
Hospitality, LLC; and
No. 19–719. Dami Hospitality, LLC v. Colorado Depart-
ment of Labor and Employment, Division of Workers’
Compensation. Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 442 P. 3d 94.
No. 19–647. Corbett v. Transportation Security Admin-
istration. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
930 F. 3d 1225.
No. 19–652. Cox v. Money Source, Inc. Super. Ct. N. J.,
App. Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–653. Ortloff v. Trimmer et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 903.
No. 19–657. Brewer v. Myers. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 1032.
No. 19–662. Sander v. City of Dickinson, North Dakota,
et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773
Fed. Appx. 331.
No. 19–663. Wilson v. State Bar of Texas. Ct. App. Tex.,
3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–664. Williams v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 238.
No. 19–665. Doe v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 279.
No. 19–668. Bird v. Hawaii et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 935 F. 3d 738.
No. 19–671. Grover v. Ofce of Personnel Management.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed.
Appx. 1011.

1140 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–686. Snodgrass-King Pediatric Dental Associ-
a
tes, P. C., et al. v. DentaQuest USA Insurance Co., Inc.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed.
Appx. 197.
No. 19–709. Mako One Corp. et al. v. Cedar Rapids
Bank & Trust Co. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 919 F. 3d 529.
No. 19–727. Keepers, Inc. v. City of Milford, Connecti-
cut. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776
Fed. Appx. 734.
No. 19–733. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. v. Mur-
phy. Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 332
Conn. 244, 210 A. 3d 56.
No. 19–742. Bailey-Snyder v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 289.
No. 19–776. Amonett v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–5129. Starks v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5154. Quary v. English, Warden. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 681.
No. 19–5241. Dyab v. English, Warden. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 552.
No. 19–5384. Rothenberg v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 1309.
No. 19–5458. Winter v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 72.
No. 19–5490. Miguel Aceituno v. Barr, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5526. Lake v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Af-
fairs. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759
Fed. Appx. 972.
No. 19–5582. Tuan Duc Lam v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 805.

ORDERS 1141
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–5596. Latham v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 428.
No. 19–5633. Johnson v. Tischner, Director, Court Serv-
ices and Offender Supervision Agency, et al. C. A. D. C.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 10.
No. 19–5653. Busby v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925
F. 3d 699.
No. 19–5671. Lyle v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 716.
No. 19–5697. Vinagre-Hernandez v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d 761.
No. 19–5719. Ray v. Colorado. Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 440 P. 3d 412.
No. 19–5806. Bradham v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 294.
No. 19–5817. Taylor v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018–1279 (La. App. 1 Cir.
11/9/18).
No. 19–5820. Raby v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d 749.
No. 19–5848. Harris v. United States. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 206 A. 3d 273.
No. 19–5924. Hennessee v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 437.
No. 19–5929. Ramirez-Anguiano v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 758 Fed. Appx. 364.
No. 19–5936. Lopez-Ramos v. Minnesota. Sup. Ct. Minn.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929 N. W. 2d 414.
No. 19–5948. Valdez-Araiza v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 444.

1142 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–5949. Martinez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 709.
No. 19–5958. Helm v. Hauser. Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5967. Thomas v. Nevada. Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 135 Nev. 726, 432 P. 3d 759.
No. 19–5968. Cuesta-Rodriguez v. Carpenter, Warden.
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 916 F. 3d
885.
No. 19–5998. Frein v. Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 651 Pa. 635, 206 A. 3d 1049.
No. 19–6039. Landazuri Vargas v. United States. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx.
815.
No. 19–6054. Hemby v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6056. Hernandez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 195.
No. 19–6076. Lee v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 340.
No. 19 – 6100. Sprowson v. Nevada. Sup. Ct. Nev.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 135 Nev. 720.
No. 19–6108. Kidd v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 578.
No. 19–6120. Rodriguez v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 18.
No. 19–6125. Hernandez v. Davis, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 544.
No. 19–6190. Cook et al. v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 345.
No. 19–6195. Martinez v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1143
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–6233. Powell v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 728.
No. 19–6271. Lewis v. Michigan. Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 503 Mich. 1028, 926 N. W. 2d 579.
No. 19–6273. Lucas v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 276 So. 3d 925.
No. 19–6286. Birapaka v. United States Army Research
Laboratory et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 495.
No. 19–6287. Martinez v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 766.
No. 19–6298. Gardner v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779
Fed. Appx. 187.
No. 19–6300. Stokes et ux. v. LSF 8 Master Participation
Trust. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6304. Nava Lara v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6319. Bogan v. German et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 297.
No. 19–6321. Prance v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6324. Taeng Yang v. McNeill et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 750 Fed. Appx. 516.
No. 19–6325. Barnes v. Sentry Management, Inc., et al.
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed.
Appx. 776.
No. 19–6326. Verble v. City of San Diego, California.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6327. Lorta v. Sherman, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

1144 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6328. Brown v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
m
ent of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6329. Boyd v. Monroe et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 92.
No. 19–6330. Corona v. Gasparyan. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 7. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6337. Birch-Min v. Middlesex County Board of
Social Services et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 118.
No. 19–6339. Miles v. Azar, Secretary of Health and
Human Services. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 925.
No. 19–6342. Shavers v. Sharp, Deputy Warden, et al.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6346. Malone v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19– 6349. Brinkley v. Rewerts, Warden. Ct. App.
Mich. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6359. Nivens v. Maryland. Ct. App. Md. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 463 Md. 157, 204 A. 3d 195.
No. 19–6365. Davis v. MacLaren, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6369. Dutton v. American Bankers Insurance Co.
Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 195 A. 3d
1016.
No. 19–6374. Moss v. Michigan. Cir. Ct. Wayne County,
Mich. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6381. Brown v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6382. Martinez-Covarrubias v. Barr, Attorney
General. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
775 Fed. Appx. 869.

ORDERS 1145
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–6386. Xue Jie He v. Guttenberg New Jersey Po-
lice
et al. Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 33 N. Y. 3d 1063, 127 N. E. 3d 314.
No. 19–6387. Grifn v. American Zurich Insurance Co.
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 697
Fed. Appx. 793.
No. 19–6388. VanDerMeulen v. Ryan et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 443.
No. 19–6395. V. A. C. v. J. L. W. Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6396. Jordan v. Magill et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 18.
No. 19 – 6398. Townsend v. National Labor Relations
Board. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6399. Zammiello v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6403. Crenshaw v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6406. Rush v. Nebraska. Sup. Ct. Neb. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 303 Neb. xvii.
No. 19–6407. Smiley v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App.
Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6409. Reilly v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 277 So. 3d 1009.
No. 19–6412. Jones v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6416. Kadamovas v. Caraway, Warden, et al.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed.
Appx. 242.
No. 19–6417. Walker v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6422. Burns v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 277 So. 3d 563.

1146 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6425. Santana v. Superior Court of California,
Los
Angeles County, et al. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6427. Smith v. Chapdelaine, Warden, et al. C. A.
10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx.
468.
No. 19–6430. Blake v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6434. Tyler v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al.
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6437. Peyton v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6439. Lopez v. MUFG Union Bank, N. A., et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed.
Appx. 396.
No. 19–6440. Ludy v. Mills et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 863.
No. 19–6443. Elansari v. University of Pennsylvania.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed.
Appx. 1006.
No. 19–6446. Edwards v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 11th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6449. Bealer v. Kern Valley State Prison. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6451. Zarlenga v. Rhode Island Department of
Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and
Hospitals. Sup. Ct. R. I. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
208 A. 3d 242.
No. 19–6452. Moran v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th
Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6453. Lang v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6454. Morris v. Johnson, Administrator, New Jer-
sey State Prison, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 601.

ORDERS 1147
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–6457. D. B. v. Texas Department of Family and
P
rotective Services. Ct. App. Tex., 2d Dist. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6458. Davis v. Arizona. Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19 – 6459. DuVall v. Hernandez, Superintendent,
Avery Mitchell Correctional Institution. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 331.
No. 19–6460. Copple v. Hall, Commissioner, Mississippi
Department of Corrections. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.
No. 19–6462. Bush v. Gray, Warden, et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6463. Albert v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6467. Pulley v. Paramo, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6468. Olson v. McCloud. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6469. McFall v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 126 N. E. 3d 35.
No. 19–6470. Marshall v. Steeh et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6472. Lopez v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App.
Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6473. Topa v. Melendez et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6475. Kahn v. Ripley. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 141.
No. 19–6480. Rodriguez v. Scott et al. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 599.
No. 19–6483. Robinson v. Mason, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Retreat. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.

1148 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6488. Yebra v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 6493. Scanlan v. Washington. Sup. Ct. Wash.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 193 Wash. 2d 753, 445 P. 3d
960.
No. 19–6495. Schwertz v. Jennings, Warden. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6498. Tootle v. Beaux Art Institute of Plastic
Surgery et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 738 Fed. Appx. 792.
No. 19–6499. Berman v. Modell. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App.
Dist., Div. 4. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6506. White v. Nooth, Superintendent, Snake
River Correctional Institution. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 412.
No. 19–6507. Smith v. Smith, nka Graham. Sup. Ct. Mont.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 397 Mont. 553, 455 P. 3d 444.
No. 19–6512. Channel v. Brinker et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6513. Harris v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6514. Leschyshyn v. Patel et al. Ct. App. Ariz.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6518. Burgie v. Arkansas. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2019 Ark. 185, 575 S. W. 3d 127.
No. 19–6519. Ray v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6520. McMurry v. Nevada. Sup. Ct. Nev. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 135 Nev. 685, 443 P. 3d 1125.
No. 19 – 6522. Smith v. Texas. Ct. Cr i m. App. Tex.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 499 S. W. 3d 1.
No. 19–6523. McMurry v. Nevada. Sup. Ct. Nev. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 135 Nev. 685, 444 P. 3d 458.

ORDERS 1149
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–6524. Benson v. Smith, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6528. Gouveia v. Espinda, Director, Hawaii De-
partment of Public Safety, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 1102.
No. 19–6532. Amaro v. Balderas, Attorney General of
New Mexico, et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 693.
No. 19–6534. Bahoda v. Campbell, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6535. Fry v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 9th App. Dist.,
Summit County. Cer ti orari denied. Repor ted below: 2019-
Ohio-958.
No. 19 – 6536. Mc Guire v. St. Louis County, Missouri,
et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779
Fed. Appx. 417.
No. 19–6537. Everson v. Lantz et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6542. Hall v. Author Solutions et al. C. A. 7th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 670.
No. 19–6543. Gakuba v. Neese. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6553. Corona v. City of Los Angeles, California,
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6558. Melton v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 803.
No. 19–6559. Johnson v. Saul, Commissioner of Social
Security. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
776 Fed. Appx. 744.
No. 19–6561. Joseph v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6563. Wazney v. South Carolina. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 562.

1150 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6565. Williams v. United States District Court
for
the Southern District of New York. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6566. Kates v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6567. Hill v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 11th App. Dist.,
Trumbull County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018-
Ohio-4800, 125 N. E. 3d 158.
No. 19–6568. Boyd v. Texas Department of Criminal Jus-
tice. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780
Fed. Appx. 145.
No. 19–6574. Gonzalez v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc.
Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6575. Elliott v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6577. Smith v. Haynes. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6578. Smith v. Washington. Sup. Ct. Wash. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6579. Smith v. North Carolina et al. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6592. George v. Metzger, Warden. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6594. Ingraham v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 277 So. 3d 243.
No. 19–6595. Holmes v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.
No. 19–6599. Fairley v. Kent, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6603. Brown v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 1030.
No. 19–6605. Donahue v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1151
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–6607. Stanford v. Clayton. C. A. D. C. Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 2.
No. 19–6608. Romero v. McDonald, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 319.
No. 19–6611. Severs v. Grewal, Attorney General of
New Jersey, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 793 Fed. Appx. 72.
No. 19–6612. Small v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 203 A. 3d 360.
No. 19–6614. Marshall v. Wetzel, Secretary, Pennsylva-
nia Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6617. Morton v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 395.
No. 19–6622. Williams v. Preckwinkle et al. C. A. 7th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 493.
No. 19–6624. Lee v. Louisiana. Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 2018–1499 (La. 8/12/19), 279 So. 3d 356.
No. 19–6628. Donahue v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6632. Clark v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 190.
No. 19–6634. Markle v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 910.
No. 19–6636. Williams v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 694.
No. 19–6637. Cooper v. Poole et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 105.
No. 19–6638. Arias v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6644. Freeze v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 203.
No. 19–6648. Barenz v. Alaska. Ct. App. Alaska. Certio-
rari denied.

1152 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6649. Brooks v. Borders, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6650. Rios v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 1004.
No. 19– 6651. Thompson v. Mc Ginley, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Coal Township. C. A.
3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6653. Jackson v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 311.
No. 19–6654. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 965.
No. 19–6656. Quintela-Galindo v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 896.
No. 19 – 6663. Hernandez-Martinez et al. v. United
States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 933
F. 3d 1126.
No. 19–6664. Klikno v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 539.
No. 19–6666. Thornton v. Coyne-Fague, Director, Rhode
Island Department of Corrections. C. A. 1st Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19 – 6667. Brown v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6669. Berry v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6673. Browning v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 539.
No. 19–6674. Mora v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 915.
No. 19–6676. Waguespack v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 935 F. 3d 322.
No. 19–6678. Van Sach v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 539.

ORDERS 1153
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–6680. Lipscomb v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 539.
No. 19–6682. Zhaopeng Chen v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 779.
No. 19–6692. Simpson v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 1154.
No. 19–6698. Mtaza v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6700. Naseer v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 28.
No. 19–6703. Arceneaux v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6704. McAfee v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 249.
No. 19–6706. Malek v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6707. Tyndall v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 121.
No. 19–6708. Wert v. Holt, Warden. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 51.
No. 19–6709. Acosta v. Colorado. Ct. App. Colo. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6711. Diaz-Contreras v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 172.
No. 19–6712. Caward v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6715. Ingram v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 297.
No. 19–6716. Isbell v. Merlak, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6717. Green v. Mississippi. Ct. App. Miss. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 362 So. 3d 1134.

1154 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6718. Pridgen v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6719. Castaneda Palacio v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6721. Parrish v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 339.
No. 19–6723. T. B. v. Colorado. Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 445 P. 3d 1049.
No. 19–6725. Wellbeloved-Stone v. United States. C. A.
4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 605.
No. 19–6729. Gray v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 976.
No. 19–6739. Simon v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 820.
No. 19–6746. Mitchell v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 Fed. Appx. 362.
No. 19–6748. Adams v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 720.
No. 19–6752. Walker v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 793 Fed. Appx. 865.
No. 19–6753. Moody v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 931 F. 3d 366.
No. 19–6756. Torres v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6758. Anderson v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 954.
No. 19–6760. Khan v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 63.
No. 19–6761. Kabbaj v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6764. McCrea v. District of Columbia Police and
Fireghters Retirement and Relief Board. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1155
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–6766. Nichols v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 624.
No. 19–6774. Allen v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6775. Butchee v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 265.
No. 19–6776. Dawson v. Wells. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 69.
No. 19–6778. Blackburn v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 539.
No. 19–6784. Whyte v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 1317.
No. 19–6790. Gerth v. Warden, Allen Oakwood Correc-
tional Institution. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 938 F. 3d 821.
No. 19–6791. Burnett v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 721.
No. 19–6793. Herndon v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 342.
No. 19–6797. Kreitman v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 1073.
No. 19–6798. Gill v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6799. Haz-Thompson v. United States. C. A. 8th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6802. Jackson v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6806. Stokes v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 277 So. 3d 583.
No. 19–6809. Strubberg v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 969.
No. 19–6813. Albert v. State Bar of California. Sup. Ct.
Cal. Certiorari denied.

1156 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6819. Ovies v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 704.
No. 19–6820. Leoner-Aguirre v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 939 F. 3d 310.
No. 19–6824. Holcombe v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 883 F. 3d 12.
No. 19–6826. Castro v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 1317.
No. 19–6828. Shaw v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 139.
No. 19–6830. Wilson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 517.
No. 19–6834. Hope v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 938 F. 3d 790.
No. 19–6837. Brown v. Metzger, Warden, et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 6838. Smith v. Butler, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6840. Antonio Severino v. United States. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx.
881.
No. 19–6841. Scott v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 788 Fed. Appx. 168.
No. 19–6842. Shah v. Holmes. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6843. Rice v. Jackson-Mitchell, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 32.
No. 19–6848. Wittal v. Montana. Sup. Ct. Mont. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 397 Mont. 155, 447 P. 3d 1039.
No. 19–6849. Williams v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 221.
No. 19–6850. Tyler v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 360.

ORDERS 1157
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–6859. Green v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 989.
No. 19 – 6864. Martin v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6865. Lunn v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 545.
No. 19–6868. LePon v. Iowa. Ct. App. Iowa. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 928 N. W. 2d 873.
No. 19–6880. Bartunek v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6881. Torres v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 855.
No. 19–6883. Winberg et ux. v. United States. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 753.
No. 19–6885. Escobar v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 439.
No. 19–6896. Antonio v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 936 F. 3d 1117.
No. 19–6898. Thomas v. Miller-Stout, Warden, et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed.
Appx. 524.
No. 19–6899. Meza-Lopez v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 1041.
No. 19–6902. Benamor v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 1182.
No. 19–6907. Hendricks v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 320.
No. 19–6921. Jones v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 739 Fed. Appx. 376.
No. 18–9506. Gadsden v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 742 Fed. Appx. 758.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.

1158 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586
U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 18–9807. Wilson v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.
No. 19–266. Morris v. Mekdessie et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Motion of TASC, Inc., for leave to fle brief as amicus curiae
granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx.
299.
No. 19–414. Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry. C. A. Fed. Cir. Mo-
tion of R Street Institute for leave to fle brief as amicus curiae
granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 914 F. 3d 1310.
No. 19–516. Espinda, Director, Hawaii Department of
Public Safety, et al. v. Gouveia. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of
respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 1102.
No. 19–634. Republic of Sudan et al. v. Owens et al.
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took
no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported
below: 924 F. 3d 1256.
No. 19–5219. Pullen v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 913 F. 3d
1270.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 19–5307. Brigman v. United States (Reported below:
762 Fed. App. 548); Graham v. United States (769 Fed. Appx.
669); Graham v. United States (769 Fed. Appx. 629); Guzman
v. United States (772 Fed. Appx. 630); Hargrove v. United
States (772 Fed. Appx. 630); McElhiney v. United States (771
Fed. Appx. 862); and Paris v. United States (769 Fed. Appx.
668). C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Gorsuch
took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

ORDERS 1159
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenti
ng.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 19–5315. Aguilar v. United States (Reported below:
772 Fed. Appx. 629); and Nichols v. United States (765 Fed.
Appx. 428). C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 19–5316. Bronson v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 765 Fed.
Appx. 434.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 19–6336. Jennings v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consider-
ation or decision of this petition.
No. 19–6379. Holz v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx.
1028.
No. 19–6492. Autrey v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 744 Fed. Appx. 165.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).

1160 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6510. Douglas v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 19–6521. Simmons v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 19–6548. Raven v. United States et al. C. A. D. C.
Cir. Certiorari denied. The Chief Justice took no part in the
consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 19–6613. Rodriguez et al. v. United States. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the
consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 767
Fed. Appx. 160.
No. 19 – 6661. Bernier, aka Watson v. United States.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Sotomayor took no
part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 19–6735. Kwok Cheung Chow v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer took no part in
the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below:
772 Fed. Appx. 429.
No. 19–6846. Riley v. Metzger, Warden, et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part in the con-
sideration or decision of this petition.
No. 19–6856. Riley v. Delaware. Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari
denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or deci-
sion of this petition. Reported below: 216 A. 3d 868.

ORDERS 1161
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–6884. Clay v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 550.
Rehearing Denied
No. 18–7571. Cervantes Valencia v. Davey, Warden, 586
U. S. 1252;
No. 18–8818. Reynolds v. Hepp, Warden, 589 U. S. 931;
No. 18–9153. Randolph v. Texas, 589 U. S. 936;
No. 18–9247. Ombe v. Martinez et al., 589 U. S. 939;
No. 18–9269. Reynolds v. Circuit Court of Kentucky,
Laurel County, 589 U. S. 940;
No. 18 – 9285. Schwart zmiller v. California, 589 U. S.
940;
No. 18–9308. Scranage v. United States, 589 U. S. 941;
No. 18–9317. Lasher v. Buchwald, Judge, United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York,
589 U. S. 941;
No. 18–9338. Corbitt v. United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia, 589 U. S. 942;
No. 18–9345. Drake v. Parish, Warden, 589 U. S. 942;
No. 18–9439. Addison v. Indiana, dba Family and Social
Services Administration, 589 U. S. 946;
No. 18 – 9441. Lewis v. Newburgh Housing Authority
et al., 589 U. S. 946;
No. 18 –9443. Campbell v. Campbell, Warden, 589 U. S.
947;
No. 18–9447. Brown v. Virginia, 589 U. S. 947;
No. 18–9455. Dummert v. Ngo, 589 U. S. 947;
No. 18–9486. Abshire v. Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections, 589 U. S. 949;
No. 18–9491.
No. 18–9508.
No. 18–9582.
No. 18–9623.
U. S. 956;
No. 18–9624.
U. S. 956;
No. 18–9715.
No. 18–9736.
Trudeau v. United States, 589 U. S. 949;
Scott v. Jimenez, 589 U. S. 950;
In re Zimmermann, 589 U. S. 1068;
Wazney v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A., 589
Wazney v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A., 589
Bedgood v. United States, 589 U. S. 961;
Kinney v. Ohio, 589 U. S. 1015;

1162 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 18–9741. Brown v. City of Richmond, Virginia, 589
U
. S. 962;
No. 18–9766. Lewis v. Farmer, Sheriff, Sumter County,
Florida, et al., 589 U. S. 963;
No. 18–9814. Wazney v. Wazney, 589 U. S. 966;
No. 19–25. Rosas v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chi-
cago, 589 U. S. 969;
No. 19–166. Rosenwasser v. Fordham University et al.,
589 U. S. 1016;
No. 19–252. Booth v. Nissan North America, Inc., 589
U. S. 1045;
No. 19–332. Davis et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al.,
589 U. S. 1069;
No. 19–479. Kam v. Peyton, 589 U. S. 1060;
No. 19–553. Diarra v. City of New York, New York, 589
U. S. 1082;
No. 19–5016. Salazar v. HEB Grocery Co., LP, et al., 589
U. S. 978;
No. 19–5109. English v. Roadhouse Holding Inc. et al.,
589 U. S. 983;
No. 19–5117. Hudson v. Hood, Chief Judge, United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
et al., 589 U. S. 983;
No. 19–5140. Raghubir v. United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, 589 U. S. 985;
No. 19–5148. Raghubir v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al., 589 U. S. 985;
No. 19–5174. Lewis et al. v. Estate of Lewis et al., 589
U. S. 987;
No. 19–5206. Sawicky v. AMC Networks Inc., 589 U. S. 1060;
No. 19–5226. Caldwell v. Arizona Department of Public
Safety et al., 589 U. S. 989;
No. 19–5229. Marzan v. CoreCivic Correctional Center
et al., 589 U. S. 989;
No. 19–5248. West v. Bryant, Warden, 589 U. S. 990;
No. 19–5276. Taylor v. Neal, Superintendent, Indiana
State Prison, 589 U. S. 992;
No. 19–5337. Bussey v. Allen, Warden, 589 U. S. 994;
No. 19–5461. Pierce v. Garrett et al., 589 U. S. 1019;
No. 19–5463. Dean v. United States, 589 U. S. 1000;

ORDERS 1163
589 U. S.
January
13, 2020
No. 19–5475. Taebel v. Maricopa County Attorney’s Of-

ce et al., 589 U. S. 1020;
No. 19–5488.
No. 19–5556.
No. 19–5590.
Correctional
U. S. 1022;
No. 19–5606.
1022;
No. 19 – 5616.
1023;
No. 19–5626.
No. 19–5627.
No. 19–5662.
No. 19–5684.
No. 19–5692.
No. 19–5708.
Jackson v. Barla et al., 589 U. S. 1020;
Lewis v. United States, 589 U. S. 1002;
Spence v. McGinley, Superintendent, State
Institution at Coal Township, et al., 589
Enow v. Foxwell, Warden, et al., 589 U. S.
Rope v. Facebook, Inc., et al., 589 U. S.
In re Raghubir, 589 U. S. 1014;
In re Raghubir, 589 U. S. 1014;
Stephens v. Gomez et al., 589 U. S. 1047;
In re Mitchell, 589 U. S. 1043;
Cochrun v. Dooley, Warden, 589 U. S. 1036;
Phillips v. DeKalb County Assistant Pub-
lic Defenders et al., 589 U. S. 1047;
No. 19–5725. Rochester v. Fortune Society, 589 U. S. 1048;
No. 19–5748. Mitchell v. Macy’s, Inc., et al., 589 U. S. 1048;
No. 19–5759. Jenkins v. United States, 589 U. S. 1024;
No. 19–5850. Yamano v. Hawaii State Judiciary et al., 589
U. S. 1051;
No. 19–5880. Larson v. Pacheco, Warden, 589 U. S. 1028;
No. 19–5896. Dinnerstein v. Burlington County Col-
lege, 589 U. S. 1061;
No. 19–5898. Howell v. Southerland et al., 589 U. S. 1051;
No. 19–5899. House et ux. v. Egland et al., 589 U. S. 1061;
No. 19–5935. Brown v. Civil Service Commission, 589
U. S. 1071;
No. 19–5973. Sheppard v. Texas (two judgments), 589 U. S.
1072;
No. 19–6003. Christian v. Dadmun et al., 589 U. S. 1083;
No. 19–6045. Summerhays v. United States, 589 U. S. 1052;
No. 19–6127. Villalona v. United States, 589 U. S. 1063;
No. 19–6150. Cutler v. Illinois, 589 U. S. 1064;
No. 19–6284. Cabrera-Cosme v. United States, 589 U. S.
1075; and
No. 19–6338. Nelson v. Commissioner of Internal Reve-
nue, 589 U. S. 1075. Petitions for rehearing denied.

1164 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 13, 17, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 18–9203. Thomas v. Court of Common Pleas of Penn-
syl
vania, Union County, 589 U. S. 1008. Petition for rehearing
denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or deci-
sion of this petition.
No. 18–9516. Palmer v. Florida, 589 U. S. 951. Motion for
leave to fle petition for rehearing denied.
No. 19–83. Ogunsula v. Stafng Now, Inc., 589 U. S. 1009.
Petition for rehearing denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part
in the consideration or decision of this petition.
January 17, 2020
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 18–882. Babb v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Af-
fairs. C. A. 11th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 588 U. S. 919.] The
parties are directed to fle supplemental letter briefs addressing
the following question: “What prospective administrative or judi-
cial relief may a federal employee obtain under laws other than
the ADEA [Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967], in-
cluding under the civil service laws or the Constitution, against
age-related policies, practices, actions, or statements that were
not the but-for cause of an adverse employment action against
the complaining employee?” Briefs, not to exceed 10 pages, are
to be fled simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon oppos-
ing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Thursday, January 23, 2020.
No. 18–1323. June Medical Services L. L. C. et al. v. Gee,
Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospi-
tals; and
No. 18–1460. Gee, Secretary, Louisiana Department of
Health and Hospitals v. June Medical Services L. L. C.
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 588 U. S. 948.] Mo-
tion of Rebekah Gee, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health
and Hospitals, to supplement the record and to fle certain docu-
ments under seal denied.
Certiorari Granted
No. 19–368. Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial
District Court et al. Sup. Ct. Mont.; and
No. 19–369. Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer. Sup. Ct. Minn.
Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour is

ORDERS 1165
589 U. S.
January
17, 21, 2020
allotted for oral argument. Reported below: No. 19–368, 395
Mont.
478, 443 P. 3d 407; No. 19–369, 931 N. W. 2d 744.
No. 19–431. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and
Paul Home v. Pennsylvania et al.; and
No. 19–454. Trump, President of the United States,
et al. v. Pennsylvania et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari
granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for
oral argument. Reported below: 930 F. 3d 543.
No. 19 – 465. Chiafalo et al. v. Washington. Sup. Ct.
Wash.; and
No. 19–518. Colorado Department of State v. Baca et al.
C. A. 10th Cir. Motion of Thomas E. Weaver for leave to fle
br ief as ami cu s cur i ae i n No. 19 – 518 granted. Cer ti orar i
granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for
oral argument. Reported below: No. 19–465, 193 Wash. 2d 380,
441 P. 3d 807; No. 19–518, 935 F. 3d 887.
January 21, 2020
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 19–6508. Watson v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Se-
curity. 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. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 701.
No. 19–6786. Morris v. United States. C. A. 5th 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).
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 19A648 (19–6916). Jefferson v. Supreme Court of
Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Application for stay, addressed to Jus-
tice Kagan and referred to the Court, denied.
No. 19M90. Harnage v. Barrone, Deputy Warden,
et al.; and

1166 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 21, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19M91. Dahlem v. Louisiana. Motions to direct the
Clerk
to fle petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 18–1323. June Medical Services L. L. C. et al. v. Gee,
Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospi-
tals; and
No. 18–1460. Gee, Secretary, Louisiana Department of
Health and Hospitals v. June Medical Services L. L. C.
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 588 U. S. 948.] Mo-
tion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argu-
ment as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
No. 18–1447. Republic of Hungary et al. v. Simon et al.
C. A. D. C. Cir.; and
No. 19–185. Mutond et al. v. Lewis. C. A. D. C. Cir. The
Solicitor General is invited to fle briefs in these cases expressing
the views of the United States.
No. 18–9107. In re Bracken. Motion of petitioner for recon-
sideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis
[589 U. S. 915] denied.
No. 19–351. Federal Republic of Germany et al. v. Phil-
ipp et al.; and
No. 19–520. Philipp et al. v. Federal Republic of Ger-
many et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. The Solicitor General is invited
to fle a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United
States.
No. 19–840. California et al. v. Texas et al.; and
No. 19–841. United States House of Representatives v.
Texas et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Motions of petitioners to expedite
consideration of petitions for writs of certiorari denied.
No. 19–6596. Hettinga v. Loumena. Ct. App. Cal., 6th App.
Dist. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-
peris denied. Petitioner is allowed until February 11, 2020,
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. 19–7055. In re Rosa; and
No. 19–7058. In re Randall. Petitions for writs of habeas
corpus denied.

ORDERS 1167
589 U. S.
January
21, 2020
No. 19–6702. In re Calderon-Lopez. Petition for writ of
mandamus
denied.
No. 19–6874. In re Leonard. 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.
Certiorari Denied
No. 18–9615. Sorensen v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 893 F. 3d 1060.
No. 19–205. City of Flint, Michigan, et al. v. Guertin
et al.; and
No. 19–350. Busch et al. v. Guertin et al. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 912 F. 3d 907.
No. 19–330. Shah v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 637.
No. 19–401. Higgs v. Wilson. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 167.
No. 19–595. O’Day et al., Individually and on Behalf of
the SunEdison, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan v. Chatila
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774
Fed. Appx. 708.
No. 19–616. W. A., Individually and on Behalf of W. E.,
et al. v. Hendrick Hudson Central School District. C. A.
2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 126.
No. 19–622. Bell v. Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 653 Pa. 515, 211 A. 3d 761.
No. 19–624. Graf et al. v. Hyung Seok Koh et ux. C. A.
7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 933 F. 3d 836.
No. 19–626. Huff et al. v. Choate. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 484.
No. 19–629. Stewart et al. v. Wilmington Savings Fund
Society. Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
203 A. 3d 357.
No. 19–637. Serna v. Webster et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 757 Fed. Appx. 721.

1168 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 21, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–639. Shao v. Tsan-Kuen Wang. Ct. App. Cal., 6th
App
. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–640. Clarke et al. v. Goodson et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–642. Jackson v. Litteral. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–649. N. E. L. et al. v. Gildner et al. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 567.
No. 19–650. Barnette v. PROF–2013–M4 Legal Title, by
U. S. Bank N. A., as Legal Title Trustee. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–699. Moustakis v. Wisconsin Department of Jus-
tice. Ct. App. Wis. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019
WI App 33, 388 Wis. 2d 144, 930 N. W. 2d 280.
No. 19–706. Facebook, Inc. v. Patel et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 1264.
No. 19 –717. Sands v. Brennan, Postmaster General.
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–738. Domingo v. Department of the Army et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed.
Appx. 529.
No. 19–746. Carbutt v. Colorado. Ct. App. Colo. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–748. Lepore v. Ofce of Personnel Management.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed.
Appx. 912.
No. 19–751. Gutierrez v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 1st
App. Dist., Div. 4. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 27 Cal.
App. 5th 1155, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 729.
No. 19–780. Newton v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–5457. Munksgard v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 913 F. 3d 1327.
No. 19–6585. Topa v. Kerbs et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 606.

ORDERS 1169
589 U. S.
January
21, 2020
No. 19–6590. Whitten v. Atyia et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 817.
No. 19–6598. Hercenberger v. Martin. Ct. App. Ore.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 6625. Jones v. Huss. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.
No. 19–6630. Hunter v. Murdoch et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6642. Channel v. Marquez et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6646. Denham v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6691. Smith v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 116 N. E. 3d 1107.
No. 19–6697. Pack v. Trump, President of the United
States. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
773 Fed. Appx. 7.
No. 19–6699. McWhorter v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 117 N. E. 3d 614.
No. 19 – 6736. Colombo v. Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs,
et al. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 35 Cal. App. 5th 407, 247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 403.
No. 19–6751. Williams v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 1st
App. Dist., Div. 4. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6781. Luna-Quintero v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 126 N. E. 3d 55.
No. 19–6792. Sanchez v. Nogan, Administrator East Jer-
sey State Prison, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6801. Palomar v. Madden, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 859.
No. 19–6808. Smith v. Collins et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6855. Luis Morales v. Lewis et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.

1170 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 21, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6873. Carter v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st
D
ist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 277 So. 3d 550.
No. 19–6876. Aguirre, aka Aguirre-Orcutt, aka Holston-
Aguirre, aka Holston v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 866.
No. 19–6882. Thompson v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 269.
No. 19–6890. Pearson v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 Fed. Appx. 511.
No. 19–6891. Rahimi v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 794 Fed. Appx. 4.
No. 19–6904. Maham v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 532.
No. 19–6909. Rosa v. Rhodes, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6913. Benjamin v. Saad, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 648.
No. 19–6915. Thompson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 741 Fed. Appx. 172.
No. 19–6920. Boyd v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 140.
No. 19–6923. Alaniz v. Frauenheim, Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 6925. Taalibdin v. Mahally, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6930. Jackson v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6933. Abdu v. Clarke, Director, Virginia Depart-
ment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 135.
No. 19–6949. Royal v. Clarke, Director, Virginia Depart-
ment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1171
589 U. S.
January
21, 2020
No. 19–6950. Rogers v. Soss, Acting Warden. C. A. 9th
Cir
. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 879.
No. 19–6952. Clardy v. Gilmore et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 958.
No. 19–6994. Manikowski v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7005. Wood v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19 – 307. Mc Keever v. Barr, At torney General.
C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d
842.
St atement of Justice Breyer respec ti ng the denia l of
certiorari.
In the decision below, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit held that a district court could not authorize
the release of grand jury information except as specifcally enu-
merated in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). 920 F. 3d
842, 850 (2019). That decision is in confict with the decisions of
several other Circuits, which have indicated that district courts
retain inherent authority to release grand jury material in other
appropriate cases. See, e. g., Carlson v. United States, 837 F. 3d
753, 766–767 (CA7 2016); In re Craig, 131 F. 3d 99, 105 (CA2
1997); In re Hastings, 735 F. 2d 1261, 1271–1272 (CA11 1984). It
also appears to confict with the considered views of the Rules
Committee. See Advisory Committee Minutes on Crim. Rules
7 (Apr. 22–23 2012), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/fles/fr_
import/criminal-min-04-2012.pdf.
Whether district courts retain authority to release grand jury
material outside those situations specifcally enumerated in the
Rules, or in situations like this, is an important question. It is
one I think the Rules Committee both can and should revisit.
No. 19–636. Estate of Boyland et al. v. Department of
Agriculture et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Jus-
tice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of
this petition. Reported below: 913 F. 3d 117.
No. 19–666. Jenn-Ching Luo v. Lowe’s Home Centers,
LLC, et al. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer ti orar i denied. Justice

1172 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 21, 24, 2020 589 U. S.
Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this
petiti
on. Reported below: 201 A. 3d 815.
No. 19–6652. Hirano v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 361.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
Rehearing Denied
No. 18–6331. Robinson v. Florida, 586 U. S. 1053;
No. 18–8989. Stoutamire v. Morgan, Warden, 589 U. S.
932;
No. 19–339. Sonnier v. Catholic Foundation of the Dio-
cese of Lafayette et al., 589 U. S. 1069;
No. 19–360. Konieczko et al. v. Adventist Health Sys-
tem/Sunbelt Inc. et al., 589 U. S. 1081;
No. 19–370. Silva-Ramirez v. Hospital Espanol Auxilio
Mutuo de Puerto Rico, Inc., et al., 589 U. S. 1081;
No. 19–395. Alessio v. United Airlines, Inc., 589 U. S.
1081;
No. 19–396. Simon v. Department of Justice et al., 589
U. S. 1070;
No. 19–425. Ogunsula v. Barr, Attorney General, et al.,
589 U. S. 1082;
No. 19–5783. Townsend v. Vasquez, 589 U. S. 1049;
No. 19–6032. Langston v. Missouri Board of Probation
and Parole, 589 U. S. 1083;
No. 19 – 6128. Mc Carthren v. United States, 589 U. S.
1063; and
No. 19–6202. Rodriguez-Santana v. United States, 589
U. S. 1064. Petitions for rehearing denied.
January 24, 2020
Miscellaneous Order
No. 19A766. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales,
Inc. Application for stay, presented to Justice Alito, and by
him referred to the Court, granted, and the proceedings in the

ORDERS 1173
589 U. S.
January
24, 27, 2020
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
case
No. 2:12–cv–572, are stayed pending the timely fling and
disposition of a 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 the sending down of the judgment
of this Court. Justice Ginsburg would deny the application.
January 27, 2020
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded
No. 19–6684. Davis v. United States. C. A. 11th 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 Rehaif v. United States, 588 U. S.
225 (2019). Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 360.
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 19 – 373. Walker v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1066.] It appearing that petitioner
died January 22, 2020, the writ of certiorari is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 19A729 (19–6971). Roberts v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 4th
Dist. Application to recall and stay the mandate, addressed to
Justice Sotomayor and referred to the Court, denied.
No. 19A785. Department of Homeland Security et al. v.
New York et al. D. C. S. D. N. Y. Application for stay, pre-
sented to Justice Ginsburg, and by her referred to the Court,
granted, and the District Court's October 11, 2019, orders grant-
ing preliminary injunction are stayed pending disposition of the
Government's appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit and disposition of the Government's petition
for writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the
petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate
automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is
granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the
judgment of this Court. Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer,
Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan wou ld deny the
application.

1174 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Gorsuch, J., concurring 589 U. S.
Justice Gorsuch, w ith whom Justice Thomas joi ns,
concurr
ing.
On October 10, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security
began a rulemaking process to defne the term “public charge,”
as it is used in the Nation's immigration laws. Approximately 10
months and 266,000 comments later, the agency issued a fnal rule.
Litigation swiftly followed, with a number of States, organiza-
tions, and individual plaintiffs variously alleging that the new
defnition violates the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure
Act, and the immigration laws themselves. These plaintiffs have
urged courts to enjoin the rule's enforcement not only as it applies
to them, or even to some defnable group having something to do
with their claimed injury, but as it applies to anyone.
These efforts have met with mixed results. The Northern Dis-
trict of California ordered the government not to enforce the new
rule within a hodge-podge of jurisdictions—California, Oregon,
Maine, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. The Eastern
District of Washington entered a similar order, but went much
farther geographically, enjoining the government from enforcing
its rule globally. But both of those orders were soon stayed by
the Ninth Circuit which, in a 59-page opinion, determined the
government was likely to succeed on the merits. Meanwhile,
across the country, the District of Maryland entered its own uni-
versal injunction, only to have that one stayed by the Fourth
Circuit. And while all these developments were unfolding on the
coasts, the Northern District of Illinois was busy fashioning its
own injunction, this one limited to enforcement within the State
of Illinois.
If all of this is confusing, don't worry, because none of it matters
much at this point. Despite the fuid state of things—some in-
terim wins for the government over here, some preliminary relief
for plaintiffs over there—we now have an injunction to rule them
all: the one before us, in which a single judge in New York
enjoined the government from applying the new defnition to any-
one, without regard to geography or participation in this or any
other lawsuit. The Second Circuit declined to stay this particular
universal injunction, and so now, after so many trips up and down
and around the judicial map, the government brings its well-
rehearsed arguments here.
Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the govern-
ment to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois.

ORDERS 1175
1174
Gorsuch,
J., concurring
But, in light of all that's come before, it would be delusional to
th
ink that one stay today suffces to remedy the problem. The
real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial
courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them.
Whether framed as injunctions of “nationwide,” “universal,” or
“cosmic” scope, these orders share the same basic faw—they di-
rect how the defendant must act toward persons who are not
parties to the case.
Equitable remedies, like remedies in general, are meant to re-
dress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular
lawsuit. When a district court orders the government not to
enforce a rule against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court
redresses the injury that gives rise to its jurisdiction in the frst
place. But when a court goes further than that, ordering the
government to take (or not take) some action with respect to
those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the
court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases
and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious ques-
tions about the scope of courts' equitable powers under Arti-
cle III. See Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 712 (2018) (Thomas,
J., concurring); Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the Na-
tional Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 471–472 (2017) (Bray);
Morley, De Facto Class Actions? Plaintiff- and Defendant-Oriented
Injunctions in Voting Rights, Election Law, and Other Constitu-
tional Cases, 39 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 487, 523–527 (2016).
It has become increasingly apparent that this Court must, at
some point, confront these important objections to this increas-
ingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the
regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal
injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the
government, courts, and all those affected by these conficting
decisions. Rather than spending their time methodically develop-
ing arguments and evidence in cases limited to the parties at
hand, both sides have been forced to rush from one preliminary
injunction hearing to another, leaping from one emergency stay
application to the next, each with potentially nationwide stakes,
and all based on expedited briefng and little opportunity for the
adversarial testing of evidence.
This is not normal. Universal injunctions have little basis in
traditional equitable practice. Bray 425–427. Their use has prolif-
erated only in very recent years. See Trump, 585 U. S., at 719–720

1176 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 27, 2020 589 U. S.
(Thomas, J., concurring). And they hardly seem an innovation
we
should rush to embrace. By their nature, universal in-
junctions tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes,
low-information decisions. Bray 461–462. The traditional sys-
tem of lower courts issuing interlocutory relief limited to the
parties at hand may require litigants and courts to tolerate in-
terim uncertainty about a rule's fnal fate and proceed more
slowly until this Court speaks in a case of its own. But that
system encourages multiple judges and multiple circuits to weigh
in only after careful deliberation, a process that permits the airing
of competing views that aids this Court's own decisionmaking
process. Ibid. The rise of nationwide injunctions may just be a
sign of our impatient times. But good judicial decisions are usu-
ally tempered by older virtues.
Nor do the costs of nationwide injunctions end there. There
are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court
judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts, and subject to review
in 12 regional courts of appeal. Because plaintiffs generally are
not bound by adverse decisions in cases to which they were not
a party, there is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a
friendly forum to secure a win nationwide. Id., at 457–461. The
risk of winning conficting nationwide injunctions is real too. Id.,
at 462–464. And the stakes are asymmetric. If a single success-
ful challenge is enough to stay the challenged rule across the
country, the government's hope of implementing any new policy
could face the long odds of a straight sweep, parlaying a 94-to-0
win in the district courts into a 12-to-0 victory in the courts of
appeal. A single loss and the policy goes on ice—possibly for
good, or just as possibly for some indeterminate period of time
until another court jumps in to grant a stay. And all that can
repeat, ad infnitum, until either one side gives up or this Court
grants certiorari. What in this gamesmanship and chaos can we
be proud of ?
I concur in the Court's decision to issue a stay. But I hope,
too, that we might at an appropriate juncture take up some of
the underlying equitable and constitutional questions raised by
the rise of nationwide injunctions.
No. D–3035. In re Disbarment of Blythe. Disbarment en-
tered. [For earlier order herein, see 586 U. S. 962.]
No. D–3036. In re Disbarment of Kwasnik. Disbarment
entered. [For earlier order herein, see 586 U. S. 962.]

ORDERS 1177
589 U. S.
January
27, 2020
No. D–3041. In re Disbarment of Durban. Disbarment
entered.
[For earlier order herein, see 586 U. S. 963.]
No. D–3042. In re Disbarment of Smith. Disbarment en-
tered. [For earlier order herein, see 588 U. S. 933.]
No. D–3043. In re Disbarment of Lynch. Disbarment en-
tered. [For earlier order herein, see 588 U. S. 933.]
No. D–3045. In re Disbarment of McLeod. Disbarment
entered. [For earlier order herein, see 588 U. S. 933.]
No. D–3046. In re Disbarment of Ugwuonye. Disbarment
entered. [For earlier order herein, see 588 U. S. 933.]
No. D–3047. In re Disbarment of Silberman. Disbarment
entered. [For earlier order herein, see 588 U. S. 933.]
No. D–3048. In re Disbarment of Packard. Disbarment
entered. [For earlier order herein, see 588 U. S. 933.]
No. D–3050. In re Disbarment of Moran. Disbarment en-
tered. [For earlier order herein, see 588 U. S. 934.]
No. D–3053. In re Disbarment of Bruner. Disbarment
entered. [For earlier order herein, see 588 U. S. 939.]
No. 19M92. Owens v. University of South Carolina
et al. Motion to direct the Clerk to fle petition for writ of
certiorari out of time denied.
No. 19M93. Patterson v. United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Motion for
leave to proceed as a veteran denied.
No. 19M94. Santa v. Herr et al. Motion to direct the Clerk
to fle petition for writ of certiorari out of time under this Court's
Rule 14.5 denied.
No. 65, Orig. Texas v. New Mexico. Motion for review of
the River Master's fnal determination set for oral argument in
due course. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 589 U. S. 1032.]
No. 142, Orig. Florida v. Georgia. Second Report of the
Special Master received and ordered fled. Exceptions to the Re-
port, with supporting briefs, may be fled within 45 days. Re-
plies, if any, with supporting briefs, may be fled within 30 days.
Surreplies, if any, with supporting briefs, may be fled within 30

1178 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 27, 2020 589 U. S.
days. Motion for allowance of fees and disbursements fled by
the
Special Master's assistant granted, and the Special Master's
assistant is awarded a total of $10,036.43, for the period Novem-
ber 6, 2018, through December 5, 2019, to be paid equally by the
parties. [For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 585 U. S. 1057.]
No. 18–9526. McGirt v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.
[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1119.] Motion for appointment of
counsel granted, and Ian H. Gershengorn, Esq., of Washington,
D. C., is appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner.
No. 19–465. Chiafalo et al. v. Washington. Sup. Ct.
Wash.; and
No. 19–518. Colorado Department of State v. Baca et al.
C. A. 10th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1165.] Petitioners
in No. 19–465 and respondents in No. 19–518 shall fle opening
and reply briefs on the merits under the schedule set forth in
this Court's Rules 25.1 and 25.3. Respondent in No. 19–465 and
petitioner in No. 19–518 shall fle response briefs on the merits
under the schedule set forth in Rule 25.2.
No. 19–648. CACI Premier Technology, Inc. v. Al Shimari
et al. C. A. 4th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to fle a
brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
No. 19–7147. In re Smith. Petition for writ of habeas cor-
pus denied.
No. 19–7015. In re Harris;
No. 19–7047. In re Spencer; and
No. 19–7049. In re Spencer. Petitions for writs of manda-
mus denied.
No. 19–6726. In re Byrd. Petition for writ of mandamus
and/or prohibition denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 19–353. Trading Technologies International, Inc. v.
IBG LLC et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 921 F. 3d 1084.
No. 19–510. Banegas Gomez v. Barr, Attorney General.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 101.

ORDERS 1179
589 U. S.
January
27, 2020
No. 19–517. Barbosa et al. v. Department of Homeland
Security
et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 916 F. 3d 1068.
No. 19–522. Trading Technologies International, Inc. v.
IBG LLC et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 767 Fed. Appx. 1006.
No. 19–534. Kadria v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 799.
No. 19–551. Calzone v. Olson, Superintendent, Missouri
State Highway Patrol. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 931 F. 3d 722.
No. 19–574. Poole, Commissioner, New York State Ofce
of Children and Family Services v. New York State Citi-
zens’ Coalition for Children. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 69.
No. 19 – 582. Edmondson v. Lilliston Ford Inc. et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed.
Appx. 388.
No. 19–651. DeRose v. Village of Orland Park, Illinois,
et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928
F. 3d 556.
No. 19 – 654. Kaleida Health, dba Buffalo General
Medical Center v. Biondo. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 935 F. 3d 68.
No. 19–658. J. G., By and Through His Parents, Green-
berg et al. v. Hawaii Department of Education et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed.
Appx. 567.
No. 19–660. Silver v. Hamrick & Evans, LLP. Ct. App.
Cal., 2d App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–674. Martin v. National General Assurance Co.
Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 212 A. 3d 269.
No. 19–681. Shalaby v. United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 249.

1180 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 27, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–683. Moss v. Atkinson, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 466.
No. 19–684. Saunders et ux. v. Deutsche Bank National
Trust Co. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–696. Haendel v. Reed et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 185.
No. 19–697. Pavatt v. Sharp, Interim Warden. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 906.
No. 19–700. Ramos Gonzalez et al. v. Scotiabank de
Puerto Rico et al. Sup. Ct. P. R. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–705. Sharpe v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 935 F. 3d 1352.
No. 19–712. Hamp ’s Construction, LLC v. Inland Marine
Services, L. L. C. Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 2018–1152 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/12/19).
No. 19–724. Arakaki v. Brennan, Postmaster General,
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771
Fed. Appx. 783.
No. 19 –762. Owner Operator Independent Drivers
Assn., Inc., et al. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 934
F. 3d 283.
No. 19–772. Diaz v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 941 F. 3d 729.
No. 19–809. Bonin v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 523.
No. 19–5638. Lee v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 252 So. 3d 1221.
No. 19–5889. Torres-Arroyo v. New Jersey. Super. Ct.
N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6094. Herrera-Segovia v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 210.
No. 19–6191. K. N. et ux. v. Montana Department of Pub-
lic Health and Human Services. Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 396 Mont. 545, 438 P. 3d 792.

ORDERS 1181
589 U. S.
January
27, 2020
No. 19–6214. Fuquen v. Everitt. Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certio-
rar
i denied. Reported below: 240 Md. App. 729.
No. 19–6289. Mohr v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 232.
No. 19–6306. Mota v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 753 Fed. Appx. 470.
No. 19–6320. Williams v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 379.
No. 19–6372. Parson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6655. Mathis v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 816.
No. 19–6657. Smith v. Scott et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6660. Schermerhorn v. Davis, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6681. Willis v. Territory of the Virgin Islands.
Sup. Ct. V. I. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 71 V. I. 789.
No. 19–6690. Mahany v. City of Buffalo Police Depart-
ment et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
777 Fed. Appx. 547.
No. 19–6694. Sundy v. Christian, Judge, et al. Sup. Ct.
Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6695. Rigwan v. Neus (Reported below: 298 So. 3d
591); and Rigwan v. Neus et al. (298 So. 3d 32). Dist. Ct. App.
Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6713. Horton v. Cochran. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6714. Goodman v. Pearson, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 105.
No. 19–6722. Leach v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6724. Zarum, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Gunderson v. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presby-

1182 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 27, 2020 589 U. S.
terian et al. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., Div. 5. Certiorari
denied.
N
o. 19–6727. Andrews v. Nagy, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6728. Heredia v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 278 So. 3d 34.
No. 19–6730. Harinarain v. Kauffman, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al.
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6731. Henry v. Warren, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6732. Ivie v. Washington. Ct. App. Wash. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 7 Wash. App. 2d 1025.
No. 19–6733. Durham v. Shapiro, Attorney General of
Pennsylvania. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6734. Lopez v. Lopez. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist.,
Div. 3. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6737. Little v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 275 So. 3d 1207.
No. 19–6738. Sarringar v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6741. Joaquin Ramirez v. Bloom et al. C. A. 2d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6742. Prieto v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6743. Nelson v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 6th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6744. Merck v. Minnesota Supreme Court et al.
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6745. Paul v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 278 So. 3d 39.
No. 19–6749. Johnson v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 280 So. 3d 474.

ORDERS 1183
589 U. S.
January
27, 2020
No. 19–6750. Ceasar v. Louisiana. Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari
denied.
Reported below: 2018–01948 (La. 8/12/19), 279 So. 3d 920.
No. 19–6754. Vizcarra Medina v. California. Ct. App.
Cal., 2d App. Dist., Div. 5. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6762. Wimberley v. Sacramento. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6763. White v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 308 So. 3d 86.
No. 19–6765. McNair v. North Carolina. Ct. App. N. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 253 N. C. App. 178, 799 S. E.
2d 631.
No. 19–6767. True v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6768. VanDerMeulen v. Leclaire et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 951.
No. 19–6770. Chiu v. First Group America et al. Ct. App.
Ore. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 295 Ore. App. 668, 433
P. 3d 787.
No. 19–6771. Parr v. Rodriguez. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 569.
No. 19–6777. Anderson v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6779. Stevens v. Vannoy, Warden, et al. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 233.
No. 19–6780. Kinney v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 8th App. Dist.,
Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019-
Ohio-2567.
No. 19–6782. Mallard v. Next Day Temps et al. Sup. Ct.
Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 6787. Mitchell v. Miller, Magistrate Judge,
et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780
Fed. Appx. 73.
No. 19–6788. Roblero v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 280 So. 3d 475.

1184 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 27, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6817. Wheeler v. Neal, Superintendent, Indiana
St
ate Prison. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6822. Cozzi v. American Stock Exchange et al.
Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 33 N. Y. 3d
1129, 132 N. E. 3d 1090.
No. 19–6829. Washington v. Deleon et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6861. Henderson v. Arkansas. Ct. App. Ark. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 Ark. App. 220, 575 S. W.
3d 617.
No. 19–6867. Luis Maya v. Department of Homeland Se-
curity et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6900. Smith v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6935. King v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 880.
No. 19–6936. Vigio-Aponte v. United States; and
No. 19 – 6947. Rodriguez-Martinez v. United States.
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 939 F. 3d 16.
No. 19–6940. Petroske v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 767.
No. 19–6941. Collins v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6948. Spry v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 70.
No. 19–6953. Davis v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 714.
No. 19–6960. Tulin v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 108.
No. 19–6961. Navarro v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6968. Brumbach v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 791.

ORDERS 1185
589 U. S.
January
27, 2020
No. 19–6970. Sullivan v. Wyoming. Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certio-
rar
i denied. Reported below: 2019 WY 71, 444 P. 3d 1257.
No. 19–6972. Sanchez-Mora v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 939 F. 3d 16.
No. 19–6973. Wiggins et al. v. United States. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 288.
No. 19–6975. Bennett v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 195.
No. 19–6995. King v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6998. Kofalt v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7006. Drummond v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d 681.
No. 19–7008. Hernandez-Zavala v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx.
816.
No. 19–7014. Gaffney v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7020. Garay v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 938 F. 3d 1108.
No. 19–7026. Guy v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 10th App. Dist.,
Franklin County. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7034. Joe v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 528.
No. 19–7035. Lowry v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 935 F. 3d 638.
No. 19–7038. Lee v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 782.
No. 19–7041. Ramirez-Rivera v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 933 F. 3d 20.
No. 19–7042. Rosado v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 81.

1186 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 27, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–7044. Fisher v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 749.
No. 19–7051. Reyes-Martinez v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 262.
No. 19–7053. Barnes v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 966.
No. 19–7056. Kinsey v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 744.
No. 19–7059. Schiefer v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 900.
No. 19–7062. Villanueva v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 771.
No. 19–7070. Tomey v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 832.
No. 19–7072. Walker v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 789 Fed. Appx. 241.
No. 19–7075. Rouse v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 936 F. 3d 849.
No. 19–7078. Thompson v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 319.
No. 19–7083. Perdue v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 270.
No. 19–7084. Morcombe v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 Fed. Appx. 581.
No. 19–7090. Evans v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7092. Carmichael v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 977.
No. 19–7098. Shaw v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7103. Merritt v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 809.
No. 19–7105. Vazquez-Chavarria v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 777.
No. 19–7106. Woodley v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 Fed. Appx. 100.

ORDERS 1187
589 U. S.
January
27, 2020
No. 19–7107. Perkins v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 788 Fed. Appx. 405.
No. 19–7115. Faulkner v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 475.
No. 19–7117. Ingram v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–515. Amato v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no
part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported
below: 763 Fed. Appx. 21.
No. 19 – 521. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Motion of Jeremy C. Doerre for leave to fle brief
as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
920 F. 3d 759.
No. 19–6658. Simmons v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 19–6670. Bridge v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 19–6686. Hunter v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).

1188 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
January 27, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6689. Fernandez v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 19–6755. Garcia-Cruz v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 19–6759. Lackey v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 19–6769. Hicks v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
Rehearing Denied
No. 19–248. Jammal et al. v. American Family Insurance
Co. et al., 589 U. S. 1103;
No. 19 – 383. Raimondo v. Hood, Chief Judge, United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michi-
gan, et al., 589 U. S. 1070;
No. 19–406. Touma v. General Counsel of the Regents
of the University of California et al., 589 U. S. 1103;

ORDERS 1189
589 U. S.
January
27, 29, February 6, 14, 2020
No. 19–410. In re Fields, 589 U. S. 1102;
N
o. 19–5885. Collins v. Gonzalez et al., 589 U. S. 1061;
No. 19–5914. Lasher v. Stavis et al., 589 U. S. 1071;
No. 19–5925. Rhodes v. Swarth et al., 589 U. S. 1071;
No. 19 – 6074. Nel son v. Amalgamated Transit Union
Local 1181–1061, AFL–CIO, et al., 589 U. S. 1084;
No. 19–6121. In re Staszak, 589 U. S. 1058;
No. 19–6231. Chapman v. United States, 589 U. S. 1074;
No. 19–6251. In re Makdessi, 589 U. S. 1043; and
No. 19–6487. Donahue v. Pennsylvania, 589 U. S. 1112. Pe-
titions for rehearing denied.
No. 19–6189. Brown v. United States, 589 U. S. 1066. Peti-
tion for rehearing denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the
consideration or decision of this petition.
January 29, 2020
Certiorari Denied
No. 19–922 (19A826). Lance v. Georgia. Super. Ct. Jackson
County, 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. 19–7488 (19A858). Lance v. Ford, 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.
February 6, 2020
Certiorari Denied
No. 19–7572 (19A876). Revilla Ochoa v. Collier, Execu-
tive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sen-
tence of death, presented to Justice Alito, and by him referred
to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 802
Fed. Appx. 101.
February 14, 2020
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 18–1584. United States Forest Service et al. v.
Cowpasture River Preservation Assn. et al.; and
No. 18–1587. Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC v. Cowpas-
ture River Preservation Assn. et al. C. A. 4th Cir. [Cer-

1190 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 14, 18, 20, 21, 2020 589 U. S.
tiorari granted, 588 U. S. 948.] Motion of the Solicitor General
for
divided argument granted.
No. 18–8369. Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez et al. C. A. 10th
Cir. [Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1031.] Motion of the Solicitor
General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus cu-
riae and for divided argument granted.
No. 19–7. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protec-
tion Bureau. C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 589 U. S.
1031.] Motions of petitioner Seila Law LLC for enlargement of
time for oral argument and for divided argument, and of United
States House of Representatives for leave to participate in oral
argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted,
and the time is divided as follows: 20 minutes for petitioner, 20
minutes for the Solicitor General, 20 minutes for Court-appointed
ami cu s cur i ae, and 10 mi nutes for United St ates House of
Representatives.
February 18, 2020
Dismissal Under Rule 46
No. 19–5790. Lee v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46. Reported below: 771
Fed. Appx. 548.
February 20, 2020
Miscellaneous Order
No. 19–7696 (19A912). In re Sutton. Application for stay of
execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Sotomayor,
and by her referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of
habeas corpus denied.
Certiorari Denied
No. 19–7689 (19A910). Sutton v. Tennessee. Ct. Crim.
App. Tenn. Application for stay of execution of sentence of
death, presented to Justice Sotomayor, and by her referred to
the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.
February 21, 2020
Miscellaneous Order
No. 19A905. Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Secu-
rity, et al. v. Cook County, Illinois, et al. D. C. N. D. Ill.

ORDERS 1191
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 21, 2020
Application for stay, presented to Justice Kavanaugh, and by
h
im referred to the Court, granted, and the District Court's Octo-
ber 14, 2019, order granting preliminary injunction is stayed
pending disposition of the Government's appeal in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and disposition
of the Government's petition for writ of certiorari, if such writ is
timely sought. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be de-
nied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the
petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate
upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice
Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Kagan would deny
the application.
Justice Sotomayor, dissenting.
Today's decision follows a now-familiar pattern. The Govern-
ment seeks emergency relief from this Court, asking it to grant
a stay where two lower courts have not. The Government in-
sists—even though review in a court of appeals is imminent—
that it will suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not grant
a stay. And the Court yields.
But this application is perhaps even more concerning than past
ones. Just weeks ago, this Court granted a stay of a different
decision involving the same administrative rule at issue here,
after the Government professed urgency because of the form of
relief granted in the prior case—a nationwide injunction. The
Government now uses that stay—of a nationwide injunction—to
insist that it is entitled to one here. But the injunction in this
case is limited to one State, Illinois. The Government cannot
state with precision any of the supposed harm that would come
from the Illinois-specifc injunction, and the Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit has scheduled oral argument for next week.
The Government's professed harm, therefore, boils down to an
inability to enforce its immigration goals, possibly in only the
immediate term, in one of 50 States. It is hard to say what is
more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordi-
nary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court
would grant it.
This case concerns a provision of the Immigration and National-
ity Act that renders inadmissible any noncitizen who “is likely at
any time to become a public charge.” 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a)(4)(A).
The provision instructs immigration offcers to consider, “at a
minimum,” a person's “age; health; family status; assets, re-

1192 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Sotomayor, J., dissenting 589 U. S.
sources, and fnancial status; and education and skills” in de-
t
er mi ni ng i nadmissibi l ity on th is “publ ic charge” basis.
§ 1182(a)(4)(B). For the last 20 years, feld guidance has defned
“public charge” as a person “primarily dependent on the govern-
ment for subsistence.” 64 Fed. Reg. 28689 (1999) (internal quota-
tion marks omitted). Per that guidance, immigration offcers
were not to consider noncash public benefts in deciding whether
a noncitizen met that defnition.
In August 2019, the Department of Homeland Security issued
a regulation that changed this longstanding defnition. This new
regulation (the public-charge rule) now defnes a “public charge”
as “an alien who receives one or more designated public benefts
for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month
period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefts in one
month counts as two months).” 84 Fed. Reg. 41295. The regula-
tion also expands the type of benefts that may render a non-
citizen inadmissible, including noncash benefts such as the
Supplementa l Nutr iti on Assist ance Program (for mer ly food
stamps), most forms of Medicaid, and various forms of housing
assistance. Ibid.
Several lawsuits followed, one of which reached this Court last
month. See Application for Stay of Injunctions in Department
of Homeland Security v. New York, No. 19A785 (New York cases).
The Government in no small part insisted that it was entitled to
a stay because of the scope of relief awarded below: The District
Court in the New York cases imposed a nationwide injunction
that “rendered effectively academic” the Government's successful
litigation on the public-charge rule elsewhere. Id., at 4. The
Government's unquestionable focus was the scope of that injunc-
tion: Its stay application used the word “nationwide” 34 times.
Over the dissent of four Justices, this Court granted the Gov-
ernment's application for a stay. Department of Homeland Secu-
rity v. New York, 589 U. S. 1173 (2020). Two Justices concurred
in the grant of the stay, emphasizing—as the Government did—
the “equitable and constitutional questions raised by the rise of
nationwide injunctions.” Id., at 1176 (Gorsuch, J., concurring in
grant of stay). No Member of the Court discussed the applica-
tion's merit apart from its challenges to the injunction's nation-
wide scope.
In the meantime, other courts considered the public-charge
rule, and one—the District Court in this case—ruled much more

ORDERS 1193
1191
Sotoma
yor, J., dissenting
narrowly. The District Court concluded that the plaintiffs in the
case
before it were entitled to a preliminary injunction, based on
self-described “dry and arguably bloodless” legal analysis. Cook
County v. McAleenan, 417 F. Supp. 3d 1008, 1031 (ND Ill. 2019).
But it did not award nationwide relief as the New York court
had: It merely prevented the Government from enforcing the
public-charge rule in Illinois, where the “ `nearly 100 nonproft
organizations and social and health service providers' ” repre-
sented by one of the plaintiffs were located. Id., at 1030.
After the District Court declined to stay enforcement of its
injunction pending appeal, the Government asked the Seventh
Circuit to intervene and stay the injunction itself. On December
23, 2019, the Seventh Circuit declined, and instead set an expe-
dited briefng schedule to ensure prompt consideration of the
issue. As part of that expedited schedule, the Seventh Circuit
set oral argument for February 26, 2020—fve days from now.
Notably, the Government initially chose not to appeal the Sev-
enth Circuit's decision denying a stay. Instead, while letting the
normal appellate process play out in this case, it urged this Court
to review a later issued decision granting a nationwide injunc-
tion—in no small part because it was a nationwide injunction.
Yet now that this Court acceded to that request, the Government
wants more: It asks this Court to grant a stay of the District
Court's considered—and considerably narrower—order below.
One might wonder what the trouble is with granting a stay in
this case. After all, by granting a stay in the New York cases,
the Court effectively has already allowed the Government to en-
force the public-charge rule elsewhere—why not Illinois too?
But—even putting aside the dissent of four Justices in the New
York cases and the plaintiffs' weighty arguments on the merits—
the Court should not forget the burden the Government must
carry to obtain a stay. To warrant this “ `extraordinary' ” relief,
Williams v. Zbaraz, 442 U. S. 1309, 1316 (1979) (Stevens, J., in
chambers), it is not enough for a party to point to an important
legal issue, or even one that is likely to obtain the assent of fve
Justices on the merits (which is far from certain here). Instead,
to justify upending the normal rules of appellate procedure, a
party must also show a likelihood of irreparable harm. Packwood
v. Senate Select Comm. on Ethics, 510 U. S. 1319, 1320 (1994)
(Rehnquist, C. J., in chambers). And “[b]ecause this matter is

1194 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Sotomayor, J., dissenting 589 U. S.
pending before the Court of Appeals, and because the Court of
Appea
ls denied” the Government's motion for a stay, the Govern-
ment now bears “an especially heavy burden.” Ibid.
The Government has not made that showing here. Its public-
charge rule is set to go into effect in 49 of 50 States next week.
The Seventh Circuit is set to consider the Illinois-specifc injunc-
tion next week as well, with a decision to follow shortly thereaf-
ter. And the Government is unable to articulate how many
cases—if any—this narrow injunction would affect in the mean-
time. In sum, the Government's only claimed hardship is that it
must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in
one State—just as it has done for the past 20 years—while an
updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49. The
Government has not quantifed or explained any burdens that
would arise from this state of the world. Indeed, until this Court
granted relief in the New York cases, the Government itself did
not consider this Illinois-specifc harm serious enough to warrant
asking this Court for relief.
These facts—all of which undermine the Government's asser-
tion of irreparable harm—show two things, one about the Govern-
ment's conduct and one about this Court's own. First, the Gov-
ernment has come to treat “th[e] exceptional mechanism” of stay
relief “as a new normal.” Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant,
588 U. S. 942, 945 (2019) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from grant of
stay). Claiming one emergency after another, the Government
has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases,
demanding immediate attention and consuming limited Court re-
sources in each. And with each successive application, of course,
its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow. Indeed, its behavior
relating to the public-charge rule in particular shows how much
its own defnition of irreparable harm has shifted. Having frst
sought a stay in the New York cases based, in large part, on the
purported harm created by a nationwide injunction, it now dis-
claims that rationale and insists that the harm is its temporary
inability to enforce its goals in one State.
Second, this Court is partly to blame for the breakdown in the
appellate process. That is because the Court—in this case, the
New York cases, and many others—has been all too quick to grant
the Government's “refexiv[e]” requests. Id., at 946. But make no
mistake: Such a shift in the Court's own behavior comes at a cost.

ORDERS 1195
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 21, 24, 2020
Stay applications force the Court to consider important statu-
tory
and constitutional questions that have not been ventilated
fully in the lower courts, on abbreviated timetables and without
oral argument. They upend the normal appellate process, put-
ting a thumb on the scale in favor of the party that won a stay.
(Here, the Government touts that in granting a stay in the New
York cases, this Court “necessarily concluded that if the court of
appeals were to uphold the preliminary injunctio[n], the Court
likely would grant a petition for a writ of certiorari” and that
“there was a fair prospect the Court would rule in favor of the
government.” Application 3.) They demand extensive time and
resources when the Court's intervention may well be unneces-
sary—particularly when, as here, a court of appeals is poised to
decide the issue for itself.
Perhaps most troublingly, the Court's recent behavior on stay
applications has benefted one litigant over all others. This Court
often permits executions—where the risk of irreparable harm is
the loss of life—to proceed, justifying many of those decisions on
purported failures “to raise any potentially meritorious claims in
a timely manner.” Murphy v. Collier, 587 U. S. 901, 916 (2019)
(statement of Kavanaugh, J.); see also id., at 907 (Alito, J.,
joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., dissenting from grant of
stay) (“When courts do not have adequate time to consider a
claim, the decisionmaking process may be compromised”); cf.
Dunn v. Ray, 586 U. S. 1138 (2019) (overturning the grant of a
stay of execution). Yet the Court's concerns over quick decisions
wither when prodded by the Government in far less compelling
circumstances—where the Government itself chose to wait to seek
relief, and where its claimed harm is continuation of a 20-year
status quo in one State. I fear that this disparity in treatment
erodes the fair and balanced decisionmaking process that this
Court must strive to protect.
I respectfully dissent.
February 24, 2020
Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded. (See also Roman
Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano, 589
U. S. 57 (2020) (per curiam).)
No. 19–568. Matsura v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for fur-

1196 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
ther consideration in light of Rehaif v. United States, 588 U. S.
225
(2019). Reported below: 924 F. 3d 1030.
No. 19–6496. Smith v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Re-
ported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 197; and
No. 19–6871. Vazquez v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Re-
ported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 136. Motions of petitioners for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted,
judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration
in light of Rehaif v. United States, 588 U. S. 225 (2019).
Certiorari Dismissed
No. 19–6836. Wimbush v. Mickens, Warden. Sup. Ct. Ga.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de-
nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
No. 19–6844. Santiago v. Hill, Associate Judge, Circuit
Court of Illinois, Cook County. Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion of peti-
tioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certio-
rari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
No. 19–6851. Lasher v. Nebraska State Board of Phar-
macy 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. Reported below: 749 Fed. Appx. 494.
No. 19–6886. Donahue v. Superior Court of Pennsylva-
nia et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to pro-
ceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See
this Court's Rule 39.8.
No. 19–7100. Jones v. Wetzel, Secretary, Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and
certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8. Justice Alito
took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and
this petition.
No. 19–7156. Clayborne v. Hansen, Warden. Ct. App.
Neb. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
Reported below: 27 Neb. App. xxxviii.
No. 19–7200. Adams v. Calhoun County, Michigan, et al.
C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

ORDERS 1197
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
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 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).
No. 19–7389. McCrea v. District of Columbia Ofce of
Human Rights et al. Ct. App. D. C. Motion of petitioner for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dis-
missed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 19A721 (19 –1024). Powe et ux. v. Deutsche Bank
National Trust Co. D. C. E. D. Tex. Application for stay, ad-
dressed to Justice Sotomayor and referred to the Court, denied.
No. 19A728. Pratt v. Barr, Attorney General. Applica-
tion for stay of removal, addressed to justice Ginsburg and
referred to the Court, denied.
No. D–3059. In re Discipline of Hannah. Lewis P. Han-
nah III, of Philadelphia, 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–3060. In re Discipline of Torres. Justin Alan Tor-
res, of Alexandria, Va., 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–3061. In re Discipline of DeSantis. Glenn D. De-
Santis, of Voorhees, 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–3062. In re Discipline of Watt. Joseph C. Watt, Jr.,
of Fayetteville, N. Y., 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.

1198 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. D–3063. In re Discipline of Erwin. Frank Woodson
Er
win, of Fort Myers, Fla., 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–3064. In re Discipline of Vanderburg. Keith Allan
Vanderburg, of Independence, Ohio, 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–3065. In re Discipline of Farthing. Philip R. Far-
thing, of Norfolk, Va., 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–3066. In re Discipline of Carr. Jacqueline Carr, of
Slidell, La., 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. 19M95. Holland v. Kemp, Governor of Georgia. Mo-
tion to direct the Clerk to fle petition for writ of certiorari out
of time denied.
No. 19M96. Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group
Co. et al. Motion for leave to fle petition for writ of certiorari
under seal with redacted copies for the public record denied.
No. 19M97. Adams v. United States. Motion for leave to
fle petition for writ of certiorari with supplemental appendix
under seal denied.
No. 19M98. In re TCT Mobile International Ltd. Mo-
tion for leave to fle petition for writ of mandamus with supple-
mental appendix under seal denied.
No. 19M99. Kaur v. Maryland;
No. 19M100. H. K. V. v. Florida Department of Children
and Families et al.; and
No. 19M101. H. K. V. v. Florida Department of Children
and Families et al. Motions for leave to fle petitions for writs

ORDERS 1199
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
of cer ti orar i w ith supplement a l appendixes under sea l
granted.
N
o. 19M102. Knochel v. Mihaylo. Motion for leave to fle
petition for writ of certiorari under seal denied.
No. 150, Orig. Arizona v. California. Motion for leave to
fle bill of complaint denied. [For earlier order herein, see 588
U. S. 903.]
Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Alito joins, dissenting.
Today the Court denies Arizona leave to fle a complaint against
California. Although we have discretion to decline review in
other kinds of cases, see 28 U. S. C. §§ 1254(1), 1257(a), we likely
do not have discretion to decline review in cases within our origi-
nal jurisdiction that arise between two or more States.
The Constitution establishes our original jurisdiction in manda-
tory terms. Article III states that, “[i]n all Cases . . . in which
a State shall be [a] Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction.” § 2, cl. 2 (emphasis added). In this circumstance,
“[w]e have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction
which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” Cohens v.
Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court).
Our original jurisdiction in suits between two States is also
“exclusive.” § 1251(a). As I have previously explained, “[i]f this
Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between
two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in
which to seek relief.” Nebraska v. Colorado, 577 U. S. 1211, 1212
(2016) (opinion dissenting from denial of motion for leave to fle
complaint). Denying leave to fle in a case between two or more
States is thus not only textually suspect, but also inequitable.
The Court has provided scant justifcation for reading “shall”
to mean “may.” It has invoked its “increasing duties with the
appellate docket,” Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U. S. 794, 797
(1976) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted), and its
“structur[e] . . . as an appellate tribunal,” Ohio v. Wyandotte
Chemicals Corp., 401 U. S. 493, 498 (1971). But the Court has
failed to provide any analysis of the Constitution's text to justify
our discretionary approach.
Although I have applied this Court's precedents in the past,
see Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U. S. 437, 474, n. (1992) (dissenting
opinion), I have since come to question those decisions, see
Nebraska, supra, at 1213 (dissenting opinion). Arizona invites us

1200 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
to reconsider our discretionary approach, and I would do so. I
respec
tfully dissent from the denial of leave to fle a complaint.
No. 18–1323. June Medical Services L. L. C. et al. v.
Rus so, Interim Secretary, Louisiana Department of
Health and Hospitals; and
No. 18–1460. Russo, Interim Secretary, Louisiana De-
partment of Health and Hospitals v. June Medical Serv-
ices L. L. C. et al. C. A. 5th Cir. [Cer ti orar i granted
sub nom. in No. 18–1323, June Medical Services L. L. C. v. Gee;
in No. 18–1460, Gee v. June Medical Services L. L. C., 588 U. S.
948.] Motion of Foundation for Life for leave to fle brief as
amicus curiae out of time denied.
No. 18–9526. McGirt v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.
[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1178.] Motion of petitioner to dis-
pense with printing joint appendix granted.
No. 19–199. Salinas v. United States Railroad Retire-
ment Board. C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 589 U. S.
1127.] Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing joint appen-
dix granted.
No. 19–251. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Be-
cerra, Attorney General of California; and
No. 19–255. Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra, Attor-
ney General of California. C. A. 9th Cir. The Solicitor
General is invited to fle a brief in these cases expressing the
views of the United States.
No. 19–438. Pereida v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A.
8th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1126.] Motion of peti-
tioner to dispense with printing joint appendix granted.
No. 19–635. Trump v. Vance, District Attorney of the
County of New York, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari
granted, 589 U. S. 1120.] Motion of petitioner to dispense with
printing joint appendix granted.
No. 19–5299. Rivera Rosado v. Lucid Energy, Inc. C. A.
11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order deny-
ing leave to proceed in forma pauperis [589 U. S. 908] denied.
No. 19–6804. Helms v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., et al.
C. A. 9th Cir.;
No. 19–6967. Boyd et al. v. California Public Utilities
Commission et al. C. A. 9th Cir.;

ORDERS 1201
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19–7081. Adebowale v. Wolf, Acting Secretary of
Homeland
Security, et al. C. A. 7th Cir.; and
No. 19–7268. Rupak v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Mo-
tions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
Petitioners are allowed until March 16, 2020, 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. 19–934. In re Britton-Harr;
No. 19–6863. In re Bonnell;
No. 19–7285. In re Wilkinson;
No. 19–7312. In re Hicks;
No. 19–7420. In re Francis;
No. 19–7491. In re Berry;
No. 19–7509. In re Mattison;
No. 19–7524. In re Kossie; and
No. 19–7555. In re French. Petitions for writs of habeas
corpus denied.
No. 19–750. In re Law Ofces of Nina Ringgold et al.;
No. 19–775. In re Buhannic;
No. 19–833. In re Buhannic;
No. 19–834. In re Buhannic;
No. 19–6888. In re Libby; and
No. 19–7029. In re Fahring. Petitions for writs of manda-
mus denied.
No. 19–6917. In re Jefferson. Petition for writ of manda-
mus and/or prohibition denied.
No. 19–7050. In re Rosa;
No. 19–7154. In re Eaton; and
No. 19–7366. In re Johnston. Petitions for writs of prohibi-
tion denied.
Certiorari Granted
No. 19 –123. Fulton et al. v. City of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted. Re-
ported below: 922 F. 3d 140.
Certiorari Denied
No. 18–9699. Garcia v. United States (Reported below: 756
Fed. App. 474); Olivera-Sanchez v. United States (770 Fed.

1202 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
Appx. 207); Ramos v. United States (770 Fed. Appx. 674); and
Torres-Gomez
v. United States (764 Fed. Appx. 414). C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–107. Asaro v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 173.
No. 19–273. Binday v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–282. Olivas-Motta v. Barr, Attorney General.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 910 F. 3d
1271.
No. 19–284. Mercado Ramirez v. Barr, Attorney Gen-
eral. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 745
Fed. Appx. 677.
No. 19–347. AER Advisors, Inc., et al. v. Fidelity Bro-
kerage Services, LLC. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 921 F. 3d 282.
No. 19–389. Dobyns v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 733.
No. 19–433. Sutherland v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 421.
No. 19 – 475. Karingithi v. Barr, At torney General.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 913 F. 3d
1158.
No. 19–486. Taffe, Personal Representative of the Es-
tate of Thompson, Deceased v. Wengert et al. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 459.
No. 19–488. Waltner et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
769 Fed. Appx. 448.
No. 19–527. Huskisson v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 369.
No. 19–541. Lambert v. Estate of Brown, by its Succes-
sor in Interest Brown, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 999.

ORDERS 1203
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19–569. Manuel Ayestas v. Davis, Director, Texas
Dep
artment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institu-
tions Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 933 F. 3d 384.
No. 19– 600. Krakauer v. Christian, Montana Commis-
sioner of Higher Education. Sup. Ct. Mont. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 396 Mont. 247, 445 P. 3d 201.
No. 19–603. Silguero et al. v. CSL Plasma, Inc. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 886.
No. 19–609. Shepherd et al. v. Studdard. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 478.
No. 19–619. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. SRI International, Inc.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 930 F. 3d
1295.
No. 19–669. Watkins v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Se-
curity. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771
Fed. Appx. 707.
No. 19–691. Clark v. Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 306 Ga. 367, 829 S. E. 2d 306.
No. 19–693. Balov v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App.
Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 23 Cal. App.
5th 696, 233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 235.
No. 19–694. Baker, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Baker, Deceased v. City of Trenton, Michigan,
et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 936
F. 3d 523.
No. 19–695. Webb et al. v. Deere Credit, Inc., et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed.
Appx. 787.
No. 19–698. Nora v. Minnesota Ofce of Lawyers Pro-
fessional Responsibility. Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 942 N. W. 2d 127.
No. 19–702. O’Bryant v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–703. Davis v. MTGLQ Investors, L. P. Dist. Ct. App.
Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 270 So. 3d
392.

1204 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–707. Rosas v. San Antonio Housing Authority
et
al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774
Fed. Appx. 224.
No. 19–711. Missouri ex rel. Lamasa v. Wright, Associate
Circuit Judge, 12th Judicial Circuit, Warren County, Mis-
souri. Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–713. Nunu v. Risk et al. Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 567 S. W. 3d 462.
No. 19–716. Zhi Gang Zhang v. Rasmus et al. Sup. Ct.
S. D. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 S.D. 46, 932
N. W. 2d 153.
No. 19–721. Grifn v. Humana Employers Health Plan
of Georgia, Inc. Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–722. Hudack v. La Cresta Property Owners Assn.
Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–728. Davison v. Facebook, Inc., et al. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 162.
No. 19–729. Meyer v. Peterson. Ct. App. Minn. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–731. Pancho’s LLC v. Hughes et al. Sup. Ct. App.
W. Va. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–734. Patterson v. Select Portfolio Servicing,
Inc., et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
771 Fed. Appx. 360.
No. 19–736. Clarke v. McMurray, Commissioner, Georgia
Department of Transportation. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 763 Fed. Appx. 899.
No. 19–740. Butts, Individually and on Behalf of Her
Daughter, A. F., a Minor v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 930 F. 3d 234.
No. 19–744. Jackson v. District of Columbia. Ct. App.
D. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–745. Williams v. Housing Opportunities for Per-
sons with Exceptionalities. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 451.
No. 19–749. Ritter v. Tuttle, Warden, et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1205
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19 –752. Hawaii Management Alliance As sn. v.
Rudel.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937
F. 3d 1262.
No. 19–754. Estate of Knight, Deceased, et al. v. Whit-
ten, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Knight,
Deceased, et al. Ct. App. S. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–755. Steiner et al. v. Utah State Tax Commission.
Sup. Ct. Utah. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 UT 47,
449 P. 3d 189.
No. 19 –758. Youkhanna et al. v. City of Sterling
Heights, Michigan, et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 934 F. 3d 508.
No. 19–759. Segner v. Cianna Resources Inc. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 115.
No. 19–761. KT Corp. et al. v. ABS Holdings, Ltd., et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed.
Appx. 21.
No. 19–768. Martin v. Marinez et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 594.
No. 19–769. Elkharwily v. Franciscan Health System.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed.
Appx. 758.
No. 19–770. Underwood v. Phillips, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–771. Sensabaugh v. Halliburton et al. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 621.
No. 19–773. Merlino et al. v. Buonincontri. App. Div.,
Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 171 App. Div. 3d 1069, 96 N. Y. S. 3d 864.
No. 19–778. Weinhaus v. Illinois et al. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 314.
No. 19–781. Condez v. Massachusetts Civil Service Com-
mission et al. App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 95 Mass. App. 1116, 126 N. E. 3d 1037.

1206 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–785. Huff v. Telecheck Services, Inc., et al.
C
. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 458.
No. 19–786. Butia v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–787. Robertson v. Banner Bank. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 453.
No. 19–788. Daly v. Citigroup, Inc., et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 939 F. 3d 415.
No. 19–790. Martin-de-Nicolas v. AAA Texas County Mu-
tual Insurance Co. Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–791. Anderson Law Ofces et al. v. Common Ben-
et Fee and Cost Committee. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–796. Cowels et al. v. Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 936 F. 3d 62.
No. 19–799. Streambend Properties II, LLC, et al. v. Ivy
Tower Minneapolis, LLC, et al. Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–800. Robinson, Individually, as Guardian and
Next Friend of I. Y. et al., and as Personal Representa-
tive of the Estate of Williams, Deceased, et al. v. Lioi
et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 930
F. 3d 307.
No. 19–801. Dela Cruz v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans
Affairs. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
931 F. 3d 1143.
No. 19–803. Xiu Jian Sun v. Kelly et al. Ct. App. N. Y.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 34 N. Y. 3d 978, 137 N. E. 44.
No. 19–805. Adam v. Barr, Attorney General, et al.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 792 Fed.
Appx. 20.
No. 19–811. Rose, Individually and as Mother of Rose,
et al. v. City of Utica, New York, et al. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 575.

ORDERS 1207
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19 – 812. Marshall v. Federal Trade Commission.
C
. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed.
Appx. 599.
No. 19–813. Justice v. Board of Professional Responsi-
bility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Sup. Ct. Tenn.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 577 S. W. 3d 908.
No. 19–818. Carr v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A. D. C.
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–822. White, Judge, Section A of the Orleans Par-
ish Criminal District Court, et al. v. Cain et al. (Reported
below: 937 F. 3d 446); and Cantrell, Magistrate Judge of
Orleans Parish Criminal District Court v. Caliste, Indi-
vidually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
et al. (937 F. 3d 525). C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–823. Pearsall v. Guernsey. Ct. App. Ohio, 3d App.
Dist., Hancock County. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–824. Owens v. Parris, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 456.
No. 19–826. Estate of Her et al. v. Hoeppner et al.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 939 F. 3d 872.
No. 19–828. Garske et al. v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 939 F. 3d 321.
No. 19–829. Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Juniper Networks,
Inc., et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 777 Fed. Appx. 518.
No. 19–830. Effex Capital, LLC, et al. v. National Fu-
tures Assn. et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 933 F. 3d 882.
No. 19–832. Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc. et al. C. A. Fed.
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 332.
No. 19–836. Evans v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–838. Altschuld v. Saul, Commissioner of Social
Security. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

1208 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–845. Huggins v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied.
No. 19–846. Artem v. King County Department of Adult
and Juvenile Detention et al. Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 8 Wash. App. 2d 1046.
No. 19–848. Shin v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 595.
No. 19–850. Derrico v. Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 306 Ga. 634, 831 S. E. 2d 794.
No. 19–851. Lopez-Castro v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–854. Universal Telephone Exchange, Inc. v. ZTE
Corp. et al. Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 856. Los Angeles County, California v. Ray
et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 935
F. 3d 703.
No. 19–860. Bosyk v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 933 F. 3d 319.
No. 19–862. Castro v. Lewis et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 401.
No. 19–865. Tipp v. JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC. Sup.
Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 312 So. 3d 2.
No. 19–870. Reinbold, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate
of 180 Equipment, LLC v. First Midwest Bank. C. A. 7th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 938 F. 3d 866.
No. 19 – 877. Gebreselas sie v. Frauenheim, Warden.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–879. Heon Seok Lee v. United States. C. A. 7th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 797.
No. 19–880. Kemp v. Georgia State University Admis-
sions Ofce et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–881. Smith et al. v. Motley et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 371.

ORDERS 1209
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19–882. Dukes v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–883. Robinson v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–900. Vennie v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 790 Fed. Appx. 506.
No. 19–907. Beckwith et al. v. City of Houston, Texas,
et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790
Fed. Appx. 568.
No. 19–920. Young, aka Mc Manigal v. United States.
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–925. Zere v. District of Columbia. Ct. App. D. C.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 209 A. 3d 94.
No. 19–946. Snowden v. Bracy, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–960. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co. v. Lilly.
Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–5346. Martinez v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 12.
No. 19–5350. Jones v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 290.
No. 19–5535. Robinson v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 856.
No. 19–5539. Beattie v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 1110.
No. 19–5563. Bowline v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 1227.
No. 19–5568. Nelson v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 909 F. 3d 964.
No. 19–5784. Villecco v. Stark et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.

1210 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–5805. Aldissi et ux. v. United States. C. A. 11th
Cir
. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 758 Fed. Appx. 694.
No. 19–5829. Castro-Lopez v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 74.
No. 19–5865. Balderas v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 88.
No. 19 – 5869. Enriquez-Hernandez, aka Enriques-
Hernandez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 66.
No. 19–5875. Gonzalez-Terrazas v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 57.
No. 19–5905. Davis v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 347.
No. 19–5907. Castaneda-Torres v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 102.
No. 19–5946. Spence v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 929.
No. 19–5979. Pablo Lozano v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 438.
No. 19–6015. Arias-De Jesus v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 163.
No. 19–6037. Anzures v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 531.
No. 19–6042. Tajonar Cortes v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 184.
No. 19–6063. Alexander v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct.
N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 170
App. Div. 3d 738, 93 N. Y. S. 3d 608.
No. 19–6086. Alberto Torres v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 732 Fed. Appx. 590.
No. 19–6087. Malik v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6095. Fulton v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 429.

ORDERS 1211
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19– 6110. Ayala-Gonzalez v. New York. App. Div.,
Sup
. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 167 App. Div. 3d 1536, 90 N. Y. S. 3d 778.
No. 19–6199. Espino Ramirez v. United States. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 193.
No. 19–6200. Smith v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 275 So. 3d 1176.
No. 19–6229. Douglas v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 759 Fed. Appx. 554.
No. 19–6252. Herrera Ramirez v. Maryland. Ct. App.
Md. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 464 Md. 532, 212 A.
3d 363.
No. 19–6264. Nelson v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 87.
No. 19–6265. Knight v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 1057.
No. 19–6277. Ruvalcaba-Garcia v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 1183.
No. 19–6290. Pineda-Castellanos v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 233.
No. 19–6343. Richmond v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 404.
No. 19–6432. Thibodeaux v. Evans, Superintendent, Min-
nesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Ct. App. Minn.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926 N. W. 2d 602.
No. 19–6517. Brown v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 330.
No. 19–6531. Frazier v. Dunn, Commissioner, Alabama
Department of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.
No. 19–6562. Avena v. Chappell, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 1237.
No. 19–6582. Martinez-Mendoza v. United States. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 260.

1212 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6586. Inghels v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6618. Tinker v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6662. Jones v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 842.
No. 19–6671. Boleyn v. United States;
No. 19–6672. Bell v. United States;
No. 19–6677. Vasey v. United States;
No. 19–6687. Green v. United States; and
No. 19–6688. Fisher v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 932.
No. 19–6683. Trevino v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A.
5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 692.
No. 19–6685. McLaughlin v. Precythe, Director, Mis-
souri Department of Corrections. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6693. Starks v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 233.
No. 19–6772. Alberto Nunez v. Barr, Attorney General.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 – 6783. Jarvis v. Allison, Sheriff, Pearl River
County, Mississippi, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 267.
No. 19–6785. London v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 502.
No. 19–6789. Jasman v. Burton, Warden. Ct. App. Mich.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6794. Smith v. St. Joseph’s/Candler Health Sys-
tem, Inc. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
770 Fed. Appx. 523.
No. 19–6803. Gorman v. Cole. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist.,
Div. 4. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6805. Rabaia v. Grewal, Attorney General of
New Jersey, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1213
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19–6807. Robinson v. Parish, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 299.
No. 19–6810. Gregley v. Fender, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6811. Heard v. Snyder et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6812. Baughman v. Seale et al. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 761 Fed. Appx. 371.
No. 19–6814. Jimenez v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.
Dist., Div. 6. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6815. Wingate v. New York. Ct. App. N. Y. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 34 N. Y. 3d 985, 137 N. E. 3d 15.
No. 19–6816. Warner v. Maine. Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 2019 ME 140, 216 A. 3d 22.
No. 19–6821. Sundy v. Friendship Pavilion Acquisition
Co. et al. Super. Ct. Hall County, Ga. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6823. Gonzales v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 924
F. 3d 236.
No. 19–6827. Dorcelus v. Brannon, Warden. C. A. 11th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6833. Rowe v. Clark, Superintendent, State Cor-
rectional Institution at Albion, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6835. Antwine v. O’Grady, Judge, Circuit Court
of Michigan, Branch County. Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6839. Smith v. Underwood, Attorney General of
New York, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6845. Steward v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 215 A. 3d 683.
No. 19–6847. Johnson v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.

1214 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6852. Tassone v. Tassone. Ct. App. Ohio, 10th App.
D
ist., Franklin County. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6853. Nhuong Van Nguyen v. Lucky et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 922.
No. 19–6857. Goode v. Sharp, Interim Warden. C. A. 10th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 1136.
No. 19–6866. Jackson v. Garda CL East, Inc. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 736.
No. 19–6869. Jefferson v. Shinn, Director, Arizona De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6870. Brown v. Mental Health Rehabilitation.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6872. Clark v. UNC Hospitals et al. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 663.
No. 19–6879. Abdul-Malik v. City Government Ofce of
Court Administration et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer ti orari
denied.
No. 19–6892. Van Orden v. Stringer et al. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 1162.
No. 19–6893. Nelson v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6894. Vurimindi v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 200 A. 3d 1031.
No. 19 – 6895. Williams v. Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6897. Bhuiyan v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 564.
No. 19–6903. Barney v. Escambia County, Florida, et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6905. Conroy v. Harris, Sheriff, Pecos County,
Texas, et al. Ct. App. Tex., 7th Dist. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1215
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19–6911. Father v. Texas Department of Family and
Protective
Services. Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6912. Abara v. Palmer, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 961.
No. 19–6914. Rockefeller v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6916. Jefferson v. Supreme Court of Georgia.
Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 307 Ga. 50, 834
S. E. 2d 73.
No. 19–6919. Channel v. Shinn, Director, Arizona De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6924. Thomas v. McCullick, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6928. Lofton v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De-
partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6929. Lisle v. Diercks et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6931. Johnson v. Linebarger Goggan Blair &
Sampson, L. L. P. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6937. Little v. Nau, as Administrator of the Es-
tate of Watson, aka Odom. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6943. Cunningham v. Florida Credit Union. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 758 Fed. Appx.
902.
No. 19–6944. Khodayari v. City of Los Angeles, Califor-
nia, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:
770 Fed. Appx. 815.
No. 19–6945. Dameron v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 IL App (1st) 162778–U.
No. 19–6951. Ramirez v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi-
sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

1216 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6954. Camp v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6955. Paul v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 171 App.
Div. 3d 1467, 99 N. Y. S. 3d 529.
No. 19–6956. Outland v. New Jersey. Super. Ct. N. J., App.
Div. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 458 N. J. Super. 357,
205 A. 3d 255.
No. 19–6957. Metayer v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 300 So. 3d 626.
No. 19–6958. McCray v. Samuel I. White, P. C., et al.
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed.
Appx. 148.
No. 19–6959. Jasmine F. v. Department of Child Safety
et al. Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6962. Mourning v. Crane, Judge. Ct. App. Mo.,
Southern Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6963. Prenatt v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6964. Posey v. Middlebrooks, Warden, et al.
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6966. Keys v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 556.
No. 19–6969. Swift v. Georgia. Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6971. Roberts v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6974. Torres v. Bellevue South Associates LLP
et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6976. Johnson v. Arizona. Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 247 Ariz. 166, 447 P. 3d 783.

ORDERS 1217
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19–6977. Pitts v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 263 So. 3d 834.
No. 19–6978. Naranjo v. Capozza, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6980. Williamson v. City of Wichita, Kansas. Ct.
App. Kan. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 56 Kan. App. 2d
xix, 430 P. 3d 68.
No. 19–6981. Bykov v. Rosen et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 397.
No. 19–6982. Collins v. Barnes & Thornburg LLP et al.
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed.
Appx. 140.
No. 19–6983. McKinney v. Arkansas. Ct. App. Ark. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2018 Ark. App. 10, 538 S. W.
3d 216.
No. 19–6984. Perez v. McGinley, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Coal Township, et al. C. A.
3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6985. Pleasant-Bey v. Shelby County, Tennessee,
et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6986. Neely v. Baldwin, Director, Illinois De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–6987. Bell v. Davis, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6988. Blacher v. Johnson, Chief Deputy Warden.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6989. Belt v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 279 So. 3d 634.
No. 19–6990. Bush v. Kannika Say. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–6992. Brown v. McCullick, Warden, et al. C. A.
6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

1218 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–6996. Johnson v. Settles, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–6997. Bailey v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–6999. Dyer v. Farris, Warden. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 Fed. Appx. 485.
No. 19–7000. Constance v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7002. Denham v. Dzurenda, Director, Nevada De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–7004. Torres v. Hatton, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7009. Rosario-Gonzalez v. United States. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7010. Folk v. Prime Care Medical et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 141.
No. 19–7012. Hardesty v. Chapman, Warden. C. A. 6th
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7013. Gray v. Kemper, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7016. Terrell v. Armant, Warden, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7017. Williams v. Taco Bell. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–7019. Washington v. Boder et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 762 Fed. Appx. 133.
No. 19–7023. Cotton v. Eckstein, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7024. Carter v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–7025. Feliciano v. Miller, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Waymart, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1219
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19 –7027. Hughes v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 216 A. 3d 346.
No. 19–7028. Green v. Errington. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–7030. Guevara v. Padin et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7031. Hancock v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 9th Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7032. Gaddis v. Michigan. Sup. Ct. Mich. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 504 Mich. 945, 931 N. W. 2d 347.
No. 19–7033. Darwich v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7036. Dale v. Agresta et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 659.
No. 19 –7037. Bradley v. Cox. Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–7039. Beam v. Clark, Superintendent, State Cor-
rectional Institution at Albion, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7040. Dippolito v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 275 So. 3d 653.
No. 19–7048. Costa v. Missouri. Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–7054. Rogers v. Asuncion, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 257.
No. 19–7057. Shelton v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 791 Fed. Appx. 519.
No. 19–7060. Williams v. Brooks et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 873.
No. 19–7063. Thomas v. Pennsylvania. Sup. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 654 Pa. 378, 215 A. 3d 36.
No. 19–7065. Braspenick v. Johnson Law PLC. Ct. App.
Mich. Certiorari denied.

1220 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–7066. Toscano v. Lizarraga, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7068. Baker v. Macy’s Florida Stores, LLC. Dist.
Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 280
So. 3d 68.
No. 19–7069. Vincent v. Williams, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 491.
No. 19–7077. Sanchez v. California et al. C. A. 9th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7080. Jaboin v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 282 So. 3d 47.
No. 19–7082. Lipski v. Maine. Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 2019 ME 148, 217 A. 3d 727.
No. 19–7085. Oeur v. County of Los Angeles, California.
Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7087. May v. Johnson, Administrator, New Jersey
State Prison, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7089. Cruz-Ramirez v. United States;
No. 19–7133. Guevara v. United States;
No. 19–7149. Herrera v. United States; and
No. 19–7151. Lopez v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 531.
No. 19–7093. Ibarra v. Ludwick, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7094. Lawrence v. Grewal, Attorney General of
New Jersey, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7096. Smith v. Jackson. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 153.
No. 19–7109. Outing v. Cardona, Commissioner, Connecti-
cut Department of Correction. App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 190 Conn. App. 510, 211 A. 3d 1053.
No. 19–7118. Bufngton v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7121. Shachter v. City of Chicago, Illinois. App.
Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.

ORDERS 1221
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19–7123. Mitchell v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 138.
No. 19–7125. Dodge et ux. v. Bonners Ferry Police De-
partment et al. Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 165 Idaho 650, 450 P. 3d 298.
No. 19–7126. Damon v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 933 F. 3d 269.
No. 19–7128. Popoola v. United States; and
No. 19–7208. Ogundele v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 933 F. 3d 302.
No. 19–7130. Morel v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 70.
No. 19–7132. Thomason v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 940 F. 3d 1166.
No. 19 –7134. Carter v. Department of Agriculture.
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed.
Appx. 317.
No. 19–7136. McClain v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 939 F. 3d 1113.
No. 19–7137. McIntosh v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 714.
No. 19–7138. Blankenship v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 789 Fed. Appx. 362.
No. 19–7139. Pawlak v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 935 F. 3d 337.
No. 19–7141. Oliveros v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 IL App (1st) 161096–U.
No. 19–7144. Strouse v. Warden, United States Peniten-
tiary Coleman II. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 468.
No. 19–7145. Rodriguez-Milian v. United States. C. A.
1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19 –7146. Rapoport v. Gilmore, Superintendent,
State Correctional Institution at Greene, et al. C. A.
3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

1222 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–7152. Leavitt v. Phillips et al. App. Ct. Mass.
Cer
tiorari denied. Reported below: 95 Mass. App. 1125, 134 N. E.
3d 132.
No. 19–7155. DeFreitas v. Kizziah, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7159. Clardy v. Gulick et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 451.
No. 19–7161. Murray v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7163. Hatton v. Combs, Justice, Supreme Court of
Oklahoma, et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re-
ported below: 793 Fed. Appx. 801.
No. 19–7164. Howard v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 Fed. Appx. 939.
No. 19–7167. Jadav v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–7169. Cobble v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 698.
No. 19–7170. Taylor v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y.,
4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 173 App.
Div. 3d 1721, 99 N. Y. S. 3d 895.
No. 19–7171. Turner v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 794.
No. 19–7172. Simmons v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 969.
No. 19–7173. Rose v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–7174. Stewart v. Honsal, as Public Administra-
tor of Humboldt County, California, et al. Ct. App. Cal.,
1st App. Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7175. Robinson v. Smith, Superintendent, State
Correctional Institution at Houtzdale, et al. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7176. Moran v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari
denied.

ORDERS 1223
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19–7178. Allen v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 262.
No. 19–7180. Beier v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 460.
No. 19–7183. William v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 217 A. 3d 383.
No. 19–7185. Brewer v. Lee, Superintendent, Eastern
New York Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied.
No. 19–7187. Miles v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 216 A. 3d 393.
No. 19–7193. Young v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Secu-
rity. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7194. Carlos Vazquez v. South Carolina. Sup. Ct.
S. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7197. Young v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 742.
No. 19–7198. B. T. D. v. Alabama. Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 296 So. 3d 343.
No. 19–7199. Tooly v. Schwaller. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 919 F. 3d 165.
No. 19–7201. Jones v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 245.
No. 19–7207. Elshinawy v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 168.
No. 19–7209. Alston v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 941 F. 3d 132.
No. 19–7216. Ramet v. LeGrande, Warden, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 390.
No. 19–7218. Amezcua Cabrera v. California. Ct. App.
Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7221. Gray v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 565.

1224 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–7223. Khan v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 620.
No. 19–7225. Lara Salas v. Vazquez, Warden. C. A. 5th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 204.
No. 19–7226. Robinson v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7227. Reyes-Villatoro v. United States. C. A. 3d
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 Fed. Appx. 343.
No. 19–7228. Carter v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7231. Monroe v. Lewis, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 56.
No. 19–7234. Chisholm v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 940 F. 3d 119.
No. 19–7235. Gross v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 40.
No. 19–7237. Croom v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 IL App (3d) 160553–U.
No. 19 –7238. Burkes v. Tennes see. Ct. App. Tenn.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7239. Corn v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7242. Whitehead v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7243. Wolf v. Grifth, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7245. Bowie v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7246. Harris v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 Fed. Appx. 135.
No. 19–7247. Hays v. Tews, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 769.
No. 19–7248. Hinton v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 789 Fed. Appx. 956.

ORDERS 1225
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19–7249. Evans v. Hollingsworth, Warden. C. A. 3d
Cir
. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7250. Jenkins v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 791.
No. 19–7251. McNeal v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d
Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 279 So. 3d 98.
No. 19–7253. DeFrancisci v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7255. Duran v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 941 F. 3d 435.
No. 19–7256. Osborne v. Hall, Commissioner, Mississippi
Department of Corrections. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 428.
No. 19–7257. Mvuri v. American Airlines, Inc. C. A. 4th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 810.
No. 19–7258. Collins v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 282.
No. 19–7259. Afriyie v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 63.
No. 19–7261. Lopez v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 797 Fed. Appx. 40.
No. 19–7264. Zapata v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 IL App (1st) 171882–U.
No. 19–7265. Totoro v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7266. Stone v. Centene Corp. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7269. Robertson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7270. Sayed v. Colorado. Ct. App. Colo. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–7271. Hall v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.

1226 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–7272. Mitchell v. Diaz, Secretary, California De-
p
artment of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7274. Bartko v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 815.
No. 19–7275. Boyett v. New Mexico. Dist. Ct. N. M., Valen-
cia County. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7276. Pujayasa v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7278. Cobb v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 279 So. 3d 137.
No. 19–7283. Earls v. Novak, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7289. Gordon v. Cline, Warden. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 712.
No. 19–7291. Abraham Guzman v. Santoro, Acting War-
den. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7292. Franks v. Collins, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7293. Bowen v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 367.
No. 19–7294. Kwaning v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 388.
No. 19–7298. Bell v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 276 So. 3d 373.
No. 19–7304. Salazar v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 579.
No. 19–7305. Springer v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 Fed. Appx. 498.
No. 19–7307. Moz-Aguilar v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 Fed. Appx. 343.
No. 19 –7313. Crutchfield v. United States (Reported
below: 785 Fed. Appx. 321); Jackson, aka Jones v. United

ORDERS 1227
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
States; Kemmerling v. United States; Rogers v. United
St
ates; Finch v. United States; Norris v. United States;
Mann v. United States (773 Fed. Appx. 308); Williams v.
United States; McKinney v. United States; Ammons v.
United States; Lemons v. United States; Roberts v. United
States; Merriweather v. United States; Hughes v. United
States; Justice v. United States; Keglar v. United States;
Bohannon v. United States; Bearden v. United States; Cox
v. United States; Jones v. United States; and Dawson v.
United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7315. Wright v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 945 F. 3d 677.
No. 19–7318. Yablonsky v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7323. Stoller v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 351.
No. 19–7324. Greer v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 352.
No. 19–7325. Kantete v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7326. Allred v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 942 F. 3d 641.
No. 19–7327. Macli v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19–7330. Haldorson v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 941 F. 3d 284.
No. 19–7331. Cunningham v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 183.
No. 19–7332. King v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 181.
No. 19–7334. Diaz-Cestary v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7335. Prodoehl v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 791 Fed. Appx. 527.

1228 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
No. 19–7336. Pena v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 193.
No. 19–7337. Palmer v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 179.
No. 19–7341. Wiseman v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 411.
No. 19–7352. Godoy-Machuca v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 542.
No. 19–7356. Grifn v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari de-
nied. Reported below: 787 Fed. Appx. 564.
No. 19–7359. Guzman-Correa v. United States. C. A. 1st
Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7363. Romans v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 891.
No. 19–7364. Singleton v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7365. Roberts v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 19–7367. Magana-Gonzalez v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 615.
No. 19–7370. Buenrostro-Lopez v. United States. C. A.
9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 678.
No. 19–7371. Bentley v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7381. Jones v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
No. 19 –7387. Miles v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7392. Davis v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 246.
No. 19–7394. Guillen v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 980.

ORDERS 1229
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19–7396. Haro-Verdugo v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir
. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 748 Fed. Appx. 727.
No. 19 –7400. Glenn v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7404. Roe v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-
rari denied. Reported below: 790 Fed. Appx. 25.
No. 19–7408. Bowman v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.
Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7416. Grifn v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 794 Fed. Appx. 14.
No. 19–7417. Edwards v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 546.
No. 19–7422. Antonio Fairley v. Mississippi. Sup. Ct.
Miss. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 275 So. 3d 1012.
No. 19–7430. Bryant v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 822.
No. 19–7433. Wilson v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 939 F. 3d 929.
No. 19–7434. Zambrano v. United States; and Carter v.
United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 19–7438. Scott v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 941 F. 3d 677.
No. 19–7439. Samaan v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 1146.
No. 19–7440. Strattan v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De-
partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-
rari denied.
No. 18–349. Patterson v. Walgreen Co. C. A. 11th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 727 Fed. Appx. 581.
Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas and Justice
Gorsuch join, concurring.
The petition in this case raises important questions about the
meaning of Title VII's prohibition of employment discrimination

1230 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Alito, J., concurring 589 U. S.
“because of . . . religion.” 78 Stat. 255, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e–
2(
a)(1) and (2). For this reason and because of the Government's
responsibility to enforce Title VII, we asked for the views of the
Solicitor General regarding review in this case, and the Solicitor
General's response to our request is helpful.
I agree with the most important point made in that brief,
namely, that we should reconsider the proposition, endorsed by
the opinion in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S.
63, 84 (1977), that Title VII does not require an employer to make
any accommodation for an employee's practice of religion if doing
so would impose more than a de minimis burden. Title VII
prohibits employment discrimination against an individual “be-
cause of such individual's . . . religion,” §§ 2000e–2(a)(1) and (2),
and the statute defnes “religion” as “includ[ing] all aspects of
religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an
employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommo-
date to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observ-
ance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the
employer's business.” § 2000e( j) (emphasis added). As the Solici-
tor General observes, Hardison's reading does not represent the
most likely interpretation of the statutory term “undue hardship”;
the parties' briefs in Hardison did not focus on the meaning of
that term; no party in that case advanced the de minimis position;
and the Court did not explain the basis for this interpretation.
See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19–21. I thus
agree with the Solicitor General that we should grant review in
an appropriate case to consider whether Hardison's interpretation
should be overruled.*
The Solicitor General also agrees that two other issues raised
in the petition are important, specifcally, (1) whether Title VII
may require an employer to provide a partial accommodation for
an employee's religious practices even if a full accommodation
would impose an undue hardship, and (2) whether an employer
can show that an accommodation would impose an undue hardship
based on speculative harm. But the Solicitor General does not
interpret the decision below as turning on either of those ques-
*In addition, as Justice Thomas has pointed out, Hardison did not apply
the current form of Title VII, but instead an Equal Employment Opportu-
nity Commission guideline that predated the 1972 amendments defning the
term “religion.” EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U. S. 768,
787, n. (2015) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).

ORDERS 1231
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
tions. While I am less sure about this interpretation, I agree in
the
end that this case does not present a good vehicle for revis-
iting Hardison. I therefore concur in the denial of certiorari, but
I reiterate that review of the Hardison issue should be under-
taken when a petition in an appropriate case comes before us.
No. 19–402. Baldwin et ux. v. United States. C. A. 9th
Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 836.
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
Under Chevron deference, courts generally must adopt an
agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute if that interpreta-
tion is “reasonable.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 844 (1984). Usually, the
agency interprets the statute before any court has considered the
question. But sometimes, the agency advances an interpretation
after a court has already weighed in. In the latter instance, we
have held that it “follows from Chevron” that a court must aban-
don its previous interpretation in favor of the agency's interpreta-
tion unless the prior court decision holds that the statute is unam-
biguous. National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand
X Internet Services, 545 U. S. 967, 982 (2005).
This petition asks us to reconsider Brand X. In 1992, the
Ninth Circuit interpreted a deadline for requesting a refund from
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). See Anderson v. United
States, 966 F. 2d 487, 489 (interpreting 26 U. S. C. § 7502). Nine-
teen years later—and two months after petitioners claim to have
mailed their paperwork to the IRS—the Treasury Department
adopted a different interpretation through an informal rule-
making. See 26 CFR § 301.7502–1(e)(2)(i) (2012). When petition-
ers sued the IRS to recover their refund, the Ninth Circuit fol-
lowed Brand X, deferred to the agency's new interpretation, and
rejected petitioners' claim. 921 F. 3d 836, 843 (2019).
Although I authored Brand X, “it is never too late to `surren-
de[r] former views to a better considered position.' ” South
Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U. S. 162, 190 (2018) (Thomas, J., con-
curring) (quoting McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U. S. 162, 178 (1950)
(Jackson, J., concurring)). Brand X appears to be inconsistent
with the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
and traditional tools of statutory interpretation. Because I would
rev isit Brand X, I respec tfu l ly dissent from the denia l of
certiorari.

1232 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Thomas, J., dissenting 589 U. S.
I
My
skepticism of Brand X begins at its foundation—Chevron
deference. In 1984, a bare quor um of six Justices decided
Chevron. The Court reasoned that “if [a] statute is silent or
ambiguous with respect to the specifc issue, the question for the
court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible
construction of the statute.” 467 U. S., at 843. The decision
rests on the fction that silent or ambiguous statutes are an im-
plicit delegation from Congress to agencies. Id., at 843–844.
Chevron is in serious tension with the Constitution, the APA, and
over 100 years of judicial decisions.
1
A
Chevron compels judges to abdicate the judicial power without
constitutional sanction. The Vesting Clause of Article III gives
“[t]he judicial Power of the United States” to “one supreme Court,
and . . . such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to
time ordain and establish.” § 1. As I have previously explained,
“the judicial power, as originally understood, requires a court to
exercise its independent judgment in interpreting and expounding
upon the laws.” Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 575 U. S. 92,
119 (2015) (opinion concurring in judgment). The Framers antici-
pated that legal texts would sometimes be ambiguous, and they
understood the judicial power “to include the power to resolve
these ambiguities over time” in judicial proceedings. Ibid. The
Court's decision in Chevron, however, “precludes judges from ex-
ercising that judgment.” Michigan v. EPA, 576 U. S. 743, 761
(2015) (Thomas, J., concurring); see also Perez, supra, at 119
(Thomas, J., concurring in judgment).
Chevron also gives federal agencies unconstitutional power.
Executive agencies enjoy only “the executive Power.” Art. II,
§ 1. But when they receive Chevron deference, they arguably
exercise “[t]he judicial Power of the United States,” which is
1
As I have previously noted, Chevron arguably sets out an “interpretive
too[l]” and so may not be entitled to stare decisis treatment. Perez v. Mort-
gage Bankers Assn., 575 U. S. 92, 114, n. 1 (2015) (opinion concurring in
judgment) (citing C. Nelson, Statutory Interpretation 701 (2011)). The same
can be said of National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X
Internet Services, 545 U. S. 967 (2005).

ORDERS 1233
1231
Thomas,
J., dissenting
vested in the courts. Chevron cannot be salvaged by saying in-
stead
that agencies are “engaged in the `formulation of policy.' ”
Michigan, supra, at 762 (Thomas, J., concurring) (quoting Chev-
ron, supra, at 843). If that is true, then agencies are unconstitu-
tionally exercising “legislative Powers” vested in Congress. See
Art. I, § 1.
This apparent abdication by the Judiciary and usurpation by the
Executive is not a harmless transfer of power. The Constitution
carefully imposes structural constraints on all three branches, and
the exercise of power free of those accompanying restraints sub-
verts the design of the Constitution's ratifers. The Constitution
shielded judges from both the “external threats” of politics and
“the `internal threat' of `human will' ” by providing tenure and
salary protections during good behavior and by insulating judges
from the process of writing the laws they are asked to interpret.
Perez, supra, at 120 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting
P. Hamburger, Law and Judicial Duty, 508 (2008)). The Constitu-
tion also restricted the legislative power by dividing it between
two Houses that check each other, one of which was kept close to
the people through biennial elections. See Department of Trans-
portation v. Association of American Railroads, 575 U. S. 43, 74
(2015) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment). When the Execu-
tive exercises judicial or legislative power, however, it does so
largely free of these safeguards. The Executive is not insulated
from external threats, and it is by defnition an agent of will, not
judgment. The Executive also faces election less frequently than
do Members of the House, and its power is vested in a single
person.
Perhaps worst of all, Chevron deference undermines the ability
of the Judiciary to perform its checking function on the other
branches. The Founders expected that the Federa l Gover n-
ment's powers would remain separated—and the people's liberty
secure—only if the branches could check each other. The Judici-
ary's checking power is its authority to apply the law in cases or
controversies properly before it. See Michigan, supra, at 763,
n. 1 (Thomas, J., concurring); Perez, supra, at 124–126 (Thomas,
J., concurring in judgment). When the Executive is free to dic-
tate the outcome of cases through erroneous interpretations, the
courts cannot check the Executive by applying the correct inter-
pretation of the law.

1234 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Thomas, J., dissenting 589 U. S.
B
C
hevron deference appears to be inappropriate in many cases
for another reason: It is likely contrary to the APA, “which [Chev-
ron] did not even bother to cite.” United States v. Mead Corp.,
533 U. S. 218, 241 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The APA pro-
vides that, “[t]o the extent necessary to decision and when pre-
sented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of
law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and deter-
mine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency ac-
tion.” 5 U. S. C. § 706. When the APA was enacted, the meaning
of a statute was considered a question of law. The Court recog-
nized as much in Trust of Bingham v. Commissioner, 325 U. S.
365 (1945), writing that questions about “the meaning of the
words of [the] statute” were “questions of law,” id., at 371. See
also Brown, Fact and Law in Judicial Review, 56 Harv. L. Rev.
899, 901 (1943); J. Thayer, Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at
the Common Law 193 (1898). Moreover, § 706 “places the court's
duty to interpret statutes on an equal footing with its duty to
interpret the Constitution, and courts never defer to agencies in
reading the Constitution.” Duffy, Administrative Common Law
in Judicial Review, 77 Texas L. Rev. 113, 194 (1998). Finally,
the deferential standards of review elsewhere in the APA—which
require courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, fnd-
ings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion [or] unsupported by substantial evidence,”
§ 706(2)—do not mention statutory interpretation. See id., at
194. Even if Chevron raised no constitutional concerns, these
statutory arguments give rise to serious doubts about Chevron's
legitimacy.
C
In the past, I have left open the possibility that “there is some
unique historical justifcation for deferring to federal agencies.”
Michigan, supra, at 763 (concurring opinion). It now appears to
me that there is no such special justifcation and that Chevron is
inconsistent with accepted principles of statutory interpretation
from the frst century of the Republic.
For most of the 19th century, there was no general federal-
questi on jur isdic ti on. Instead, rev iew was avai lable i n a
common-law action, under certain limited grants of federal-
question jurisdiction, or by extraordinary writ (such as a writ of

ORDERS 1235
1231
Thomas,
J., dissenting
mandamus). Bamzai, The Origins of Judicial Deference to Execu-
tive
Interpretation, 126 Yale L. J. 908, 948 (2017).
When 18th- and 19th-century courts decided questions of statu-
tory interpretation in common-law actions or under federal-
question jurisdiction, they did not apply anything resembling
Chevron deference. Judges interpreted statutes according to
their independent judgment. For example, in a lawsuit involving
a federal land patent, the Court simply “inquire[d] whether the
statute, rightly construed, defeated [the respondent's] otherwise
perfect right to the patent.” Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72,
88 (1871); see also id., at 91. When courts disagreed with the
Executive's interpretation, they gave no weight to it. See United
States v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141, 161–162 (1841) (Story, J., for the
Court).
Courts did apply traditional interpretive canons that accorded
respect to certain contemporaneous, consistent interpretations of
statutes by executive offcers. See Bamzai, supra, at 933–947.
In perhaps its most famous articulation, the Court wrote that
“[i]n the construction of a doubtful and ambiguous law, the con-
temporaneous construction of those who were called upon to act
under the law, and were appointed to carry its provisions into
effect, is entitled to very great respect.” Edwards' Lessee v.
Darby, 12 Wheat. 206, 210 (1827). The Court continued to apply
this approach throughout the 19th century. See, e. g., United
States v. State Bank of N. C., 6 Pet. 29, 39–40 (1832) (“[T]he
construction which we have given to the terms of the act . . . is
that which is understood to have been practically acted upon by
the government, as well as by individuals, ever since its enact-
ment. . . . We think the practice was founded in the true exposi-
tion of the terms and intent of the act: but if it were susceptible
of some doubt, so long an acquiescence in it would justify us in
yielding to it as a safe and reasonable exposition”); Surgett v.
Lapice, 8 How. 48, 68 (1850) (similar). And when the interpreta-
tion “has not been uniform,” the Court declined to give weight
to executive interpretations. Merritt v. Cameron, 137 U. S. 542,
552 (1890).
2
2
The phrasing and substance of these canons vary, and I express no opin-
ion on their details, such as whether congressional acquiescence in a long-
standing interpretation was required. See P. Hamburger, Is Administrative
Law Unlawful? 583, n. 24 (2014).

1236 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Thomas, J., dissenting 589 U. S.
This practice is consistent with the more general principle of
“
liquidation,” in which consistent and longstanding interpretations
of an ambiguous text could fx its meaning. See Stuart v. Laird,
1 Cranch 299, 309 (1803) (“[I]t is suffcient to observe, that prac-
tice and acquiescence under [a statute] for a period of several
years, commencing with the organization of the judicial system,
affords an irrefutable answer, and has indeed fxed the construc-
tion”); see also Respublica v. Roberts, 2 Dall. 124, 125 (Pa. 1791);
Minnis v. Echols, 12 Va. 31, 36 (1808) (opinion of Roane, J.);
Packard v. Richardson, 17 Mass. 122, 144 (1821); Nelson, Stare
Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedents, 87 Va. L. Rev.
1, 14–21 (2001). Chevron is not a species of liquidation because
it “give[s] administrative agencies substantially more freedom to
depart from settled understandings.” Nelson, Originalism and
Interpretive Conventions, 70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 519, 552, n. 137
(2003). But the existence of liquidation by nonexecutive actors
confrms that “the pedigree and contemporaneity of the interpre-
tation” mattered in the early Republic, not the mere fact that it
was an interpretation by the Executive. Bamzai, supra, at 916.
The standard applied in mandamus cases might appear to be a
forerunner of Chevron deference, but the comparison dissipates
upon close examination. In mandamus cases, courts generally
would not second-guess legal interpretations made “in the dis-
charge of any offcial duty, partaking in any respect of an execu-
tive character,” but they would “enforce the performance of a
mere ministerial act.” Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes,
12 Pet. 524, 610 (1838). The “application of th[is] mandamus
standard was a consequence solely of the form of relief re-
quested,” not a requirement that courts defer to the Executive's
reasonable interpretation of a statute. Bamzai, 126 Yale L. J., at
958. The Court even acknowledged in mandamus cases that “[i]f
a suit should come before this Court, which involved the construc-
tion of any of these laws, the Court certainly would not be bound
to adopt the construction given by the head of a department.”
Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497, 515 (1840); see also United
States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U. S. 40, 48–49 (1888).
The rule in Chevron thus differs from historical practice in at
least four ways. First, it requires deference regardless of
whether the interpretation began around the time of the statute's
enactment (and thus might refect the statute's original meaning).
Second, it requires deference regardless of whether an agency has

ORDERS 1237
1231
Thomas,
J., dissenting
changed its position. Third, it requires deference regardless of
whether
the agency's interpretation has the sanction of long prac-
tice. And fourth, it applies in actions in which courts historically
have interpreted statutes independently.
II
Even if Chevron deference were sound, I have become increas-
ingly convinced that Brand X was still wrongly decided because
it is even more inconsistent with the Constitution and traditional
tools of statutory interpretation than Chevron.
A
By requiring courts to overrule their own precedent simply
because an agency later adopts a different interpretation of a
statute, Brand X likely conficts with Article III of the Constitu-
tion. The Constitution imposes a duty on judges to exercise the
judicial power. See supra, at 1232. That power is to be exer-
cised “for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legisla-
ture; or, in other words, to the will of the law.” Osborn v. Bank
of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 866 (1824) (Marshall, C. J., for the
Court). But Brand X directs courts to give effect to the will of
the Executive by depriving judges of the ability to follow their
own precedent. This rule raises grave Article III concerns, no
less than if it allowed judges to substitute their policy preferences
for the original meaning of a statute.
The Article III duty to decide cases even when the Executive
disagrees with the conclusion has long been recognized by this
Court. In a statutory interpretation case in 1841, the Court ac-
knowledged “the uniform construction given to the act . . . ever
since its passage, by the Treasury Department,” but stated that
“if it is not in conformity to the true intendment and provisions
of the law, it cannot be permitted to conclude the judgment of a
Court of justice.” Dickson, 15 Pet., at 161. Justice Story, writ-
ing for the Court, admonished that
“it is not to be forgotten, that ours is a government of laws,
and not of men; and that the Judicial Department has imposed
upon it, by the Constitution, the solemn duty to interpret the
laws, in the last resort; and however disagreeable that duty
may be, in cases where its own judgment shall differ from
that of other high functionaries, it is not at liberty to surren-
der, or to waive it.” Id., at 162.

1238 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Thomas, J., dissenting 589 U. S.
Brand X is in serious tension with this understanding of Article
III
.
Brand X takes on the constitutional defciencies of Chevron and
exacerbates them. Chevron requires judges to surrender their
independent judgment to the will of the Executive, see supra, at
1232–1233; Brand X forces them to do so despite a controlling
precedent. Chevron transfers power to agencies, see supra, at
1232; Brand X gives agencies the power to effectively overrule
judicial precedents. Chevron withdraws a crucial check on the
Executive from the separation of powers, see supra, at 1233;
Brand X gives the Executive the ability to neutralize a previously
exercised check by the Judiciary. But, with this said, there is no
need to question Chevron in order to recognize the heightened
constitutional harms wrought by Brand X.
B
Brand X also seems to be strongly at odds with traditional
tools of statutory interpretation. As discussed above, early fed-
eral courts afforded weight to longstanding executive interpreta-
tions of a law that were made contemporaneously with its passage
and that were uniformly maintained. See supra, at 1234–1237.
Brand X, however, mandates deference to an executive interpre-
tation that is neither contemporaneous nor settled.
Under traditional rules of statutory interpretation, this Court
declined to give weight to late-arising or inconsistent statutory
interpretations by the Executive. In Merritt v. Cameron, for
example, the Court rejected an interpretation offered by the Ex-
ecutive because there was no “long and uninterrupted . . . depart-
mental construction . . . as will bring the case within the rule
announced at an early day in this court, and followed in very
many cases.” 137 U. S., at 552; see also United States v. Ala-
bama Great Southern R. Co., 142 U. S. 615, 621 (1892). Even if
only to resolve the tension with our traditional approach to statu-
tory interpretation, we should revisit Brand X.
III
Regrettably, Brand X has taken this Court to the precipice of
administrative absolutism. Under its rule of deference, agencies
are free to invent new (purported) interpretations of statutes
and then require courts to reject their own prior interpretations.
Brand X may well follow from Chevron, but in so doing, it poign-
antly lays bare the faws of our entire executive-deference juris-

ORDERS 1239
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
prudence. Even if the Court is not willing to question Chevron
itself,
at the very least, we should consider taking a step away
from the abyss by revisiting Brand X.
No. 19–411. Reed v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-
rari denied.
Statement of Justice Sotomayor respecting the denial of
certiorari.
On April 23, 1996, the body of 19-year-old Stacey Lee Stites, a
white woman, was found in the brush near a road in Bastrop
County, Texas. The last person known to have seen Stites was
her fance, a white man and local police offcer named Jimmy
Fennell. Vag inal swabs collected from Stites' body revealed
three intact spermatozoa. The DNA from that sample matched
that of petitioner Rodney Reed, a black man, who initially denied
knowing Stites but eventually admitted that they had been having
an affair. The State later charged Reed with Stites' murder.
Aside from the DNA match, the State found no other physical
evidence implicating Reed.
At trial, much of the State's case centered on the estimated
time of Stites' death and the estimated time during which the
spermatozoa could have been deposited. Fennell—waiving a
prior invocation of the Fifth Amendment—testifed that he and
Stites had watched television together on the evening of April 22
before going to sleep, and that Stites had left for work at her
usual time around 3 a.m. on April 23. Using expert testimony,
the State pinpointed her time of death at sometime around 3 a.m.
or shortly thereafter on April 23. Another expert for the State
testifed that spermatozoa remains intact inside a vaginal tract
for at most 26 hours, implying that the three spermatozoa found
on the vaginal swab at 11 p.m. on April 23 had been deposited
no earlier than the night before. This evidence thus tended to
inculpate Reed (by suggesting that he must have had sex with
Stites very soon before her death) and exculpate Fennell (by indi-
cating that Stites died after Fennell claimed to have seen her
last). The jury convicted Reed of murder and sentenced him
to death.
I
Strenuously maintaining his innocence, Reed has repeatedly
sought habeas relief in Texas state courts over the last two
decades.

1240 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Statement of Sotomayor, J. 589 U. S.
In recent state habeas applications—his eighth and ninth over-
a
ll—Reed came forward with evidence potentially exculpating
him from the murder of Stites. Witnesses unrelated to Reed but
known to Stites corroborated Reed's claim that he and Stites were
in a clandestine relationship before her death. One of the State's
key experts declared that his trial testimony regarding Stites'
time of death “should not have been used at trial as an accurate
statement of when Ms. Stites died.” App. to Pet. for Cert 198a.
Other experts reexamined the forensic evidence and concluded
that Stites died not on the morning of April 23, but on the evening
of April 22—when Fennell claimed to have been with her. As
one expert put it, the way in which the blood had settled in Stites'
body when police found her “ma[de] it medically and scientifcally
impossible” that Stites had died sometime around 3 a.m. on April
23, as the State had posited at trial. Id., at 203a. Experts also
refuted trial testimony that spermatozoa cannot remain intact
within the vaginal tract for more than 26 hours. The scientifc
literature, they insisted, is pellucid that spermatozoa can remain
intact for days. That so few were recovered intact, one expert
averred, suggests that the spermatozoa had not been deposited
recently. Finally, Curtis Davis—Fennell's friend and fellow police
offcer at the time of Stites' murder—testifed that, shortly after
Stites was reported missing, Fennell conveyed an account of his
whereabouts on April 22 that differed sharply from Fennell's
trial testimony.
That considerable body of evidence formed the foundation of
the claims in the instant petition for a writ of certiorari, which
Reed fled in September 2019. Reed argued that the State vio-
lated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), by withholding
Offcer Davis' account, which materially conficted with Fennell's
account at trial. He also claimed that the State, in violation of
the Due Process Clause, presented false scientifc testimony about
when Stites died and when the spermatozoa found on the vaginal
swab had been deposited—both critical components of the State's
theory of Reed's guilt. Finally, Reed asserted that he is actually
innocent of killing Stites.
On November 11, 2019, while that petition for a writ of certio-
rari was pending before this Court, Reed fled in Texas trial court
another state habeas application—his tenth overall. In it, Reed
identifed evidence that he discovered since the Texas courts de-

ORDERS 1241
1239
St
atement of Sotomayor, J.
nied his prior state habeas applications, including the eighth and
ni
nth applications pending review in this Court.
The centerpiece of that newly discovered evidence was an al-
leged prison confession by Fennell to the murder of Stites. In
2008, Fennell was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for kidnap-
ing and sexually assaulting a woman he had encountered while
on police duty. For a period of time, Fennell was incarcerated in
the same facility as a man named Arthur Snow, Jr., then affliated
with the Aryan Brotherhood. In a sworn affdavit signed late
October 2019, Snow recounted a conversation in which Fennell
said that his ex-fancée “had been sleeping around with a black
man behind his back.” “Toward the end of the conversation,”
Snow attested, “[Fennell] said confdently, `I had to kill my n***r-
loving fancé[e].' ” Snow's “impression was that [Fennell] felt
safe, even proud, sharing th[at] information with [Snow] because
[Snow] was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood.” Plaintiff's Ad-
visory Regarding Federal Habeas Filings in Reed v. Goertz, No.
19–cv–00794 (WD Tex., Nov. 14, 2019), Doc. 29–2, p. 108.
Other newly discovered evidence highlighted in Reed's tenth
state habeas application included multiple sworn accounts that,
according to Reed, tend to inculpate Fennell for Stites' murder.
Three were by Bastrop County police offcers at the time of Stites'
murder (none Offcer Davis): One offcer averred that, a month
before the murder, Fennell told him that Stites was “f ***ing a
n***r.” Id., at 67. Another offcer attested that at Stites' fu-
neral, he witnessed Fennell say to Stites' body something along
the lines of, “You got what you deserved.” Id., at 101. The
third offcer stated that Stites' colleagues told him that they
would warn Stites when Fennell came to her workplace so that
Stites could avoid Fennell. And still other individuals with no
relation to Reed provided accounts that Stites and Fennell had
a tumultuous, and seemingly violent, relationship just before
Stites' death.
Based on that newly discovered evidence, Reed argued in his
tenth state habeas application that the State violated Brady by
withholding the three police-offcer accounts of Fennell's allegedly
suspicious behavior. Reed also contended that the State pre-
sented false testimony when Fennell testifed at trial that he did
not kill Stites: That testimony, Reed claimed, was belied by Fen-
nell's confession to Snow. Finally, Reed reasserted his actual

1242 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
Statement of Sotomayor, J. 589 U. S.
innocence. In doing so, Reed invoked not only the evidence
newly
presented in the tenth state habeas application but also all
evidence of actual innocence raised in prior state habeas applica-
tions that the Texas courts denied.
On November 15, 2019—fve days before Reed's scheduled exe-
cution date and while the instant petition for a writ of certiorari
remained pending in this Court—the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals stayed Reed's execution. The Court of Criminal Ap-
peals concluded that Reed's Brady, false-testimony, and actual-
innocence claims in the tenth state habeas application satisfed
the state procedural requirements for going forward. It thus
remanded those claims to the trial court for further development.
II
The Court today denies Reed's petition for a writ of certiorari
arising from his eighth and ninth state habeas applications. But
Reed's proceedings on his recently fled tenth application of course
remain pending in the Texas courts. Texas, importantly, has rec-
ognized that the incarceration or execution of the actually inno-
cent violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment. See Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S. W. 2d 202, 204–205 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1996); State ex rel. Holmes v. Honorable Court of
Appeals for Third Dist., 885 S. W. 2d 389, 397–398 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1994). An innocence claim in Texas thus may serve as a
freestanding, substantive basis for habeas relief, see Elizondo,
947 S. W. 2d, at 205, not merely a procedural gateway to reach
an underlying claim for habeas relief. That means that the Texas
courts will now consider on the merits—for the frst time in
Reed's decades-long effort to prove his innocence—whether Reed
is indeed innocent of murdering Stacey Lee Stites.
It goes without saying that, should the Texas courts deny Reed
relief in his tenth state habeas proceeding, today's decision to
decline review in no way prejudices Reed's ability to seek review
of that hypothetical future decision. So, too, does it go without
saying that today's decision implies nothing about the merits of
either the underlying eighth and ninth state applications or the
tenth application pending in the Texas trial court (which, of
course, rests on a different overall body of evidence). See Mary-
land v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U. S. 912, 919 (1950)
(Frankfurter, J., respecting denial of certiorari) (“[T]his Court has
rigorously insisted that . . . a denial [of a petition for a writ of

ORDERS 1243
1239
St
atement of Sotomayor, J.
certiorari] carries with it no implication whatever regarding the
Cour
t's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to
review”).
I assume, moreover, that in evaluating a claim of actual inno-
cence as a substantive basis for habeas relief, habeas courts do
not blind themselves to evidence of actual innocence presented
in pr i or habeas applications. When confronted w ith actua l-
innocence claims asserted as a procedural gateway to reach under-
lying grounds for habeas relief, habeas courts consider all avail-
able evidence of innocence. House v. Bell, 547 U. S. 518, 537–538
(2006) (federal habeas courts evaluating gateway actual-innocence
claims “must consider ` “all the evidence,” ' old and new, incrimi-
nating and exculpatory” (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U. S. 298,
328 (1995))); Ex parte Reed, 271 S. W. 3d 698, 733–734 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008) (Texas habeas courts must do the same (citing House,
547 U. S., at 537–538)). That includes evidence “offered in . . .
prior [habeas] applications.” Reed, 271 S. W. 3d, at 734.
Presumably, the same principle informs a habeas court's evalua-
tion of a substantive claim of actual innocence. If evidence of
actual innocence presented in a habeas applicant's earlier habeas
applications otherwise satisfes the requirements applicable to a
substantive innocence claim, that evidence should not, in my view,
be cast off merely because the applicant identifed it for the frst
time in an earlier habeas application.
***
In the instant petition for a writ of certiorari, Reed has pre-
sented a substantial body of evidence that, if true, casts doubt on
the veracity and scientifc validity of the evidence on which Reed's
conv ic ti on rests. Misg iv i ngs th is ponderous shou ld not be
brushed aside even in the least consequential of criminal cases;
certainly they deserve sober consideration when a capital convic-
tion and sentence hang in the balance. In the pending tenth
state habeas proceeding, however, Reed has identifed still more
evidence that he says further demonstrates his innocence. It is
no trivial moment that the Texas courts have concluded that Reed
has presented a substantive claim of actual innocence warranting
further consideration and development on the merits. While the
Court today declines to review the instant petition, it of course
does not pass on the merits of Reed's innocence or close the door
to future review.

1244 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
In my view, there is no escaping the pall of uncertainty over
Reed'
s conviction. Nor is there any denying the irreversible con-
sequence of setting that uncertainty aside. But I remain hopeful
that available state processes will take care to ensure full and
fair consideration of Reed's innocence—and will not allow the
most permanent of consequences to weigh on the Nation's con-
science while Reed's conviction remains so mired in doubt.
No. 19–440. Northern Trust Corp. et al. v. Banks et al.
C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of American Bankers Association et al. for
leave to fle brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 929 F. 3d 1046.
No. 19–447. Puntenney et al. v. Iowa Utilities Board
et al. Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certiorari denied. Justice Alito took
no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported
below: 928 N. W. 2d 829.
No. 19–494. Morgan v. Washington. Sup. Ct. Wash. Mo-
tion of Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
et al. for leave to fle brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari
denied. Reported below: 193 Wash. 2d 365, 440 P. 3d 136.
No. 19–564. Michigan v. Beck. Sup. Ct. Mich. Motion of
respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 504 Mich. 605, 939 N. W. 2d 213.
No. 19–692. Deo v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App.
Dist., Div. 1. Motion of California Land Title Association for
leave to fle brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.
Reported below: 35 Cal. App. 5th 646, 247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544.
No. 19–804. Xiu Jian Sun v. Trump, President of the
United States, et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision
of this petition.
No. 19–6818. Ward v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 556.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States, 586
U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).

ORDERS 1245
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19–6832. Lacy v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-
ti
orari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States, 586
U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 19–7046. Jones v. Overstreet, Commissioner, et al.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. The Chief Justice took no
part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 19–7114. Finley v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States, 586
U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).
No. 19–7119. Bell v. Ransom, Superintendent, State Cor-
rectional Institution at Dallas, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration
or decision of this petition.
No. 19–7177. Miller v. Gibbs, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-
tiorari before judgment denied.
No. 19–7375. Valencia-Trujillo v. United States. C. A.
11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in
the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below:
782 Fed. Appx. 895.
No. 19–7386. Dowell v. Hudgins, Warden. C. A. 10th Cir.
Certiorari denied. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 793 Fed.
Appx. 671.
No. 19–7412. Embry v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-
tiorari denied.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States,
586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of
certiorari).

1246 OCTOBER
TERM, 2019
February 24, 2020 589 U. S.
Rehearing Denied
N
o. 18–9711. Meyers v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De-
partment of Corrections, 589 U. S. 960;
No. 19–224. Strother v. Baldwin, Adjutant General,
California Army National Guard, et al., 589 U. S. 1133;
No. 19–344. Qihui Huang v. Pai, Chairman of Federal
Communications Commission, et al., 589 U. S. 1034;
No. 19–545. Coulter v. Paulisick et al., 589 U. S. 1122;
No. 19–5158. Higgins v. Federal National Mortgage As-
sociation, 589 U. S. 986;
No. 19–5293. Owens v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, et al., 589 U. S. 993;
No. 19–5650. Williams v. Paramo, Warden, et al., 589
U. S. 1035;
No. 19–5693. Hutchinson v. Louisiana, 589 U. S. 1106;
No. 19–5860. Washington v. Davis, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, 589 U. S. 1051;
No. 19 – 5906. Taebel v. Ducey, Governor of Arizona,
et al., 589 U. S. 1062;
No. 19–5934. Merryman v. Davis, Director, Texas De-
partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, 589 U. S. 1071;
No. 19–5972. Robinson v. Michigan, 589 U. S. 1072;
No. 19–5981. Truesdale v. Florida, 589 U. S. 1052;
No. 19–6058. Philippe v. United States, 589 U. S. 1053;
No. 19–6073. Jones v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart-
ment of Corrections, 589 U. S. 1053;
No. 19–6096. Simmons v. Vannoy, Warden, 589 U. S. 1106;
No. 19–6104. Pearson v. United States, 589 U. S. 1062;
No. 19–6160. Caswell v. New York, 589 U. S. 1073;
No. 19–6184. Johnson v. Severson, Warden, et al., 589
U. S. 1108;
No. 19–6246. Jones v. Wisconsin, 589 U. S. 1109;
No. 19–6248. In re Parks, 589 U. S. 1121;
No. 19–6257. Lovett v. Texas, 589 U. S. 1123;
No. 19–6263. Velasquez v. Utah et al., 589 U. S. 1109;
No. 19–6345. Lucy v. Cooks, 589 U. S. 1085;
No. 19–6400. Wazney v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A., 589
U. S. 1111;
No. 19–6484. In re Steele, 589 U. S. 1080;

ORDERS 1247
589 U. S.
F
ebruary 24, 2020
No. 19 – 6536. Mc Guire v. St. Louis County, Missouri,
et
al., 589 U. S. 1149;
No. 19–6540. Grant v. United States, 589 U. S. 1114;
No. 19–6559. Johnson v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Se-
curity, 589 U. S. 1149;
No. 19–6607. Stanford v. Clayton, 589 U. S. 1151; and
No. 19–6639. Andrews v. United States, 589 U. S. 1125.
Petitions for rehearing denied.
No. 19–560. Nicassio v. Viacom International, Inc., et al.,
589 U. S. 1117. Petition for rehearing denied. Justice Breyer
took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 19–481. In re Lussy, 589 U. S. 1102;
No. 19–6157. Brockington v. Saul, Commissioner of So-
cial Security, 589 U. S. 1123; and
No. 19–6481. Rotte v. United States, 589 U. S. 1112. Mo-
tions for leave to fle petitions for rehearing denied.