Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/928

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

502ORD$$1I 02-10-99 16:45:48 PGT•ORD1BV (Bound Volume)

ORDERS 502 U. S.

1021

December 16, 17, 18, 1991

Assignment Order An order of The Chief Justice designating and assigning Justice Marshall (retired) to perform judicial duties in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit during the period of January 21 through January 23, 1992, and for such time as may be required to complete unfinished business, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 294(a), is ordered entered on the minutes of this Court, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 295. December 17, 1991 Miscellaneous Order No. A–442. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division v. Holland. Application of the Attorney General of Texas for an order to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this application. December 18, 1991 Dismissal Under Rule 46 No. 91–791. McDermott Inc. v. Salyer, Judge, 130th Judicial District Court of Matagorda County, Texas. Sup. Ct. Tex. Certiorari dismissed under this Court’s Rule 46. Miscellaneous Order No. 91–542. Wright, Warden, et al. v. West. C. A. 4th Cir. The order of December 16, 1991 [ante, p. 1012], granting the petition for writ of certiorari is amended as follows: Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted. In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties are requested to brief and argue the following question: “In determining whether to grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, should a federal court give deference to the state court’s application of law to the specific facts of the petitioner’s case or should it review the state court’s determination de novo?” Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens dissent.