502ord$pt2 08-08-95 19:35:59 PGT•ORDBV (Bound Volume)
ORDERS 502 U. S.
1053
January 17, 21, 1992
opportunity to have his or her federal claims considered by this Court as does any other applicant.” Kyles v. Whitley, 498 U. S. 931 (1990) (Stevens, J., concurring in denial of application). This case, however, presents an extreme example of why this is so. The compressed schedule has denied state and federal courts the opportunity to review filings with adequate time for reflection, much less to review the record, or even to receive a full response from the State.* Indeed, it is doubtful that counsel has had a fair opportunity to discharge his professional obligations. Thus, the more prudent approach is to grant a stay and to have procedures follow in their proper course. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. January 21, 1992 Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded No. 91–907. Department of Taxation and Finance of New York et al. v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc., et al. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U. S. 505 (1991). Reported below: 164 App. Div. 2d 300, 564 N. Y. S. 2d 491. Miscellaneous Orders No. — – –––. Bluestein et al. v. Groover et al.; and No. — – –––. Nuss v. Office of Personnel Management. Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied. No. A–277 (91–963). Colorado v. Garcia. Sup. Ct. Colo. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court, denied. No. A–353. Miceli, aka Guaglieri v. Guaglieri. Sup. Ct. N. J. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court, denied.
- The State, in response to petitioner’s federal habeas petition, said that
its “non-opposition” was based “on the recognition that additional time may be necessary in order for the Court to resolve the claims asserted by Clark,” and also because the State has had to prepare for several executions in the space of a week and “simply has not adequately digested the record in light of Clark’s claims, received only this morning.” Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Request for Stay of Execution 9–10.
