ORDER LIST
  ORDER LIST

                           MONDAY, MAY 24, 1993
                           MONDAY, MAY 24, 1993

                    CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION
                    CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

  92-67     UNITED STATES V. ABREU, ORESTES, ET AL.

                     The motion of respondent James Thornburgh for leave to 

                proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ 
                        _________________

                of certiorari is granted. The judgments are vacated and the

                case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals

                for the Tenth Circuit for further consideration in light

                of Deal v. United States, 508 U. S.     (1993).
                   ____    _____________            ___

  92-1442   GARCIA, ADALINE, ET VIR V. UNITED STATES

                     The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

                The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the

                United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for

                further consideration in light of Republic National Bank
                                                  ______________________

                of Miami v. United States, 506 U. S.     (1992).
                ________    _____________            ___

  92-1452   BOWENS, CHARLIE MAE V. UNITED STATES

                     The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

                The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the

                                        1

                United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

                for further consideration in light of Republic National
                                                      _________________

                Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U. S.     (1992).
                _____________    _____________            ___

  92-1458   ROSALES, ALBERTO V. UNITED STATES

                     The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

                The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the

                United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

                for further consideration in light of Ortega-Rodriquez
                                                      ________________

                v. United States, 507 U. S.     (1993).
                   _____________            ___

                        ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
                        ORDERS IN PENDING CASES

  No.    .  RICHARD J. KRANTZ V. PHILLIP BRIGGS, SUPERINTENDENT, COOK
      ___
            INLET PRETRIAL FACILITY, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

                      The motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition

                for a writ of certiorari out-of-time is denied.

  D-1232    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF LANCE JOSEPH THIBIDEAU

                     It having been reported to the Court that Lance

                Joseph Thibideau, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, has

                resigned from the practice of law before the Supreme

                Court of Florida and this Court by order of February 22,

                                        2

                1993, having suspended the said Lance Joseph Thibideau

                from the practice of law in this Court and directed that

                a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should

                not be disbarred;

                     And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued

                and served upon the respondent and that the time to file

                a response has expired;

                     It is ordered that the said Lance Joseph Thibideau

                be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and

                that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys

                admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.

  D-1233    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF KENNETH FRANK IREK

                     It having been reported to the Court that Kenneth

                Frank Irek, of Raleigh, North Carolina, has been

                disbarred from the practice of law by the Supreme Court

                of North Carolina and this Court by order of February

                22, 1993, having suspended the said Kenneth Frank Irek

                                        3

                from the practice of law in this Court and directed that

                a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he should

                not be disbarred;

                     And it appearing that the said rule was duly

                issued;

                     It is ordered that the said Kenneth Frank Irek be

                disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and

                that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys

                admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.

  D-1237    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF ARTHUR J. MATUSOW

                     It having been reported to the Court that Arthur J.

                Matusow, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has resigned

                from the practice of law before the Supreme Court of

                Pennsylvania, Eastern District, and this Court by order

                of February 22, 1993, having suspended the said Arthur

                J. Matusow from the practice of law in this Court and

                directed that a rule issue requiring him to show cause

                why he should not be disbarred;

                     And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued

                                        4

                and served upon the respondent and that the time to file

                a response has expired;

                     It is ordered that the said Arthur J. Matusow be

                disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and

                that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys

                admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.

  D-1240    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF IRA POSTEL

                     It having been reported to the Court that Ira

                Postel, of New York, New York, has been disbarred from

                the practice of law by the Appellate Division, Supreme

                Court of New York, First Judicial Department, and this

                Court by order of March 1, 1993, having suspended the

                said Ira Postel from the practice of law in this Court

                and directed that a rule issue requiring him to show

                cause why he should not be disbarred;

                     And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued

                and served upon the respondent and that the time to file

                a response has expired;

                     It is ordered that the said Ira Postel be disbarred

                                        5

                from the practice of law in this Court and that his name

                be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to

                practice before the Bar of this Court.

  D-1241    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF MICHAEL P. OSHATZ

                     It having been reported to the Court that Michael

                P. Oshatz, of Scarsdale, New York, has been disbarred

                from the practice of law by the Appellate Division,

                Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department,

                and this Court by order of March 1, 1993, having

                suspended the said Michael P. Oshatz from the practice

                of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue

                requiring him to show cause why he should not be

                disbarred;

                     And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued

                and served upon the respondent and that the time to file

                a response has expired;

                     It is ordered that the said Michael P. Oshatz be

                disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and

                that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys

                admitted to practice before the Bar of this

                                        6

Court.

  D-1242    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF JERROLD M. FLEISHER

                     It having been reported to the Court that Jerrold

                M. Fleisher, of Closter, New Jersey, has been disbarred

                from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of New

                Jersey and this Court by order of March 1, 1993, having

                suspended the said Jerrold M. Fleisher from the practice

                of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue

                requiring him to show cause why he should not be

                disbarred;

                     And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued

                and served upon the respondent and that the time to file

                a response has expired;

                     It is ordered that the said Jerrold M. Fleisher be

                disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and

                that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys

                admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.

  D-1243    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF JOSEPH A. DAMBACH

                     It having been reported to the Court that Joseph A.

                Dambach, of Fords, New Jersey, has been disbarred

                                        7

from

                the practice of law by the Supreme Court of New Jersey

                and this Court by order of March 1, 1993, having

                suspended the said Joseph A. Dambach from the practice

                of law in this Court and directed that a rule issue

                requiring him to show cause why he should not be

                disbarred;

                     And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued

                and served upon the respondent and that the time to file

                a response has expired;

                     It is ordered that the said Joseph A. Dambach be

                disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and

                that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys

                admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.

  D-1244    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF FRANCIS GUTHRIE GORDON, III

                     It having been reported to the Court that Francis

                Guthrie Gordon, III, of Charlottesville, Virginia, has

                resigned from the practice of law before the Supreme

                Court of Virginia and this Court by order of March 1,

                                        8

                1993, having suspended the said Francis Guthrie Gordon,

                III, from the practice of law in this Court and directed

                that a rule issue requiring him to show cause why he

                should not be disbarred;

                    And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued
 
                and served upon the respondent and that the time to file

                a response has expired;

                     It is ordered that the said Francis Guthrie Gordon,

                III, be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court

                and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys

                admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.

  D-1252    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF MELVIN M. LEBETKIN

                     It having been reported to the Court that Melvin M.

                Lebetkin, of Kew Gardens, New York, has been disbarred

                from the practice of law by the Appellate Division,

                Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department, and

                this Court by order of April 5, 1993, having suspended

                the said Melvin M. Lebetkin from the practice of law in

                                        9

                this Court and directed that a rule issue requiring him

                to show cause why he should not be disbarred;

                     And it appearing that the said rule was duly issued

                and served upon the respondent and that a response has

                been filed;

                     It is ordered that the said Melvin M. Lebetkin be

                disbarred from the practice of law in this Court and

                that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys

                admitted to practice before the Bar of this Court.

  

  D-1267    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF WILLIAM H. MANGER

                     It is ordered that William H. Manger, of Baltimore,

                Maryland, be suspended from the practice of law in this

                Court and that a rule issue, returnable within forty

                days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be

                disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

  D-1268    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF SAM B. DUNFORD

                     It is ordered that Sam B. Dunford, of Palm Springs,

                California, be suspended from the practice of law in

                                       10

                this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within

                forty days, requiring him to show cause why he should

                not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

  D-1269    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF VIRGIL VICTOR BECKER

                     It is ordered that Virgil Victor Becker, of

                Atascadero, California, be suspended from the practice

                of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable

                within forty days, requiring him to show cause why he

                should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this

                Court.

  D-1270    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF JOHN LEWE GUBBINS

                     It is ordered that John Lewe Gubbins, of Montefort,

                Wisconsin, be suspended from the practice of law in this

                Court and that a rule issue, returnable within forty

                days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be

                disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

  D-1271    IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF MICHAEL TIMOTHY BAILEY

                     It is ordered that Michael Timothy Bailey, of

                Portland, Oregon, be suspended from the practice of law

                                       11

                in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within

                forty days, requiring him to show cause why he should

                not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

  65, Orig. TEXAS V. NEW MEXICO

                      The motion of the River Master for approval of fees

                and expenses is granted and the River Master is awarded

                $370.29 for the period January 1 - March 31, 1993 to be paid

                equally by the parties.

  91-1523   FLORENCE CTY. SCH. DIST. V. CARTER, SHANNON

                     The motion of the Acting Solicitor General for 

                leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae
                                                         _____________

                and for divided argument is granted.

  92-519)   JOHNSON, BOLLEY, ET AL. V. De GRANDY, MIGUEL, ET AL. 
  92-593)   De GRANDY, MIGUEL, ET AL. V. JOHNSON, BOLLEY, ET AL. 
  92-767)   UNITED STATES V. FLORIDA, ET AL.

                     The motion of American Jewish Congress, et al. for

                leave to file a brief as amici curiae in No. 92-519 is
                                         ____________

                granted.

  92-757)   LANDGRAF, BARBARA V. USI FILM PROD., ET AL.
  92-938)   RIVERS, MAURICE, ET AL. V. ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.

                     The motion of the Acting Solicitor General for

                leave to participate in oral argument as amicus
                                                         ______

                                       12

curiae
______

                and for divided argument is granted. The motion of

                respondents for divided argument is denied.

  92-989    TENNESSEE V. MIDDLEBROOKS, DONALD

                     The motion for appointment of counsel is granted

                and it is ordered that David C. Stebbins, Esquire,

                Nashville, Tennessee, is appointed to serve as counsel

                for the respondent Donald Ray Middlebrooks in this case.

  92-1123   IZUMI SEIMITSU KOGYO, ETC. V. U.S. PHILIPS CORP, ET AL.

                     The motion of Sears, Roebuck & Co. for leave to

                file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of
                                _____________

                the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in

                oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument
                                 _____________

                is granted.

  92-1168   HARRIS, TERESA V. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC.

                     The motion of the Acting Solicitor General for

                leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae
                                                         _____________

                and for divided argument is granted.

  92-1223   DEPT. OF DEFENSE, ET AL. V. FLRA, ET AL.

                                       13

                     The motion of the Acting Solicitor General to

                dispense with printing the joint appendix is granted.

                            CERTIORARI GRANTED
                            CERTIORARI GRANTED

  92-1370   BFP V. RTC, RECEIVER OF IMPERIAL

  92-1402   C & A CARBONE, INC., ET AL. V. CLARKSTOWN, NEW YORK

  92-1441   STAPLES, HAROLD V. UNITED STATES

  92-1482   WEISS, ERIC V. UNITED STATES

                     The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.

  92-1510   CAVANAUGH, MICHAEL, ET AL. V. ROLLER, GARY LEE

                     The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in
                                                                   __

                forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of
                ______________

                certiorari is granted.

  92-6921   LITEKY, JOHN PATRICK, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES

                     The motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in
                                                                    __

                forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari
                ______________

                are granted.

                            CERTIORARI DENIED
                            CERTIORARI DENIED

  91-8180   GRIMES, TIMOTHY A., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES

  92-1097   BARR, HARRY V. UNITED STATES

  92-1348   RAPIDES REGIONAL MED. CENTER V. BROWN, SEC. OF VA

                                       14

  92-1368   BRUNEAU, JACQUELINE V. FDIC

  92-1408   ROGALA, JOHN V. UNITED STATES

  92-1433   WALLACE, EDWARD, ET AL. V. FDIC

  92-1437   WALLACH, EUGENE V. UNITED STATES

  92-1533   TEXAS V. McPHERSON, LARRY

  92-1578   KNEDLIK, WILL V. BLUMBERG, JANET

  92-1585   BURCH, ROBERT V. CHATHAM, NEW JERSEY, ET AL.

  92-1588   COMMITTE, BRUCE V. UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT

  92-1592   IOWA COAL MINING CO., ET AL. V. MONROE CTY. BD., ETC., ET AL

  92-1594   NEBRASKA V. CHILDS, STEVEN

  92-1597   MEDRANO, GUADALUPE, ET AL. V. LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  92-1598   CURLEY, THOMAS V. CONRAIL, ET AL.

  92-1599   BERNDT, MARK V. JACOBI, ERNEST

  92-1600   PARSONS CORP., ET AL. V. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

  92-1601   LeBLANC, ROLAND V. RAYTHEON COMPANY, INC.

  92-1604   BERGER, SANFORD J., ET AL. V. CUYAHOGA CTY. BAR, ET AL.

  92-1605   WOOSLEY, PATRICK V. CALIFORNIA

  92-1607   GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION V. DRENNAN, JoANN, ET AL.

  92-1608   BOWMAN, LORETTA, ET AL. V. FRANKLIN, WISCONSIN, ET AL.

  92-1654   LEAF, LINDA V. SUPREME CT. OF WI, ET AL.

  92-1686   CAMPOS, NIDIA V. UNITED STATES

  92-1707   HICKS, JIMMY, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES

  92-5025   BERNIER, JEAN V. UNITED STATES

  92-5344   FULLER, AARON L. V. TEXAS

  92-5690   HAYHOW, MATTHEW V. UNITED STATES

                                       15

  92-5786   ROULETTE, JAMES E. V. UNITED STATES

  92-5988   ANDERSON, JOHN A. V. WISCONSIN DEPT. OF REVENUE

  92-6276   PIERETTI, DARRYL V. UNITED STATES

  92-6832   FRYER, EDDIE V. UNITED STATES

  92-7021   ODLE, THOMAS V. V. ILLINOIS

  92-7660   KIRKLAND, MACK V. UNITED STATES

  92-7770   JACKSON, EARL L. V. CALIFORNIA

  92-7793   RAMEY, IRVING V. ILLINOIS

  92-7828   BANKS, ANGELO BERNARD V. GREEN, JOHN M., ET AL.

  92-7831   SMITH, DERRICK GEORGE V. UNITED STATES

  92-7920   STALLINGS, LARRY BAXTER V. UNITED STATES

  92-8038   TAVAKOLI-NOURI, KAMRAN V. CIA

  92-8188   McNEIL, MICHAEL D. V. SAFFLE, REGIONAL DIR., ET AL

  92-8201   JOHNSON, JEROME V. V. GRATERFORD STATE CORR. INST.

  92-8202   FLIEGER, ROBERT V. BOSLEY, FREEMAN R.

  92-8208   COCHRAN, ROBERT MORRIS V. BERGER, BRUCE, ET AL.

  92-8209   COLE, LEO RILEY V. OKLAHOMA, ET AL.

  92-8214   SCOTT, WILLIAM, ET UX. V. O'GRADY, JAMES, ET AL.

  92-8215   WAKEFIELD, ARTHUR V. SAMUELS, ROBERT, ET AL.

  92-8227   VAN WAGNER, GEORGE V. STAMBAUGH, GREGORY, ET AL.

  92-8237   LUCIEN, RUDOLPH L. V. PETERS, DIR., IL DOC, ET AL.

  92-8239   RYMAN, NORMAN WILSON V. GALLEY, JON, WARDEN, ET AL.

  92-8241   MAYBERRY, M.C. V. HANNIGAN, WARDEN, ET AL.

  92-8242   MARKHAM, FLOYD D. V. OKLAHOMA

  92-8255   MUHAMMAD, ABDULLAH V. UNITED STATES

  92-8256   NEWMAN, CLIFFORD T. V. PENNSYLVANIA

                                       16

  92-8259   DEMPSEY, JOHN V. HARSHBARGER, MA AG

  92-8260   NOBLITT, HORACE LEE V. UNITED STATES

  92-8262   MOREL, KATHRYN E. V. MOREL, RICHARD J.

  92-8263   PACCHETTI, CHARLES L. V. GROOSE, SUPT.

  92-8266   MARKS, WALLACE V. OK TAX COMMISSION

  92-8294   TAYLOR, AARON V. UNITED STATES

  92-8303   TODARO, CAMILLO V. UNITED STATES

  92-8311   OSHER, FRANCIS V. UNITED STATES

  92-8339   SWANN, WILLIAM LEE V. SINGLETON, WARDEN

  92-8345   SEATON, PARNELL V. JABE, WARDEN

  92-8352   YOUNG, RICHARD V. PENNSYLVANIA

  92-8364   BEHNEY, SCOTT L. V. UNITED STATES

  92-8367   NEVILLE, TODD DAVID V. UNITED STATES

  92-8370   MILLER, KENNETH ALBERT V. McCORMICK, WARDEN

  92-8371   WEEKLY, LILLIAN V. UNITED STATES

  92-8372   YEPEZ, JOSE V. UNITED STATES

  92-8373   POOLE, ROBERT LEE V. UNITED STATES

  92-8379   TAYLOR, JEAN V. UNITED STATES

  92-8380   DANNA, BARRY V. UNITED STATES

  92-8385   GREEN, STEVEN D. V. UNITED STATES

  92-8386   HERNANDEZ-MARQUEZ, FRANCISCO V. UNITED STATES

  92-8387   KELLEY, DANIEL M. V. UNITED STATES

  92-8388   HARDWICK, JESSIE L. V. UNITED STATES

  92-8391   JONES, KEITH R. V. UNITED STATES

  92-8392   JONES, SYLVESTER V. BIDEN, JOSEPH R., ET AL.

  92-8403   CARDENAS, SIXTO V. UNITED STATES

                                       17

  92-8404   VARAS-SANTOS, GUSTAVO V. UNITED STATES

  92-8406   STINCHCOMB, STANLEY V. UNITED STATES

  92-8407   SCOTT, RUSSELL NEIL V. UNITED STATES

  92-8411   MARTINEZ, RAUL V. UNITED STATES

  92-8413   TRENT, PHYLLIS V. UNITED STATES

  92-8414   BENNETT, RAY AUSTIN V. UNITED STATES

  92-8416   CALLANAN, EVAN H. V. UNITED STATES

  92-8422   JACKSON, JUAN V. UNITED STATES

  92-8423   ELWELL, DAVID V. UNITED STATES

  92-8427   SALAS, SAMUEL V. UNITED STATES

  92-8437   POSADA, JERMAN DARIO V. UNITED STATES

  92-8440   PUNO, DAVID V. UNITED STATES

  92-8441   OROZCO, ENRIQUE L. V. UNITED STATES

  92-8442   RICKS, EDWARD V. UNITED STATES

  92-8443   OLUFIDIPE, SOLOMON V. UNITED STATES

  92-8445   McINTOSH, BILLY, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES

  92-8447   FOSTER, WALTER R. V. UNITED STATES

  92-8454   ZEMAN, ROBERT V. UNITED STATES

  92-8467   GRAHAM, GARY V. TEXAS

                     The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

  92-1516   MAGNESIUM ELEKTRON, INC. V. PUB. INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP

                     The motion of Washington Legal Foundation for leave

                to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion
                                   _____________

                of Chemical Industry Council of New Jersey, et

                                       18


al. for

                leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The
                                         ____________

                petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

  92-1587   MICHIGAN V. DAVIS, HARRIET

                     The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in
                                                                   __

                forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of
                ______________

                certiorari is denied.

  92-1656   FACEMIRE, RALPH V. LIBERTY SAVINGS BANK, ET AL.

                     The motion of petitioner to strike brief in

                opposition is denied. The petition for a writ of

                certiorari is denied.

  92-8224   RAMSEUR, THOMAS C. V. BEYER, SUPT., ET AL.

                     The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

                Justice Kennedy would grant certiorari.

  92-8429   CASTANEDA, JOSE V. UNITED STATES

                     The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

                Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or

                decision of this petition.

                           HABEAS CORPUS DENIED
                           HABEAS CORPUS DENIED

  92-8470   IN RE SYLVESTER ZIEBARTH

  92-8542   IN RE JOHN LAPINSKI

                                       19


                     The petitions for writs of habeas corpus are

                denied.

                             MANDAMUS DENIED
                             MANDAMUS DENIED

  92-1603   IN RE EDWARD RONWIN

  92-7983   IN RE PAUL FAZZINI

  92-8134   IN RE MICHAEL B. FORTE

                     The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied.

  92-1350   IN RE GEORGE L. PARKER

  92-1447   IN RE NORMAN MOSCOWITZ

                     The motions of respondent John Demjanjuk for leave

                to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The petitions
                           _________________

                for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition are denied.

                            REHEARINGS DENIED
                            REHEARINGS DENIED

  92-1387   McNUTT, NANCY V. GTE FL, INC.

  92-1409   GACKENBACH, MYRON V. UNIROYAL, INC.

  92-7385   HARGROVE, STARLIN T. V. MORRIS, WARDEN

  92-7489   WILLIAMS, PAUL V. WHITLEY, WARDEN, ET AL.

  92-7563   HEIMBAUGH, ROBERT A. V. SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  92-7596   HINES, BARBARA A. V. VANDERBILT UNIV., ET AL.

  92-7619   IN RE ANDREW SEARCY

  92-7701   HOOPER, MICHAEL V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  92-7740   WILLIAMS, WILLIE LEE V. COLLINS, DIR., TX DCJ

  92-7748   HELZER, RICHARD L. V. MICHIGAN

                                       20


  92-7799   NETELKOS, CHRISTOS V. UNITED STATES

  92-7818   MENDEZ, RAPHAEL V. FCI, BUTNER, NC, ET AL.

  92-7904   IN RE W. J. GRAY

                      The petitions for rehearing are denied.

  92-1083   PHELPS, ZIBA V. SOVRAN BANK

                     The petition for rehearing is denied. The Chief

                Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of

                this petition.

  92-6878   BURTON, ROBERT A. V. CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN, ET AL.

                     The motion for leave to file a petition for

                rehearing is denied.

                                  RECESS ORDER
                                  RECESS ORDER

                   This Court will take a recess from Monday, May 24, 1993 
                   

               until Tuesday, June 1, 1993.

                          MOTIONS FOR ADMISSION
                          MOTIONS FOR ADMISSION

                     The written motions for admission of the following

               lawyers to the Bar of this Court are granted:

                                       21