(ORDER LIST: 580 U.S.) 

MONDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2016 

CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS 

15-486 IVY, DONNIKA, ET AL. V. MORATH, MIKE 

 The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with 

instructions to dismiss as moot. See United States v. 

Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950). 

15-8842 PURCELL, BOBBY C. V. ARIZONA 

15-8878 NAJAR, WILLIAM F. V. ARIZONA 

15-9044 ARIAS, JONATHAN A. V. ARIZONA 

15-9057 DeSHAW, SCOTT L. V. ARIZONA 

 The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma

 pauperis and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. 

The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the Court 

of Appeals of Arizona, Division One for further consideration in 

light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ____ (2016). 

Justice Sotomayor concurs in the decisions to grant, vacate, and 

remand. See Tatum v. Arizona, 580 U. S. ___ (2016) (Sotomayor, 

J., concurring). Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, 

dissents from the decisions to grant, vacate, and remand. See 

Tatum v. Arizona, 580 U. S. ___ (2016) (Alito, J., dissenting). 

16-181 TIMM, GEOFFREY V. NORTH DAKOTA 

 The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The 

judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme 

Court of North Dakota for further consideration in light of 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U. S. ___ (2016). 

ORDERS IN PENDING CASES 

16A38 KINSEY, CHRISTOPHER R. V. UNITED STATES 

 The application for a certificate of appealability addressed 

to Justice Sotomayor and referred to the Court is denied. 

16M40 PEACE, LESLIE H. V. ILLINOIS 

16M41 BWP MEDIA USA, ET AL. V. CLARITY DIGITAL GROUP 

16M42 MOYE, BRANDON V. COLVIN, ACTING COMM'R OF SSA 

16M43 WALLACE, ALLYSON V. IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORP. 

16M44 VERA, GUILLERMO V. SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, ET AL. 

16M45 DAVIS, LaTONYA D. V. CLIFFORD, TODD, ET AL. 

16M46 PHILLIPS, CURTIS C. V. PA DOC, ET AL. 

 The motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs 

of certiorari out of time are denied. 

15-1500 LEWIS, BRIAN, ET AL. V. CLARKE, WILLIAM 

 The motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the 

joint appendix is granted. 

16-217 LENZ, STEPHANIE V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORP., ET AL. 

 The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this 

case expressing the views of the United States. 

16-5479 SEWELL, STARSHA V. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY 

 The motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order 

denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. 

CERTIORARI DENIED 

15-1351 HARDY, KATHRYN, ET AL. V. STATE LAND BOARD, ET AL. 

15-1384 GILLIAM, JEFFREY V. NEBRASKA 

15-1456 ANGHAIE, SAMIM, ET UX. V. UNITED STATES 

15-1467 STAHL YORK AVENUE CO., LLC V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15-1489 BAUER, JAY J. V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN. 

15-1492 JSW STEEL, INC. V. MM STEEL, L.P., ET AL. 

15-1538 MERSCORP HOLDINGS, ET AL. V. MALLOY, DANNEL P., ET AL. 

15-9323 MONTOYA-GAXIOLA, ABEL E. V. UNITED STATES 

15-9365 HARCUM, JERRY V. MARYLAND 

15-9574 MULAY, JOSEPH V. V. UNITED STATES 

16-20 BILLINGS, DAVID, ET AL. V. PROPEL FINANCIAL SERV., ET AL. 

16-33 ZOLA, DANIEL V. WITHERS, DAN, ET AL. 

16-92 VINH HOAN CORPORATION V. CATFISH FARMERS OF AM., ET AL. 

16-94 FARMER, STEPHEN V. D&O CONTRACTORS, INC., ET AL. 

16-95 J & K ADMIN. MANAGEMENT, ET AL. V. ROBINSON, NEFFERTITI, ET AL. 

16-98 STAHL, DANIEL V. HIALEAH HOSPITAL, ET AL. 

16-104 NORRIS, TERRY V. TENNESSEE 

16-108 AUTOMATED CREEL SYSTEMS V. SHAW INDUSTRIES GROUP, ET AL. 

16-109 STOP RECKLESS ECONOMIC, ET AL. V. FEC 

16-213 KUENZEL, WILLIAM E. V. ALABAMA 

16-218 UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORP., ET AL. V. LENZ, STEPHANIE 

16-222 GALLO, JOHN L., ET AL. V. MOEN, INC. 

16-228 FORRAS, VINCENT, ET AL. V. RAUF, IMAM, ET AL. 

16-230 CAIN, DAVID H. V. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INS. CO. 

16-232 LEE, SANG C. V. ANC CAR RENTAL CORP., ET AL. 

16-238 CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. SUD-CHEMIE AG, ET AL. 

16-244 SCHELL, DAVID, ET AL. V. OXY USA INC. 

16-245 MELHORN, EDWIN R. V. UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, ET AL. 

16-246 W. R., ET AL. V. OHIO DEPT. OF HEALTH, ET AL. 

16-248 DANIELS, CURT N. V. HOLTZ, JOHN, ET AL. 

16-252 KINNEY, CHARLES G. V. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. 

16-260 FOLEY, DAVID W., ET UX. V. ORANGE COUNTY, FL, ET AL. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16-264 GRAMAR, LLC V. MP 200 W. RANDOLPH 

16-266 MUMME, CHRISTIAN F., ET UX. V. SOUTHPORT SPRINGS PARK, LLC 

16-269 HORHN, WILLIAM C. V. TEXAS 

16-277 PETTUS-BROWN, LaSHAWN V. LISATH, WARDEN 

16-280 STEVENS, FRANCES V. CA WORKERS' COMP. APPEALS BD. 

16-281 CASTILLO, FREDDIE B. V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN. 

16-292 MILLER, ROBERT M. V. FDIC 

16-303 FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. JEWELL, SEC. OF INTERIOR, ET AL. 

16-304 ESTRADA-RODRIGUEZ, JOSE V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN. 

16-316 BIERY, DOROTHY L., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES 

16-318 COZZARELLI, FRANK J. V. SUPREME COURT OF NJ 

16-319 ROJAS, VICTOR V. KIRKPATRICK, GINNIE, ET AL. 

16-320 ACEVEDO, SALMA, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES 

16-322 AZKOUR, HICHAM V. LITTLE REST TWELVE, INC. 

16-336 BOYER, BEATRICE, ET AL. V. BNSF RAILWAY CO. 

16-337 BROWN, SAMUEL V. PA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ET AL. 

16-339 TAYLOR, CHARLES N. V. MARGO, DEE, ET AL. 

16-342 ZIEGLER, VICTOR R. V. JEWELL, SEC. OF INTERIOR 

16-356 REDDY, RAGHURAMI V. DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC 

16-357 SALADO-ALVA, BERNARDO V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN. 

16-362 FIRST RESOLUTION INVESTMENT V. TAYLOR-JARVIS, SANDRA 

16-365 FARMINGTON, NY V. AUSTIN, COLLEEN, ET VIR 

16-370 KUTTNER, SUSAN A. V. ZARUBA, JOHN E., ET AL. 

16-371 STOVIC, CHRIS V. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BD, ET AL. 

16-390 ADAME, JUAN V. UNITED STATES 

16-394 MENDEL, JAKE V. MORGAN KEEGAN & CO. 

16-401 SPRUILL, JEFF V. UNITED STATES 

16-414 WALTON, KENYON R. V. UNITED STATES 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16-439 JONES, STEVEN V. BUTT, TOM, ET AL. 

16-457 BULK TRANSPORT CORP. V. CENTRAL STATES, ET AL. 

16-5225 TRAN, SON THANH V. CALIFORNIA 

16-5295 RAY, DOMINEQUE V. AL DOC, ET AL. 

16-5312 JIMENEZ-ROJAS, ENRIQUE V. UNITED STATES 

16-5379 HENRY, PAUL V. UNITED STATES 

16-5657 RUSSELL, RICHARD V. FL DOC 

16-5667 YADETA, MULUNEH M. V. BEZA CONSULTING, INC., ET AL. 

16-5673 RAMOS, GILBERT V. LeGRAND, WARDEN, ET AL. 

16-5674 CARTER, JOHN V. INDEPENDENCE SEAPORT MUSEUM 

16-5676 WRIGHT, MONTY E. V. BROWN, WENDY K. 

16-5681 SALGADO, BRUNO V. ILLINOIS 

16-5685 GONZALEZ, ALFONSO V. VASQUEZ, ACTING WARDEN 

16-5695 MINOR, CHAZ V. SHELDON, WARDEN 

16-5699 CREWS, WILLIAM R. V. FLORIDA 

16-5702 VELASCO, JOSE F. V. SHERMAN, WARDEN 

16-5707 PAWLEY, CASH W. V. JONES, SEC., FL DOC. 

16-5709 WESTBROOKS, KHALON J. V. TEXAS 

16-5710 WALLACE, TIMOTHY L. V. CARTLEDGE, WARDEN 

16-5719 SELBY, CHARLES V. WENEROWICZ, SUPT., GRATERFORD 

16-5723 MIDDLETON, CHRISTOPHER T. V. GEORGIA 

16-5728 CARTER, JEANETTA V. VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMM'N 

16-5729 TIDWELL, JUAN M. V. HATTON, ACTING WARDEN, ET AL. 

16-5730 BROOKS, CHARLES V. PATAKI, FORMER GOV. OF NY 

16-5731 ANDERSON, LEWIS V. CALIFORNIA 

16-5736 VILLA, DANIEL V. USCA 5 

16-5739 DAVIS, PAUL V. BURT, WARDEN 

16-5742 SARVESTANEY, CYRUS F. V. SARVESTANEY, LISA A. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16-5746 COUGHLIN, TIMOTHY M. V. FLORIDA 

16-5749 PAOLINO, RICHARD G. V. CAMERON, SUPT., HOUTZDALE 

16-5750 OLAGUE, PETE V. WORKER'S COMP., ET AL 

16-5753 HUMPHREY, MICHAEL V. SHERMAN, WARDEN 

16-5755 WILSON, DAHVON V. ILLINOIS 

16-5758 EBRON, MARCUS D. V. FLORIDA 

16-5759 BROWN, COWELL N. V. WATTLES, BOB, ET AL. 

16-5761 MARTIN, ROSCOE V. MACKIE, WARDEN 

16-5766 ELLIS, OBAR L. V. KLEE, WARDEN 

16-5770 VIRGA, MICHAEL V. LEE, WARDEN 

16-5771 SMILLIE, STEPHEN S. V. MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ, ET AL. 

16-5776 FRAZIER, JUSTIN V. FLORIDA 

16-5780 RHODES, KAVIN M. V. ROWE, WARDEN, ET AL. 

16-5783 FLORENCE, KIM V. VIKING ASSOCIATES 

16-5788 HARBISON, CHARLES V. CLARKE, DIR., VA DOC 

16-5791 RODRIGUEZ, JUAN R. V. SHERMAN, WARDEN 

16-5792 WARD, LEAH J. V. JORDAN, WARDEN 

16-5793 KE, LEI V. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, ET AL. 

16-5802 VUE, CHU V. CALIFORNIA 

16-5809 MUNT, JOEL M. V. MINNESOTA 

16-5815 MANN, MICHAEL V. KERNAN, SEC., CA DOC, ET AL. 

16-5816 REBELO, RUBEN M. V. NEW YORK 

16-5823 DOBBS, JOHN W. V. FLORIDA 

16-5834 RIGGINS, RODNEY L. V. MILLER, WARDEN, ET AL. 

16-5836 SMITH, CHANDLER P. V. MORRISVILLE, PA 

16-5837 KING, PATRICK L., ET UX. V. MISSISSIPPI, ET AL. 

16-5839 MARTINEZ, MICA A. V. OKLAHOMA 

16-5844 SAWYER, MARK C. V. UNITED STATES 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16-5846 ESTELA-GOMEZ, LUIS F. V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN. 

16-5849 STOCKWELL, DAN V. KEY, SUPT., AIRWAY HEIGHTS 

16-5857 BERNARD, FELTON R. V. LOUISIANA 

16-5869 CHRISTENSON, DAVID A. V. UNITED STATES 

16-5871 TAYLOR, XAVIER V. UNITED STATES 

16-5873 TAYLOR, RAHSAAN V. KELLEY, DIR., AR DOC 

16-5879 DUKE, JERRY K. V. TENNESSEE 

16-5880 DORSEY, PAUL D. V. UNITED STATES 

16-5883 JOHONOSON, FRANKLIN V. THOMPSON, SUPT., MERCER 

16-5884 SMITH, GREGORY V. V. PHILLIPS, CHRISTOPHER, ET AL. 

16-5894 WOODARD, L. MICHAEL V. UNITED STATES 

16-5897 RAMSEY, TYRONE R. V. KATAVICH, WARDEN 

16-5902 NATHAN, ERIC L. V. SUPERIOR COURT OF CA 

16-5904 WALLAESA, BRIAN A. V. FAA 

16-5905 OKUN, EDWARD H. V. UNITED STATES 

16-5906 CHAPMAN, CARL V. CALIFORNIA 

16-5911 ROBLEDO, ADAM V. GIPSON, WARDEN 

16-5918 BRUETTE, FELIX J. V. JEWELL, SEC. OF INTERIOR 

16-5922 JIMENEZ, FELIX V. MEDEIROS, SUPT., NORFOLK 

16-5925 PATTERSON, EMMANUEL V. GRAZIANO, MICHAEL, ET AL. 

16-5933 SAENZ, KIMBERLY C. V. TEXAS 

16-5938 WILLIAMS, CARRI V. WA DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH 

16-5942 REID, WARNELL V. UNITED STATES 

16-5944 MILLER, DION T. V. UNITED STATES 

16-5945 PARNELL, KENNETH V. UNITED STATES 

16-5946 REDFORD, MIKE V. GEORGIA 

16-5948 REINARD, DONALD W. V. NEW YORK 

16-5949 CZEKUS, ABA D. V. KNIPP, WARDEN 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16-5950 JACKSON, BERNARD V. LINK, SUPT., GRATERFORD 

16-5952 MARCOTTE, DESTRY J. V. UNITED STATES 

16-5953 THORNBRUGH, JAMES D. V. UNITED STATES 

16-5954 ZIMMERMAN, KENNETH J. V. SWARTHOUT, WARDEN 

16-5965 ALCALA, FERNANDO C. V. HERNANDEZ, CLAUDIA G. 

16-5966 COLE, BRENT D. V. UNITED STATES 

16-5967 LUMSDEN, JAMES R. V. UNITED STATES 

16-5973 MARQUEZ, REYNALDO V. UNITED STATES 

16-5974 JONES, ERIC K. V. McGINLEY, ACTING SUPT., COAL 

16-5979 SANCHEZ-ALMARAZ, FERNANDO V. UNITED STATES 

16-5981 MEDFORD, ROGER D. V. TEXAS 

16-5983 PINA, TOMMY V. UNITED STATES 

16-5986 SULLIVAN, MONTIE V. OHIO 

16-5988 GOROSTIETA-CASAS, BONIFACIO V. UNITED STATES 

16-5994 CABADA, MIGUEL A. V. UNITED STATES 

16-5995 TRAPPIER, ANTHONY G. V. UNITED STATES 

16-5996 ZAVALA-GARCIA, PAULINO V. UNITED STATES 

16-6002 BURGESS, ALBERT C. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6007 CUA, JOSEPH G. V. McDOWELL, WARDEN 

16-6008 DJENASEVIC, KABIL A. V. IVES, WARDEN 

16-6010 CORREA-HERNANDEZ, RIGOBERTO V. FLORIDA 

16-6012 HILL, ELTON E. V. PENNSYLVANIA 

16-6013 MOSES, JOSHUA V. UNITED STATES 

16-6015 CASTEEN, MICHAEL W. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6017 RUIZ-ARAGON, CARLOS V. UNITED STATES 

16-6020 THOMAS, RONALD D. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6022 TAYLOR, BRANDON R. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6023 JIM, JORDAN V. UNITED STATES 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16-6024 MATELYAN, ARIKA V. SUPREME COURT OF U.S. 

16-6026 LUBY, MICHAEL P. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6036 McLEOD, JARMAAL V. UNITED STATES 

16-6038 PARKE, CHARLES B. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6039 RUSSELL, STEVEN V. UNITED STATES 

16-6042 HERNANDEZ-VILLEDA, DOMINGO V. UNITED STATES 

16-6043 GOMEZ-HERNANDEZ, ARMANDO V. UNITED STATES 

16-6044 FRISON, ARREN T. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6045 GARDNER, WILLIAM R. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6046 QUINTERO, GEOMAR V. UNITED STATES 

16-6050 GARNER, NATHANIEL V. UNITED STATES 

16-6051 GRIMES, TYRELL V. UNITED STATES 

16-6053 GONZALEZ, ESTEBAN V. UNITED STATES 

16-6058 FORD, SAMUEL B. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6066 HIGGINS, DEONDRE C. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6070 GATLING, MAURICE V. UNITED STATES 

16-6071 GASCA, GENARO V. UNITED STATES 

16-6072 MAXWELL, MAURICE L. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6073 LAWS, RASHAAD L. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6074 HAYES, BILLY V. UNITED STATES 

16-6075 SMITH, DE VAUGHAN V. UNITED STATES 

16-6078 DOBSON, KASEEN V. MILLION, WARDEN 

16-6082 HERNANDEZ-VEGA, CARLOS L. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6083 GRANDA, PAULINO V. IVES, WARDEN 

16-6090 FITZPATRICK, JAMES H. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6091 EVANS, DERRICK L. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6092 COVINGTON, DEMARIO V. UNITED STATES 

16-6096 HARRIS, VICTORIA M. V. UNITED STATES 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16-6097 ANDERSON, STANLEY L. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6098 SMITH, CHRISTOPHER V. UNITED STATES 

16-6099 SHIPTON, DENNIS G. V. DANIELS, WARDEN 

16-6100 FLOWERS, SHAHIEE J. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6101 HERNANDEZ-DE-LA-ROSA, CESAR V. UNITED STATES 

16-6108 GUTIERREZ, RUDY V. UNITED STATES 

16-6109 HANNIGAN, CHRISTOPHER V. UNITED STATES 

16-6111 GARCIA, ALEJANDRO S. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6112 GUZMAN-FERNANDEZ, JAVIER V. UNITED STATES 

16-6114 LIU, WENJING V. UNITED STATES 

16-6116 JENKINS, SHAUN V. MURPHY, SUPT., OLD COLONY 

16-6119 WARD, STEPHEN M. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6120 WILLIS, IVAN B. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6124 BRITT, JOHN L. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6126 GIBSON, JOHNNY M. V. POLLARD, WILLIAM, ET AL. 

16-6130 SCALIA, MICHAEL R. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6134 MINJAREZ, MANUEL O. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6140 ATWOOD, DAVID G. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6146 JONES, ADREAN L. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6154 DURY, MATTHEW J. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6155 LITTLE COYOTE, MONTE C. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6157 CAMACHO, BALTAZAR V. UNITED STATES 

16-6158 DRAIN, ALEXANDER V. LANE, SUPT., FAYETTE 

16-6161 BURNS, CLINTON V. UNITED STATES 

16-6163 HOLMES, PAMELA J. V. MSPB 

16-6165 HOPE, GIRAUD V. UNITED STATES 

16-6167 MARTINEZ, ALEJANDRO V. UNITED STATES 

16-6170 WHITE, ROBERT V. UNITED STATES 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16-6173 MAYER, TROY J. V. BEEMER, ATT'Y GEN. OF PA. 

16-6178 EVANS, ROGER F. V. MILLION, WARDEN 

16-6183 CREWS, JAQUEL V. UNITED STATES 

16-6197 OGUNNIYI, VICTOR V. UNITED STATES 

16-6201 SCHAFFER, ROBIN D., JR. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6202 SONG, WENFO V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S. 

16-6206 CAPSHAW, STEVEN M. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6207 GEMMA, MICHAEL V. UNITED STATES 

16-6209 CORTES-MEDINA, HECTOR V. UNITED STATES 

16-6211 CHRISTIAN, ERIC L. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6214 JONES, RONNIE M. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6217 AYALA-YUPIT, PABLO C. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6218 DOUGLAS, DAYNE D. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6231 DUNSTON, ALAN V. COLVIN, ACTING COMM'R OF SSA 

16-6238 MURRAY, MICHAEL M. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6241 DONALDSON, COREY A. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6246 ROBERTS, WALTER R. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6254 BRYANT, CHRISTOPHER T. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6255 PFEIFER, DERYKE M. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6263 CHICHAKLI, RICHARD A. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6266 LINDSEY, MICHAEL A. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6267 LOGAN, JONATHAN B. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6274 DILLARD, SCOTT L. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6284 TREJO, CARLOS S. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6290 SMOTHERMAN, SONTAY T. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6296 RIVERA-MARTINEZ, JOSE A. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6298 DeCRUZ, AUGUSTINE V. UNITED STATES 

16-6299 DIDIER, CHRISTIN D. V. UNITED STATES 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16-6301 CORNETT, CHRISTOPHER B. V. UNITED STATES 

16-6304 REZA-RAMOS, VICTOR M. V. UNITED STATES 

 The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. 

15-1438 TINA M., ET AL. V. ST. TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD 

 The motion of Southern Poverty Law Center, et al. for leave 

to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a 

 writ of certiorari is denied. 

16-189 WASHINGTON, HEIDI E., ET AL. V. DENDEL, KATHERINE S. 

 The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is 

denied. 

16-5738 REDDY, KRISHNA V. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL. 

 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

 pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is 

dismissed. See Rule 39.8. 

16-6069 HINSON, KEVIN V. UNITED STATES 

 The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice 

Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this 

petition. 

16-6094 WOODWORTH, MURRAY A. V. SHARTLE, WARDEN 

 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

 pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is 

dismissed. See Rule 39.8. 

16-6249 RUSSELL, ROBERT P. V. HOLT, WARDEN 

 The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice 

Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this 

petition. 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HABEAS CORPUS DENIED
 

16-5715 IN RE CARY M. LAMBRIX 

16-6235 IN RE DONALD BENNETT 

16-6279 IN RE JAMES D. EVANS 

16-6322 IN RE HELEN RANSOM 

The petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied. 

MANDAMUS DENIED 

16-227 IN RE PETER ROTHING 

16-5678 IN RE MILTON V. WILLIAMS 

16-5767 IN RE CHRISTOPHER DEATON 

 The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied. 

REHEARINGS DENIED 

15-7608 OKUN, EDWARD H. V. UNITED STATES 

15-9363 HAMMOND, ADAM V. UNITED STATES 

15-9906 HARRIS, MICHAEL E. V. MESSITTE, JUDGE, USDC D MD 

 The petitions for rehearing are denied. 

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE 

D-2935 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF ROBERT LEE STONE 

 Robert Lee Stone, of Chicago, Illinois, 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. 

D-2936 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF MICHAEL BRUCE STONE 

Michael Bruce Stone, of Las Vegas, Nevada, 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. 

13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D-2937 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF JOHN CLIFTON ELSTEAD 

 John Clifton Elstead, of Oakland, California, 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. 

D-2938 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF RICHARD D. ACKERMAN 

 Richard D. Ackerman, of Menifee, California, 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. 

D-2939 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF ROBERT ALLAN HOLSTEIN 

 Robert Allan Holstein, of Chicago, Illinois, 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. 

D-2940 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF RONALD L. McPHERON 

 Ronald L. McPheron, of Chicago, Illinois, 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. 

D-2941 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF KEITH E. GREGORY 

Keith E. Gregory, of Lompoc, California, 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. 

D-2942 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF STEPHEN CARL WOODRUFF 

 Stephen Carl Woodruff, of Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, 

is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule 

14
 
 

 

 

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. 

15
 

 

Cite as: 580 U. S. ____ (2016) 1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

BOBBY JERRY TATUM v. ARIZONA 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF 

APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO
 

No. 15–8850. Decided October 31, 2016 

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. 

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the 

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two for further 

consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 

U. S. ___ (2016). 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concurring in the decision to 

grant, vacate, and remand.* 

This Court explained in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ___ 

(2012), that a sentencer is “require[d] . . . to take into 

account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a 

lifetime in prison.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17). Children 

are “constitutionally different from adults for purposes of 

sentencing” in light of their lack of maturity and underdeveloped sense of responsibility, their susceptibility to

negative influences and outside pressure, and their less

well-formed character traits. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 8).

Failing to consider these constitutionally significant differences, we explained, “poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17). In the 

context of life without parole, we stated that “appropriate

occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible

penalty will be uncommon.” Ibid. 

Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016), held 

—————— 

*This opinion also applies to No. 15–8842, Purcell v. Arizona; No. 15– 

8878, Najar v. Arizona; No. 15–9044, Arias v. Arizona; and No. 15– 

9057, DeShaw v. Arizona. 
 

2 TATUM v. ARIZONA 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring 

that Miller “announced a substantive rule of constitutional 

law.” 577 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 20). That rule draws “a 

line between children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity and those rare children whose crimes reflect 

irreparable corruption” and allows for the possibility “that 

life without parole could be a proportionate sentence [only] 

for the latter kind of juvenile offender.” Id., at ___ (slip

op., at 18).

The petitioners in these cases were sentenced to life

without the possibility of parole for crimes they committed 

before they turned 18. A grant, vacate, and remand of 

these cases in light of Montgomery permits the lower

courts to consider whether these petitioners’ sentences 

comply with the substantive rule governing the imposition

of a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile offender.

JUSTICE ALITO questions this course, noting that the

judges in these cases considered petitioners’ youth during 

sentencing. As Montgomery made clear, however, “[e]ven 

if a court considers a child’s age before sentencing him or 

her to a lifetime in prison, that sentence still violates the

Eighth Amendment for a child whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op.,

at 16–17) (internal quotation marks omitted).

On the record before us, none of the sentencing judges 

addressed the question Miller and Montgomery require a

sentencer to ask: whether the petitioner was among the 

very “rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes 

reflect permanent incorrigibility.” 577 U. S., at ___ (slip 

op., at 17).

Take Najar v. Arizona, No. 15–8878. There, the sentencing judge identified as mitigating factors that the

defendant was “16 years of age” and “emotionally and 

physically immature.” App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 15– 

8878, p. A–51. He said no more on this front. He then 

discounted the petitioner’s efforts to rehabilitate himself

as “nothing significant,” despite commending him for those 
Cite as: 580 U. S. ____ (2016) 3 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring 

efforts and expressing hope that they would continue. Id., 

at A–52. The sentencing judge did not evaluate whether 

Najar represented the “rare juvenile offender who exhibits

such irretrievable depravity that rehabilitation is impossible and life without parole is justified.” Montgomery, 577 

U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 16). 

Purcell v. Arizona, No. 15–8842, is no different. The 

sentencing judge found that Purcell’s age at the time of his 

offense—16 years old—qualified as a statutory mitigating 

factor. App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 15–8842, p. A–80. He 

then minimized the relevance of Purcell’s troubled childhood, concluding that “this case sums up the result of

defendant’s family environment: he became a doublemurderer at age 16. Nothing more need be said.” Id., at 

A–83. So here too, the sentencing judge did not undertake

the evaluation that Montgomery requires. He imposed a

sentence of life without parole despite finding that Purcell 

was “likely to do well in the structured environment of a 

prison and that he possesses the capacity to be meaningfully rehabilitated.” App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 15–8842, 

at A–83. 

The other petitions are similar. In Tatum v. Arizona, 

No. 15–8850, and DeShaw v. Arizona, No. 15–9057, the 

sentencing judge merely noted age as a mitigating circumstance without further discussion. In Arias v. Arizona, 

No. 15–9044, the record before us does not contain a sentencing transcript or order reflecting the factors the sentencing judge considered.

It is clear after Montgomery that the Eighth Amendment requires more than mere consideration of a juvenile 

offender’s age before the imposition of a sentence of life 

without parole. It requires that a sentencer decide whether 

the juvenile offender before it is a child “whose crimes

reflect transient immaturity” or is one of “those rare children whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption” for 

whom a life without parole sentence may be appropriate. 
 

4 TATUM v. ARIZONA 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring 

577 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 18). There is thus a very

meaningful task for the lower courts to carry out on 

remand. 

 

Cite as: 580 U. S. ____ (2016) 1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

BOBBY JERRY TATUM v. ARIZONA 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF 

APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO
 

No. 15–8850. Decided October 31, 2016

 JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins,

dissenting from the decision to grant, vacate, and 

remand.* 

The Court grants review and vacates and remands in 

this and four other cases in which defendants convicted of 

committing murders while under the age of 18 were sentenced to life without parole. The Court grants this relief 

so that the Arizona courts can reconsider their decisions in 

light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016), 

which we decided last Term. I expect that the Arizona 

courts will be as puzzled by this directive as I am.

In Montgomery, the Court held that Miller v. Alabama, 

567 U. S. ___ (2012), is retroactive. 577 U. S., at ___ (slip. 

op., at 20). That holding has no bearing whatsoever on the 

decisions that the Court now vacates. The Arizona cases 

at issue here were decided after Miller, and in each case 

the court expressly assumed that Miller was applicable to 

the sentence that had been imposed. Therefore, if the 

Court is taken at its word—that is, it simply wants the

Arizona courts to take Montgomery into account—there is 

nothing for those courts to do.

It is possible that what the majority wants is for the 

lower courts to reconsider the application of Miller to the 

cases at issue,† but if that is the Court’s aim, it is misusing 

—————— 

*This opinion also applies to four other petitions: No. 15–8842, Purcell v. Arizona; No. 15–8878, Najar v. Arizona; No. 15–9044, Arias v. 

Arizona; and No. 15–9057, DeShaw v. Arizona. †This is certainly JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s explanation of the GVR. She 
 

2 TATUM v. ARIZONA 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

the GVR vehicle. We do not GVR so that a lower court can 

reconsider the application of a precedent that it has already considered.

In any event, the Arizona decisions at issue are fully 

consistent with Miller’s central holding, namely, that 

mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders is 

unconstitutional. 567 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 2). A sentence of life without parole was imposed in each of these

cases, not because Arizona law dictated such a sentence, 

but because a court, after taking the defendant’s youth 

into account, found that life without parole was appropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the offender. 

It is true that the Miller Court also opined that “life 

without parole is excessive for all but ‘the rare juvenile 

offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption,’” 

Montgomery, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 17) (quoting Miller, 

supra, at ___ (slip op., at 17) (internal quotation marks

omitted)), but the record in the cases at issue provides

ample support for the conclusion that these “children” fall 

into that category.

For example, in Purcell v. Arizona, No. 15–8842, a 16-

year-old gang member fired a sawed-off shotgun into a 

group of teenagers, killing two of them, under the belief 

that they had flashed a rival gang’s sign at him. He was 

ultimately convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, 

nine counts of attempted first-degree murder, and one 

count each of aggravated assault and misconduct involving weapons. The trial court considered his youth, identified his age as a mitigating factor, and still sentenced him 

to life without parole. The remaining cases are in the 

same vein. See Tatum v. Arizona, No. 15–8850 (17-year-

—————— 

faults the lower courts for failing to heed the statement in Miller that 

“appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible 

penalty will be uncommon.” 567 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17). If the 

others in the majority have a similar view, the Court should grant 

review and decide the cases on the merits. 
Cite as: 580 U. S. ____ (2016) 3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

old defendant convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy

to commit armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and 

aggravated assault); Najar v. Arizona, No. 15–8878 (juvenile convicted of first-degree murder and theft); Arias v. 

Arizona, No. 15–9044 (16-year-old defendant pleaded 

guilty to two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of 

second-degree murder, two counts of kidnapping, four 

counts of armed robbery, and one count each of firstdegree burglary, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery); DeShaw v. 

Arizona, No. 15–9057 (17-year-old defendant convicted of

first-degree murder, armed robbery, and kidnapping).

In short, the Arizona courts have already evaluated 

these sentences under Miller, and their conclusions are 

eminently reasonable. It is not clear why this Court is

insisting on a do-over, or why it expects the results to be

any different the second time around. I respectfully dissent.