(ORDER LIST: 570 U.S.) 

MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2013 

CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS 

11-9873 DOTSON, CARLOS V. UNITED STATES 

 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 United 

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further 

consideration in light of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ 

(2013). 

12-245 ) MERCK & CO., INC. V. LA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., ET AL. 

) 

12-265 ) UPSHER-SMITH LABORATORIES, INC. V. LA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., ET AL. 

 The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The 

judgment is vacated, and the cases are remanded to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further 

consideration in light of FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. ___ 

(2013). Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or 

decision of these petitions. 

12-6558 DeLEON, ROBERTO E. V. UNITED STATES 

 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 United 

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further 

consideration in light of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 

___ (2013). 

12-7274 GRAHAM, LARONE V. UNITED STATES 

 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further 

consideration in light of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ 

(2013). 

12-7398 MUBDI, MANTEL D. V. UNITED STATES

 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 United 

States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further 

consideration in light of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 

___ (2013). 

12-7525 SHAVER, GLORIOUS, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES 

 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 United 

States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further 

consideration in light of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ 

(2013). 

12-7568 ASTORGA, MATTHEW V. KANSAS 

 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 Supreme 

Court of Kansas for further consideration in light of Alleyne v. 

United States, 570 U.S. ___ (2013). 

12-7769 BARNES, JEREMY V. UNITED STATES 

12-8236 BARTON, LOUIS C. V. UNITED STATES

 The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 pauperis and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. 

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

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further 

consideration in light of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ 

(2013). 

12-8298 JORDAN, STEVEN B. V. UNITED STATES 

 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 United

 States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further 

consideration in light of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 

___ (2013). 

12-8317 DAVIS, MILO V. V. UNITED STATES 

 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 

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for 

 further consideration in light of Alleyne v. United States, 

570 U.S. ___ (2013). 

12-8411 SMARR, BENJAMIN D. V. UNITED STATES 

 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 United

 States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further 

consideration in light of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 

___ (2013). 

12-8683 ABRAHAMSON, MICHAEL B. V. UNITED STATES 

 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further 

consideration in light of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 

___ (2013). 

ORDERS IN PENDING CASES 

12M135 LOYAL, AL-QUAN R. V. UNITED STATES 

The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of 

certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal is granted. 

12M136 THOMAS, WILLIAM H. V. OLSON, ROSS A. 

12M137 MORALES, CATALINO V. DISTRICT ATT'Y, ET AL. 

 The motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs 

of certiorari out of time are denied. 

12M138 DRUAN, ELLEN V. NH DEPT. OF ENVTL. SERVICES 

The motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ 

of certiorari out of time under Rule 14.5 is denied. 

12M139 MITCHELL, MICHELLE L. V. FLANNERY, KEVIN T. 

The motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ 

of certiorari out of time is denied. 

12M140 IN RE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS 

The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of 

certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record 

is granted. 

12-786 ) LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. V. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, ET AL. 

) 

12-960 ) AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL V. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. 

 The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these 

cases expressing the views of the United States. Justice Alito 

took no part in the consideration or decision of these 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

petitions. 

12-872 MADIGAN, LISA, ET AL. V. LEVIN, HARVEY N.

 The motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the 

joint appendix is granted. 

12-1078 SAMANTAR, MOHAMED A. V. YOUSUF, BASHE A., ET AL. 

 The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this 

case expressing the views of the United States. Justice Kagan 

took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. 

12-8561 PAROLINE, DOYLE R. V. UNITED STATES, ET AL. 

 The motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order 

denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The 

order entered June 10, 2013, is vacated. 

12-9771 FENTON, PERCIVAL N. V. UNITED STATES 

 The motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order 

denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. 

12-9994 ETTLIN, DENNIS V. USDC CD CA 

12-10107 SARRESHTEDARI, MEHDI V. CALIFORNIA 

 The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma

 pauperis are denied. Petitioners are allowed until July 15, 

 2013, 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. 

CERTIORARI GRANTED 

12-99 UNITE HERE LOCAL 355 V. MULHALL, MARTIN, ET AL. 

12-515 MICHIGAN V. BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY 

 The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. 

12-820 LOZANO, MANUEL J. V. ALVAREZ, DIANA L. 

 The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to Question 1 presented by the petition. 

12-930 MAYORKAS, ALEJANDRO, ET AL. V. DE OSORIO, ROSALINA C., ET AL. 

12-1168 McCULLEN, ELEANOR, ET AL. V. COAKLEY, ATT'Y GEN. OF MA 

 The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. 

12-1182 ) EPA, ET AL. V. EME HOMER CITY, ET AL. 

) 

12-1183 ) AMERICAN LUNG ASSN., ET AL. V. EME HOMER CITY, ET AL. 

 The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited 

 to the questions presented by the petition in No. 12-1182. 

The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted 

for oral argument. 

12-1200 EXEC. BENEFITS INSUR. AGENCY V. ARKISON, PETER H. 

12-1208 UBS FINANCIAL SERVS., ET AL. V. UNION DE EMPLEADOS DE MUELLES 

 The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. 

12-1281 NLRB V. NOEL CANNING, ET AL. 

 The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In 

addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties 

are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether 

the President's recess-appointment power may be exercised when

 the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma sessions. 

CERTIORARI DENIED 

11-1485 YOUNG, CHRIS V. FITZPATRICK, JOSEPH S., ET AL. 

11-1536 LUCAS, TREVOR V. UNITED STATES 

12-300 PFIZER, INC. V. LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS 

12-573 PALATINE, IL V. SENNE, JASON M. 

12-865 WESTMORELAND COAL CO. V. SHARPE, MAE ANN, ET AL. 

12-980 NEVADA, ET AL. V. RELIANT ENERGY, INC., ET AL. 

12-986 WILSON, ERIC C. V. FLAHERTY, SUPT., VA DSP 

12-1016 POLYPORE INT'L, INC. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12-1025 PLAINSCAPITAL CORP., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES 

12-1033 MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, ET AL. V. AMPHASTAR PHARMACEUTICALS 

12-1044 DONALDSON, ROBERT D. V. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

12-1055 ) GROCERY MANUFACTURERS, ET AL. V. EPA, ET AL. 

) 

12-1167 ) ALLIANCE OF AUTO MFRS., ET AL. V. EPA, ET AL. 

) 

12-1229 ) AM. FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL, ET AL. V. EPA, ET AL. 

12-1073 LOS ANGELES, CA V. LAVAN, TONY, ET AL. 

12-1118 APUZZO, JOSEPH F. V. SEC 

12-1151 PITTS, ERNEST V. SHINSEKI, SEC. OF VA 

12-1158 MIRROR WORLDS V. APPLE INC. 

12-1175 JEFFERSON CTY. SCH. DIST. R-1 V. ELIZABETH E. 

12-1250 BOOK, ETHAN V. PARKS, KIMBERLY, ET AL. 

12-1258 HILL, ALBERT G. V. SCHILLING, WILLIAM, ET AL. 

12-1262 CAMPBELL, PATSY L., ET AL. V. COMMERCIAL SERVICE OF PERRY 

12-1263 HALL, MICHELLE G. V. SEABOLT, WARDEN 

12-1264 GARCIA, FANNIE V. LAREDO, TX, ET AL. 

12-1266 HOLKESVIG, RANDY V. MOORE, CHRISTINE R. 

12-1277 VUYYURU, LOKESH, ET AL. V. JADHAV, GOPINATH, ET AL. 

12-1288 ADAMS, CHARLES, ET AL. V. RAINTREE VACATION EXCH., ET AL. 

12-1289 INSTANT REPLAY SPORTS, ET AL. V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. 

12-1304 ROSELLINI, KENNETH, ET AL. V. JACK SILVERMAN REALTY, ET AL. 

12-1333 McDONALD, JESSIE D. V. COOPER, ROBERT E. 

12-1340 AUSTAL USA, LLC V. ADAMS, EARATON, ET AL. 

12-1357 MARTINEZ, MICHELLE, ET AL. V. MAVERICK COUNTY, TX, ET AL. 

12-1360 BOWERS, STEPHEN M. V. BD. OF REGENTS UNIV. SYS. OF GA 

12-1365 CLEARPLAY, INC. V. NISSIM CORP., ET AL. 

12-1373 MITAN, KENNETH V. UNITED STATES 

12-1379 HUNTER, HORACE F. V. VIRGINIA STATE BAR 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12-6571 DORSEY, DEVAUGHN V. UNITED STATES 

12-6807 SANTACRUZ, PIOQUINTO L. V. UNITED STATES 

12-7971 SKINNER, MELVIN V. UNITED STATES 

12-8414 RIZK, HASSAN V. PRELESNIK, WARDEN 

12-8731 CAGE, JOSEPHINE L. V. COLVIN, ACTING COMM'R, SSA 

12-8807 MITCHELL, RAYMOND V. UNITED STATES 

12-8823 CAMPBELL, MARCUS V. UNITED STATES 

12-8866 TAYLOR, AARON V. UNITED STATES 

12-9340 MARTINEZ, KENNETH L. V. DISTRICT ATT'Y OF SAN JOAQUIN 

12-9341 JENKINS, ROBERT V. MISSISSIPPI 

12-9354 GRIM, FREDERICK D. V. MISSISSIPPI 

12-9386 PONTICELLI, ANTHONY J. V. CREWS, SEC., FL DOC, ET AL. 

12-9391 BOYD, ANTHONY V. THOMAS, COMM'R, AL DOC 

12-9524 SINGLETARY, ESTELLE V. DEPT. OF H&HS 

12-9790 DILBERT, CLIFFORD V. DAVIS, WARDEN 

12-9793 TREVINO, RENE G. V. BEARD, SEC., CA DOC, ET AL. 

12-9799 SARTORI, ROBERT V. NORTH CAROLINA 

12-9809 RUSHING, BRANDON G. V. TEXAS 

12-9810 BRATTON, RONALD V. PEREZ, MARGARITA, ET AL. 

12-9814 DeSUE, MICHAEL C. V. FL DOC 

12-9817 TORRES, DANIEL V. HARTLEY, WARDEN 

12-9821 SANTOS, JOSE V. NEW JERSEY 

12-9830 BROWN, STEVEN G. V. FLORIDA 

12-9839 LESURE, SHANARD V. ATCHISON, WARDEN 

12-9840 JONES, FELICIA N. V. TOLL BROTHERS 

12-9845 CARTER, LARRY V. ILLINOIS 

12-9851 JEMISON, BERNARD V. CULLIVER, GRANTT, ET AL. 

12-9852 LOVATO LUCERO, KATHRYN V. NM DEPT. OF WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12-9868 ESTRIN, LEO V. CALIFORNIA 

12-9869 MACK, EVYN V. BITER, WARDEN 

12-9870 LEWIS, LINDA V. WAXAHACHIE, TX, ET AL. 

12-9872 ROBINSON, JOHN V. NEW JERSEY 

12-9878 KANODE, MICHAEL V. SWOPE, JUDGE, ETC., ET AL. 

12-9883 ROBLES, GABRIEL M. V. STATE FARM INSURANCE, ET AL. 

12-9884 SCOTT, THOMAS D. V. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, ET AL. 

12-9889 MOORE, GARY B. V. ZAPPA, S., ET AL. 

12-9893 BUSH, DEBORAH V. STEVENSON COMMONS ASSOC., ET AL. 

12-9926 PHILLIPS, CORELANIUS T. V. HOBBS, DIR., AR DOC 

12-9973 HOARD, ROBERT V. KLEE, PAUL 

12-10000 JOHNSON, KEITH V. CHAPPIUS, SUPT., ELMIRA 

12-10009 ODOM, CURTIS V. DOAR, ROBERT, ET AL. 

12-10059 JENNINGS, LAURA A. V. HAGEL, SEC. OF DEFENSE 

12-10117 EDWARDS, DeJUAN M. V. SCUTT, WARDEN, ET AL. 

12-10127 WASHINGTON, LESTER L. V. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL 

12-10131 WADDELL-EL, ALTON V. YOUNG, WARDEN 

12-10137 MOFFAT, CLIFTON P. V. SMITH, WARDEN 

12-10174 THOMAS, FORREST V. MISSISSIPPI 

12-10177 ADAMS, BARRY W. V. SMITH, WARDEN 

12-10200 WILLIAMS, SPENCER V. WOLFENBARGER, WARDEN 

12-10210 BALLINGER, DWAYNE V. PRELESNIK, WARDEN 

12-10256 JOHNSON, DAVID L. V. NEW JERSEY 

12-10259 BAKER, JOHN P. V. RYAN, DIR., AZ DOC, ET AL. 

12-10269 BHAMBRA, HARJIT V. UNITED STATES 

12-10302 GARCIA, MARTIN V. UNITED STATES 

12-10312 SHELTON, NORMAN N. V. ROHRS, R., ET AL. 

12-10318 COOPER, LOVE T. V. UNITED STATES 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12-10320 CRUZ, HECTOR V. UNITED STATES 

12-10323 SCHNEIDER, STEPHEN J., ET UX. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10324 SLAUGHTER, CHESTER R. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10335 ARRIAGA-MORALES, JOSE V. UNITED STATES 

12-10337 CARRERA-DIAZ, JOSE L. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10341 RODRIGUEZ, JUAN O. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10342 SNEAD, EDDIE W. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10343 THREATT, JAMES W. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10345 WADE, JULIAN V. UNITED STATES 

12-10360 CONNER, STEVEN W. V. CIR 

12-10363 KENNEDY, JOSEPH V. UNITED STATES 

12-10373 ASAR, DIFANKH V. UNITED STATES 

12-10374 JOHNSON, DAMARCUS V. UNITED STATES 

12-10383 LLOYD, SAMUEL V. UNITED STATES 

12-10385 LONDONO, RUBEN D. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10387 LOWERY, QUALO M. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10389 AKITI, ANTHONY V. UNITED STATES 

12-10391 CAUDILL, JOHNATHON D. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10392 DARDEN, CLIFFORD V. UNITED STATES 

12-10393 CORDOVA, DERICK E. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10394 CARTER, QUITMAN V. UNITED STATES 

12-10401 RAMIREZ, EDGAR A. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10404 REID, KENNETH R. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10406 ARMENDARIS-RAMOS, EDUARDO V. UNITED STATES 

12-10407 DOWD, MATTHEW E. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10409 VAUGHAN, BEAU C. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10410 WITHERSPOON, SHONTONIO L. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10415 SPRAGLING, MICHAEL L. V. UNITED STATES 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12-10419 EVANS, ROBERT E. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10422 TURNER, MICHAEL V. PASTRANA, WARDEN 

12-10431 MARTE, JOSE M. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10432 LAM, TANH H. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10438 LEGRANO, JOSEPH V. UNITED STATES 

12-10439 RAMIREZ-PEREZ, RAFAEL V. UNITED STATES 

12-10450 ERHABOR, EKUNDAYO A. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10452 CONZELMANN, SCOTT A. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10453 MELENDEZ, JONATHAN V. UNITED STATES 

12-10455 GARCIA-ROQUE, DAVID V. UNITED STATES 

12-10456 GARCIA, ROBERT V. UNITED STATES 

12-10460 DAVIS, DARRYL L. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10461 CARAWAY, ROMILUS V. UNITED STATES 

12-10462 CAVOUNIS, CHRISTOPHER V. UNITED STATES 

12-10467 BLOUNT, WENDELL G. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10471 WILLIAMS, JOSEPH E. V. UNITED STATES 

12-10472 WILSON, ISABEL V. UNITED STATES 

12-10473 ROWAN, CHRISTOPHER V. UNITED STATES 

12-10480 JOHNSON, LEON S. V. UNITED STATES

 The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. 

12-1057 ALLISON ENGINE CO., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, EX REL. SANDERS 

12-1092 LATTIMORE, KENT, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, ET AL. 

 The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. Justice 

Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of these 

petitions. 

12-1294 NADER, RALPH V. SERODY, LINDA S., ET AL. 

 The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice 

Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

petition. 

12-1302 GARCIA, MICHAEL V. LOUISIANA 

The motion of Ethics Bureau at Yale for leave to file a 

brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of 

certiorari is denied. 

12-8932 OBAYDULLAH V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. 

 The motion of respondents for leave to file a brief in 

opposition under seal is granted. The motion of petitioner for 

leave to file a reply brief under seal is granted. The petition 

for a writ of certiorari is denied. 

12-9940 GRANDISON, ANTHONY V. SAAR, MARY ANN, ET AL. 

12-9975 FRANZA, DOMINIC M. V. SHEAHAN, MICHAEL 

 The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma

 pauperis are denied, and the petitions for writs of certiorari 

are dismissed. See Rule 39.8. 

12-10110 STAFFNEY, HAROLD V. MACLAREN, 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. As the 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). 

12-10222 HEREDIA SANTA CRUZ, ARMANDO V. CALIFORNIA 

 The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice 

Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

petition. 

12-10319 DOWNS, JOHN W. 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. 

12-10400 JONES, MARCUS D. V. UNITED STATES

 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. Justice Kagan took no part in the 

consideration or decision of this motion and this petition. 

12-10421 THOMAS, CORBIN V. UNITED STATES 

12-10448 SCHOTZ, BARRY R. V. APKER, WARDEN 

12-10457 BILLUPS, HERMAN L. V. UNITED STATES 

 The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. Justice 

Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of these 

petitions. 

HABEAS CORPUS DENIED 

12-10479 IN RE JIMMY R. DAVIDSON 

12-10533 IN RE ALBERTO CONCEPCION 

 The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma

 pauperis are denied, and the petitions for writs of habeas 

corpus are dismissed. See Rule 39.8. 

MANDAMUS DENIED 

12-9811 IN RE HAROLD J. BLACK 

 The petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition is 

denied. 

REHEARINGS DENIED 

12-1021 PIERCE, SAMUEL V. WOLDENBERG, RONA 

13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12-8707 BLANTON, PAUL A. V. CARUSO, PATRICIA L., ET AL. 

12-8792 HOTCHKISS, JUDY V. CLAY TOWNSHIP BOARD, ET AL. 

12-8856 EDWARDS, PHILLIP J. V. FLORIDA 

12-8933 McKENZIE, LEROY A. V. RAINES, LIEUTENANT, ET AL. 

12-9009 FRANCIS, JAMES V. KY RIVER COAL CORP. 

12-9069 JENNINGS, LAURA A. V. INDIANAPOLIS, IN, ET AL. 

12-9103 McILVOY, TERRY L. V. NORMAN, SUPT., JEFFERSON CITY 

12-9165 STENSON, CHARLES V. HEATH, SUPT., SING SING 

12-9263 DITTO, FRANK R. V. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

12-9481 MOHAMMED, FARID V. UNITED STATES 

12-9623 TILLERY, CARTER V. UNITED STATES 

12-9707 CONDREY, TERRY L. V. UNITED STATES 

 The petitions for rehearing are denied. 

12-112 ROE, RICHARD, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, ET AL. 

The motion of petitioners for leave to file a petition for 

rehearing under seal with redacted copies for the public record 

is granted. The petition for rehearing is denied. 

12-8352 ERCOLE, JOSEPH R. V. LaHOOD, SEC. OF TRANSPORTATION 

The motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing is 

denied. 

14
 
 


 


 

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 1 

Per Curiam 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

CHARLES L. RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PETITIONER v.
 

EDWARD HAROLD SCHAD 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED 

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 

No. 12–1084. Decided June 24, 2013

 PER CURIAM. 

Respondent Edward Schad was convicted of first-degree

murder and sentenced to death. After an extensive series of 

state- and federal-court proceedings concluded with this

Court’s denial of respondent’s petitions for certiorari and

for rehearing, the Ninth Circuit declined to issue its 

mandate as normally required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d)(2)(D). The Ninth Circuit instead, 

sua sponte, construed respondent’s motion to stay the

mandate pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in a separate en banc case as a motion to reconsider a motion that 

it had denied six months earlier. Based on its review of 

that previously rejected motion, the court issued a stay a 

few days before respondent’s scheduled execution. Even 

assuming, as we did in Bell v. Thompson, 545 U. S. 794 

(2005), that Rule 41(d)(2)(D) admits of any exceptions, the

Ninth Circuit did not demonstrate that exceptional circumstances justified withholding its mandate. As a result, 

we conclude that the Ninth Circuit’s failure to issue its 

mandate constituted an abuse of discretion. 

I 

In 1985, an Arizona jury found respondent guilty of

first-degree murder for the 1978 strangling of 74-year-old 

Lorimer Grove.1 The court sentenced respondent to death. 

—————— 

1A state habeas court vacated an earlier guilty verdict and death 
 

 


 

2 RYAN v. SCHAD 

Per Curiam 

After respondent’s conviction and sentence were affirmed

on direct review, see State v. Schad, 163 Ariz. 411, 788 

P. 2d 1162 (1989), and Schad v. Arizona, 501 U. S. 624 

(1991), respondent again sought state habeas relief, alleging that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at 

sentencing by failing to discover and present sufficient

mitigating evidence. The state courts denied relief. 

In August 1998, respondent sought federal habeas relief.

He again raised a claim of ineffective assistance at sentencing for failure to present sufficient mitigating evidence. The District Court denied respondent’s request 

for an evidentiary hearing to present new mitigating evidence, concluding that respondent was not diligent in

developing the evidence during his state habeas proceedings. Schad v. Schriro, 454 F. Supp. 2d 897 (Ariz. 2006). 

The District Court alternatively held that the proffered 

new evidence did not demonstrate that trial counsel’s 

performance was deficient. Id., at 940–947. The Ninth 

Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

to the District Court for a hearing to determine whether 

respondent’s state habeas counsel was diligent in developing the state evidentiary record. Schad v. Ryan, 606 F. 3d 

1022 (2010). Arizona petitioned for certiorari. This Court 

granted the petition, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, 

and remanded for further proceedings in light of Cullen v. 

Pinholster, 563 U. S. ___ (2011). See Ryan v. Schad, 563 

U. S. ___ (2011). On remand, the Ninth Circuit affirmed 

the District Court’s denial of habeas relief. Schad v. Ryan, 

671 F. 3d 708, 726 (2011). The Ninth Circuit subsequently 

denied a motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc on

February 28, 2012. 

On July 10, 2012, respondent filed in the Ninth Circuit 

the first motion directly at issue in this case. This motion 

—————— 

sentence due to an error in jury instructions. See State v. Schad, 142
 

Ariz. 619, 691 P. 2d 710 (1984). 
 

 

 

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 3 

Per Curiam 

asked the court to vacate its judgment and remand to the 

District Court for additional proceedings in light of this 

Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U. S. 1 (2012).2 

The Ninth Circuit denied respondent’s motion on July 27, 

2012. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari. This 

Court denied the petition on October 9, 2012, 568 U. S.

___, and denied a petition for rehearing on January 7, 

2013. 568 U. S. ___. 

Respondent returned to the Ninth Circuit that day and

filed a motion requesting a stay of the mandate in light 

of a pending Ninth Circuit en banc case addressing the 

interaction between Pinholster and Martinez. The Ninth 

Circuit denied the motion on February 1, 2013, “declin[ing] to issue an indefinite stay of the mandate that 

would unduly interfere with Arizona’s execution process.” 

Order in No. 07–99005, Doc. 102, p. 1. But instead of 

issuing the mandate, the court decided sua sponte to construe respondent’s motion “as a motion to reconsider our 

prior denial of his Motion to Vacate Judgment and Remand in light of Martinez,” which the court had denied on 

July 27, 2012. Id., at 2. The court ordered briefing and, in 

a divided opinion, remanded the case to the District Court

to determine whether respondent could establish that he

received ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel under Martinez, whether he could demonstrate prejudice 

as a result, and whether his underlying claim of ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel had merit. No. 07–99005 (Feb.

26, 2013), App. to Pet. for Cert. A–13 to A–15, 2013 WL 

791610, *6. Judge Graber dissented based on her conclusion that respondent could not show prejudice. Id., at A– 

16 to A–17, 2013 WL 791610, *7. Arizona set an execution 

date of March 6, 2013, which prompted respondent to file 

—————— 

2 Martinez, 566 U. S. 1, was decided on March 20, 2012. We are un

aware of any explanation for respondent’s delay in bringing his 

Martinez-based argument to the Ninth Circuit’s attention. 

­
 

 

4 RYAN v. SCHAD 

Per Curiam 

a motion for stay of execution on February 26, 2013. The 

Ninth Circuit panel granted the motion on March 1, 2013, 

with Judge Graber again noting her dissent. 

On March 4, 2013, Arizona filed a petition for rehearing 

and rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit. The court 

denied the petition the same day, with eight judges dissenting in two separate opinions. 709 F. 3d 855 (2013). 

On March 4, Arizona filed an application to vacate the

stay of execution in this Court, along with a petition for 

certiorari. This Court denied the application, with JUSTICES SCALIA and ALITO noting that they would grant 

it. 568 U. S. ___ (2013). We now consider the petition. 

II 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d)(2)(D) sets 

forth the default rule that “[t]he court of appeals must 

issue the mandate immediately when a copy of a Supreme

Court order denying the petition for writ of certiorari

is filed.” (Emphasis added.) The reason for this Rule is 

straightforward: “[T]he stay of mandate is entered solely 

to allow this Court time to consider a petition for certiorari.” Bell, 545 U. S., at 806. Hence, once this Court has 

denied a petition, there is generally no need for further 

action from the lower courts. See ibid. (“[A] decision by

this Court denying discretionary review usually signals 

the end of litigation”). In Bell, Tennessee argued that

Rule 41(d)(2)(D) “admits of no exceptions, so the mandate 

should have issued on the date” the Court of Appeals

received notice of the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari. 

Id., at 803. There was no need to resolve this issue in Bell 

because we concluded that the Sixth Circuit had abused 

its discretion even if Rule 41(d)(2)(D) authorized a stay of 

the mandate after denial of certiorari. Id., at 803–804. As 

in Bell, we need not resolve this issue to determine that 

the Ninth Circuit abused its discretion here. 

Bell recognized that when state-court judgments are 
 

 

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 5 

Per Curiam 

reviewed in federal habeas proceedings, “finality and comity

concerns,” based in principles of federalism, demand 

that federal courts “accord the appropriate level of respect

to” state judgments by allowing them to be enforced 

when federal proceedings conclude. Id., at 812–813. 

As we noted, States have an “‘“interest in the finality of 

convictions that have survived direct review within the 

state court system.”’” Id., at 813 (quoting Calderon v. 

Thompson, 523 U. S. 538, 555 (1998), in turn quoting 

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 635 (1993)). Elsewhere, we explained that “‘the profound interests in

repose’ attaching to the mandate of a court of appeals”

dictate that “the power [to withdraw the mandate] can be

exercised only in extraordinary circumstances.” Calderon, 

supra, at 550 (quoting 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. 

Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3938, p. 712 (2d 

ed. 1996)). Deviation from normal mandate procedures is 

a power “of last resort, to be held in reserve against grave, 

unforeseen contingencies.” Calderon, supra, at 550. Even 

assuming a court of appeals has authority to do so, it 

abuses its discretion when it refuses to issue the mandate 

once the Supreme Court has acted on the petition, unless

extraordinary circumstances justify that action. 

Applying this standard in Bell, we found no extraordinary circumstances that could constitute a miscarriage of 

justice. There, a capital defendant unsuccessfully alleged 

in state postconviction proceedings that his trial counsel 

had been ineffective by failing to introduce sufficient 

mitigating evidence in the penalty phase of trial. 545 

U. S., at 797. On federal habeas review, he made the 

same argument. Id., at 798. After the Sixth Circuit affirmed, the defendant filed a petition for rehearing that 

“placed substantial emphasis” on his argument that the

Sixth Circuit had overlooked new psychiatrist evidence. 

Id., at 800. While the Sixth Circuit denied the petition, it

stayed the issuance of its mandate while the defendant 
 

6 RYAN v. SCHAD 

Per Curiam 

sought certiorari and, later, rehearing from the denial of 

the writ. Ibid. 

When this Court denied the petition for rehearing, the 

Sixth Circuit did not issue its mandate. Instead, the Sixth 

Circuit waited five months (and until two days before the 

scheduled execution) to issue an amended opinion that vacated the District Court’s denial of habeas and remanded 

for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective-assistanceof-counsel claim. Id., at 800–801. This Court reversed 

that decision, holding that the Sixth Circuit had abused 

its discretion due to its delay in issuing the mandate 

without notifying the parties, its reliance on a previously 

rejected argument, and its disregard of comity and federalism principles.

In this case, the Ninth Circuit similarly abused its 

discretion when it did not issue the mandate. As in Bell, 

the Ninth Circuit here declined to issue the mandate 

based on an argument it had considered and rejected 

months earlier. And, by the time of the Ninth Circuit’s

February 1, 2013, decision not to issue its mandate, it had 

been over 10 months since we decided Martinez and nearly

7 months since respondent unsuccessfully asked the Ninth

Circuit to reconsider its decision in light of Martinez.3 

Further, there is no doubt that the arguments presented 

in the rejected July 10, 2012, motion were identical to 

those accepted by the Ninth Circuit the following February. Respondent styled his July 10 motion a “Motion to

Vacate Judgment and Remand to the District Court for 

Additional Proceedings in Light of Martinez v. Ryan.” No. 

07–99005 (CA9), Doc. 88, p. 1. As its title suggests, the 

only claim presented in that motion was that respondent’s 

—————— 

3Respondent did not even present the motion that the Ninth Circuit

ultimately reinstated until more than 4 months after the Ninth Circuit

denied respondent’s request for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc 

and more than 31⁄2 months after Martinez was decided. 
Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 7 

Per Curiam 

postconviction counsel should have developed more evidence to support his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel 

claim. Here, as in Bell, respondent’s July 10 motion

“pressed the same arguments that eventually were adopted 

by the Court of Appeals.” 545 U. S., at 806. These arguments were pressed so strongly in the July 10 motion 

that “[i]t is difficult to see how . . . counsel could have been 

clearer.” Id., at 808. The Ninth Circuit had a full “opportunity to consider these arguments” but declined to do so, 

id., at 806, which “support[s] our determination that the 

decision to withhold the mandate was in error.” Id., at 

806–807. We presume that the Ninth Circuit carefully 

considers each motion a capital defendant presents on

habeas review. See id., at 808 (rejecting the notion that 

“judges cannot be relied upon to read past the first page of 

a petition for rehearing”). As a result, there is no indication that there were any extraordinary circumstances here 

that called for the court to revisit an argument sua sponte 

that it already explicitly rejected.

Finally, this case presents an additional issue not present in Bell. In refusing to issue the mandate, the Ninth

Circuit panel relied heavily upon Beardslee v. Brown, 393 

F. 3d 899, 901 (CA9 2004) (per curiam), Beardslee, which 

precedes our Bell decision by more than six months, asserts the Ninth Circuit’s inherent authority to withhold a 

mandate. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A–3 to A–4, 2013 WL 

791610, *1. But Beardslee was based on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Bell, which we reversed. See Beardslee, 

supra, at 901 (citing Thompson v. Bell, 373 F. 3d 688, 691– 

692 (2004)). That opinion, thus, provides no support for 

the Ninth Circuit’s decision. 

In light of the foregoing, we hold that the Ninth Circuit

abused its discretion when it neglected to issue its mandate. The petition for a writ of certiorari and respondent’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The 

Ninth Circuit’s judgment is reversed, the stay of execution 
 

8 RYAN v. SCHAD 

Per Curiam 

is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to 

issue the mandate immediately and without any further 

proceedings. 

It is so ordered.