Question: In what year was the judge who delivered the court opinion on Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend born?

Context paragraphs:
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.: Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, is a 2009 court opinion in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the standing requirements necessary for private plaintiffs to bring suit under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, or CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. ch.  103 , as well as the scope of the CAN-SPAM Act's federal preemption.  Prior to this case, the CAN-SPAM Act's standing requirements had not been addressed at the Court of Appeals level, and only the Fourth Circuit had addressed the CAN-SPAM Act's preemptive scope.

Clarence Thomas: Clarence Thomas (born June 23, 1948) is an American judge, lawyer, and government official who currently serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Thomas succeeded Thurgood Marshall and is the second African American to serve on the court.

United States v. Guest: United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966) is a United States Supreme Court opinion, authored by Justice Potter Stewart, in which the court extended the protection of the 14th Amendment to citizens who suffer rights deprivations at the hands of private conspiracies, where there is minimal state participation in the conspiracy.  The Court also held that there is Constitutional right to travel from state to state.

Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals: Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) , was a Supreme Court opinion denying a petition for motion to proceed "in forma pauperis", as the petitioner had repeatedly abused the process.  Specifically, the Court prohibited the petitioner from filing further non-criminal "in forma pauperis" petitions, and that all petitions filed must be compliant with Court rules and must have had the filing fee paid.  The dissent, written by Justice Stevens argued that the result violated the "open access" of the Court.

Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.: Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445 (D.C. Cir.  1965), was a court opinion, written by Judge J. Skelly Wright, that had a definitive discussion of unconscionability as a defense to enforcement of contracts in American contract law.  As a staple of first-year law school contract law courses, it has been briefed extensively.

Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend: Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a seaman may recover punitive damages from his employer for failure to pay maintenance and cure.  "Townsend" reversed a line of cases, starting with "Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp." in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans), that restricted damages in maritime personal injury cases only to "pecuniary" damages.  Consequently, a seaman can now recover both attorney's fees and punitive damages for the willful and wanton refusal of a shipowner to provide medical care to a seaman injured on the job.  The Court's 5-4 opinion was delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Varian v. Delfino: "Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino," 35 Cal.4th 180 (2005) is a California Supreme Court opinion by then-Associate Justice Janice R. Brown interpreting the state's SLAPP statute.  Specifically, the case holds that an appeal from a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion stays all trial court proceedings: "The perfecting of an appeal from the denial of a special motion to strike automatically stays all further trial court proceedings on the merits upon the causes of action affected by the motion...you have a right not to be dragged through the courts because you exercised your constitutional rights."

Reynolds v. United States: Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.)  145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment.  "Reynolds" was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the Impartial Jury and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment.

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc.: Entergy v. Riverkeeper, 556 U.S. 208 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that reviewed the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants.  Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact."  The importance of this case is whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Technology Available also known in the industry as Best Available Technology or (BAT) to meet the National performance standards (NPS).  Reversing a lower court opinion, in a 5 - 1 - 3 ruling the court decided to uphold EPA's decision as reasonable to allow CBA when determining BAT to maintain national environmental standards.

Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe: Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the criminal jurisdiction of Tribal courts over non-Indians.  The case was decided on March 6, 1978, with a 6–2 majority.  The court opinion was written by William Rehnquist; a dissenting opinion was written by Thurgood Marshall, who was joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger.  Judge William J. Brennan abstained.

Supporting paragraphs: Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend Clarence Thomas
Answer: 1948