Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 937.0

1090 

OCTOBER TERM, 2009 

December 14, 2009 

558 U. S. 

No.  08–10783.  Smith  v.  Charleston  County  School  Dis­
trict et al.  C. A. 4th Cir.  Motion of petitioner for reconsider­
ation  of  order  denying  leave  to  proceed  in  forma  pauperis  [ante, 
p.  803]  denied. 

No.  09–291.  Thompson  v.  North  American  Stainless,  LP. 
C.  A.  6th  Cir.  The  Solicitor  General  is  invited  to  ﬁle  a  brief  in 
this  case  expressing  the  views  of  the  United  States. 

No.  09–5577.  Richardson  v.  Johnson,  Director,  Virginia 
Department  of  Corrections.  C.  A.  4th  Cir.  Motion  of  peti­
tioner  for  reconsideration  of  order  denying  leave  to  proceed  in 
forma  pauperis  [ante,  p.  984]  denied. 

No. 09–5713.  O’Dwyer v. Becnel et al.  C. A. 5th Cir.  Mo­
tion  of  petitioner  for  reconsideration  of  order  denying  leave  to 
proceed  in  forma  pauperis  [ante,  p.  944]  denied. 

No.  09–6188.  In  re  Alpine.  Motion  of  petitioner  for  recon­
sideration  of  order  denying  leave  to  proceed  in  forma  pauperis 
[ante,  p.  989]  denied. 

No.  09–6595.  Schmitz  v.  United  States.  C.  A.  11th  Cir. 
Motion  of  petitioner  for  reconsideration  of  order  denying  leave  to 
proceed  in  forma  pauperis  [ante,  p.  968]  denied. 

No.  09–7899.  Quintanilla  v.  United  States.  C.  A.  5th  Cir. 
Motion  of  petitioner  to  expedite  consideration  of  petition  for  writ 
of  certiorari  denied. 

No.  09–7634.  In  re  Cain;  and 
No. 09–7688.  In re Truax.  Petitions for writs of habeas cor­

pus  denied. 

Certiorari  Granted 

No.  08–1332.  City  of  Ontario,  California,  et  al.  v.  Quon 
et  al.  C.  A.  9th  Cir.  Certiorari  granted.  Reported  below: 
529  F.  3d  892. 

No. 08–6261.  Robertson v.  United States ex rel. Watson. 
Ct. App. D. C.  Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma 
pauperis  granted.  Certiorari  granted  limited  to  the  following 
question:  “Whether  an  action  for  criminal  contempt  in  a  congres­
sionally  created  court  may  constitutionally  be  brought  in  the 
name  and  pursuant  to  the  power  of  a  private  person,  rather  than