Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 791

944 

OCTOBER TERM, 2009 

October 13, 2009 

558 U. S. 

No.  09M27.  Wanzer  v.  Texas; 
No.  09M28.  Hey  v.  Arlington  County  Department  of 

Human  Services;  and 

No.  09M31.  Sharkozy  v.  Allison.  Motions  to  direct  the 
Clerk  to  ﬁle  petitions  for  writs  of  certiorari  out  of  time  denied. 

No.  09M29.  Owens  v.  Providian  Financial  et  al.;  and 
No.  09M33.  Oyague  v.  United  States  District  Court  for 
the  Eastern  District  of  New  York.  Motions  to  direct  the 
Clerk  to  ﬁle  petitions  for  writs  of  certiorari  out  of  time  denied. 
Justice  Sotomayor  took  no  part  in  the  consideration  or  decision 
of  these  motions. 

No.  09M30.  Wahi  v.  Charleston  Area  Medical  Center 
et  al.  Motion  for  leave  to  ﬁle  petition  for  writ  of  certiorari 
under  seal  with  redacted  copies  for  the  public  record  granted. 

No.  09M32.  Tyus  v.  Montgomery,  Sheriff,  Faulkner 
County,  Arkansas,  et  al.  Motion  to  direct  the  Clerk  to  ﬁle 
petition  for  writ  of  certiorari  out  of  time  under  this  Court’s  Rule 
14.5  denied. 

No.  132, Orig.  Alabama  et  al.  v.  North  Carolina.  Excep­
tions  to  the  Report  of  the  Special  Master  are  set  for  oral  argu­
[For earlier order herein, see 556 U. S. 1206.] 
ment in due course. 

No.  09–5713.  O’Dwyer  v.  Becnel  et  al.  C.  A.  5th  Cir.; 
No.  09–5763.  James  v.  Oklahoma.  Ct.  Crim.  App.  Okla.; 
No.  09–6392.  Rouse  v.  Department  of  State  et  al.  C.  A. 

9th  Cir.;  and 

No.  09–6442.  In  re  Leaf.  Motions  of  petitioners  for  leave  to 
proceed  in  forma  pauperis  denied.  Petitioners  are  allowed  until 
November  3,  2009,  within  which  to  pay  the  docketing  fees  re­
quired  by  Rule  38(a)  and  to  submit  petitions  in  compliance  with 
Rule  33.1  of  the  Rules  of  this  Court. 

No.  09–6313.  In  re  Fredrick; 
No.  09–6388.  In  re  Beverly; 
No.  09–6414.  In  re  Ramirez; 
No.  09–6448.  In  re  Dhurandhar; 
No.  09–6529.  In  re  Ndoromo;  and 
No.  09–6622.  In  re  Liles.  Petitions  for  writs  of  habeas  cor­

pus  denied.