What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the disposition of the case, that is, the treatment the Supreme Court accorded the court whose decision it reviewed. The information relevant to this variable may be found near the end of the summary that begins on the title page of each case, or preferably at the very end of the opinion of the Court. For cases in which the Court granted a motion to dismiss, consider "petition denied or appeal dismissed". There is "no disposition" if the Court denied a motion to dismiss.

Opinion:
BRANCATO v. GUNN et al.
No. 98-9913.
Decided October 12, 1999
Per Curiam.
Pro se petitioner Braneato seeks leave to proceed informa pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Braneato is allowed until November 2, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38 and to submit his petition in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Braneato in noneriminal matters unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits his petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Braneato has abused this Court’s certiorari process. On June 7, 1999, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny Braneato in forma 'pauperis status with respect to a petition for certio-rari. See Brancato v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 526 U. S. 1157. Prior to the Rule 39.8 denial, Braneato had filed six petitions for certiorari, all of which were both frivolous and had been denied without recorded dissent. The instant petition for certiorari thus brings Braneato’s total number of frivolous filings to eight.
We enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Brancato’s abuse of the writ of certiorari has been in noncriminal eases, and we limit our sanction accordingly. The order therefore will not prevent Braneato from petitioning to challenge criminal sanctions which might be imposed on him. The order will, however, allow this Court to devote its limited resources to the claims of petitioners who have not abused our processes.
It is so ordered.

Question: What is the disposition of the case, that is, the treatment the Supreme Court accorded the court whose decision it reviewed?

Choices:
stay, petition, or motion granted
affirmed (includes modified)
reversed
reversed and remanded
vacated and remanded
affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part
affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
vacated
petition denied or appeal dismissed
certification to or from a lower court
no disposition

Answer: 8