Question: Who appointed the Supreme Court judge who wrote the opinion in the Supreme Court case United States v. Williams ?

Context articles: United States v. Hamilton
United States v. Williams (1992)
United States v. Jackalow
Supreme Court Police
United States v. Graham
Mitchel v Reynolds
Pepper v. United States
Criminal law in the Waite Court
Antonin Scalia
V.L. v. E.L.

United States v. Hamilton, 3 U.S. 17 (1795) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which a defendant committed on a charge of treason was released on bail, despite having been imprisoned upon a warrant of committal by a district court judge.
 The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that "upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death, in which cases it shall not be admitted but by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and the usages of law."
 Ordinarily, habeas corpus was used to release prisoners held by the judgment of the executive, but not for those who commitment had been authorized by a court order.
 Hamilton's attorney argued that the district court judge did not hold a hearing before issuing a warrant for his commitment to jail and that the affidavits alleging treasonous activity were weak, while the government urged that the Judiciary Act did not give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to review the district court's decision unless there was new information or misconduct.
 The Supreme Court set bail, but without addressing either attorney's arguments.
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the presentation of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury, ruling that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
 The opinion was written by Justice Scalia, and the dissent by Justice Stevens.
United States v. Jackalow, 66 U.S. (1 Black) 484 (1862), is a U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting the Venue and Vicinage clauses of the United States Constitution.
 It was an "unusual criminal case", and one of the few constitutional criminal cases from the Taney Court.
 Jackalow, a mariner from the Ryukyu Islands, was suspected of the robbery and murder of the captain of the sloop "Spray", Jonathan Leete, and Jonathan's brother Elijah, while the ship was at sea.
 He was convicted of robbery in the Long Island Sound, but as there was disagreement over the question of jurisdiction between the two judges who heard the post-trial motion – Judge Mahlon Dickerson and Supreme Court Justice Robert Cooper Grier – the case was referred to the Supreme Court by certificate of division.
The Supreme Court of the United States Police is a small U.S. federal law enforcement agency headquartered in the District of Columbia, whose mission is to ensure the integrity of the constitutional mission of the U.S. Supreme Court by protecting the Supreme Court building, the Justices, employees, guests, and visitors.
 In accordance with , the Supreme Court Police falls under the jurisdiction of the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court who is appointed by the Supreme Court.
 The Marshal and the Supreme Court Police are authorized by to police the Supreme Court Building and protect the Justices, employees of the Court, and visitors to the Court.
United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp.
 2d 384 (D. Md. 2012), was a Maryland District Court case in which the Court held that historical cell site location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
 Reacting to precedent established by the recent Supreme Court case "United States v. Jones" in conjunction with the application of the third party doctrine, Judge Richard D. Bennett, found that "information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection" because that information no longer belongs to the consumer, but rather to the telecommunications company that handles the transmissions records.
 The historical cell site location data is then not subject to the privacy protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment standard of probable cause, but rather to the Stored Communications Act, which governs the voluntary or compelled disclosure of stored electronic communications records.
Mitchel v. Reynolds is a landmark decision in the history of the law of restraint of trade.
 It is generally cited for establishing the principle that reasonable restraints of trade, unlike unreasonable restraints of trade, are permissible and therefore enforceable and not a basis for civil or criminal liability.
 It is largely the basis in US antitrust law for the "rule of reason."
 William Howard Taft, then Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, later US President and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, quoted "Mitchel" extensively when he first developed the antitrust rule-of-reason doctrine in "United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.", which was affirmed in 1899 by the Supreme Court.
 The doctrine also played a major role in the 1911 Supreme Court case "Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States" 221 U.S. 1 (1911).
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning whether a United States District Court properly handled the sentencing of a former methamphetamine dealer.
 He was originally sentenced to 24 months in prison, far shorter than what federal guidelines generally specify for crimes of that nature.
 Prosecutors appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which remanded the case back to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, which affirmed the original sentence after testimony relating the defendant's rehabilitation.
 The case was appealed to the Eighth Circuit again, and was again remanded.
 A different District Court judge gave him a 65-month sentence.
 The defendant then brought the case back to the Eighth Circuit, which confirmed the later ruling, and to then to the Supreme Court.
 Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion of the court, which ruled in favor of the defendant.
During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (March 4, 1874 through March 23, 1888), the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases.
 In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice.
 Notable cases include "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), "United States v. Reese" (1875), "Reynolds v. United States" (1878), "Wilkerson v. Utah" (1879), the "Trade-Mark Cases" (1879), "Strauder v. West Virginia" (1880), "Pace v. Alabama" (1883), "United States v. Harris" (1883), "Ex parte Crow Dog" (1883), "Hurtado v. California" (1884), "Clawson v. United States" (1885), "Yick Wo v. Hopkins" (1886), "United States v. Kagama" (1886), "Ker v. Illinois" (1886), and "Mugler v. Kansas" (1887).
Antonin Gregory Scalia ( ; March 11, 1936 – February 13, 2016) was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2016.
 Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia was described as the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the Court's conservative wing.
V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples.
 In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children.
 However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up.
 E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights.
 On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law.
 The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama.
 V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children.
 On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.