(ORDER LIST: 580 U.S.)
MONDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2016

CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS
15-486

IVY, DONNIKA, ET AL. V. MORATH, MIKE
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with
instructions to dismiss as moot.

See United States v.

Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).
15-8842

PURCELL, BOBBY C. V. ARIZONA

15-8878

NAJAR, WILLIAM F. V. ARIZONA

15-9044

ARIAS, JONATHAN A. V. ARIZONA

15-9057

DeSHAW, SCOTT L. V. ARIZONA
The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.
The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the Court
of Appeals of Arizona, Division One for further consideration in
light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ____ (2016).
Justice Sotomayor concurs in the decisions to grant, vacate, and
remand.

See Tatum v. Arizona, 580 U. S. ___ (2016) (Sotomayor,

J., concurring).

Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins,

dissents from the decisions to grant, vacate, and remand.

See

Tatum v. Arizona, 580 U. S. ___ (2016) (Alito, J., dissenting).
16-181

TIMM, GEOFFREY V. NORTH DAKOTA
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

The

judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Supreme
Court of North Dakota for further consideration in light of

1 


 Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U. S. ___ (2016).
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
16A38

KINSEY, CHRISTOPHER R. V. UNITED STATES
The application for a certificate of appealability addressed
to Justice Sotomayor and referred to the Court is denied.

16M40

PEACE, LESLIE H. V. ILLINOIS

16M41

BWP MEDIA USA, ET AL. V. CLARITY DIGITAL GROUP

16M42

MOYE, BRANDON V. COLVIN, ACTING COMM'R OF SSA

16M43

WALLACE, ALLYSON V. IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORP.

16M44

VERA, GUILLERMO V. SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, ET AL.

16M45

DAVIS, LaTONYA D. V. CLIFFORD, TODD, ET AL.

16M46

PHILLIPS, CURTIS C. V. PA DOC, ET AL.
The motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs
of certiorari out of time are denied.

15-1500

LEWIS, BRIAN, ET AL. V. CLARKE, WILLIAM
The motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the
joint appendix is granted.

16-217

LENZ, STEPHANIE V. UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORP., ET AL.
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this
case expressing the views of the United States.

16-5479

SEWELL, STARSHA V. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY
The motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order
denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
CERTIORARI DENIED

15-1351

HARDY, KATHRYN, ET AL. V. STATE LAND BOARD, ET AL.

15-1384

GILLIAM, JEFFREY V. NEBRASKA

15-1456

ANGHAIE, SAMIM, ET UX. V. UNITED STATES

15-1467

STAHL YORK AVENUE CO., LLC V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.

2 


 15-1489

BAUER, JAY J. V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN.

15-1492

JSW STEEL, INC. V. MM STEEL, L.P., ET AL.

15-1538

MERSCORP HOLDINGS, ET AL. V. MALLOY, DANNEL P., ET AL.

15-9323

MONTOYA-GAXIOLA, ABEL E. V. UNITED STATES

15-9365

HARCUM, JERRY V. MARYLAND

15-9574

MULAY, JOSEPH V. V. UNITED STATES

16-20

BILLINGS, DAVID, ET AL. V. PROPEL FINANCIAL SERV., ET AL.

16-33

ZOLA, DANIEL V. WITHERS, DAN, ET AL.

16-92

VINH HOAN CORPORATION V. CATFISH FARMERS OF AM., ET AL.

16-94

FARMER, STEPHEN V. D&O CONTRACTORS, INC., ET AL.

16-95

J & K ADMIN. MANAGEMENT, ET AL. V. ROBINSON, NEFFERTITI, ET AL.

16-98

STAHL, DANIEL V. HIALEAH HOSPITAL, ET AL.

16-104

NORRIS, TERRY V. TENNESSEE

16-108

AUTOMATED CREEL SYSTEMS V. SHAW INDUSTRIES GROUP, ET AL.

16-109

STOP RECKLESS ECONOMIC, ET AL. V. FEC

16-213

KUENZEL, WILLIAM E. V. ALABAMA

16-218

UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORP., ET AL. V. LENZ, STEPHANIE

16-222

GALLO, JOHN L., ET AL. V. MOEN, INC.

16-228

FORRAS, VINCENT, ET AL. V. RAUF, IMAM, ET AL.

16-230

CAIN, DAVID H. V. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INS. CO.

16-232

LEE, SANG C. V. ANC CAR RENTAL CORP., ET AL.

16-238

CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. SUD-CHEMIE AG, ET AL.

16-244

SCHELL, DAVID, ET AL. V. OXY USA INC.

16-245

MELHORN, EDWIN R. V. UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, ET AL.

16-246

W. R., ET AL. V. OHIO DEPT. OF HEALTH, ET AL.

16-248

DANIELS, CURT N. V. HOLTZ, JOHN, ET AL.

16-252

KINNEY, CHARLES G. V. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

16-260

FOLEY, DAVID W., ET UX. V. ORANGE COUNTY, FL, ET AL.

3 


 16-264

GRAMAR, LLC V. MP 200 W. RANDOLPH

16-266

MUMME, CHRISTIAN F., ET UX. V. SOUTHPORT SPRINGS PARK, LLC

16-269

HORHN, WILLIAM C. V. TEXAS

16-277

PETTUS-BROWN, LaSHAWN V. LISATH, WARDEN

16-280

STEVENS, FRANCES V. CA WORKERS' COMP. APPEALS BD.

16-281

CASTILLO, FREDDIE B. V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN.

16-292

MILLER, ROBERT M. V. FDIC

16-303

FRIENDS OF ANIMALS V. JEWELL, SEC. OF INTERIOR, ET AL.

16-304

ESTRADA-RODRIGUEZ, JOSE V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN.

16-316

BIERY, DOROTHY L., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES

16-318

COZZARELLI, FRANK J. V. SUPREME COURT OF NJ

16-319

ROJAS, VICTOR V. KIRKPATRICK, GINNIE, ET AL.

16-320

ACEVEDO, SALMA, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES

16-322

AZKOUR, HICHAM V. LITTLE REST TWELVE, INC.

16-336

BOYER, BEATRICE, ET AL. V. BNSF RAILWAY CO.

16-337

BROWN, SAMUEL V. PA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ET AL.

16-339

TAYLOR, CHARLES N. V. MARGO, DEE, ET AL.

16-342

ZIEGLER, VICTOR R. V. JEWELL, SEC. OF INTERIOR

16-356

REDDY, RAGHURAMI V. DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC

16-357

SALADO-ALVA, BERNARDO V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN.

16-362

FIRST RESOLUTION INVESTMENT V. TAYLOR-JARVIS, SANDRA

16-365

FARMINGTON, NY V. AUSTIN, COLLEEN, ET VIR

16-370

KUTTNER, SUSAN A. V. ZARUBA, JOHN E., ET AL.

16-371

STOVIC, CHRIS V. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BD, ET AL.

16-390

ADAME, JUAN V. UNITED STATES

16-394

MENDEL, JAKE V. MORGAN KEEGAN & CO.

16-401

SPRUILL, JEFF V. UNITED STATES

16-414

WALTON, KENYON R. V. UNITED STATES

4 


 16-439

JONES, STEVEN V. BUTT, TOM, ET AL.

16-457

BULK TRANSPORT CORP. V. CENTRAL STATES, ET AL.

16-5225

TRAN, SON THANH V. CALIFORNIA

16-5295

RAY, DOMINEQUE V. AL DOC, ET AL.

16-5312

JIMENEZ-ROJAS, ENRIQUE V. UNITED STATES

16-5379

HENRY, PAUL V. UNITED STATES

16-5657

RUSSELL, RICHARD V. FL DOC

16-5667

YADETA, MULUNEH M. V. BEZA CONSULTING, INC., ET AL.

16-5673

RAMOS, GILBERT V. LeGRAND, WARDEN, ET AL.

16-5674

CARTER, JOHN V. INDEPENDENCE SEAPORT MUSEUM

16-5676

WRIGHT, MONTY E. V. BROWN, WENDY K.

16-5681

SALGADO, BRUNO V. ILLINOIS

16-5685

GONZALEZ, ALFONSO V. VASQUEZ, ACTING WARDEN

16-5695

MINOR, CHAZ V. SHELDON, WARDEN

16-5699

CREWS, WILLIAM R. V. FLORIDA

16-5702

VELASCO, JOSE F. V. SHERMAN, WARDEN

16-5707

PAWLEY, CASH W. V. JONES, SEC., FL DOC.

16-5709

WESTBROOKS, KHALON J. V. TEXAS

16-5710

WALLACE, TIMOTHY L. V. CARTLEDGE, WARDEN

16-5719

SELBY, CHARLES V. WENEROWICZ, SUPT., GRATERFORD

16-5723

MIDDLETON, CHRISTOPHER T. V. GEORGIA

16-5728

CARTER, JEANETTA V. VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMM'N

16-5729

TIDWELL, JUAN M. V. HATTON, ACTING WARDEN, ET AL.

16-5730

BROOKS, CHARLES V. PATAKI, FORMER GOV. OF NY

16-5731

ANDERSON, LEWIS V. CALIFORNIA

16-5736

VILLA, DANIEL V. USCA 5

16-5739

DAVIS, PAUL V. BURT, WARDEN

16-5742

SARVESTANEY, CYRUS F. V. SARVESTANEY, LISA A.

5 


 16-5746

COUGHLIN, TIMOTHY M. V. FLORIDA

16-5749

PAOLINO, RICHARD G. V. CAMERON, SUPT., HOUTZDALE

16-5750

OLAGUE, PETE V. WORKER'S COMP., ET AL

16-5753

HUMPHREY, MICHAEL V. SHERMAN, WARDEN

16-5755

WILSON, DAHVON V. ILLINOIS

16-5758

EBRON, MARCUS D. V. FLORIDA

16-5759

BROWN, COWELL N. V. WATTLES, BOB, ET AL.

16-5761

MARTIN, ROSCOE V. MACKIE, WARDEN

16-5766

ELLIS, OBAR L. V. KLEE, WARDEN

16-5770

VIRGA, MICHAEL V. LEE, WARDEN

16-5771

SMILLIE, STEPHEN S. V. MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ, ET AL.

16-5776

FRAZIER, JUSTIN V. FLORIDA

16-5780

RHODES, KAVIN M. V. ROWE, WARDEN, ET AL.

16-5783

FLORENCE, KIM V. VIKING ASSOCIATES

16-5788

HARBISON, CHARLES V. CLARKE, DIR., VA DOC

16-5791

RODRIGUEZ, JUAN R. V. SHERMAN, WARDEN

16-5792

WARD, LEAH J. V. JORDAN, WARDEN

16-5793

KE, LEI V. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, ET AL.

16-5802

VUE, CHU V. CALIFORNIA

16-5809

MUNT, JOEL M. V. MINNESOTA

16-5815

MANN, MICHAEL V. KERNAN, SEC., CA DOC, ET AL.

16-5816

REBELO, RUBEN M. V. NEW YORK

16-5823

DOBBS, JOHN W. V. FLORIDA

16-5834

RIGGINS, RODNEY L. V. MILLER, WARDEN, ET AL.

16-5836

SMITH, CHANDLER P. V. MORRISVILLE, PA

16-5837

KING, PATRICK L., ET UX. V. MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.

16-5839

MARTINEZ, MICA A. V. OKLAHOMA

16-5844

SAWYER, MARK C. V. UNITED STATES

6 


 16-5846

ESTELA-GOMEZ, LUIS F. V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN.

16-5849

STOCKWELL, DAN V. KEY, SUPT., AIRWAY HEIGHTS

16-5857

BERNARD, FELTON R. V. LOUISIANA

16-5869

CHRISTENSON, DAVID A. V. UNITED STATES

16-5871

TAYLOR, XAVIER V. UNITED STATES

16-5873

TAYLOR, RAHSAAN V. KELLEY, DIR., AR DOC

16-5879

DUKE, JERRY K. V. TENNESSEE

16-5880

DORSEY, PAUL D. V. UNITED STATES

16-5883

JOHONOSON, FRANKLIN V. THOMPSON, SUPT., MERCER

16-5884

SMITH, GREGORY V. V. PHILLIPS, CHRISTOPHER, ET AL.

16-5894

WOODARD, L. MICHAEL V. UNITED STATES

16-5897

RAMSEY, TYRONE R. V. KATAVICH, WARDEN

16-5902

NATHAN, ERIC L. V. SUPERIOR COURT OF CA

16-5904

WALLAESA, BRIAN A. V. FAA

16-5905

OKUN, EDWARD H. V. UNITED STATES

16-5906

CHAPMAN, CARL V. CALIFORNIA

16-5911

ROBLEDO, ADAM V. GIPSON, WARDEN

16-5918

BRUETTE, FELIX J. V. JEWELL, SEC. OF INTERIOR

16-5922

JIMENEZ, FELIX V. MEDEIROS, SUPT., NORFOLK

16-5925

PATTERSON, EMMANUEL V. GRAZIANO, MICHAEL, ET AL.

16-5933

SAENZ, KIMBERLY C. V. TEXAS

16-5938

WILLIAMS, CARRI V. WA DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH

16-5942

REID, WARNELL V. UNITED STATES

16-5944

MILLER, DION T. V. UNITED STATES

16-5945

PARNELL, KENNETH V. UNITED STATES

16-5946

REDFORD, MIKE V. GEORGIA

16-5948

REINARD, DONALD W. V. NEW YORK

16-5949

CZEKUS, ABA D. V. KNIPP, WARDEN

7 


 16-5950

JACKSON, BERNARD V. LINK, SUPT., GRATERFORD

16-5952

MARCOTTE, DESTRY J. V. UNITED STATES

16-5953

THORNBRUGH, JAMES D. V. UNITED STATES

16-5954

ZIMMERMAN, KENNETH J. V. SWARTHOUT, WARDEN

16-5965

ALCALA, FERNANDO C. V. HERNANDEZ, CLAUDIA G.

16-5966

COLE, BRENT D. V. UNITED STATES

16-5967

LUMSDEN, JAMES R. V. UNITED STATES

16-5973

MARQUEZ, REYNALDO V. UNITED STATES

16-5974

JONES, ERIC K. V. McGINLEY, ACTING SUPT., COAL

16-5979

SANCHEZ-ALMARAZ, FERNANDO V. UNITED STATES

16-5981

MEDFORD, ROGER D. V. TEXAS

16-5983

PINA, TOMMY V. UNITED STATES

16-5986

SULLIVAN, MONTIE V. OHIO

16-5988

GOROSTIETA-CASAS, BONIFACIO V. UNITED STATES

16-5994

CABADA, MIGUEL A. V. UNITED STATES

16-5995

TRAPPIER, ANTHONY G. V. UNITED STATES

16-5996

ZAVALA-GARCIA, PAULINO V. UNITED STATES

16-6002

BURGESS, ALBERT C. V. UNITED STATES

16-6007

CUA, JOSEPH G. V. McDOWELL, WARDEN

16-6008

DJENASEVIC, KABIL A. V. IVES, WARDEN

16-6010

CORREA-HERNANDEZ, RIGOBERTO V. FLORIDA

16-6012

HILL, ELTON E. V. PENNSYLVANIA

16-6013

MOSES, JOSHUA V. UNITED STATES

16-6015

CASTEEN, MICHAEL W. V. UNITED STATES

16-6017

RUIZ-ARAGON, CARLOS V. UNITED STATES

16-6020

THOMAS, RONALD D. V. UNITED STATES

16-6022

TAYLOR, BRANDON R. V. UNITED STATES

16-6023

JIM, JORDAN V. UNITED STATES

8 


 16-6024

MATELYAN, ARIKA V. SUPREME COURT OF U.S.

16-6026

LUBY, MICHAEL P. V. UNITED STATES

16-6036

McLEOD, JARMAAL V. UNITED STATES

16-6038

PARKE, CHARLES B. V. UNITED STATES

16-6039

RUSSELL, STEVEN V. UNITED STATES

16-6042

HERNANDEZ-VILLEDA, DOMINGO V. UNITED STATES

16-6043

GOMEZ-HERNANDEZ, ARMANDO V. UNITED STATES

16-6044

FRISON, ARREN T. V. UNITED STATES

16-6045

GARDNER, WILLIAM R. V. UNITED STATES

16-6046

QUINTERO, GEOMAR V. UNITED STATES

16-6050

GARNER, NATHANIEL V. UNITED STATES

16-6051

GRIMES, TYRELL V. UNITED STATES

16-6053

GONZALEZ, ESTEBAN V. UNITED STATES

16-6058

FORD, SAMUEL B. V. UNITED STATES

16-6066

HIGGINS, DEONDRE C. V. UNITED STATES

16-6070

GATLING, MAURICE V. UNITED STATES

16-6071

GASCA, GENARO V. UNITED STATES

16-6072

MAXWELL, MAURICE L. V. UNITED STATES

16-6073

LAWS, RASHAAD L. V. UNITED STATES

16-6074

HAYES, BILLY V. UNITED STATES

16-6075

SMITH, DE VAUGHAN V. UNITED STATES

16-6078

DOBSON, KASEEN V. MILLION, WARDEN

16-6082

HERNANDEZ-VEGA, CARLOS L. V. UNITED STATES

16-6083

GRANDA, PAULINO V. IVES, WARDEN

16-6090

FITZPATRICK, JAMES H. V. UNITED STATES

16-6091

EVANS, DERRICK L. V. UNITED STATES

16-6092

COVINGTON, DEMARIO V. UNITED STATES

16-6096

HARRIS, VICTORIA M. V. UNITED STATES

9 


 16-6097

ANDERSON, STANLEY L. V. UNITED STATES

16-6098

SMITH, CHRISTOPHER V. UNITED STATES

16-6099

SHIPTON, DENNIS G. V. DANIELS, WARDEN

16-6100

FLOWERS, SHAHIEE J. V. UNITED STATES

16-6101

HERNANDEZ-DE-LA-ROSA, CESAR V. UNITED STATES

16-6108

GUTIERREZ, RUDY V. UNITED STATES

16-6109

HANNIGAN, CHRISTOPHER V. UNITED STATES

16-6111

GARCIA, ALEJANDRO S. V. UNITED STATES

16-6112

GUZMAN-FERNANDEZ, JAVIER V. UNITED STATES

16-6114

LIU, WENJING V. UNITED STATES

16-6116

JENKINS, SHAUN V. MURPHY, SUPT., OLD COLONY

16-6119

WARD, STEPHEN M. V. UNITED STATES

16-6120

WILLIS, IVAN B. V. UNITED STATES

16-6124

BRITT, JOHN L. V. UNITED STATES

16-6126

GIBSON, JOHNNY M. V. POLLARD, WILLIAM, ET AL.

16-6130

SCALIA, MICHAEL R. V. UNITED STATES

16-6134

MINJAREZ, MANUEL O. V. UNITED STATES

16-6140

ATWOOD, DAVID G. V. UNITED STATES

16-6146

JONES, ADREAN L. V. UNITED STATES

16-6154

DURY, MATTHEW J. V. UNITED STATES

16-6155

LITTLE COYOTE, MONTE C. V. UNITED STATES

16-6157

CAMACHO, BALTAZAR V. UNITED STATES

16-6158

DRAIN, ALEXANDER V. LANE, SUPT., FAYETTE

16-6161

BURNS, CLINTON V. UNITED STATES

16-6163

HOLMES, PAMELA J. V. MSPB

16-6165

HOPE, GIRAUD V. UNITED STATES

16-6167

MARTINEZ, ALEJANDRO V. UNITED STATES

16-6170

WHITE, ROBERT V. UNITED STATES

10


 16-6173

MAYER, TROY J. V. BEEMER, ATT'Y GEN. OF PA.

16-6178

EVANS, ROGER F. V. MILLION, WARDEN

16-6183

CREWS, JAQUEL V. UNITED STATES

16-6197

OGUNNIYI, VICTOR V. UNITED STATES

16-6201

SCHAFFER, ROBIN D., JR. V. UNITED STATES

16-6202

SONG, WENFO V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S.

16-6206

CAPSHAW, STEVEN M. V. UNITED STATES

16-6207

GEMMA, MICHAEL V. UNITED STATES

16-6209

CORTES-MEDINA, HECTOR V. UNITED STATES

16-6211

CHRISTIAN, ERIC L. V. UNITED STATES

16-6214

JONES, RONNIE M. V. UNITED STATES

16-6217

AYALA-YUPIT, PABLO C. V. UNITED STATES

16-6218

DOUGLAS, DAYNE D. V. UNITED STATES

16-6231

DUNSTON, ALAN V. COLVIN, ACTING COMM'R OF SSA

16-6238

MURRAY, MICHAEL M. V. UNITED STATES

16-6241

DONALDSON, COREY A. V. UNITED STATES

16-6246

ROBERTS, WALTER R. V. UNITED STATES

16-6254

BRYANT, CHRISTOPHER T. V. UNITED STATES

16-6255

PFEIFER, DERYKE M. V. UNITED STATES

16-6263

CHICHAKLI, RICHARD A. V. UNITED STATES

16-6266

LINDSEY, MICHAEL A. V. UNITED STATES

16-6267

LOGAN, JONATHAN B. V. UNITED STATES

16-6274

DILLARD, SCOTT L. V. UNITED STATES

16-6284

TREJO, CARLOS S. V. UNITED STATES

16-6290

SMOTHERMAN, SONTAY T. V. UNITED STATES

16-6296

RIVERA-MARTINEZ, JOSE A. V. UNITED STATES

16-6298

DeCRUZ, AUGUSTINE V. UNITED STATES

16-6299

DIDIER, CHRISTIN D. V. UNITED STATES

11


 16-6301

CORNETT, CHRISTOPHER B. V. UNITED STATES

16-6304

REZA-RAMOS, VICTOR M. V. UNITED STATES
The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

15-1438

TINA M., ET AL. V. ST. TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
The motion of Southern Poverty Law Center, et al. for leave
to file a brief as amici curiae is granted.

The petition for a

writ of certiorari is denied.
16-189

WASHINGTON, HEIDI E., ET AL. V. DENDEL, KATHERINE S.
The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is

denied.
16-5738

REDDY, KRISHNA V. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is
dismissed.

16-6069

See Rule 39.8.

HINSON, KEVIN V. UNITED STATES
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice

Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this
petition.
16-6094

WOODWORTH, MURRAY A. V. SHARTLE, WARDEN
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is
dismissed.

16-6249

See Rule 39.8.

RUSSELL, ROBERT P. V. HOLT, WARDEN
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice

Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this
petition.

12


 HABEAS CORPUS DENIED

16-5715

IN RE CARY M. LAMBRIX

16-6235

IN RE DONALD BENNETT

16-6279

IN RE JAMES D. EVANS

16-6322

IN RE HELEN RANSOM
The petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied.
MANDAMUS DENIED

16-227

IN RE PETER ROTHING

16-5678

IN RE MILTON V. WILLIAMS

16-5767

IN RE CHRISTOPHER DEATON
The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied.
REHEARINGS DENIED

15-7608

OKUN, EDWARD H. V. UNITED STATES

15-9363

HAMMOND, ADAM V. UNITED STATES

15-9906

HARRIS, MICHAEL E. V. MESSITTE, JUDGE, USDC D MD
The petitions for rehearing are denied.
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

D-2935

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF ROBERT LEE STONE
Robert Lee Stone, of Chicago, Illinois, is suspended from
the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2936

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF MICHAEL BRUCE STONE
Michael Bruce Stone, of Las Vegas, Nevada, is suspended from
the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

13


 D-2937

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF JOHN CLIFTON ELSTEAD
John Clifton Elstead, of Oakland, California, is suspended
from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2938

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF RICHARD D. ACKERMAN
Richard D. Ackerman, of Menifee, California, is suspended
from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2939

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF ROBERT ALLAN HOLSTEIN
Robert Allan Holstein, of Chicago, Illinois, is suspended
from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2940

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF RONALD L. McPHERON
Ronald L. McPheron, of Chicago, Illinois, is suspended from
the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2941

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF KEITH E. GREGORY
Keith E. Gregory, of Lompoc, California, is suspended from
the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

D-2942

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF STEPHEN CARL WOODRUFF
Stephen Carl Woodruff, of Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands,
is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule

14


 will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show
cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in
this Court.

15


 Cite as: 580 U. S. ____ (2016)

1

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
BOBBY JERRY TATUM v. ARIZONA
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF 

APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO


No. 15–8850. Decided October 31, 2016

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the
Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two for further
consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577
U. S. ___ (2016).
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concurring in the decision to
grant, vacate, and remand.*
This Court explained in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ___
(2012), that a sentencer is “require[d] . . . to take into
account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a
lifetime in prison.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17). Children
are “constitutionally different from adults for purposes of
sentencing” in light of their lack of maturity and underdeveloped sense of responsibility, their susceptibility to
negative influences and outside pressure, and their less
well-formed character traits. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 8).
Failing to consider these constitutionally significant differences, we explained, “poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17). In the
context of life without parole, we stated that “appropriate
occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible
penalty will be uncommon.” Ibid.
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016), held
——————
* This opinion also applies to No. 15–8842, Purcell v. Arizona; No. 15–
8878, Najar v. Arizona; No. 15–9044, Arias v. Arizona; and No. 15–
9057, DeShaw v. Arizona.

 2

TATUM v. ARIZONA
SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring

that Miller “announced a substantive rule of constitutional
law.” 577 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 20). That rule draws “a
line between children whose crimes reflect transient immaturity and those rare children whose crimes reflect
irreparable corruption” and allows for the possibility “that
life without parole could be a proportionate sentence [only]
for the latter kind of juvenile offender.” Id., at ___ (slip
op., at 18).
The petitioners in these cases were sentenced to life
without the possibility of parole for crimes they committed
before they turned 18. A grant, vacate, and remand of
these cases in light of Montgomery permits the lower
courts to consider whether these petitioners’ sentences
comply with the substantive rule governing the imposition
of a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile offender.
JUSTICE ALITO questions this course, noting that the
judges in these cases considered petitioners’ youth during
sentencing. As Montgomery made clear, however, “[e]ven
if a court considers a child’s age before sentencing him or
her to a lifetime in prison, that sentence still violates the
Eighth Amendment for a child whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op.,
at 16–17) (internal quotation marks omitted).
On the record before us, none of the sentencing judges
addressed the question Miller and Montgomery require a
sentencer to ask: whether the petitioner was among the
very “rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes
reflect permanent incorrigibility.” 577 U. S., at ___ (slip
op., at 17).
Take Najar v. Arizona, No. 15–8878. There, the sentencing judge identified as mitigating factors that the
defendant was “16 years of age” and “emotionally and
physically immature.” App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 15–
8878, p. A–51. He said no more on this front. He then
discounted the petitioner’s efforts to rehabilitate himself
as “nothing significant,” despite commending him for those

 Cite as: 580 U. S. ____ (2016)

3

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring

efforts and expressing hope that they would continue. Id.,
at A–52. The sentencing judge did not evaluate whether
Najar represented the “rare juvenile offender who exhibits
such irretrievable depravity that rehabilitation is impossible and life without parole is justified.” Montgomery, 577
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 16).
Purcell v. Arizona, No. 15–8842, is no different. The
sentencing judge found that Purcell’s age at the time of his
offense—16 years old—qualified as a statutory mitigating
factor. App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 15–8842, p. A–80. He
then minimized the relevance of Purcell’s troubled childhood, concluding that “this case sums up the result of
defendant’s family environment: he became a doublemurderer at age 16. Nothing more need be said.” Id., at
A–83. So here too, the sentencing judge did not undertake
the evaluation that Montgomery requires. He imposed a
sentence of life without parole despite finding that Purcell
was “likely to do well in the structured environment of a
prison and that he possesses the capacity to be meaningfully rehabilitated.” App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 15–8842,
at A–83.
The other petitions are similar. In Tatum v. Arizona,
No. 15–8850, and DeShaw v. Arizona, No. 15–9057, the
sentencing judge merely noted age as a mitigating circumstance without further discussion. In Arias v. Arizona,
No. 15–9044, the record before us does not contain a sentencing transcript or order reflecting the factors the sentencing judge considered.
It is clear after Montgomery that the Eighth Amendment requires more than mere consideration of a juvenile
offender’s age before the imposition of a sentence of life
without parole. It requires that a sentencer decide whether
the juvenile offender before it is a child “whose crimes
reflect transient immaturity” or is one of “those rare children whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption” for
whom a life without parole sentence may be appropriate.

 4

TATUM v. ARIZONA
SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring

577 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 18). There is thus a very
meaningful task for the lower courts to carry out on
remand.

 Cite as: 580 U. S. ____ (2016)

1

ALITO, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
BOBBY JERRY TATUM v. ARIZONA
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF 

APPEALS OF ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO


No. 15–8850. Decided October 31, 2016

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins,
dissenting from the decision to grant, vacate, and
remand.*
The Court grants review and vacates and remands in
this and four other cases in which defendants convicted of
committing murders while under the age of 18 were sentenced to life without parole. The Court grants this relief
so that the Arizona courts can reconsider their decisions in
light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___ (2016),
which we decided last Term. I expect that the Arizona
courts will be as puzzled by this directive as I am.
In Montgomery, the Court held that Miller v. Alabama,
567 U. S. ___ (2012), is retroactive. 577 U. S., at ___ (slip.
op., at 20). That holding has no bearing whatsoever on the
decisions that the Court now vacates. The Arizona cases
at issue here were decided after Miller, and in each case
the court expressly assumed that Miller was applicable to
the sentence that had been imposed. Therefore, if the
Court is taken at its word—that is, it simply wants the
Arizona courts to take Montgomery into account—there is
nothing for those courts to do.
It is possible that what the majority wants is for the
lower courts to reconsider the application of Miller to the
cases at issue,† but if that is the Court’s aim, it is misusing
——————
* This opinion also applies to four other petitions: No. 15–8842, Purcell v. Arizona; No. 15–8878, Najar v. Arizona; No. 15–9044, Arias v.
Arizona; and No. 15–9057, DeShaw v. Arizona.
† This is certainly JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s explanation of the GVR. She

 2

TATUM v. ARIZONA
ALITO, J., dissenting

the GVR vehicle. We do not GVR so that a lower court can
reconsider the application of a precedent that it has already considered.
In any event, the Arizona decisions at issue are fully
consistent with Miller’s central holding, namely, that
mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders is
unconstitutional. 567 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 2). A sentence of life without parole was imposed in each of these
cases, not because Arizona law dictated such a sentence,
but because a court, after taking the defendant’s youth
into account, found that life without parole was appropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the offender.
It is true that the Miller Court also opined that “life
without parole is excessive for all but ‘the rare juvenile
offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption,’ ”
Montgomery, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 17) (quoting Miller,
supra, at ___ (slip op., at 17) (internal quotation marks
omitted)), but the record in the cases at issue provides
ample support for the conclusion that these “children” fall
into that category.
For example, in Purcell v. Arizona, No. 15–8842, a 16year-old gang member fired a sawed-off shotgun into a
group of teenagers, killing two of them, under the belief
that they had flashed a rival gang’s sign at him. He was
ultimately convicted of two counts of first-degree murder,
nine counts of attempted first-degree murder, and one
count each of aggravated assault and misconduct involving weapons. The trial court considered his youth, identified his age as a mitigating factor, and still sentenced him
to life without parole. The remaining cases are in the
same vein. See Tatum v. Arizona, No. 15–8850 (17-year——————
faults the lower courts for failing to heed the statement in Miller that
“appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible
penalty will be uncommon.” 567 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17). If the
others in the majority have a similar view, the Court should grant
review and decide the cases on the merits.

 Cite as: 580 U. S. ____ (2016)

3

ALITO, J., dissenting

old defendant convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy
to commit armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and
aggravated assault); Najar v. Arizona, No. 15–8878 (juvenile convicted of first-degree murder and theft); Arias v.
Arizona, No. 15–9044 (16-year-old defendant pleaded
guilty to two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of
second-degree murder, two counts of kidnapping, four
counts of armed robbery, and one count each of firstdegree burglary, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery); DeShaw v.
Arizona, No. 15–9057 (17-year-old defendant convicted of
first-degree murder, armed robbery, and kidnapping).
In short, the Arizona courts have already evaluated
these sentences under Miller, and their conclusions are
eminently reasonable. It is not clear why this Court is
insisting on a do-over, or why it expects the results to be
any different the second time around. I respectfully dissent.