OPINION OF INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE

IN CHAMBERS

STROUP, DIRECTOR, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY, ET AL. V. WILLCOX ET AL.

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY

No. 06A592. Decided December 18, 2006

Applicants' request to stay a Fourth Circuit judgment pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari is denied. Their request fails to meet this Court's standard for such relief. Moreover, it is undermined by the fact that the central argument pressed here was mentioned by applicants only in passing in the courts below.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, Circuit Justice.

The State of South Carolina and Rodger Stroup, the director of the State's Department of Archives and History, apply for a stay of the judgment issued by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit pending the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court. Their request fails to meet our standard for such relief. See Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1991) (SCALIA, J., in chambers).

Moreover, a request for extraordinary equitable relief is certainly undermined when the central argument pressed was only mentioned by applicants in passing in the court below. Applicants' request is based almost exclusively on the Court of Appeals' failure to certify to the Supreme Court of South Carolina contested questions of state property law. In their initial submission to the Court of Appeals, however, applicants requested that the court rule on the merits of the matter. They merely noted that certification "is an option

Opinion in Chambers

for [the] Court if it wants guidance from the South Carolina Supreme Court." Brief for Appellants in No. 06-1179 (CA4), p. 37, n. 9.

Accordingly, the request for a stay is denied.

It is so ordered.

INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. See Prison Litigation Reform Act
of 1995.

ADMISSION OF ABSENT WITNESS' TESTIMONIAL STATEMENTS.
See Habeas Corpus, 2.

AIR POLLUTION. See Clean Air Act.

ANTITRUST LAW.

Sherman Act-Predator-bidding claims.-Standard applied to
predatory-pricing claims in Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., 509 U. S. 209, also applies to predatory-bidding claims
brought under §2 of Act. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood
Lumber Co., p. 312.

ARIZONA. See Constitutional Law, V.

ATTORNEY'S FEES. See Bankruptcy, 1.

BANKRUPTCY.

1. Attorney's fees.-Federal bankruptcy law does not disallow contract-
based claims for attorney's fees based solely on fact that fees were in-
curred litigating bankruptcy law issues. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.
of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., p. 443.

2. Converting Chapter 7 case to Chapter 13-Effect of misrepresenta-
tions.-Because Marrama's Chapter 7 petition misrepresented his prop-
erty's value and that he had not transferred that property during preced-
ing year, he forfeited his right to convert case to Chapter 13. Marrama
v. Citizens Bank of Mass., p. 365.

CALIFORNIA. See Constitutional Law, II; IV.

CAPITAL MURDER. See Constitutional Law, II; Habeas Corpus, 1.
CASE OR CONTROVERSY. See Constitutional Law, I.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871.

Section 1983-Statute of limitations-False arrest claim.-Statute of
limitations upon a 42 U. S. C. § 1983 claim seeking damages for false arrest
in violation of Fourth Amendment, where arrest is followed by criminal

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871-Continued.

proceedings, begins to run at time claimant becomes detained pursuant to
legal process. Wallace v. Kato, p. 384.

CLEAN AIR ACT.

1. Environmental Protection Agency regulations.-Fourth Circuit's
reading of Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations in an effort
to conform them with their New Source Performance Standards counter-
parts as to Act's term "modification" amounted to invalidation of PSD
regulations, which must comport with Act's limits on judicial review of
EPA regulations for validity. Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy
Corp., p. 561.

2. Standing Environmental Protection Agency's refusal to regulate
motor-vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions.-Petitioners have standing to
challenge EPA's denial of their petition to begin regulating new-motor-
vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions under Act; because such gases fit well
within Act's capacious definition of "air pollutant," EPA has statutory au-
thority to regulate their emissions, and its refusal to do so rested on im-
permissible considerations and was "arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not
in accordance with law," 42 U. S. C. § 7607(d)(9). Massachusetts v. EPA,
p. 497.

COLORADO. See Constitutional Law, I, 2.

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS. See Constitutional Law, I, 2.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See also Habeas Corpus, 3.

I. Case or Controversy.

1. Case or controversy-Declaratory-judgment action-Patent li-
censee.-Federal Circuit erred in affirming dismissal of petitioner's
declaratory-judgment action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based
on Circuit precedent holding that a patent licensee in good standing cannot
establish an Article III case or controversy with regard to patent's valid-
ity, enforceability, or scope. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., p. 118.

2. Standing. Because petitioner Colorado voters assert no particular-
ized stake in this litigation, they lack standing to bring their claim that a
Colorado Constitution provision, as interpreted by State Supreme Court,
violated U. S. Constitution's Election Clause by depriving state legislature
of its responsibility to draw congressional districts. Lance v. Coffman,
p. 437.

II. Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

Capital murder-Mitigating evidence-Jury instruction.-California's
"factor (k)" instruction is consistent with constitutional right to present