Fred Dean Manning v. Gale Jarnigan, Sheriff
501 F.2d 408
6th Cir.
1974
Check Treatment

*1 No. 73-1463. GIBSON, Before BRIGHT and Appeals, States Court WEBSTER, Judges. Circuit Sixth Circuit. Argued Nov. 1973. PER CURIAM. July 30, Decided 1974. Johnson, prisoner Artis a black at Nebraska Penal and Correctional Com- plex, brought rights a civil action against seeking declaratory warden punishments disciplinary hearings

1. These were often meted the institution opportunity principles hearing. conformity without for a fair with the announced McDonnell, future, Wolff, penal et al. v. Warden the Nebraska obliged authorities will be to conduct their *2 Nimmo, Tenn., Nashville, Price

R. Quillen, petitioner-appellant; Dalе M. Nashville, (court appointed), Tenn. brief. Atty. Gen., Shipley, Jr.,

Alex B. Asst. Pack, respondent-appellee; M. David Nashville, Atty Tenn., of coun- Gen. of sel. EDWARDS,

Before CELEBREZZE Judges. McCREE, Circuit Judge. EDWARDS, Circuit appeal This is an from the denial evidentiary pe- without an corpus. tition for of habeas We re- writ hearing. verse and remand for such Appellant by a had been convicted jury in a court on two Tennessee state legend drugs charges of unlawful sale charge (barbituates) of unlaw- and one drugs possession ful without a of such prescription, in violation of Tenn.Code (1966). Ann. and 52-1206 52-1204 §§ each count he received sentence On years imprisonment, five the three consecutively. sentences be served by the His reversed convictions were Tennessee, Appeals Court Criminal possession unlawful conviction for dismissed, and two convictions for a new remanded unlawful sale were Court, trial. Tennessee however, of Criminal reversed the Appeals convictions. reinstated Manning, Tenn., State S.W.2d by the record of disclosed facts the follow- include state court police 1868, 1880, ing. stopped by Appellant L.Ed.2d 889 driving per However, case hour while 20 miles about per m. in before about 4 a. us are different from those a mile Morristown, hour zone Terry.1 ex- The officer This record offers other Tennessee. planation squad stop another for the than the testimo- who arrested him called appel- ny stopped like to of one of the officers that “we the scene and then *3 they flashing by spotlight check on his them out to who are.” car. lant see аppellant was The officer admitted that investiga The difference between an violating any that he not law and traffic tory yet stop and an arrest he had had commit- no reason to believe spelled generally Terry v. See out. ted The testified crime. officer Ohio, 1, 1868, L. 392 88 S.Ct. 20 U.S. ap- stopped court that state (1968), Ed.2d 889 and Adams v. Wil pellant police of because chief liams, 143, 1921, 407 U.S. 92 L. S.Ct. 32 an “to check all cars issued order out (1972). Ed.2d 612 The night.” that he late thought He testified of the United States has this about said suspicious because this car was to when oc an arrest driving slowly. it was late and curs : car, Upon stopping appellant’s interrupted “When the officers police officer on the scene testified first liberty two men and restricted their recognized appellant ‍​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‍that he the driver as movement, arrest, purposes of for bootlegger. whom as a of- complete. of is, this was there they ficer that he then asked if testified fore, necessary to determine whether appellant could that search car and his they at or before time had rea opened said could and sonable cause to believe that a crime Appellant offi- trunk. testified had been committed. The fact that open cer trunk told him to and that afterwards contraband was discovered he did. Two officers then searched the enough. is not An justi arrest is not They trunk and the car. seized some subsequent fied what books described as “sex books” some discloses, as Johnson United States v. pants trunk, women’s bikini from the 10, 367, [333 U.S. 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. pills pengun some from the 436], supra, Henry holds.” v. United car. States, 98, 103, 168, 361 U.S. 80 S.Ct. Appellant 171, (1959). contends that search of 4 L.Ed.2d 134 illegal the automobile was and that the This court has held: evidence should have seized not been ad- appears “It to this court that government mitted at trial. The as- actually arrest was made Officer appellant serts consented to the Miller when he detained Baxter for appellant’s search. The first objection basis the several before minutes Reimer’s stopping appel- is that the government arrival. concedes lant was unlawful because this Further, was an arrest. probable based on cause. clearly deprivation liberty police authority Of “a under the officer It does law. appropriate and in take formal words arrest appropriate person booking approach police complete manner at a station investigating purposes Henry possibly States, an arrest. v. United though 98, 168, criminal behavior even there is 361 80 S.Ct. 4 L.Ed.2d U.S. probable Long Ansell, (1959); cause to make an arrest.” 134 63 U.S. v. Terry Ohio, Apр.D.C. 68, aff’d, v. 392 U.S. (1934), 88 S.Ct. F.2d 69 386 clearly distinguishable 260, 488, 1. This case is also 414 U.S. 94 S.Ct. cases, from two recent United v. States both those cases the officers Robinson, 467, 218, clearly probable 414 94 S.Ct. 38 L. involved ar U.S. cause for Florida, Ed.2d 427 and Gustafson v. rest.

411 subsequent a line 21, 208 followed 76, 79 L.Ed. 55 S.Ct. 293 U.S. States, cases,1 does Carroll doctrine (1934); v. United Coleman 210, U.S.App.D.C. F.2d 555 295 111 Maroney, g., v. 399 1. E. Chambers U.S. 813, (1961) denied, 82 cert. 369 U.S. Dyke 419; 42, 1975, L.Ed.2d 90 S.Ct. 26 (1962); cf. 689, 613 7 L.Ed.2d Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., S.Ct. 391 v. U.S. 216, 538; 1472, 20 L.Ed.2d Vita, (dictum), United v. Brinegar 160, v. United 338 U.S. 1961), (C.A. 2, 524, cert. F.2d 529-530 1879; Husty L.Ed. denied, 823, 82 S.Ct. 369 U.S. United (1962).” United States L.Ed.2d 75 L.Ed. 629. Baxter, F.2d 118-119 day police not declare a field for the Cir.), denied, cert. 87 S. searching Automobile autonlobiles. L.Ed.2d 69 Ct. automobile, prob- or no there must be able cause for the search.2 Young also See *4 U.S.App.D.C. 333, (1970); 435 F.2d 405 Moreover, Carroll, supra, 2. “[n] either nor Bailey States, U.S.App.D. require v. United 128 other in oases this Court or suggest every in conceivable cir- 354, (1967); C. F.2d Brown v. 389 305 cumstance the search of an auto even U.S.App.D.C. 43, States, 365 United 125 probable cause be made with- (1966). F.2d 976 protection privacy extra a warrant affords.” Chambers v. strengthened on this Our view score is Maroney, [supra], U.S.], 50, [399 at [90 the recent of the United S.Ct., Coolidge at 1981.] See also v. Supreme in States Court Almeida-San- Hampshire, 443, 458-464, New 403 U.S. States, 266, 2022, 2033-2037, chez v. 93 91 United 413 U.S. S.Ct. 29 L.Ed.2d States, 564]. Almeida-Sanchez v. United 2535, (1973). In S.Ct. 37 L.Ed.2d 596 266, 269, 413 U.S. 93 S.Ct. holding stop and search a car with- of (1973). in 25 miles of the Mexican border to be recognize We that Almeida-Sanchez is warrant, invalid without a search precisely point not in since in that case Court said: probable there was neither cause for the made, “No claim is nor could one (as arguable arrest nor even here) con- be, petitioner’s the search of the (Cf. sent to the search. Schneckloth v. any pre- car was constitutional under Bustamonte, 218, 412 U.S. 2041, 93 S.Ct. involving vious decision of this Court 36 prob- L.Ed.2d 854 where both the search of an set- automobile. stop (arrest) able cause and vol- tled, course, stop that a and search untary consent search were moving of a automobile can be made found.) without a warrant. That narrow ex- believe, however, We in view of ception requirement to the warrant purposes the deterrent the exclusion first established Carroll v. ary (see Calandra, rule United v. States 132, United 45 267 S.Ct. 338, 414 U.S. 94 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 38 280, 69 L.Ed. The in Car- 543. Court (1974), any illegal arrest must re approved portion roll of the Volstead quire suppression of the evidence subse providing Act for warrantless search- quently seized under result the ra es automobiles when there was Wong tionale of Sun United probable cause to believe con- 371 U.S. L.Ed.2d illegal beverages. tained alcoholic also See Johnson v. United recognized moving that a auto- 92 L. open presents mobile on the road Ed. 436 practicable situation ‘where is not to secure a warrant because the vehi- applicable Also our instant case is a quickly cle can be moved out of the lo- recent case from the Ninth Circuit. cality jurisdiction in which the Mallides, United F.2d States sought.’ U.S., 1973), testimony warrant must be Cir. there was stop Carroll has been that after a 285. held the court to be completely probable cause, without Mal- seizure issues pertain appel- gave permission only lides to examine damaging alleging evi- lant’s conviction on count trunk which rеsulted possession legend drugs. dence at trial. The He also at- which was admitted counts, Appeals tacks on in- Court of reversed for dismissal his convictions all cluding. holding: legend indictment, two of sale of of the counts drugs, claiming process due violations nor this “Neither the his state court trial. legality upheld of a court ever un- detention an officer’s based regard appellant In this asserts that supported intuition, and we refuse prosecuting attorney the conduct of the do so now. during trial was both and so prejudicial as to violate federal con- stop were ille- “The and detention right stitutional to a fair illegal trial. gal, con- the fruit duct was inadmissible.” of the Three incidents relied in- Mallides, prosecutorial appel- volve reference to (Footnotes omitted.) alleged prior lant’s involvement in crimi- concerning bootlegging nal acts and oth- in in our The critical possession er legend incidents of appears to when the stant case drugs charged indictment, precisely, occurred. More аrrest probative of either scheme or intent. (at any appellant the prior free to leave time police search) *5 after the offi to disturbing, Even more there is evi- appellant’s spotlight cer on flashed dence prosecutor in this record that the only in car? The trial record is that subsequently boasted in effect that he court which did not on state focus questions objectiona- knew that his were question question at Since the all. ble, that, stricken, even if were essentially question is an unresоlved forget. would not hearing fact, evidentiary we believe an Finally, prose- it is asserted that the findings required. of fact are cuting attorney prejudicial amade state- If first is fa answered ment before the when he realized vorably prosecution, to the the second that he would not be able to amake clos- question to eviden be answered after ing argument, appellant’s because coun- tiary hearing totality Based on the is: closing argument. sel had waived circumstances, of the was the сonsent to following exchange occurred de- between appellant’s freely and volun prosecuting fendant’s counsel and the at- tarily under the set standards ‍​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‍torney : Bustamonte, this in Schneckloth QUILLEN: May please MR. it 228-229, 93 L. S.Ct. Court, we would like to be informed (1973) Appellant Ed.2d had ? been just what the remark was—if the At- torney General did make one awhile night; stopped late at there three were scene; appellant armed on the officers ago presence Jury. of the Was third-grade only education and there a comment made ? hospital in been a state for the in Yes, my MR. WINSTEAD : I threw occasions; appellant sane six notes back down on the table and I right was never advised that he had the get maybe said that gument I’d to that ar- use to to refuse consent to the search. On year. against hope next I however, cross-examination, said he this defendant. agree he did have to although search, I think that was the record does not improper my and I make clear whether he further mo- knew this renew or tion for the time of the search. mistrial. you’ve exploration Testimonial of these think facts MR. WINSTEAD: thought just required everything

will be “consent” about im- answer the implied proper, Quillen. questions Mr. stated or above. regard prosecuting Supreme attor- the recent of the With prose-

ney’s conduct, Donnelly in call attention DeChristoforo, we 416 U.S. duty described Su- cutorial 40 L.Ed.2d 431 preme Court: and decide whether “this inci respondent’s dent made trial so funda representa- prosecutor] is the “[The mentally deny unfair as to proc him due ordinary party a con- tive not of an ess.” Id. at 94 S.Ct. at 1872. sovereignty troversy, whose but of a judgment District Court is govern impartially obligation is as reversed and the case remanded is govern obligation compelling as its opinion. in accordance with this therefore, all; interest, and whose prosecution not that is a criminal Judge (con- CELEBREZZE, Circuit justice shall win but that shall dissenting curring part, part). peculiar such, he is in a As done. agree very majority po with the definite sense the servant stop law, aim of which is escape lice order to night all out after mid the two-fold cars guilt testimony indicated, if, or inno- shall not as the “we may prosecute they’re suspicious He think that,” late like cence suffer. vigor indeed, arbitrary earnestness was an order and — But, stopping Appellant’s while he ille should do so. car was liberty gal Terry Ohio, blows, he is not at strike hard under the rationale of as much his to strike foul ones. duty disagree meth- However, refrain that it is from wrongful produce necessary ods calculated to to remand the case the Dis a. legiti- tаking every purpose conviction as it to use trict Court for the ev bring just whether, one. when, mate about a an arrest means idence as to Appel prior to the search of occurred average say fair to that the “It is apply the automobile. I would lant’s greater degree, jury, in a or less “totality enunci test” obligations, these confidence ated Schenck *6 prose- plainly the which so rest Bustamonte, 218, 412 93 S. loth U.S. cuting faithfully attorney, ob- will be (1973), de Ct. sug- improper Consequently, served. voluntarily Appellаnt termine whether and, especially, gestions, insinuations of his automo to the search consented knowledge personal are assertions of apt Watson, 504 F.2d United States v. bile. weight against carry the much 1974); Mar. properly accused when should Rothman, States Cir., carry Berger v. United none.” Wong Sun v. United L.Ed. 55 S.Ct. L. the Ed.2d 441 claimed statements held inadmissible course, Berger, a federal of was following freely un an have been super Supreme Court’s case wherein the entry by officers or seven six lawful intending su stricter control afforded The bedroom. into the defendant’s in a pervision than available to us that found corpus proceeding attack federal habeas ing un- such “[u]nder the But court conviction. a state Toy’s re- infer reasonable to sponse disturbing to are have referred facts we enough sufficiently of free an act was purge issues also for to remand these primary the taint of will to the findings hearing evidentiary of invasion.” 371 U.S. unlawful appellant’s due of federal fact on claims at 417. regard the process In this violаtion. will, Judge suggests could have of This that circumstances District voluntary consent exist under which a with in accordance determine the issue during attorney negate entry. prosecuting the In bal- the could ancing an unlawful prejudicial. three involved was On the circumstances occasions, Appel- physically lar- made to reference was this case—armed officers degree ger prior in criminal acts Appellant; than the low lant’s involvement charged Appellant’s previous the On one and his indictmеnt. education occasion, attorney prosecuting hospital asked in a state confinements insane; Appellant: advice absence right Appellant con- to refuse “Well, you right this one now examine search; Appellant’s sent tes- to the here, aren’t here this one those timony would find on the matter —I speckled both That’s what birds? Appellant voluntarily consented your trade, they’re known at in isn’t ” in the Dis- At search. it, Manning, speckled Mr. birds ? Court, Appellant, trict on cross-examina- objection The Court sustained an following tion, manner: testified phrase your trade,” “in was Q Manning, you’re familiar Mr. instructed the state- never enough the law know objection ment. second arose dur- you right let the ing not to questioning Appellant’s have moth- your prosecutor: man car without search er Right search ? ? warrant Manning Q Shiflet, Mrs. Dean to, Well, bootleg A want I can. if I been able to of his most life, hasn’t he ? Q agreed him You to let search you car? didn’t have to going object You I’m your let him that, please. ? if the Court move for a because it. mistriаl A Yes, sir. THE ask her what COURT: He testimony does not reflect use occupation his He can re- is. any “inherently coercive tactics—ei- phrase it. police ques- ther from the nature of the tioning or the environment in which it Ap- Two other incidents occurred when place.” Bustamonte, took pellant Schneckloth recalled to witness Ap- 412 U.S. at at 2058. stand: although pellant, he testified on this Q you got You were there and matter, gave no intimation he felt pills. being he was under duress pay pills. A I did not for no cooperate. coerced to His statement Q you pay them, got You didn’t that he knew he could di- refuse consent though. up them You went there significance minishes the lack *7 get forged prescrip- them on a previous hospitaliza- education and his Lynch. tion from Dr. agree tion. I is but would that “arrest QUILLEN: Honor, MR. Your I ob- factor, one, one albeit a critical in deter- ject— mining whether not the consent was voluntary.” Rothman, THE COURT: as to the Sustained forged. (9th Cir., inquire may 1264 n. 1 He of him if got 1973). However, Appellant’s drug pills the the concessiоn store Thus, Gap. seems me to be clear. would in Bulls arrive at the same conclusion ‍​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‍whether Q you Manning, I’ll ask if on Mr. the facts constitute an arrest unlawful Saturday, May 16th, 1970, at 4:30 investigative Terry-type or an unlawful p. m., you appear if did stop. Drug Steinson’s Gap, Bulls Store agree County, Tennessee, I also do not remand is a Hawkins necessary any findings capsules relat- ask of fact for 55 Oberdren ing prosecutorial prescription on from Dr. comments. Lynch record demonstrates that the conduct ? though giv- jury tion even the had been

A I in there but I didn’t ask went pills. en no such instruction: Q bag are the that the “[w]e You received a ? cautionary instruction did not remove my No, sir, it in A I did not have prejudice. the It must be remembered hand. thrust, that after the the with- saber your Q have it hand? You didn’t drawal of the saber rUll leaves the in his hand? Dr. Stinson had wound.” 403 F.2d at 807 A Yes. us, merely In the case before we have Q you And when were arrest- that’s sustaining objection. the the court’s ed? would find that insufficient cure object, if the prejudice Appellant. Similarly, the please and move that it be question Aрpellant’s the mother asked stricken from the record. highly prejudicial. was also The refer- bearing bootlegging THE to the ar- COURT: Sustained ence to had no charge against Appel- rest. whatsoever on the drugs. possession Upon Ap- lant for Again, jury the was not instructed to merely pellant’s objection, re- the Court disregard by prosecu- the statement the quired question rephrased. the be tor. repeated reference to criminal acts This Coupled questioning this line subject highly not the trial was closing statemеnt, prosecutor’s any improper give and a cau- failure quoted by majority. In addition to tionary possi- instruction increased by prosecutor, Ap- these pellant statements bility prejudice. improp- contends that Rudolph, supra, erly permitted testimony even the caution- about items ary Appellant’s instruction was not found in materi- sufficient: al to the case. These items were “The contends that the Government pants “sex and bikini found in books” error was cured court’s instruc gun Appellant’s pen trunk and a found quеs tion to the of the console car. court ordinarily trial court While tion. Appellant’s objections and, overruled re- determine whether a has discretion to garding pants, and the books stated: cautionary sufficient to instruction is say whether “It’s for granting mistrial, we think avoid bearing particular have a on ease.” in this case asked Regarding prejudi the cross-examination of clearly sowas Appellant, previously we have stated: that the harm to the defendants cial instruction could not erased be ordinarily “It is clear give.” might F. which the court cross-examination a defendant 2d at 806. questioned not be whether as to participated specific in unrelated acts regard by the to the statement With resulting of criminal conduct not in a attorney prosecuting of the at the close conviction, as such evidence flagrant disregard it to I find relevancy to the issue of defendant’s high duty prosecuting for the owed guilt or innocence of the crime prosecutor cer- The conduct of the case. *8 charged, likely and such evidence to is duty comport tainly with that does extremely prejudicial.” be by in as the described Rudolph, States v. 403 F.2d Berger v. United 1968) Cir. L.Ed. Appellant’s apparent While the me that this conduct Court sustained is designed improp- objection, prosecutor instruction the was no was jury jury. questions. erly the “That it was the the influence Rudolph, prejudice suffi- supra, the we reversed intended to the convic- age Jury ground in had done when the a conclusion that been cient questions. heard the it Pierce v. United fact did so.” I find Gentlemen, you THE COURT: when by out- my an conclusion substantiated proper objection, raised the Court by prosecu- the of-court statement made your objection. sustained by defense counsel tor and overheard record will that at different disclose and related to the Court: times, objections were in there testimony. certain the And the thing, too, I like have a further I’d properly the Court will instruct bring the attention before Jury objection when is made go any A before we further. this Court. the new motion for a mistrial reаson, Manning, in- Dean from the Regarding prose- similar conduct trial, dictment of this has been de- cutor, previously we have said: nied At- a fair trial the District expe- any “To those with breadth of torney comments and that General’s trial it rience the of criminal cases Winstead, experi- General with his espe- suggestions, must be clear that cially ence, things well knew he the repeated, de- when often that a doing wrong. were was I hav- was fendant earlier in trouble been has ing lunch, and here he’s law, or with the that he has elsеwhere say, what I have to correct indicted, previously been wrong, having me if I’m I was frequently been detained and investi- lunch within earshot of his table gated by officers, law enforcement talking which time he was fugitive justice, and that he from including people, witness, some prejudicial are so admonition that no Nash, and some and others he com- disregard- they the from court that be ques- mented on how he asked had forcibly ed, promptly however and buying tion about this defendant made, may safely upon be relied pills Rog- Gap some either at Bulls jurors free the pression from im- minds ersville and said the defense could defendant is of bad object then, all wanted to committing capable character and Jury already heard it. charged. They may the crime com- present highly as pletely presumption overthrow reason, Attorney for that Gen- innocence. unfair, eral it denying was THE COURT: MR. WINSTEAD: MR. THE COURT: Were is, people go. question, knowing improper that I knew of. statement ? rors new motion for mistrial. this defendant a fair trial and I re- Court. QUILLEN: freedom of my present Attorney don’t want when he made that Gentlemen, What I’m No General asked an speech, try my any jurors getting wherever I believe lawsuits trouble. present Ju- As was said judge, cumulative effect nor confined posed by clearly a case where mischief Berger instances the correctly upon so [85], It is [*] some of the pronounced prosecutors it is disregarded quite v. United [*] true, true that the court ruled ato defendants, been [*] ruling questions, that case: “The all was neither sustained single instance, persistent done, the misconduct objections came аfter inconsequential. 79 L.Ed. 1314. insinuations but in most -» ‍​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‍and it objections slight [*] inter- can- improper, caring misstatements, less how much instructed *9 objected it, jury disregard we to he knew the to But the dam- situ- them. resulting make the stern conviction a denial one which called ation was Donnelly and, process.” repressive due v. measures DeChristo- rebuke and perhaps, foro, successful, these were if granting It is would of a mistrial. judgment say influ- reverse the Dis- impossible the evil trict and remand the di- case with of these ence acts grant rection that the District Court such mild removed misconduct was corpus Appellant un- writ of habeas judicial Pierce action as taken.” grants him a less the State Tennessee 952-953 v. United to be new trial within a reasonable time (6th 1936). Cir. fixed the District Court. no instruc- Since the improper com- tions

ments, doubt that there can be little prejudicial effect. testimony also find that the would referring and bikini the “sex books” gun Appel-

pants pen and found case lant’s car was relevant GARZA, Plaintiff-Appellee, Fernando prejudicial Appellаnt. Rele- and was v. in some evidence that vant evidence “is Chairman, SIGLER, U. S. degree H. inquiry, and thus Maurice advances Parole, al., et Board value,” McCormick, probative has C. Defendants-Appellants. pur- Its Law of Evidence No. 73-1570.* disprove pose prove or some issue is “to proffered trial. If evi- cause Appeals, States Court United of these dence does not tend do either Seventh Circuit. things, place in the trial July 23, 1974. in- either or collateral immaterial Herzog quiry.” United v. 1955). gen- F.2d Cir. relevancy materi- eral rule that the ality of to be decid- evidence is matter judge. ed discretion of the trial v. F.2d

Wilson United 1958). However, Cir. gun books,” pants pen bikini “sex proving any had no issue value in before court, great chance was prejudicial,

its would admission

would find the court dis- abused its admitting ‍​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‍cretion the evidence. See Johnson, v. F.2d (2d

Thus, I would hold that the reference prior criminal acts admission prejudicial immaterial evidence “so

infected the trial with unfairness as

* Sigler, 73-1831; 73- v. Dillard Morrison with: Consolidated 73-1844; Sigler, Roy 73-1571; Sigler, 1874; v. J. Travis v. Marizal Carl Francisco 73-2011; Sigler, Vasquez Pickett, 73-1572; v. D. Salvador Cantu v. James McFadden 73-1873; Sigler, Joe Kirby Reed, 73-1583; Bowman v. Paul v. Ronald Oree Sigler, Rogerio Pickett, 73-1584; 73-2012. Pickett, Mendoza Bella M.