*1 375 of Pro- opinion on the merits expressing no presented issues (1) the whether factors: validity challenges to the chal- duction Credit’s (2) the whether legal; purely are at this time. agency regulation ac- the “final is agency action lenged the Adminis- meaning of the within tion” court’s decision Accordingly, the district Act; (3) the Procedure trative ripe for challenges not plaintiffs’ are and a direct action challenged would hereby affirmed. judicial review bringing party the impact immediate resolution (4) immediate suit; and whether impede, foster, than rather

would by the administration and enforcement at 87 S.Ct. agency. the prongs of ripe, both to be

For a claim for satisfied us test must be

ripeness Thus, not we will jurisdiction. MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, exercise Donnie regulations unless challenges to review im immediate and has a direct regulation Warden, al., PARKE, et Al challenge. bringing the parties pact Respondents-Appellees. ¶. Dole, Ins. Co. Mut. Auto. Farm de (D.C.Cir.1986), cert. 479 F.2d No. 87-5690. — -, nied, Court of States (1987). L.Ed.2d Sixth Circuit. challenges in the plaintiffs’ While regula of a legal questions purely volved 3, 1988. Argued March action, agency final that constitutes tion May evidence in absolutely no impact that the suggest us to before record any duty or imposes regulations compliance Production

burden can They do not time. at this

Credit they have been directed allege that

not to the chal pursuant any funds

transfer time, is, at this regulation. There lenged regulation will indeed that the indication

no sup The record applied to them.

ever conclusion that district court’s

ports application of threat of is no clear

“there plaintiffs in the future regulation to imposes no regulation affirmative plaintiffs.” compliance on

duty of hardship if no they will suffer

Because now, and does not act because court

this by the is unaffected primary conduct

their regulation, we existence

continued regulation is challenge to the

hold judicial review. Should ripe for attempt ever Credit Administration

Farm assets, such plaintiffs to transfer direct enjoined, quickly could be there-

transfers rights ensuring plaintiffs’ are regulation validity until

tected emphasize that are We

determined. *2 in

dence most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier fact could have found the essential elements of the a reasonable doubt.” Our search of the record has uncovered no evi- dence which a rational jury could find that the victim was “by murdered breaking his neck with a chain.” No chain was found, and no witness testified concerning Lowell Spencer Ed (argued), Paintsville, the possibility that a chain around the neck Ky., for petitioner-appellant. used, was except Dr. George Nichols, R. David Armstrong, Atty. Gen. of Ken- the examining forensic pathologist, who tucky, Frankfort, Ky., Joseph R. Johnson testified that death was due to “ligature (argued), for respondents-appellees. compressive injury (Tr. I, to neck” Vol. 72), which could have been caused “by an Before Judge,* accident” and intent,” “without or by a MERRITT and KRUPANSKY, Circuit “massive crushing injury” by caused Judges. falling of a part of the bed aof coal dump MERRITT, truck Circuit Judge. victim’s neck and upper body (the petitioners’ theory case), of the byor a In this habeas corpus case from Ken massive mechanical force on a chain tucky attacking the sufficiency of the around the victim’s neck. I, Tr. Vol. 68-69. State’s evidence under Jackson v. Virgi question On the a nia, chain was 307, 61 L.Ed.2d used, Dr. Nichols testified as follows: were indicted, charged under a Bill of Particulars, and Q. then, Okay quite frank with this convicted in the Circuit Court of Johnson jury. You cannot testify your or County, Kentucky, for the offense of mur not testifying [sic] here you that “by der breaking his [the neck victim’s] know that any chain used, was with the apparent use of a chain.” App. 3. that correct? trial charged “you that A. Thats sir, correct [sic] never made will find the defendants ... if, guilty ... diagnosis a of that. only if, you believe from the evidence Q. You didn’t? [sic], Thats you didn’t beyond a reasonable doubt ... that in Mar any make diagnosis or that a chain tin County on or about day 8[th] was used? April, 1985 ... they [the killed defendants] A. I don’t believe Frye by Jack that breaking that contained his neck with a in any my chain.” III, pages Tr. Vol. seven (emphasis my in added). report, Counsel and I for the State at believe the argument oral 3, 1988, March about particular that questioning, instrument expressly a chain, conceded that the was from prosecutor. offense that required was That was was not murder what I using a said. chain around the neck victim, Jack Q. Your Doctor, correct [sic] its [sic] Frye, and that the record does not disclose not in portion of your report. It a motive for the alleged crime. did come from prosecutor. But you made no final impression, diag- Justice Stewart, Potter speaking nosis, or anything in a chain was su pra, used kill this man you? did S.Ct. at held that the constitutional issue in sufficiency of the A. What I said was that the death in evidence cases under the Due Process this case was due ligature com- Clause is “whether, after viewing the evi- pressive injury to the neck. *The Honorable Engel Albert J. assumed the duties Judge of Chief exactly how Q. don’t You meaning, what accomplished, AND HARTFORD ACCIDENT

was COMPANY, that cor- anything, if used INDEMNITY was Plaintiff-Appellant, rect? correct, I will further thats

A. Well [sic] an I have never seen you that tell SULLIVAN, Michael since this in the pattern like injury *3 Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee, medical graduated I from 1972 when school. v. at 71-72. Id. BANK, CITY FORD charged against light In of the offense Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant. defendants, jury to the the instruction prosecu- and the State’s concession Nos. mur- that the defendants

tion had to States Court using a chain around victim dered the Seventh Circuit. neck, to hold are constrained a ration- in this case from which proof is no Argued 1988. Feb. beyond a so find reasonable jury al could entirely theory of murder is doubt. This this record does speculative, and Rehearing Rehearing En Banc jury’s factual basis 6,1988. vide a sufficient July Denied the standard Jackson verdict under supra.

Virginia, District

Accordingly, judgment The Writ of Habeas is reversed. here- The defendants are

Corpus is issued. to release ordered immediately.

custody Judge, dissenting. sufficiency of

The here of the whole, as a under the

the record standards 61 L.Ed.2d 560 is ex-

S.Ct. parties can with

tremely close. panel that each on this

confidence record, carry- the entire thus

has examined imposed under

ing out the duties Jackson. a different on the simply reach conclusion

legal question rational Ken-

could found the elements of

tucky’s of murder to have es- been

tablished a reasonable doubt presented to

upon the evidence which was viewed, here, Kentucky jury when with inferences, in the most favorable prosecution.

to the respectfully

I therefore dissent.