# Petition — McCarthy v. Harper

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1995%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1981
- **Citation:** 454 U.S. 877

## Text

ve

: W Office-Suz.2me Court, U.S.
80-1626 “FLL bu ie
1. MAR 27 1981
In the Supreme Court of t

LEXA ER L. STEVAS,

United States | CLend

October Term, 1980
No.

DANIEL J. McCARTHY, SUPERINTENDENT,
CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY EAST,
Petitioner,

v.
THEODORE MONROE HARPER,
Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Attorney General
of the State of California

ROBERT H. PHILIBOSIAN, Chief Assistant
Attorney General — Criminal Division

S. CLARK MOORE,
Assistant Attorney General
HOWARD J. SCHWAB,
Deputy Attorney General
DONALD F. ROESCHKE,
Deputy Attorney General

3580 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone: (213) 736-2229

Attorneys for Petitioner

Westside Law Publishers Santa Monica, California (213) 450-1965

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether a state inmate has exhausted his state
remedies within the meaning of section 2254 of Title 28 of
the United States Code where the contentions presented
in the state’s highest court consist of unintelligible con-
clusory statements which were not the substantial equiva-
lent of the contentions presented to the United States
District Court in a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

2. Whether when a state’s highest court denies a
petition for writ of habeas corpus without citation of
authorities and without giving any other reasons for the
denial it is properly presumed that the state court reached
the merits of the contentions even though the petitioning
party made only unintelligible conclusory allegations.

TOPICAL INDEX
Page
IE, fy cuascsssviveveisccossvseshastodcssones 1
CON. cc gancass cousridantesaneevdthaeovsrrurstess 2
ec sca vaxeanocpanspusevedesvees 2
2s seaghsontindensand divans 2
Statutory Provisions Involved.....00000....0.0.0... occ. 3
Be a) Le” ree 4

Reasons Why A Writ Of Certiorari
Should Be Granted

A State’s Highest Court’s Denial Of A Petition For
Writ Of Habeas Corpus Without Citation Of
Authorities Should Not Create A Conclusive
Presumption That The Court Reached The

Merits Of The Petition. 00, 5
in ss sthesvacboxeoresscsvcssasrsasousonseosnsonns 9
eo sssceesisoabucansvviensviansvnoscesavecnees 10
es i ssscsncrsnsscoosesouconsecensaessonscoeses 15
en ove ssausecnonsssvevecvosseasscasvosnevessonns 17

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Cases Page
Combs v. Tennessee, 530 F.2d 695... 7
Gingrich v. Oberhauser, 305 F. Supp. 738.............. 6
Hall v. Wainwright, 493 F.2d 37.................... 7,8
Harris v. Superior Court of California, 500 F.2d
Pe ROE APES LAREDO aR ery 6,8
Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S.415.... iF
In re Swain, 34 Cal.2d 300.0000... ccccccccccee. 6, 7
Kanieski v. Gagnon, 427 F.2d 401.................... 7,8
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.270...................... ee
Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19,...............cccccccccscsccccsse, 7

Waterman Steamship Corp. v. United States, 381

In the Supreme Court of the

United States

October Term, 1980
No.

DANIEL J. McCARTHY, SUPERINTENDENT.
CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY EAST,
Petitioner,

v.
THEODORE MONROE HARPER,
Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, Daniel J. McCarthy, Superintendent of
California Men’s Colony, respectfully prays that a writ of
certiorari be issued to review the judgment and memoran-
dum opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversing the judgment of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California
dismissing respondent’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
on the grounds of failure to exhaust state remedies. A

petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc
was denied on December 31, 1980. Petitioner’s motion
for stay of the mandate was denied by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 15,
1981. Justice William H. Rehnquist granted petitioner’s
application for stay of the mandate on January 30, 1981.

OPINIONS BELOW

The Judgment and Report and Recommendation which
formed the basis of the Judgment of the United States
District Court, Central District of California dismissing
respondent’s petition for writ of habeas corpus appears as
Appendix A of this petition. A copy of the memorandum
opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversing the judgment of the United
States District Court appears as Appendix B of this
petition. A copy of the order of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denying petitioner’s petition
for rehearing and rejecting the petition for rehearing en
banc appears as Appendix C of this petition. A copy of the
order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit denying petitioner's motion for stay of the man-
date appears as Appendix D of this petition. A copy of the
opinion of William H. Rehnquist granting petitioner’s
application for stay of the mandate appears at 49
U.S.L.W. 3558.

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit was filed and entered on October 23,
1980. The denial of a timely petition for rehearing and
suggestion for rehearing en banc was filed and entered on
December 31, 1980. This petition for writ of habeas
corpus was filed within 90 days of that date and is
therefore timely filed.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The pertinent portion of section 2254 of Title 28 of the
United States Code reads:

a) ee

*“(b) An application for a writ of habeas
corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant
to the judgment of a State court shall not be
granted unless it appears that the applicant has
exhausted the remedies available in the courts of
the State, or that there is either an absence of
available Staie corrective process or the exist-
ence of circumstances rendering such process
ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner.

“(c) An applicant shall not be deemed to
have exhausted the remedies available in the
courts of the State, within the meaning of this
section, if he has the right under the law of the
State to raise, by any available procedure, the
question presented.”

Rule 4, following section 2254 of Title 28 of the United
States Code reads:

“The original petition shall be presented
promptly to a judge of the district court in
accordance with the procedure of the court for
the assignment of its business. The petition shall
be examined promptly by the judge to whom it is
assigned. If it plainly appears from the fact of the
petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court, the judge shall make an order for its
summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be
notified. Otherwise the judge shall order the
respondent to file an answer or other pleading
within the period of time fixed by the court to

take such other action as the judge deems
appropriate. In every case a copy of the petition
and any order shall be served by certified mail on
the respondent and the attorney general of the
state involved.”

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Respondent Harper, while incarcerated at California
Men’s Colony located at San Luis Obispo, California,
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United
States District Court, Central District of California. The
petition was filed pursuant to section 2254 of Title 28 of
the United States Code. In the petition, respondent
Harper attacked his plea bargain on the grounds he
received ineffective representation and the plez was
coerced and that the district attorney suppressed evidence
which would show that petitioner was innocent. Although
respondent Harper appears to have alleged in the above
petition that he exhausted his state remedies in that the
California Supreme Court denied the petition without
citation of authorities in the California Supreme Court,
respondent basically made conclusory unintelligible alle-
gations.

The United States District Court reviewed respondent
Harper’s petition that was filed in said Court and also
reviewed respondent Harper’s petition that he filed in the
California Supreme Court. After reviewing the foregoing
petitions, the United States District summarily dismissed
respondent Harper’s petition on the grounds that he
exhausted his state remedies as to only one of the grounds
presented in the District Court, namely, the suppression of
evidence issue. The District Court found as to the
remaining grounds that respondent Harper failed to
exhaust his state remedies in that due to the fact it is

impossible to determine the points respondent Harper
sought to raise in the California petition for writ of habeas
corpus, it cannot be said that the substance of his
contentions were fairly presented to the state’s highest
court. (Exh. A.)

After obtaining a certificate of probable cause respond-
ent Harper proceeded with his appeal in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which resulted in
the opinion that is the subject of the within petition.

REASONS WHY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
SHOULD BE GRANTED

A STATE’S HIGHEST COURT'S DENIAL OF A PETI-
TION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH-
OUT CITATION OF AUTHORITIES SHOULD
NOT CREATE A CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION
THAT THE COURT REACHED THE MERITS OF
THE PETITION.

In the within case respondent Harper made a very poor
attempt to present his federal claims to the California
Supreme Court in that he presented them so ambiguously
that the United States District Court properly concluded
that the contentions were not fairly presented to the state’s
highest court. It is thus submitted for the reasons that
follow that California has not had a fair opportunity to
consider respondent Harper’s contentions and that there-
fore there is a clear failure to exhaust state remedies.

In Picard v. Conner (1971) 404 U.S. 270, 275-276,
this Court emphasized that in order to exhaust state
remedies the state inmate must have first fairly presented
his federal claims to the state courts. On the other hand,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
held herein that there was exhaustion of state remedies
even though the United States District Court found that
respondent Harper’s petition for writ of habeas corpus,

which he presented to the California Supreme Court,
contained conclusory and confusing allegations. The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based its conclusion on its
opinion in Harris v. Superior Court of California (9th
Cir. 1974) 500 F.2d 1124, wherein the Court held that
when the state’s highest court denies a petition for writ of
habeas corpus without citation of authorities it is deemed
that the denial is on the merits. (Appendix B.) In other
words,the Ninth Circuit has placed the burden on the
state’s highest court of stating the reasons for the denial of
a petition in that if the reasons are not stated it will be
deemed that the Court reached the merits of the petition
and thus will not be afforded a fair opportunity to consider
the issues prior to federal intervention. As can be seen
from the Harris case, supra, the Ninth Circuit based its
premise on the fact that the California Supreme Court will
often cite authorities when denying a petition for writ of
habeas corpus, which citations will sometimes include a
citation indicating the denial was for procedural reasons.
However, there is nothing in California consitutional,
statutory or case law to support the Ninth Circuit’s
conclusion that where the California Supreme Court
denies a petition of writ of habeas corpus without citation
of authorities it can be presumed that the California
Supreme Court reached the merits of the issues presented
to it. The contrary is the case in that the California
Supreme Court has made it explicit that in order to obtain
relief the petitioner must “allege with particularity the
facts upon which he would have a final judgment over-
turned.”’ (In re Swain, 34 Cal.2d 300, 304; 209 P.2d 793;
Gingrich v. Oberhauser (C.D. Cal. 1969) 305 F. Supp.
738, 470.) Since respondent Harper herein when seeking
habeas corpus relief from the California Supreme Court
failed to make factual allegations, he clearly did not
present the issues fairly to the California Supreme Court
and thus did not present said Court with an opportunity to

reach the merits of the issues. Therefore there is a failure
to exhaust state remedies within the meaning of this
court’s decision in Picard v. Conner, supra. Thus, the
Harris case is in conflict with the Picard decision and for
that reason alone the within petition should be granted.
(Heflin v. United States (1959) 358 U.S. 415, 452.)

In view of the fact respondent Harper did not follow the
proper state procedures in presenting his contentions to
the California Supreme Court in that he failed to make
factual allegations (In re Swain, supra), it is submitted
that the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that whenever the
California Supreme Court denies a petition for writ of
habeas corpus without citation of authorities there is
exhaustion of state remedies. Due process at least re-
quires inmates to present factual allegations to the courts.
(See Kanieski v. Gagnon (7th Cir. 1970) 427 F.2d 401,
404.) Therefore, since the state’s interpretation of its
procedural requirements meets the due process require-
ments, its interpretation is only a matter of state law.
(Rose v. Hodges (1975) 423 U.S. 19, 21-22; Combs v.
Tennessee (6th Cir. 1976) 530 F.2d 695, 698; Hail v.
Wainwright (Sth Cir. 1974) 493 F.2d 37, 39.) Hence,
since respondent Harper herein did not properly present
his contentions to the California Supreme Court it cannot
be said that the California Supreme Court was presented
with a fair opportunity to consider his contentions within
the meaning of Picard v. Connor, supra, 404 U.S. 270.

Therefore, in view of the fact respondent Harper did not
fairly present his federal contentions to the state courts, it is
submitted that it is essential that petitioner’s petition for
certiorari be granted to clarify the law pertaining to
exhaustion of state remedies dnd to ensure that the
mandate of this Court’s opinion in Picard v. Connor,
supra, is understood and followed by the lower courts.

It is further submitted that certiorari should be granted

in that the Ninth Circuit’s unpublished memorandum
herein is in conflict with their published opinion in Harris
v. Superior Court of California, supra, 500 F.2d 1124
1129, fn. 7, wherein the Ninth Circuit made it explicit that
its holding does not apply where the contentions were not
fairly presented to the state’s highest court. On the other
hand, in the within non-published memorandum decision
the Ninth Circuit clearly has not followed the above
language in footnote 7 of the Harris case but rather has
chosen to apply the Harris holding to all situations where
the California Supreme Court denies a petition for writ of
habeas corpus without citation of authorities. It is thus
becoming impossible for the United States District Courts
to ascertain when a petition for writ of habeas corpus
should be dismissed on the grounds of the state inmate’s
failure to exhaust state remedies.

Moreover, the opinion below is clearly in conflict with
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals wherein it was held
that in order to exhaust state remedies the state prison
inmates must present factual allegations. (Kanieski v.
Gagnon, supra, 427 F.2d 401, 404.) Furthermore, it is
submitted that Harris v. Superior Court of California,
supra, upon which the Court below relied in holding that
respondent exhausted his state remedies is in apparent
conflict with the Kanieski case in that the Harris case
does not explicitly mandate that there be factual allega-
tions in the petition presented to the state courts. There-
fore, when the Harris case is considered in conjunction
with the opinion below there is a strong conflict between
the Ninth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeal’s deci-
sions on the within exhaustion issue. It is respectfully
submitted that for this reason alone this Court should
grant petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari. (Water-
man Steamship Corporation v. United States (1965) 381
U.S. 252, 258.)

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner submits that the
writ of certiorari should issue and review the decision of
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Respectfully submitted,

GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Attorney General
of the State of California
ROBERT H. PHILIBOSIAN, Chief Assistant
Attorney General—Criminal Division
S. CLARK MOORE,
Assistant Attorney General
HOWARD J. SCHWAB,
Deputy Attorney General
DONALD F. ROESCHKE,
Deputy Attorney General

By DONALD R. ROESCHKE,
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Petitioner

10

APPENDIX A

United States District Court
Central District of California

THEODORE MONROE HARPER,

Petitioner,
No. CV 75-3399-RF(K)
v.
Separate Judgment and Order

DANIEL J. McCARTHY, Supt. Pursuant to Rule 58,
Calif. Men’s Colony, San Luis : F. R. Civ. P.
Obispo, California,

Respondent.

IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus is dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this
Order and the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate, by United States mail, on the petitioner.

DATED: This 23rd day of October, 1975.

/s/
ROBERT FIRTH
United States District
Judge
FILED ENTERED
OCTOBER 23, 1975 OCTOBER 28, 1975
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RJ DEPUTY RJ DEPUTY

11

FILED

OCTOBER 23, 1975

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RJ DEPUTY

United States District Court
Central District of California

THEODORE MONROE HARPER,
Report and Recommendation
on Petition for Writ of
DANIEL J. McCARTHY, Supt. Habeas Corpus by a Person
Calif. Men’s Colony, San Luis In State Custody
Obispo, California,

vV.

Respondent.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the
Honorable Robert Firth, United States District Judge,
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and
General Order 104 of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

On October 9, 1975, petitioner, a state prisoner at
California Men’s Colony, San Luis Obispo, was per-
mitted to file this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,

- with Exhibits “A” and “B”’ attached, in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The Magistrate has read and considered the above
records and pleadings and makes the following findings
and conclusions.

12

Petitioner is serving a prison sentence imposed after a
plea of guilty to a violaton of § 288(a) California Penal
Code, Oral Copulation, in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles.

He alleges that the plea was coerced by the Court, that
the Court failed to keep a plea bargain, that his attorney
was ineffective and that the district attorney suppressed
evidence of his innocence. He alleges few facts in support
thereof.

Petitioner alleges that he has previously filed three (3)
petitions with this Court, alleging similar grounds. All
were denied either for failure to exhaust state remedies, or
for failure to state sufficient facts. It does not appear that
there has been an adjudication on the merits in this Court.

Petitioner alleges that he has exhausted state remedies,
and refers us to his Exhibit “A,” a denial without citation
of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by the Supreme
Court of California. Exhibit “B” appears to be a copy of
the petition thus denied.

A review of that petition indicates that the denial cannot
have been after a consideration on the merits. Petitioner
alleges his grounds and facts in a confused and conclu-
sionary fashion with reference to exhibits filed in the
Federal District Court. It is impossible to determine the
points he seeks to make. It cannot be said that the —
substance of his contentions have been fairly presented to
the highest court of the state. This is required if state
remedies are to be exhausted. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.
270 (1971). There is good reason to suppose that the
denial without citation or opinion is not indicative of a
decision on the merits. Harris v. Superior Court, 500
F.2d 1124 (1974).

The state court must be given the opportunity to rule on
the merits of petitioner’s claim. A denial on procedural
grounds does not exhaust state remedies, Picard, supra.

13

Petitioner further alleges exhaustion as to the alleged
grounds of suppression of evidence in a petition filed with
the California Supreme Court in 1962.

Thus, we have apparent exhaustion of remedies as to
one of four grounds urged. It would not be mindful of the
limited judicial time available to this Court to entertain the
petition at this time while state remedies remain unex-
plored. Petitioner has filed at least ten (10) previous
petitions, all of which have been [or are in the process of
being] adjudicated by this Court. Nothing in the tradition
of habeas corpus requires that the federal courts tolerate
needless piecemeal litigation. Sanders v. United —
373 U.S. 1 (1963).

It is apparent that there are available state remedies
which petitioner has not sought to exhaust. Failure to
exhaust state remedies is fatal to a petitioner in this Court
except in the iace of unusual circumstances, which are not
alleged here. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The Magistrate finds that it appears from the applica-
tion that the petition is frivolous within the meaning of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d) and that the petitioner is not entitled to
a writ of habeas corpus from this court. The petition
should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that an Order be
issued by the Court dismissing the petition.

OCTOBER 21, 1975.

/s/

JOHN R. KRONENBERG
United States Magistrate

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), the Court has
reviewed the records and pleadings and the Report and

14

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate, and
concurs with and adopts his findings and conclusions.

DATED: October 23, 1975.

/s/
ROBERT FIRTH
United States District Judge

15

APPENDIX B

FILED
OCTOBER 29, 1980

RICHARD H. DEANE
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

THEODORE MONROE HARPER,

Plaintiff-Appella No. 76-1245
odin No. 76-1247

v. D.C. No. CV 75-3399 RF(K)
DANIEL J. McCARTHY, Superintendent
of California Men’s Colony East,

Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROBERT FIRTH, DISTRICT JUDGE, PRESIDING

ARGUED AND SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 19, 1980

Before: POOLE, NELSON, and NORRIS,Circuit Judges.

The district court dismissed the petition for writ of
habeas corpus on the theory that the claims in Harper’s
habeas petition to the California Supreme Court had been
presented in such a confusing and conclusory manner that
the State’s “postcard” denial of the petition could not be
construed as a denial on the merits. Our decision in this
case is controlled by Harris v. Superior Court, 500 F.2d
1124 (9th Cir. 1974) (en banc), cert. denied, 420 U.S.
973 (1975), in which this court held that a “postcard”

16

denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus by the
California Supreme Court, without opinion or citation,
constitutes a denial on the merits and therefore satisfies
the exhaustion requirement.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

17

APPENDIX C

FILED
DECEMBER 31, 1980

RICHARD H. DEANE
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

THEODORE MONROE HARPER,
Petitioner-Appellant, No. 76-1245
76-1247
“ ORDER
DANIEL J. McCARTHY, etc.,
Respondent-Appellee.

Before: POOLE, NELSON, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges

The panel as constituted in the above case has voted to
deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for
a rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for an en
banc hearing, and no active judge of the court has requested a
vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R. App. P.
35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for
a rehearing en banc is rejected.

18

APPENDIX D

FILED
JANUARY 15, 1981

RICHARD H. DEANE
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

THEODORE MONROE HARPER,

Petitioner/Appellant, No. 76-1245
76-1247
“ DC CV 75-3399
DANIEL J. McCARTHY, etc., 74-2448 RF
Respondent/Appellee.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE
(Rule 41(b) Fed.R.App.P.)

Upon due consideration of appellee motion for stay of
the mandate of this Court in the above cause pending the
filing, consideration and disposition by the Supreme
Court of the United States of a petition for writ of
certiorari, such petition to be filed in the Clerk’s Office of
the Supreme Court of the United States on or before
February 8, 1981.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for stay of mandate be,
and the same is hereby denied.*

Dorothy W. Nelson
United States Circuit
Judge

* In the event that the motion for stay of mandate and the
petition for writ of certiorari are granted, then this stay
will continue pending the final disposition of the case by
the Supreme Court of the United States.

CA9-003 (12/3/79)

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

State of California
SS.
County of Los Angeles

I, the undersigned, say: I am and was at all times herein
mentioned, a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County of Los Angeles, over the age of eighteen (18)
years and not a party to the within action or proceeding;
that my business address is 3340 Ocean Park Boulevard,
Suite 3005, Santa Monica, California 90405: that on
March 27, 1981, I served the within Petition for Writ of
Certiorari in said action or proceeding by depositing true
copies thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Santa
Monica, California, addressed as follows:

Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court United States Court of Appeals
One First Street, N.W. for the Ninth Circuit
Washington, D.C. 20543 7th & Mission Streets
(Hand delivered; forty copies) P.O. Box 547

San Francisco, California 94101
Honorable Robert Firth Court Nos. of case: CA #76-1245,
United States District Judge CA #76-1247
United States District Court
Central District of California Anthony J. Mohr, Esq.
United States Courthouse Suite 500
312 North Spring Street 9460 Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, California 90012 Beverly Hills, California 90212

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed on March 27, 1981 at Santa
Monica, California.

Kirk W. Harney
(Original signed)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1995%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.