REPORTER'S NOTE The next page is purposely numbered 801. The numbers between 559 and 801 were intentionally omitted, in order to make it possible to publish the orders with permanent page numbers, thus making the official citations available upon publication of the preliminary prints of the United States Reports. ORDERS FROM OCTOBER 3, 1983, THROUGH JANUARY 16, 1984 Affirmed on Appeal OCTOBER 3, 1983 No. 82-1840. KIRKSEY ET AL. v. MISSISSIPPI ET AL. Affirmed on appeal from D. C. D. C. JUSTICE MARSHALL Would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument. Appeals Dismissed No. 82-370. CARPENTER v. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR OF ALASKA. Appeal from Sup. Ct. Alaska dismissed for want of substantial federal question. No. 82-1710. FOX RIDGE ASSOCIATES & Co. v. Board of AsSESSORS OF MARSHFIELD. Appeal from Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Reported below: 387 Mass. 1002, 441 N. E. 2d 258. No. 82-1821. EXXON CORP. ET AL. v. EAGERTON, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF ALABAMA, ET AL.; and No. 82-1835. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. v. EAGERTON, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF ALABAMA. Appeals from Sup. Ct. Ala. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Reported below: 426 So. 2d 814. No. 82-1946. OYSTER v. OYSTER. Appeal from Sup. Ct. Va. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. No. 82-2016. SOLYOM V. MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION. Appeal from Ct. Sp. App. Md. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Reported below: 53 Md. App. 280, 452 A. 2d 1283. No. 82-2059. BARTLETT ET AL. v. WILLIAMS ET AL. Appeal from Sup. Ct. Conn. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Reported below: 189 Conn. 471, 457 A. 2d 290. No. 82-2116. DALGETY FOODS, INC. v. AVINA. Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question. No. 82-2124. ARCHER ET AL. v. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY ET AL. Appeal from Ct. App. Tex., 3d Sup. Jud. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Reported below: 636 S. W. 2d 484. No. 82-2125. METROPOLITAN PACKAGE STORE ASSN., INC., ET AL. v. KOCH, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. Appeal from App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept., dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Reported below: 89 App. Div. 2d 317, 457 N. Y. S. 2d 481. FELIX v. NEW YORK. Re No. 82-6732. Appeal from Ct. App. N. Y. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. ported below: 58 N. Y. 2d 156, 446 N. E. 2d 757. No. 82-7019. SECREST v. SOUTH DAKOTA. Appeal from Sup. Ct. S. D. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Reported below: 331 N. W. 2d 580. No. 83-43. CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING Co. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL. Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ohio dismissed for want of substantial federal question. ported below: 4 Ohio St. 3d 107, 447 N. E. 2d 746. Re No. 83-48. DUNLAP ET AL. v. ILLINOIS. Appeal from App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question. Reported below: 110 Ill. App. 3d 738, 442 N. E. 2d 1379. No. 83-174. ANGEL ET AL. v. MIDLAM ET AL. Appeal from Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question. No. 82-1156. TELEDYNE MOVIBLE OFFSHORE, INC., ET AL. v. THOMPSON. Appeal from Sup. Ct. La. dismissed for want of substantial federal question. JUSTICE POWELL, JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument. Reported below: 419 So. 2d 822. No. 82-1499. MARQUEZ v. TEXAS. Appeal from Ct. Crim. App. Tex. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied. Reported below: 639 S. W. 2d 321. No. 82-1856. ANDERSON v. FISHER ET AL. C. A. 9th Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appeal from |