Page:United States Reports, Volume 542.djvu/883

1314 HABEAS CORPUS—Continued. basis of evidence not properly before state court, and in holding that state court acted contrary to federal law by requiring proof of prejudice by a preponderance of evidence rather than by a reasonable probability. Holland v. Jackson, p. 649.

4. Pro se petitioner—Dismissal—Required warnings.—District Court did not err in dismissing, pursuant to Rose v. Lundy,, a pro se petitioner's mixed habeas petitions—i. e., petitions with both exhausted and unexhausted claims—without giving him certain warnings directed by Ninth Circuit. Pliler v. Ford, p. 225.

5. Retroactivity—Capital sentencing scheme—Disregarding mitigating factors.—Mills v. Maryland, —in which this Court invalidated a capital sentencing scheme requiring juries to disregard mitigating factors not found unanimously—announced a new rule of constitutional criminal procedure that does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review. Beard v. Banks, p. 406.

6. Retroactivity—Capital sentencing scheme—Proving aggravating factors to a jury.—Ring v. Arizona, —in which this Court held that aggravating factors have to be proved to a jury rather than to a judge—announced a new criminal procedure rule that does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review. Schriro v. Summerlin, p. 348.

JURISDICTION.

1. Habeas corpus—Foreign nationals captured abroad—Detention as enemy combatants.—United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to legality of detention of foreign nationals captured abroad during hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. Rasul v. Bush, p. 466.