Twenty-seven-year-old Ingmar Guandique was arraigned in District of Columbia Superior Court on six counts, including first-degree murder, kidnapping and attempted sexual abuse. He pleaded not guilty to all counts.

Guandique listened through a Spanish translator during the hearing. He kept his head down and remained silent, except to reply "si" when asked if he understood the charges.

Judge Geoffrey Alprin set a jury trial, expected to last two weeks, for Jan. 27. Guandique's public defender, Santha Sonenberg, asked the judge for more time to prepare, but Alprin insisted on the date.

Following the arraignment, Sonenberg and another defense attorney issued a statement calling the prosecution's evidence "false and deficient." Previously, they have said the case against Guandique is largely based on the accounts of "jailhouse snitches" interviewed years after the slaying.

Levy, a Modesto, Calif., native, disappeared in May 2001, and her remains were found in Rock Creek Park a year later. Guandique has been serving a 10-year sentence for two other attacks in the same park.

The case has been blamed for destroying the political career of former U.S. Rep. Gary Condit of California, who was romantically linked to Levy. Authorities questioned the Democrat who represented the Modesto district where Levy grew up, but he was never a suspect.

The questions included: "Do law firms do a disservice by hiring minority students who the firms know do not have the necessary credentials and will then fire in three to four years? Would I have been admitted to the law school if I were not a Puerto Rican? Was I culturally deprived?" according to a December 1978 Washington Post article about the incident.

The day after the dinner, Sotomayor challenged the partner about the questions during her formal interview. The partner said he meant no harm and invited her to Washington for further job interviews. Sotomayor declined and filed a discrimination complaint with Yale, putting the firm, then known as Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, at risk of being banned from recruiting at Yale.

The incident sparked a campus controversy in which minority and women's groups backed Sotomayor. A student-faculty tribunal investigated and found the questions violated the university's rules against discrimination. It rejected the firm's first letter of apology as too weak before accepting its second letter.

The episode "prevented us from recruiting her, which we wanted to do. It also probably prevented us from recruiting other students," the Post quoted a senior partner in the firm, Ramsay Potts, as saying at the time.

Sotomayor joined the New York City prosecutor's office after receiving her law degree.

Michael Registe is accused of the July 20, 2007 execution-style killings of two college students in Columbus, Georgia's third-largest city. His St. Maarten-based attorney, Remco Stomp, claims he would not be treated fairly in Georgia's courts because he is black.

"Registe will not get a fair trial in Georgia as a black man suspected of killing two white college kids. We will do everything possible to guarantee his human rights," Stomp said in this Dutch Caribbean territory.

Allegedly killed by Registe were Randy Newton Jr., 21, and Bryan Kilgore, 20.

Registe fled the U.S. and was captured Aug. 27 in St. Maarten, where he has been jailed in Pointe Blanche Prison.

Prosecutors have not said what they believe Registe's alleged motive was for the slayings.

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands has ruled that Registe can be returned to the U.S. from St. Maarten. As a requirement for extradition, former District Attorney Gray Conger of Columbus had to agree not to pursue the death penalty.

But Stomp does not believe that pact would be honored, and wants a trial in the Dutch Caribbean.

"If he is tried in our system he would have a lot more guarantees," the defense lawyer said.

Frits Goedgedrag, governor of the Netherlands Antilles, a chain of islands that includes St. Maarten, is expected to make an announcement about the pending extradition in coming days.

The article, "Statehood and the Equal Footing Doctrine: The Case for Puerto Rican Seabed Rights," was published in the Yale Law Journal in 1979, when it appeared that Puerto Rico might pursue statehood. Sotomayor was an editor of the Ivy League publication before receiving her law degree from Yale that year.

Sotomayor notes that other states didn't maintain rights to sea floors before joining the union. But she argued for a new historical analysis of the equal footing doctrine that prevents states from receiving powers other states do not have.

"The island's dearth of land-based resources and its ongoing economic stagnation and poverty, coupled with the possibility of offshore oil and mineral wealth, will create political pressures for Puerto Rico to demand exclusive rights to exploit its surrounding seabed in an area ranging from nine to 200 miles into the sea," Sotomayor wrote.

"The American experience with colonialism in the early half of this century has left the United States with responsibility for several small, economically poor dependencies," Sotomayor wrote. "Some of these, like Puerto Rico, may seek statehood unless they are accorded a greater measure of self-government. Accommodations between the federal government and an incoming state such as Puerto Rico, involving, inter alia, rights to the seabed, could help the new state to overcome its economic problems."

Sotomayor wrote that Supreme Court decisions about the equal footing doctrine "retain their precedential value," but argued that the court never explicitly decided whether the doctrine prevents Congress from granting disproportionate seabed rights to an incoming state.

President Barack Obama noted Tuesday as he introduced Sotomayor as his nominee that her parents had moved from Puerto Rico during World War II.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said higher trading revenues at big banks helped the industry earn a $7.6 billion profit in the January-March period, compared with a record loss of $36.9 billion in the fourth quarter. The profit was 61 percent below the $19.3 billion earned in the year-ago period and followed the first quarterly loss in 18 years.

U.S. banks and thrifts set aside $60.9 billion in the first quarter to cover potential loan losses, up from $36.2 billion a year earlier.

The number of troubled banks jumped to 305, the highest number since 1994 during the savings and loan crisis, from 252 in the fourth quarter, according to the FDIC.

Thirty-six federally-insured institutions already have failed and been shut down by regulators this year, extending a wave of collapses that began in 2008. This year's tally compares with 25 in all of 2008 and three in 2007.

The failures sliced the amount in the deposit insurance fund to $13 billion in the first quarter, the lowest level since 1993. That compares with $17.3 billion a year earlier.

"Troubled loans continue to accumulate" and the costs to banks from soured loans "are weighing heavily on the industry's performance," FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said. "Nevertheless, compared to a year ago, we see some positives."

The decision from the Court of Appeals in Washington upholds a Federal Communications Commission ruling that banned the exclusive agreements as anticompetitive.

The deals involved a provider exchanging a valuable service like wiring a multiunit building for cable in exchange for the exclusive right to provide service to all the residents.

The commission said cable operators could no longer enter into such deals and existing ones could not be enforced.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association and a pair of affiliated real estate groups sued, saying the FCC did not justify the change in policy, consider the retroactive effects or have the authority to regulate the deals. But the appeals court sided with the FCC and said it acted well within the bounds of the law.

A spokesman for the cable association had no immediate comment on the ruling.