The Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court turned down an appeal from Wang Zhendong, who was convicted of fraud and sentenced to death last February, the official Xinhua News Agency reported.

Wang, chairman of Yingkou Donghua Trading Group Co., had promised returns of up to 60 percent for investors who purchased ant-breeding kits from two companies he ran.

The insects were to be used in traditional medicinal wines, herbal remedies and aphrodisiacs.

Authorities, concerned about social unrest, have come down hard on fake investments and pyramid schemes, although Wang's sentence was harsh even by Chinese standards.

Communist leaders have sought to make examples out of businessmen and officials accused of fraud and corruption, and last year executed the former head of its food and drug watchdog for approving untested medicine in exchange for cash.

Wang attracted more than 10,000 investors between 2002 and June 2005, when investigators shut down his companies. The closure of his business set off a panic among small-time players who saw their life savings disappear overnight.

Investigators put the size of the fraud at $416 million. Only $1.28 million was recovered. Fifteen managers of the company were also fined and sentenced to prison terms ranging from five to 10 years.

The Connecticut Appeals Court has ruled a 1995 pact struck by two widowed sisters to split each other’s future gambling winnings is still binding despite the fact they no longer speak to one another.

The decision paves the way for a public family feud pitting Theresa Sokaitis, 81, against Rose Bakaysa, 85, over a $500,000 Powerball jackpot Bakaysa hit on June 18, 2005, but doesn’t want to share with her estranged sibling.

Sokaitis is suing Bakaysa for breach of contract. Bakaysa’s attorney, William Sweeney Jr., told the Herald in November Sokaitis is a “gold digger.”

“We’re going to go to trial court and battle it out,” Sokaitis’ Boston attorney, Sean Higgins, said. She was, he said, “extremely excited by the court’s decision. She’s obviously elated for the chance to prove that she is entitled to her share of the money.”

Unlike Massachusetts, a bygone Connecticut law still frowns upon private wagering contracts. However, two appellate judges, in overruling Connecticut Superior Court Judge Patty Pittman’s 2006 summary judgment awarding the money to Bakaysa, found the notarized agreement between the sisters was not induced by the guarantee of hard cash, “but rather their mutual promises to one another to share in any winnings they received.”

Though Connecticut now widely embraces many forms of gambling, Appeals Court Judge William Lavery cast the lone dissenting vote against Sokaitis, stating in written remarks that “money” was the motivation behind the deal. “We must assume that it was the intent of the Legislature to continue to prohibit wagering contracts like the one at issue in this case,” he said.

The decision is a setback for the Bush administration, which was displeased by the court's three-judge ruling in July and had urged all 10 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review it. The administration said the decision jeopardized national security.

The ruling held that, when Guantanamo Bay detainees bring a court challenge to their status as "enemy combatants," judges must review all the evidence, not just the evidence the military chooses.

After criminal trials, appeals courts are limited in what evidence they can review. But hearings at Guantanamo Bay are not trials. Detainees are not allowed to have lawyers and the Pentagon decides what evidence to present. And unlike in criminal trials, the government is not obligated to turn over evidence that the defendant might be innocent.

"For this court to ignore that reality would be to proceed as though the Congress envisioned judicial review as a mere charade," Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote Friday.

If the military reviewers designate a prisoner an enemy combatant, the prisoner can challenge that decision before the appeals court in Washington. The court was divided 5-5 on whether to reconsider its earlier decision. A majority of judges must vote to reconsider a ruling as a full court.

The Supreme Court is watching the case as it considers a landmark case challenging whether the military tribunal system is unconstitutional. With the high court waiting, it would not be in the public's interest to reconsider the case and risk delaying a Supreme Court decision, Judge Merrick B. Garland wrote.

Judge A. Raymond Randolph issued a stern retort.

"We think that it is more important to decide the case correctly," Randolph wrote on behalf of the dissenting judges, "and that a correct decision would be of more assistance to the High Court."

It is unusual for judges to issue written opinions when denying such requests. The decision to issue a multiple written opinions underscores both how important and contentious the issue is.

"We are disappointed with today's decision," Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin said. "All of the judges recognized the importance of the case and the court was evenly divided. We are reviewing the decision and considering all of our options."

The Supreme Court's stay of execution followed its decision in September to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the cocktail of chemicals used in lethal injections. The court began hearing arguments on this on January 7.

Local courts and state governments across the United States have put executions on hold while they await the Supreme Court decision, which is expected before the end of its term in July.

The review centers on the three-stage cocktail of drugs used in the injections -- the first chemical puts the prisoner to sleep, the second paralyzes the muscles and the third stops the heart.

If all goes to plan, the inmate quickly falls unconscious and dies within minutes. But if the first chemical is not administered properly, the two others become extremely painful, as shown by several botched executions.

Lawyers arguing against lethal injection say it violates the eighth amendment of the US constitution, which outlaws "cruel and unusual" punishment.

In December, New Jersey became the first US state in 40 years to abolish the death penalty. But opinion polls suggest that two-thirds of Americans continue to favor capital punishment, and more than 3,200 inmates remain on death row across the country.

But that strategy may also falter when the Senate votes next week on the $193 billion economic stimulus bill that has been expanded over what already was approved by the House. Both President Bush and Senate GOP leaders have warned against adding to the House-passed bill.

But as it emerged this week from the Senate Finance Committee, among the items added was a string of energy tax credits aimed at helping people lower their heating and cooling costs and give a boost to wind and solar energy industries.

The efficiency measures — including tax credits for retrofitting homes with more energy efficient windows, insulation and furnaces — expired in December. The other tax breaks are set to die out at the end of this year. The economic package would extend all of the credits to the end of 2009.

Wind and solar industry lobbyists and energy efficiency advocates have pushed for the tax extensions, which have bipartisan support, but efforts to get them into the energy bill enacted just before Christmas failed because of an unrelated dispute over taxing large oil companies.

With lawmakers facing political pressure to respond to the threats of an economic recession, the stimulus package was seen as a way to prolong the energy tax breaks.

"The stimulus package should underscore the nation's commitment to energy efficiency and alternative energy," said Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, arguing for including the tax incentives, despite GOP leaders' opposition to adding to the $161 billion House bill.

Although the energy tax provisions would be extended only to the end of 2009, if they were to continue over 10 years the cost to the government would be $5.75 billion, according to the Finance Committee.

"Investors need certainty. They won't put their money out for a wind energy facility unless there's a reasonable expectation that tax incentives will continue into the future," said Grassley.

The bill includes incentives to spur production of wind farms, biomass energy plants and investments in solar energy plants. It also includes a tax break for making the most efficient appliances and for ultra-energy efficient residential and commercial buildings.

It also would provide tax credits up to $500 to reduce the cost of installing insulation, more efficient furnaces and windows in homes. Approved by Congress in 2005, these credits expired at the end of December just as consumers faced huge increases in fuel costs for winter heating.

The efficiency tax breaks, which would be reinstated for two years, can help to "combat spiraling home energy costs that are expected to average roughly $2,200 this year," said Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, an advocacy group.

Separate provisions aimed at manufacturers and builders would extend tax credits intended to develop the next generation of energy efficient appliances including clothes washers and refrigerators, and for constructing ultra-energy efficient commercial and residential buildings.

Renewable energy industries — wind, biomass and solar — have argued that longer term tax credits are essential to provide assurance to investors in wind turbines or biomass. The bill would extend tax credits for such electricity sources through 2009.

Wind energy grew by 45 percent last year, but continued growth has been jeopardized by the uncertainties over the production tax credit, said Greg Wetstone of the American Wind Energy Association.

"Investors are reluctant to make commitments until they know what the tax policy will be next year," said Wetstone, adding that enactment of the tax extension is "pivotal for one of the fastest growing sectors of the American economy."

The solar energy industry also has argued that certainty on tax policy is key to attracting investors.

"While the solar industry will continue to press for longer extensions (of tax breaks) for commercial and residential projects, this is a win for solar energy and for our economy," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association.