"I said I thought we would bring this up prior to us leaving here," said Hoyer. "I have not changed on that, although I would be less than candid [not] to say that there are a number of people who are revisiting their own positions."

President Bush called on House leaders Wednesday to abandon the measure. "Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that's providing vital support for our military every day."

Bush also said at a Wednesday news conference that "... one thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire," the predecessor of modern Turkey.

By a 27-21 vote last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted the resolution, which formally identifies the killings as genocide. Turkish officials acknowledge the killings of Armenians during World War I but vehemently object to the designation "genocide."

The U.S. and Iraqi governments fear the proposed resolution could harm Washington's influence with Turkish officials who want to launch military raids against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq. Washington officials are concerned the Turkish raids would further destabilize the region.

Originally filed by one consumer in northern California, the lawsuit claims the companies' joint venture violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, which is usually used in organized crime cases. Successful RICO claims provide for triple damage awards in civil cases.

In a friend-of-the-court filing on behalf of the companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the filing of civil cases invoking RICO is out of control and urged the Supreme Court to hear the case as a way to determine whether the use RICO should be reined in.

Under the joint venture, Microsoft invested $200 million in Best Buy in April 2000, and agreed to promote the company's online store through its Internet access service, MSN. In turn, Best Buy agreed to promote MSN in its stores.

The dispute began in 2003, when James Odom sued the companies after purchasing a laptop computer at a Best Buy store. Odom alleged that Best Buy included a software CD with his purchase that provided a six-month free trial to MSN.

Best Buy allegedly signed Odom up an MSN account with the credit card Odom used to pay for the computer. After a six-month free trial ended, Microsoft began charging him for the account, the suit charged.

Odom is one of two lead plaintiffs in a class-action suit involving thousands of consumers with similar claims, said Daniel Girard, a lead attorney on the case in San Francisco.

The lawsuit alleges the companies violated RICO by engaging in wire fraud when they electronically transmitted the plaintiffs' financial information. The plaintiffs are claiming damages in the "tens of millions," which if tripled would top $100 million, Girard said.

Microsoft has denied illegal conduct in response to these allegations and a Best Buy spokeswoman says the company does not comment on pending litigation.

In papers filed in court, the companies said their joint marketing agreement did not constitute an ongoing "enterprise," as required under the RICO statute.

The appeals court ruling that the companies' venture constituted an enterprise would greatly expand RICO's scope, Microsoft and Best Buy said.

The 9th Circuit's decision would "convert a statute designed to eradicate organized crime into a tool to induce settlements from legitimate businesses," the companies said. Most corporations "cannot risk the possibility of an award of treble damages" or the "reputational injury" of being sued under a law "associated with racketeers and mobsters," they added.

In its filing, the Chamber said civil RICO "is becoming one of the most frequent and damaging devices used against businesses." Over 4,500 RICO cases have been filed since 2001, the Chamber said, with only 35 of those filed by the government.

The case is Microsoft Corp. v. Odom, 07-138. Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate in the decision to turn down the case, the court said. As is customary, no reason was given, but Roberts' 2006 financial disclosure shows he owned Microsoft stock that year.

The four-page filing did not detail the basis for the appeal, noting only that Craig was appealing Porter's Oct. 4 order. The documents were dated with Friday's date but were received and stamped by the Appeals Court on Monday.

"From the outset, Senator Craig has maintained that he is innocent of any illegal conduct at the Minneapolis airport," Craig's lead attorney, Billy Martin, said in a statement. "Like every other citizen, Senator Craig has the constitutional right to make every effort to clear his name."

Craig, a Republican from Idaho, pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in August after he was accused of soliciting sex in a bathroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in June.

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which owns and operates the airport, said the guilty plea reflected Craig's conduct in the public restroom.

"The facts in the case speak for themselves, and we are confident the senator's guilty plea will stand," spokesman Patrick Hogan said in a statement.

The appeals court must find there's been an "abuse of discretion" by the trial judge before overturning a ruling — in other words, that some aspect of the ruling was decided improperly.

It would most likely be well into 2008 before the Court of Appeals rules on the case. The process by which both sides prepare their legal briefs alone usually stretches to more than 100 days, and the Court of Appeals faces a heavy caseload.

But in Monday's ruling, the court refused to apply that protection to hundreds of other paroled sex offenders, saying they needed to look to lower courts to get their own injunctions.

Parolees' attorneys said they are not immediately sure if they will ask a lower court for an injunction covering the affected parolees.

The state Supreme Court is considering whether the law is constitutional as it applies to the four parolees, meaning attorneys representing additional sex offenders could simply wait for a decision.

"We have to give it some time to figure what our next move is," said Don Specter, director of the San Rafael-based nonprofit Prison Law Office.

The group filed the lawsuit with another firm on behalf of the four parolees and sought the wider injunction.

Parole agents began the sweeps last week under the law, which sets strict residency requirements for recently released sex offenders to keep them away from children. About 850 parolees were in violation.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered agents to start revoking paroles despite the high court's decision to block the arrests of the four sex offenders who were violating the residency requirements.

The state corrections department could not immediately say how many offenders have been arrested since the crackdown began, spokesman Seth Unger said.

The state had said it had notified 1,800 parolees that they were in violation of the residency portion of the law, and gave them 45 days to move. As of Thursday, the state said, roughly 850 parolees were still in violation.

Jessica's Law, passed with 70 percent support from California voters last November, is named after a 9-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender in 2005. It prohibits offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children regularly gather.

Critics say Jessica's Law is forcing sex offenders to become homeless or move from towns and cities into rural areas because they cannot find housing that meets the law's requirements in more populated areas.

Similar laws in Florida, Iowa and other states also have led to questions over where sex offenders can live once they finish serving their prison sentences.

Money laundering typically involves an effort to make it appear that money from an illegal transaction, often drug sales, is legitimate.

Several federal appeals courts have said that concealing money that is going across the U.S. border, without proving why, also is a crime under the federal law concerning international money laundering.

A three-judge panel reversed Cuellar's conviction on a 2-1 vote, saying that prosecutors had to show that the defendant's activities were designed to create the appearance of legitimate wealth.

Acknowledging that the money likely was drug proceeds and that Cuellar knew it, the appeals panel said the government did not prove that Cuellar was trying "to create the appearance of legitimate wealth." He could have been charged with smuggling cash, the judges said.

The full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that decision and affirmed the conviction, declaring that it makes no sense to say that Congress chose the word "conceal" to apply only in a certain way.

"Concealment of the funds during the U.S. leg of the trip is a vital part of the transportation design or plan to get the funds out of this country," the full appeals court said.

In asking the justices to take the case, Cuellar's lawyers said the appeals court decision incorrectly expands the scope of the money laundering law.

Defense lawyers who urged the court to hear Cuellar's case said the concealment provision — with its maximum prison term of 20 years and fine of $500,000 — has proven highly useful to prosecutors in forcing guilty pleas from defendants.

"The mere threat of a money laundering charge can be a powerful weapon in the prosecutor's negotiating arsenal," the brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said.

Had Cuellar been charged with smuggling, he would have faced up to five years in prison, the defense lawyers said.

Late on Monday, the Nevada State Supreme Court agreed to a request by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada to stay the execution pending an upcoming ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of execution by lethal injection. The country's highest court agreed on September 25 to review the issue, the same day Castillo was scheduled to die.

The Nevada court also said the state's methods are cruel and unusual because the prisoner is so heavily sedated it is impossible for witnesses to determine the actual effects of the injection, effectively violating First Amendment rights.

The ruling is an effective reprieve because Castillo's execution order is only good for a week, and the U.S. Supreme Court is not expected to rule before then. A number of states, including California, have halted executions pending the legal review of whether the current method of lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

Castillo had given up his remaining appeals, saying he was ready to die for bludgeoning an 86-year-old Las Vegas teacher to death in 1995.

Castillo worked on Isabel Brendt's roof, then returned with a female companion after finding a house key. He burglarized the home and beat Brendt to death with a tire iron. They later burned down the home.