A side effect of those decisions has been confusion over how much discretion trial judges have to vary sentences beyond the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, adopted in the 1980s to bring uniformity to prison time and counteract race, wealth and other biases. Judges found that the guidelines sometimes prevented them from dealing fairly with individual circumstances.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the guidelines should be considered advisory, not mandatory. Now the question is how appeals courts should determine whether a sentence outside the guidelines was "reasonable."

Brian Gall was convicted in Iowa of conspiracy to sell the drug Ecstasy. He was given probation rather than the guidelines' range of 30-37 months behind bars. The judge noted that Gall walked away from the conspiracy at age 21, finished college and started a business. He turned himself in when he was later indicted.

Derrick Kimbrough was convicted in Virginia of selling crack and powder cocaine and sentenced to 15 years in prison rather than 19-22 years under the guidelines. The judge cited Kimbrough's military service, along with the controversy over the disparity in punishments for crack and powder cocaine crimes.

Sentences for dealing crack cocaine are far harsher than those for powder: 1 gram of crack cocaine triggers the same sentence as 100 grams of powder. The Sentencing Commission, which recommended that Congress narrow the 100:1 ratio, says the stiff crack sentence falls disproportionately on black offenders and low-level dealers.

In the Gall and Kimbrough disputes, appeals courts said the judges lacked the latitude to give the lower sentences. The defendants appealed.

Justice Samuel Alito, who spent 15 years as an appellate judge before being appointed to the high court, was an active questioner Tuesday. He challenged Gall's lawyer, Jeffrey Green, on the notion that a judge could show leniency based on a defendant's youth, calling that "a policy question."

To Kimbrough's lawyer, Michael Nachmanoff, Alito suggested judicial latitude on cocaine sentences could pose a dilemma for appellate judges. "What if (an appeals court) sees a number of absolutely identical cases?" he asked. If one sentencing judge used a 1:1 ratio, the next one used 20:1 and the next 50:1, "what is it to do under 'reasonableness' review?" Nachmanoff said that if the judges in those cases had sufficient reasons, the sentences should be upheld.

Justice Department lawyer Michael Dreeben, seeking to win longer sentences for the two men, urged an approach used by many appeals courts. It demands that a sentence varying significantly from the guidelines be justified by a rationale that is equally weighty.

Justice John Paul Stevens wondered if that test was too vague: "How do you measure the strength of the justifications?" Dreeben noted that the differing cocaine penalties stemmed from Congress' view in its 1986 law that crack-dealing spawned more violence. "For a judge to say Congress is crazy," Dreeben said, "is a sort of textbook example of an unreasonable sentencing factor."

Just last week, the appeals court was given a similar appeal for Carlton Turner Jr., a Dallas man set to die for killing his parents, but refused to stop his punishment. The Supreme Court, which last week agreed to review whether lethal injection is unconstitutionally cruel in a claim raised by two condemned Kentucky inmates, gave Turner a reprieve a few hours later, sparing him a trip to the nation's busiest death chamber in Huntsville.

The Kentucky lethal injection procedure is the same one used by Texas and other states. Although Chi's lawyers were prepared to go to the Supreme Court, his appeal never got that far.

"I'm grateful there's some measure of common sense descending on the great state of Texas," Wes Ball, Chi's attorney, said. "We're not left in the wilderness."

Chi would have been the 27th inmate executed in Texas this year, far more than any other state.

"We're actually joining the company of perhaps more progressive states like Alabama and Florida," Ball said. "Somebody's finally going to decide this question, so let's stop killing people. If we're supposed to kill them, we can kill them later."

In its brief order, the appeals court gave state lawyers 30 days to address the question of "whether the current method of administering lethal injection in Texas constitutes cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

In their appeal, Chi's attorneys said the execution procedure "creates a wholly unnecessary, unacceptable risk that he will experience excruciating pain and suffering."

The Texas Attorney General's Office has said it will review each condemned inmate with an approaching execution date on a case-by-case basis. Gov. Rick Perry, who could issue a 30-day reprieve, has said through a spokesman that the matter is for the courts to resolve but also has said he believes the procedure is proper.

Early last week, within hours of the Supreme Court announcement in the Kentucky case, the courts allowed Texas officials to execute Michael Richard for a slaying 21 years ago. Lawyers attributed his execution moving forward to procedural hurdles they couldn't overcome in the hours immediately after the high court announced its Kentucky review. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals never ruled in his case because the appeal was filed past the court's 5 p.m. closing time.

In Turner's case, the Texas court voted 5-4 against stopping his punishment. The order in Chi's reprieve listed no dissenters among the judges.

Attorneys involved in death penalty litigation viewed Chi's case as a better indicator of the immediate future of lethal injection in Texas, where 405 inmates have received the toxic drug combinaton since the state resumed capital punishment in 1982.

Earlier Tuesday, Terence O'Rourke, a lawyer in the Chi case working with the government of Honduras, lost a request to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles for a commutation request or 180-day reprieve.

O'Rourke's focus was on Chi's inability to contact someone from the Honduran government, a violation of an international treaty, after he was arrested for the 2001 slaying of Armand Paliotta.

The board voted Tuesday 7-0 against a request for commutation. The request for a 180-day reprieve failed in a 4-3 vote.

The International Court of Justice in The Hague, ruling in a suit Mexico filed against the United States, has said the convictions of about 50 Mexican-born prisoners violated the 1963 Vienna Convention because they were denied legal help available under the treaty. President Bush then ordered new state court hearings for those prisoners based on the ruling, but his order applies only to imprisoned Mexican citizens.

Wednesday’s hearing is to determine whether Vick and three co-defendants have secured legal counsel or need the court to provide lawyers.

“It’s just going to be a routine day,” Poindexter said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Trial dates for Vick and the others on the state charges will be set Nov. 27, he said.

Vick was indicted last week in the rural county where he built a massive home on 15 acres that had been home to a dogfighting enterprise since 2001. He’s charged with beating or killing or causing dogs to fight other dogs and engaging in or promoting dogfighting. Each felony is punishable by up to five years in prison.

Lawyers for Vick have indicated they will fight the state charges on the grounds that he can’t be convicted twice of the same crime. In pleading guilty to the federal charge on Aug. 27, Vick admitted helping kill six to eight dogs, among other things. He faces up to five years in prison. Co-defendants Tony Taylor, Purnell Peace and Quanis Phillips also pleaded guilty to the same federal charge.

On Tuesday, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals announced Vick completed an eight-hour class in empathy and animal protection Sept. 18 at the group’s Norfolk headquarters. The organization said Vick took the course during his second visit to their headquarters and returned a third time to take a written test.

PETA did not reveal his score on the test, which spokesman Dan Shannon said includes an essay and long-answer questions.

Vick, suspended indefinitely by the NFL without pay, did himself no favors last month when he tested positive for marijuana, a violation of U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson’s order that he stay clean in exchange for being allowed to be free.

After that positive test, Hudson ordered Vick confined to his home address between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., with electronic monitoring and random drug testing.

State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Farber said he would not release Colliton until he had imposed the sentence. The judge scheduled sentencing for Oct. 11.

Colliton, 43, admitted he had sex numerous times with one girl younger than 15 and another under 17 between Dec. 25, 2000, and March 1, 2005. He also admitted he visited a prostitute younger than 17 between August 2000 and February 2004.

Colliton's lawyer, Howard Greenberg, said his client faced 30 years in prison if he had been convicted at trial on a 43-count indictment that charged him with numerous counts of rape and sodomy.

Prosecutor Rachel Hochhauser said she was ready for trial but Colliton had agreed to "take responsibility for his actions" and plead guilty. She said the victims were told of the disposition of the case and "supported it."

Colliton, formerly of the prestigious Manhattan law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore, fled the country in February 2006 after learning that police wanted to talk to him.

The 38-year-old mother, whose name was withheld to protect her daughters' identities, pleaded guilty in April 2006 to endangering the welfare of a child. She admitted she allowed her girls to have sex with Colliton and knew he was giving them money and gifts.

Granting class-action status allows blind people throughout the country who have tried to access Target.com to become plaintiffs in the suit, which alleges violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel also on Friday approved a separate class, made up of blind California residents who have attempted to use the site, to address the suit's charges that Target is violating state laws governing civil and disabled rights.

"This is a tremendous step forward for blind people throughout the country who for too long have been denied equal access to the Internet economy," said Dr. Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind. "All e-commerce businesses should take note of this decision and immediately take steps to open their doors to the blind."

The federation filed the suit - which originally was filed in California state court in February 2006 and moved at Target's request to San Francisco federal court the following month - on behalf of federation member and northern California resident Bruce Sexton. The suit alleged that "blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to Target stores" and the "service and benefits offered to the public through Target.com."

Judge Patel's order Friday noted that Target has modified its Web site some since the suit's filing to make the site more accessible to the blind. Target claimed the suit should therefore be dismissed, but Judge Patel ruled against that argument.

Analysts said the spat, which revived European fears over stability of gas flows, was politically motivated. Moscow issued the threat as votes were being counted from a parliamentary election in Ukraine that showed gains for pro-Western parties.

"We have reached an agreement to avoid such problems in the future," Dmitry Medvedev, Russian First Deputy Prime Minister and chairman of gas export monopoly Gazprom, said after meeting Ukraine Energy Minister Yuri Boiko.

Gazprom said Boiko had pledged to repay the debt before November to avoid a reduction in supply and to guarantee stable deliveries to Europe.

"European consumers won't suffer. European customers are in an absolutely comfortable situation," Medvedev was quoted by Russian agencies as saying. Gazprom's stock fell by 0.7 percent, in line with the broader market.