"Caught between domestic terror groups and a government that brutalizes suspected Islamists, Belbacha cannot safely return to Algeria," his lawyers wrote in asking the Supreme Court to take the case. "His fear is such that he would prefer to endure the oppressive environment of Guantanamo until an asylum state can be found."

Brought to Guantanamo Bay in 2002 from Pakistan, Belbacha was an accountant at the government-owned oil company Sonatrach. He says his problems began when he was recalled for a second term of military service in the Algerian army, prompting death threats against him by terrorists in Groupe Isalmique Armee, then at the height of a violent campaign for an Islamic Algeria.

Belbacha never reported for duty, but says the GIA visited his home at least twice and threatened him and his family. He left the country, traveling to France, England, Pakistan and Afghanistan before being brought to Guantanamo Bay.

The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.

The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.

"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.

The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.

Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.

Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.

Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.

The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.

Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.

Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.

Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.

He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.

The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.

Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.

Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.

"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.

Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.

The collection includes a black doctor's bag used by Nichopolous containing prescription bottles bearing Presley's name, as well as jewelry, guns, and a laryngeal scope used to examine Presley's throat.

According to the lawsuit, Nichopolous agreed last year to sell it for $1 million to Long and his business partners, Robert Gallagher and Betty Franklin of Nevada. Long put up the money, and Gallagher and Franklin, who claimed to have a "half interest" in the collection, agreed to assign all their rights to a company Long controlled.

Long alleged in his lawsuit that Gallagher and Franklin refused to surrender access to the memorabilia and would not provide the paperwork needed to obtain insurance. A judge entered a default judgment against Gallagher and Franklin in July after they repeatedly failed to appear for court hearings and ignored court orders.

The judgment held Gallagher and Franklin in contempt and gave Long authority to dissolve the partnership and sell the collection. The Supreme Court turned down Gallagher's appeal Tuesday.

David Finger, an attorney for Long, said his client is determined to make Gallagher give up the collection.

"If he does not turn it over, we will seek to have him incarcerated," Finger said.

Michael Matuska, an attorney for Gallagher and Franklin, did not immediately return a telephone message Wednesday.

Chandler William Cardwell, 33, entered his plea Wednesday. In exchange, prosecutors agreed to drop another threat charge and a forgery charge, as well as a special allegation.

Sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 10.

Cardwell was arrested in September after authorities executed search warrants at The Press-Enterprise where he worked in the classified advertising department.

Investigators said Cardwell placed an ad for a "Big Blowout, Going Out of Business" yard sale with proceeds to benefit the "Rod Pacheco memorial fund." It listed the district attorney's home address and phone number.

The ad appeared to be a response to Pacheco's announcement that he was seeking an injunction to restrict members of a gang from gathering and to force them to adhere to a curfew.

Cardwell's brother-in-law is a member of the gang, authorities said. Deputy Attorney General Michael Murphy said Cardwell's ties to the gang remain unclear, but "he clearly associates with them."

Cardwell's attorney, Richard Carnero, refuted that claim, saying his client is not a gang member. The ad was not placed "in connection with any gang," he said.