WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH, ET AL., PETITIONERS V. ANTHONY J. PRISCO,
JR., ET AL.

   No. 88-1039

   In The Supreme Court Of The United States

   October Term, 1988

   On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The Third Circuit

   Reply Memorandum Regarding Mootness

   Respondent has mischaracterized our submission in two respects.

   1. We did not argue that the first question in our petition is
moot.  Rather, we argued that because Lauren Prisco was not in the
Witness Protection Program when the court of appeals entered judgment,
respondent's claim for prospective relief was moot at that time;
thus, the court of appeals erred in dismissing the appeals of
petitioners Meese and Morris even under its own rationale.  And the
first question is still alive as to petitioner Morris, because he is
still the Director of the Marshals Service.

   2. We did not argue that the petition should be granted only on the
second question.  Rather, we suggested that the court of appeals'
error on the first question was sufficiently clear that plenary review
of that question may be unnecessary.  We then asked the Court to grant
the petition in its entirety and defer any remand with respect to the
appeals of petitioners Meese and Morris until the Court has resolved
the second question with respect to petitioner Smith.

   Respectfully submitted.

   WILLIAM C. BRYSON

      Acting Solicitor General

   MAY 1989