Prosecutors contend 52-year-old Rickey Jimenez was behind the tiny fires that erupted last month in the Lake Hughes area. The largest burned about an acre and all were contained without property damage.

Jimenez is from Lake Hughes. He pleaded not guilty yesterday to eight felony arson counts that carry a maximum life sentence.

Jimenez was sent to prison in 1988 for a series of nail salon fires in the San Fernando Valley. He also has a 1979 arson conviction for a school fire.

A jury found a Chicago man guilty of abducting his ex-girlfriend and their four children and holding them hostage at an Elkhart motel.
 
The jury deliberated for two hours Wednesday before finding Jerry White, 31, guilty of one count of attempted murder and eight counts of criminal confinement.

White was accused of holding his former girlfriend, Kimberly Walker, and their four children hostage in Elkhart starting on Jan. 20. Police searched for them for more than three days until they found everyone unharmed at a motel on Elkhart's north side.

The case led to an Amber Alert that drew national attention.
White showed no emotion when the verdict was read. During his testimony, White said he never forced anyone to stay in the home and Walker and their four children went with him willingly to the motel where police later found them.

"They could've left if they wanted to," White said. "I never told anyone that they could not leave."

White also was charged with shooting a man after entering his former girlfriend's home. The man, Lathie Turnage, was blinded in the shooting. White said he shot Turnage out of fear.

White will be sentenced December 20. He faces up to 80 years in prison.
"I'm just glad it's over," said Pamela Walker, Kimberly's sister.

Paul Stern argued that his state, like many others, is trying to keep tobacco from underage smokers and that cannot be done without the help of companies that deliver cigarettes bought over the Internet.

Congress has encouraged the states "to deal with the significant public health problem of youth access to tobacco," Stern told the court, arguing for Maine's right to regulate shipment of cigarettes bought online.

Shipping industry associations that are challenging the law object to delivery requirements that they say only the federal government can impose.

Federal law bars states from regulating prices, routes or services of shipping companies and Maine's law "certainly relates to the service" of the shipping companies, Chief Justice John Roberts said.

"It talks about what carriers have to do," Roberts added.

Recent research says children as young as age 11 were successful more than 90 percent of the time in buying cigarettes over the Internet. At last count, there were 772 Internet cigarette vendors, a nearly nine-fold increase in seven years, according to Kurt Ribisl, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina's school of public health who has spent the past eight years studying the issue.

In 2002, at the start of the boom in Internet cigarette sites, a study found that Internet vendors sold 400 million packs of cigarettes a year, 2 percent of the cigarettes consumed in the United States and a figure that anti-smoking groups say is growing.

The case also involves the issue of uncollected state taxes. One study found that three-quarters of Internet tobacco sellers say they will not report cigarette sales to tax collection officials. A private research firm found states lose as much as $1.4 billion annually in uncollected tobacco taxes through Internet sales.

The lost revenue is a concern to Maine and about 40 other states that have tried to prohibit or severely restrict the direct delivery of tobacco products to consumers.

The differences in the state laws are a burden to business, several justices suggested.

"What if every state enacted a slightly different law relating to this and a slightly different law relating to every other product that they might want to restrict for health or safety reasons?" asked Justice Samuel Alito.

Justice Stephen Breyer said it would be a "nightmare" if every state were to pass a different law on what it takes to prove that a shipping company knowingly delivered an unlicensed product.

To Justice David Souter, the federal ban on state regulation of interstate shipping was intended "to end the economic effects of state patchwork transportation regulation."

If Maine's tobacco delivery law is not tossed out, "there will be different delivery laws in states across the country, and that patchwork will eliminate the efficiency and the cost savings that was Congress' intent," said lawyer Beth Brinkmann, arguing for the transportation associations.

Maine says delivery companies must check packages against a list from the state of known unlicensed tobacco retailers. The shipping companies must deliver only to the person to whom the package is addressed and a recipient under 27 must present identification before the package can be delivered.

Facing legal trouble in New York state in 2005, United Parcel Service Inc. agreed to stop shipping cigarettes to individual consumers in all 50 states. The company says it did so because of the varying state laws. FedEx and DHL have signed similar agreements.

Two lower federal courts have rejected Maine's law. The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the case by next June.

The case is Rowe, v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 06-457.

The dispute centers on a proposed LNG terminal that energy giant BP wants to build on the Jersey side of the river. New Jersey officials approved the project, which could bring more than 1,300 construction jobs.

Delaware officials, however, have refused to authorize the construction of a 2,000-foot-long pier, which would be built on the part of the river bottom that belongs to Delaware. Without the pier, the project could not go forward.

New Jersey concedes that Delaware owns the land, but says a century-old agreement allows each state to control piers on its side of the river.

A pier on the New Jersey side that can't stretch onto Delaware territory to reach the main shipping channel is worthless, said H. Bartow Farr, who is representing New Jersey. "That's where the ships are," Farr said.

But David Frederick, representing Delaware, told the justices that decisions on what to build on Delaware land belong to Delaware. "Boundaries matter," Frederick said.

On a practical level, he said, Delaware has only twice in 160 years denied permission to build a pier on the Jersey side of the river and both instances involved LNG facilities.

Up to 150 ships a year would dock at the proposed pier, which would be directly across the river from Claymont, Del. Delaware says the proposal raises safety fears because an estimated 22,000 residents living near the river's main shipping channel would be at risk in case of a major accident. BP said the facility would be able to deliver up to 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to the Mid-Atlantic region.

The justices puzzled over the states' authority.

What if a murder occurred on a wharf on the Jersey side that sits on Delaware land, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered. "Is it prosecuted in Delaware or New Jersey?" Roberts asked. New Jersey, Farr said.

Justice David Souter asked Frederick whether Delaware could pass a law saying no more piers could be built on the Jersey side of the river. "It depends," Frederick replied, although he later said such a measure probably would not be upheld.

A court-appointed special master concluded earlier this year that Delaware has the authority to block the pier.

Justice Stephen Breyer is not taking part in the case. He owns $15,000 to $50,000 in BP stock, according to his most recent financial disclosure.

His absence could present a complication if his eight colleagues divide 4 to 4. In most Supreme Court cases, a tie means that a lower court ruling is upheld.

But disputes between states are initially decided by the Supreme Court, not lower courts. What would happen in the event of a tie vote is unclear.

Television cameras are barred from the court and reporters are not allowed to use tape recorders there. But arguments are taped by the court and usually are released at the end of the term.

The cases to be argued next Wednesday deal with whether the Guantanamo detainees can contest their confinement in U.S. civilian courts.

The trial of the suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback in a state court is separate from federal charges of dogfighting to which Vick pleaded guilty in August.

Vick is due to be sentenced on those charges on December 10 and faces up to five years in jail, though prosecutors have requested a sentence of between 12 and 18 months.

In an unusual move, the 27-year-old turned himself in to U.S. marshals last week to begin serving the federal sentence early.

The two state charges carry sentences of five years each, which would be added to any sentence on the federal charges, according to media reports.

Vick's indictment in July shocked U.S. sports fans because it was a spectacular fall from grace and because dogfighting, in which people bet on pit bulls and other aggressive dogs, is widely reviled for its cruelty.

Vick initially pleaded innocent but then admitted his guilt after reaching an agreement with prosecutors.

The brief hearing at Surry County Circuit Court, Virginia, also set court dates in March and April for three other co-defendants, according to a member of the prosecutor's team.