When was the former CEO of Enron Corporation.who had a case in theUnited States Supreme Court born 
November 25, 1953
Skilling v. United States
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) , was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the honest services fraud statute, .
 The court held, in the case involving former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, that the honest services fraud statute, which prohibits "a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services", covers only bribes and kickback schemes.
 Ultimately, Skilling's sentence was reduced by 10 years as a result.
Jeffrey Skilling
Jeffrey Keith "Jeff" Skilling (born November 25, 1953) is the former CEO of Enron Corporation.
 In 2006, he was convicted of federal felony charges relating to Enron's collapse and is currently serving 14 years of a 24-year, four-month prison sentence at the Federal Prison Camp (FPC) – Montgomery in Montgomery, Alabama.
 The Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in the appeal of the case March 1, 2010.
 On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court vacated part of Skilling's conviction and transferred the case back to the lower court for resentencing.
 During April 2011, a three-judge 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that the verdict would have been the same despite the legal issues being discussed, and Skilling's conviction was confirmed; however, the court ruled Skilling should be resentenced.
 Skilling appealed this new decision to the Supreme Court, but the appeal was denied.
 In 2013, the United States Department of Justice reached a deal with Skilling, which resulted in ten years being cut from his sentence.
V.L. v. E.L.
V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples.
 In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children.
 However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up.
 E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights.
 On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law.
 The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama.
 V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children.
 On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition. Houston Natural Gas
Houston Natural Gas Company (HNG) was a gas utility headquartered in Houston, Texas.
 The company was acquired by InterNorth Inc. in 1985, with HNG executives taking top positions at InterNorth.
 Following the transaction, InterNorth was renamed Enron Corporation, and the company headquarters was moved from InterNorth's base in Omaha to the former HNG offices in Houston.
 The company is notable for former CEO Kenneth Lay who became CEO of the newly formed Enron. Marshal of the United States Supreme Court
The Marshal of the United States Supreme Court is the person, similar to a bailiff, who attends the Supreme Court of the United States.
 The Marshal of the United States Supreme Court controls the United States Supreme Court Police, a security police service answerable to the court itself rather than to the president or attorney general.
 It handles security for the Supreme Court building and for the justices personally. Prisma Energy International
Prisma Energy International Inc., was a former subsidiary of Enron Corporation, formed in 2003 to own and manage the majority of Enron's overseas assets, formerly known as "Enron International".
 Prior to its official organization, Prisma was referred to within Enron as "InternationalCo".
 Enron's original bankruptcy reorganization plan, presented in early 2002, would have created a company broadly similar to Prisma (known under the working name "OpCo Energy"), but including Portland General Electric and the energy trading business, both later divested separately.
 As one of the final steps in Enron's liquidation, following their 2001 bankruptcy, Prisma was sold to Ashmore Energy International Ltd., a unit of Ashmore Group Plc., in 2006.
 Prisma was structured as an 'offshore' United States corporation incorporated in the British Overseas Territory of the Cayman Islands, but with its headquarters in Houston, Texas.
 It served as a holding company for 15 gas and electricity businesses.
 Its subsidiary, Prisma Energy International Services LLC, employed approximately 125 individuals, most at its headquarters in Houston, Texas.
 Assets in which Prisma Energy managed an interest employed an additional 6,500 employees worldwide.
 Following its 2006 sale to Ashmore Energy International Limited, Prisma Energy International Inc. was merged/amalgamated with Ashmore Energy International Limited with Prisma Energy being the survivor company.
 In December 2006, Prisma Energy International Inc. changed its name to Ashmore Energy International and, subsequently, in May 2007 to AEI. Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving Florida voters during the 2000 presidential election.
 In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court requested clarification from the Florida Supreme Court regarding a decision it had made.
 Shortly after the Florida Supreme Court provided those clarifications, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the election in favor of George W. Bush over Al Gore in the case of "Bush v. Gore". Supreme Court Police
The Supreme Court of the United States Police is a small U.S. federal law enforcement agency headquartered in the District of Columbia, whose mission is to ensure the integrity of the constitutional mission of the U.S. Supreme Court by protecting the Supreme Court building, the Justices, employees, guests, and visitors.
 In accordance with , the Supreme Court Police falls under the jurisdiction of the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court who is appointed by the Supreme Court.
 The Marshal and the Supreme Court Police are authorized by to police the Supreme Court Building and protect the Justices, employees of the Court, and visitors to the Court. Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands
The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands is the highest court in the territory of the United States Virgin Islands.
 The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction over all appeals from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, a trial level court, on January 29, 2007.
 There are three Supreme Court justices who are each appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Legislature for a ten-year term.
 Appointments are for life.
 The Supreme Court consists of a Chief Justice and two Associate Justices.
 There is no intermediate court of appeals, and the Supreme Court does not have discretion in hearing appeals.
 Appeals of Supreme Court decisions were heard by writ of certiorari by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit until December 29, 2012, but since then they have been heard by the United States Supreme Court. United States v. Hamilton
United States v. Hamilton, 3 U.S. 17 (1795) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which a defendant committed on a charge of treason was released on bail, despite having been imprisoned upon a warrant of committal by a district court judge.
 The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that "upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death, in which cases it shall not be admitted but by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and the usages of law."
 Ordinarily, habeas corpus was used to release prisoners held by the judgment of the executive, but not for those who commitment had been authorized by a court order.
 Hamilton's attorney argued that the district court judge did not hold a hearing before issuing a warrant for his commitment to jail and that the affidavits alleging treasonous activity were weak, while the government urged that the Judiciary Act did not give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to review the district court's decision unless there was new information or misconduct.
 The Supreme Court set bail, but without addressing either attorney's arguments.