But in Monday's ruling, the court refused to apply that protection to hundreds of other paroled sex offenders, saying they needed to look to lower courts to get their own injunctions.

Parolees' attorneys said they are not immediately sure if they will ask a lower court for an injunction covering the affected parolees.

The state Supreme Court is considering whether the law is constitutional as it applies to the four parolees, meaning attorneys representing additional sex offenders could simply wait for a decision.

"We have to give it some time to figure what our next move is," said Don Specter, director of the San Rafael-based nonprofit Prison Law Office.

The group filed the lawsuit with another firm on behalf of the four parolees and sought the wider injunction.

Parole agents began the sweeps last week under the law, which sets strict residency requirements for recently released sex offenders to keep them away from children. About 850 parolees were in violation.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered agents to start revoking paroles despite the high court's decision to block the arrests of the four sex offenders who were violating the residency requirements.

The state corrections department could not immediately say how many offenders have been arrested since the crackdown began, spokesman Seth Unger said.

The state had said it had notified 1,800 parolees that they were in violation of the residency portion of the law, and gave them 45 days to move. As of Thursday, the state said, roughly 850 parolees were still in violation.

Jessica's Law, passed with 70 percent support from California voters last November, is named after a 9-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender in 2005. It prohibits offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children regularly gather.

Critics say Jessica's Law is forcing sex offenders to become homeless or move from towns and cities into rural areas because they cannot find housing that meets the law's requirements in more populated areas.

Similar laws in Florida, Iowa and other states also have led to questions over where sex offenders can live once they finish serving their prison sentences.

Money laundering typically involves an effort to make it appear that money from an illegal transaction, often drug sales, is legitimate.

Several federal appeals courts have said that concealing money that is going across the U.S. border, without proving why, also is a crime under the federal law concerning international money laundering.

A three-judge panel reversed Cuellar's conviction on a 2-1 vote, saying that prosecutors had to show that the defendant's activities were designed to create the appearance of legitimate wealth.

Acknowledging that the money likely was drug proceeds and that Cuellar knew it, the appeals panel said the government did not prove that Cuellar was trying "to create the appearance of legitimate wealth." He could have been charged with smuggling cash, the judges said.

The full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that decision and affirmed the conviction, declaring that it makes no sense to say that Congress chose the word "conceal" to apply only in a certain way.

"Concealment of the funds during the U.S. leg of the trip is a vital part of the transportation design or plan to get the funds out of this country," the full appeals court said.

In asking the justices to take the case, Cuellar's lawyers said the appeals court decision incorrectly expands the scope of the money laundering law.

Defense lawyers who urged the court to hear Cuellar's case said the concealment provision — with its maximum prison term of 20 years and fine of $500,000 — has proven highly useful to prosecutors in forcing guilty pleas from defendants.

"The mere threat of a money laundering charge can be a powerful weapon in the prosecutor's negotiating arsenal," the brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said.

Had Cuellar been charged with smuggling, he would have faced up to five years in prison, the defense lawyers said.

Authorities said Clark violated a court order in August 2006 by placing several calls to his father-in-law. He had been charged with multiple counts of failure to comply with the order.

Clark's wife, Monica Rodriguez Gonzalez, filed for a domestic violence protective order in June 2006, claiming that Clark had abused her. The order prohibited Clark from having any contact with her and eight other people, including their child.

Clark was disqualified after reaching the finals of the popular TV show's second season in 2003 for failing to reveal a previous arrest.

He later accused "Idol" judge Paula Abdul of coaching him and initiating an affair. She denied his allegations, and Fox TV cleared Abdul of any wrongdoing.

Iraqi officials call the incident 'premeditated murder.' Blackwater still claims that its contractors acted lawfully. Burke O'Neil LLC was asked to file the suit. The firm has represented others who were in the Abu Ghraib prison scandals.

Blackwater has recieved over $1 billion in contracts. The suit claims Blackwater had already dropped off its passenger and wasnt protecting anyone. Blackwater says the team was going to aid another team proecting a diplomat.

But because he has already been jailed for 19 months, Colliton, 43, was eligible for immediate release. His lawyer, Howard Greenberg, said he expected the defendant to be released Thursday.

Corrections officials did not immediately return an after-hours call Thursday night.

The 38-year-old mother of the two underage sisters pleaded guilty in April 2006 to endangering the welfare of a child. She admitted she allowed her girls to have sex with Colliton, knew he was giving them money and gifts, and said she had asked him for money for herself.

Colliton, who is married with five children, was formerly with the prestigious Manhattan law firm Cravath Swaine & Moore.

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

He had faced as many as 30 years in prison if he had been convicted of several counts of rape and sodomy.

A judge began criminal contempt-of-court proceedings against Brown on Tuesday, just three days after he agreed to pay nearly $7 million to settle the lawsuits that led to contempt allegations surrounding Brown's decision to send the church official to Canada.

Before the hearing, plaintiffs' lawyers said they expected the judge to dismiss the contempt filing because the case had been settled. But Diocese of Orange attorney Peter Callahan insisted the proceedings go forward to clear the bishop's name, and Judge Gail Andler took him up on the offer.

Brown waived his arraignment, which lawyers said was the equivalent of a not guilty plea.

"This is one more example of the diocese stepping in their own mess," said John Manly, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case. "Now we can have our cake and eat it too."

Plaintiffs' attorneys had accused Brown of sending Msgr. John Urell to Ontario, Canada, for medical treatment before he could complete a deposition in one of four cases settled Friday. The monsignor was responsible for handling sexual abuse allegations against the diocese.

Brown testified in a pretrial deposition that he made the decision to send Urell to the Southdown Institute, although he knew Urell "had given a deposition and was going to be called back for further deposition."

He said Tuesday the facility is one of few that specializes in psychological care for clergy and because it could take him immediately.

Andler allowed attorneys to deliver their opening statements in the contempt case before postponing the rest of the hearing until Dec. 3. She said a subpoena for Urell's testimony would remain in effect until that date.

Callahan will argue at the hearing to dismiss the contempt matter.

Venus Soltan, a plaintiffs attorney, said Brown sent Urell away to suppress critical evidence about the diocese's handling of sexual abuse. Urell went away a week after he broke down during his deposition by plaintiffs' attorneys.

"When Msgr. Urell was there for half a day, he couldn't take it because he was too upset about having to testify about hiding all these allegations," she said in court. "This is plain and simply hiding the facts."

Callahan, however, said there was no evidence that a court order was in effect when Brown sent Urell away and asserted that a plaintiffs' attorney had verged on perjury in the court filings that precipitated the contempt hearing.

Urell knew nothing about the current case, which involved allegations that a lay assistant basketball coach molested a 16-year-old girl at Mater Dei High School, Callahan said.

"I was disappointed that the judge didn't rule. We were hoping that the bishop would have the opportunity to exonerate himself by telling the truth but he didn't get the opportunity," he said.

At a news conference outside court, two of the young women who were plaintiffs in the cases angrily asked Brown and his attorneys questions about how church officials handled their cases.

Brown did not respond to the questions directly, but apologized.

"To both of you, and to the other victims, all I can do is repeat once again, my sincerest and deepest and most compassionate apology on the part of the church for what happened to you, which was terrible and sinful and criminal and reprehensible," Brown said. "I'm just so very sorry it happened."

Three years ago, Brown agreed to pay $100 million to settle lawsuits from about 90 sexual abuse victims.

Sallie Mae's lawsuit seeks a declaration that the buyer group has reneged on the merger agreement, that no "material adverse change" has occurred, and that Sallie Mae may terminate the takeover and collect the $900 million.

A material adverse change (MAC) is a condition that could cause a substantial reduction in earnings power and it can give buyers or lenders a "walk right" from their obligations.

The lawsuit is being seen by many as a hard-ball attempt by Sallie Mae to force the buyer group to stick to the original deal, in which the group offered $60 a share, or come up with something closer to it than its revised proposal of $50 a share, or $20.6 billion offer, plus extra payments depending on how the company performed.

"We are prepared to close under the contract the parties signed in April," said Sallie Mae chairman Albert Lord in a statement late on Monday. "Sallie Mae has honored its obligations under the merger agreement. We ask only that the buyer group do the same."