and the copying, testing, or sampling of tangible things). The United States Supreme Court has held that it is not error, and, in fact, is appropriate for a federal court to order a state official to retain, preserve, or protect tangible things. See United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. at 573, 27 S.Ct. 165 (“Shipp I”); United States v. Shipp, 214 U.S. 386, 410, 29 S.Ct. 637, 53 L.Ed. 1041 (1909) (“Shipp II”). The Shipp case involved a charge of contempt of court lodged against a Tennessee county sheriff. The sheriff failed to protect and preserve a “body” in contravention of federal court orders. The Supreme Court held that the federal courts had the authority to issue the retention orders, and that the sheriff was guilty of contempt. See Shipp II, 214 U.S. at 423, 425, 29 S.Ct. 637 (<HOLDING>). In the Shipp case, a black man, Mr. Ed
holding the death penalty disproportionately cruel and unusual when imposed for aiding and abetting a robbery resulting in murder holding that an implicit congressional intent to impose  aiding and abetting liability could not plausibly be inferred from the statutory silence in  10b of the securities exchange act of 1934 holding aiding and abetting is not a discrete criminal offense holding sheriff shipp in contempt for aiding and abetting a mob in killing a prisoner ordered into shipps protective care holding that a private plaintiff is not entitled to maintain an aiding and abetting action under  10b or rule 10b  5