Date: 31.3.2017 / Article Rating: 4 / Votes: 712
Rpn.professay.info #Recent report from

Recent Posts

Home >> Uncategorized >> Recent report from

Recent report from

Oct/Fri/2017 | Uncategorized








A recent report from SERA gives communities better pdf 1 Кб

Recent report from

Custom Essay Writing Service -
Due to recent reports from you and your peers

barthes toys essay in class, Thursday, September 21, 2000. Is nonsense ideological? In Toys, Roland Barthes writes that. From? The fact that French toys literally prefigure the difference good essays world of adult functions cannot but prepare the child to recent report from, accept them all, by good and bad essays constituting for him, even before he can think it, the alibi of a Nature which has at all times created soldiers, postmen, and Vespas #91;a kind of motorbike#93;. Toys here reveal the list of things the adult does not find unusual. (53) He notes, French toys are usually based on recent report from, imitation, they are meant to produce children who are users, not creators (54). After re-reading Barthes' essay and Russell's description of riftia chemosynthesis, The Language of from, Poetry (pp. 179-83 in Chapter 9 of prompt, Literature for Children ), write a three-page paper in which you investigate the use of nonsense in the poetry of Lewis Carroll, Edward Lear, or Dr. Seuss. Recent? What does nonsense poetry do ? Do Barthes' remarks apply to ipad study, the works of recent report from, Carroll, Lear, or Seuss?

Your thesis will answer this question . The work you choose to focus on must be poetry, and you may choose only one work by phd thesis in thermodynamics the author under discussion: for Seuss this means one children's book; for recent report Lear it means one nonsense song; for Carroll, it means one poem. You have Carroll's Alice books (there is poetry contained in each Alice novel), Seuss's books can be found in phd thesis Hale Library and in recent report from the Manhattan Public Library, and Lear's can be found both in paper thesis statement the aforementioned libraries and on-line: the nonsense songs are in report Nonsense Songs, Stories, Botany, and Alphabets (1871) and Laughable Lyrics: A Fourth Book of Nonsense Poems, Songs, Botany, Music, c. (1877). Apple Ipad Study? Seuss and Lear each did their own illustrations; John Tenniel did Carroll's illustrations. If the work you choose is illustrated, your paper must address the illustrations as well as the recent report poetry: do the illustrations reinforce or undermine any particular meanings, rhymes, images, etc.? Which ones? And how do the pictures shape your reading of the work? If you've re-read Barthes' Toys and want some more thoughts to writing, get you started, you might take a second look at Robert Frost's discussion of the sound of sense, review our notes of discussions of Dr.

Seuss and Edward Lear. If you're feeling particularly intellectual, you might consider Wendy Steiner's idea that nonsense refects the paradox that langauge can be both motivated and arbitrary, a self-sufficient system and one affected by extralinguistic meaning, a social and an individual tool ( The Colors of Rhetoric 93). Report? Whichever of these ideas you draw upon (and you must draw upon Barthes), remember that your focus is the poetic work in question . To support your points, quote primarily from the poetry you're discussing. And, of course, consult the paper thesis guidelines below . After reading Chapter 7 (Picture Storybooks) in David Russell's Literature for Children , study a range of picturebooks by a single author (for example, Marcia Brown, Anthony Browne, Virginia Lee Burton, Eric Carle, Leo and recent report Diane Dillon, Wanda Ga'g, Kevin Henkes, Crockett Johnson, Leo Lionni, Arnold Lobel, James Marshall, Robert McCloskey, Marjorie Priceman, H. A. Riftia Chemosynthesis? Rey, Maurice Sendak, Dr. Seuss, William Steig, Chris Van Allsburg, Rosemary Wells, David Wiesner). How would you characterize this illustrator's style? That is, what is characteristic of his or her style of recent report from, illustration? What is the relationship between the illustrations and thesis the text? What themes does the illustrator treat?

Do you see any change in direction or in development over the course of his or her career? Your thesis will be a claim that states what you perceive to be this illustrator's primary concerns and (if applicable) how these concerns have developed over time . The best way to go about this would be to focus on only three books by this author. As you prepare to write the paper, you will want to read more than these three books, of course; however, devote your paper to the analysis of just three . If you see the recent author's development changing over time, choose the three books from different moments in an author's career (ideally, one early, one middle, and one late). If you perceive little change over time, then when the books were written in research paper thesis statement the context of her or his career may not matter so much. For more guidance on report, this option, please see the career thesis statement handout Analyzing Picture Books. To support your analysis, cite the text and pictures of the books you're discussing. And, of course, consult the guidelines below . 1. Read and Reread . Read and reread the work or works you've decided to report, write about, with a mind to phd thesis, the topic you have chosen. As you take careful notes (making note of all relevant words, phrases, images, and illustrations), consult the Imagery and Figurative Language handout, Russell's chapter on Picture Storybooks (pp. 122-41) and from description of The Language of Poetry (pp.

179-83). 1. Formulate a thesis . Phd Thesis In Thermodynamics? Make sure your thesis is specific enough to be covered adequately in the space of recent, your discussion. Remember: merely noting a difference or similarity does not constitute a thesis . So, it would not be sufficient to say that Dr. Seuss's The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins (1937), Horton Hears a Who! (1954), and The Lorax (1971) all are versions of the quest narrative. True enough, but so what? Instead, you might argue that the ipad changing nature of the quest narrative in Dr. Seuss's The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins (1937), Horton Hears a Who! (1954), and The Lorax (1971) shows an increasingly political engagement with real-world issues: from a fairly mild indictment of an unjust king, Seuss's concerns grow to include threats of anihilation and environmental catastrophe.

Refer to the handout titled Thesis vs. Topic. 2. Each paragraph should begin with a claim . Just as a thesis claim guides the paper as a whole, a paragraph's claim (often referred to recent report, as a topic sentence) guides a paragraph. So, at or near the beginning of each paragraph, include a topic sentence that states your paragraph's central argument. The topic sentence serves as a bridge between thesis and difference good paragraph by making an interpretive claim that indicates how the report from paragraph will support your thesis. For Essay Writing? 3. Provide support . To persuade your readers to your position, you will need to provide some evidence in support of your claims. Quotations from the poem, or illustrations and text from a picture book should be used as evidence to prove your assertions. 4. Analysis and explanation of evidence . Be sure to analyze the quotation and discuss its significance.

Explain for your reader how your evidence supports your claims. 5. Conclusion . Recent? Your last paragraph should synthesize, not summarize. You should resolve -- and not merely repeat -- your argument. Think of a conclusion this way: it both reminds your reader of riftia chemosynthesis, where you've been and suggests new areas to explore. From? For these papers, I suggest you devote your conclusion to practical applications of your thesis. What implications does what you've proven have for the teaching of these children's books?

How would you put your ideas into action, in the classroom? And, after you finish your draft#133; 1. Good Essays? Revise and edit . Read your paper out loud to yourself. Often you will hear what your eyes will miss. Recent Report From? 2. Grammar and structure are important . To help yourself proofread and revise with both of these ideas in mind, please see the handout titled Keys to Structure and Style.

Custom Essay Writing Service -
According to a recent report from the Ministry of Justice …

kinkel essay Drunk Driving is a serious offense. Dui Assistant can help you find a true Driving While Intoxicated lawyer or DUI law Firm to protect your legal rights and defend you from a Drunk Driving related Charge. A Drunk Driving Conviction can lead to loss of employment, substantial civil penalties, fines, jail time, probation, forced rehabilitation, loss of your vehicle, loss if income, loss of insurance and other serious consequences. Massachusetts DUI and Massachusetts OUI Violations – Here is the Law. Massachusetts DUI Laws. It is recent from, illegal to drive or operate a motor vehicle in career thesis Massachusetts, if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. According to Massachusetts DUI law, a person is considered too impaired to operate a vehicle if his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is .08% or greater. Report! If a driver is under the difference good, age of 21, he or she is prohibited from driving if his or her BAC is higher than .02%. Any driver in Boston or throughout the state of Massachusetts found driving with a BAC at or above the legal limit will be arrested and booked on from DUI charges. At this time, it’s best to contact a seasoned Boston DUI lawyer who has the experience and skill to defend you in court.

Judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement authorities have no tolerance for people who drive under the influence, and apple in india study always prosecute those people in court. There are defenses to a Massachusetts DUI and Massachusetts OUI Offense: For example, improper administration of roadside tests, mistakes in the arresting officer’s subjective conclusions regarding your coordination and stability, and recent report the inaccuracy of breathalyzer machines. For Essay! Field sobriety tests, for example, are not reliable indicators of intoxication. Especially when asked to perform them at night, on recent from the shoulder of the road, in the cold, in the glaring squad car headlights. Between And Bad! We have had success in getting charges dismissed or reduced, or obtaining not guilty verdicts at trial, representing professionals, college students, underage drivers and recent report every type of client. Massachusetts encourages first time offenders with no criminal record to plead out in a diversion program. The case is dismissed after mandatory alcohol education classes and one year of thesis statement, probation and, and you can get a hardship driver’s license within four days of the plea hearing.

A second DUI is harsher, and often requires going to trial. A second offense is punished by a minimum of two weeks in an alcohol facility and a 60-day suspended sentence, two-year license revocation with no hardship license for six months. A third DUI is punished with no less than 150 days of mandatory jail time, eight year license revocation, with no hardship license considered for two years. Massachusetts OUI/DUI Law – First Offense Penalty. •Jail: Not more than 2 1/2 years House of Correction.

•License suspended for recent, 1 year; work/education hardship considered in in india 3 months; general hardship in 6 months. Alternative Disposition (1st Offense OUI) •Plead to Continuance without a Finding aka CWOF. It is similar to, but not technically a guilty plea. (More info on a CWOF.) •Pay a number of fines and court fees (over $2500 in total), as well as take a hit to your insurance. •Unsupervised probation for one year. •Mandatory participation in 16 week (1 hour) alcohol-drug education (DAE) program paid for by defendant. •License suspended for 45 to 90 days (not including any penalty for recent, breath test refusal) •License suspension is chemosynthesis, 210 days for drivers under age 21. •You are eligible for a hardship license right away, in most cases. The Real Deal on from First Offense OUI Penalties: The minimum penalty (above) is almost always available for a first offense DUI/OUI plea, if your lawyer has OUI defense experience and career paper thesis knows what to ask for, and as long as there is no accident, injury, or other extenuating circumstances. In addition, a smart attorney will include all other charges in the plea deal, including civil speeding ticket/moving violations as part of the same penalty, saving you fines and insurance increases.

Massachusetts OUI Law – Second Offense Penalty. •Jail: Not less than 60 days (30 day mandatory), not more then 2 1/2 years. •License suspended for 2 years, work/education hardship considered in 1 year; general hardship in 18 months. (Note: In almost every case, with a breath test refusal or failure you won’t be eligible for a hardship or full license restoration for at least 3 years total.) •As of January 1, 2006 – Interlock device installed in your car at your own expense for 2 years, when you become eligible for recent, hardship or license reinstatement. Alternative Disposition (2nd Offense OUI) •2 years probation. •14 day confined (inpatient) alcohol treatment program paid for by the defendant. •License suspended for two years, work/education hardship considered in research thesis 1 year; general hardship in 18 months. •As of January 1, 2006 – Interlock device installed in your car at your own expense for 2 years as a condition of any license reinstatement (including hardship license).

•If your prior offense is over 10 years ago, you may be eligible for recent report from, a 24D disposition, which would only be the penalties of a first offense. The Registry, however, would still treat you as a 2nd offender for license reinstatement. The Real Deal on 2nd Offense OUI Penalties: See my second offense OUI penalties page for detail on the implications of a 2nd offense drunk driving defense. Chemosynthesis! I can almost always negotiate for the Alternative Disposition above for any second offense OUI conviction, but it is still a tough punishment to accept for many people. Given that there isn’t that much risk of a worse outcome if you choose to fight the case in court, most people choose to take a chance at no penalty, even on a weak case.

Remember, even if the prior is in recent another state, or decades old, you will be forced to get an interlock device installed in your car as a condition of license reinstatement. The Registry is harsh on this point, and there is nothing any lawyer can do about it. If you are facing a 2nd offense DUI, this in apple in india case study itself is a good reason to strongly consider fighting the case. Massachusetts OUI/DWI Law – Third Offense Penalty(3rd) Penalty. •Jail: Not less than 180 days (150 day mandatory), not more than 5 years State Prison (felony status) •May be served in a prison treatment program. •License suspended for 8 years, work/education hardship considered in 2 years; general hardship in 4 years. •Commonwealth may seize, keep, and/or sell your vehicle. The Real Deal on 3rd Offense OUI Penalties: For any third offense OUI conviction, you are facing a mandatory 5-6 months in jail if found guilty.

For a 3rd offense charge, this is a good reason to fight the case and from look for a chance to chemosynthesis win and recent from avoid jail time. It usually only makes sense to work out a deal if jail time is off the table, which only happens if the dental cover letter, court can’t provide sufficient proof of the prior offenses (This can happen if prior DUI convictions are are old, or out of state.) More on third offense DUI charge strategies. MASSACHUSETTS OUI LAW FOURTH OFFENSE (4th) Penalties. •Jail: Not less than 2 years (1 year minimum mandatory), not more than 5 years in State Prison (4th Offense OUI is a Felony Offense) •License suspended for recent from, 10 years, work/education hardship considered in 5 years; general hardship in 8 years.

•Commonwealth may seize, keep, and/or sell your vehicle. The Real Deal on apple ipad in india case study 4th Offense OUI Penalties: Everything about a 3rd offense applies to a 4th, 5th or subsequent drunk driving charge. Even a small chance of winning the case is worth the risk, since it is probably your only chance to avoid jail time. You need to consider fighting your case at trial in almost all cases. MASSACHUSETTS OUI/DUI LAWS – FIFTH OFFENSE (5th) Penalty. •Jail: Not less than 2 1/2 years (24 mos. minimum mandatory), not more than 5 years (felony status) •License Revoked/Suspended for life, no possibility of a hardship license. If convicted on report a sixth or subsequent OUI offense, the punishment and mandatory jail time you are risking if found guilty will even longer. Call me for apple ipad, details. OUI With Serious Bodily Injury – Penalties.

If you are charged with an OUI where someone is injured, you are almost certain to do jail time. The cases become extremely complicated and recent you need the in thermodynamics, advice of a DUI OUI lawyer. You can face penalties of 6 months to 2.5 years in jail or 6 months to 10 years in State Prison depending on how your DUI or OUI violation is charged and prosecuted. Here is a copy of the Massachusetts DUI and OUI Laws. Section 24. (1) (a) (1) Whoever, upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access, or upon report any way or in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle with a percentage, by career research thesis weight, of alcohol in from their blood of eight one-hundredths or greater, or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or of marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined in section one of chapter ninety-four C, or the vapors of glue shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two and one-half years, or both such fine and imprisonment. There shall be an assessment of $250 against a person who is convicted of, is dental, placed on probation for, or is granted a continuance without a finding for or otherwise pleads guilty to or admits to a finding of sufficient facts of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances under this section; provided, however, that but $150 of the amount collected under this assessment shall be deposited monthly by the court with the state treasurer for who shall deposit it into the Head Injury Treatment Services Trust Fund, and the remaining amount of the assessment shall be credited to report the General Fund.

The assessment shall not be subject to reduction or waiver by the court for any reason. There shall be an assessment of $50 against a person who is convicted, placed on probation or granted a continuance without a finding or who otherwise pleads guilty to phd thesis in thermodynamics or admits to a finding of sufficient facts for recent report from, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or under the influence of marihuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined by section 1 of chapter 94C, pursuant to this section or section 24D or 24E or subsection (a) or (b) of section 24G or section 24L. The assessment shall not be subject to waiver by the court for any reason. If a person against whom a fine is assessed is sentenced to a correctional facility and difference the assessment has not been paid, the court shall note the assessment on the mittimus. The monies collected pursuant to the fees established by this paragraph shall be transmitted monthly by the courts to the state treasurer who shall then deposit, invest and report transfer the ipad, monies, from recent from time to time, into the Victims of Drunk Driving Trust Fund established in phd thesis in thermodynamics section 66 of chapter 10. The monies shall then be administered, pursuant to said section 66 of said chapter 10, by the victim and witness assistance board for the purposes set forth in said section 66. Fees paid by an individual into the Victims of Drunk Driving Trust Fund pursuant to this section shall be in addition to, and recent not in lieu of, any other fee imposed by the court pursuant to this chapter or any other chapter. The administrative office of the trial court shall file a report detailing the amount of funds imposed and collected pursuant to this section to the house and senate committees on ways and means and to the victim and witness assistance board not later than August 15 of in thermodynamics, each calendar year. If the defendant has been previously convicted or assigned to recent from an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of a like violation preceding the date of the prompt writing, commission of the offense for which he has been convicted, the report from, defendant shall be punished by a fine of not less than six hundred nor more than ten thousand dollars and by imprisonment for not less than sixty days nor more than two and one-half years; provided, however, that the sentence imposed upon such person shall not be reduced to less than thirty days, nor suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from in thermodynamics his sentence for good conduct until such person has served thirty days of such sentence; provided, further, that the commissioner of correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or the administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this subdivision a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for recent report from, the following purposes only: to attend the case, funeral of a relative; to report from visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution; to prompt for essay engage in employment pursuant to a work release program; or for recent from, the purposes of an aftercare program designed to support the recovery of an offender who has completed an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program operated by the department of correction; and provided, further, that the defendant may serve all or part of such thirty day sentence to difference and bad the extent such resources are available in a correctional facility specifically designated by report from the department of correction for difference between essays, the incarceration and rehabilitation of drinking drivers. If the from, defendant has been previously convicted or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth, or any other jurisdiction because of a like offense two times preceding the date of the paper statement, commission of the offense for which he has been convicted, the defendant shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than fifteen thousand dollars and by imprisonment for not less than one hundred and recent from eighty days nor more than two and one-half years or by a fine of in thermodynamics, not less than one thousand nor more than fifteen thousand dollars and by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years; provided, however, that the sentence imposed upon such person shall not be reduced to less than one hundred and fifty days, nor suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served one hundred and fifty days of such sentence; provided, further, that the commissioner of correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in report charge of a correctional institution, or the between and bad, administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this subdivision a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for recent, the following purposes only: to attend the funeral of a relative, to visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at phd thesis in thermodynamics said institution; to engage in employment pursuant to a work release program; or for the purposes of an recent, aftercare program designed to support the recovery of an offender who has completed an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program operated by riftia chemosynthesis the department of correction; and provided, further, that the defendant may serve all or part of recent report from, such one hundred and fifty days sentence to the extent such resources are available in a correctional facility specifically designated by the department of chemosynthesis, correction for the incarceration and rehabilitation of drinking drivers. If the defendant has been previously convicted or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of a like offense three times preceding the date of the commission of the offense for which he has been convicted the recent report from, defendant shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand five hundred nor more than twenty-five thousand dollars and by imprisonment for not less than two years nor more than two and one-half years, or by a fine of not less than one thousand five hundred nor more than twenty-five thousand dollars and by imprisonment in desk cover letter the state prison for from, not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years; provided, however, that the sentence imposed upon research thesis such person shall not be reduced to less than twelve months, nor suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until such person has served twelve months of such sentence; provided, further, that the report, commissioner of correction may, on riftia chemosynthesis the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or the from, administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this subdivision a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the funeral of a relative; to visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution; to engage in employment pursuant to a work release program; or for the purposes of an aftercare program designed to support the career research paper thesis, recovery of an offender who has completed an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program operated by the department of correction; and provided, further, that the defendant may serve all or part of such twelve months sentence to the extent that resources are available in a correctional facility specifically designated by the department of correction for the incarceration and rehabilitation of drinking drivers.

If the defendant has been previously convicted or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of a like offense four or more times preceding the date of the commission of the from, offense for for essay writing, which he has been convicted, the defendant shall be punished by a fine of not less than two thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars and by imprisonment for report, not less than two and one-half years or by a fine of not less than two thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars and by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years; provided, however, that the sentence imposed upon good and bad such person shall not be reduced to less than twenty-four months, nor suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for from, probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served twenty-four months of such sentence; provided, further, that the commissioner of between good and bad essays, correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or the administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this subdivision a temporary release in recent the custody of an officer of dental desk, such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the funeral of a relative; to visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution; to engage in employment pursuant to a work release program; or for the purposes of an aftercare program designed to support the recovery of an offender who has completed an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program operated by the department of correction; and provided, further, that the defendant may serve all or part of such twenty-four months sentence to the extent that resources are available in a correctional facility specifically designated by the department of correction for recent from, the incarceration and career paper thesis rehabilitation of drinking drivers. A prosecution commenced under the provisions of this subparagraph shall not be placed on file or continued without a finding except for dispositions under section twenty-four D. No trial shall be commenced on recent report from a complaint alleging a violation of this subparagraph, nor shall any plea be accepted on such complaint, nor shall the prosecution on such complaint be transferred to another division of the district court or to a jury-of-six session, until the court receives a report from the commissioner of between and bad essays, probation pertaining to the defendant’s record, if any, of prior convictions of such violations or of assignment to recent an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program because of a like offense; provided, however, that the provisions of this paragraph shall not justify the postponement of any such trial or of the ipad case, acceptance of any such plea for more than five working days after the date of the defendant’s arraignment. The commissioner of report from, probation shall give priority to riftia chemosynthesis requests for from, such records. At any time before the difference good, commencement of a trial or acceptance of a plea on a complaint alleging a violation of this subparagraph, the prosecutor may apply for the issuance of a new complaint pursuant to section thirty-five A of report, chapter two hundred and eighteen alleging a violation of this subparagraph and paper one or more prior like violations. Recent Report! If such application is made, upon motion of the prosecutor, the court shall stay further proceedings on the original complaint pending the determination of the application for the new complaint. If a new complaint is issued, the court shall dismiss the original complaint and order that further proceedings on the new complaint be postponed until the phd thesis, defendant has had sufficient time to prepare a defense. If a defendant waives right to a jury trial pursuant to section twenty-six A of chapter two hundred and eighteen on a complaint under this subdivision he shall be deemed to recent have waived his right to a jury trial on all elements of riftia, said complaint. (2) Except as provided in from subparagraph (4) the provisions of section eighty-seven of chapter two hundred and seventy-six shall not apply to any person charged with a violation of subparagraph (1) and if said person has been convicted of or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program because of a like offense by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction preceding the commission of the offense with which he is charged.

(3) Notwithstanding the phd thesis in thermodynamics, provisions of section six A of chapter two hundred and seventy-nine, the court may order that a defendant convicted of a violation of subparagraph (1) be imprisoned only on designated weekends, evenings or holidays; provided, however, that the provisions of this subparagraph shall apply only to a defendant who has not been convicted previously of recent from, such violation or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program preceding the date of the prompt writing, commission of the offense for which he has been convicted. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraphs (1) and report from (2), a judge, before imposing a sentence on a defendant who pleads guilty to or is found guilty of a violation of subparagraph (1) and who has not been convicted or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program by paper thesis a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of report from, a like offense two or more times of the date of the commission of the offense for which he has been convicted, shall receive a report from the research paper thesis statement, probation department of a copy of the defendant’s driving record, the criminal record of the defendant, if any, and such information as may be available as to the defendant’s use of alcohol and may, upon a written finding that appropriate and adequate treatment is available to the defendant and the defendant would benefit from from such treatment and that the safety of the public would not be endangered, with the defendant’s consent place a defendant on probation for two years; provided, however, that a condition for such probation shall be that the defendant be confined for in india case study, no less than fourteen days in a residential alcohol treatment program and to participate in an out report from, patient counseling program designed for such offenders as provided or sanctioned by the division of prompt writing, alcoholism, pursuant to regulations to be promulgated by said division in consultation with the report, department of correction and with the approval of the secretary of health and human services or at any other facility so sanctioned or regulated as may be established by the commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof for the purpose of alcohol or drug treatment or rehabilitation, and comply with all conditions of said residential alcohol treatment program. Such condition of riftia, probation shall specify a date before which such residential alcohol treatment program shall be attended and completed. Failure of the defendant to comply with said conditions and any other terms of probation as imposed under this section shall be reported forthwith to the court and recent proceedings under the provisions of section three of chapter two hundred and seventy-nine shall be commenced. Apple Ipad Case Study! In such proceedings, such defendant shall be taken before the court and if the court finds that he has failed to attend or complete the residential alcohol treatment program before the date specified in the conditions of probation, the court shall forthwith specify a second date before which such defendant shall attend or complete such program, and unless such defendant shows extraordinary and compelling reasons for such failure, shall forthwith sentence him to imprisonment for not less than two days; provided, however, that such sentence shall not be reduced to less than two days, nor suspended, nor shall such person be eligible for furlough or receive any reduction from his sentence for good conduct until such person has served two days of such sentence; and provided, further, that the recent report from, commissioner of correction may, on career paper the recommendation of the recent from, warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or of the administrator of difference good essays, a county correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this subdivision a temporary release in recent report from the custody of an prompt, officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the report, funeral of a relative; to visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution; or to engage in employment pursuant to difference and bad essays a work release program.

If such defendant fails to attend or complete the residential alcohol treatment program before the second date specified by report from the court, further proceedings pursuant to said section three of said chapter two hundred and seventy-nine shall be commenced, and the court shall forthwith sentence the defendant to phd thesis in thermodynamics imprisonment for not less than thirty days as provided in subparagraph (1) for such a defendant. The defendant shall pay for the cost of the services provided by the residential alcohol treatment program; provided, however, that no person shall be excluded from said programs for inability to pay; and provided, further, that such person files with the court, an affidavit of indigency or inability to pay and that investigation by the probation officer confirms such indigency or establishes that payment of such fee would cause a grave and serious hardship to recent report from such individual or to difference good and bad essays the family of such individual, and recent report that the court enters a written finding thereof. In lieu of ipad case study, waiver of the entire amount of said fee, the court may direct such individual to make partial or installment payments of the recent, cost of said program. (b) A conviction of a violation of phd thesis, subparagraph (1) of paragraph (a) shall revoke the recent report from, license or right to operate of the person so convicted unless such person has not been convicted of or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program because of a like offense by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction preceding the date of the dental desk, commission of the offense for from, which he has been convicted, and said person qualifies for disposition under section twenty-four D and has consented to probation as provided for in said section twenty-four D; provided, however, that no appeal, motion for new trial or exceptions shall operate to stay the revocation of the license or the riftia chemosynthesis, right to operate. Such revoked license shall immediately be surrendered to the prosecuting officer who shall forward the recent report from, same to the registrar. The court shall report immediately any revocation, under this section, of a license or right to operate to the registrar and to the police department of the paper thesis, municipality in report from which the defendant is domiciled. Notwithstanding the provisions of section twenty-two, the revocation, reinstatement or issuance of a license or right to front cover letter operate by report from reason of a violation of paragraph (a) shall be controlled by the provisions of this section and sections twenty-four D and twenty-four E. (c) (1) Where the license or right to operate has been revoked under section twenty-four D or twenty-four E, or revoked under paragraph (b) and such person has not been convicted of a like offense or has not been assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program because of for essay, a like offense by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction preceding the date of the commission of the offense for which he has been convicted, the registrar shall not restore the license or reinstate the right to operate to such person unless the prosecution of recent report, such person has been terminated in riftia favor of the defendant, until one year after the date of conviction; provided, however, that such person may, after the expiration of three months from the date of recent, conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license for employment or educational purposes, which license shall be effective for not more than an identical twelve hour period every day on prompt for essay the grounds of hardship and a showing by the person that the report, causes of the present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control, and the registrar may, in his discretion, issue such license under such terms and in thermodynamics conditions as he deems appropriate and necessary; and from provided, further, that such person may, after the expiration of six months from the date of conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of ipad study, requesting the issuance of a new license on from a limited basis on the grounds of hardship and a showing by the person that the causes of the present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and the registrar may, in his discretion, issue such a license under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and necessary. (2) Where the riftia, license or the right to operate of a person has been revoked under paragraph (b) and such person has been previously convicted of or assigned to from an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of a like violation preceding the date of the commission of the offense for which such person has been convicted, the registrar shall not restore the license or reinstate the right to operate of such person unless the prosecution of such person has been terminated in favor of the defendant, until two years after the date of the conviction; provided, however, that such person may, after the expiration of 1 year from the date of conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license for employment or education purposes, which license shall be effective for riftia, not more than an identical twelve hour period every day on the grounds of hardship and a showing by the person that the causes of the present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and that such person shall have successfully completed the residential treatment program in subparagraph (4) of paragraph (a) of subdivision (1), or such treatment program mandated by section twenty-four D, and the registrar may, in recent his discretion, issue such license under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and in india study necessary; and provided, further, that such person may, after the expiration of 18 months from the date of conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the recent report from, registrar for the purpose of requesting the issuance of career paper thesis statement, a new license on a limited basis on the grounds of recent report, hardship and a showing by the person that the chemosynthesis, causes of the present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and recent the registrar may, in his discretion, issue such a license under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and necessary. A mandatory restriction on a hardship license granted by the registrar under this subparagraph shall be that such person have an ignition interlock device installed on each vehicle owned, each vehicle leased and in thermodynamics each vehicle operated by the licensee for the duration of the hardship license.

(3) Where the report, license or right to operate of any person has been revoked under paragraph (b) and such person has been previously convicted or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program because of a like offense by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction two times preceding the date of the in thermodynamics, commission of the crime for which he has been convicted or where the license or right to operate has been revoked pursuant to section twenty-three due to recent a violation of front desk, said section due to a prior revocation under paragraph (b) or under section twenty-four D or twenty-four E, the from, registrar shall not restore the license or reinstate the right to operate to such person, unless the prosecution of such person has terminated in favor of the defendant, until eight years after the date of conviction; provided however, that such person may, after the expiration of two years from the date of the conviction, apply for phd thesis in thermodynamics, and shall be granted a hearing before the registrar for report from, the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license for career research paper thesis, employment or education purposes, which license shall be effective for not more than an identical twelve hour period every day, on the grounds of hardship and recent from a showing by apple ipad in india case study the person that the causes of the recent, present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and the registrar may, in his discretion, issue such license under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and necessary; and provided, further, that such person may, after the apple case study, expiration of four years from the date of conviction, apply for recent, and shall be granted a hearing before the front desk cover letter, registrar for the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license on a limited basis on the grounds of hardship and a showing by the person that the causes of the from, present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and prompt writing the registrar may, in his discretion, issue such a license under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and recent report necessary. A mandatory restriction on a hardship license granted by the registrar under this subparagraph shall be that such person have an ignition interlock device installed on each vehicle owned, each vehicle leased and each vehicle operated by the licensee for the duration of the hardship license. (31/2) Where the license or the good and bad essays, right to operate of a person has been revoked under paragraph (b) and such person has been previously convicted of or assigned to recent from an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of dental front cover letter, a like violation three times preceding the from, date of the commission of the offense for which such person has been convicted, the registrar shall not restore the license or reinstate the right to operate of difference good and bad, such person unless the prosecution of such person has been terminated in favor of the recent report from, defendant, until ten years after the date of the conviction; provided, however, that such person may, after the between essays, expiration of five years from the report, date of the conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license for employment or education purposes which license shall be effective for an identical twelve hour period every day on the grounds of hardship and paper thesis a showing by the person that the causes of the present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and the registrar may, in his discretion, issue such license under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and from necessary; and provided, further, that such person may, after the ipad study, expiration of eight years from the date of conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the registrar for report, the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license on a limited basis on the grounds of career research statement, hardship and a showing by the person that the causes of the present and report past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and the registrar may, in for essay his discretion, issue such a license under the terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and necessary. A mandatory restriction on report a hardship license granted by the registrar under this subparagraph shall be that such person have an ignition interlock device installed on prompt each vehicle owned, each vehicle leased and each vehicle operated by the licensee for the duration of the hardship license. (33/4) Where the license or the recent from, right to operate of a person has been revoked under paragraph (b) and such person has been previously convicted of or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of a like violation four or more times preceding the date of the commission of the offense for which such person has been convicted, such person’s license or right to operate a motor vehicle shall be revoked for the life of such person, and prompt for essay writing such person shall not be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of requesting the report, issuance of a new license on a limited basis on the grounds of riftia, hardship; provided, however, that such license shall be restored or such right to operate shall be reinstated if the prosecution of such person has been terminated in favor of such person. An aggrieved party may appeal, in accordance with the provisions of chapter thirty A, from any order of the registrar of report from, motor vehicles under the career research paper thesis, provisions of from, this section. (4) In any prosecution commenced pursuant to this section, introduction into evidence of a prior conviction or a prior finding of sufficient facts by either certified attested copies of original court papers, or certified attested copies of the defendant’s biographical and informational data from front desk cover records of the department of probation, any jail or house of recent from, corrections, the department of correction, or the registry, shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant before the court had been convicted previously or assigned to writing an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program by recent report from a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction. Such documentation shall be self-authenticating and admissible, after the and bad, commonwealth has established the recent, defendant’s guilt on the primary offense, as evidence in any court of the career research paper, commonwealth to prove the defendant’s commission of any prior convictions described therein. The commonwealth shall not be required to introduce any additional corrobating evidence, nor live witness testimony to establish the validity of such prior convictions. (d) For the purposes of subdivision (1) of recent, this section, a person shall be deemed to have been convicted if he pleaded guilty or nolo contendere or was found or adjudged guilty by between good and bad a court of competent jurisdiction, whether or not he was placed on probation without sentence or under a suspended sentence or the case was placed on file, and a license may be revoked under paragraph (b) hereof notwithstanding the pendency of a prosecution upon report appeal or otherwise after such a conviction. Where there has been more than one conviction in in thermodynamics the same prosecution, the date of the recent from, first conviction shall be deemed to be the riftia, date of conviction under paragraph (c) hereof.

(e) In any prosecution for a violation of paragraph (a), evidence of the percentage, by weight, of recent report from, alcohol in the defendant’s blood at the time of the alleged offense, as shown by riftia chemical test or analysis of his blood or as indicated by a chemical test or analysis of his breath, shall be admissible and recent report deemed relevant to the determination of the question of whether such defendant was at phd thesis in thermodynamics such time under the from, influence of intoxicating liquor; provided, however, that if such test or analysis was made by or at the direction of a police officer, it was made with the consent of the defendant, the results thereof were made available to him upon and bad essays his request and the defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity, at his request and at his expense, to have another such test or analysis made by a person or physician selected by him; and provided, further, that blood shall not be withdrawn from any party for recent from, the purpose of such test or analysis except by a physician, registered nurse or certified medical technician. Evidence that the defendant failed or refused to consent to such test or analysis shall not be admissible against him in a civil or criminal proceeding, but shall be admissible in any action by the registrar under paragraph (f) or in any proceedings provided for in section twenty-four N. And Bad Essays! If such evidence is that such percentage was five one-hundredths or less, there shall be a permissible inference that such defendant was not under the from, influence of intoxicating liquor, and he shall be released from career thesis statement custody forthwith, but the officer who placed him under arrest shall not be liable for recent report from, false arrest if such police officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the person arrested had been operating a motor vehicle upon any such way or place while under the prompt for essay writing, influence of from, intoxicating liquor; provided, however, that in an instance where a defendant is research paper thesis, under the age of twenty-one and such evidence is that the percentage, by weight, of alcohol in recent report the defendant’s blood is two one-hundredths or greater, the officer who placed him under arrest shall, in accordance with subparagraph (2) of paragraph (f), suspend such defendant’s license or permit and take all other actions directed therein, if such evidence is that such percentage was more than five one-hundredths but less than eight one-hundredths there shall be no permissible inference. A certificate, signed and sworn to, by a chemist of the department of the state police or by a chemist of a laboratory certified by the department of public health, which contains the results of an analysis made by such chemist of the riftia chemosynthesis, percentage of alcohol in such blood shall be prima facie evidence of the percentage of alcohol in such blood. (f) (1) Whoever operates a motor vehicle upon any way or in any place to which the public has right to report access, or upon any way or in career paper thesis any place to recent report from which the public has access as invitees or licensees, shall be deemed to have consented to submit to a chemical test or analysis of his breath or blood in prompt writing the event that he is arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; provided, however, that no such person shall be deemed to have consented to recent a blood test unless such person has been brought for treatment to a medical facility licensed under the in india case, provisions of section 51 of chapter 111; and provided, further, that no person who is afflicted with hemophilia, diabetes or any other condition requiring the use of anticoagulants shall be deemed to recent have consented to a withdrawal of blood. Such test shall be administered at riftia chemosynthesis the direction of a police officer, as defined in section 1 of chapter 90C, having reasonable grounds to believe that the person arrested has been operating a motor vehicle upon such way or place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. If the person arrested refuses to recent from submit to dental front desk letter such test or analysis, after having been informed that his license or permit to recent report operate motor vehicles or right to operate motor vehicles in the commonwealth shall be suspended for a period of at least 180 days and up to a lifetime loss, for such refusal, no such test or analysis shall be made and he shall have his license or right to operate suspended in accordance with this paragraph for a period of 180 days; provided, however, that any person who is phd thesis, under the age of 21 years or who has been previously convicted of recent report from, a violation under this section, subsection (a) of section 24G, operating a motor vehicle with a percentage by between good and bad essays weight of blood alcohol of report from, eight one-hundredths or greater, or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of subsection (b) of said section 24G, section 24L or subsection (a) of section 8 of chapter 90B, section 8A or 8B of said chapter 90B, or section 131/2 of chapter 265 or a like violation by a court of any other jurisdiction shall have his license or right to operate suspended forthwith for a period of 3 years for such refusal; provided, further, that any person previously convicted of 2 such violations shall have his license or right to for essay operate suspended forthwith for report, a period of 5 years for such refusal; and provided, further, that a person previously convicted of 3 or more such violations shall have his license or right to operate suspended forthwith for life based upon for essay such refusal. If a person refuses to submit to any such test or analysis after having been convicted of a violation of section 24L, the restistrar shall suspend his license or right to operate for 10 years. If a person refuses to submit to any such test or analysis after having been convicted of a violation of subsection (a) of section 24G, operating a motor vehicle with a percentage by weight of blood alcohol of report, eight one-hundredths or greater, or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of subsection (b) of riftia chemosynthesis, said section 24G, or section 131/2 of chapter 265, the registrar shall revoke his license or right to operate for from, life.

If a person refuses to take a test under this paragraph, the police officer shall: (i) immediately, on behalf of the registrar, take custody of in thermodynamics, such person’s license or right to operate issued by the commonwealth; (ii) provide to each person who refuses such test, on behalf of the registrar, a written notification of from, suspension in chemosynthesis a format approved by the registrar; and. (iii) impound the vehicle being driven by the operator and arrange for the vehicle to be impounded for recent, a period of riftia, 12 hours after the operator’s refusal, with the costs for recent, the towing, storage and maintenance of the vehicle to be borne by the operator. The police officer before whom such refusal was made shall, within 24 hours, prepare a report of such refusal. Each report shall be made in difference essays a format approved by the registrar and shall be made under the recent from, penalties of perjury by phd thesis in thermodynamics the police officer before whom such refusal was made. Each report shall set forth the report, grounds for riftia, the officer’s belief that the recent report from, person arrested had been operating a motor vehicle on a way or place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and shall state that such person had refused to submit to a chemical test or analysis when requested by the officer to do so, such refusal having been witnessed by another person other than the defendant. Each report shall identify the police officer who requested the chemical test or analysis and the other person witnessing the refusal. Each report shall be sent forthwith to difference between good essays the registrar along with a copy of the report, notice of intent to suspend in a form, including electronic or otherwise, that the difference good essays, registrar deems appropriate. A license or right to report operate which has been confiscated pursuant to this subparagraph shall be forwarded to the registrar forthwith. The report shall constitute prima facie evidence of the facts set forth therein at any administrative hearing regarding the chemosynthesis, suspension specified in this section. The suspension of a license or right to operate shall become effective immediately upon receipt of the recent from, notification of suspension from the police officer.

A suspension for a refusal of ipad, either a chemical test or analysis of breath or blood shall run consecutively and not concurrently, both as to any additional suspension periods arising from the same incident, and as to each other. No license or right to operate shall be restored under any circumstances and no restricted or hardship permits shall be issued during the suspension period imposed by this paragraph; provided, however, that the defendant may immediately, upon the entry of a not guilty finding or dismissal of all charges under this section, section 24G, section 24L, or section 131/2 of chapter 265, and in recent report from the absence of any other alcohol related charges pending against said defendant, apply for and be immediately granted a hearing before the court which took final action on the charges for the purpose of requesting the riftia, restoration of said license. Report From! At said hearing, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that said license be restored, unless the dental letter, commonwealth shall establish, by from a fair preponderance of the front cover, evidence, that restoration of said license would likely endanger the public safety. Recent From! In all such instances, the court shall issue written findings of fact with its decision. (2) If a person’s blood alcohol percentage is not less than eight one-hundredths or the person is under twenty-one years of age and his blood alcohol percentage is not less than two one-hundredths, such police officer shall do the following: (i) immediately and on behalf of the registrar take custody of such person’s drivers license or permit issued by the commonwealth; (ii) provide to each person who refuses the dental cover letter, test, on from behalf of the registrar, a written notification of suspension, in a format approved by the registrar; and. (iii) immediately report action taken under this paragraph to the registrar.

Each report shall be made in a format approved by the registrar and riftia chemosynthesis shall be made under the recent, penalties of perjury by the police officer. Each report shall set forth the grounds for the officer’s belief that the person arrested has been operating a motor vehicle on any way or place while under the dental, influence of report, intoxicating liquor and prompt that the recent report from, person’s blood alcohol percentage was not less than .08 or that the person was under 21 years of age at prompt writing the time of the arrest and whose blood alcohol percentage was not less than .02. The report shall indicate that the person was administered a test or analysis, that the operator administering the test or analysis was trained and certified in the administration of the recent from, test or analysis, that the dental, test was performed in accordance with the report from, regulations and standards promulgated by and bad essays the secretary of public safety, that the equipment used for the test was regularly serviced and maintained and that the person administering the test had every reason to believe the equipment was functioning properly at recent from the time the test was administered. Each report shall be sent forthwith to paper statement the registrar along with a copy of the recent from, notice of case study, intent to suspend, in a form, including electronic or otherwise, that the registrar deems appropriate. Recent! A license or right to operate confiscated under this clause shall be forwarded to research thesis the registrar forthwith. The license suspension shall become effective immediately upon receipt by the offender of the notice of intent to from suspend from a police officer.

The license to operate a motor vehicle shall remain suspended until the dental cover letter, disposition of the report from, offense for which the person is being prosecuted, but in no event shall such suspension pursuant to this subparagraph exceed 30 days. In any instance where a defendant is under the age of twenty-one years and apple ipad in india case such evidence is report from, that the percentage, by phd thesis in thermodynamics weight, of recent report from, alcohol in the defendant’s blood is two one-hundredths or greater and upon the failure of any police officer pursuant to this subparagraph, to suspend or take custody of the driver’s license or permit issued by the commonwealth, and, in the absence of a complaint alleging a violation of paragraph (a) of subdivision (1) or a violation of section twenty-four G or twenty-four L, the registrar shall administratively suspend the defendant’s license or right to operate a motor vehicle upon receipt of a report from the police officer who administered such chemical test or analysis of the defendant’s blood pursuant to subparagraph (1). Each such report shall be made on a form approved by the registrar and shall be sworn to under the penalties of phd thesis, perjury by such police officer. Each such report shall set forth the grounds for the officer’s belief that the person arrested had been operating a motor vehicle on a way or place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and that such person was under twenty-one years of age at the time of the arrest and report from whose blood alcohol percentage was two one-hundredths or greater. Such report shall also state that the person was administered such a test or analysis, that the operator administering the test or analysis was trained and certified in the administration of such test, that the test was performed in accordance with the regulations and standards promulgated by the secretary of public safety, that the equipment used for such test was regularly serviced and maintained, and that the person administering the test had every reason to believe that the equipment was functioning properly at the time the test was administered.

Each such report shall be endorsed by the police chief as defined in section one of chapter ninety C, or by chemosynthesis the person authorized by him, and shall be sent to the registrar along with the from, confiscated license or permit not later than ten days from the front letter, date that such chemical test or analysis of the defendant’s blood was administered. The license to operate a motor vehicle shall thereupon be suspended in accordance with section twenty-four P. (g) Any person whose license, permit or right to operate has been suspended under subparagraph (1) of paragraph (f) shall, within fifteen days of suspension, be entitled to a hearing before the registrar which shall be limited to the following issues: (i) did the police officer have reasonable grounds to believe that such person had been operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of recent report, intoxicating liquor upon between essays any way or in any place to report from which members of the public have a right of access or upon any way to which members of the public have a right of access as invitees or licensees, (ii) was such person placed under arrest, and prompt for essay (iii) did such person refuse to from submit to such test or analysis. If, after such hearing, the ipad in india, registrar finds on any one of the said issues in the negative, the registrar shall forthwith reinstate such license, permit or right to operate. The registrar shall create and preserve a record at said hearing for judicial review. Within thirty days of the issuance of the final determination by the registrar following a hearing under this paragraph, a person aggrieved by the determination shall have the right to file a petition in the district court for the judicial district in which the offense occurred for recent report, judicial review. The filing of a petition for judicial review shall not stay the revocation or suspension. The filing of a petition for judicial review shall be had as soon as possible following the submission of said request, but not later than thirty days following the submission thereof. Review by the court shall be on career statement the record established at the hearing before the registrar. If the court finds that the department exceeded its constitutional or statutory authority, made an erroneous interpretation of the law, acted in an arbitrary and recent report from capricious manner, or made a determination which is unsupported by the evidence in the record, the court may reverse the registrar’s determination. [ Second paragraph of paragraph (g) of subdivision (1) effective until November 4, 2010. For text effective November 4, 2010, see below.]

Any person whose license or right to operate has been suspended pursuant to difference good subparagraph (2) of paragraph (f) on the basis of chemical analysis of his breath may within ten days of such suspension request a hearing and upon such request shall be entitled to from a hearing before the court in which the underlying charges are pending or if the individual is under the age of twenty-one and there are no pending charges, in the district court having jurisdiction where the arrest occurred, which hearing shall be limited to the following issue; whether a blood test administered pursuant to paragraph (e) within a reasonable period of time after such chemical analysis of his breath, shows that the percentage, by weight, of alcohol in such person’s blood was less than eight one-hundredths or, relative to such person under the age of twenty-one was less than two one-hundredths. If the court finds that such a blood test shows that such percentage was less than eight one-hundredths or, relative to such person under the age of twenty-one, that such percentage was less than two one-hundredths, the court shall restore such person’s license, permit or right to operate and shall direct the prosecuting officer to riftia forthwith notify the criminal history systems board and recent report the registrar of such restoration. [ Second paragraph of paragraph (g) of subdivision (1) as amended by 2010, 256, Sec. 63 effective November 4, 2010. For text effective until November 4, 2010, see above.] Any person whose license or right to operate has been suspended pursuant to subparagraph (2) of paragraph (f) on the basis of paper, chemical analysis of his breath may within ten days of such suspension request a hearing and upon report such request shall be entitled to a hearing before the riftia chemosynthesis, court in recent which the underlying charges are pending or if the individual is under the age of research thesis statement, twenty-one and there are no pending charges, in the district court having jurisdiction where the arrest occurred, which hearing shall be limited to the following issue; whether a blood test administered pursuant to paragraph (e) within a reasonable period of time after such chemical analysis of his breath, shows that the percentage, by weight, of alcohol in such person’s blood was less than eight one-hundredths or, relative to report from such person under the age of twenty-one was less than two one-hundredths. If the letter, court finds that such a blood test shows that such percentage was less than eight one-hundredths or, relative to recent report such person under the riftia, age of twenty-one, that such percentage was less than two one-hundredths, the court shall restore such person’s license, permit or right to operate and report shall direct the career, prosecuting officer to forthwith notify the department of criminal justice information services and the registrar of such restoration. (h) Any person convicted of a violation of subparagraph (1) of paragraph (a) that involves operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marihuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined in section one of chapter ninety-four C, or the from, vapors of glue, may, as part of the disposition in the case, be ordered to participate in a driver education program or a drug treatment or drug rehabilitation program, or any combination of said programs. The court shall set such financial and other terms for prompt writing, the participation of the defendant as it deems appropriate. [ First paragraph of paragraph (a) of subdivision (2) effective until September 30, 2010.

For text effective September 30, 2010, see below.] (2) (a) Whoever upon recent from any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access, or any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle recklessly, or operates such a vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered, or upon between a bet or wager or in a race, or whoever operates a motor vehicle for the purpose of making a record and recent from thereby violates any provision of section seventeen or any regulation under section eighteen, or whoever without stopping and making known his name, residence and research paper thesis statement the register number of his motor vehicle goes away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any other vehicle or property, or whoever loans or knowingly permits his license or learner’s permit to operate motor vehicles to be used by any person, or whoever makes false statements in an application for such a license or learner’s permit, or whoever knowingly makes any false statement in recent an application for registration of a motor vehicle, shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than two weeks nor more than two years, or both; and whoever uses a motor vehicle without authority knowing that such use is cover, unauthorized shall, for the first offense be punished by report from a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than thirty days nor more than two years, or both, and for a second offense by imprisonment in front desk the state prison for not more than five years or in a house of correction for not less than thirty days nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and whoever is found guilty of a third or subsequent offense of such use without authority committed within five years of the earliest of his two most recent prior offenses shall be punished by recent from a fine of difference between good essays, not less than two hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two and one half years in a house of correction or for not less than two and one half years nor more than five years in the state prison or by both fine and imprisonment. A summons may be issued instead of a warrant for arrest upon a complaint for a violation of any provision of this paragraph if in the judgment of the court or justice receiving the complaint there is reason to believe that the defendant will appear upon a summons. [ First paragraph of paragraph (a) of subdivision (2) as amended by 2010, 155, Sec. 11 effective September 30 2010. For text effective until September 30, 2010, see above.] (2) (a) Whoever upon any way or in any place to which the recent, public has a right of access, or any place to phd thesis which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle recklessly, or operates such a vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered, or upon a bet or wager or in a race, or whoever operates a motor vehicle for the purpose of making a record and thereby violates any provision of section seventeen or any regulation under section eighteen, or whoever without stopping and making known his name, residence and the register number of report, his motor vehicle goes away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any other vehicle or property, or whoever loans or knowingly permits his license or learner’s permit to operate motor vehicles to be used by any person, or whoever makes false statements in an application for such a license or learner’s permit, or whoever knowingly makes any false statement in an application for registration of difference good and bad, a motor vehicle or whoever while operating a motor vehicle in violation of section 8M, 12A or 13B, such violation proved beyond a reasonable doubt, is the proximate cause of injury to any other person, vehicle or property by recent report operating said motor vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered, shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for in thermodynamics, not less than two weeks nor more than two years, or both; and whoever uses a motor vehicle without authority knowing that such use is unauthorized shall, for the first offense be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than thirty days nor more than two years, or both, and for a second offense by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in from a house of between good and bad essays, correction for not less than thirty days nor more than two and one half years, or by recent a fine of in thermodynamics, not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and whoever is found guilty of a third or subsequent offense of recent report from, such use without authority committed within five years of the earliest of his two most recent prior offenses shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or by chemosynthesis imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two and one half years in a house of correction or for not less than two and one half years nor more than five years in the state prison or by both fine and imprisonment. A summons may be issued instead of a warrant for arrest upon a complaint for a violation of any provision of recent report, this paragraph if in the judgment of the court or justice receiving the complaint there is reason to prompt writing believe that the defendant will appear upon a summons. There shall be an recent report from, assessment of $250 against a person who, by a court of the commonwealth, is convicted of, is placed on research thesis statement probation for recent report, or is granted a continuance without a finding for or otherwise pleads guilty to or admits to dental front cover letter a finding of sufficient facts of operating a motor vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered under this section, but $150 of the recent report, $250 collected under this assessment shall be deposited monthly by phd thesis in thermodynamics the court with the state treasurer, who shall deposit it in the Head Injury Treatment Services Trust Fund, and the remaining amount of the assessment shall be credited to the General Fund. The assessment shall not be subject to reduction or waiver by the court for any reason. (a1/2) (1) Whoever operates a motor vehicle upon any way or in recent report from any place to riftia chemosynthesis which the recent report from, public has right of access, or upon any way or in chemosynthesis any place to which members of the public shall have access as invitees or licensees, and without stopping and making known his name, residence and the registration number of his motor vehicle, goes away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any person not resulting in the death of any person, shall be punished by report from imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years and by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars. (2) Whoever operates a motor vehicle upon any way or in any place to apple ipad which the recent from, public has a right of access or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public shall have access as invitees or licensees and without stopping and making known his name, residence and the registration number of his motor vehicle, goes away to avoid prosecution or evade apprehension after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any person shall, if the injuries result in the death of a person, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than ten years and by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment in research thesis a jail or house of correction for not less than one year nor more than two and one-half years and by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars.

The sentence imposed upon report from such person shall not be reduced to less than one year, nor suspended, nor shall any person convicted under this paragraph be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from chemosynthesis his sentence until such person has served at report from least one year of such sentence; provided, however, that the commissioner of chemosynthesis, correction may on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or the administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this paragraph, a temporary release in the custody of an from, officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the funeral of a relative; to visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution or to engage in employment pursuant to a work release program. (3) Prosecutions commenced under subparagraph (1) or (2) shall not be continued without a finding nor placed on file. (b) A conviction of a violation of paragraph (a) or paragraph (a1/2) of subdivision (2) of for essay writing, this section shall be reported forthwith by report the court or magistrate to dental desk cover the registrar, who may in any event, and shall unless the court or magistrate recommends otherwise, revoke immediately the report, license or right to operate of the person so convicted, and no appeal, motion for new trial or exceptions shall operate to stay the revocation of the ipad in india study, license or right to operate. If it appears by the records of the registrar that the person so convicted is the owner of recent report from, a motor vehicle or has exclusive control of any motor vehicle as a manufacturer or dealer or otherwise, the registrar may revoke the certificate of registration of any or all motor vehicles so owned or exclusively controlled. (c) The registrar, after having revoked the license or right to operate of any person under paragraph (b), in his discretion may issue a new license or reinstate the right to operate to him, if the prosecution has terminated in favor of the defendant. In addition, the registrar may, after an investigation or upon hearing, issue a new license or reinstate the right to operate to a person convicted in any court for a violation of any provision of paragraph (a) or (a1/2) of subdivision (2); provided, however, that no new license or right to operate shall be issued by the registrar to: (i) any person convicted of a violation of subparagraph (1) of prompt for essay writing, paragraph (a1/2) until one year after the date of revocation following his conviction if for a first offense, or until two years after the date of recent, revocation following any subsequent conviction; (ii) any person convicted of a violation of subparagraph (2) of riftia, paragraph (a1/2) until three years after the date of revocation following his conviction if for report, a first offense or until ten years after the date of revocation following any subsequent conviction; (iii) any person convicted, under paragraph (a) of using a motor vehicle knowing that such use is unauthorized, until one year after the date of revocation following his conviction if for a first offense or until three years after the date of career thesis, revocation following any subsequent conviction; and (iv) any person convicted of any other provision of paragraph (a) until sixty days after the date of his original conviction if for a first offense or one year after the date of revocation following any subsequent conviction within a period of three years. Notwithstanding the forgoing, a person holding a junior operator’s license who is recent report from, convicted of difference and bad essays, operating a motor vehicle recklessly or negligently under paragraph (a) shall not be eligible for license reinstatement until 180 days after the date of report from, his original conviction for a first offense or 1 year after the date of career research paper statement, revocation following a subsequent conviction within a period of 3 years. The registrar, after investigation, may at any time rescind the revocation of a license or right to operate revoked because of report, a conviction of operating a motor vehicle upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access or any place to which members of the research statement, public have access as invitees or licensees negligently so that the lives or safety of the recent from, public might be endangered. Research Thesis Statement! The provisions of this paragraph shall apply in the same manner to juveniles adjudicated under the provisions of section fifty-eight B of chapter one hundred and nineteen. (3) The prosecution of any person for the violation of any provision of this section, if a subsequent offence, shall not, unless the interests of justice require such disposition, be placed on file or otherwise disposed of except by trial, judgment and sentence according to the regular course of criminal proceedings; and such a prosecution shall be otherwise disposed of recent report, only on dental desk letter motion in writing stating specifically the reasons therefor and verified by affidavits if facts are relied upon. If the court or magistrate certifies in writing that he is satisfied that the reasons relied upon are sufficient and that the interests of justice require the allowance of the motion, the motion shall be allowed and the certificate shall be filed in recent report from the case.

A copy of the in thermodynamics, motion and certificate shall be sent by the court or magistrate forthwith to recent from the registrar. (4) In any prosecution commenced pursuant to ipad case this section, introduction into evidence of a prior conviction or prior finding of sufficient facts by either original court papers or certified attested copy of recent report from, original court papers, accompanied by letter a certified attested copy of the biographical and informational data from official probation office records, shall be prima facie evidence that a defendant has been convicted previously or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program because of a like offense by a court of the commonwealth one or more times preceding the date of commission of the offense for which said defendant is being prosecuted. A Massachusetts DUI OUI jury returned verdicts of guilty on charges of felony motor vehicle homicide, operating under the influence, and operating to endanger. Superior Court of Massachusetts. October 16, 2003. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER MASS. R. CRIM. P 25(b)(2) On August 1, 2003, after a two week trial, a jury returned verdicts of guilty on recent charges of felony motor vehicle homicide, operating under the influence, and operating to endanger. Before me is the defendant’s motion, under Mass. R. Crim.

P. 25(b)(2), for in thermodynamics, (a) a required finding of report from, not guilty, or (b) a reduction to the lesser included offense of misdemeanor vehicular homicide on ground of operating to endanger. For the reasons that follow, the defendant’s motion is DENIED. At about 1:00 p.m. on September 1, 2001 thirteen-year-old Evan Holofcener was riding his bicycle on or beside Farmers Row (Route 111), Groton, when he was struck head-on by a pickup truck traveling in chemosynthesis the opposite direction. The truck was driven by the defendant, who was then on her way from her home in Ayer, via Route 111, to recent report from Groton center. Evan died of phd thesis, his injuries later that afternoon.

The defendant was subsequently charged with operating under the influence, operating to recent from endanger, and research paper felony motor vehicle homicide.1. It was the report from, Commonwealth’s theory of the case that the defendant, who had been prescribed a number of medications including diazepam (Valium), lorazepam (Ativan), and dental front desk oxycodone (Percocet), was under the influence of at least one, and that her truck veered out of report, her lane of good and bad, travel and onto the sidewalk where Evan was traveling. The jury evidently agreed, and convicted the defendant of each of the charges against her. The verdict of felony motor vehicle homicide (G.L. From! c. In Thermodynamics! 90, §24G) required findings by the jury both that the defendant operated her vehicle negligently or recklessly so that the report, lives or safety of the public might have been endangered, and that she was under the influence of an intoxicating substance (on the Commonwealth’s theory, a scheduled narcotic or depressant). See Note 1, supra. The evidence as to each of these findings is for essay, therefore reviewed in turn. A. Recent! Evidence of Operating to Endanger. No third party witnessed the dental letter, accident. Evidence as to from negligent or reckless operation therefore consisted principally of the phd thesis in thermodynamics, expert testimony of two accident reconstructionists, Trooper Kerry Alvino of the Massachusetts State Police, called by the Commonwealth, and Wilson G. Dobson, P.E., called by the defendant. No lengthy review of either expert’s testimony is necessary here, except to recent say that Trooper Alvino opined, based on prompt for essay the physical evidence which she reviewed the afternoon of the report from, crash and on methods and formulae commonly used in accident reconstruction, that the point of impact was well onto the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the defendant’s lane of travel, and that the truck therefore must have left the roadway and traveled on apple ipad case study the sidewalk.2 Mr. Dobson opined that the physical evidence was insufficient to determine, with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the location of the impact.

The Commonwealth’s evidence, while it may not have compelled a finding of negligence, certainly warranted it. The jury’s verdict on recent from this point was adequately supported by between and bad essays the evidence. B. Operating Under the Influence. The “operating under” element of the report, OUI (G.L. c. 90, §24) and vehicular homicide (c.90, §24G) statutes require, for a conviction, that the defendant have been operating her motor vehicle “while under the phd thesis, influence of recent report, intoxicating liquor, or of marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined in [G.L. c. 94C, §1], or the vapors of thesis statement, glue.” As noted above, the Commonwealth contended that the report, defendant was under the influence of one or more of three prescription medications: diazepam (sold under the brand name Valium), lorazepam (Ativan), or oxycodone (Percocet) (referred to dental cover letter herein collectively as the “scheduled medications”). The first two are depressants; the last, a narcotic.3.

There was no direct evidence as to when the defendant had last taken any of the scheduled medications; nor was there medical evidence (e.g., blood or urine tests) as to whether any were in her system, or in recent what quantity. The circumstantial evidence as to the “operating under” element was as follows. 1. CVS Pharmacy records. CVS Pharmacy records for dental front letter, the period May 26, 2001 and September 27, 2001 showed that the defendant had filled prescriptions for the scheduled medications on the following dates: Date Dosage Quantity. Date Dosage Quantity. OXYCODONE with APAP.

Date Dosage Quantity. The CVS records also showed prescriptions for the following medications, among others: Date Dosage Quantity. 8/17/01 100 mg. 15. Date Dosage Quantity. Date Dosage Quantity.

Although there was evidence (see below) that the recent report from, latter three medications may affect driving ability, none is a controlled substance, or otherwise falls within the OUI and vehicular homicide statutes. Apple Ipad! Even if the defendant were impaired by one or more of these medications, therefore, she would not have been “operating under the recent report, influence” within the meaning of these statutes, unless she was also impaired by one or more of the scheduled medications. 2. Testimony of Dr. Abela. The CVS records further showed that the oxycodone prescription which the defendant filled on riftia chemosynthesis August 29 was written by Dr. Andrew Abela. Dr. Abela, a dentist, testified that on August 24, 2001, while the defendant was a psychiatric inpatient at Emerson Hospital, she made an emergency visit to his office for tooth pain. He extracted a lower molar, and gave her the oxycodone prescription at that time. His practice is to recommend to patients that if they experience pain, they should first try ice, then Motrin, then Vicodin or Percocet (both narcotic analgesics)4; that they should use the minimum narcotic needed to control pain; and that they should not drive if they have taken a narcotic because it can cause drowsiness. He further testified that patients who have had a tooth extracted sometimes experience “dry socket” three to five days after the procedure, which can cause pain to flare up at that time.

Extraction of a lower tooth, and smoking following the procedure (the defendant is a smoker), both place the patient at report increased risk for dry socket. 3. Apple In India Study! Package Warnings. The CVS records included copies of the “monographs” that CVS, when filling a prescription, produces and staples to the bag containing the pill bottle. The monograph sets forth patient information in paragraphs headed “USES,” HOW TO USE,” SIDE EFFECTS,” PRECAUTIONS,” DRUG INTERACTIONS,” OVERDOSE,” NOTES,” MISSED DOSE,” and “STORAGE.” Each monograph is lengthy (about half of an 8? ? 11 page of fairly small type). The following are excerpts from the monographs for from, the scheduled medications: (distributed with diazepam) SIDE EFFECTS: This medication causes drowsiness and dizziness. Thesis! Avoid tasks requiring alertness. Other side effects may include: stomach upset, blurred vision, headache, confusion, depression, impaired coordination, change in heart rate, trembling, weakness, memory loss, hangover effect (grogginess), dreaming or nightmares. … SIDE EFFECTS: This drug can cause drowsiness, dizziness, lack of coordination, grogginess, headache, nausea, dry mouth, blurred vision. If these effects continue or become severe, contact your doctor.

Notify your doctor if you experience any of report from, these effects while using this drug: confusion, hallucinations, depression, yellowing of the eyes or skin, slow pulse, trouble breathing, fever/chills, prolonged sore throat, unusual tiredness, unusual bleeding or bruising. If you notice other effects not listed above, contact your doctor or pharmacist. PRECAUTIONS: … Use caution when performing tasks requiring alertness. … SIDE EFFECTS: This medication may cause constipation, stomach upset, lightheadedness, dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, or flushing. If any of these effects persist or worsen, contact your doctor or pharmacist promptly. Tell your doctor immediately if you have any of chemosynthesis, these unlikely but serious side effects: loss of recent from, coordination, confusion, irregular heartbeat, slow/irregular breathing, anxiety, tremors. Good And Bad Essays! …. PRECAUTIONS: … Use caution when performing tasks requiring alertness such as driving or using heavy machinery. 4. Evidence as to Therapeutic and Side Effects. As outlined below, with the exception of oxycodone (a narcotic pain medication), the other scheduled and the three unscheduled medications are all prescribed in the management of various psychiatric conditions and/or insomnia.

In recorded statements she gave to the police on September 2 and 6, 2001 (both of which were played for recent from, the jury), the defendant stated that she had undergone a miscarriage on May 19 of that year; suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder; and riftia chemosynthesis had twice attempted suicide (most recently on recent report from August 21, which had resulted in her admission to front cover Emerson Hospital’s psychiatric unit from then until the 29th). She also stated that she had been having trouble sleeping, and that the night before the from, accident, she had gone to bed about 4:00 a.m., rising about 9:00 a.m. The Commonwealth’s medical expert (Dr. Brower) testified concerning the indications, action, and side effects of the medications the defendant had been prescribed. Of the scheduled medications:

1. Oxycodone (Percocet) is career thesis statement, a narcotic analgesic, derived from the opium plant and used for report from, moderate to severe pain. Side effects, which can occur in therapeutic doses, include sedation (sleepiness or drowsiness); nausea, stomach upset, and vomiting; impaired attentiveness, alertness, and vigilance; difficulty coordinating eye movements; and light-headedness. • Diazepam (Valium) is an a benzodiazepine prescribed for anxiety and sometimes for insomnia. It metabolizes, and between good and bad essays affects the brain, quickly after ingestion (peak effect occurring in recent report from an hour), but because its metabolites have similar effects and accumulate with repeated dosing, chronic use can produce longer-lasting effects after each dose. Side effects, which can occur in therapeutic doses, include: impairment of cognitive and difference between essays motor functions, especially fine motor coordination; confusion and problems with thinking; drowsiness and lassitude; dizziness, lightheadedness, and poor coordination. • Lorazepam (Ativan) is another benzodiazepine with indications and effects similar to diazepam, but slower-acting and with longer-lasting effects. From! Side effects, which can occur in therapeutic doses, include impairment and slowing down of mental and motor functions, and prompt drowsiness. A single dose can affect the recent from, patient for up to 24 hours.

Two milligrams is the maximum dose normally prescribed, and is a sedating dose. Of the non-scheduled drugs that the plaintiff was also prescribed: • Topomax is an anti-seizure medication sometimes prescribed “off label” to control mood disorders. Side effects can include somnolence, fatigue, and blunted mental reactions. • Effexor is an antidepressant, also used in generalized anziety disorder. Side effects can include nausea, dizziness, and insomnia or somnolence, but not impairment of psychomotor skills. • Zyprexa is used to treat severe insomnia. Apple! Side effects can include drowsiness, tremor, stiffness and abnormal body movements. Generally speaking, the three scheduled medications produce quick relief of acute symptoms. Recent From! Both therapeutic and side effects may decrease with prolonged, regular use, but this is less likely with prolonged “PRN” (as needed) use. The other three medications take longer — 2 to 4 weeks — to be effective, and their side effects normally abate over time. Dr.

Brower opined, in response to hypothetical questions which assumed the Commonwealth’s view of prompt for essay writing, how the accident happened (i.e., that the report from, truck left the prompt, roadway for report from, the sidewalk), that such things as difficulty keeping a vehicle on a straight course, delayed reaction time, and reacting to an emergency erratically or at the last minute, are consistent with the effects of the three scheduled drugs. Prompt! There could be other causes as well (and patients vary in the severity of their reactions to these and other drugs), but any or all of the scheduled drugs are capable of report, producing these effects. Topomax, Zyprexa, and apple case study (especially) Effoxor, however, are less potent, and recent from much less consistently associated with these kinds of impairments, than are the phd thesis in thermodynamics, scheduled drugs. 5. Defendant’s Statements Concerning Medications. The plaintiff made various statements, shortly after the accident, concerning the medications she was taking. In chronological order: 1. Ricardo Alcantara, who happened on the scene just after the accident and helped the plaintiff out of from, her truck, testified that the defendant told him she was on multiple medications; that she opened her purse and showed him “quite a few bottles”; and that he overheard her tell an EMT who responded that she was on six medications. 2. Adam Blumenthal, who appears to have been the EMT to whom Alcantara referred, testified (with the research statement, aid of his report) that the defendant told him she was on Effexor, Topamax, Ativan, and Zyprexa. 3. Arthur Ragusa was a nurse at the Deaconess Nashoba Hospital (now the Nashoba Valley Medical Center). His record notes, among the defendant’s “current medications,” percocet and valium “PRN” (i.e., as needed).

This was in response to the question he asks every patient,” What medications are you currently taking?” 4. In her September 2, 2001 and report from September 6, 2001 recorded statements to the Groton Police, the defendant said she had taken her medications the morning of the accident. She stated that she had not driven, or been out of the house, for two weeks prior to the accident (excepting her stay on a locked floor at Emerson Hospital). She listed, and displayed bottles of, Topamax, Zyprexa, Effexor, Nestabs (a vitamin), and iron. She stated that she takes these as prescribed — Effexor twice a day, Zyprexa once a day, and Topomax (“I take two”) — and that “If I went without them, I’d be a fruit loop.”5 She took her Effexor shortly before leaving the house the day of the accident. She said that the packaging for Topamax, Zyprexa, and Effexor advised caution when operating heavy machinery, but that she had felt OK to difference between essays drive on September 1. She never mentioned diazepam, lorazepam, or oxycodone in her statement to the police. 6. Descriptions of the Defendant’s Affect.

Five witnesses testified as to the defendant’s affect, as it bore on the question of possible impairment from drugs. 1. Blumenthal testified that as far as he could tell, the defendant was not “grossly” affected by drugs or alcohol. 2. Melissa Heys, a nurse with the nearby Groton School, came on the scene very shortly after the accident, and went to see if the report, defendant needed help. She assessed her for head injury, and noted that she appeared alert, not drowsy, able to focus, oriented, unimpaired in speech, and able to follow the directions of the dental front desk letter, EMTs. 3. Steven Mickle, with the Groton rescue squad and a first responder, testified that the defendant appeared alert, oriented, and recent from able to follow instructions and to respond to his questions. 4. Dr. Balser, who saw the defendant at Deaconess Nashoba, noted her to be alert and oriented “times 3? (i.e., oriented to person, place and time). His bedside neurological exam showed no focal deficits and no signs of intoxication; “There was nothing about her that made me think she was under the influence.” He therefore saw no indication for performing a toxicology screen (but would not have performed one even if he had; since she had already admitted to taking Ativan and Percocet, the presence of these substances in a blood or urine sample would have been uninformative).6. 5. On the other hand, Officer Hatch, a Groton Police officer (since retired) who was among the dental front desk cover letter, first responders, testified that he saw the defendant at the scene; that he has known her since she was a little girl; and that in his opinion, she was under the influence of something. He smelled no alcohol and there was” nothing I could put my finger on,” but he did notice that she was unusually subdued, not “bubbly” as she normally was.7 He also testified that the defendant told him at report the scene that she had swerved into the other lane (leftwards) to avoid the bicyclist. He went to the hospital where she was taken, where she said she had swerved to phd thesis in thermodynamics the right to avoid cars in the oncoming lane.

Hatch asker her if she remembered telling him she had swerved to the left; she said she did not. 7. Erratic Driving. There was also the evidence of the defendant’s erratic driving the day of the accident. As mentioned above, there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the accident occurred when defendant’s vehicle left her lane of travel and swerved onto the sidewalk, into report the path of the oncoming bicyclist, for no apparent reason: the pavement was dry; the weather was clear; she was heading north and not into the sun; the road took a gradual curve to the left where the defendant drove off it to the right; and the jury could have discredited her statements both that she swerved right to avoid cars and that she swerved left to avoid the phd thesis, bicyclist. There was also testimony from two witnesses who, the jury could have found, encountered the plaintiff minutes before the accident, between a mile and two away.

The defendant was coming from her home in Ayer, northbound on Route 111 (known as Groton School Road in report Ayer and Farmers Row in Groton), to Groton Center (with a brief stop to drop off a video at a friend’s house on the way). George Krusen and Barry Curcio, who were driving together south on dental front desk cover Route 111 in Ayer, encountered a truck coming toward them, driven by a woman at a high rate of recent from, speed in career research paper statement the opposite (northbound) lane. Report From! As they and for essay the truck approached one another at a curve in the road, the truck swerved into their lane and recent beyond, into difference between and bad essays the dirt by the (wrong) side of the road. Recent Report! It did not slow down, and was in their lane for several seconds before veering back into the correct lane of travel. Krusen, who was driving, slowed down and avoided a collision by good just a foot or two. In her September 6 statement to the police, the defendant stated that the only significant event on her drive from Ayer to Groton was that her sandal “fell off once” in the general area of the incident described by Krusen and Curcio; that she might have swerved slightly; but “then that was fine.”

Both men generally described the recent report from, truck and driver,8 and both, at the request of the Groton police, viewed the truck after the phd thesis, accident at recent from the garage where it had been towed. Between Essays! Krusen (the driver) told the police he did not think the truck in the garage was the one he had seen on recent report Groton School Road. Curcio, on the hand, testified that he was positive that it was the same truck. The time, place, and descriptions of the encounter were such that the jury would have been warranted in concluding that the in thermodynamics, driver was the defendant, and that her near-miss with the Krusen-Curzio vehicle took place just before the recent report from, accident with Evan Holofcener.9. A. Renewed Motion for Required Finding. The defendant moved for research paper thesis statement, a directed finding at recent the close of the Commonwealth’s case.

At that point, as required, I reviewed “whether the evidence presented up to the time of apple ipad in india, a motion for a directed verdict [was] legally sufficient to permit the submission of the case to the … jury, to recent from decide the innocence or guilt of the accused.” Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. Career Thesis Statement! 671, 676 (1979). I determined that although the evidence that the defendant was under the influence of any of the scheduled medications at the time of the accident was entirely circumstantial, there was enough to warrant submitting the report from, case to dental desk cover letter the jury. The defendant has now renewed her motion, requiring me (a) to look again at whether the Commonwealth’s case was sufficient, and (b) “to determine whether the Commonwealth’s position as to proof had deteriorated since it had closed its case.” Commonwealth v. Basch, 386 Mass. 620, 622 n. 2 (1982). Both determinations require that I view the recent report from, evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Latimore, 378 Mass. at 677-78; Commonwealth v. Torres, 24 Mass. App. Ct.

317, 323-24 (1987). “[T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction must be not simply to determine whether the jury was properly instructed on reasonable doubt, but to determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. … [The] question is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Thus, to sustain the denial of a directed verdict, it is not enough … to paper thesis statement find that there was some record evidence, however slight, to report from support each essential element of the offense; [there must have been] enough evidence that could have satisfied a rational trier of fact of each such element beyond a reasonable doubt. Latimore, 378 Mass. at 677-78, quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 (1979); see Torres and Commonwealth v. Doucette, 408 Mass. 454, 456 (1990) (both applying the Latimore / Jackson standard of appellate review to ipad in india study trial judge’s review of motion for directed finding). As noted above, in the discussion of the facts, Trooper Alvino’s testimony placed the defendant’s truck on the sidewalk, out of her lane of travel and in recent the path of an oncoming cyclist, with no apparent explanation to be found in road, traffic, weather, or lighting conditions. Riftia! This was sufficient to recent from convict for operating to endanger. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Difference Between Good Essays! Siciliano, 420 Mass. 303, 307-08 (1995) (“evidence that the defendant drove while intoxicated, made a wide turn, crossed into from the opposite traffic lane, swerved back and forth across the roadway, and nearly struck a traffic island” was sufficient); Commonwealth v. Bergeron, 398 Mass. 338, 340 (1986) (a finding of ordinary negligence suffices for the operating to endanger element of vehicular homicide); Commonwealth v. Vartanian, 251 Mass. 355, 358 (1925) (presence of people is a relevant factor when considering whether defendant operated vehicle to endanger).

Eyewitness evidence as to the operation of the truck before the accident was not required. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Case! Gordon, 389 Mass. Recent From! 351, 358 (1983). The evidence concerning operating under the influence presented a closer case, but still one presentable to the jury. To succeed on this element, the Commonwealth was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of the scheduled medications, through its effect on the defendant’s “judgment, alertness, and ability to respond promptly and effectively to unexpected emergencies,” diminished her “ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.”10 Commonwealth v. For Essay Writing! Connolly, 394 Mass. Report From! 169, 174 (1985). In India! A scheduled medication need not have been the sole or exclusive cause of the defendant’s diminished ability to drive safely, so long as is was a contributor. “It is enough if the defendant’s capacity to report from operate a motor vehicle is diminished because of [a substance listed in the statute], even though other, concurrent causes contribute to that diminished capacity.” Commonwealth v. Stathopoulos, 401 Mass. 453, 457 (1988). From the career research, evidence summarized above, the jury could have concluded: 1. That the defendant had been prescribed, had purchased, and thus had access to the three controlled medications;

2. That her pattern of filling the prescriptions for diazepam and (more especially) lorazepam indicated regular consumption; 3. Recent! That the recency of her filling prescriptions for oxycodone (August 29, 2001) and lorazepam (August 31, 2001) — particularly when combined with the indications that she may have suffered very recently from dry socket (an indication for oxycodone) and, on the night of August 31, from dental front cover insomnia (an indication for lorazepam) — indicated recent enough consumption to have affected her on September 1; 4. Report From! That lorazepam, even if consumed the night before, would still have affected her the day of the accident; 5. That the steadily diminishing list of medications given by the plaintiff following the accident — and the omission of the three controlled medications in her statements to dental desk cover the police — indicated a consciousness of guilt, further bolstering the other circumstantial evidence of intoxication; 6. Report! That the evidence of the defendant’s erratic and dangerous driving, on two occasions11 separate but close in chemosynthesis time and location, and the lack of any reasonable explanation for either, was evidence of recent from, impairment due to case intoxication; 7. That the fact that the defendant was under the recent report from, influence of prompt for essay, prescription medications, rather than alcohol or a common drug of abuse, made it difficult for most of the report from, witnesses who evaluated the dental front desk cover letter, defendant’s affect after the recent, accident to detect impairment;

8. Prompt Writing! That the description of the defendant’s affect by Officer Hatch, who had known her for recent report, most of her life, was consistent with the sedating effects of all three controlled medications; and. 9. That the plaintiff was adequately advised of the sedating and impairing effects of he controlled medications, such that her intoxication was voluntary (see Commonwealth v. Darch, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 713 (2002) and Commonwealth v. Wallace, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 358, 360 (1982)).

As noted above, the case lacked direct evidence that the defendant had taken any of the controlled medications recently enough to be impaired by them, and it lacked direct evidence of what concentrations she had of any of career, them. Even the direct evidence of signs of intoxication in the defendant’s affect was thin, though perhaps explicably so (see ¶7 above). From the evidence that was presented, however, the from, jury had enough to career research conclude that the defendant had access to the drugs; that she had taken oxycodone recently and lorazepam both recently and regularly; that she appreciated the dangers of the controlled medications, both medically and (by the time she spoke to the police) legally as well; and that her erratic and dangerous driving on the day of the accident lacked any reasonable explanation other than impairment by one or both of these drugs. This was enough to convict. The question of guilt cannot be left to conjecture or surmise. … However, circumstantial evidence is competent to report establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

An inference drawn from circumstantial evidence “need only be reasonable and career possible; it need not be necessary or inescapable.” Moreover, the evidence and the permissible inferences therefrom need only be sufficient to persuade “minds of recent from, ordinary intelligence and sagacity” of the apple ipad case study, defendant’s guilt. Fact finders are not “required to recent divorce themselves of common sense, but rather should apply to facts which they find proven such reasonable inferences as are justified in the light of front letter, their experience as to the natural inclinations of human beings.” To the report from, extent that conflicting inferences are possible from the evidence, it is for the fact finder to resolve the conflict. Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 423 Mass. In Thermodynamics! 863, 868 (1996) (citations omitted). B. Motion to Reduce Verdict. Rule 25(b)(2) of the Rules of recent, Criminal Procedure provides as follows: Motion After Discharge of Jury.

If the motion [for a required finding of not guilty] is denied and the case is submitted to the jury, the motion may be renewed within five days after the jury is discharged and prompt writing may include in recent from the alternative a motion for front desk letter, a new trial. If a verdict of guilty is returned, the judge may on motion set aside the verdict and order a new trial, or order the entry of a finding of recent report, not guilty, or order the entry of a finding of good and bad essays, guilty of any offense included in the offense charged in the indictment or complaint. The Rule incorporates the statutory authority conferred by G.L. c. 278, §11. In a recent (and celebrated) discussion of this authority, the SJC noted, The authority of the trial judge under rule 25(b)(2) to reduce the recent report, verdict or grant a new trial in criminal cases is much like our authority to review so-called capital cases — convictions of murder in the first degree — under G.L. Ipad In India! c. 278, § 33E. The postconviction powers granted by the Legislature to the courts at both trial and appellate levels reflect the evolution of legislative policy promoting judicial responsibility to ensure that the result in every criminal case is recent, consonant with justice. It is clear that the responsibility may be exercised by the trial judge, even if the evidence warrants the jury’s verdict. “[A] new trial or verdict reduction may be proper even when the evidence can legally support the jury’s verdict.” The judge’s option to reduce a verdict offers a means to rectify a disproportionate verdict, among other reasons, short of riftia chemosynthesis, granting a new trial. The judge’s power under rule 25(b)(2), like our power under G.L. c. 278, §33E, may be used to ameliorate injustice caused by the Commonwealth, defense counsel, the jury, the judge’s own error, or … the recent, interaction of several causes.

Commonwealth v. Woodward, 427 Mass. 659, 666-67 (1998). As the trial judge in Woodward put it, a judge’s exercise of the Rule’s authority to reduce a verdict is less constrained than when considering a motion to set aside a verdict as unsupported by the evidence: The test here is no longer narrowly legal. The judge, formerly only an umpire enforcing the rules, now must determine whether, under the special circumstances of this case, justice requires lowering the level of guilt …. The facts, as well as the law, are open to consideration. Commonwealth v. Woodward, 1997 WL 694119 (Mass .Super.; Zobel, J.) This broad authority is nonetheless subject to prudential limitations.

The SJC added, to what has been quoted above from the Woodward opinion, that “[b]ecause such broad postconviction authority is vested in the trial judge, we have counseled that a judge should use this power sparingly, and trial judges have in fact used their rule 25(b)(2) power infrequently.” Id. at 667, citing Commonwealth v. Keough, 385 Mass. Riftia! 314, 321 (1982) (trial judge “should not sit as a `second jury’”); see also Commonwealth v. Carter, 423 Mass. 506, 512 (1996) (judge hearing motion to reduce verdict “is not to play the role of thirteenth juror” or to “second guess the report from, jury”). Prompt For Essay! Perhaps not surprisingly, it appears that the verdict-reduction power is exercised most frequently — as in Woodward — to recent from walk the “fine line[s]” between the forms of career research statement, malice required for the various degrees of homicide.12 427 Mass. at recent report from 669. The defendant offers two reasons for a reduction of the verdict in this case, from apple ipad case felony to misdemeanor vehicular homicide (i.e., setting aside the recent report from, finding as to operating under and leaving intact the finding as to operating to endanger): 1. The lack of any direct evidence, or of overwhelmingly compelling circumstantial evidence, that the defendant ingested any of the controlled medications during a relevant time period; or that she exhibited signs of intoxication on the day of the accident; or that her driving ability was actually impaired; and. 2. The lack of any evidence whatsoever that the phd thesis, defendant abused any of the from, controlled medications, or otherwise failed to thesis statement take them as prescribed (which the defendant frames, in part, as an argument for “involuntary intoxication”). The evidence as to ingestion, intoxication, and from impairment is summarized above and difference between and bad need not be repeated here. It was, as the defendant characterizes it, “slim,” at least in the sense that there was no single piece of evidence of which one could say that if accepted as true, it virtually compelled a finding of intoxication by a controlled medication.

That said, there was a good deal of circumstantial evidence which, taken in recent from its entirety, is difficult to discount. Perhaps the strongest single piece of evidence came, not from medicine or from pharmacology, but from front desk physics and accident reconstruction. If one accepts the conclusion of Trooper Alvino that the truck was on the sidewalk at report the point of impact — which the jury were not required but were entitled to do — there might be a variety of explanations for it, but the only one to be found anywhere in the evidence is that of intoxication. If one also accepts the testimony of Krusen and paper thesis statement Curcio (including the identification furnished by the latter) — as the jury were also entitled to do — this showed a chain of events of some duration, likewise consistent with intoxication and begging alternative explanation in the evidence. A loose sandal might explain the Krusen-Curcio incident alone — though even this is undercut by the defendant’s disclaimer of report from, any problem resulting from phd thesis in thermodynamics it — but it does little to explain a course of reckless driving, which endangered two lives and took a third, and which persisted or was repeated over the course of several minutes and several miles. When combined with evidence of the defendant’s access to, her apparent pattern of using, and the likely effects of the controlled medications, and with Officer Hatch’s description of her affect after the accident, the conclusion which the jury drew, beyond a reasonable doubt, was a reasoned and rational one. As noted above, the verdict-reduction power conferred by recent report G.L. c. 278, §11 and apple ipad case Rule 25(b)(2) is most often exercised in order to navigate the murky — and notoriously difficult, even on report from a jurisprudential level — world of human intent in homicide cases. Career Research Thesis! These are cases in which the law, for reasons of social utility and fairness, requires a jury’s pronouncement upon what many would argue is inherently unknowable.

Some room for reflection and correction is necessary, in recent all cases but especially in these. In this case, however, the central issue — whether or not the defendant’s ability to perform a complex task such as driving was impaired by a controlled medication — was an apple in india, ascertainable fact. Its determination on the evidence presented in this case was not a simple or an easy task, to be sure, but there is no reason to suppose that it was beyond the ability of the recent report, jury. That evidence, if necessarily circumstantial and incomplete, was nonetheless substantial in career paper thesis its quantity and its overall quality. Trial presentations for both sides were excellent. I do not think the jury’s verdict represented a miscarriage of justice. The defendant’s final argument — that medications taken as prescribed cannot be the basis of an OUI or a vehicular homicide conviction — misapprehends the conduct which G.L. From! c. Writing! 90, §§24 and 24G make criminal.

Her argument to recent report from the contrary notwithstanding, neither the statutes, nor the conviction in this case, criminalizes the in thermodynamics, defendant’s mental illness, or her therapy. The offense is operating under the influence. What is forbidden is not taking medications as prescribed; it is report, getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle while impaired, whether by these or by other, enumerated substances. The OUI and in thermodynamics vehicular homicide statutes on their face make no distinction between drug therapy and drug abuse. They instead require proof that the defendant operated a motor vehicle; that a listed substance impaired her ability to report do so safely (for operating under), and that she thereby caused the death of another person (for vehicular homicide). Impairment by for essay writing a prescription drug may be as dangerous as impairment by alcohol or a drug of abuse (which for some drugs is precisely the reason a prescription is required). The statute aims to keep the impaired driver off the road in either case. While there are undoubtedly degrees of culpability to be reckoned with, these are best addressed — and will be addressed in from this case — in sentencing.

For the prompt, foregoing reasons, the defendant’s Motion for recent, Relief Pursuant to Mass. R. Good Essays! Crim. P. 25(b)(2) is DENIED. The date for sentencing remains November 5, 2003 at 3:00 p.m., in report from Lowell. 1. A conviction for felony vehicular homicide requires findings both that the defendant was operating under the influence, and that she was operating to endanger(and that her operation caused the death of another). Ipad In India! Misdemeanor vehicular homicide requires a finding either of operating under or operating to endanger, resulting in death. Both operating under and operating to endanger are therefore lesser included offenses in relation to felony vehicular homicide. 2. The week that trial began I held an evidentiary hearing, over two mornings, concerning the admissibility under Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 54 (1994), of from, Trooper Alvino’s testimony. In Thermodynamics! It was my assessment that the scientific methods employed, and their application to this case, were sufficiently reliable to warrant admission of Trooper Alvino’s testimony.

3. With respect to diazepam and lorazepam, I took judicial notice (and so advised the jury), at the Commonwealth’s request, that these are “depressants,” because they appear on the attorney general’s list of from, controlled substances, incorporated by reference into c. 94C, §1 and thereby into c. 90, §§24(a) and 24G(a). Oxycodone’s status as a narcotic was established by the testimony of the Commonwealth’s medical expert, Dr. Brower. 4. Dr. Essays! Abela asks his patients whether they have has a satisfactory experience with either or these medications. Report! Usually, he prescribes Vicodin, but if the patient says that Percocet has worked well for her, he will prescribe Percocet. 5. She also stated that her dosages had been increased while she was in the hospital, and that this at first caused her to feel “out of it” and to sleep a lot, but that “now they have no effect on me, and I’m fine.” In testimony that I excluded (after first asking if the defendant wished to waive the privilege which she had successfully asserted to prompt exclude all prescribing information and warnings given by her psychotherapists, and being advised that she did not), she added that “the doctor said that it was completely fine for me to be driving on them, because I asked him yesterday … and he said it was fine. He said they have no effect on your driving.” 6. Dr. Balser and the police witnesses were in agreement that the decision whether or not to test for intoxication is recent, a medical one, made by the physician and not under the direction of law enforcement. 7. This description of the defendant’s affect could be interpreted as at case least generally consistent with the description, given by recent from Dr.

Brower, of the calming and sedating effects of lorazepam and diazepam. The jury might also have concluded, reasonably, that the effects of these medications would be less familiar to a layperson, including a police officer, than the effects of, say, alcohol. 8. Career Paper Statement! Krusen recalled a Ford Ranger pickup (he drives one too) of an indeterminate color, possible two-toned, driven by a female with brown hair. Curcio remembered a small pickup whose color was unusual, unfamiliar to him, and difficult to from describe beyond a “very dark green with something mixed in”; the prompt, driver was a female, in her late teens or early 20s, with shoulder-length brown hair and looking “intense.” 9. The jury were instructed that the recent, charges against the defendant all pertained to the accident with Evan Holofcener, not to phd thesis the incident involving Krusen and recent Curcio. 10. At the defendant’s request, and over the Commonwealth’s energetically pressed objection, I gave the jury a “specific unanimity” instruction, requiring that they agree on which of the three scheduled medications (if any) had impaired the defendant’s ability to drive. “[W]hen the Commonwealth introduces at trial evidence of alternate incidents that could support the and bad, charge against the defendant, the jury must unanimously agree on which specific act constitutes the offense charged.” Commonwealth v. Recent! Kirkpatrick, 423 Mass.

436, 442 (1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1015 (1996). Here, there was evidence of ingestion of multiple controlled medications, but a single homicide resulting from a single operation of for essay writing, a motor vehicle. Massachusetts law is less than clear (to this judge at least) as to whether a specific unanimity instruction was required in a case such as this. 11. The jury could reasonably have credited Curcio’s identification of the truck, and attributed Krusen’s failure to identify it to the fact that he had been the driver, and therefore, preoccupied.

12. The SJC noted in Woodward, “Since 1979, the from, Commonwealth has appealed verdict reductions in only ten cases, of which seven were affirmed.” 427 Mass. at 667. Eight of these cases (cited in note 12 to that opinion) were homicides; the other two were drug cases, in dental front letter which trafficking convictions were reduced to possession with intent to distribute. Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and operating a motor vehicle under a suspended license. 57 Mass. App. Ct. 80. Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued February 7, 2002. Decided January 15, 2003. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED. Esther J. Horwich, Boston, for recent from, the defendant. Jeremy C. Bucci, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Present: GELINAS, CYPHER, #038; KANTROWITZ, JJ.

The defendant appeals from the revocation of his probation, based on evidence that he was operating a motor vehicle under a suspended license. Probation had been imposed on November 16, 1999, in Brighton District Court, after the defendant admitted to sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty on prompt for essay a charge of operating a motor vehicle under a suspended license. The judge continued the case without a finding and placed the report from, defendant under the supervision of a probation officer on terms that, among others, required that he “obey all court orders and local, [S]tate and [F]ederal laws” until May 19, 2000. On January 2, 2000, the defendant was stopped by the Mashpee police on his way home from research thesis statement a football game. The stop resulted in recent report new charges being lodged against the defendant in Falmouth District Court for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of career paper thesis, alcohol and operating a motor vehicle under a suspended license. The new offense triggered the issuance of a written notice of a probation violation from the Brighton District Court, stating the defendant was not in compliance with the terms of his probation because of the new complaint. After a hearing on March 3, 2000, the judge found that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation on report from the basis of his admission to the Mashpee police during his arrest that he had driven his car earlier in the day. The judge entered a guilty finding,1 and modified the terms of probation by phd thesis extending the probationary period to one year from the date of the hearing and imposing a suspended, ten-day house of correction sentence.2. On appeal, the defendant argues that the entry of a guilty finding and recent the order modifying the terms of prompt writing, his probation should be reversed because (1) the grounds stated as the reason for revoking his probation were different from those for recent report from, which he had received written notification; (2) the defendant’s admission was unreliable, because the police officer who testified was unsure of the exact statement, and because it was contradicted by other information contained in riftia chemosynthesis the police reports; (3) the admission was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a finding that he had violated the law, because it was uncorroborated; and (4) his admission was not the product of voluntary actions, because at the time of the report from, admission he was intoxicated, and riftia prior to his admission he had not been given his Miranda warnings. We affirm the revocation decision. We summarize the relevant facts as presented at the revocation hearing.

On January 2, 2000, Officer Jon Read of the Mashpee police department was traveling northbound on recent report from Route 130. He was forced to steer his police cruiser to the right in order to avoid being hit by a green sport utility vehicle that had crossed the center line. For Essay! Read testified at the hearing that he was unable to recent from see who was driving or how many people were in difference and bad essays the vehicle. He turned his cruiser around and headed southbound on Route 130 in search of the vehicle. Read found it parked at from the side of the road. Career Thesis! Read observed the recent from, defendant standing toward the back of the vehicle, on the driver’s side. Read stopped, exited, and walked toward the defendant.

As Read approached, the defendant walked to career research thesis the passenger side of the vehicle, sat in the passenger seat, and began to look through the glove box. Read asked the defendant where the report from, driver was; the ipad case, defendant did not respond.3 At about that time, another individual, Kevin Crosby, the defendant’s son-in-law, emerged from the recent report from, woods by the side of the road, where he apparently had been urinating. Apple Ipad Case! Read asked both the defendant and Crosby who was driving; neither responded. Read observed food and a cooler with numerous beers in report from it in the rear of the vehicle. Read determined that the defendant was the owner of the in thermodynamics, vehicle.

Read determined that both the defendant and Crosby were under the influence of alcohol, and placed both in protective custody. Officer Paul Coronella was called and report arrived at the scene. The defendant was placed in research paper statement the rear of Coronella’s police car and Crosby was placed in the rear of Read’s police car, both for from, transportation to ipad in india the police station. En route to the station, Crosby had a conversation with Read in which Crosby stated that the from, defendant was the for essay writing, driver. When Read arrived at the station with Crosby, he informed Coronella that Crosby had implicated the defendant as the recent report, driver. Read obtained a signed, written statement from Crosby that the defendant was the driver. After conducting sobriety tests, which he said the defendant failed, Coronella placed the defendant under arrest for operating the motor vehicle on Route 130 while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

A breathalyzer test revealed the defendant to have a blood alcohol reading of career paper thesis, .16. Officer Sean Sullivan, who had been called to inventory the contents of the defendant’s vehicle at the scene, stated in his report that, at the station, he noticed that both the defendant and report from Crosby “exhibited extreme symptoms of intoxication.” Coronella’s report of the booking procedure stated that the defendant was read and understood his Miranda rights. Read testified that he believed he remembered that the defendant had been read his rights at that point. According to both Coronella’s and Read’s reports, after the booking procedure, the defendant was again asked how he had arrived at the football game that day. Both Coronella’s and Read’s reports explain that the between good and bad, defendant answered that he drove from his house in Brockton to his son-in-law’s, Crosby’s, home in East Bridgewater. Crosby then drove the defendant’s vehicle to the game. When pressed on this point during cross-examination, Read testified that he had no memory of the defendant telling him that his sister had given him a ride to Crosby’s house, but acknowledged that it was “possible” the recent report, defendant had made such a comment.

The judge did not credit Crosby’s statement, as related by Officer Read, that the defendant had been driving the vehicle at the time it was stopped. Rather, the phd thesis, judge credited the defendant’s admission, as reported by Coronella and Read, that he had driven from his house to Crosby’s house, the report from, first leg of the career research paper thesis, trip to the football game.4. On these facts, the recent from, defendant raises several issues implicating due process; we find no merit to chemosynthesis his contentions and we affirm. Written Notification. The defendant first argues that the written notice of surrender referenced only the two charges for which he was arrested by the Mashpee police, and contained no reference to the uncharged misconduct that occurred earlier in the day, when he drove from recent report his home to Crosby’s home under a suspended license. The issue was first raised in the defendant’s second motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the judge who had found a probation violation. We agree with the defendant that the written notice was limited on its face to the two charges filed in connection with the incident that occurred on Route 130, and that the riftia, notice of report from, violation of prompt for essay, probation did not include mention of his operating the motor vehicle on a public way earlier in the day.5 The Commonwealth appears to concede that, because of lack of notice, the earlier operation cannot form the basis of the instant revocation. We disagree.6. While there can be no doubt that written notice of the claimed violations are included among the “minimum requirements of due process,” Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 112-113, 551 N.E.2d 1193 (1990),7 due process is not an recent report from, inflexible concept. Research Paper Thesis Statement! Ibid.

Flexibility is important both to insure the recent from, offender the opportunity inherent in the grant of conditional liberty that probation affords, and to insure the Commonwealth the ability to riftia deal expeditiously with a violation of that opportunity. See id. at 113-116, 551 N.E.2d 1193. See also Commonwealth v. Sheridan, 51 Mass.App.Ct. 74, 76-77, 743 N.E.2d 856 (2001). A probation revocation is not a criminal prosecution. Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. at 112, 551 N.E.2d 1193.

In this case, the written notice did not specifically state the basis upon which the judge based the revocation. Recent Report! The defendant’s admission, however, of having driven the vehicle earlier in the day was included in the police reports that were generated in relation to the charges listed on the notice of probation violation. Difference Between Good Essays! In any event, assuming that the from, failure to specifically enumerate the misconduct on phd thesis in thermodynamics the face of the notice constitutes error, the issue remains whether the defendant was afforded due process. We conclude that the actions of defense counsel in introducing the issue at recent from the inception of the prompt for essay, hearing, and in vigorously cross-examining the officer on the issue, amply support the conclusion that any error here was harmless. For example, at the opening of the hearing, counsel indicated that the defendant’s principal concern was with the then-pending operating under the influence charge. With respect to the remaining issue, operating after suspension of license, she indicated a willingness to admit if the court were to accept a recommended disposition on the probation violation. Recent! After discussion about a possible disposition, counsel told the judge the following: “There is a second matter of operating after a suspended license. And there are two incidents of operation, one of which I understand my client is accused of in india case, admitting that he did. I’m not saying that is his position, but in the police report it indicates something to that effect.

“If we could just go forward with regard to that issue and not stipulate to the OUI, it would still be a technical violation.” (Emphasis supplied.) At a later stage in recent report from the proceeding, counsel engaged in vigorous cross-examination of the officer with regard to the defendant’s statement that he had driven the car earlier in the day, and front letter went so far as to elicit a statement from the officer that the defendant might also have told him that a family member, rather than the from, defendant, drove the car to Crosby’s house. Counsel was amply prepared at the start of the hearing to consider the issue of the defendant’s admitting to the first occasion of driving after suspension of dental front desk cover letter, his license. On the facts of recent report, this case, the defendant is ipad in india case, unable to demonstrate prejudice resulting from any lack of recent, notice, and this failure to show prejudice is fatal to his claim of error. See Delisle v. Commonwealth, 416 Mass. 359, 362, 622 N.E.2d 601 (1993). See also Commonwealth v. Odoardi, 397 Mass. 28, 31-32, 489 N.E.2d 674 (1986).

Compare Commonwealth v. Streeter, 50 Mass.App.Ct. Chemosynthesis! 128, 131-132, 735 N.E.2d 403 (2000). Exclusion of the recent report, evidence. The defendant next contends that his admission to police that he had been driving earlier in the day should have been excluded because (a) the statement was made either prior to his being given his Miranda warnings or, if made after the warnings, his waiver was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent due to his state of intoxication; (b) again due to his state of intoxication, the statement was not made voluntarily for the purposes of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to riftia chemosynthesis the United States Constitution and art. 12 of the recent report, Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and therefore should not have been considered; and (c) the alleged admission was unreliable and paper thesis insufficient to form the basis of the probation surrender, since it lacked corroborative evidence and was contradicted by information contained in the police reports. We disagree with all three contentions. (a) Miranda issue. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence adduced at the hearing amply demonstrates that he was afforded his Miranda rights before he made the statement that formed the recent report from, basis of the violation. Phd Thesis In Thermodynamics! The record shows that the conversation reported by Coronella, in from which the defendant admitted to driving the riftia chemosynthesis, vehicle that morning, took place after the defendant had been given his warnings; Read’s testimony at the hearing supports this version of report, events.8. Moreover, even were we to agree that the defendant’s admission was obtained prior to his being given his Miranda rights, the statements were admissible. Following the rationale established in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S.

338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974), and in certain other Federal cases dealing with the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the paper thesis, Supreme Judicial Court, in recent from Commonwealth v. Vincente, 405 Mass. Between! 278, 279-281, 540 N.E.2d 669 (1989), ruled that, even though certain statements made by a defendant were properly suppressed at report from trial as having been obtained in violation of the defendant’s Miranda rights, those same inculpatory statements, perhaps subject to certain considerations not present here, might properly provide the basis for a probation surrender. Where, as here, the primary focus of the police inquiry, including the arrest of the defendant and Crosby for reasons of protective custody, and the ensuing questioning, sobriety tests, and research paper statement ultimate charge were to prosecute the incident of driving under the influence, the exclusion at a probation revocation hearing of the defendant’s statement would be unlikely to serve any deterrent purpose. See Commonwealth v. Olsen, 405 Mass. 491, 493-494, 541 N.E.2d 1003 (1989).

See also Commonwealth v. Vincente, supra at 280, 540 N.E.2d 669. (b) Fifth and recent report Fourteenth Amendment voluntariness. Simon next argues that the statement he made at phd thesis the police station should have been inadmissible at the probation revocation hearing, on from the. basis that it was not made voluntarily due to his intoxication, and therefore was taken in violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The defendant’s claim of intoxication, standing alone, is insufficient to establish that his statement was involuntary. See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 174, 183 #038; n. Chemosynthesis! 8, 472 N.E.2d 1354 (1985). In any event, even were we to conclude otherwise, the recent, defendant is not entitled to relief. In the context of a criminal trial, where evidence of intoxication has been presented, and the voluntariness of dental front cover, statements is in issue, even where there is no question that Miranda warnings were given before a defendant made admissions, a trial judge is obliged to make an affirmative finding on the voluntariness of those admissions under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments before a jury is allowed to consider them.

See Commonwealth v. Van Melkebeke, 48 Mass.App.Ct. Report! 364, 366, 720 N.E.2d 834 (1999). Ipad Study! See also Commonwealth v. Recent Report From! Mello, 420 Mass. 375, 383, 649 N.E.2d 1106 (1995) (“special care is taken to review the issue of voluntariness where the defendant claims to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol”). For Essay Writing! Such special care with regard to intoxication is necessary; the United States Supreme Court has noted, “as interrogators have turned to more subtle forms of psychological persuasion, courts have found the mental condition of the defendant a more significant factor in the `voluntariness’ calculus.” Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 164, 107 S.Ct. Report From! 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986).

Although we have found no case in Massachusetts that resolves whether a similarly careful inquiry to determine admissibility need take place on the bases of Fifth and dental front cover Fourteenth Amendment due process at a probation revocation hearing, we find instructive the reasoning in recent the decisional law related to Fourth Amendment violations. In such circumstances, most Federal courts refuse to apply the career, exclusionary rule to probation revocation proceedings absent evidence of police harassment, or at least police knowledge of the petitioner’s probationary status. See United States v. Recent! Gravina, 906 F.Supp. 50, 53-54 (D.Mass. 1995).9 Nothing in the evidence here points to police harassment when the defendant was interviewed or when he made the statement after being read his Miranda rights. Compare United States v. Gravina, supra at 54, quoting from United States v. James, 893 F.Supp.

649, 650-651 (E.D.Tex.1995) (“an element of constancy should be present in the type of harassment necessary to invoke the exclusionary rule…. [W]here harassment may be a singular act, at least some irregularity in the conduct of the research thesis, police officials must be present”). Report From! While the police officers were aware of Simon’s probationary status, only. two Federal jurisdictions exclude statements for phd thesis, this reason alone.10 See, e.g., United States v. Gravina, supra at recent from 53-54. See also note 9, supra. Further, the police had already placed the defendant under arrest for chemosynthesis, driving under the influence, and the record shows that their inquiry was targeted to elicit evidence in support of a conviction on that offense, rather than for the purpose of eliciting information by which probation could be revoked. Compare Commonwealth v. Vincente, 405 Mass. at recent report from 280, 540 N.E.2d 669, and cases cited (“The Federal courts have concluded that, in most instances, a police officer is primarily interested in obtaining evidence with which to in thermodynamics convict a defendant. Revocation of probation is from, generally only a minor consideration, and therefore the risk that illegally obtained evidence might be excluded from such proceedings is likely to have only a marginal additional deterrent effect on illegal police misconduct”). In addition, we note that the United States Supreme Court has drawn no distinction in its analysis of the “voluntary” waiver of the apple study, personal right against self-incrimination protected by the Miranda warnings on the one hand, and the due process-based “voluntariness” of a statement protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments on the other hand. See Colorado v. Recent! Connelly, 479 U.S. at career thesis 169-170, 107 S.Ct. 515. Similarly, the recent report, Supreme Court “cautioned against expanding `currently applicable exclusionary rules,’” into an area where they could serve little purpose in the protection of constitutional guarantees against research paper, police overreaching.

See id. at 166, 107 S.Ct. 515, quoting from Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 488-489, 92 S.Ct. From! 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972). We see no reason that the exclusionary rule be applied in these circumstances. Riftia! “In Federal law and in most jurisdictions, the exclusionary rule does not apply as a matter of recent report, course to probation revocation proceedings because the `application of the exclusionary rule is apple, restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.’ See Commonwealth v. Vincente, supra at 280, 540 N.E.2d 669, quoting [from] United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974).” Commonwealth v. Recent! Olsen, 405 Mass. at 493, 541 N.E.2d 1003. “`Evidence that a probationer is not complying with the conditions of probation may indicate that he or she has not been rehabilitated and continues to pose a threat to the public.’ Commonwealth v. Vincente, supra at 280, 540 N.E.2d 669. Accordingly, the dental front desk letter, State has an overwhelming interest in being able to return an individual to imprisonment without the burden of a new adversary criminal trial if in fact [the probationer] has failed to recent from abide by the conditions of his [or her probation].’ Morrissey [v. Brewer, 408 U.S.

471,] 483, 92 S.Ct. [2593], 2601[, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)]. Apple In India Case! We weigh this overwhelming State interest in recent from admitting all reliable evidence against prompt writing, the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule.” Commonwealth v. Olsen, supra at 493-494, 541 N.E.2d 1003. Thus, we conclude that the exclusionary rule does not render the defendant’s statement inadmissible, even were we to determine that the recent from, statement had been given involuntarily, when, as here, there is no evidence that the statement was the riftia, product of police harassment or the result of a police focus to obtain evidence specifically for a probation revocation hearing. (c) Reliability of the admission. Simon finally argues that the statement, that he operated the vehicle from his home to Crosby’s home that morning, is insufficiently reliable, first because it is unsubstantiated by other corroborating evidence, and, second, because it is hearsay, reported by one officer, and contradicted by other evidence in the hearing. Although a probation revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, and the defendant need not be given the “full panoply of report from, constitutional protections,” due process requires that probationers be afforded some protections upon an attempt to research paper revoke their probation, as liberty interests are at stake.

Commonwealth v. Report! Durling, 407 Mass. at 112, 551 N.E.2d 1193. The rules, however, are flexible; hearsay is admissible, and all reliable evidence should be considered. See id. at 113-117, 551 N.E.2d 1193. Front Desk Cover! Even the report, right of between and bad essays, confrontation may be denied if the “hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation.” Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). See Durling, supra at 115, 551 N.E.2d 1193. At a revocation hearing, due process has the report from, ultimate goal of providing an accurate determination as to whether revocation is proper.

See Durling, supra at 116, 551 N.E.2d 1193. Here, there was ample evidence to corroborate the defendant’s statement. It is undisputed that the two went to prompt writing the football game in the defendant’s car. The defendant lived a distance from Crosby’s home, and the two were returning there when they were stopped by the police. No other explanation was offered of how the recent, defendant and his vehicle got from his home to Crosby’s.11 The cases cited by the defendant in his brief, Commonwealth v. Forde, 392 Mass. 453, 457, 466 N.E.2d 510 (1984), and Commonwealth v. Leonard, 401 Mass. 470, 473, 517 N.E.2d 157 (1988), are inapposite; in neither case was there anything at prompt all to corroborate the admission. As there was corroboration in this instance, we need not reach the issue whether corroboration is in fact necessary for an admission in the context of a hearing on surrender. As to recent from the claim that the between good, hearsay was unreliable, we note only that Read testified that he was present when the recent from, defendant admitted to driving earlier in phd thesis the day, and that he had made a note of it in his police report. Read was present at the hearing and subject to cross-examination.

The statement was an admission against interest made by report the defendant to police officers at a time when the apple ipad case, officers were investigating him for another alleged crime, operating under the influence. The defendant, though present in recent report court, chose to remain silent. Dental Front Letter! Declarations against penal interest are admissible for the truth of the matters asserted. See Commonwealth v. Cruz, 53 Mass.App.Ct. 393, 401, 759 N.E.2d 723 (2001); Liacos, Brodin #038; Avery, Massachusetts Evidence § 8.10, at 516 (7th ed.1999). The hearsay was both credible and reliable. Order revoking probation affirmed. 1. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Villalobos, 437 Mass.

797, 800-801, 777 N.E.2d 116 (2002) (where defendant admits to sufficient facts, judge continues case without a finding, and recent from defendant then fails to meet any conditions attached to the continuance, he may be found guilty and sentenced). 2. In accordance with Rule 9 of the District Court Rules for Probation Violation Proceedings (West 2001), the proceedings, which resulted in the imposition of a guilty finding and the revocation of dental front cover letter, straight probation, were properly handled pursuant to the procedures applicable to a probation revocation. See generally Commonwealth v. Maggio, 414 Mass. 193, 195-196, 605 N.E.2d 1247 (1993). 3. We look to the testimony given by recent Officer Read at the surrender hearing. Police reports filed after the arrest indicate a somewhat different answer to Read’s initial questions.

Any variance is not material to our decision. 4. At the conclusion of the front desk cover letter, hearing, the judge unequivocally stated that he did not credit Crosby’s statement. In his written findings, the judge noted that he found the defendant in violation based upon from his operation after suspension. He also indicated that evidence on which he relied in making the apple ipad in india, finding included “Mashpee police reports”; “Statement of Kevin Crosby”; “Mashpee P.O. Recent Report From! John Read”; “Breath test on D.” Given the written finding that revocation was based on “Operating motor vehicle while suspended,” and the judge’s unequivocal statement that he was not relying on Crosby’s statement, we adopt the view that the phd thesis, revocation was based on the defendant’s admission that he had been operating the vehicle earlier that day. Both the Commonwealth and the defendant adopt that position in this appeal. 5. With respect to the alleged violations, the notice stated in recent full: “You are hereby notified of the desk letter, following alleged violation(s) of the probation order that was issued to you in the criminal case identified above: You violated a criminal law of the [C]ommonwealth, namely: January 2, 2000 ct process 0089CR00009A op. under infl. # 0089CR00009B op. after susp. lic.”

6. The Commonwealth, having conceded that notice was defective, argues that, even though the trial judge indicated in his findings that he did not rely on Crosby’s statement that the from, defendant was driving, there is ample additional circumstantial evidence to riftia chemosynthesis tie the defendant to report from the operation of the vehicle at good essays the time of the stop. Having determined that revocation was proper on the grounds cited by the judge, we need not reach the Commonwealth’s arguments in this regard. 7. See as well Rule 3(b)(ii) of the District Court Rules for Probation Violation Proceedings, which sets forth notice requirements. The rule went into effect four days prior to the notice of recent, surrender. 8. Riftia! Coronella’s report states in pertinent part: “During the recent report from, booking process [the defendant] was read his Miranda rights state [sic ] that he understood them. [The defendant] was read his rights under [G.L. c.] 265 section 5a and stated that he wanted to take the for essay writing, breath test. [The defendant] was given the test and the results were as follows…. Recent From! [The defendant] was again asked how he got to the … game. Difference Between Good! He stated that he drove from his house in Brockton to Crosby home in East Bridgewater, picked up Crosby and then Crosby drove his vehicle to the game.” Read verified during his testimony at the hearing that the statements were made after Miranda warnings were read at the station. 9. The United States District Court for Massachusetts explained: (1) the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have refused to apply the exclusionary rule to evidence seized in violation of the recent report from, Fourth Amendment when determining probation, parole, or supervised release revocation; (2) most of these jurisdictions provide an exception that such evidence is inadmissible where the defendant suffered harassment; (3) the Second Circuit applies the exclusionary rule where the probation officer is aware of the target’s probationary status, but not where a police officer is unaware of that status; and (4) the Fourth Circuit “stands alone” in excluding all evidence obtained by unconstitutional searches from riftia probation revocation hearings. See United States v. Gravina, supra, and cases cited. From! See also Annot., Admissibility, in Federal Probation Revocation Proceeding, of ipad case, Evidence Obtained Through Unreasonable Search and Seizure or in report from Absence of Miranda Warnings, 30 A.L.R. Front Desk Cover Letter! Fed. 824, 829-835 (1976 #038; Supp.2002).

10. The Supreme Judicial Court, in Commonwealth v. Recent From! Olsen, 405 Mass. 491, 496, 541 N.E.2d 1003 (1989), expressly left open the question whether a police officer’s knowledge of a probationer’s status would compel exclusion of research statement, evidence obtained. 11. Defense counsel makes much of the fact that on recent report cross-examination, Read admitted that it was possible that he had been told that a family member had driven the defendant from his home to Crosby’s home. Career Research Statement! This statement came after vigorous cross-examination in which Read stated that he did not recall any statement that the recent report, defendant had made to the effect that a family member had driven to Crosby’s. Any determination of the essays, weight and credibility of Read’s testimony was for the judge, and report from the contradiction was not so egregious as to cause us to conclude that the judge committed plain error. See Commonwealth v. Tate, 34 Mass.App.Ct. In Thermodynamics! 446, 450-451, 612 N.E.2d 686 (1993). DUI OUI offense, Defendant, was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint, the trooper, although he had made no observations of the manner in which she had been operating her vehicle, directed her to an area adjacent to the checkpoint for administration of field sobriety tests.

76 Mass.App.Ct. 908. Cheryl A. BAZINET. Appeals Court of Massachusetts. James M. Milligan, Jr., Norwell, for report, the defendant. Michelle R. And Bad Essays! King, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Cheryl Bazinet, the defendant, was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint on Route 20 in report from the town of Auburn on July 22, 2007. Career Thesis Statement! A State trooper working the checkpoint spoke with her and detected an odor of alcohol. Consequently, the trooper, although he had made no observations of the manner in which she had been operating her vehicle, directed her to an area adjacent to the checkpoint for administration of field sobriety tests. When Bazinet stepped out of the vehicle, the trooper observed that she had ?glossy, bloodshot eyes? accompanied by ?a strong odor of an intoxicating beverage on her breath as she spoke.? Bazinet consented to a breath test which revealed an alcohol level greater than .08%, and she was charged with operating under the influence. See G.L. c. 90, ? 24(1)( a )(1).

Before trial, Bazinet moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the checkpoint procedures were not consistent with constitutional requirements. Before hearing the motion, a judge of the report from, District Court reported the case for difference between, an answer to two questions of law he said arose frequently in the District Court. See Mass.R.Crim.P. 34, as amended, 442 Mass. Recent Report! 1501 (2004); Mass.R.A.P.

5, as amended, 378 Mass. 930 (1979). See generally Commonwealth v. Caracciola, 409 Mass. 648, 650, 569 N.E.2d 774 (1991). The questions are these: ?1. The Massachusetts State Police General Order (TRF-15) [which governed operation of the checkpoint] permits a trooper, with reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that the operator is dental desk letter, OUI, to recent report from further detain an operator directing them from the screening area to the OUI checking area (Pit). Case! Is mere odor of alcohol sufficient reasonable suspicion to further detain an from, operator for further testing?

?2. Riftia Chemosynthesis! Is the Massachusetts State Police guideline on sobriety checkpoints (general order TRF-15) as applied to the sobriety checkpoint stop in question on. July 21, 2007 through the Division Commander’s Order (06-DFS,056),[[1] constitutionally valid?? The general subject of the reported questions was discussed by the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Murphy, 454 Mass. 318, 910 N.E.2d 281 (2009), a case decided after the report.

In essence, the report from, court in Murphy held that sobriety checkpoint procedures carried out in a manner consistent with Massachusetts State Police General Order TRF-15, as supplemented by written operational instructions from the troop commander to the officer in charge of a specific checkpoint, met constitution standards. Id. at 328, 910 N.E.2d 281. We think that the decision in Murphy requires an affirmative answer to both questions. Insofar as question one is concerned, General Order TRF-15 permits, and for essay now requires, see Murphy, supra at 320 n. 3, 910 N.E.2d 281, further screening after the initial checkpoint stop ?[i]f there is reasonable suspicion, based upon articulable facts, that the operator … is committing … an OUI violation.? In Murphy, the troop commander’s order, like the troop commander’s order in this case, stated that further screening after the initial stop ?should be made? if the screening officer observed ?any articulable sign of recent, possible intoxication.? Murphy, supra at 321, 910 N.E.2d 281. The court said that the career research paper statement, ?odor of alcohol? was one of the ?clues of impaired operation? for which the screening officers were to check and which, if observed, would provide a basis for further screening and investigation. Id. at 320, 328, 910 N.E.2d 281.2 The court’s judgment in that regard is recent, consistent with judgments made by courts in other States that have considered similar questions. See State v. Rizzo, 243 Mich.App. 151, 161, 622 N.W.2d 319 (2000) (holding that ?an odor may give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the motorist has recently consumed intoxicating liquor, which may have affected the motorist’s ability to operate a motor vehicle?); Nickelson v. Kansas Dept. of Rev., 33 Kan.App.2d 359, 367, 102 P.3d 490 (2004) (finding that odor of alcohol was sufficient to allow officer to conduct further investigation); State v. Chemosynthesis! Hernandez-Rodriguez, Ohio App. Recent Report From! 11th Dist.

No. 2006-P-0121, 2007-Ohio-5200, 2007 WL 2821957 (Sept. 28, 2007) (explaining that ?the ?strong odor? of alcohol, by dental front desk cover itself, can trigger reasonable suspicion of recent report, driving under the influence?). Turning to question two, the opinion in Murphy did not consider the Division Commander’s Order 07-DFS-056, which is between good essays, designed to cover all highway safety programs, not simply those designed to recent from detect drivers who are impaired by alcohol. From the record, however, it appears that the checkpoint the State police conducted in this case was governed both by General Order TRF-15 and by operational instructions contained in a letter from the troop commander to the officer in charge of the checkpoint, as well as by writing Order 07-DFS-056. Order TRF-15. and the operational instructions are, in from all material respects, identical to the instructions discussed by the court in Murphy. As noted, the research, court ruled that checkpoints carried out in accordance with those orders were constitutional. Insofar as Order 07-DFS-056 adds something new to the instructional matrix, it imposes a ?zero tolerance? enforcement policy with respect to all observed violations, thus reducing further the recent report from, kind of ipad in india, discretionary enforcement that in other cases has been found constitutionally wanting. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Report From! McGeoghegan, 389 Mass.

137, 143-144, 449 N.E.2d 349 (1983); Commonwealth v. Anderson, 406 Mass. Prompt For Essay Writing! 343, 347, 547 N.E.2d 1134 (1989). In light of the foregoing, the answer to reported questions one and two is ?yes.? 1. This appears to be a typographical error. The Division Commander’s Order included in the record appendix is numbered ?07-DFS-56.? 2. The court’s complete list of recent report from, ?clues of impaired operation? was ?the condition of the eyes of the operator, the odor of alcohol, the speech of the operator, alcohol in plain sight in the vehicle, and other indicators.? Murphy, supra at 320, 910 N.E.2d 281.

Later in the opinion, the between essays, court said that ?TRF-15 requires a predicate of recent report, reasonable articulable suspicion based on the observations of the initial screening officer (e.g., red eyes, slurred speech, container of alcohol in plain view),? omitting ?odor of alcohol? from that list. Paper Thesis! Id. at 328, 910 N.E.2d 281. We think that nothing of consequence flows from the omission. As a consequence of a motor vehicle accident on January 26, 2008, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant Shelley King of (1) operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), G. L. c. Recent! 90, § 24(1)(a)(1); and (2) reckless or negligent operation of a motor vehicle, G. Difference Good And Bad! L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT. Entered: January 27, 2011. NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel’s decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the recent, case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for in thermodynamics, its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28. As a consequence of a motor vehicle accident on from January 26, 2008, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant Shelley King of (1) operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1); and (2) reckless or negligent operation of a motor vehicle, G. Riftia! L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a).

On the day following the rendition of the recent, jury’s verdicts, the presiding judge conducted a bench trial, found that the defendant had incurred three prior OUI convictions, and found her guilty of the enhanced charge of OUI, fourth offense, G. Writing! L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1), sixth par. On the same day, the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of OUI after suspension or revocation of her driver’s license for prior conviction of OUI, G. L. c. Recent Report From! 90, § 23. Upon the riftia, convictions for OUI fourth, the recent from, judge sentenced the defendant to four and one-half to five years’ confinement at State prison; upon the conviction for operation after suspension or revocation by reason of prior OUI conviction, the judge imposed a sentence of two and one-half years’ confinement at riftia the house of from, correction from and prompt after completion of the recent report from, State prison sentence; and upon the conviction of reckless or negligent operation, the judge sentenced the defendant to two years at the house of research, correction to run concurrently with her sentence at State prison. The defendant has appealed upon two grounds: (1) that the judge failed to follow appropriate procedure for determination of the exposure of members of the jury to prejudicial publicity during the course of the trial; and (2) that the judge improperly exercised personal feelings, rather than objective criteria, in the determination of the sentences. For the recent from, following reasons, we reject the defendant’s appellate contentions and affirm the convictions and prompt for essay writing the sentences. Factual background.

The evidence permitted the jury to find the following facts. On the afternoon of January 26, 2008, the defendant consumed four or five beers at her home in Lynn between 2:45 P. M. and 6:00 P. M. Recent From! At about 6:00 P. M., she left the house in order to purchase take-home food from a delicatessen in riftia chemosynthesis the city. She took with her an additional can of beer, opened it, and put it in her handbag in the car. From! At a major intersection in Lynn and case after she had taken a drink from the open can, she made an unlawful turn across three lanes, up and over a median island, and across two more lanes, so as to drive up to and against the front door of a restaurant (not the report, restaurant to which she was headed for desk letter, purchase of food). The impact of travel over the island and possibly up against from, the restaurant entrance resulted in a bleeding chin wound requiring seven stitches. A samaritan offered immediate assistance.

She did not respond to difference essays his instruction to put the car in park gear; he did so and turned off the ignition. He noticed that her speech was slow and that an odor of alcohol was in her breath. A Lynn police officer responding to the scene also smelled alcohol both from her breath and from the interior of the automobile. The officer also observed glassy and bloodshot eyes and recent from slurred speech. He saw the open beer can inside the automobile. He formed the opinion that she had been driving under the influence of alcohol. At trial, after two days of empanelment and riftia chemosynthesis testimony, the report, Lynn Item newspaper published a morning article about the case. The story carried the headline, ‘Trial begins for Lynn mom charged with 5th OUI.’ The article stated that she had incurred three ‘drunken driving’ convictions during the 1990?s and a fourth in ipad case study 2004. The article stated also that she ‘blew a.15 alcohol blood level when arrested’ for the current incident.

At the beginning of the third day of trial, all counsel and the judge discussed the recent report from, appearance of the article. Difference And Bad Essays! When the jury entered the courtroom, the judge addressed the report from, following question to them. ‘Has any member of the jury read, seen, heard or overheard anything from chemosynthesis any source about from, any aspect of this case outside of the courtroom, since yesterday, that has affected or would affect your ability to consider this case in any way as a fair and career thesis statement impartial juror? Nobody’s raising their hand.’ He added a second question. ‘Has anybody seen or heard anything about any publicity from the news media about this case? Please raise your hand if there is any–anything you’ve heard at all, even the tiniest thing. Okay, nobody is raising their hand. Report! Okay. All right, so we will resume with the trial.’

Defense counsel did not object to the judge’s treatment of the issue of exposure to prejudicial publicity by these questions. Later that day, after the close of the evidence and in the course of career thesis, final instructions to the jury, the judge reminded the jury at three points that they must base their verdict exclusively upon the evidence comprised of testimony and exhibits received in the courtroom. Again, defense counsel had no objections to the pertinent portions of the instruction. After the return of the jury verdicts, the finding of the bench trial, and recent report the submission of the plea of guilty to front letter operating after suspension or revocation for prior OUI violations, the judge imposed sentencing from the recent report from, bench. His comments included the following. ‘This is a sad case. I understand that I have a limited amount of information about what happened and about the [d]efendant, but it’s pretty obvious to career research thesis statement me that, from what I have received, that the [d]efendant Ms.

King is probably a very nice person and she probably–it’s not hard to see that she’s probably had a difficult life; I am sensitive to recent report from these things. But the sentence I’m going to impose is necessary, in my view.’ The judge then specified the sentence for each offense. At the conclusion of his announcement of the respective sentences, he made the following one-sentence statement. ‘I assume it’s obvious what my feelings are about why this sentence is required.’ The remark brought no objection. On the apple case, same day, the judge docketed a Massachusetts Sentencing Commission Guidelines Sentence Form. In the appropriate space for explanation of the departure from the guidelines, he wrote, ‘Upward departure because of the report from, egregious nature of the offenses, surrounding circumstances and prior record.’ Newspaper article. On appeal and for the first time, the defendant argues that the judge should have conducted individual voir dire interrogation of chemosynthesis, each juror in order to determine whether he or she had experienced any exposure to recent report the Lynn Item newspaper article.

The article had obvious prejudicial potential by reason of its information about in india, a breathalyzer test result and the defendant’s prior OUI convictions. Because the defendant lodged no objection to the judge’s preventive or curative efforts at the time of report from, trial, we review this argument under the apple, standard of substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. We review the case as a whole and ask (1) whether an error occurred; (2) whether it caused prejudice to the defendant; (3) whether the report from, error materially influenced the verdict; and (4) whether counsel’s failure to object or to raise a claim of error during trial constituted a reasonable tactical decision. See Commonwealth v. Azar, 435 Mass. 675, 687-688 (2002). In this instance, we find no error in the judge’s management of the issue. The defendant relies upon the case of Commonwealth v. Ipad! Jackson, 376 Mass. 790, 800-801 (1978). The court in that instance set out the following standard operating procedure for instances of discovery of potentially prejudicial publicity during the course of recent report from, trial. ‘If the judge finds that the material raises a serious question of possible prejudice, a voir dire examination of the jurors should be conducted.

The initial questioning concerning whether any juror saw or heard the chemosynthesis, potentially prejudicial material may be carried on collectively, but if any juror indicates that he or she has seen or heard the material, there must be individual questioning of recent from, that juror, outside of the presence of any other juror, to determine the extent of the juror’s exposure to paper thesis statement the material and its effects on the juror’s ability to render an impartial verdict’ (emphasis supplied). The thrust of the defendant’s argument here is that the recent report, judge had a duty, not an option, to conduct individual voir dire questioning of the jurors. As the governing passage of the Jackson decision makes clear, if no juror has responded affirmatively to prompt for essay writing the collective question, the judge has no further duty to carry out individual questioning. From! Consequently, the judge here complied with the standard of the Jackson rule. In India! In addition, we should observe that, in the absence of any affirmative answers to the collective question, a judge’s continuation into individual interrogation of jurors may adversely stimulate the report, curiosity of prompt for essay writing, those jurors about potential prejudicial publicity and cause them to recent report search for it during the course of a trial. That danger has become all the prompt for essay, more serious as a result of the evolution of Internet technology. Both doctrinally and practically the judge committed no error in these circumstances. 1.

Sentencing. The defendant argues that the judge’s reference to ‘feelings’ about the imposed sentences reveals a violation of the standard of impartiality mandated for sentencing by case law, particularly the case of Commonwealth v. Mills, 436 Mass. 387, 399-402 (2002). That decision emphasizes, ‘A trial judge must be ever vigilant to report make certain that his personal and private beliefs do not interfere with his judicial role and chemosynthesis transform it from that of impartial arbiter.’ Id. at 401. The defendant characterizes the reference to ‘feelings’ as a forbidden indulgence of ‘personal and private beliefs.’ The judge’s fleeting reference here falls far short of the prohibited comments discussed in the Mills case and in any of the decisions cited by the Mills discussion. We view the reference to ‘feelings’ in recent report from the setting of the judge’s entire remarks about sentencing. In that light, it reflects reasons and not emotion. He commented that he viewed the case as a ‘sad’ one.

Since it involved no personal injuries or casualty, his reference to its ‘sad’ character alluded to the fate of the defendant. He observed that she may well have had a hard life. He observed also that he was ‘sensitive’ to her circumstances. At the same time, he found her behavior over the decade and one-half covered by her four OUI convictions to constitute a serious threat to good public safety. He justifiably viewed her record as ‘egregious.’ She embodied a danger to the lives of innocent travelers and pedestrians on and near the roadways. Recent! His sentencing scheme removed that peril for the period of years imposed for confinement. Riftia Chemosynthesis! The sentencing fell within the recent from, bounds of rational discretion. By the Court (McHugh, Sikora #038; Fecteau, JJ.), Entered: January 27, 2011. 1. An additional interpretation of the defendant’s argument is that the judge had a duty to make specific reference to the Lynn Item article in his collective question to the jury. The Jackson case creates no such duty.

Specific reference would raise the risk of juror research. The judge’s choice created no error of law or abuse of discretion. Mass DUI OUI “Not Public Way” – Observed obviously intoxicated and urinating in in thermodynamics public immediately after driving onto a pier in the Charlestown section of Boston, the defendant, Gregory Belliveau, was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. 76 Mass.App.Ct. Recent From! 830. Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Argued Feb. 3, 2010. Decided June 1, 2010. Sharon Dehmand for the defendant. Nick Kaiser (Kris C. Foster, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth.

Present: KAFKER, VUONO, #038; SIKORA, JJ. Observed obviously intoxicated and urinating in public immediately after driving onto difference between and bad essays a pier in recent the Charlestown section of phd thesis in thermodynamics, Boston, the defendant, Gregory Belliveau, was convicted of report from, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. (OUI), fifth offense, in violation of G.L. c. 90, ? 24(1)( a )(1), as amended through St.2003, c. 28, ?? 1, 2. On appeal, he argues that the pier on dental front desk cover which he was arrested was not a public way under the statute, that he received ineffective assistance of report from, counsel, and chemosynthesis that the recent from, judge considered improper factors in sentencing the defendant. We affirm. 1. Facts. Difference! The jury were warranted in finding the following facts: Pier 4 is located in the Charlestown Navy yard. The pier is recent report from, surrounded on all sides by water and accessible by research thesis automobile only by way of public streets.1 Those streets end at Terry Ring Way. Recent Report From! As described by prompt for essay a police officer, ?Off of Terry Ring way, there is recent, a short paved area that cars can go down and stop about fifty yards down.?

Entry to the pier is then through a swinging gate. Next to the gate was a small, somewhat washed-out sign. According to the Commonwealth witnesses, signage to the pier stated that only authorized vehicles were allowed on the pier. Chemosynthesis! The pier was paved and from had streetlights. At about 5:30 p.m. on May 19, 2004, Steven Spinetto, a city of Boston employee, was arriving on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) commuter ferry to a drop-off location adjacent to Pier 4.2 While walking from the ferry stop, he noticed a pickup truck pass him by quickly, coming within a few feet of him. Difference Essays! This caught his attention because he understood from signage at the pier, his city employment, and report his activities at the pier that unauthorized vehicles were not allowed on the pier. The vehicles he had seen on the pier were ?usually the director’s vehicle or vehicles involved with staffing or operations of the sailing center.? A police officer also testified that ?[t]he section that [the] defendant’s car was on would had to have gone across the wooden boards into the section down on thesis statement the pier; there’s no motor vehicles at all, it’s a pedestrian pier,? and subsequently added that ?[t]he public can be there, sir, yes. From! Pedestrians go down there, there’s ships that go off there to shuttle things, but [it's] pedestrian foot traffic-.?

Spinetto approached the end of the pier where the truck had stopped, and he observed the defendant standing next to the truck with a Budweiser beer in apple his hand, publicly urinating. He noticed that the defendant was ?pretty unsteady on his feet,? slurring his words, and blurry-eyed, and that he smelled of alcohol. Spinetto attempted to dissuade the defendant from recent driving, but the defendant got back into the truck and attempted to leave the scene. With the assistance of another witness, Steven Estes-Smargiassi, Spinetto prevented the defendant from leaving by opening and closing the case, truck’s doors and by closing the gates to the pier. Subsequently, Smargiassi called 911, and recent report firefighters arrived and held the defendant. Shortly thereafter, the national park rangers and Boston police arrived. In India! After examining the truck, in which they found beer, and talking to the defendant, the police placed the defendant under arrest. 2. Recent From! Public way.

In order to sustain an OUI conviction, the Commonwealth must prove that the offense took place ?upon any way or in any place to riftia chemosynthesis which the public has a right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees.? G.L. c. 90, ? 24(1)( a )(1). ?Way? is further defined by report from statute to include ?any public highway, private way laid out under authority of statute, way dedicated to public use, or way under the difference and bad essays, control of park commissioners or body having like powers.? G.L. c. 90, ? 1. This element has been further interpreted by recent report the Supreme Judicial Court to require that the prompt writing, ?public have a right of access by motor vehicle or access as invitees or licensees by motor vehicle.? See Commonwealth v. George, 406 Mass. 635, 637, 550 N.E.2d 138 (1990), citing Commonwealth v. Endicott, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 1025, 1026, 460 N.E.2d 615 (1984) (Brown J., concurring). Moreover, ?it is the objective appearance of the way that is determinative of its status, rather than the subjective intent of the property owner.? Commonwealth v. Kiss, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 247, 249-250, 794 N.E.2d 1281 (2003). See Commonwealth v. Smithson, 41 Mass.App.Ct. Recent From! 545, 549, 672 N.E.2d 16 (1996).

In making that determination, we look to see if the apple, ?physical circumstances of the way are such that members of the public may reasonably conclude that it is from, open for travel….? Commonwealth v. Dental Front Desk Cover Letter! Hart, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 235, 238, 525 N.E.2d 1345 (1988). Commonwealth v. Kiss, 59 Mass.App.Ct. at 250, 794 N.E.2d 1281. ?Some of the usual indicia of accessibility to the public include paving, curbing, traffic signals, street lights, and abutting houses or businesses.? Commonwealth v. Smithson, 41 Mass.App.Ct. at 549-550, 672 N.E.2d 16. See Commonwealth v. Stoddard, 74 Mass.App.Ct. Report From! 179, 182, 905 N.E.2d 114 (2009); Commonwealth v. Colby, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 1008, 1010, 505 N.E.2d 218 (1987) (marked traffic lanes and hydrants indicia of public accessibility). Indicia that the way is not accessible to the public include signage or barriers prohibiting access.

See Commonwealth v. George, 406 Mass. at 639, 550 N.E.2d 138 (barriers and thesis statement sign saying, ?[N]o cars beyond this point?); Commonwealth v. From! Stoddard, 74 Mass.App.Ct. at 183, 905 N.E.2d 114 (?presence of a gate severely restricting general access to the campground is in india study, of great significance?). Deeds are also relevant considerations. Recent From! See Commonwealth v. Hazelton, 11 Mass.App.Ct. 899, 900, 413 N.E.2d 1144 (1980). The focal point of the case was whether Pier 4 was a public way. Research Thesis! To that end, the Commonwealth introduced evidence that there is an MBTA ferry stop on the pier, photographs showing indicia of accessibility including a paved passageway and streetlamps, a deed containing a covenant for the property ?to provide access and from egress to the general public foot or vehicle ? (emphasis supplied), testimony that ?[t]here were a variety of people, kids, and other people out on the pier as there are almost every evening,? and testimony regarding the presence on the pier of the difference and bad essays, Courageous Sailing Center, ?a nonprofit organization that provides sailing opportunities to the youth of Boston,? which apparently was running sailing competitions on recent from the day the defendant was apprehended. The defendant contends that the pier was not a public way because there was a closed swinging gate leading to the pier and signage indicating access only to authorized vehicles.

The Commonwealth’s own testimony also supported the contention that only limited vehicular access was allowed on the pier, although vehicles were allowed on chemosynthesis Terry Ring Way leading to recent report from the pier. In sum, the status of the pier as a public way is a close question. There was ample evidence that the pier was public and a way and paved and lit in a manner suitable for vehicular traffic. The issue, however, was whether public vehicular traffic had been prohibited or restricted. Dental Front Desk Letter! As the Supreme Judicial Court stated in Commonwealth v. George, 406 Mass. at 638, 550 N.E.2d 138, a case in which the defendant was arrested while drinking and driving on a school baseball field, ?our prior cases assume, without discussion, that the term ?access,? as it appears in ? 24, requires inquiry whether the report from, public has access, by a motor vehicle, to a particular way or place? (emphasis original).3 The court in George reversed the conviction because the in india case, drinking and driving occurred on the baseball field, which did not provide vehicular access to the public.4. In the from, instant case, the presence of a gate and signage are strong indicators that restrictions on public vehicular access were in place. However, the gate blocking vehicular access to career research paper statement the pier was not locked and could be opened by from the public, as it was by apple ipad case the defendant. Compare Commonwealth v. Stoddard, 74 Mass.App.Ct. at 180, 905 N.E.2d 114 (gate card access required).

Although witnesses described a sign that limited access to from authorized vehicles, the prompt writing, sign appearing in the photographs included in the trial exhibits was small and partly washed out. Recent Report From! See Commonwealth v. Hart, 26 Mass.App.Ct. at 236-238, 525 N.E.2d 1345 (public way found despite presence of ?a sign [a little bigger than a standard no parking sign which also adorned the pole] that read: ?Private Property/Chomerics Employees and Authorized Persons Only? ?). Compare Commonwealth v. Smithson, 41 Mass.App.Ct. at 550-551, 672 N.E.2d 16 (no public way where a sign listing business hours was ?clearly visible from the road as one approache[d] the entrance? and physical circumstances did not suggest a public way). The deed also expressly provided for vehicular access to the public. The presence of a public water shuttle dock and a sailing center open to Boston youth also suggested that some parking for the public using those facilities could reasonably be expected nearby, at least in the absence of signage to the contrary. We need not, however, resolve this close question because it was obvious that the defendant was driving under the influence of ipad case study, alcohol not only on the pier, but also on the public roads leading to the pier.5 As established by the photographs, maps, and plans introduced in report from evidence, as well as supporting testimony, there was no other way to career research get to the pier by automobile except by the public roads connecting to the pier. The defendant was also observed driving quickly, close to the entrance of the recent report, pier, thereby allowing a reasonable inference that he, and apple ipad in india not his passenger, was driving the pickup to the. pier.6 Also it was reasonable to infer that the defendant was intoxicated while he was driving on report those public roads before he arrived at the pier. The defendant was observed immediately upon his arrival, smelling of alcohol, blurry-eyed, unsteady on his feet, and having to urinate in public. Proof of operating under the influence on a public way may ?rest entirely on circumstantial evidence.? Commonwealth v. Petersen, 67 Mass.App.Ct.

49, 52, 851 N.E.2d 1102 (2006) (citation omitted). See Commonwealth v. Wood, 261 Mass. 458, 158 N.E. Research Paper Statement! 834 (1927); Commonwealth v. Colby, 23 Mass.App.Ct. at 1011, 505 N.E.2d 218. Here there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to provide the necessary proof of all three elements of the offense: the public way, the driving, and report from the impairment. Moreover, the judge’s instruction to the jury in defining a public way was not unnecessarily narrowed to the pier. For Essay Writing! Rather her detailed instructions on public way appropriately included the recent, following: ?Any street or highway that is open to the public and is controlled and maintained by some level of government is what we call a public way. Phd Thesis! This includes, for instance, interstate and report from state highways, as well as municipal streets and roads.? Thus, the instructions on public way encompassed the public roads on which the defendant testified that he drove to arrive at the pier.

3. Remaining issues. We need not belabor the remaining issues. First, trial counsel’s failure to object to various hearsay statements by a police officer, which duplicated live witness testimony, was obviously harmless. Next, given the difference good and bad essays, testimony regarding how unsteady the defendant was on report from his feet, we cannot say on this record that trial counsel’s informed and apple ipad in india strategic decision to elicit from the defendant that he had sustained a knee injury and that was why he refused to take a field sobriety test was manifestly unreasonable.7 Regardless, given the overwhelming evidence of his intoxication, it certainly did not ?deprive[ ] the report from, defendant of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defence.? Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96, 315 N.E.2d 878 (1974). Finally, the defendant’s argument that the judge considered improper factors in in india case study sentencing is without merit. The defendant contends that Spinetto should not have been given the opportunity to give ?a community impact statement,? speaking about his loss of limb after being run over by a drunk driver over report thirty years prior, and making a plea for the judge to keep the defendant from injuring other people.

Although the in thermodynamics, judge briefly mentioned Spinetto’s community impact statement in her sentencing remarks, it is clear that the defendant was appropriately sentenced based on his prior record and that the judge considered mitigating circumstances as well.8 Further, the sentence was within the from, statutory limits. Thus, noting that there was no objection below, we conclude that there was no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. SIKORA, J. Between And Bad! (concurring). I concur fully in report the specific rationale of the affirmance: that the evidence and the judge’s proper instructions permitted the jury to find that the defendant had driven under the influence of riftia, alcohol on the public roads leading to the pier. Recent Report! Ante at 835, 927 N.E.2d at 500. That analysis freed us from the need to resolve the ?close question? whether the prompt writing, pier constituted ?any way or … any place to which the public has a right of access, or … any way or … any place to which members of the recent from, public have access as invitees or licensees….?

G.L. c. 90, ? 24(1)( a )(1), as amended through St.2003, c. 28, ? 1. The ?close question? results from a line of precedent restrictively construing the statutory terms ?way? and apple ?place.? As usual, we have avoided possible contradiction of precedent still approved by the Supreme Judicial Court.1 At the same time, I believe that the evidence of this case exposes a deficiency in the current statutory construction and the need for recent from, examination of the riftia chemosynthesis, underlying case law.2. Significant facts. The language of the statute relevant to from our concern was last revised in 1961, see St.1961, c. 347, to provide the following: ?Whoever, upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access, or upon any way or in phd thesis in thermodynamics any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle … while. under the influence of recent report, intoxicating liquor … shall be punished….? 3. The opinion of the court describes the location, the access roads, the gate, and signage related to the pier. Ante at phd thesis in thermodynamics 833-835, 927 N.E.2d at from 499-501.

Four important and independent circumstances of the use of the pier emerge as well from the evidence. A commuter ferry service conducted by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority delivered passengers to a terminal at the edge of the pier from which they could walk across it. An instructional sailing club conducted a program for apple ipad in india, children from the pier; their parents and friends would observe their. races from it. Report From! The pier contained benches on which pedestrian visitors could rest. The members of the public properly on the pier and endangered by the defendant’s driving were pedestrians. Additionally, the evidence permitted the ipad in india case, jury to make the following findings about the defendant’s conduct.

He drove his pickup truck at a high speed onto the pier; got out and urinated onto one of the benches; reentered the truck and backed into another bench; and then backed up further so as to report from collide with a storage shed used by the sailing club. The truck suffered substantial damage; the defendant got out phd thesis, again and walked away from recent from it. Major case law. A sensible and direct application of the words of the dental, statute to the circumstances of the recent, pier and the actions of the dental, defendant would appear to make him punishable. However, the interpretative overlay of the following cases has required that the ?way? or ?place? in recent from question be one of public ?access? by ?motor vehicle.? Commonwealth v. Career Thesis Statement! George, 406 Mass. 635, 638, 550 N.E.2d 138 (1990). That construction forces us, somewhat anomalously, to affirm the conviction of the recent from, defendant, not on the basis of his extraordinary conduct on the pier, but rather on the basis of his inferable driving down separate roadways. The original act punished simply operation under the influence ?on any public way or private way laid out prompt, under authority of law.? St.1906, c. 412, ? 4. It made no reference to operation in a ?place.? Early decisions dealing with operation on a ?way? stated that ?[t]he statute was passed for the protection of travellers on highways,? and recent therefore presumably persons in motor vehicles.

See Commonwealth v. Clarke, 254 Mass. 566, 567-568, 150 N.E. 829 (1926) (movement of car for front desk letter, several feet by mere shifting of gear and without engagement of the engine by the driver amounted to operation; the statute ?was passed for the protection of recent from, travellers upon highways?); Commonwealth v. Clancy, 261 Mass. 345, 348, 158 N.E. 758 (1927) (the statute ?was intended to regulate the use of motor vehicles upon ways?). In 1928, the Legislature rewrote the entire provision.

Its opening main clause now declared, ?Whoever upon any way, or in any place to which the public has a right of access, operates a motor vehicle … while under the chemosynthesis, influence of intoxicating liquor … shall be punished …? (emphasis supplied). G.L. c. 90, ? 24, as appearing in St.1928, c. 281. Thus the recent report, notion of statutory protection for career statement, highway travelers or motorists took hold in the version of the act predating any reference to operation in report a ?place.? Subsequent decisions seem never to in thermodynamics have caught up with the 1928 addition of the concept of a ?place? as the recent from, site of operating under the influence. Despite the added term, the chemosynthesis, court in Commonwealth v. Recent Report! Paccia, 338 Mass. 4, 6, 153 N.E.2d 664 (1958), concluded that operation under the influence on a private way connecting two public ways was not operation upon the requisite ?place to which the difference between and bad, public ha[d] a right of access? because no general public easement existed over it, even though the owner of the private way had permitted use of it by recent report from members of the public as business invitees or business licensees to a nearby restaurant and ipad in india a market building.

The court reasoned that the canon of report, strict construction of penal statutes required an explicit legislative statement expanding the place of public access to private sites receiving members of the public as business invitees or licensees. Ibid. Three years later the Legislature responded with the additional words ?as invitees or licensees.? St.1961, c. 347. In one subsequent case, Commonwealth v. Connolly, 394 Mass. Good! 169, 172, 474 N.E.2d 1106 (1985) (an appeal hinging on the meaning of ?under the influence?), the court in dicta repeated the recent, language of the 1926 Clarke case (the purpose of the statute was ?the protection of in thermodynamics, travellers upon recent report highways?). In another it determined that the defendant’s operation of his pickup truck on a privately owned parcel of land onto good and bad which persons would drive various recreational vehicles such as ?go carts? without the owner’s permission did not involve a ?place to which the report from, members of the public [have] access as invitees or licensees? because the owner had never consented to such entry. Riftia! Commonwealth v. Callahan, 405 Mass.

200, 202-205, 539 N.E.2d 533 (1989). The court acknowledged that the 1961 amendment had ?extend[ed] the reach? of the act, id. at recent 203, 539 N.E.2d 533, but added that the phd thesis in thermodynamics, canon of strict construction of penal legislation against the Commonwealth applied to report its terms. Id. at 205, 539 N.E.2d 533. ?There is letter, reason to believe that [the 1961 amendment references to invitees and recent report licensees sought] to address the problem of accidents in places ?such as public parking lots or chain store parking lots.? ? Ibid. In its last assessment of this portion of the act in 1990, the court held that the center field area of a public school baseball field did not qualify as a public way or place to which the riftia, public had access by motor vehicle as of right or as invitees or licensees because both physical barriers and ?no trespassing? signs blocked entry onto the field. Commonwealth v. Recent From! George, 406 Mass. at 639-640, 550 N.E.2d 138. Case Study! The court noted that its prior decisions had assumed ?without discussion? that the statutory term ?access? meant access to a particular way or place by motor vehicle. Id. at 638, 550 N.E.2d 138. 4.

The issue. None of the cases appears to have addressed the applicability of the statute to places to which members of the public have access as pedestrian invitees or licensees. For the following reasons, a continuation of the from, unexamined assumption that the term ?access? in the impaired driver statute means only public access by a motor vehicle seems to me unwarranted by its language and contradicted by its safety purpose. The precise language of the act is the first source of insight into its meaning and legislative intent. See, e.g., Hoffman v. Howmedica, Inc., 373 Mass. 32, 37, 364 N.E.2d 1215 (1977); Commissioner of Correction v. Superior Court Dept. Career Research Paper Thesis! of the Trial Court, 446 Mass. 123, 124, 842 N.E.2d 926 (2006). The language extends to report impaired operation ?upon any way or in any place? accessible to members of the public as invitees or licensees.

The repeated use of the career thesis statement, article ?any? with no limiting adjectives or phrases attached to the words ?right of access? and ?invitees and licensees? denotes the generality of the from, intended ?place.? The Legislature did not confine the roles of apple ipad study, invitees or licensees to recent report persons conveyed by motor vehicles. In Thermodynamics! It. chose the additional words in 1961 as a specific answer to the narrow interpretation and the invitation of additional language by the then recent Paccia decision, 338 Mass. at 6, 153 N.E.2d 664. Recent Report! In 1928 it had previously broadened coverage of the front desk, act from recent from a ?way? to a ?way? and a ?place.? Its revisions of the statute have progressively expanded its range. On three occasions the courts have pointed out that the act’s penal character requires strict interpretation. See Commonwealth v. Paccia, 338 Mass. at 6, 153 N.E.2d 664 (rejecting ?exten[sion] merely by implication?); Commonwealth v. Riftia Chemosynthesis! Connolly, 394 Mass. at 174, 474 N.E.2d 1106 (?[w]e must resolve in favor of criminal defendants any reasonable doubt as to report from the statute’s meaning?); Commonwealth v. Cover! Callahan, 405 Mass. at recent report 205, 539 N.E.2d 533 (?criminal statutes must be construed strictly against the Commonwealth?). Dental Cover Letter! If the act presented an identifiable ambiguity, that familiar maxim would be far more applicable.

However, as the latest reference in the George case, 406 Mass. at 638, 550 N.E.2d 138, points out, the recent, critical assumption of the law’s limitation to members of the case study, public as motorists and from not as pedestrians has proceeded ?without discussion? of riftia, any ambiguity. Recent Report! The rule of apple ipad study, lenity gives the defendant the benefit of recent report from, a plausible ambiguity. It ?does not mean that an phd thesis in thermodynamics, available and sensible interpretation is to be rejected in favor of a fanciful or perverse one.? Commonwealth v. Roucoulet, 413 Mass. 647, 652, 601 N.E.2d 470 (1992), quoting from Commonwealth v. Tata, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 23, 25-26, 545 N.E.2d 1179 (1989) (Kaplan, J.). In these circumstances several other canons of interpretation deserve consideration and application in a discussion of the recent report from, scope of the act. One is that each substantive word of paper, a statute has separate meaning. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Millican, 449 Mass.

298, 300-301, 867 N.E.2d 725 (2007) (construing the from, felony vehicular homicide statute, G.L. c. 90, ? 24G [ a ], against the defendant’s contention of redundant language); Commonwealth v. Shea, 46 Mass.App.Ct. 196, 197, 704 N.E.2d 518 (1999). Thus the Legislature’s addition of the word ?place? in phd thesis 1928 meant something more than a ?way.? Both the statutory definition of ?way,? G.L. c. 90, ? 1, supra at note 4, and the general ordinary meaning depict an artery supporting some degree of traffic or movement. By contrast, a ?place? denotes a far more generic location unrestricted to the conveyance of traffic.

If a statute does not define a term, we may interpret it ?in accordance with its generally accepted plain meaning.? Commonwealth v. Boucher, 438 Mass. From! 274, 276, 780 N.E.2d 47 (2002), and cases cited. For Essay Writing! The 1928 addition of the term ?place? by the Legislature expanded the diameter of the from, statute beyond the focus of the early decisions on protection of highway travellers. Other standards of interpretation forbid courts to add language to paper the terms chosen by the Legislature.

Commonwealth v. McLeod, 437 Mass. 286, 294, 771 N.E.2d 142 (2002) (a court must ?not add words to recent a statute that the Legislature did not put there, either by inadvertent omission or by design?). See 1010 Memorial Drive Tenants Corp. Prompt For Essay Writing! v. From! Fire Chief of Cambridge, 424 Mass. 661, 668, 677 N.E.2d 219 (1997) (Greaney, J., dissenting) (same). Statement! Here the current interpretation effectively adds the phrase ?by motor vehicle? to the Legislature’s words ?any place to report which the public has a right of access, … or … any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees.?

That narrowing addition undercuts the legislative trend to broaden the coverage of the act. Finally, courts will not adopt a construction or application producing an absurd or ineffectual result. See Insurance Rating Bd. v. Commissioner of difference between and bad essays, Ins., 356 Mass. Recent Report From! 184, 189, 248 N.E.2d 500 (1969); Commonwealth v. Millican, 449 Mass. at 303-304, 867 N.E.2d 725. Phd Thesis! The application of the impaired driver statute for the protection of members of the public as motorists but not as pedestrians produces at least an irrational result. It paradoxically exempts from recent report criminal responsibility operators so impaired that they do not know or care enough to keep their vehicles on usual roadways. Between Good! It excludes from the protection of the recent from, statute members of the public least expecting, and chemosynthesis most vulnerable to, irresponsible driving precisely because they are located off the usual ways of motor traffic. Report! Members of the public engaged in rest or recreation in such places as parks, picnic areas, beaches, restaurant patios, or recreational piers of the kind presented in this case would be located in places of insufficient public access for protection against chemosynthesis, impaired drivers because they entered them on recent report foot. That interpretation opens a substantial gap in the coverage of the act.

It shifts the application of the law from the irresponsible conduct of the impaired driver to the fortuitous location and status of his endangered or injured victim. Solutions. A ?place? is a location other than a ?way,? and a ?member of the public? can be a person other than a motorist. The decisions have fallen behind the statute. In Thermodynamics! The principle of stare decisis should not denature into a pattern of errare decisis. Several processes are available to break the momentum of error. Within the executive branch and most immediately, a typical prosecution could include evidence, argument, and instruction upon report from the operator’s use of in thermodynamics, public roads adjoining the place in report which the impaired driving injured or endangered pedestrians, as occurred here. Difference Between Good And Bad Essays! Within the judiciary the Supreme Judicial Court could reconsider the report, present construction said by the court in George to have evolved without discussion.

Finally, and perhaps ideally, the Legislature could further amend the front cover, statute to extend its reach unmistakably to ?any place in which the recent, public has a right of access, or … any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees as motorists or as pedestrians ? (emphasized words supplied). 1. Photographs of the pier, maps, and writing plans were introduced in evidence, as well as detailed testimony explaining the exhibits. 2. The defendant testified that after leaving work at 4:00 p.m., he drove to Charlestown, picked up a friend, and continued to drive to the Charlestown Pier. He then drove in traffic on recent public streets leading to difference between good essays the Navy Yard and from Pier 4. As he approached the pier, he had to ?race up and pass? one car. He then drove up Terry Ring Way to a closed double swinging gate. As the defendant moved for a required finding of not guilty at the close of the Commonwealth’s case on the public way question, we do not consider the defendant’s testimony in determining whether that motion should have been allowed.

3. In Commonwealth v. George, ?the parties [had also] agreed and the jurors were instructed that the in thermodynamics, baseball field was not, as a matter of law, a public way.? Id. at 636, 550 N.E.2d 138. 4. The evidence in recent report from Commonwealth v. Apple Ipad In India! George, supra at 637-638, 550 N.E.2d 138, indicated that the defendant consumed alcohol on the field and overturned the car while trying to leave the field. In the instant case, in contrast, the evidence and the reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom indicated that the defendant was driving under the influence on public roads prior to his arrival at the pier. 5. Recent From! We recognize that the Commonwealth ignored this obvious alternative in arguing its case to the jury. Nonetheless, as explained below, the judge’s instructions and the proof offered adequately presented the between good essays, issue for the jury’s consideration. 6. The passenger left the report, car soon after they were confronted at the pier. 7. The Commonwealth chose not to inquire about the field sobriety test on cross-examination. 8. The judge explained that ?having weighed the statutory language, having weighed the facts of the dental front, offense, and this defendant’s prior record, having considered the report from, mitigating information and the letters submitted by his wife, his mother, and his sister, having paid heed to front the recommendations of the prosecutor in the case and the recommendations of the defense attorney, I believe that this is an appropriate sentence taking into consideration all of those factors.? 1. From its inception the Appeals Court has renounced any authority to report from alter, overrule, or decline to follow governing precedents of the Supreme Judicial Court. Burke v. Toothaker, 1 Mass.App.Ct.

234, 239, 295 N.E.2d 184 (1973). Commonwealth v. Healy, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 990, 991, 529 N.E.2d 1357 (1988). Commonwealth v. Dube, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 476, 485-486, 796 N.E.2d 859 (2003), and difference good and bad cases cited. That limitation, however, does not bar the court from useful observations in dicta about the report, continuing viability of paper, precedent challenged by the facts or arguments of specific cases within its jurisdiction. See, e.g., Holmes Realty Trust v. Granite City Storage Co., 25 Mass.App.Ct. 272, 277-278 #038; n. Recent Report From! 2, 517 N.E.2d 502 (1988), questioning the phd thesis in thermodynamics, then existing rule imposing a duty to pay rent upon a nonresidential tenant independently of the landlord’s breach of covenants in the lease; and the subsequent decision of the Supreme Judicial Court overruling that doctrine, Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass.

708, 709, 774 N.E.2d 611 (2002). Other observations may recommend the extension or the insertion of standards or rules to recent report cure chronic problems revealed by multiple cases. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 190, 196 n. 4, 794 N.E.2d 1229 (2003), suggesting the utility of videotaping or audiotaping admissions or confessions resulting from police interrogation, and the subsequent adoption of that view by the Supreme Judicial Court, S.C., 442 Mass. 423, 440-449, 813 N.E.2d 516 (2004). 2. As discussed below, the career research thesis, Supreme Judicial Court, in its last treatment of the issue twenty years ago, observed that the restrictive interpretation had evolved ?without discussion.? Commonwealth v. George, 406 Mass.

635, 638, 550 N.E.2d 138 (1990). 3. Recent From! In parts immaterial, this sentence was also amended in 1994, see G.L. c. Prompt Writing! 90, ? 24(1)( a )(1), as appearing in St.1994, c. Recent Report! 25, ? 3, and by St.2003, c. 28, ? 1. 4. In decisions addressing the meaning of a ?way? in ? 24(1)(a ) (1), the between and bad, Appeals Court has consulted the definition of that term by G.L. c. 90, ? 1: ?any public highway, private way laid out under authority of statute, way dedicated to public use, or way under the control of park commissioners or body having like powers.? Beyond that source, as this case illustrates, ante at report from 832-833, 927 N.E.2d at in india case 498-99, we have examined the site where the suspect was driving under ?the usual indicia of accessibility to recent the public [such as] paving, curbing, traffic signals, street lights, and abutting houses or businesses.? Ante at 833, 927 N.E.2d at 499, quoting from Commonwealth v. Smithson, 41 Mass.App.Ct.

545, 549-550, 672 N.E.2d 16 (1996). Our most extensive discussion of the locus required for conviction of operating under the influence under ? 24(1)( a )(1) dealt with a way on both sides of which were business abutters and which was indisputably open for apple ipad in india, travel by motor vehicles. Commonwealth v. Hart, 26 Mass.App.Ct. at 237-238, 525 N.E.2d 1345. Motor Vehicle, Operating under the report from, influence, Operation. Practice, Criminal, Required finding, Instructions to jury, Argument by prosecutor, Defendant’s decision not to testify, Assistance of counsel, Jury and jurors, Prior conviction, Speedy trial. Robert S. McGILLIVARY. Appeals Court of Massachusetts. September 13, 2010. January 25, 2011. NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published.

Motor Vehicle, Operating under the prompt for essay, influence, Operation. Practice, Criminal, Required finding, Instructions to jury, Argument by prosecutor, Defendant’s decision not to testify, Assistance of counsel, Jury and jurors, Prior conviction, Speedy trial. INDICTMENT found and recent report from returned in the Superior Court Department on January 26, 2005. The case was tried before Howard J. Whitehead, J. James P. Riftia Chemosynthesis! McKenna for the defendant.

Ronald DeRosa, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Present: McHugh, Katzmann, #038; Vuono, JJ. The defendant Robert McGillivary appeals from a conviction by a Superior Court jury of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), fourth offense, in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1). 1 His principal issue focuses on the meaning of recent from, “operation” under that statute. We affirm. 1. Prompt! Operation of the motor vehicle.

A. Operation as matter of law. Report! At trial, the Commonwealth pursued only one theory: that the defendant, who was under the career paper thesis, influence of intoxicating liquor and was found slumped over the wheel, operated a motor vehicle by putting the keys in the ignition and turning the electricity on, but not turning the engine on. There was no evidence from which the jury could infer that the defendant drove his car drunk before getting behind the report from, wheel. In Thermodynamics! Contrast Commonwealth v. Colby, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 1008, 1011 (1987). The defendant argues that the evidence of operation was insufficient as matter of law because putting a key into report the ignition and turning it does not constitute operation when the engine has not been engaged. 2 The issue whether a defendant who places the key in the ignition and turns the electricity on without starting the engine may be found to be “operating” the vehicle for purposes of G.L. Chemosynthesis! c. 90, § 24, is one of first impression in Massachusetts. 3. To define “operation” we must look to report the touchstone case of Commonwealth v. Uski, 263 Mass.

22, 24 (1928), which held that “[a] person operates a motor vehicle within the chemosynthesis, meaning of G.L. c. 90, § 24, when, in the vehicle, he intentionally does any act or makes use of any mechanical or electrical agency which alone or in sequence will set in report from motion the motive power of that vehicle.” 4 See also Commonwealth v. Merry, 453 Mass. Phd Thesis! 653, 661 (2009) (reaffirming Uski definition of operation). Under the Uski definition, turning the key in the ignition to the “on” setting could be found to be part of a sequence that would set the vehicle’s engine in motion and report from that would, thus, constitute operation. 5. Our conclusion is informed by the public policy underlying the Massachusetts OUI statute. Chemosynthesis! The purpose of G.L. Recent! c. 90, § 24, is to “protect[] the public from intoxicated drivers,” Commonwealth v. Ginnetti, 400 Mass. 181, 184 (1987), by “deter[ring] individuals who have been drinking intoxicating liquor from getting into research paper thesis their vehicles, except as passengers.” Commonwealth v. Sudderth, 37 Mass.App.Ct.

317, 300-321 (1994), quoting from State v. Ghylin, 250 N.W.2d 252, 255 (N.D.1977). Cf. Recent Report! State v. Haight, 279 Conn. 546, 554-555 (2006), quoting from chemosynthesis State v. Gill, 70 Ohio St.3d 150, 153-154 (1994) (“[a] clear purpose of the [Ohio OUI statute] is to discourage persons from putting themselves in recent from the position in which they can potentially cause the movement of a motor vehicle while intoxicated…”). Even an intoxicated person who is sleeping behind the wheel is dangerous because “that person may awaken and decide to drive while still under the influence.” State v. For Essay Writing! Kelton, 168 Vt. Recent Report From! 629, 630 (1998). Research Paper Thesis! 6. In sum, applying the Uski definition to the facts before us, we conclude that, as matter of law, the evidence that the defendant, who was found in the passenger’s seat, turned the recent report from, ignition key–an act which the jury could have found to be the first step in a sequence to set in motion the motive power of the vehicle–was sufficient to difference essays permit the jury to conclude that he “operated” the motor vehicle. Recent From! See also State v. Ipad In India Case! Haight, 279 Conn. at 551-555 (holding that inserting a key into recent the ignition constitutes operation under a definition of operation similar to the Uski definition because this is an act that is part of riftia chemosynthesis, a sequence that will “set in motion the motive power of the vehicle”) (citation omitted).

7, 8. We are unpersuaded by the defendant’s interpretation of Commonwealth v. Ginnetti, 400 Mass. at 184, as requiring that an engine be engaged and as meaning that turning the key to the “on” position could not constitute operation. Specifically, the defendant argues that turning the key in the ignition to a position that does not start the car would only report from draw power from the battery and thus neither starts the engine nor makes use of the phd thesis, power provided by its engine. Even if we assume, arguendo, that the defendant is correct and report from that turning the key to the “on” position does not engage the engine, 9 the defendant misconstrues Ginnetti. For Essay Writing! In Ginnetti, supra at 183-184, the court was faced with the question whether a vehicle with a functioning engine was rendered inoperable within the meaning of G.L. c. 90, § 24, “merely because it is immovable due to recent report road or other conditions not involving the vehicle itself.” Id. at 184. Applying the Uski definition to the facts before it, the court concluded that “the defendant… operate[d] a motor vehicle by starting its engine or by difference good making use of the power provided by its engine.” Id. at 183-184. In so holding, the court did not state that operation was conditioned on an engine being engaged, or that Uski so ruled. Finally, we reject the defendant’s argument that the jury instructions were inappropriate.

The judge’s instructions to the jury, 10 to which defense counsel did not object at report trial, did not create a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice. Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the instructions did not leave jurors with the for essay, impression that evidence that the defendant was sleeping in the driver’s seat with a key turned in the ignition compelled a finding of recent report from, operation. Contrast Commonwealth v. Plowman, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 230, 234 (1990). 11. B. Sufficiency of the evidence.

The defendant, who does not challenge being under the influence of between good, intoxicating liquor 12 or the fact that the vehicle was on a public way, 13 argues on appeal that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that he “operate[d] a motor vehicle.” See G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1). Recent Report From! More specifically, he contends that as a factual matter, the Commonwealth failed to prove that he put the key in the ignition of the car and turned the key. We consider “whether the evidence, in its light most favorable to the Commonwealth, notwithstanding the contrary evidence presented by apple case the defendant, is sufficient… to permit the jury to infer the existence of the essential elements of the crime charged…” beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Recent! Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979) (citation omitted). The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth shows that the defendant was found asleep in the driver’s seat “slumped over the wheel of the van holding a roast beef sandwich in his hands, with sauce dripping down his hand.” The defendant’s feet were “right in front of riftia chemosynthesis, him.” The vehicle’s dashboard was illuminated. The key was in the ignition and had been turned to the “on” position so that the “energy to report the vehicle was on,” but the ipad, engine itself was off and “[t]he vehicle was not running.” The police officer had to “physically turn the ignition back” in recent report order to remove the key. The police did not observe anyone else in the van at the time of arrest.

Viewed as a whole, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant, while sitting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle, put a key in the ignition and prompt writing turned it to the “on” position. See Commonwealth v. Cabral, 77 Mass.App.Ct. 909, 909 (2010) (“Circumstantial evidence may be exclusive evidence of operation of recent report, a motor vehicle, a required element of OUI”), citing Commonwealth v. Petersen, 67 Mass.App.Ct. 49, 52 (2006), and Commonwealth v. Rand, 363 Mass. 554, 562 (1973). The defendant points to two pieces of evidence that he argues conflict with a finding that he operated a motor vehicle. Chemosynthesis! First, the defendant cites testimony by the defendant and the arresting officer that the defendant, upon from being awakened by ipad study the police officer, told the officer that the recent report from, officer did not have the vehicle’s keys. The defendant testified that, after he moved to the driver’s seat and began eating his food, he did not remember what happened until the police officer woke him up. The jury, however, could have found that the defendant simply did not remember placing the key in prompt the ignition, or they may have determined that he was not being truthful in denying putting the key in the ignition.

Moreover, the existence of contradictory evidence does not require a finding of not guilty. See Commonwealth v. Pike, 430 Mass. 317, 323-324 (1999). Second, the defendant points to recent the testimony of his friend that the friend left the defendant passed out in the passenger seat and threw the keys on the passenger side floor when he left the vehicle. 14 Even if the jury credited this testimony, it does not require a finding of not guilty because the jury could reasonably have inferred that the defendant, who admitted moving from the passenger seat into the driver’s seat, picked up the key and put it in the ignition when he moved to prompt the driver’s seat. 2. Other issues. A. Though he did not object below, the defendant argues that the prosecutor misstated the evidence during his closing argument, creating a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice requiring reversal. We disagree. The prosecutor’s argument disputing the defendant’s characterization that he was victim of a conspiracy by the police officers was an recent report, appropriate response to defense counsel’s argument that implied such a conspiracy. See Commonwealth v. Duguay, 430 Mass.

397, 404 (1999). We also conclude that the prosecutor’s statement that the defense witness’s testimony corroborated the between good and bad, officers’ testimony was a fair representation of the evidence. B. The defendant argues that his right to testify was “improperly muzzled” at trial because he was not permitted to testify that he intended to report sleep overnight in the van so that he could go to court in Gloucester the career paper statement, next day. The defendant, however, was permitted to elicit testimony from the defendant’s friend that the defendant said he had to recent report work early in the morning and planned to sleep in the van overnight. Riftia! Furthermore, the record supports the from, conclusion that the defendant accepted his attorney’s strategic advice not to testify during his examination about his plans to sleep in the van because such testimony might open the door to evidence of prior convictions of driving under the influence. See Commonwealth v. Finstein, 426 Mass. 200, 203-204 (1997). C. Phd Thesis! Prior to trial, the defendant moved to replace his attorney, and the judge denied the motion. The record reflects that as soon as the judge became aware of recent report from, a conflict between the defendant and his counsel, the defendant was provided an opportunity to explain his reasons for wanting to remove his attorney. The judge did not abuse his discretion in prompt writing denying the defendant’s motion where (1) this trial counsel was the defendant’s third attorney; (2) the case was two years old; (3) although the defendant was upset with his attorney for arguing a motion for a new trial on his behalf, but without the defendant’s presence, the defendant’s presence would not have affected the outcome of that motion for a new trial; and (4) the report from, defendant merely complained of something that any lawyer who represented him “who had any competence at all would do.” See Commonwealth v. Tuitt, 393 Mass.

801, 804 (1985). D. Riftia! The defendant argues that the judge abused his discretion by refusing to remove two jurors for cause. We disagree. With respect to each of the recent report, complained-of jurors, the judge dispelled any concerns about the juror’s bias through follow-up questioning, in which the jurors said they would consider all the evidence to difference good and bad essays determine whether a police officer was telling the truth in the event that the officer’s testimony was challenged. A trial judge is afforded “a large degree of discretion” in the jury selection process. Report! Commonwealth v. Seabrooks, 433 Mass. Dental Desk Cover Letter! 439, 442-443 (2001), quoting from Commonwealth v. Vann Long, 419 Mass. 798, 808 (1995). “Where, as here, a judge has explored the grounds for any possible claim that a juror cannot be impartial, and has determined that a juror stands indifferent, [the court] will not conclude that the judge abused his discretion by recent from empanelling the juror unless juror prejudice is manifest.” Commonwealth v. Career Research Thesis! Seabrooks, supra at 443. No such prejudice was manifest here. E. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the report, evidence of prior convictions presented at the subsequent offense portion of his trial.

Reviewing the issue under the familiar standard of Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. at 676-678, we conclude that the defendant’s contention is without merit. Research Thesis! First, there was ample evidence that the recent, defendant was the person who had been convicted of similar offenses once in 1986 and twice in 1988. See Commonwealth v. Bowden, 447 Mass. 593, 602 (2006) (“[registry of motor vehicles] records, which contained more particularized identifying information…, also reflected the offenses and the fact that they were the defendant’s”). See also Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 450, 458-460 (2002), S. C., 439 Mass. Front Desk Cover Letter! 460 (2003); Commonwealth v. Olivo, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 368, 372 (2003). Second, otherwise admissible certified records of report from, convictions or docket sheets are nontestimonial and admissible under the confrontation clause. Commonwealth v. Weeks, 77 Mass.App.Ct.

1, 5 (2010). Finally, the judge’s instructions to the jury with regard to the prior convictions were proper where the difference essays, judge simply instructed the jury that the documents in question were OUI convictions and reminded the jury that the Commonwealth still had the burden to prove that the defendant was the recent report from, person who had committed these previous offenses. F. There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was denied his right to speedy trial. For Essay! Pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 36(b)(1)(C), 378 Mass. 910 (1979), “a criminal defendant who is not brought to trial within one year of the return day in the court in recent report which the case is awaiting trial is presumptively entitled to career research thesis statement dismissal of the charges unless the Commonwealth justifies the report, delay.” Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 76 Mass.App.Ct. 500, 502 (2010). The return day here was March 8, 2005. Ipad In India Case Study! The defendant’s trial began on January 23, 2007, 686 days later. “The delay may be excused by a showing that it falls within one of the ‘[e]xcluded [p]eriods’ provided in report rule 36(b)(2), or by career paper a showing that the defendant acquiesced in, was responsible for, or benefited from the delay.” Commonwealth v. Report From! Spaulding, 411 Mass. 503, 504 (1992). Of the 686 days between those two dates, the docket sheet and documents filed in support or opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss show that many days are excluded from the in thermodynamics, calculation.

Due to jointly agreed upon continuances by the parties, at least 117 days are excluded. 15 See Barry v. Commonwealth, 390 Mass. 285, 298 (1983). There were 185 days when the defendant was unavailable while on trial on another charge that are also excluded. 16 See Mass.R.Crim.P. Recent Report! 36(b)(2)(A)(iii), 378 Mass. 910 (1979). Finally, the defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was filed on December 13, 2006, and decided on January 10, 2007, also tolled the running of the rule 36 time for twenty-nine days. Riftia Chemosynthesis! See Commonwealth v. Spaulding, 411 Mass. at 505 n. 4. In total there were at recent report least 17 331 days that were excluded from the 686 days between arraignment and trial, meaning that fewer than 365 days remain to count against the Commonwealth. Therefore, the defendant was tried within the time constraints of rule 36(b), and riftia the order denying the motion to dismiss is affirmed.

18. 1. General Laws c. Recent! 90, § 24(1)(a)(1), as amended through St.2003, c. 28, §§ 1, 2, provides in relevant part: “Whoever, upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access, or upon any way or in any place to prompt for essay writing which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle with a percentage, by weight, of alcohol in from their blood of eight one-hundredths or greater, or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or of marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined in dental front desk letter section one of recent from, chapter ninety-four C, or the vapors of glue shall be punished…. “If the defendant has been previously convicted or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program… because of a like offense three times preceding the date of the commission of the offense for prompt, which he has been convicted, the defendant shall be punished by a fine of not less than [$1,500] nor more than [$25,000] and by recent imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years….” 2. Quite correctly, the defendant does not dispute that operation can occur even when the vehicle is “standing still.” Commonwealth v. Sudderth, 37 Mass.App.Ct. 317, 320 (1994), quoting from in thermodynamics Commonwealth v. Clarke, 254 Mass. 566, 568 (1926).

3. If the evidence shows that a defendant was seated in recent from the driver’s seat with the engine running or while it was still warm, it is well established that a jury may draw the reasonable inference that he operated his vehicle within the meaning of the statute. See Commonwealth v. Eckert, 431 Mass. 591, 599-600 (2000) (testimony of police officer, if credited, that he heard engine running would provide sufficient evidence of operation); Commonwealth v. Sudderth, supra (sufficient evidence of operation where police found defendant “seated in the driver’s seat with the engine running and a key in the ignition”); Commonwealth v. Petersen, 67 Mass.App.Ct. 49, 52 (2006) (proof of operation where engine still warm). Prompt For Essay! Cf.

Commonwealth v. From! Plowman, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 230, 233-234 (1990) (intoxicated driver discovered behind wheel of car with engine running and keys in ignition does not necessarily mandate a finding of operation). 4. In Commonwealth v. Uski, 263 Mass. at 23-24, there was conflicting testimony about whether the defendant turned on the motor or simply placed the and bad, key in the ignition. 5. Recent From! See also Commonwealth v. Prompt For Essay! Sudderth, 37 Mass.App.Ct. at 320 (“The defendant’s intention after occupying the driver’s seat is report from, not an desk cover letter, element of the statutory crime”). 6. From! See also State v. Ghylin, 250 N.W.2d 252, 255 (N.D.1977), quoting from Hughes v. State, 535 P.2d 1023, 1024 (Okla.Crim.App.1975) (“We believe that an intoxicated person seated behind the steering wheel of a motor vehicle is a threat to the safety and welfare of the public. Phd Thesis In Thermodynamics! The danger is less than where an intoxicated person is from, actually driving a vehicle, but it does exist. The defendant when arrested may have been exercising no conscious violation with regard to the vehicle, still there is a legitimate inference to be drawn that he placed himself behind the wheel of the vehicle and could have at any time started the automobile and driven away”).

7. Cf. Stevenson v. Falls Church, 243 Va. 434, 438 (1992) (applying a definition of operation similar to the Uski definition in holding that the defendant did not operate the vehicle “[b]ecause the difference between good essays, presence of the key in the ignition switch in recent from the off position did not engage the mechanical or electrical equipment” of the vehicle); Propst v. Commonwealth, 24 Va.App. 791, 794 (1997) (holding that the Stevenson v. Apple Case! Falls Church case stands for the proposition that the position of the key in the ignition is a factor that a trial court should consider but does not create a bright line rule). 8. We do not decide whether any or all of the following could be found to be operation under G.L. c. 90, § 24: inserting a key in the ignition without turning it and without engaging the motor or the vehicle’s power; using an electronic remote starting device to start the report, engine of the car without inserting a key in the ignition, where putting a key in the ignition would be required to dental desk actually drive the car; or putting the key in the ignition to engage either the electricity or the motor before going to sleep in a seat other than the driver’s seat. 9. In the recent report, absence of any evidence below regarding whether the key, when turned in the ignition to research paper thesis statement the on recent from position, engages the prompt for essay, engine, we reach no conclusion on recent report from that mechanical issue.

10. The relevant portion of the jury instructions is the following: “The first element which the Commonwealth must prove is that the defendant operates a motor vehicle. The expression ‘operation of a motor vehicle’ covers not only all the well known and easily recognize[d] things that drivers do, as they travel on a street or highway, but also any act which would tend to set the vehicle in motion. To operate a motor vehicle, it is not necessary that the engine be running. The intentional as opposed to accidental manipulation of in india case study, any mechanical part of the recent from, vehicle, or the use of any electrical agency which alone or in sequence will set in motion the mode of power of the vehicle is sufficient in law to constitute operation. Career Research! A person operates a motor vehicle, within the meaning of the recent report from, law, when, in for essay the vehicle, he intentionally does any act or makes use of any mechanical or electrical agency, which alone or in sequence, meaning taken together with other acts, will set in motion the report, motive power of the vehicle. Dental Front Desk! The Commonwealth need not prove the defendant’s intention after occupying the driver’s seat.” 11. Report From! We also reject the defendant’s argument that “a stopped engine instruction” was required because the riftia chemosynthesis, engine was stopped, and the stop was not incidental to the operation of the vehicle.

See Commonwealth v. Cavallaro, 25 Mass.App.Ct. 605, 609 (1988), quoting from Commonwealth v. Henry, 229 Mass. 19, 22 (1918) (operation under G.L. From! c. 90, § 24, includes “at least ordinary stops upon the highway, and such stops are to be regarded as fairly incidental to its operation”). Dental Desk Cover Letter! Such an instruction was inappropriate here where the Commonwealth’s theory was that the defendant was operating the vehicle by putting the key in the ignition and turning it. This theory did not depend on any previous operation of the from, vehicle. 12. The defendant admitted at trial that he had consumed at least ten White Russian drinks that evening and was “highly intoxicated.” Furthermore, the arresting officer reported that the defendant smelled very strongly of alcohol, had slurred speech, was unsteady on his feet, and had glassy, bloodshot eyes. 13. The arresting officer testified that the phd thesis, vehicle was parked on recent report from the street in front of a restaurant. 14.

The defendant also argues that the Commonwealth failed to case meet its burden by not introducing sufficient evidence that the recent report from, defendant’s friend was not the person operating the vehicle. See Commonwealth v. In India Study! Boothby, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 582, 582-583 (2005) (police arrived at scene after accident and multiple people claimed that they were driving the car at the time of the accident). Boothby, however, is distinguishable from the current case because, here, the police only found one possible operator at the scene and the present case does not involve a confession by the defendant. 15. Recent! This figure includes (1) ninety-one days between March 30, 2005 (the first scheduled pretrial hearing date), and June 29, 2005 (the actual date of the front desk cover, pretrial hearing); and (2) twenty-six days between August 19, 2005 (the first scheduled date for the final pretrial hearing), and September 14, 2005 (the actual date of the final pretrial hearing). 16. The defendant’s trial on an unrelated charge began on October 5, 2006.

The excluded period extends until fourteen days after sentencing. See Mass.R.Crim.P. 36(b)(2)(A)(iii). Due to a mutually agreed upon continuance, a change in counsel between the bifurcated portions of the trial, and from another delay between the second portion of the trial and in thermodynamics sentencing, the defendant was sentenced on March 24, 2006. Adding fourteen days to the sentencing date brings the date to April 7, 2006. From! Thus, the total excludable period for the unrelated charge is cover letter, 185 days from report October 5, 2006, to in india April 7, 2006.

17. Having identified a sufficient number of excluded days to report from confirm compliance with the requirement for career research paper statement, a speedy trial, we do not compile a complete list of all excluded days. 18. The defendant also appeals from the denial of his pro se motion to dismiss under G.L. c. 276, § 35. Recent! Assuming, arguendo, that the judge denied the motion–there is no record of such ruling–and that this issue is between and bad, properly before this court, we affirm. General Laws c. 276, § 35, applies only to mid-trial continuances and the delay complained of by the defendant is report from, prior to the commencement of trial and, thus, does not fall within the statute. A District Court jury found the defendant guilty of motor vehicle homicide by operation under the influence of intoxicating liquor and negligent operation (in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24G[a]), and by negligent operation of a motor vehicle (in violation of G.L. c. Desk Letter! 90, § 24[2][a]). 75 Mass. App. Ct. 643.

Appeals Court of report, Massachusetts, Bristol. Argued March 6, 2009. Decided November 2, 2009. Paul C. Brennan, Dalton, for career statement, the defendant. David J. Report! Gold, Assistant District Attorney (Garrett R. Career Paper Statement! Fregault, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth. Present: GRAHAM, DREBEN, #038; SIKORA, JJ. [75 Mass. App. Ct. 644] A District Court jury found the defendant guilty of motor vehicle homicide by operation under the influence of from, intoxicating liquor and negligent operation (in violation of G.L. In India! c. 90, § 24G[a]), and by negligent operation of a motor vehicle (in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24[2][a]).

The defendant, who is African-American, appeals upon claims that (1) the recent, trial judge improperly allowed the Commonwealth’s peremptory challenge of the only African-American in desk the venire; (2) the trial judge improperly admitted evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol content and erroneously instructed the recent from, jury on that evidence; and (3) calculated improprieties by the prosecutor and research paper extraneous influences upon the jury resulted in reversible error. We reverse. The trial judge did not offer a sufficiently adequate and contemporaneous explanation of from, her allowance of the peremptory challenge. In addition, the judge erroneously admitted evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol content without the requisite expert testimony and gave an erroneous jury instruction in cover letter relation to that evidence. Procedural background. On February 3, 2004, the New Bedford District Court issued a complaint charging the defendant with negligent operation of a motor vehicle in violation of G.L. Recent! c. For Essay Writing! 90, § 24(2)(a). On June 1, 2004, the same court issued an additional complaint charging the defendant with motor vehicle homicide by operation under the influence and negligent operation (in violation of G.L. Recent From! c. Paper! 90, § 24G[a]).1 On July 25, 2005, a District. Court judge allowed the Commonwealth’s motion to amend the June 1 complaint to add an from, alternate theory of intoxication, a 0.08 percent “per se” violation of the dental desk cover, motor vehicle homicide statute.2 On May 15, 2006, jury empanelment commenced. [75 Mass. App.

Ct. 645] in New Bedford District Court, and on May 19, 2006, the jury returned guilty verdicts on both charges. The trial judge sentenced the defendant to two and one-half years in the house of correction on the motor vehicle homicide charge and recent from a consecutive sentence of two years in the house of correction on the negligent operation charge. In December of 2006, the defendant filed a motion for relief from an unlawful sentence. Chemosynthesis! He claimed that the negligent operation conviction was duplicative of the motor vehicle homicide conviction. In January of 2007, the trial judge allowed the motion. The allowance of report from, that motion is dental cover, not at issue in this appeal.3. Background. Recent From! The evidence at desk trial included the recent report, following. On November 27, 2003, at approximately 8:30 P.M., the defendant’s jeep and the victim’s vehicle collided at an intersection in New Bedford. Four people witnessed the career paper thesis statement, collision, and each of them testified at trial.

According to the witnesses, the recent report from, defendant’s jeep went through a stop sign at a high rate of speed and struck the victim’s vehicle. Front Cover! A New Bedford police officer arriving at the scene after the accident saw the defendant pacing back and forth in an agitated manner. The officer spoke to the defendant and did not detect the odor of alcoholic beverages. The officer did not observe any other signs of intoxication, such as a lack of from, balance. The victim died at desk letter the scene from recent multiple traumatic injuries. Paramedics took the defendant to riftia chemosynthesis the nearest hospital for treatment. Shortly after the recent from, collision, a New Bedford Police Department accident reconstruction expert investigated the phd thesis in thermodynamics, cause of the crash. She analyzed the report, damage to the vehicles and made numerous measurements of the crash scene.

Based on her investigation, the expert concluded that the defendant’s jeep had been traveling at sixty-four miles per hour when it entered the intersection.4. [75 Mass. App. Ct. 646] Soon after the defendant arrived at the hospital, two New Bedford police officers interviewed him.

According to the officers, the defendant was “angry [and] agitated” and his breath smelled of alcoholic beverages. He told the apple study, officers that he had consumed “a forty of recent report from, OE,” a forty-ounce bottle of Olde English brand beer. Both officers testified that the defendant’s demeanor changed when one of the officers notified him of the victim’s death. While at the hospital, the in thermodynamics, defendant complained of pain in his chest. In response to recent report his complaint, hospital staff drew a blood sample from him and analyzed it. For Essay! The doctor who had treated the defendant testified that his blood serum sample had an alcohol reading of 185 milligrams per deciliter. A laboratory supervisor from the Massachusetts State police crime laboratory testified that the reading translated to a whole blood alcohol level of .15 to .16. Discussion. 1. From! Peremptory challenge.

Jury selection proceeded over two days. On the first day, the judge called juror to side bar for further questions. The juror told the judge that she was diabetic. The judge assured her that the apple ipad case study, disease would not be a problem. The juror noted also that her son had faced criminal charges in recent report New Bedford District Court. Apple Study! She stated, however, that she could be a fair and impartial juror. The judge seated her conditionally in the jury box in report advance of the parties’ challenges.

The next day, the Commonwealth invoked one of ipad, its peremptory challenges to exclude juror. The judge noted that juror nineteen was the only African-American in the jury pool from either day. Report! She asked the Commonwealth to explain the in thermodynamics, challenge. In response, the prosecutor gave two reasons: (1) the juror’s speech and mannerisms indicated that she was slow and report from might have difficulty in the deliberation of the evidence of a three- or four-day trial; and (2) the prosecutor’s discomfort caused by the juror’s fixed stare at him during empanelment.5 The judge then determined that the between good and bad, prosecutor’s explanation was not race-based. [75 Mass. App. Ct. 647] Defense counsel asked for the judge’s impression of recent report, juror nineteen. The judge stated that the juror had “somewhat of a halting speech pattern” and was “not incredibly articulate but … not inarticulate either.” The judge did not, however, “associate [the juror's speech] with slowness mentally.” The prosecutor explained that he believed that juror nineteen’s mental acuity was similar to that of another juror whom the judge had removed for cause. The judge did not agree that juror nineteen suffered from a similar disability, but she allowed the for essay writing, Commonwealth’s peremptory challenge without further reasoning at that time.6 Defense counsel objected.

On the recent report from, following day, before the jury had entered the desk, court room, the judge commented further on the Commonwealth’s peremptory challenge of juror nineteen. She stated that, after the previous day’s discussion, she had consulted decisions on peremptory challenges of. members of protected classes,7 and from that she “wanted to put some more … findings on the record.” She recounted that she had requested an explanation for the peremptory challenge, and she repeated the prosecutor’s explanation. She noted also that the applicable case law requires “a two prong analysis. One having to do with the adequacy of the phd thesis, Commonwealth’s position once having been questioned about the reason for the challenge and then the recent, genuineness of that.” Although the prosecutor had not mentioned the criminal. [75 Mass. App. Ct. 648] history of juror nineteen’s son when he had offered his explanation for the challenge, the judge referred to it in her findings.8 The judge concluded her findings with the statement that “I find … the Commonwealth’s explanation both adequate and genuine, which is letter, why I allowed the challenges to recent from stand.” Article 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution and the equal protection clause of the Federal Constitution prohibit the use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors on in thermodynamics the basis of race.

See Commonwealth v. Harris, 409 Mass. 461, 464, 567 N.E.2d 899 (1991). “[W]e begin with the presumption that a peremptory challenge is proper.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 450 Mass. 395, 406, 879 N.E.2d 87, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 202, 172 L.Ed.2d 161 (2008). However, one may rebut that presumption through proof “that (1) a pattern of conduct has developed whereby several prospective jurors who have been challenged peremptorily are members of a discrete group, and (2) there is a likelihood they are being excluded from the jury solely by reason of their group membership.” Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461, 490, 387 N.E.2d 499, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 881, 100 S.Ct.

170, 62 L.Ed.2d 110 (1979). Either the party opposed to report the challenge or the trial judge, sua sponte, may raise the issue of the propriety of the challenge. Dental Letter! See Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 439 Mass. 460, 463, 788 N.E.2d 968 (2003). When “the judge initiates a sua sponte inquiry into the justification for recent, the challenge, this initiation almost necessarily includes an implicit finding that the prima facie case of prompt for essay, discrimination has been made.” Id. at 463 n. 5, 788 N.E.2d 968. Once the prima facie case of discrimination has been made, the report from, proponent of the peremptory challenge must provide an explanation which “pertain[s] to prompt for essay the individual qualities of the prospective juror and not to recent that juror’s group association.” Commonwealth v. Good And Bad Essays! Soares, supra at 491, 387 N.E.2d 499. If the proponent’s. [75 Mass. App. Ct. 649] explanation seems superficial, the judge.

should also allow rebuttal from the adverse party. See Commonwealth v. Recent Report! Calderon, 431 Mass. 21, 26, 725 N.E.2d 182 (2000). Ipad Study! The judge must then “make an independent evaluation of the [proponent's] reasons and recent report … determine specifically whether the explanation was bona fide or a pretext.” Ibid. Prompt For Essay! “In other words, the judge must decide whether the recent report, explanation is both `adequate’ and `genuine.’” Commonwealth v. In India Study! Maldonado, supra at 464, 788 N.E.2d 968, quoting from Commonwealth v. Garrey, 436 Mass. 422, 428, 765 N.E.2d 725 (2002). “[I]t is report from, imperative that the record explicitly contain the judge’s separate findings as to phd thesis in thermodynamics both adequacy and genuineness and, if necessary, an explanation of those findings.” Commonwealth v. Maldonado, supra at 466, 788 N.E.2d 968. See Commonwealth v. Benoit, 452 Mass.

212, 221, 892 N.E.2d 314 (2008). In this case, the recent report from, trial judge raised the question of the propriety of the peremptory challenge. She appropriately requested an between good and bad essays, explanation from the prosecutor (the proponent of the challenge) and allowed defense counsel to respond. See Commonwealth v. Recent From! Soares, supra at phd thesis 491, 387 N.E.2d 499; Commonwealth v. Report From! Calderon, supra at 26, 725 N.E.2d 182. The prosecutor explained that he was challenging the juror because he believed her to be “slow” and difference and bad essays because she had stared at him in a discomforting manner. Recent Report From! The judge received defense counsel’s opposing response. She then stated that, although the juror had “a halting speech pattern,” she did not find the juror mentally slow.

However, the judge concluded that the prosecutor had not misused the challenge and allowed it. It was not until the next day that the judge explicitly found the prosecutor’s explanation to be adequate and front desk genuine. The judge’s own language demonstrates that she recognized generally the two-part standard of adequacy and genuineness. However, her ruling falls short of the firm and recent from timely explanation for essays, allowance required by from the line of cases culminating in Commonwealth v. Benoit, supra. Prompt Writing! As in Commonwealth v. Maldonado, supra, and Commonwealth v. Benoit, we cannot conclude that the judge properly allowed the challenge because the record does not show a prompt assessment of the recent from, adequacy and genuineness of the prosecutor’s explanation of the peremptory challenge. See Commonwealth v. Maldonado, supra at ipad in india study 466-467, 788 N.E.2d 968 (judge should not have accepted prosecutor’s peremptory challenge where judge.

[75 Mass. App. Ct. 650] requested explanation and then allowed challenge but “did not find that the prosecutor had met her burden of establishing an adequate, race-neutral explanation that was the genuine reason for the challenge”); Commonwealth v. Benoit, supra at report from 222-226, 892 N.E.2d 314 (defendant’s right to trial by jury selected without discrimination not adequately protected where court could not determine whether trial judge gave meaningful consideration to front desk cover adequacy and genuineness of reason for peremptory challenge). In sum, the record contains references to three possible grounds for disqualification of the recent report, juror: her staring at the prosecutor; her suspected slowness; and the recent involvement of her son as a defendant prosecuted by the same district attorney’s office.9 The judge did not address. the ground of staring.10 She rejected the suspected slowness.

She introduced, a day later, the experience of the son, a potentially serious ground but one never invoked by the prosecutor in support of the suspect peremptory challenge.11 In these circumstances, we simply do not have the specific, clear findings upon dental adequacy and recent report from genuineness required by the cases to sustain the peremptory challenge. In particular, the judge did not find either of the prosecution’s grounds adequate, i.e., “personal to the juror and not based on the juror’s group affiliation” and “related to the particular case being tried,” however genuine or bona fide the offer may have been. Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 439 Mass. at 464-465, 788 N.E.2d 968. The governing standard is demanding. The precedents require reversal of the convictions. 2. Evidence of blood alcohol content. The Commonwealth. [75 Mass. App. Ct. 651] began trial with two theories of operation under the influence, the per se theory (blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or greater) and the impaired operation theory.

At the research thesis, beginning of the trial, the judge gave preliminary instructions to recent from the jury in which she explained the nature of the charges against the defendant. She made no reference to alternate theories of operation under the influence. During the trial, the Commonwealth introduced evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol content but offered no expert testimony to explain the relationship between blood alcohol content and impaired operation. During the charge conference, the Commonwealth requested jury instruction on both theories. The judge stated that she was inclined not to give an instruction on the per se theory, and paper the Commonwealth agreed with that proposal. The judge instructed the recent from, jury, in relevant part, as follows: “The law says that if the percentage of alcohol by weight in the defendant’s blood was .08 percent or more[,] from such evidence you may, if you wish, draw an inference that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time.” For reasons discussed below, the instruction was erroneous. The defendant did not object to the blood test evidence, the prosecutor’s reference to it in desk cover letter his summation, or the judge’s erroneous instruction. In 2003, the Legislature amended both G.L. c. Recent! 90, § 24G, the motor vehicle homicide statute, and G.L. c. 90, § 24(a)(1), the prompt for essay writing, operation under the influence (OUI) statute, to recent add the per se theory of career thesis statement, intoxication.

St.2003, c. 28, §§ 1, 21, 22. Pursuant to from the amendments, the riftia chemosynthesis, Commonwealth may prove intoxication through evidence that the defendant had “a percentage, by weight, of alcohol in [his] blood of eight one-hundredths or greater.” G.L. c. Recent From! 90, § 24G(a). Prior to the amendments, the statutes allowed the permissible inference of intoxication when the phd thesis, defendant had a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater. Commonwealth v. Colturi, 448 Mass. 809, 811-812, 864 N.E.2d 498 (2007).

The 2003 amendments eliminated. the permissible inference and replaced it with a conclusive inference. See Commonwealth v. Hubert, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 661, 662, 885 N.E.2d 164 n. 2, S.C., 453 Mass. 1009, 902 N.E.2d 368 (2008). In Commonwealth v. Colturi, supra, the Supreme Judicial Court held that, if the Commonwealth relies solely on an impaired operation theory, breathalyzer readings are inadmissible in the. [75 Mass. From! App.

Ct. 652] absence of expert testimony to essays explain their significance. Id. at report 817-818, 864 N.E.2d 498. The decision states: “If … the Commonwealth were to proceed only on a theory of impaired operation [instead of both a per se theory and an impaired operation theory] and riftia chemosynthesis offered a breathalyzer test result of .08 or greater, without evidence of its relationship to intoxication or impairment and without the statutorily permissible inference of intoxication eliminated by the 2003 amendments, the jury would be left to guess at its meaning.” Ibid. As for trials where the Commonwealth relies on both theories, the recent, decision states further: “[I]f the per chemosynthesis se and impaired ability theories of recent, criminal liability are charged in the alternative … and career research statement so tried, we see no prejudice in the admission of breathalyzer test results without expert testimony establishing the significance of the report from, test level to the degree of intoxication or impairment of the defendant. Difference And Bad! In such a case, the jury presumably would be instructed that if they find the defendant operated her motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .08 or greater, she is guilty of report from, violating the prompt, OUI statute, and if they do not so find, they may still consider whether she violated the statute by operating while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.”

Id. at 817, 864 N.E.2d 498. We presume that this language applies to the results of blood tests in addition to the results of breathalyzer tests. After issuance of Commonwealth v. Colturi, supra, we held, in Commonwealth v. Hubert, supra, that where the Commonwealth relied solely on an impaired operation theory, and the judge admitted breathalyzer results without expert testimony and over the defendant’s objection, admission of the results required reversal. Id. at 664, 885 N.E.2d 164. In this case, the complaint charged both theories. The judge admitted evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol content without expert testimony to explain its relationship to intoxication. Recent! The judge did not instruct the jury on the per se theory. Furthermore, the judge erroneously instructed the jury on the permissible inference of intoxication eliminated by phd thesis in thermodynamics the 2003 amendments. See.

[75 Mass. Recent From! App. Apple In India Case Study! Ct. Recent From! 653] Commonwealth v. Colturi, supra at 811-812, 864 N.E.2d 498; Commonwealth v. Hubert, supra, at prompt 662 n. 2, 885 N.E.2d 164.12 The defendant argues that the erroneous instruction and the admission of the blood test evidence without the requisite expert testimony require reversal. Since the defendant did not object to the alleged errors, we review for the substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. Under that standard, the question becomes whether the erroneous instruction and the blood alcohol evidence may have influenced the verdict of guilt. Recent From! Commonwealth v. Riftia Chemosynthesis! Alphas, 430 Mass. 8, 13, 712 N.E.2d 575 (1999). See Commonwealth v. Azar, 435 Mass.

675, 687, 760 N.E.2d 1224 (2002); Commonwealth v. Randolph, 438 Mass. Recent! 290, 297, 780 N.E.2d 58 (2002). Even without the blood test, the in thermodynamics, Commonwealth’s evidence of intoxication was strong. The percipient witnesses testified that the defendant drove through a stop sign at a high speed and report hit the victim’s vehicle. A police officer who was at the scene testified that the defendant was agitated, although he testified also that he did not notice any other signs of intoxication. The accident reconstruction expert testified that the defendant’s jeep had been traveling at sixty-four miles per hour when it entered the intersection. The officers who interviewed the career research, defendant at the hospital testified that he was agitated, that his breath smelled of alcoholic beverages, and report that he confessed to consumption of forty ounces of beer earlier in the evening. However, the between and bad essays, laboratory supervisor’s testimony that the defendant had a blood alcohol content between .15 and .16 percent may have been the most compelling evidence of intoxication. Without it, the report from, Commonwealth’s evidence was “strong but not overwhelming.” Commonwealth v. Hubert, 71 Mass.App.Ct. at 663, 885 N.E.2d 164. Here, as in Hubert, police testimony about the defendant’s signs of intoxication differed.

Under the research statement, impaired operation theory submitted to the jury, the error may have materially influenced the verdict and therefore created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. See Commonwealth v. Freeman, 352 Mass. 556, 564, 227 N.E.2d 3 (1967)13; Commonwealth v. Alphas, 430 Mass. at 13, 712 N.E.2d 575. [75 Mass. App. Ct. Recent From! 654] Conclusion.14,15 For the foregoing reasons we reverse the between, judgments and set aside the verdicts. Recent! The case is phd thesis in thermodynamics, remanded to the District Court for a new trial or other proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1. In addition to the negligent operation charge, the February 3 complaint charged the defendant with motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation in violation of recent, G.L. c. 90, § 24G(b). After issuance of the June 1 complaint, which charged the defendant with motor vehicle homicide by operation under the for essay writing, influence and by negligent operation (in violation of G.L. Recent! c. 90, § 24G[a]), the Commonwealth nol prossed the motor vehicle homicide charge from the first complaint. 2. Apple Ipad Case! Under G.L. c. 90, § 24G(a), the Commonwealth may use either of two theories to prove operation under the influence: (1) operation “with a percent by weight, of alcohol in [the] blood of eight one-hundredths or greater, or [2] while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” G.L. Recent Report From! c. 90, § 24G(a), as amended through St.2003, c. 28, § 21. See Commonwealth v. Apple Ipad! Colturi, 448 Mass. 809, 810, 864 N.E.2d 498 (2007); Commonwealth v. Recent Report From! Hubert, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 661, 661-662, 885 N.E.2d 164 (2008), S.C., 453 Mass.

1009, 902 N.E.2d 368 (2009). Prior to the amendment of the June 1 complaint, the complaint alleged only the dental front letter, second theory. 3. In April of 2007, after a hearing, the trial judge allowed the Commonwealth’s motion to file a late notice of from, appeal from the apple ipad in india study, grant of the defendant’s motion for relief from an unlawful sentence. The Commonwealth’s appeal has not entered in report from this court. Ipad In India Case Study! In its brief, the Commonwealth does not argue the propriety of the grant of the recent from, motion. Therefore, we do not address it. 4. She opined also that the prompt for essay writing, defendant’s jeep had struck a vehicle parked on the side of the road prior to the collision with the victim’s vehicle.

5. In its entirety, the prosecutor’s explanation was: “Judge, she appears slow to me at side-bar in report from her speech and mannerisms and while we were impaneling today, I locked eyes with her a few times and it appeared to me that she was staring at me, staring me down while we were at between good and bad essays the side-bar; and it bothered me. But I do find that she’s slow at recent from side-bar speaking with her, in her speech; and paper thesis I’m concerned that this is a three or four day trial, a lot of witnesses; and I’m concerned about her ability to try the recent, evidence.” 6. Riftia! The judge observed that the defendant had adequately preserved the issue for recent report, appeal. During the difference between good and bad, discussion of the challenge, the from, judge asked the paper thesis, prosecutor why he had used another peremptory challenge on juror fourteen. On the previous day, the judge had asked juror fourteen, a white male, some questions at side bar, and the juror had noted the presence of only one African American in report the venire. Writing! The prosecutor stated that he should not have to explain his use of recent, a peremptory challenge on juror fourteen because the juror was not a member of a protected class. However, he supplied an between good, explanation, and the judge allowed the challenge. 7. The parties assert that the judge stated that she had read Commonwealth v. Recent! Maldonado, 439 Mass. 460, 788 N.E.2d 968 (2003).

However, the transcript reflects that the judge stated that she “look[ed] over the case law, particularly Commonwealth v. Mulder (phonetic), with respect to the possibility of chemosynthesis, a peremptory challenge being used to exclude members of recent, a [discrete] group….” The reference (jumbled in transcription) most probably was the Maldonado decision. 8. The judge’s reference to the criminal history of juror nineteen’s son was as follows: “I would also add that it was known to dental desk letter all of us that [juror nineteen] had had a son who had apparently a criminal matter in recent report this court, perhaps even before me because she seemed to recall me, just this past fall that was prosecuted by the district attorney’s office and apparently came up…. [A]nd I don’t remember the case per se but she spoke about it. It apparently just happened last fall.” The judge went on to say that she understood the Commonwealth’s concern “whether she could perform in a truly objective manner” because her son had experienced the between good and bad, criminal justice process and subsequent incarceration. The record does not show any expression of that specific concern by the prosecutor.

9. As mentioned above, in the next-day review of her reasons for allowance of the peremptory challenge, the judge referred to the experience of juror nineteen’s son in the New Bedford District Court. Recent Report! See note 8, supra. The prosecutor did not refer to the criminal history of the juror’s son as justification for his peremptory challenge. Research! A judge may not supply her own reasons to justify a prosecutor’s peremptory challenge. See Commonwealth v. Fryar, 414 Mass.

732, 739, 610 N.E.2d 903 (1993), S.C., 425 Mass. 237, 680 N.E.2d 901, cert. From! denied, 522 U.S. 1033, 118 S.Ct. 636, 139 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997). 10.

That explanation had little chance of success. “Challenges based on subjective data such as a juror’s looks or gestures, or a party’s `gut’ feeling should rarely be accepted as adequate because such explanations can easily be used as pretexts for discrimination.” Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 439 Mass. at prompt writing 465, 788 N.E.2d 968. 11. Recent! This reasoning does not interfere with the authority of a trial judge spontaneously to identify, establish, and rule upon a ground of disqualification independently of any challenge of either the Commonwealth or a defendant. 12. The charge conference and instructions to the jury in the trial occurred in May, 2006. The Supreme Judicial Court released the Colturi decision in April 2007; and this court the Hubert decision in May 2008.

Therefore the judge and trial counsel did not have the benefit of those interpretations of the phd thesis in thermodynamics, 2003 amendments. 13. In Commonwealth v. Hubert, supra at report from 664, 885 N.E.2d 164, defense counsel made timely objections and preserved the issue so that the standard of review was the good essays, presence of prejudicial error. Here we have reviewed the issue under the less demanding standard of substantial risk and found the error again sufficiently serious to require reversal. 14.

As mentioned in the introduction, supra, the defendant argues also that extraneous influences on the jury and alleged calculated impropriety by the prosecutor require reversal. The extraneous influences were (1) a shout by the victim’s mother at the defendant as the jurors left the recent report, courtroom on the first day of trial, and (2) the presence of prompt for essay, a makeshift memorial to from the victim at the accident scene during the jury’s view of the site. The claim of calculated impropriety by the prosecutor arises from testimony of two police officers that they told the defendant that he had “killed” the victim. The defendant asserts that the prosecutor intended that the apple case study, officers testify in this manner, in violation of the judge’s decision on a motion in limine. From! No evidence supports the view that the mother’s outburst or the accident site memorial overcame the judge’s instructions for a verdict based strictly on the evidence. The claim related to the officers’ use of the word “killed” fails also, because the judge gave immediate curative instructions. 15. The defendant presented no issue of difference between and bad, a denial of the right to confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by reason of the admission of the blood alcohol test result.

The rule of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), has played no part in the appeal. Massachusetts OUI Case – Defendnat admitted to the officer that his driver’s license was suspended, and at trial he testified that he knew he was suspended for an operating under the influence (OUI) conviction. Gerald W. GILMAN. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued: November 9, 2009.

Decided: April 13, 2010. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED. Andrew S. Robinson, Asst. Dist. Recent Report! Atty. (orally), Franklin County DA’s Office, Farmington, ME, for the State of Maine. Walter Hanstein III, Esq. (orally), Joyce, David #038; Hanstein, P.A., Farmington, ME, for Gerald W. Gilman.

Panel SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, and GORMAN, JJ. ? 1 The State of Maine appeals from phd thesis in thermodynamics a judgment of the Superior Court (Franklin County, Murphy, J.) denying its motion to recent correct the sentence that the court imposed on Gerald W. Gilman following his conviction at in thermodynamics a bench trial for operating after habitual offender revocation (Class C), 29-A M.R.S. Report From! ? 2557-A(2)(D)(2)(2008).1 See M.R.Crim. P. For Essay! 35(a). The State contends that the court imposed an illegal sentence when it sentenced Gilman to less than the recent report from, minimum mandatory two-year term of imprisonment required by the statute. The court did so after finding that the statute as applied to Gilman violated article I, section 9 of the Maine Constitution, which requires that “all penalties and punishments shall be proportioned to the offense.” Me. Writing! Const. art. I, ? 9. ? 2 Gilman cross-appeals, contending that, in addition to violating article I, section 9 of the Maine Constitution, the mandatory sentencing provision also violated his equal protection and due process rights.2 Additionally, he argues that the. court erred in admitting a certified record from the report, Secretary of State declaring him to be a habitual offender, because doing so violated his constitutional right to career research statement confront witnesses against him as articulated in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S.

36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), and its progeny. ? 3 The State’s appeal is accompanied by the written approval of the Attorney General as required by 15 M.R.S. ? 2115-A(2-B), (5) (2009) and M.R.App. P. 21(b). Because we agree with the State’s contention that the sentence imposed on Gilman was illegal, and find no violation of Gilman’s constitutional rights, we vacate only the sentence and remand for recent report from, resentencing. ? 4 The facts are not in prompt for essay dispute.

On April 11, 2007, Gerald Gilman was stopped for speeding in the Town of New Sharon, three miles from his home. Recent! He had not been drinking. Gilman, a member of the good, local Elks Club, was returning from the club’s lodge, where he had repaired a broken walk-in cooler. Gilman admitted to the officer that his driver’s license was suspended, and at trial he testified that he knew he was suspended for an operating under the influence (OUI) conviction. In fact, Gilman’s license had been revoked as a result of report from, multiple previous convictions, which included three convictions for OUI within the difference good essays, previous ten years. A certified record from the Secretary of State, admitted at trial over Gilman’s objection, showed that he had been given proper notice of the revocation. ? 5 Gilman was indicted for operating after revocation (Class C). The charge was enhanced because of his three OUI convictions within the previous ten years. 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2)(D)(2). Section 2557-A, which was enacted as part of what is popularly known as “Tina’s Law,” provides that in that circumstance “the minimum fine . . . is $1,000 and the minimum term of imprisonment is recent, 2 years, neither of which may be suspended by the court.” 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2)(D); P.L.

2005, ch. 606, ? A-11 (effective Aug. 23, 2006). ? 6 Gilman moved to dismiss the allegation of the aggravating factor of his prior OUI convictions as a violation of his equal protection guarantees. Dismissal of the allegation would have reduced the riftia, charge to a Class D crime. See 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2)(A) (2008).3 At a hearing, Gilman argued that because there was no allegation that he was under the influence when he was stopped, it was irrational to aggravate the recent, operating after revocation (OAR) charge with prior convictions for OUI. The Superior Court (Jabar, J.) denied the motion. ? 7 At a jury-waived trial held on February 11, 2008, Gilman objected that his rights under the Confrontation Clause would be violated by the admission of a certificate issued by the Secretary of career research, State under seal declaring that (1) his right to drive was under revocation when he was stopped, (2) he had proper notice of the revocation, and (3) his driving record included three OUI convictions within the recent report from, previous ten years.

The court (Murphy, J.) overruled the objection, denied Gilman’s motion for a judgment of acquittal, and took the ultimate issue of whether the State had met its burden of proof under advisement. Gilman then filed a written. argument asking the court to revisit its earlier rejection of chemosynthesis, his equal protection argument, and asserting that the mandatory two-year sentence that would result if he were convicted would violate article I, section 9 of the Maine Constitution. The court heard argument and recent took the issues under advisement. ? 8 On September 8, the court issued a written decision finding Gilman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision further explained the court’s reasoning on the Confrontation Clause issue and again denied Gilman’s equal protection claim. On his claim of unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment, the chemosynthesis, court deferred a decision pending further argument by the parties. Before further argument could be heard, Gilman moved the court to from reconsider its verdict, citing State v. Research Thesis Statement! Stade, 683 A.2d 164 (Me.1996), as authority for his argument that convicting him of a Class C offense constituted a due process violation because the State did not individually notify him that “Tina’s Law” increased the recent from, penalties if he were to be convicted of in thermodynamics, OAR after it took effect. ? 9 On October 27, the from, court heard argument on apple ipad in india case study Gilman’s due process claim and denied it. It then heard testimony relevant to the disproportionate punishment issue and sentencing from four witnesses: another member of the Elks Club, a psychiatrist who treated Gilman through the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Gilman’s sister, and Gilman himself.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court took the disproportionate punishment issue and the sentence under advisement. ? 10 On November 17, the court issued written findings and conclusions: This Court concludes, after consideration of the characteristics of Mr. Report From! Gilman, as well as the manner in which this sentence would be carried out, that imposition of riftia, a two-year mandatory minimum sentence would be greatly disproportionate to the offense, and report from also concludes that it would offend prevailing notions of decency. The Defendant has carried his burden in his claim that the mandatory two-year prison term would be unconstitutionally disproportionate, as applied to Mr.

Gilman. ? 11 At a final hearing on December 11, the court conducted the statutorily required sentencing analysis on the Class C conviction and sentenced Gilman to fifteen months imprisonment, with all but ninety days suspended, two years of probation, 500 hours of community service, and a $1000 fine. See 17-A M.R.S. ? 1252-C (2009). The State orally moved the court to correct what it viewed as an illegal sentence pursuant to M.R.Crim. P. 35(a);4 the motion was denied orally and later in good essays a written order. Report From! This appeal and cross-appeal followed. A. Scope of paper statement, Article I, Section 9. ? 12 Article I of the Maine Constitution is recent from, a declaration of rights enjoyed by Maine citizens. Section 9 sets limits on the State’s power to phd thesis punish: “Sanguinary laws shall not be passed; all penalties and punishments shall be proportioned to report from the offense; excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted.” Me. Ipad! Const. Recent! art.

I, ? 9. ? 13 The statute under which Gilman was convicted unambiguously required the Superior Court to impose an unsuspended prison sentence of at least two years. 29-A M.R.S. Riftia Chemosynthesis! ? 2557-A(2)(D). Accordingly, the report, court’s lesser sentence was facially illegal unless the court was correct in writing its two central rulings: (1) article I, section 9 requires that punishments be proportionate to the offense after considering the recent, circumstances of the particular offender, not simply proportionate to the offense itself, and (2) because of in thermodynamics, Gilman’s individual circumstances, the mandatory sentence was disproportionate to from his offense, and therefore the statute is unconstitutional in this instance.5 Gilman’s burden is significant, as “one challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears a heavy burden of proving unconstitutionality since all acts of the Legislature are presumed constitutional.” State v. Vanassche, 566 A.2d 1077, 1081 (Me.1989) (quotation marks omitted). In India Study! We review de novo whether he met that burden through a showing of “strong and convincing reasons.” Town of Frye Island v. Recent From! State, 2008 ME 27, ? 13, 940 A.2d 1065, 1069. ? 14 Whether the Maine Constitution requires that punishments be proportionate to the offender, as well as the offense, has been an open question. In discussing a closely related provision of section 9, we left it unanswered:

Assuming, without deciding, that it may be possible in rare cases that a mandatory minimum sentence is cruel and unusual because of the characteristics of the individual or because of the difference good essays, manner in which the sentence is carried out, there was not enough information in this case for the trial court to report from reach that conclusion. State v. Worthley, 2003 ME 14, ? 7, 815 A.2d 375, 377 (footnote omitted).6. ? 15 This case requires us to answer the case, question left open in Worthley. For several reasons, we conclude that (1) section 9 requires only from that a punishment be proportionate to the offense for which a person is convicted, (2) the two-year mandatory sentence prescribed by statute is proportionate to the offense that Gilman committed, and (3) the sentence imposed by the trial court was therefore illegal and. must be vacated. Accordingly, to the extent that Worthley suggested that it may be possible for a mandatory sentence to be unconstitutionally disproportionate under article I, section 9 solely because of an individual defendant’s particular circumstances, we now hold that it is not possible. ? 16 The plain language of prompt, section 9 requires that “punishments shall be proportioned to the offense.” Me. Const. art. I, ? 9 (emphasis added).

It says nothing about the recent from, individual offender. This is of primary importance because we have said: In interpreting our State Constitution, we look primarily to the language used. Because the same principles employed in the construction of statutory language hold true in the construction of a constitutional provision, we apply the plain language of the constitutional provision if the language is chemosynthesis, unambiguous. Voorhees v. Sagadahoc County, 2006 ME 79, ? 6, 900 A.2d 733, 735-36 (citation omitted) (quotation marks omitted). Recent From! The language of front letter, section 9 is unambiguous, and report therefore we give it its plain meaning.

See Joyce v. State, 2008 ME 108, ? 11, 951 A.2d 69, 72 (stating that “it is a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation that words in a statute must be given their plain and ordinary meanings” (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted)). ? 17 Our prior decisions support this construction. In each case where a minimum mandatory punishment imposed by difference and bad essays the Legislature has been challenged as disproportionate or cruel and unusual under section 9, we have rejected the challenge after considering the defendant’s conduct.7 Only in Worthley did we refer to the characteristics of the individual offender, and then only to point out that we were not required in recent from that case to decide whether individual characteristics could ever be a factor in the proportionality analysis. Worthley, 2003 ME 14, ? 7, 815 A.2d at 377. ? 18 Furthermore, although federal authority does not control our interpretation of our State Constitution, it is instructive that in its recent Eighth Amendment jurisprudence the Supreme Court has upheld or struck down severe sentences based on consideration of a particular offense or category of offender,8 but has not. required an individualized determination that a mandatory punishment is appropriate except in death penalty cases. See Harmelin v. In Thermodynamics! Michigan, 501 U.S. From! 957, 996, 111 S.Ct.

2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (“We have drawn the line of riftia, required individualized sentencing at recent capital cases, and see no basis for extending it further.”). Regarding the Federal Constitution, the writing, First Circuit Court of recent, Appeals noted: There is no constitutional right, in non-capital cases, to individualized sentencing. Dental Desk Cover! Legislatures are free to provide for mandatory sentences for particular offenses.. . . Recent From! The mere fact that a sentence is mandatory and severe does not make it cruel and unusual within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. United States v. Campusano, 947 F.2d 1, 3-4 (1st Cir.1991). ? 19 A plain-language construction of section 9 is further supported by our cases holding that the Legislature has the power to enact mandatory sentences.

See State v. Lane, 649 A.2d 1112, 1115 (Me.1994) (collecting cases). Implicit in those decisions is a recognition that the Legislature may lawfully choose to dental cover letter remove a sentencing court’s discretion when it determines it is appropriate to do so, subject only to the constitutional prohibition against punishment disproportionate to a given offense. Recent! The construction urged by riftia chemosynthesis Gilman would go far beyond what the language of section 9 requires and effectively vitiate all mandatory sentencing statutes. ? 20 A minimum mandatory sentence is the Legislature’s establishment of a basic sentence, and a legislative decision that a sentencing court may not find that mitigating factors justify a lesser maximum sentence.9 Consideration of a defendant’s individual circumstances in finding that a mandatory sentence is disproportionate as applied to that person is simply reinstatement by judicial declaration of a sentencing court’s ordinary discretion to weigh mitigating factors, and then impose a maximum sentence that is lower than the basic sentence. See 17-A M.R.S. ? 1252-C(2). Report! A court would then always have the sentencing discretion that the Legislature intended to remove, because individual mitigating circumstances could always be used as justification to case impose less than the mandatory minimum sentence on the ground that the mandatory sentence is disproportionate as applied in a particular case. We do not read article I, section 9 to render the Legislature’s authority to enact mandatory sentences a nullity.10. ? 21 Because we hold that the clause, “all penalties and punishments shall be proportioned to report the offense,” means what its plain language says, and does not require consideration of the individual circumstances of each offender, the sentence imposed on Gilman was illegal unless it. was disproportionate to the crime he committed. B. The Two-Year Minimum Mandatory Sentence. ? 22 This Court “always has the power and duty to uphold the State and Federal Constitutions,” and will “protect the individual from an dental front, unconstitutional invasion of his rights by the legislative . . . branch of government.” Dep’t of Corr. Report! v. Superior Court, 622 A.2d 1131, 1134-35 (Me.1993) (quotation marks omitted).

Nevertheless, we recognize the primacy of the Legislature as “the voice of the sovereign people” in the area of crime and punishment: The fixing of an phd thesis in thermodynamics, adequate criminal penalty is properly and legitimately a matter of legislative concern. It is not the office of the judiciary to interpose constitutional limitations where none need be found. Of course a mandatory sentence of great severity may at some point lose its rational relation to a permissible legislative purpose; a disparity between the sentence and the evil to be avoided might then be a cruelty of constitutional dimensions. It seems to us that the interest of the legislature is paramount in the field of penology and the public safety. The legislature defines the contours of the crime itself, and sets the limits for punishment. . . . The underlying structure of the penal system is statutory; the coherence of the recent, system is to be found in legislative direction.

State v. King, 330 A.2d 124, 127-28 (Me. 1974); see State v. Benner, 553 A.2d 219, 220 (Me.1989) (“The power of punishment is phd thesis, vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department. Report From! It is the legislature, not the court, which is to prompt writing define a crime and ordain its punishment.” (quotation marks omitted)). ? 23 We have described the test for determining when a sentence is from, cruel and unusual as whether it “is greatly disproportionate. . . and whether it offends prevailing notions of decency,” Worthley, 2003 ME 14, ? 6, 815 A.2d at 376; whether it “shocks the conscience of the public, or our own respective or collective sense of research thesis, fairness,” State v. Reardon, 486 A.2d 112, 121 (Me.1984); or whether it is “inhuman or barbarous,” State v. Heald, 307 A.2d 188, 192 (Me.1973). Because the Legislature is “the voice of the sovereign people,” King, 330 A.2d at 127, and thus expresses the people’s will, only the most extreme punishment decided upon by that body as appropriate for an offense could so offend or shock the collective conscience of the people of Maine as to be unconstitutionally disproportionate, or cruel and recent report from unusual.11 In short, our system of government assumes that the judgment of the chemosynthesis, Legislature is the collective judgment of the people. ? 24 Gilman was convicted of a Class C crime, punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment. See 17-A M.R.S. ? 1252(2)(C) (2009). The Legislature mandated a sentence for his conduct of two years, or forty percent of the from, maximum. 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2XD).

It deemed that penalty necessary to prevent revoked drivers with three recent OUI convictions, who have repeatedly proved. that they are willing to endanger others by operating a motor vehicle while impaired, from continuing to drive under any circumstances. A mandated sentence for that conduct on the lower end of the zero-to-five-years scale is not the rare, extreme, or shocking case, and does not violate the proportionality requirement of article I, section 9. C. For Essay Writing! Equal Protection. ? 25 Gilman contends that, because he was not impaired when he was stopped for speeding, the Legislature had no rational basis for increasing his sentence for report from, operating after revocation because of his prior OUI convictions. Prompt For Essay Writing! He acknowledges that in order to reach the result he seeks, we would be required to overrule our decision in State v. Chapin, where the same argument was advanced and rejected. 610 A.2d 259, 261 (Me.1992). ? 26 In Chapin, we concluded that the danger created by recent from drunk drivers was “certainly strong enough” to phd thesis justify the imposition of a minimum mandatory sentence for habitual offenders with OUI convictions who continue to drive. Id. Gilman makes no showing that that danger has been reduced since 1992, when Chapin was decided, and we find that the rational relationship of prior OUI convictions to an enhanced sentence for operating after revocation remains intact. ? 27 Gilman next contends, on the authority of State v. Stade, 683 A.2d 164, that because his license had been revoked, the State was required to individually notify him that the minimum statutory penalties for operating after revocationM had increased with the enactment of 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A.

See P.L. 2005, ch. 606, ? A-11 (effective Aug. Report! 23, 2006). ? 28 In Stade, we held that a defendant’s due process rights may be violated when an agent of the State makes affirmative misrepresentations that are then relied upon to the defendant’s detriment. 683 A.2d at 166. Here the State did not make any affirmative misrepresentation as to the penalties Gilman would face if he chose to drive and difference between thus knowingly violated the report, law. The Legislature changed the statute, the Governor signed it into law, and Gilman is presumed to know what the law is. See Houghton v. Hughes, 108 Me. 233, 236-37, 79 A. 909 (1911). Front Desk Letter! Contrary to Gilman’s argument, due process did not require that he be individually notified of the recent report from, change in order to ensure that he could conduct a thoughtful cost/benefit analysis before consciously choosing to break the law.

Moreover, the law in effect at career the time of his most recent OUI conviction provided that he could be sentenced to as long as five years in prison for the operation of any vehicle before his license was restored. See 17-A M.R.S. ? 1252(2)(C); 29-A M.R.S. Report From! ? 2557(2)(B)(2) (2005).12. E. Riftia Chemosynthesis! Confrontation Clause. ? 29 Gilman finally contends that his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was violated when the Superior Court admitted, over his objection, a certified record from the report from, Secretary of State stating that his privilege to operate had been revoked, that he had received proper notice of the revocation, and that he had three OUI convictions within the preceding ten years. As. with his equal protection challenge, Gilman acknowledges that he can prevail only if we overrule recent precedent, specifically State v. Tayman, 2008 ME 177, 960 A.2d 1151. In Tayman, we held that a disputed Secretary of for essay, State certification did not offend the Confrontation Clause because “the certification served only to confirm the recent report from, authenticity of the underlying records of the paper thesis, Violations Bureau, which themselves contain only routine, nontestimonial information.” 2008 ME 177, ? 24, 960 A.2d at 1158; see also State v. Knight, 2009 ME 32, ? 10, 967 A.2d 723, 725 (relying on Tayman). ? 30 Gilman contends that Tayman must be overruled on the authority of the Supreme Court’s decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009).

In Melendez-Diaz, the Court held that the admission of a chemist’s certificate stating that an analyzed substance was cocaine violated the Sixth Amendment, because although “documents kept in the regular course of business may ordinarily be admitted at trial despite their hearsay status. . . that is not the case if the regularly conducted business activity is the production of evidence for use at recent report trial.” Id. at 2538, 174 L.Ed.2d at cover 328 (citation omitted). ? 31 We recently analyzed the recent report, impact of Melendez-Diaz on Tayman and concluded that Tayman remains good law. State v. Murphy, 2010 ME 28, ? 26, 991 A.2d 35, 43. Tayman controls the desk cover letter, result here and consequently Gilman’s argument fails. Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Sentence vacated; remanded to the Superior Court for resentencing. 1 The statute provided: D. A person is guilty of a Class C crime if the person commits the crime of operating after habitual offender revocation and: (2) The person has 3 or more convictions for violating section 2411 Criminal OUI or former Title 29, section 1312-B within the previous 10 years. The minimum fine for a Class C crime under this paragraph is $1,000 and the minimum term of imprisonment is 2 years, neither of which may be suspended by the court. 29-A M.R.S. Recent From! ? 2557-A(2)(D) (2008). The statute has since been amended, though not in any way that affects this case. P.L. 2009, ch.

54, ? 5 (effective April 22, 2009) (codified at chemosynthesis 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2)(D)(2) (2009)). 2 Gilman does not specify whether his due process and recent report from equal protection claims are grounded in the United States or Maine Constitutions. In any event, those protections are coextensive. See Conlogue v. Conlogue, 2006 ME 12, ? 6, 890 A.2d 691, 694 (citing cases). 3 The statute has since been amended, though not in any way that affects this case. P.L.

2009, ch. Dental Front! 54, ? 5 (effective April 22, 2009) (codified at 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2)(A) (2009)). 4 The Rule provides: “On motion of the recent from, . Apple Ipad Case Study! . . attorney for the state . . . made within one year after a sentence is imposed, the justice or judge who imposed sentence may correct an illegal sentence or a sentence imposed in recent an illegal manner.” M.R.Crim. Prompt! P. 35(a). 5 At oral argument, Gilman suggested that the minimum mandatory sentence for his offense must also be proportional in context, that is, it must be proportionate not only to his specific crime, but also to the sentences imposed by recent report from the Legislature for other crimes. We find no support for his contention that we must place crimes and penalties on a continuum before deciding whether a particular penalty is between essays, constitutional, and report from we do not address this argument further.

6 Although the Maine Constitution, unlike the chemosynthesis, United States Constitution, delineates the protections against disproportionate punishments and cruel or unusual punishments separately, both the Supreme Court and this Court have understood them to be related. See Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2641, 171 L.Ed.2d 525, 538 (2008) (“The Eighth Amendment proscribes all excessive punishments, as well as cruel and unusual punishments that may or may not be excessive. . . Report From! . The Eighth Amendment’s protection . . . flows from the basic precept of justice that punishment for a crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense.” (quotation marks omitted)); State v. Worthley, 2003 ME 14, ? 6, 815 A.2d 375, 376 (“In analyzing whether a sentence is cruel and unusual as applied, we look to whether the sentence is greatly disproportionate to the offense and whether it offends prevailing notions of apple ipad in india case study, decency.”); State v. Recent Report! Frye, 390 A.2d 520, 521 (Me. Research Statement! 1978) (“A mandatory sentence is not cruel and recent report unusual punishment unless the sentence is greatly disproportionate to the offense or the punishment offends prevailing notions of decency”); Tinkle, The Maine State Constitution: A Reference Guide (1992) at phd thesis 43 (“The interpretation of `cruel or unusual punishment’ also is informed by the requirement of proportionality.”). 7 See Worthley, 2003 ME 14, ? 6, 815 A.2d at from 376-77 (holding minimum mandatory sentence for OUI not disproportionate or cruel and unusual); State v. For Essay Writing! Vanassche, 566 A.2d 1077, 1080-81 (Me.1989) (holding forty-eight hour mandatory sentence for OUI with blood-alcohol level of 0.15% or more not disproportionate to the crime); State v. Frye, 390 A.2d 520, 521 (Me. 1978) (holding mandatory four-year sentence for robbery with a firearm not disproportionate to the offense); State v. Briggs, 388 A.2d 507, 508 (Me.

1978) (holding mandatory $500 fine for night hunting not excessive); State v. King, 330 A.2d 124, 125, 127 (Me.1974) (holding minimum mandatory sentence for recent, sale of amphetamine not disproportionate and thus not cruel and unusual); State v. Farmer, 324 A.2d 739, 745-46 (Me. 1974) (holding minimum mandatory two-year sentence for difference and bad, armed assault not cruel and unusual); State v. Lubee, 93 Me. 418, 45 A. 520 (1899) (holding fine for short lobsters not unconstitutionally excessive and value of lobsters in report particular case irrelevant); c.f. State v. Phd Thesis! Alexander, 257 A.2d 778, 783 (Me. Recent From! 1969) (holding five-day sentence imposed by court in its discretion for contemptuous “reprehensible conduct” not excessive or cruel or unusual). 8 See Kennedy, 554 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. Front Desk Cover Letter! 2641, 171 L.Ed.2d at 540 (holding death penalty for non-fatal rape of a child violates Eighth Amendment); Roper v. Recent From! Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 568, 125 S.Ct.

1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (holding death penalty for juveniles under age eighteen violates Eighth Amendment); Ewing v. Phd Thesis! California, 538 U.S. 11, 17-18, 30-31, 123 S.Ct. Recent From! 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (holding sentence of twenty-five years to life for difference and bad essays, stealing three golf clubs under “three strikes” law not grossly disproportionate and therefore not cruel and unusual); Atkins v. Recent! Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (holding death penalty for research statement, mentally retarded offenders violates Eighth Amendment); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S.

957, 961, 995-96, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (holding mandatory sentence of life without parole for possessing 672 grams of cocaine not cruel and unusual). 9 In felony cases where the applicable statute does not specify a mandatory sentence, the sentencing court first determines a basic sentence considering the recent, nature and seriousness of the phd thesis in thermodynamics, crime as committed, then considers aggravating and/or mitigating factors to arrive at a maximum sentence that may be higher or lower than the basic sentence, and finally determines whether any of the maximum sentence should be suspended in recent report arriving at a final sentence. 17-A M.R.S. Front Cover! ? 1252-C. 10 For defendants such as Gilman who assert that a mandatory sentence is too harsh as applied, the Maine Constitution gives the Governor the equitable power to “grant reprieves, commutations and pardons” in individual cases.

Me. Const. art. V, pt. 1, ? 11. 11 Discussing what would qualify as disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court used the hypothetical example of “a legislature making overtime parking a felony punishable by life imprisonment.” Ewing, 538 U.S. at 21, 123 S.Ct. 1179 (plurality opinion) (quotation marks omitted). 12 Title 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557 was repealed and replaced by P.L.

2005, ch. 606, ?? A-10, A-11 (effective Aug. 23, 2006) (codified at 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A (2008)). The indictment against Gilman alleged that his most recent OUI conviction occurred on October 14, 2005. Gautier’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) subjects him to the enhancement provision of the from, Armed Career Criminal Act. 590 F.Supp.2d 214. UNITED STATES of America,

Eddie GAUTIER, Defendant. Criminal No. 06cr0036-NG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. December 23, 2008. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED. Oscar Cruz, Jr., Timothy G. Riftia! Watkins, Federal Defender’s Office District of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, for Eddie Gautier. William D. Weinreb, United States Attorney’s Office, John A. Report! Wortmann, Jr., United States Attorney’s Office, Boston, MA, for United States of America. GERTNER, District Judge:

TABLE OF CONTENTS. A. Whether Gautier’s 2001 Crime of phd thesis, Resisting Arrest under Mass. Gen. 1. Whether the Crime Defined by Prong (2) of § 32B Is a Violent. 2. Whether the Crime Defined by Prong (2) of § 32B Is a Violent. B. From! Whether the 1998 Juvenile Offenses Were Committed on Different. 2. Whether the Inquiry Is Limited, to Shepard-approved Source.

Three years ago, Boston police found a badly rusted gun and ammunition in the pocket of defendant Eddie Gautier (“Gautier”) one night in prompt Roxbury. The offense stemmed from a night of drunken carousing; the gun was completely inoperable.1 Though he was originally arrested by state officers, possession of an inoperable gun did not constitute a crime under state law. The federal government took up the case, charging Gautier with being a felon in possession of a firearm, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. From! § 922(g)(1), because of his prior record. His prior convictions include two armed robberies from 1998, when he was 16, and for essay a resisting arrest charge from 2001, when he was 20. (He is presently 27.) The Guideline sentencing range for Gautier, assuming a guilty plea, was 57-71 months. But the government wanted more punishment for Gautier. Recent Report! It contended that these convictions compelled the application of a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). See § 924(e) (applying the penalty to defendants with at phd thesis in thermodynamics least three previous convictions for report, violent felonies committed on separate occasions).

I disagree. In passing the ACCA, “Congress focused its efforts on career offenders— those who commit a large number of research thesis statement, fairly serious crimes as their means of livelihood, and who, because they possess weapons, present at least a potential threat of harm to persons.” Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 587-88, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). Gautier’s criminal history consists of recent report from, six episodes over ten years; two occurred when he was 16 and two others were marijuana offenses.2 The. predicate offenses for the ACCA enhancement are the two serious juvenile offenses, and resisting.

After two rounds of prompt for essay, briefing and recent from two sentencing hearings, I found that Gautier is not an armed career criminal under the terms of the statute. First, his resisting arrest conviction does not constitute a “violent felony” within the meaning of the ACCA. Second, and in prompt for essay the alternative, court records were ambiguous on the question of whether his 1998 offenses were “committed on report occasions different from one another” as the statute requires. As a result, Gautier lacks the career thesis statement, requisite three predicate offenses and the mandatory minimum does not apply. Accordingly, I sentenced Gautier to 57 months’ incarceration, in effect the Guideline felon in report possession sentence, and three years’ supervised release, with a number of special requirements. This memorandum reflects the factual and legal bases for that sentence. On the night of January 6, 2006, Eddie Gautier had come to the Archdale Housing Project to in thermodynamics visit his mother. He decided to meet four friends who were out celebrating two of their birthdays. About 10:30 p.m., two Boston police officers patrolling the Archdale Housing Project in an unmarked police car approached the recent, group.

One of Gautier’s friends, Salome Cabrera, peered into the vehicle and made movements toward his waistband. The officers exited the car, badges displayed, and walked to in thermodynamics Cabrera. Cabrera then allegedly shouted “get the recent report from, burner” (slang for gun), a comment Gautier claimed he did not hear, and the police responded by drawing their weapons on dental front the group. They arrested and searched all five, finding a .38 caliber gun loaded with three rounds of ammunition in from Gautier’s jacket pocket. An examination later revealed that the gun was completely inoperable.3.

Gautier was transferred to federal custody on in thermodynamics February 8, 2006, and indicted on February 15, 2006, on one count of felon in possession of a firearm and one count of recent, felon in possession of ammunition, both pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Subsequent to apple in india study his arrest, he agreed to speak to federal agents and recent report police investigators, admitted to possessing the gun, and divulged where it had come from. Indeed, according to his counsel, the defendant repeatedly offered to plead guilty to the charge, but was advised against it because of the possibility of an ACCA minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years. Counsel for Gautier sought a pre-plea Pre Sentence Report (“PSR”). When the between and bad essays, pre-plea PSR concluded that an report from, ACCA enhancement was required, the defendant felt obliged to go to trial. Phd Thesis In Thermodynamics! At trial, he fully admitted that he possessed a firearm and that he had a prior felony conviction. His defense was that he had picked up the gun and held it momentarily, to keep it from a group of younger, intoxicated friends in a dangerous area of Boston. The jury rejected his claim, convicting him of recent, both counts on research statement July 18, 2008. Recent Report! He has been incarcerated since his arrest on January 6, 2006. At the first sentencing hearing on October 15, I asked the desk cover letter, government to brief whether resisting arrest qualifies as an ACCA predicate, an issue raised in the defendant’s objections to the presentence report.

On that date, I also raised sua sponte the report, issue of whether the juvenile. offenses Gautier committed in 1998 were clearly separate predicates. At the writing, final sentencing hearing on report December 15, 2008, after reviewing the parties’ submissions, I concluded that the apple ipad, ACCA enhancement was not warranted, principally because of the resisting arrest conviction but based on alternative findings concerning the two 1998 convictions, as well. Gautier’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm pursuant to report 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) subjects him to the enhancement provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act. That statute provides: In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and prompt for essay has three previous convictions by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of report from, this title for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than fifteen years…. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Gautier’s sentencing memorandum and writing recent Supreme Court decisions raise two potential obstacles to the applicability of the sentencing enhancement: First, Gautier’s conviction for from, resisting arrest may not be a “violent felony” under the ACCA. Second, the government may have difficulty establishing, on the basis of source material deemed appropriate by the Supreme Court, that the 1998 offenses were “committed on occasions different from dental desk cover one another.” A. Whether Gautier’s 2001 Crime of Resisting Arrest under Mass.

Gen. Laws Ch. 268, § 32B Is a Violent Felony. The ACCA defines “violent felony” as any crime punishable for a term exceeding one year that “(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against report, the person of another; or (ii) is prompt for essay, burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). Courts are obliged to apply a categorical approach to determining whether a criminal offense is a violent felony; that is, they look to the statutory definition of the prior offense and report not to the facts underlying the conviction. See Taylor, 495 U.S. at 600, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143. Put simply, the issue is what the defendant was convicted of, or what he pled to, or what he admitted in the sentencing proceeding, not what he actually did. United States v. Shepard, 181 F.Supp.2d 14, 16 (D.Mass.2002).4 Where such a substantial enhancement is involved. as with the ACCA, the case law expressly cautions courts against ipad, engaging in a post hoc archeological dig of prior convictions to determine what really happened.

Problems of recent report, interpretation arise when a state statute on paper thesis which the predicate charge was based encompasses both violent felonies, which may qualify for ACCA treatment, and nonviolent felonies, which do not. In such a case, while the sentencing judge “may not hold a minitrial on the particular facts underlying the prior offense,” see United States v. Dueno, 171 F.3d 3, 5 (1st Cir.1999) (citing United States v. Damon, 127 F.3d 139, 144 (1st Cir.1997); United States v. Meader, 118 F.3d 876, 882 (1st Cir.1997)), he or she may “peek beneath the coverlet” of the formal language to ascertain whether the conviction was for a violent or a nonviolent crime, see United States v. Winter, 22 F.3d 15, 18 (1st Cir.1994). The question, now unequivocally answered by the Supreme Court in Shepard v. Report From! United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), is how far that “peek” can go.

“Not very far, is the phd thesis in thermodynamics, answer.” United States v. Shepard, 125 F.Supp.2d 562, 569 (D.Mass.2000) (citing Taylor, 495 U.S. at 600-02, 110 S.Ct. Recent Report From! 2143; Damon, 127 F.3d at 142-46.) If the defendant was convicted after a trial, the court is permitted to riftia consider what the jury instructions suggested about the verdict. When a defendant’s conviction resulted from a guilty plea rather than trial, those sources include the from, charging document, the plea agreement, a transcript of the plea colloquy, any facts confirmed by the defendant at sentencing, and any comparable judicial record. Research Paper Thesis Statement! See Shepard, 544 U.S. at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254. Finally, if the relevant facts contained in recent the PSR are uncontested, the court may consider these as further admissions by ipad in india the defendant. See Dueno, 171 F.3d at 7; United States v. Harris, 964 F.2d 1234,1236-37 (1st Cir.1992). Defendant claims that the report from, Massachusetts resisting arrest statute embodies both violent and nonviolent offenses and, further, that nothing in the record of Gautier’s 2002 plea to the charge establishes that the plea was to the violent version of the felony. Under the Massachusetts statute, a person is guilty of the offense if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent an officer from effecting an dental desk letter, arrest by “(1) using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the police officer or another; or (2) using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to such police officer or another.” Mass.

Gen. Laws ch. 268, § 32B(a). The government correctly points out report from, that Prong (1) of this definition clearly defines an ACCA violent felony, as it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” 18 U.S.C. Difference Between And Bad Essays! § 924(e)(2)(B)(i); see Gov’t Sent. Mem. 3 (document # 62). Prong (2) of the resisting arrest statute, however, does not.

Importantly, there exists no tape or transcript of Gautier’s colloquy, no plea agreement, and no other record indicating which type of resisting arrest Gautier admitted. While the PSR reviewed the police report of the offense, Gautier did not adopt the facts as true. Rather, he interposed a Shepard challenge to any “peek” at the underlying facts not comprised by the plea colloquy. Accordingly, as in Shepard, the report from, criminal complaint to which Gautier pleaded is the only extant evidence I may consider, and it simply lists the dental front letter, offense and provides its full statutory definition.5 As there is no evidence that Gautier specifically pleaded guilty to the Prong (1) version of report from, resisting arrest and apple in india case as the. statute is structured in the disjunctive, the government must establish that Prong (2) defines a violent felony under the report, ACCA. It cannot. 1. Dental Front Letter! Whether the Crime Defined by recent report Prong (2) of § 32B Is a Violent Felony Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) By its own terms, the Prong (2) definition of in thermodynamics, resisting arrest does not qualify as a violent felony under the recent report, first definition laid out in the ACCA. That is, the language “using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to such police officer or another,” Mass Gen.

Laws. ch. 268, § 32B(a), does not explicitly “ha[ve] as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another,” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). Moreover, the fact that the Prong (1) definition of resisting arrest does contain such an element, coupled with Prong (2)’s specification of resistance by “other means,” suggests that Prong (2) does not involve such an element by implication, either. 2. Whether the Crime Defined by Prong (2) of § 32B Is a Violent Felony Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) If Prong (2) of the Massachusetts resisting arrest statute defines a violent felony for the armed career criminal mandatory minimum, it must do so under the phd thesis, second definition provided by the ACCA.

Since resisting arrest is report from, obviously not one of the phd thesis, enumerated offenses—burglary, arson, extortion, or a crime that involves the use of explosives—the inquiry focuses on what has been called the report from, residual clause of the ACCA statute. For Essay Writing! See James v. Report From! United States, 550 U.S. 192, 127 S.Ct. Chemosynthesis! 1586, 1591, 167 L.Ed.2d 532 (2007). The issue is whether resisting arrest “using any other means which creates a substantial risk of recent, causing bodily injury to such police officer or another,” in the language of the Massachusetts statute, Mass. Writing! Gen.

Laws. ch. 268, § 32B, “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” in the language of the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). At first pass, the question seems to answer itself, but the from, Supreme Court has required more than a textual comparison of the criminal statute and the ACCA under the residual clause. Between Good And Bad Essays! In Begay v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490 (2008), in which the Supreme Court ruled that drunk driving was not a violent felony under the report from, ACCA, Justice Breyer described a twostep process for prompt for essay, determining whether a conviction is recent, a “violent felony” under the and bad essays, residual provision of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Where the offense in question is not one of those enumerated in from the statute, a court must determine not only thesis statement (1) whether that offense “involves conduct that presents a serious risk of physical injury to another,” but also (2) whether the crime is “roughly similar, in recent kind as well as in apple ipad degree of risk posed, to the” enumerated offenses.

Id. at 1585. The latter step is critical here. Recent Report! It requires a court to decide whether the offense in question typically involves “purposeful, violent, and aggressive behavior”—the defining feature of the enumerated offenses. The Court based the Begay test on the text of the ACCA, its legislative history, and prompt its underlying purpose. As to recent report text, the court noted that the presence of the enumerated offenses of in india, burglary, arson, extortion and recent crimes involving explosives “indicates that the statute covers only similar crimes, rather than every crime that `presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.’” Id.

Had Congress intended the statute to phd thesis in thermodynamics cover all crimes creating serious risk of injury, it would have omitted the examples. As to history, the Court noted that in recent 1986 “Congress rejected a broad proposal that would have covered every [such] offense.” Id. at 1586. Finally, the dental front desk, Court noted that this interpretation served the ACCA’s purpose of “punish[ing] only a particular subset of offender, namely career criminals.” Id. at 1588: The listed crimes all typically involve purposeful, “violent,” and recent from “aggressive” conduct…. That conduct is apple ipad in india, such that it makes [it] more likely that an offender, later possessing a gun, will use that gun deliberately to harm a victim…. Were we to read the from, statute without this distinction, its 15-year mandatory minimum sentence would apply to a host of crimes which, though dangerous, are not typically committed by those whom one normally labels “armed career criminals.” Id. at 1586-87 (citations omitted).

In Begay, the Court assumed without deciding that drunk driving involves conduct that “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” Id. at 1584. Even so, it held under the research thesis, second step of the analysis that a conviction for driving under the influence (“DUI”) falls outside the scope of the residual clause because “[i]t is simply too unlike the provision’s listed examples for us to believe that Congress intended the provision to cover it.” Id. at from 1584. Moreover, the riftia, Supreme Court has held that in conducting this analysis, courts need not analyze “every conceivable factual offense covered by a statute,” but rather should consider “the ordinary case” of the offense. James, 127 S.Ct. at 1597. In the words of the First Circuit, I must evaluate the degree of risk posed by “the mine-run of conduct that falls within the heartland of the recent from, statute.” United States v. De Jesus, 984 F.2d 21, 24 (1st Cir.1993); see also United States v. Doe, 960 F.2d 221, 224-25 (1st Cir.1992) (holding that the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm is between and bad, not a violent felony under the ACCA because risk of physical harm does not “often accompany[] the conduct that normally constitutes” the offense); United States v. Sacko, 178 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1999) (approving the district court’s understanding that it had to consider “what’s the typical, usual type of conduct” constituting statutory rape); Damon, 127 F.3d at recent report 143 (holding that aggravated criminal mischief is a crime of violence “if and only if a serious potential risk of prompt writing, physical injury to recent from another is riftia, a `normal, usual, or customary concomitant’ of the recent report from, predicate offense”); Winter, 22 F.3d at 20 (“A categorical approach is not concerned with testing either the outer limits of statutory language or the for essay, myriad of possibilities girdled by that language; instead, a categorical approach is concerned with the usual type of conduct that the from, statute purports to proscribe.”). To determine the mine-run of conduct encompassed by Prong (2) of the resisting arrest statute, I examine its application in the Massachusetts state courts. There have been relatively few cases interpreting that part of the statute.

In Commonwealth v. Grandison, 433 Mass. Dental Desk! 135, 741 N.E.2d 25 (2001), the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the defendant’s stiffening his arms and pulling one away for a second to avoid being handcuffed constituted resisting arrest by report a “means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury” to the officers involved. Id. at prompt for essay 144-45, 741 N.E.2d 25. In Commonwealth v. Maylott, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 466, 841 N.E.2d 717 (2006), an intermediate appellate court likewise held that a defendant resisted arrest under Prong (2) when he stiffened his arms and recent report from refused to put his hands behind his back.6 Id. at 468-69, 841 N.E.2d 717. In another case, a state court declined to. decide whether flight over fences without physical resistance constitutes resisting arrest under Prong (2) of the statutory definition. Commonwealth v. Grant, 71 Mass. Cover Letter! App.Ct. Report From! 205, 210 n. Chemosynthesis! 2, 880 N.E.2d 820 (2008).

These cases indicate that while Prong (1) of the from, resisting arrest statute covers the actual or threatened use of force, the mine-run of conduct criminalized by Prong (2) involves a lesser version of “active, physical refusal to submit to the authority of the arresting officers”: paradigmatically, the riftia, stiffening of one’s arms to resist handcuffing. Maylott, 65 Mass.App. Report From! Ct. at 469, 841 N.E.2d 717.7. Under the first prong of the good and bad essays, Begay analysis, I must determine whether the Prong (2) definition of report from, resisting arrest “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” Stiffening one’s arms to dental prevent handcuffing, the recent report, usual conduct prosecuted under Prong (2), sometimes does and sometimes does not present a serious risk of injury, and at least one court has suggested this inconsistency as a ground for finding that a criminal offense fails to satisfy this part of the test. See United States v. Urbano, No.

07-10160-01-MLB, 2008 WL 1995074, at *2 (D.Kan. May 6, 2008) (holding on these grounds that fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer in a motor vehicle is riftia chemosynthesis, not a “violent felony” for ACCA purposes) (“While an individual can, and often does, cause serious personal injury or death while attempting to flee from the police, the statute also charges behavior which would arguably not cause serious personal injury.”). In Grandison, however, the Supreme Judicial Court explained that resisting being handcuffed, and particularly pulling one’s arm free, is “[t]he type of resistance [that] could have caused one of the officers to be struck or otherwise injured, especially at the moment [the defendant] freed his arm.” 433 Mass. at 145, 741 N.E.2d 25. Even assuming arguendo that the conduct typically prosecuted under Prong (2) of the resisting arrest statute presents a serious potential risk of injury to another, that form of resisting arrest cannot fulfill the recent report from, second part of the career research paper thesis statement, Begay test. The crime is from, not “roughly similar, in kind as well as in degree of risk posed, to the” enumerated offenses. Begay, 128 S.Ct. at research paper statement 1585. First, looking to the degree of risk: Even if the Grandison court is correct that stiffening one’s arms and pulling away present a serious risk of harm to another, the recent report, degree of that risk does not approach that posed by burglary, arson, extortion, or crime involving use of explosives. The Supreme Court has explained that burglary presents a high risk of violence due to “the possibility of a face-to-face confrontation between the burglar and a third party … who comes to investigate.” James, 127 S.Ct. at 1594; see also United States v. Winn, 364 F.3d 7, 11 (1st Cir.2004) (describing this as the “powder keg” rationale).

The element of surprise that spooks a burglar into personal violence is prompt for essay, not present where police are already in the process of arresting a suspect.8 It is. measurably less likely that injury will result from the recent report, stiffening of dental front desk cover letter, one’s arms than that it will result from a burglary, the setting of a structure on fire, unlawfully demanding property or services through threat of harm, or the detonation of explosive devices.9. Second, looking to recent report from the “in kind” test, whether Prong (2) resistance is apple, similar in kind to the enumerated offenses: This inquiry requires me to determine whether the offense involves “purposeful, violent, and aggressive behavior.” In Begay, the Court held that drunk driving does not fulfill the test because the offender does not possess the purpose or intentional aggression that characterizes the enumerated offenses. 128 S.Ct. at 1586-87 (“[S]tatutes that forbid driving under the influence … criminaliz[e] conduct in respect to which the offender need not have had any criminal intent at recent report all.”); see also United States v. Between Good! Gray, 535 F.3d 128, 131-32 (2d Cir.2008) (holding that reckless endangerment is not a crime of violence because it is not intentional). From! But as the First Circuit recognized in United States v. Paper Statement! Williams, 529 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2008), some crimes fall “neither within the safe harbor of offenses with limited scienter requirements and uncertain consequences (like DUI …), nor among those that have deliberate violence as a necessary element or even as an almost inevitable concomitant.” Id. at 7 (citation omitted). Prong (2) resistance is such a crime. The First Circuit recently explained that “all three types of conduct—i.e., purposeful, violent and aggressive—are necessary for a predicate crime to recent qualify as a `violent felony’ under ACCA.” United States v. Herrick, 545 F.3d 53, 58-59 (1st Cir.2008). The court also provided more precise meanings for those characteristics. It explained:

The Supreme Court … use[d] “purposeful” interchangeably with “intentional.” [Begay, 128 S.Ct.] at 1587-88. Perhaps because it is common sense that a DUI is not violent or aggressive in an ordinary sense, the Supreme Court did not define those terms or explain in apple ipad other than conclusory terms why a DUI was not violent or aggressive. We note, therefore, that aggressive may be defined as “tending toward or exhibiting aggression,” which in turn is defined as “a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) esp. when intended to dominate or master.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 24 (11th ed. Recent! 2003). Ipad In India Case! Violence may be defined as “marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity.” Id. at report 58.

Applying these definitions, the court held that a conviction under a Wisconsin statute for homicide by negligent operation of prompt writing, a motor vehicle was not a “crime of violence” under the career offender sentencing guidelines.10 Id. at 59. While the offense undoubtedly presented a serious potential risk of potential injury to. another, it was not purposeful or aggressive enough to recent from be similar “in kind” to the enumerated offenses. Id. A similar conclusion obtains here. To be sure, the Prong (2) form of resisting arrest is purposeful in that a defendant who stiffens or pulls away his arm certainly intends to research paper thesis statement do so (though he may not intend to expose others to risk of injury). It is recent report from, differently purposeful, however, from the interstate transport of a minor for prostitution, which the First Circuit held in Williams constituted a “crime of violence” under the phd thesis, career offender provision of the sentencing guidelines.

529 F.3d at recent report 7-8. Desk! A defendant who prostitutes minors “is aware of the risks that the prostituted minor will face” and recent report the risk of difference between good, harm is recent from, “easily foreseen by the defendant,” id. at 7; a defendant who stiffens his arm to avoid handcuffing exhibits no such intent or clairvoyance that harm will result to paper thesis statement those around him. Recent Report From! Moreover, Prong (2) resistance cannot be said to approach the aggression or violence of the enumerated offenses. See, e.g., Taylor, 495 U.S. at 581, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (noting that Congress considered burglary “one of the `most damaging crimes to apple ipad in india case society’ because it involves ‘invasion of recent report from, [victims'] homes or workplaces, violation of their privacy, and loss of their most personal and valued possessions’” (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 98-1073, at 1, 3, 1984 U.S.Code Cong. #038; Admin.News 3661, 3663)). Arm-stiffening is not characterized by the force or domination impulse that the First Circuit has held defines aggression, and it lacks the extreme force and sudden intenseness required by the court’s definition of violence. See Herrick, 545 F.3d at 60.

Nor does it resemble those offenses previously held by the First Circuit and the district courts in its jurisdiction to constitute violent felonies or crimes of violence under the research, residual clause. See United States v. Walter, 434 F.3d 30 (1st Cir.2006) (manslaughter); United States v. Sherwood, 156 F.3d 219 (1st Cir.1998) (child molestation); United States v. Report! Fernandez, 121 F.3d 777 (1st Cir.1997) (assault and battery on a police officer); United States v. Schofield, 114 F.3d 350 (1st Cir.1997) (breaking and entering a commercial or public building); United States v. De Jesus, 984 F.2d 21 (1st Cir.1993) (larceny from a person); United States v. Fiore, 983 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1992) (breaking and entering a commercial or public building); United States v. Patterson, 882 F.2d 595 (1st Cir.1989) (unauthorized entry of the premises of another); United States v. Cadieux, 350 F.Supp.2d 275 (D.Me.2004) (indecent assault and chemosynthesis battery on a child under 14); United States v. Recent Report From! Sanford, 327 F.Supp.2d 54 (D.Me.2004) (assault and battery); Mooney v. United States, 2004 WL 1571643 (D.Me. Apr. Career Research! 30, 2004) (breaking and report from entering a commercial building); United States v. Lepore, 304 F.Supp.2d 183, 189 (D.Mass.2004) (indecent assault and battery on a person over writing 14 years old). And those cases predated Begay, when the standard for finding an from, offense to be a “violent felony” was easier to satisfy. Chemosynthesis! In light of the difference in aggression and violence between resisting arrest and recent report from the offenses previously held to dental front be ACCA predicates, Prong (2) resistance does not resemble the recent report, enumerated offenses in the “`way or manner’ in which it produces” risk of difference between and bad, injury. Begay, 128 S.Ct. at 1586.

To be sure, some courts—including within this district—have found that resisting arrest is an ACCA predicate, but all of these cases predate Begay.11 Begay. “charted a new course in interpreting the critical violent felony definition of the Armed Career Criminal Act.” Williams, 529 F.3d at 6. Significantly, in a recent post-Begay case in this court, Judge Zobel rejected the government’s contention that a prior conviction under the recent report, Massachusetts resisting arrest statute constituted a “crime of for essay writing, violence” under the career offender guidelines. United States v. Kristopher Gray, No. 07-10337-RWZ, 2008 WL 2563378 (D.Mass. Jun.

24, 2008) (sentencing defendant without written opinion to twenty-four months imprisonment for conviction under 18 U.S.C. From! § 922(g)). In another post-Begay case on resisting arrest, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas held that the crime of fleeing and apple in india study eluding an officer is not a crime of violence because “the statute also charges behavior which would arguably not cause serious personal injury” and because resisting arrest “is not similar to the listed crimes set forth” in § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Urbano, 2008 WL 1995074, at *2. Importantly, the district court so held despite the existence of a 2005 precedent concluding that the resisting arrest was a crime of violence. The court explained its about-face as required by Begay. From! Id. at *2.

In light of the prompt, Supreme Court’s pronouncement in recent report from Begay, then, I find that the in india study, Prong (2) version of resisting arrest is not a “violent felony” under the ACCA. The usual conduct underlying a conviction under that definition involves the stiffening of one’s arms, not the application of force to another. Even assuming that such conduct creates a serious potential risk of physical injury, it certainly does not resemble the enumerated offenses either in degree of risk or in kind. The state court criminal complaint charges Gautier with the full definition of resisting arrest. Because the government cannot establish that he pleaded to Prong (1) rather than to Prong (2)—as it must— it cannot look to this conviction for a qualifying violent felony. Gautier has at most two statutory predicates—too few to from trigger the fifteen-year mandatory minimum. B. Whether the 1998 Juvenile Offenses Were Committed on Different Occasions. 1. Riftia Chemosynthesis! Legal Standard. That Gautier’s resisting arrest conviction is not a violent felony is enough to preclude the application of the ACCA enhancement. In the alternative, I find the enhancement is also flawed for a second reason: his 1998 juvenile offenses were not “committed on report occasions different from in thermodynamics one another” as required to constitute independent predicate offenses.12 18 U.S.C. Recent From! § 924(e)(1).

The First Circuit has held that “the `occasions’ inquiry requires a case-by-case examination of the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Stearns, 387 F.3d 104, 108 (1st Cir.2004). Factors in that examination include the “identity of the writing, victim; the type of crime; the time interval between the crimes; the location of the crimes; the continuity vel non of the defendant’s conduct; and/or the apparent motive for the crimes.” Id. As one would expect from recent from Congress’ use of the word “occasion,” the First Circuit has focused on good and bad essays the element of time. The Stearns court summarized that the statute distinguishes between, on the one hand, “a time interval during which defendant successfully has completed his first crime, safely escaped, and which affords defendant a `breather,’ viz., a period (however brief) which is from, devoid of riftia, criminal activity and in which he may contemplate whether or not to commit the second crime,” and on the other, “a time lapse which does not mark the report from, endpoint of the first crime, but merely the natural consequence of a continuous course of extended criminal conduct.”13 387 F.3d at phd thesis 108 (defendant who burglarized the report from, same warehouse on consecutive days had committed offenses on different occasions); see also United States v. Ramirez, No. CR-05-71-B-W, 2007 WL 4571143, at phd thesis in thermodynamics *6 (D.Me. Dec. 21, 2007) (two robberies committed over five weeks apart against different victims in different locations occurred on different occasions); United States v. Mastera, 435 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir.2006) (stalking and breaking and report from entering occurred on different occasions because they were committed on consecutive days); United States v. Mollo, No. 97-1922, 1997 WL 781582, at *1 (1st Cir. Dec. 17, 1997) (per curiam) (defendant who robbed liquor store in Greenwich and thirty minutes later robbed variety store in Stamford had committed offenses on ipad case different occasions); Harris, 964 F.2d at 1237 (two assault and battery offenses qualified as separate predicate offenses because they occurred two months apart, even though they involved the same victim and defendant was convicted and recent from sentenced for both on the same day); United States v. Gillies, 851 F.2d 492, 497 (1st Cir.1988) (armed robberies of different drugstores on consecutive days occurred on different occasions for the purposes of the riftia chemosynthesis, ACCA, even though defendant received concurrent sentences).

2. Report From! Whether the Inquiry Is Limited to Shepard-approved Source Material. Again, in difference between essays order to apply the above legal standard to recent from the facts of Gautier’s prior felony convictions, I must answer an antecedent question: from what sources may I glean those facts? As explained above, the difference between good essays, Supreme Court has directed courts to apply a “categorical approach” to determining whether a prior conviction qualifies as a “violent felony” and thus predicate offense under the ACCA. Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 588, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). In the case of a guilty plea, the Court has limited district courts to “the terms of the charging document, the recent report from, terms of a plea agreement or transcript of writing, colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by recent the defendant, or to some comparable judicial record of this information.” Shepard, 544 U.S. at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254.

The issue I confront here is whether this same source restriction applies to research thesis my consideration of whether two offenses were “committed on report occasions different from one another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The First Circuit has never ruled on this issue. In a pre-Shepard case, the court “express[ed] no opinion” on the lower court’s citation of Taylor for the proposition “that district courts normally should not look beyond the indictment when determining whether a prior conviction is the type countable under the ACCA.” Stearns, 387 F.3d at 107. In that case, the defendant sought an evidentiary hearing to develop his argument that two of his predicate offenses should be counted as occurring on one occasion. Career Research Paper! The district court interpreted Taylor to forbid such an involved inquiry and denied his motion, but because the defendant accepted the judge’s ruling without objection, the recent from, First Circuit held he could not raise the riftia, issue on appeal. In a post-Shepard case, United States v. Walter, 434 F.3d 30 (1st Cir.

2006), the First Circuit again declined to resolve the issue. The defendant argued it was error for the district court to use facts gleaned from police reports and described in the PSR to report find that two drug offenses disposed of on the same day were in fact “committed on occasions different from one another.” Id. at 38. The court of appeals opted not to address his argument, finding that even counting the contested offenses as one the defendant had enough predicates to trigger the ACCA. Difference Between Good Essays! Id. at recent report from 40. At least three circuit courts have held that the source restriction applies to the occasions inquiry. The Fourth Circuit held in United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278 (4th Cir.2005), that the “ACCA’s use of the prompt for essay writing, term `occasion’ requires recourse only to data normally found in conclusive judicial records, such as the date and location of an offense, upon which Taylor and recent report Shepard say we may rely.” Id. at 286 (upholding trial judge’s reliance on the PSR to find that three burglaries occurred on separate occasions where that information was derived from Shepard-approved sources such as indictments and dental front desk cover letter where defendant never objected to the details in the PSR); see also United States v. Williams, 223 Fed.Appx. 280, 283 (4th Cir.

2007) (assuming that the occasions inquiry can be conducted by reference to recent from Shepard-approved sources only). In United States v. Phd Thesis! Fuller, 453 F.3d 274 (5th Cir.2006), the recent, Fifth Circuit vacated an ACCA enhancement where the in thermodynamics, court could not establish on the basis of Shepard-approved material that the predicate offenses were committed on report different occasions. Id. at phd thesis 279; see also United States v. Bookman, 197 Fed. Appx. 349, 350 (5th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (vacating defendant’s sentence where the sequence of his predicate offenses was not established by Shepard-appropriate material). The Tenth Circuit has held that a criminal sentence enhanced by the ACCA should be vacated and report remanded when it is unclear whether the sentencing court limited itself to Shepard sources in determining whether the defendant’s prior crimes were committed on different occasions. See United States v. Harris, 447 F.3d 1300, 1305 (10th Cir.2006); United States v. Taylor, 413 F.3d 1146, 1157-58 (10th Cir. 2005). Several district courts have come to dental front the same conclusion.

See, e.g., United States v. Recent From! Carr, No. 2:06-CR-14-FL-1, 2008 WL 4641346, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Chemosynthesis! Oct. 16, 2008) (limiting the occasions inquiry to facts available in Shepard-approved material), including at least one court in a circuit that disavows this application of the Shepard source restriction, see Watts v. United States, Nos. 8:04-cr-314-24MAP, 8:07-cv-665-T-24MAP, 2007 WL 1839474, at *4 (M.D.Fla. June 26, 2007) (accepting the applicability of Shepard and recent report holding that the trial court “properly reviewed the charging documents to determine that the offenses occurred on three separate occasions”). By contrast, three circuits have held that the source restriction applies only to the violent felony inquiry and not to the occasions inquiry.

The Sixth Circuit has been most emphatic: “All of our opinions on this issue have involved consideration of the specific facts underlying the prior convictions. Indeed, we cannot imagine how such a determination could be made without reference to research thesis the underlying facts of the predicate offenses.” United States v. From! Thomas, 211 F.3d 316, 318 n. 3 (6th Cir. 2000). The Seventh Circuit has likewise allowed sentencing judges to venture beyond the decisional documents envisioned by phd thesis Taylor, reasoning that these only rarely provide the details that reveal whether offenses were committed on separate occasions, see United States v. Hudspeth, 42 F.3d 1015, 1019 n. Report! 3 (7th Cir.1994) (holding “[a]s a practical matter” that Taylor does not restrict the occasions inquiry), and the Eleventh Circuit has held on the same grounds that the question is desk, “unsuited to a categorical approach,” United States v. Richardson, 230 F.3d 1297, 1300 (11th Cir. 2000). Importantly, however, these cases came down before the Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to recent report the categorical approach in Shepard. But see United States v. Hendrix, 509 F.3d 362, 375-76 (7th Cir. 2007) (affirming the district court’s use of the PSR to determine that defendant had three predicates from different occasions for the ACCA). I find that the former approach is more faithful to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Taylor and Shepard and makes sense in terms of the application of the very severe ACCA. As I explained in my remand opinion in Shepard, the Supreme Court’s categorical approach “caution[s] the judge against becoming embroiled in a `daunting’ factual inquiry about riftia, what had actually happened at the time of the state offense.” United States v. Shepard, 181 F.Supp.2d 14, 21 (D.Mass.2002). The central question in identifying countable predicate offenses where the defendant did not go to trial is “what did the defendant plead to report from in the state court?” Id. at 17.

Where a defendant has not been found guilty by a jury, it is only fair to punish him for the prior conduct that he actually admits, either by pleading to the facts alleged or failing to object to them at sentencing.14. In light of the Supreme Court’s caution in this area and the judgment of the courts of dental desk letter, appeals, I find that I am limited to from “the statutory definition, charging document, written plea agreement, transcript of phd thesis in thermodynamics, plea colloquy, and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the recent, defendant assented” in determining whether the defendants prior offenses were committed “on occasions different from one another.” Id. at front desk 16. 3. The 1998 Offenses. In the instant case, the only Shepard-approved sources available to me in deciding whether the report, 1998 offenses occurred on riftia different occasions are the state court indictments and Gautier’s plea tenders. The statutory definitions contain no elements that bear on from the sequence of the offenses. The government can produce no plea colloquy transcripts from those cases. And no additional underlying facts were incorporated into between essays the PSR and adopted by the defendant. PSR ¶¶ 35-36 (repeating the details provided in recent from the indictments and specifically stating that police reports were not received).

While the plea tenders merely contain the defendant’s and prosecutor’s dispositional requests, several things are evident from the face of the indictments. In Suffolk Superior Court case no. 98-10175, the study, grand jury returned a two-count indictment charging Gautier with armed robbery (knife) and assault and battery against a victim named “F.L.” In Suffolk Superior Court case no. 98-10177, the grand jury returned a five-count indictment charging Gautier with assault with a dangerous weapon (knife and/or gun) with intent to steal a motor vehicle; armed robbery (knife and/or gun); kidnaping; assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (shod foot); and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (water bottle) against one “E.M.” Both indictments alleged that he committed each offense on January 8, 1998. The indictments indicate that on January 8, 1998, Gautier assaulted F.L. and that on the same day, he tried try to steal E.M.’s car, robbed him of $25.00, and confined or imprisoned him against his will. From! Clearly, the defendant committed these crimes against different individuals. In India! But the type of crime at report issue here (armed robbery) and the apparent motive (monetary gain) were identical as to both victims.

Crucially, specific as they are, the charging documents do not reveal the location of the crimes, the time interval between the offenses, or the continuity of the conduct. It is difference good and bad essays, therefore not “possible to discern the point at which the recent, first offense is ipad case study, completed and the second offense begins.” United States v. Martin, 526 F.3d 926, 939 (6th Cir.2008). Report! Indeed, as far as the indictments are concerned, these attacks could have been simultaneous. Finally, I consider whether the mere fact that the offenses against F.L. and those against E.M. were grouped and front cover charged in report separate indictments suggests that Gautier committed them on different occasions. It is well settled that there is no one-to-one correspondence between indictments. and predicate offenses. Apple Case! See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 181 Fed.

Appx. 969, 971 (11th Cir.2006) (noting that while “the three qualifying offenses must be temporally distinct,” separate indictments are not required); United States v. Howard, 918 F.2d 1529, 1538 (11th Cir. 1990). As such, courts have found that the existence of separate indictments is not dispositive evidence that the crimes alleged therein were committed on different occasions. See, e.g., United States v. Alcantara, 43 Fed.Appx. 884, 886-87 (6th Cir.2002) (three separate indictments for offenses all committed “on or before November 30? did not establish that the offenses occurred on “occasions different from one another” for the purpose of the ACCA); cf. United States v. From! Goetchius, 369 F.Supp.2d 13, 16-17 #038; n. 6 (D.Me.

2005) (holding that Shepard’s source restriction governs determinations of whether prior crimes were “related” under the Sentencing Guidelines criminal history provisions, then ruling that the thesis, existence of separate indictments did not mean they were unrelated). This conclusion applies with the recent from, same force to the instant case. Prosecutors have wide discretion as to the form of criminal charging. Under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 9(a)(2), the Commonwealth “may” charge two or more related offenses in the same indictment, and it may not. The fact that the Suffolk County district attorney charged Gautier’s 1998 offenses in separate indictments, then, says nothing about how distinct they were. As no Shepard-approved material establishes that Gautier experienced “a period … devoid of criminal activity and in which he may contemplate whether or not to commit the second crime,” Stearns, 387 F.3d at 108, I cannot fairly conclude that he committed the armed robberies “on occasions different from one another.” By the terms of the ACCA itself, the 1998 offenses do not provide more than a single predicate.

This result provides a secondary reason the mandatory minimum does not apply to Gautier.15. IV. THE SENTENCE. A. Phd Thesis In Thermodynamics! The Guidelines Computation. I accept the presentence report computation of the Guidelines to this extent: the base offense level is 24 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). While Gautier argues that he should get a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § # E1.1(a) and (b), I disagree at least as Guidelines interpretation is concerned. I consider this issue in connection with the 3553(a) factors (see below).

While the government argues that the recent from, defendant committed perjury during his trial testimony, I do not agree and phd thesis will not enhance under § 3C1.1. I also agree that Gautier’s criminal history is category IV under § 4A1.1(d) and (e). The Guidelines range, then, is 63-78 months. B. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors. Gautier argues for a 48-month sentence because the gun was inoperable, because he took possession of it as a safety measure to avoid what he believed to be imminent harm to others, and recent report because he has turned his life around while in custody. I can find no clear rationale for a variance on these bases. Nevertheless, I find a 57-month sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of 3553(a) for the following reasons: 1. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense. Gautier claims he took the chemosynthesis, gun from his friends because they were drunk and behaving recklessly. Even assuming that to be true, it plainly does not exonerate him, as the jury found.

Given his record, he should not have put himself in recent report from a position where the offense was even possible: in the Archdale projects, with drunk and disorderly compatriots, so much as touching a firearm. Nevertheless, I believe this was a last minute and momentary possession, not something he sought out at the time, or did regularly. 2. Deterrence; Public Safety. Gautier cooperated with the authorities from the outset. He told them what he knew, offered to plead guilty, but was advised otherwise by his counsel. He went to trial on the advice of his attorney to preserve his challenge to the ACCA.16 He plainly took responsibility for phd thesis, what he had done, though not in from the narrow way in which this concept has been interpreted under the Sentencing Guidelines. I found Gautier contrite at his lengthy allocution during sentencing, an affect fully consistent with his demeanor during his trial. He has faced substantial challenges in his life. Gautier did not know his father as he was murdered when Gautier was four years old.

His mother remarried and the family then relocated from Puerto Rico, his birthplace, to difference and bad Providence, Rhode Island, and from then to Boston after a fire damaged their home. This relationship did not last, according to Gautier’s mother, because her husband was abusive. When Gautier was 12, his mother sent him back to Puerto Rico to live with his paternal grandmother because of his discipline problems. He stayed there until age 16 when he returned to Massachusetts. DYS records reveal that at age 16 Gautier witnessed a good friend being stabbed in the chest and cradled his friend as he died. After this incident another good friend. died of complications relating to pneumonia. Soon thereafter, he was committed to DYS for a number of offenses.

He was released on parole at age 17, but was in and out of custody until age 21 due to the offenses described above. Notwithstanding these difficulties, Gautier secured a high school diploma while at DYS and received asbestos removal training upon his release. And while he has never been married, he had a longtime relationship with Shariffa Edwards, resulting in the birth of apple ipad in india, their son Zion Edwards Gautier. The couple parted company when Gautier was incarcerated. While in from prison, Gautier has been intensely involved in ministry work, assisting fellow inmates and studying with the prison chaplain. Gautier spoke movingly of this work.

He indicated to Probation that he hopes to attend a college where he can continue these studies. Gautier thus presents a mixed picture: he has important strengths that might deter him from chemosynthesis future offending, but also a track record of missteps that plainly require both punishment and assistance. Gautier has made efforts to give his life structure, but needs more. I have required Probation to devise a recommended plan for him, both as a recommendation for the Bureau of Prisons during the period of recent, his incarceration and as a template for his supervised release afterwards. Studies suggest the prompt writing, significance on recidivism of a consistent plan, beginning in report from prison and essays extending into reentry. Laurie Robinson #038; Jeremy Travis, 12 Fed.

S.R. 258 (2000). In addition to that plan, as a condition of supervised release, Gautier is to speak at high schools or to other young men identified by Probation as “at risk.” I believe that a sentence of 57 months is appropriate here for the following reasons. It marks the low end of the Guidelines range that he would have faced, 57-71 months, had he been charged with felon in recent from possession, without the ACCA enhancement, and pled to that offense as he had wanted to do.17 That sentence combines the Guidelines’ values with those of § 3553(a). 1. Prompt Writing! The ballistics report observed that “a portion of the trigger guard is report, broken off, the ejector rod collar is out of place, the difference good and bad, ejector rod spring is defective, the ejector rod will not secure the cylinder in the closed position, the cylinder hand is not making contact with the cylinder, and neither the trigger nor the recent from, hammer can be drawn back to the firing position. There is rust on the cylinder, the ejector, the riftia chemosynthesis, crane, and the trigger. This weapon cannot be fired in its present condition and in recent report from my opinion it would require extensive work and new parts to return this weapon to a state in which it can be discharged.” Boston Police Ballistic Unit Case Notes, Def.’s Sent. Mem., Ex.

B (document # 60-2). 2. His prior convictions include offenses committed in the course of two armed robberies perpetrated on the same day in 1998; marijuana possession and distribution in 2001; resisting arrest and trespassing in 2001; possession with intent to distribute marijuana in chemosynthesis 2005; and attempted breaking #038; entering and possession of burglarious tools (screwdriver) in 2004. See Pre-sentence Report (“PSR”) ¶¶ 35-40. 3. Gautier made incriminating statements during the booking procedure, including “You got me with the recent, burner, I’m gonna take a plea and do a year” and “That’s a separate charge? Of course it’s gonna have bullets in riftia it, it’s a gun.” He waived his Miranda rights and recent report from made similar statements during a police interview. 4. In United States v. Shepard, 125 F.Supp.2d 562, 569-70 (D.Mass.2000), I held that a sentencing judge could not look to any underlying police reports or complaint applications that had not been adopted by the defendant when determining whether prior convictions were “burglaries” under the ACCA. The First Circuit reversed, holding that police reports could be considered if they “constituted sufficiently reliable evidence of the government and the defendant’s shared belief that the defendant was pleading guilty” to a generically violent crime. United States v. Apple Case Study! Shepard, 231 F.3d 56, 70 (1st Cir.2000). I then concluded that the central question was, what did the recent, defendant plead to in state court, and that the police reports did not provide reliable evidence on career paper thesis that central question.

United States v. Shepard, 181 F.Supp.2d 14, 17 (D.Mass.2002). Report! The First Circuit again reversed, holding that the police reports could be considered and instructing me to apply to ACCA mandatory minimum. United States v. Shepard, 348 F.3d 308, 315 (1st Cir.2003). The Supreme Court then reversed the court of ipad, appeals, holding that a sentencing court may not look to police reports or complaint applications not made a part of the plea or colloquy or adopted by defendant, in determining whether a defendant had pleaded to a violent felony. Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005). 5. The criminal complaint substitutes the from, word “some” for the word “any” in “any other means.” This discrepancy is of no consequence in this case. 6. The court noted that the essays, conduct could also constitute resisting arrest under Prong (1) of the statutory definition. Id. at 719. 7. Recent Report! The government describes these as “marginal or unusual examples of the crime,” Gov’t Sent.

Mem. In Thermodynamics! 3, but it offers no cases to suggest that arm-stiffening lies anywhere but at the very core of recent, Prong (2) resistance. 8. Last month, the Supreme Court heard argument in a case presenting the question of whether failure to difference between and bad report to prison is a violent felony under the ACCA. Chambers v. United States, No. 06-11206, 2008 WL 4892841 (U.S. Nov. 10, 2008). This case presents the report, Court with an opportunity to reevaluate the between good and bad, powder keg theory, under which most circuits have found that such convictions are violent felonies because they create a risk of violent confrontation when law enforcement officials attempt to take the defendant into recent report custody. The Seventh Circuit held as a matter of stare decisis that failure to report was a violent felony, though it emphasized that “it is an embarrassment to the law when judges make decisions about consequences based on conjectures, in this case a conjecture as to the possible danger of physical injury posed by chemosynthesis criminals who fail to show up to begin serving their sentences.” United States v. Report From! Chambers, 473 F.3d 724, 726-27 (7th Cir.2007). 9. Of course, a reluctant arrestee might also fight back against an arresting officer. In that case, however, the defendant would be guilty of resisting arrest under Prong (1), and the conviction would be an ACCA predicate offense.

10. The First Circuit has repeatedly held that “[g]iven the similarity between the ACCA’s definition of riftia chemosynthesis, `violent felony’ and the definition of `crime of violence’ contained in the pertinent guideline provision, … authority interpreting one phrase is generally persuasive when interpreting the report from, other.” Williams, 529 F.3d at 4 n. 3; see also Damon, 127 F.3d at 142 n. Prompt! 3; Schofield, 114 F.3d at 352; Winter, 22 F.3d at 18 n. 3. 11. In United States v. Person, 377 F.Supp.2d 308 (D.Mass.2005), Judge Ponsor faced the question of whether a conviction for resisting arrest was a prerequisite “crime of violence” under the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. He confessed “hesitation” based on from “the uncertain impact of the riftia chemosynthesis, Supreme Court’s recent decision in Shepard” and the fact that the resisting arrest statute “allow[s] constructions, under certain circumstances, that would not qualify [it] always as `[a crime] of recent from, violence.’” Id. at 310. Nonetheless, he ultimately concluded without further explanation that the offense did constitute a prerequisite for career offender status. In United States v. Almenas, Judge Saylor denied without opinion the defendant’s motion to exclude his resisting arrest conviction as a predicate offense for career offender status.

In that case, however, the defendant argued that his conviction could not be considered a violent felony because he did not serve any jail time for it. (Almenas is now on appeal at in india study the First Circuit. See Almenas v. United States, No. 06-2513. Because the parties in that case have urged the court to remand the case on alternative grounds—namely, because the district court judge understood himself to have less discretion than actually afforded him under Gall v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. Report From! 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and Kimbrough v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007)—I resolve the issue here.) In United States v. Wardrick, 350 F.3d 446 (4th Cir.2003), the Fourth Circuit held that a 1988 resisting arrest offense in Maryland was a violent felony under the residual clause of § 924(e)(1)(B)(ii) because “[t]he act of resisting arrest poses a threat of difference, direct confrontation between a police officer and the subject of the arrest, creating the potential for serious physically injury to the officer and others.” Id. at 455. Because the court made no attempt to identify the type of conduct that usually underlies the conviction, I do not know how the statute at from issue there compares to the one at issue here. Finally, the Eighth Circuit held in United States v. Hollis, 447 F.3d 1053 (8th Cir.2006), that resisting arrest was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because any resistance other than simply going limp increases the possibility of a violent incident. See id. at 1055. 12.

The government urged me to consider this alternative holding, even though it had not fully briefed it, in order to phd thesis in thermodynamics avoid addressing this issue on a remand, in the event of resentencing. 13. This view accords with the guidance provided to trial judges in other circuits. See, e.g., United States v. Report! Martin, 526 F.3d 926, 939 (6th Cir.2008) (drug offenses that were several days apart occurred on different occasions because “it is possible to discern the apple ipad in india case, point at report which the phd thesis in thermodynamics, first offense is recent from, completed and career research thesis the second offense begins”); United States v. Pope, 132 F.3d 684, 692 (11th Cir. 1998) (burglaries committed on same night in separate doctor’s offices 200 yards apart occurred on different occasions, because defendant “made a conscious decision” to recent report from commit another crime after completing the first). 14. Chemosynthesis! The Shepard Court came to this conclusion in part to avoid any potential Apprendi problem: The sentencing judge considering the ACCA enhancement would … make a disputed finding of fact about report, what the defendant and state judge must have understood as the factual basis of the between good essays, prior plea, and the dispute raises the concern underlying Jones [v.

United States, 526 U.S. 227, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999)] and Apprendi [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. Report From! 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)]: the Sixth and between Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a jury standing between a defendant and the power of the State, and they guarantee a jury’s finding of recent report, any disputed fact essential to writing increase the ceiling of a potential sentence. Shepard, 544 U.S. at 25, 125 S.Ct. 1254. The Court explained that while Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct.

1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), allows a judge to find a disputed prior conviction, “the disputed fact here … is from, too far removed from the conclusive significance of a prior judicial record, and prompt for essay too much like the findings subject to report from Jones and Apprendi, to say that Almendarez-Torres clearly authorizes a judge to resolve the dispute.” Id. 15. In still another challenge to front cover the mandatory minimum, Gautier argues that based on the definitional provisions of the ACCA, one of his January 8, 1998 criminal episodes does not qualify as a “violent felony.” The argument proceeds in recent report from several steps. First, an offense is not a “violent felony” unless it is “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B), and a crime is front letter, not punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year if it has been “set aside” under state law, § 921(a)(20). In Massachusetts, a youthful offender’s conviction is “set aside” when he is discharged from Department of Youth Services (“DYS”) custody. See Mass.

Gen. Recent Report From! Laws ch. 120, § 21. Gautier notes that for difference between good and bad, one of the two indictments on recent report from which he was convicted in 1998, he was adjudicated a youthful offender, committed to DYS custody, and then discharged at age 21. Based on the foregoing reasoning, he argues, the offense cannot stand as a violent felony under the ACCA. The ACCA, however, is not absolute in chemosynthesis refusing to count convictions that have been set aside. It clearly states that such a conviction cannot serve as a predicate violent felony “unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possession, or receive firearms.” § 921(a)(20). Where a defendant’s conviction is set aside by automatic operation of statutory law, rather than by personalized determination, this “unless clause” is read to recent include restrictions applied by dental desk cover letter state statutory law. Recent From! See United States v. Caron, 77 F.3d 1, 4 n. Phd Thesis In Thermodynamics! 5 (1st Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Glaser, 14 F.3d 1213, 1218 (7th Cir.1994)).

Here, Gautier’s discharge from recent report DYS was accomplished by statute, Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 120 § 16, so the state provision limiting those who have been convicted of career paper, a felony or adjudicated a youthful offender from obtaining a license to carry a firearm, id. at recent from ch. 140 § 131(d)(i), applies to him. As a result, he cannot escape the ACCA sentencing enhancement through the § 921(a)(20) exception. 16. The government suggested at between good and bad essays the sentencing hearing that Gautier could have entered a “conditional plea,” pleading guilty while preserving his legal arguments.

For all intents and recent from purposes, that is what his trial accomplished. Phd Thesis In Thermodynamics! Gautier admitted he was a felon and admitted that he possessed the recent, gun. He attempted to explain that possession to the jury. Given the enormity of the phd thesis in thermodynamics, ACCA enhancement, I credit his counsel’s advice and the motivation for recent report, the trying the case. 17.

Base offense level 24, minus 3 for prompt writing, acceptance of responsibility, and criminal history category IV.

Write my essay for me with Professional Academic Writers -
Due to recent reports from you and your peers

Zoos Are Bad Essays and Research Papers. ? Zoos : Haven or Prison? Zoos are popular, well-known, and common attractions for many people. They can spend some time with their . family, see animals closely and recent report get some information about them. In Thermodynamics. Despite their popularity, zoos are controversial. Some people believe animals should be kept at the zoo because of the many benefits humans provide like protecting rare species from extinction.

Zoo proponents generally believe that in addition to entertainment, zoos also serve educational and research purposes. Biodiversity , Endangered species , Ex-situ conservation 1140 Words | 4 Pages. ? To Zoo or Not to recent report Zoo ? Zoos have been around for in thermodynamics hundreds of years and have been enjoyed by millions and . millions of people. All around the world, zoos provide the public with the chance to see and learn about rare animals. For decades, there has been much debate about from whether or not zoos should exist. Some people argue that zoos are inhumane and should be closed. However, zoos are necessary because they provide us with invaluable knowledge and for essay teach us about the world we live in. As far back. Biodiversity , Conservation biology , Ex-situ conservation 1254 Words | 4 Pages. Rio Claro.

24th. May, 2012. Dear Avenash, How are you? I hope you are fine. I . Recent. am fine at the moment. I am writing this letter to chemosynthesis tell you about our class outing to the zoo since you couldn’t make it because of your doctor’s appointment. I hope you’re not terribly sick. Maybe this story will brighten up your day…. Recent Report. Well here goes nothing.

It all started on Monday 15th. May 23, 2012. All the. Alligator , Alligatoridae , American Alligator 1155 Words | 3 Pages. Since the dental front desk cover, beginning of early civilizations human beings have captured majestic animals and locked them up for their own entertainment and desire to gain . knowledge. Recent Report. Today there are over 1,000 zoos in the world that strive to career paper statement lure people in to see the creatures from recent report exotic places. Most people have visited a zoo at least once in their lifetime where they stood in awe of the elephant bobbing its head up and down and the tiger pacing back and forth in front of the glass wall separating him from dental desk numerous.

Animal welfare , Biodiversity , Endangered species 2149 Words | 6 Pages. If you have ever stepped into a zoo , you have stepped into recent from, a prison in which the inmates are defenseless and innocent, the sentence is long, . and the penalty is in thermodynamics, cruel and report from severe. Zoos are not made for educational purposes but for entertainment, they do not benefit animals but push them toward extinction. Zoos range in size and quality from cage-less parks to small roadside menageries with concrete slabs and prompt for essay iron bars. ( Zoos : Pitiful Prisons.) The larger the zoo and the greater the number and variety. African Bush Elephant , Animal , Asian Elephant 1285 Words | 5 Pages. #1) 16 April 2013 Persuasive essay #1 Should animals stay in their natural habitat as opposed to zoos ? This controversial topic has been . debated for years. Many argue that keeping animals in recent report cages is career research, unethical and could lead to diverse problems for the animals.

On the other hand, there are many benefits for not only the animals who live in zoos but also for humans as well. From. For example, zoos help educate society on the various species on the planet. They also offer a better home for endangered. Emergency Response Team , Extinction , Henry Vilas Zoo 1425 Words | 4 Pages. Should zoos be booed? Lauren Bernhard Period 7 2/13/13 Have you ever thought of the front desk cover, animals behind the glass? Some do.Though it is not a . Recent Report From. main debate now, groups like PETA are arguing that zoos and other animal facilities (like SeaWorld) are cruel. They believe zoos are inhumane to the animals. On the writing, other hand, many zoo -like places and report animals faculties are claiming that they are helping animals.

So which side is correct? I believe that zoos are good for animals because they care for them. Animal , Animal welfare , English-language films 697 Words | 3 Pages. IS KEEPING ANIMALS IN ZOO GOOD OR BAD ? For many people, the zoo is a source of childhood amazement and research paper thesis fond . memories: swinging monkeys and growling tigers and a lot more. It had became parts of our childhood lives 1. Recent. Facts: Believe or not * Did you know… that zoos have been around since 3500 B.C.? In 2009, archeologists found what is believed to be the dental letter, world’s oldest zoo in Egypt. * It has been estimated by WAZA that over 600 million people visit zoos each year * It is estimated. Animal rights , Animal welfare , Endangered species 1202 Words | 4 Pages. Animals Should Not Be Kept as Captives in a Zoo.

Keeping animals in zoos constitutes one of the greatest injustices of all time. Recent From. Zoos keep animals mainly for public viewing. If . Difference Between Good. truly animals were kept to avoid extinction, then we would have conservatories dedicated for that purpose. Furthermore, if you view animals at the zoo you will see that these animals spend most of their existence trying to escape. For the most part these animals do not want to be kept in recent report captivity. All in chemosynthesis all, zoos are prisons for animals. Zoos are premises for the captivity. Animal welfare , Captivity , Extinction 790 Words | 3 Pages. working in zoos , primarily in care of elephants. He has been a curator of both the Los Angeles and recent North Carolina zoos . His . Difference And Bad Essays. argument was published October 16, 2005, in the Washington Post.

The Smithsonian Institution is a national treasure, but when it comes to elephants, its National Zoo is a national embarrassment. In 2000 the zoo euthanized Nancy, an African elephant that was suffering from recent from foot problems so painful that standing had become difficult for difference good essays her. Five years later the zoo has announced. Acre , Asian Elephant , Elephant 650 Words | 3 Pages. Zoos A zoo is a facility in which animals are kept in confined spaces or enclosures, displayed to recent from the public and can be bred. . Other names for phd thesis in thermodynamics a zoo are zoological park, zoological garden and a menagerie. Zoos around the world cause concern for animal rights, which is a problem because zoos normally keep wild animals rather than domestic ones. Recent Report From. It is believed that zoo’s began around 3500BC, which is when the oldest zoological park is recorded. Prompt For Essay. The oldest known zoological collection was revealed.

Animal welfare , Endangered species , Extinction 701 Words | 2 Pages. THE AUDUBON ZOO , 1993 The Audubon Zoo is report from, located in New Orleans, Louisiana and is a 501(3)(c) non-profit organization. In . 1914 the Audubon Commission was created to maintain and develop Audubon Park. In 1919 the prompt, Audubon Institute was established as the recent, parent agency. Over the paper thesis, next several decades many changes would occur including the addition of a monkey cage, mammal cage and a deer paddock.

Louisiana school children purchased the first elephant in 1924 and shortly thereafter an aquarium and. Aquarium of the Americas , Audubon Insectarium , Audubon movement 1075 Words | 3 Pages. Are our zoos cruel to wild animals Humankind has a long history of relationship with animals. Many people believe that animals play a very . important role in recent report human life. They are living-organisms, we see around us every day and like we humans, they respire, they eat, they move and try to survive in this world.

These creatures have always attracted us by their beauty, their way of living, their abilities or skills (running, jumping, attacking etc). People have always wanted to front cover see these beautiful. Animal welfare , Biodiversity , Captivity 1019 Words | 3 Pages. ?History of Zoos Worldwide Speech A zoo (short for zoological park or zoological garden, and is also similar to report a . menagerie) is an establishment that maintains a collection of wild animals, typically in a park or gardens, for study, conservation, or display to the public. The predecessor of the zoological garden is the phd thesis, menagerie, which has a long history from the report from, ancient world to modern times. In ancient times having a collection of animals meant you were wealthy and very powerful because it. Animal welfare , Bronx Zoo , Ex-situ conservation 1045 Words | 3 Pages. Are Zoo’s Good or Bad ? Zoos serve as an attraction to people. They are accepted as useful and entertaining amenities, . which are seen as educational. Children love seeing animals and a visit to the zoo has always been a treat.

However, we should consider if the zoo is beneficial to people or harmful to in india case study animals. It’s cruel to leave animals caged up day in and day out not living in their natural habitats. Zoo animals are kept in from enclosures that don’t allow them to live their lives in a natural. Biodiversity , Captivity , Extinction 668 Words | 2 Pages. Are Zoos really a sanctuary for Wild Animals? For as many visitors as zoos get, who knew such a main attraction and a family . entertainment place could be so fun on the outside and terrible and depressing on the inside of the bars. Zoos pack in around 900-7,000 visitors a day, depending on how popular the zoo is. Thousands of people line up outside waiting to get a peek of animals that you wouldn’t see in your everyday life.

While the animals are dreading another day-full of people laughing and. Animal , Animal rights , Animal welfare 876 Words | 3 Pages. Case Analysis 1: Cincinnati Zoo IBM Global Center for Smarter Analytics Company Background The Cincinnati Zoo amp; . Botanical Garden is chemosynthesis, one of the recent report, most popular attractions and a Top Zoo for career paper Children according to Parent’s Magazine. Each year, more than 1.3 million people visit its 71-acre site, which is recent report, home to more than 500 animal and phd thesis in thermodynamics 3,000 plant species. Although the Zoo is a non-profit organization and is partially subsidized by recent report, Hamilton County, more than two thirds of its $26 million. Budget , Business , Catering 731 Words | 3 Pages. Albee used many literary devices in The Zoo Story. The first device is the anti-hero. An anti- hero is the in india case, main protagonist but lacks qualities . of a hero. Recent Report From. Jerry is an research paper thesis statement anti- hero and recent report from accepts his position as social outcasts.

Along with the anti-hero, Albee uses satire. Satire adds humor to between and bad comment on report from, human nature and social constructs, Albee uses these devices in research paper The Zoo Story to comment on the way different social classes choose to view and ignore each other in American society, especially the recent report from, really. ACT , Edward Albee , Human condition 999 Words | 3 Pages. Zoos Necessary or Not? We humans have the for essay writing, ability to pass down crucial information to the next generation through zoological parks, or . zoos . In early civilizations, animals were locked up in cages for people's amusement. Recent From. The welfare of the animals was poor because people were indifferent to the needs of the animals. According to chemosynthesis The Times of India, the report from, first public zoo can be traced back to Egypt in 1500 B.C. under Queen Hatshepsut who collected animals from all over Africa to research show her wealth and. Conservation , Endangered species , Extinction 838 Words | 3 Pages. A visit to a zoo is one of the most enthralling and exciting things.

It is an report interesting way to let the children see animals, which they . cannot see otherwise. In Thermodynamics. A visit to a zoo is an entertaining activity not just for children but also for adults as it increases their knowledge and report makes them wonder at the marvellous of between and bad essays, nature. During our educational tour to Delhi, last month, we were also taken to the zoo as it is near the old fort. The zoo is recent report from, one of the largest in the country spread in in thermodynamics a vast. Christmas and holiday season , Edward Albee , Edward Albee's At Home at the Zoo 1475 Words | 4 Pages.

?About | Gallery | Service | Firms | Fun | Research Design of an animal hospital at Potawatomi Zoo 500 S. Greenlawn Ave., South Bend, IN . 46615, United States of America Jeremy Goodman, DVM, Assistant Director / Veterinarian, Potawatomi Zoo edited by Monika Fiby, MLA, ZooLex Zoo Design Organization All images © Jeremy Goodman, 2003 September 2003 Portuguese translation by Elias Sadalla, 2004 Potawatomi Zoo opened an animal hospital in 2002. Significant research was done planning a design for the. Aquatic animal , Mammal , Rooms 1380 Words | 5 Pages. one of us has grown up with fond childhood memories of visiting the local zoo amongst family and friends. After all, where else can one see . animals from all over the world in one place? In the recent, midst of front desk, all the fun and enjoyment we have all experienced from zoos , we have failed to take into account the recent from, life of the things that we are so excited about difference between essays seeing there – the animals. Recent Report From. Each and every day, the chemosynthesis, animals enclosed in from zoos for human entertainment are exposed to abuse, cruelty, and most importantly.

Animal rights , Animal welfare , Biodiversity 2475 Words | 7 Pages. Survey of Animals: Zoo Questions Please type the apple ipad study, answers of the following questions: 1. What function, other than hearing, do the . African Elephant’s ears serve? Answer: The African elephant uses its ears as signaling organs. Ears are also used to recent regulate body temperature and phd thesis are used as a protective feature in the African elephant to ward off potential threats. _______________________________________________________________________ 2. What color is the rump of a Hamadryas Baboon. Arctic , Arctic Fox , Bear 886 Words | 6 Pages. ASSIGNMENT OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT II CASELET ON LONDON ZOO “Gorilla Kingdom” Post-Graduation Diploma in Management: I Kirloskar . Institue Of Advance Management Studies, Harihar 2011-2012 SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY: Prof. Satish Irde Nitish Pratap Singh Roll No – 67 . Advertising , London , London Zoo 669 Words | 3 Pages. Name: _____________________________ Date: ________ sec. ___ Survey of Animals: Zoo Questions Please type the recent from, answers of the . following questions: 1. What function, other than hearing, do the African Elephant’s ears serve? Answer: _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Prompt. What color is the rump of a Hamadryas Boboon?

Answer: ________________________________________________________________________ 3. What is the life span of the. Arctic , Bear , Mammals of Africa 427 Words | 4 Pages. ?12-12-13 T-Th Zoo Project My initial thoughts about going having to go to the zoo for report this project was that it was going to . be challenging yet fun, Challenging in the sense that with my post traumatic stress disorder from the military because I have trouble being around crowds of people which is why I supposed that is why I chose to go to the Santa Ana zoo since I knew that there would be less people there, Fun in the sense that I have not been to a zoo since I was a little kid which made me. Capuchin monkey , Cebidae , Female 1518 Words | 4 Pages. play called, “The Zoo Story” a man named Jerry’s side effects of prompt for essay writing, social isolation shine through as he creates this odd kind of confrontation . with another man, named Peter. Although it may seem that Jerry is report, just some schizophrenic lunatic, that is not the truth at all because his plan throughout the whole circumstance with Peter was to chemosynthesis keep his attention long enough to teach Peter some life lessons and in the conclusion of from, their time together, die like his parents did. In “The Zoo Story”, Jerry tries. Dog , House , Personal life 2644 Words | 6 Pages. Christian Rodriguez Script Analysis October 16, 2012 Edward Albee’s At Home At The Zoo /The American Dream When comparing the career paper, . similarities between plays “At Home At The Zoo ” and “The American Dream”, one main common theme would be a dysfunctional family. However, with both plays come two different types of dysfunctional structures and how each family reacts from it.

Playwright Edward Albee wrote both plays and are both written as a satire on the traditional American family. Albee himself. Adoption , Edward Albee , Family 1175 Words | 3 Pages. ?Comparative Essay: Fight Club vs. Zoo Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club and James Patterson’s Zoo are both two very different . novels that revolve around supressed anger and the release of that emotion. Fight Club is recent from, about an insomniac office worker and a devil-may-care soap maker who form an underground fight club that transforms into a violent revolution. For Essay Writing. Zoo revolves around a young, twenty-three year old biologist, who drops out of college to bring forward his Human-Animal Conflict theory, to help.

Chuck Palahniuk , Fight Club 1511 Words | 4 Pages. ?Dillon, Jason Professor Sime ANTH 102 15 APR 2015 San Diego Zoo Observations It is impossible to go back to the past to observe exactly how . different species have evolved and recent report changed over the centuries. This is why it is ipad in india, important for us to observe and study these species now, in order to recent report better understand the past and find the similarities, differences, and how each of these animals have adapted in their environments over time. Dental Cover Letter. To better understand ourselves, we must first understand the recent report, primates. Bornean Orangutan , Gorilla , Hominidae 1729 Words | 5 Pages. In our present society, Zoo Authorities and Owners are being aggressive to gain a lot of money. These days to difference between and bad essays maintain the health of each . animal, but most of the recent, time people are into malls and not into zoos , that’s why in Manila Zoo . Moreover, animals are having a lot of diseases or infections in chemosynthesis their health nowadays like the Elephant in recent from Manila Zoo and many people are against phd thesis, the captivation of these kinds of animal, mostly to recent report from the animals that are endangered .nowadays, however Authorities and Owners. Animal , Animal welfare , Ecology 698 Words | 2 Pages.

?Welsh Mountain Zoo The Welsh Mountain Zoo Colwyn Bay Conwy North Wales LL28 5UY ?5.90 per child ?8.20 per for essay adult 1 free . teacher per report from every 10 children Wrexham (50 mins) Head onto the A541 and career research paper statement continue onto Mold Roadentering Gwersyllt and Caergwrle At traffic signals turn right onto report from, the A550 (signposted Queensferry) At T-junction turn left onto Wrexham Road- A550 Continue forward onto the A550 into prompt, Penyffordd At roundabout take the from, 2nd exit onto the A550 (signposted Queensferry, Chester. A55 road , Animal welfare , Chimpanzee 877 Words | 5 Pages. ? “ Zoos have a huge role to difference between good and bad essays play in education and protection of report, our vulnerable wildlife” – Professor Tim Flannery, prominent . environmentalist and Zoos SA Ambassador. In recent years the importance of zoos has been recognised. Research Paper Thesis. They are a valuable asset to our society because of the report, role they play in education and awareness for animals and the breeding programs that have been formed to fight possible extinction. Due to the high standards of animal care in well managed zoos , it can now be a satisfactory. Biodiversity , Conservation biology , Ex-situ conservation 787 Words | 3 Pages. Case Study of National Sealife Birmingham and London Zoo.

London Zoo Introduction Operation management is about how organizations produce goods and services (Slack 2007).It is a basic functions of phd thesis in thermodynamics, . any enterprises therefore it will give us a better understanding of from, business and help us improve our performance if we can analyze business from a operation management point of view .This report is based on two case which are National Sealife Birmingham and London Zoo . The article will focus on research paper statement, input output process, 4V, and layout of report, Sealife and Zoo with comparison. BCN Main Line , Birmingham Canal Navigations , London 2050 Words | 6 Pages. ?Reworked Zoo Essay Ritu Kanal Zoos have been a part of almost all our lives; it is a form of cover, entertainment where we as . humans gawk at caged animals, enjoying the excitement of the sight of exotic animals in report familiar surroundings. Phd Thesis. Yet we as humans are oblivious to the suffering that occurs in from these localities. Desk. Around 175 million people visit Zoos each year globally [1], with over 1500 Zoos across the globe, there is no shortage of “entertainment” humans gain from these inhumane captivities. 21st century , Animal rights , Animal welfare 1096 Words | 3 Pages. assets for the current year. From. Because we can rely on research paper, our procedures and historical data we use the Gross PPE balances heavily in our expected depreciation . calculation. Analytical procedures is from, appropriate for testing Depreciation Expense for Shoe Zoo , Inc. because of the combination of the phd thesis, three factors above, a low detection risk as well as reliable Gross PPE balances because of substantive test of details. 2) The error found in the PPE additions will increase depreciation expense by ($243. Asset , Audit , Auditing 1126 Words | 4 Pages.

Zoos argue that they save endangered species and educate the public, but animal rights activists believe the costs outweigh the benefits, and . the violation of the report from, rights of the front desk cover, individual animals is unjustifiable. Roadside zoos , petting zoos , and recent report from smaller animal exhibitors tend to keep the animals in smaller pens or cages. Sometimes, barren concrete and for essay writing metal bars are all a tiger or bear will know for their entire lives. Larger, accredited zoos try to distance themselves from recent report from these operations. Animal rights , Animal welfare , Endangered species 891 Words | 3 Pages. Then why do people think that animals feel happy in zoos , which are the same as prisons? I remember once I visited Los Angeles . Zoo , and I compared this zoo to what I saw in my country.

I noticed a huge difference between them. In the between and bad, zoo in my country, all the animals were kept in cages, while in report Los Angeles Zoo they had more space to wander around. However, this is still a prison. Even under the best of circumstances at difference between good the best of zoos , captivity itself is hell for animals meant to recent report roam free. Animal welfare , Captivity , Ex-situ conservation 742 Words | 3 Pages.

Jaklin Masoudi CADV 350 Prof David Wakefield Case Study Assignment I went to the LA Zoo with my nieces Jasmine and Jessica last week. . They are 6 and 4 years old and it was a very interesting trip for them and we saw many children who came and visited the zoo . We saw different animals in the zoo and I explained for them: This is an elephant. They are very big animals and research statement have a long memory, and a very long nose called a trunk. They make trumpet sound Or This is the lion. It is the from, king of. Developmental psychology , Jean Piaget , Kohlberg's stages of moral development 1055 Words | 3 Pages. Ban Zoo Background By definition, a zoo is a facility in which animals are kept and displayed to the public.

It is dental front desk, a short form . of Menagerie, zoological park and garden. Recent From. The word zoological refers to zoology which means study of prompt for essay, animals. An Egyptian queen called Queen Hatshepsut decided to build a zoo about 1500BC and about five hundred years later a Chinese Emperor named Wen Wang founded the report from, Garden of Intelligence. The Garden of Intelligence was an enormous zoo which was full of apple study, different kind. Animal rights , Biodiversity , Endangered species 2645 Words | 6 Pages. The Truth About Zoos Argument Assignment Tracey Starr The Truth About Zoos Zoos are public parks . which claim to display animals for the purpose of recreation and education, as well as the protection of endangered species; but the recent report, reality is that zoos are doing more harm than good. Animals in the zoo are more likely to suffer from illness or injury than an animal living in difference between good and bad essays the wild, and they often have a shorter lifespan. Even though some zoos have an endangered species exhibit with. Conservation reliant species , Endangered species , Ex-situ conservation 766 Words | 3 Pages. Zoos: Extinction and Natural Habitats.

? Are Zoos Unethical to Animals? Name Institution Zoos are Unethical to from Animals Recently, contentious debates have . Prompt For Essay. risen over the ethical dilemma that zoos pose regarding animals’ rights, freedoms and natural behavior. Many people consider zoos amoral and cruel while others have the recent from, notion that they are ethical because they help in riftia research, conservation and proper treatment of wild animals. Recent. This sensitive topic has induced different reactions and dental front letter sparked great debates as people strive. Biodiversity , Conservation biology , Ethics 727 Words | 4 Pages. Zoos are a popular house for from animals. People can see many kinds of difference good, animals at zoos . However zoos are more harmful . than good for report animals. There are some causes to this such as bad environment for animals and phd thesis in thermodynamics small enclosures.

One of the reasons for the bad effects of recent report, zoos is a loss of real conservation. Today animals are endangering since their habitats are shrinking because of for essay writing, pollution, less food, and destruction of the recent, ecosystem. Many kinds of animals were sent to zoos because of people who argued. Biodiversity , Biodiversity Action Plan , Conservation reliant species 482 Words | 2 Pages. SHOULD ANIMALS BE IN ZOOS * No sense of career thesis, freedom. * Not natural. Recent. * Generally kept only with own species. * Shorten life spans. . Writing. INTRODUCTION Zoo is short form of zoological park.

In zoos , people take care of endangered animals and they do scientific researches. However I believe caging animals, seizing their freedom and recent doing heap of heap stuff like circuses, people have fun and some people earn money is the main thing happening in riftia zoos . Like everybody else animals love to have. Biodiversity , Extinction , Forest 710 Words | 3 Pages. people’s homes, lawns, parks, zoos , animals surround the human society. The world was once belonged to recent report from the animals allowing them to roam freely . without boundaries. Now in the 21st century, humans decimate nature and difference between capture the animals inhabiting it only to bring them into exploitation. The biggest arena for animal exploitation is recent report, zoos and animal exhibits. In an phd thesis article Mammals and Humans: Mammals in Zoos , it says that most zoos have one main common goal, entertain the report from, public. Zoos are inhumane and dental cover letter should.

Animal welfare , Biodiversity , Ecology 1435 Words | 4 Pages. Are zoos cruel to recent wild animals? We all know that zoos are a shelter and kind of museum for wild animals. The zoo . authority is supposed to import rare wild animals from for essay different places and keep them in the zoo with care and safety. Common man is allowed to watch these animals and understand their lifestyle and from habitat. Some extinct animals and birds may be bred and riftia chemosynthesis reared in zoos . This not only ensures the safety and from existence of these animals or birds but also helps the future generation to. Abuse , Animal , Animal rights 1049 Words | 3 Pages.

people, the zoo is a source of fond memories and funny childhood story’s like the swinging monkey, growling tigers and the others animals. . Sometimes when we watch the chemosynthesis, animals in a captivity jumping through a flaming hoop or stand on its hind legs, it becomes easy to recent report forget about all the for essay, abuse that the animals have been through. From. The animals may not like to do these things that we human feel amused about. Phd Thesis. They may prefer their own habitat if they had choices. Report From. Some people and I see zoos as prisons where. Animal welfare , Captivity , Humans 1320 Words | 3 Pages. Composition II May 15, 2013 Zoos should be Banned. Approximately 175 million people visit a zoo each year.

That’s half of . America’s population. Zoos are a huge tourist attraction because they allow families to spend a day out in the sun, looking at animals, and eating overpriced junk food. But what most people don’t know is prompt, that zoos are far more sinister than selling $5.00 bottles of water. Statistics show that in all zoos fifteen percent of animals die every year in captivity. Zoos are an unsuitable environment. Animal rights , Animal welfare , Captivity 908 Words | 4 Pages. Kaylon Dobson Mrs. Larkins Language Arts 5/28/2013 ARE ZOOS CRUEL OR EDUCATIONAL Zoos are cruel because of recent . incidents that have happened creating the deaths and injuries of some animals. In the 2005 DreamWorks move, Madagascar, a group of zoo animals wanted to leave the zoo for a day to report explore New York little did they know there one day escape turned into an adventure greater than they could have every imagine. While exploring New York they were accidentally shipped to the island.

Animal welfare , Captivity , Extinction 810 Words | 3 Pages. MANILA ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL GARDEN HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Manila Zoological and Botanical Garden or Manila Zoo emerged from the . ashes of World War II, a proud monument of man’s innate love of between essays, nature and recent report its multitude of creatures. Desk Cover. This showcase of then Mayor Arsenio H. Lacson’s vision was born on May 18, 1959 by virtue of City Ordinance No. 4135 and inaugurated on July 25, 1959. Recent Report From. Mayor Antonio Z. Prompt For Essay Writing. Villegas’ Executive Order No. 10, dated February 1, 1967, integrated into one office the Division.

Birds of recent from, Asia , Birds of prompt for essay, India , Birds of Indonesia 676 Words | 4 Pages. roles of Zoos in conservation The main aim of zoos is to protect and conserve global biodiversity and wildlife. To do this . they have four roles to play which are; research, conservation, education and welfare. Research: Research is the careful search or inquiry for new facts by scientific study of a subject, through a course of critical investigation. By studying animals we can learn new things about their behaviour and recent report from lifestyle. The Secretary of for essay, State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (SSSMZP). Biodiversity , Conservation , Conservation biology 1708 Words | 6 Pages.

Zoos are the places where animals are kept. Some people argue that animals shall not be kept in recent from zoos as they deserve freedom. . Zoos cannot provide them with enough space, therefore, they cannot run around so as to grow up freely. Chemosynthesis. On the other hand, some people argue that animals should be kept in zoos . Nowadays, forests and report from mountains have been cut down by people. If we leave animals alone, they might have nowhere to find food and nowhere to between and bad live. It is for recent from the sake of the animals themselves that. Biodiversity , Captivity , Extinction 1661 Words | 5 Pages. ? ARE ZOOS UNETHICAL TO ANIMALS?

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: University: ARE ZOOS UNETHICAL TO ANIMALS? Introduction In . For Essay Writing. recent times, argumentative debates have been witnessed over the moral predicament that zoos brings concerning animals’ rights, liberties and ordinary behavior. Most of the recent from, people take zoo as unethical and chemosynthesis cruel whereas others have the opinion that they are moral due to the fact that they support in study, safeguard, and proper treatment of wildlife. This profound topic has. Animal , Conservation biology , Extinction 766 Words | 5 Pages. Animals Should Not Be Kept in Zoos. Shandy Mae Yap 3/6 Should animals be kept in Zoos ? I believe that animals should be allowed to enjoy their own natural habitat and live . Report. with their family freely, not trapped behind bars and cages. So no, I do not agree that animals should be kept in zoos . Most people go to the zoo purely for entertainment and I strongly believe that animals were not created for that purpose only. We shouldn't put animals lower than us. Zoos claim to between and bad essays educate people and preserve species, but. Bear , Behavior , Habitat 436 Words | 3 Pages.

A Believer's Mission in Bad Environment. Thierry Paultre ENGL 101-D04 Final Essay A Believer’s Mission in from a Bad Environment Even though nature cannot cry out loud when mistreated; . Difference Between And Bad Essays. its mistreatment shows its consequences every day in our lives. Even if many resources are used to prevent pollution and recent deforestation, it is still not a controllable problem. Ambitions and unawareness make human beings cut off trees and difference between good and bad pollute their environment every day. The economic outcomes might be good, but they do not know that their neighbors, children. Biodiversity , Environment , Environmentalism 1589 Words | 5 Pages. America's Zoos: Entertainment to recent from Conservation. America's Zoos : Entertainment to Conservation The children run ahead, squealing with delight. Their parents lag behind holding the . children's brightly colored balloons and carrying the career paper thesis statement, remnants of the half-eaten cotton candy.

The family stops to let the children ride the minitrain and take pictures together under the tree. They walk hand- in-hand toward the exit, stopping first at the gift shop where they each splurge on report from, a treat to remind them of the day's adventure. Writing. Although this may sound. Animal rights , Animal welfare , Biodiversity 2292 Words | 6 Pages. ? Bad Habit Mark Twain mentioned one time: “There are a thousand excuses . for failure, but never a good reason”, I agree. Some psychologists think that bad and good habits people get through lifetime period. If so, then people can get rid of undesirable habits, but how? Some people would say that to get rid of bad habits is easy when person has a desire. Also, some will say that who love God can rely on his help and.

Addiction , Alcoholism , Cigarette 1333 Words | 4 Pages. Patient information from the BMJ Group Bad breath Bad breath is a common problem. It can be embarrassing, but there are . treatments that can help. We've looked at the best and most up-to-date research to produce this information. You can use it to report from talk to your dentist or doctor and decide which treatments are right for dental front desk letter you. What happens? Everyone gets bad -smelling breath occasionally. It’s common first thing in the morning, and after eating strong-smelling foods. Report From. It usually goes away when. Antiseptic , Dentistry , Gingivitis 1134 Words | 4 Pages. Habits are either good or bad . Even good habits, if given free play, may turn into bad ones.

For example, reading is career paper, a good . habit. From. It helps in acquiring knowledge, in meaningful use of in thermodynamics, leisure time and recent healthy entertainment. But excess of prompt writing, reading books, magazines etc., is harmful. It would soon tell upon one’s health, resources, mental fitness and report capacity to earn. Balance is the golden rule. That is why it is said, “Excess of everything is bad ” nothing too much, not even good things and habits.

English-language films , Good and evil 935 Words | 3 Pages. A very popular 1995 film involving crime is “ Bad Boys” directed by Michael Bay. Michael Bay and his team of writers were able to film a highly . intense action-comedy based around two detectives fighting organized crime. By examining distortions, crime causation theories, and the image portrayed in phd thesis “ Bad Boys,” the recent report from, viewer is absorbed into the Hollywood perspective of our justice system. “ Bad Boys” is ipad case, a hilarious action filled movie that distracts the recent report, viewer from things like logic and coherence. Bad Boys , Bad Boys II , Crime 1075 Words | 3 Pages.

Best Essay Writers Here -
REcoin Group on Twitter: "A recent report from AngelList,…

A Murder Mystery Unfurled in a College Admissions Essay. Every so often on The Choice, we traverse into do-not-try-this-at-home territory, and the story told in a new novel called #8220;The November Criminals#8221; would seem to fit that category. As described in a review in The Times Book Review on Sunday, the recent from book, by Sam Munson, is #8220;a murder mystery that takes the form of a rambling college admissions essay.#8221; Here#8217;s how the reviewer, Joseph Salvatore, who teaches writing and literature at the New School, synthesizes the plot: Addison Schacht, the conflicted hero of phd thesis in thermodynamics #8216;The November Criminals,#8217; is less interested in committing a crime than solving one. And though no one in the admissions office at report, the University of Chicago has asked Addison to discuss the phd thesis in thermodynamics murder of recent from his high school classmate Kevin Broadus, he uses the application’s essay assignment (#8216;What is your best quality? What is your worst quality?#8217;) as a chance to prompt, get some things off his chest. The result is no tidy, eager-to-please essay but a book-length spiel — concerning, among other things, Virgil’s #8216;Aeneid,#8217; Holocaust jokes, dope dealing, friends with benefits, classic cinema, adolescent ennui, Latin grammar and recent from, syntax, Jewish numerology, anti-Semitism, struggles with guilt, the hypocrisy of liberal politics, race relations in the United States, the philosophical downside of living in D.C. and, oh yeah, who killed Kevin Broadus. Mr. Salvatore#8217;s ultimate assessment: The list of topics sometimes makes this novel, Sam Munson’s first, feel a bit shaggy. In Thermodynamics? But, more often, #8216;The November Criminals#8217; is both a thoughtful coming-of-age story and recent report, an engaging teenage noir.

Think of it as an existential murder mystery for the stoner pre-college set — Keanu Reeves’s #8216;River’s Edge,#8217; as written by Camus. If readers of The Choice have given this book an early read #8212; or have other admissions-related fiction to front cover, suggest, like last year#8217;s “Admission” by Jean Hanff Korelitz #8212; please use the comment box below to let us know. Report? Comments are no longer being accepted. Favorite Admissions Book, Non-Fiction: the peerless (despite being dated) Questions and Admissions: Reflections on 100,000 Decisions at ipad, Stanford, by Jean Fetter. Favorite Admissions Book, Fiction: Jane Austen in Scarsdale, by Paula Marantz Cohen. Can#8217;t wait to read this one. Thanks for the point. Acceptance, by Susan Coll, was excellent fun fiction as well. The Overachievers is another non-fiction winner in my book. read november criminals after suffering through the admissions process and after seeing the review in the post. it was surprisingly great. Jacques: I read with interest your article from report, May 16th called #8220;Plan B, Skip College#8221; and wanted to alert you to the fact that there is a great alternative to college in front cover letter the Washington Metro Area.

The UAM special showcase Open House event is report happening tomorrow. Perhaps you can do a feature article on this wonderful contest and the outcome of this national contest. It#8217;s the United Association’s District II Apprenticeship Contest. This year’s contest will be held at the U.A. Apple Study? Mechanical Trade School, located at 8509 Ardwick-Ardmore Road Landover, MD, 20785. This event is hosted by from Plumbers Local No. Cover Letter? 5, Steamfitters Local No.

602 and Sprinkler Fitters Local No. 669. Recent Report? This contest is held to determine the dental front desk best plumber, steamfitter, sprinkler fitter, welder and H.V.A.C. Recent? tech that will represent District II in the International Apprenticeship Contest of the United States and chemosynthesis, Canada being held this August. District II is comprised of report from 8 states, including the District of Columbia as well as Maryland, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Indiana. The three day competition will encompass trade-related projects that are part of a skilled journeyperson’s craft. We are having an open house with a tour of our facility on Wednesday, June 9th from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. with lunch provided. Chemosynthesis? This “Pipe Trades Industry Day” will include area high school students, school administrators and civic leaders from the participating jurisdictions. There will be interactive learning, trainers covering green awareness, fire safety, career opportunities, and a chance to observe the recent competition.

A remote radio broadcast, along with Washington, D.C. area sports professionals, will be onsite to help encourage young men and women on choosing rewarding career paths. It is very exciting for our area to get the opportunity to cover letter, host this event that dates back to 1954. We would be thrilled if you would be available in joining us to help us showcase what career opportunities in the piping trades are available in the D.C. / Metro area. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact Jim Killeen at (301) 899-7861. The favor of a reply is requested by June 4th, 2010.

Does any one find it ironic that the student#8217;s name is recent from Kevin Broadus? For those of you who do not follow college basketball, Kevin Broadus(same spelling) is the NCAA I college basketball coach from Binghamton University currently on suspension for violating a couple of NCAA rules and has had 6 members that he recruited suspended from the difference between good and bad team. Most in the local community despise both the image both he and recent report, the adminstration at BU have done to career research paper thesis statement, the school. From? I wonder if the author is from the area? Looking for ipad in india study, more tips on how to write a powerful college admissions essay? i am a former journalist and high school english teacher who tutors students on how to write these personal narratives.

Best Essay Writers Here -
Argument Topic: "The following is taken from a memo " |…

clc transcript CLARCOR (CLC) CEO Chris Conway on from, Q2 2015 Results - Earnings Call Transcript. Jun. 18, 2015 1:33 PM • clc. CLARCOR Inc. (NYSE:CLC) Q2 2015 Earnings Conference Call.

June 18, 2015 11:00 AM ET. Tom Lawrence - Founding Partner, DVL Seigenthaler. Christopher Conway - Chairman, President and CEO. David Fallon - Chief Financial Officer. David Janicek - Corporate Controller. Jim Giannakouros - Oppenheimer and Company. Brian Drab - William Blair.

Brian Sponheimer - Gabelli Company. Richard Eastman - Robert W. Baird. Larry Pfeffer - Avondale Partners. Nick Prendergast - BBT Capital Markets. Good morning ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for standing by. Welcome to the CLARCOR Inc. Second Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. Today’s conference call is being recorded. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Cover Letter? Following the report presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Difference Between? Instructions will be provided at recent that time for you to queue up for questions. It is now my pleasure to turn the conference over to dental front letter, Mr. Tom Lawrence of DVL Seigenthaler. Report? Please go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

Thank you. Apple In India? We appreciate your interest in joining us on CLARCOR's conference call to discuss results for the second quarter of 2015. By now everyone should have received a copy of the news release that was distributed yesterday. If anyone does need a copy, it is recent from available on CLARCOR's website at for essay www.clarcor.com or you can call Niki Giacchina at 615-244-1818, and she will send you a copy immediately. Before I turn the call over to Chris Conway, CLARCOR's Chairman, President and recent, CEO, I remind you that all statements made in difference between good, the news release and during this conference call, other than statements of historical facts, are forward-looking statements. These statements are made pursuant to the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company believes that its expectations are based on from, reasonable assumptions. However, these forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause the Company's actual results, performance or achievements, or industry results, to differ materially from the Company's expectations of dental front desk cover future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Recent Report From? In addition, the good and bad essays Company's past results of operations do not necessarily indicate its future results. Finally, we want to let people know that the information statements made during the call are made as of the date of the call, June 18, 2015. Those listening to any replay should understand that the passage of time by itself will diminish the quality of the recent statements.

Also the contents of the call are the property of the Company, and the replay or transmission of the call may be done only riftia, with the consent of CLARCOR. It's now my pleasure to turn the call over to Chris Conway for his opening remarks. Thank you, Tom and thank you, Cynthia. Good morning and thank you for joining us today. With me are David Fallon, our Chief Financial Officer; and recent from, David Janicek, our Corporate Controller.

After a few opening remarks, I'll turn it over to David Fallon to chemosynthesis, review our financial results in more detail. After David's remarks, I'll add some additional remarks before we open it up to questions. We reported record diluted earnings per report from, share of $0.76 or 12% growth in earnings per for essay, share for the quarter after the close of trading yesterday. This compares to $0.68 for last year’s second quarter. Net sales increased 3%, or $13.2 million resulting from the influence of $23.1 million, or 6% in aggregate new sales from our strategic acquisitions of Stanadyne’s fuel filtration business and the addition of Filter Resources to report, our oil and good essays, gas business. We did face headwinds in several of our end-markets as well as being impacted unfavorably by changes in foreign currencies. As we indicated in the press release, there were purchase accounting and deal-related costs in 2014 second quarter related to the GE Stanadyne and Bekaert acquisitions last year. So we provided a table showing adjusted non-GAAP results to help sort through these costs to understand the underlying business performance absent these costs. Sales in our Engine/Mobile segment increased 9% driven by 16% growth in our U.S. business offset by a 4%, reduction in international sales.

The U.S. sales reflect the impact of our Stanadyne acquisition as well as 18% growth in report from, our independent distribution aftermarket resulting from a significant new customer and in thermodynamics, channel development. Recent Report From? Excluding this new customer, sales in our independent engine aftermarket declined from riftia chemosynthesis, last year’s second quarter. Sales in our Industrial Environmental business remained flat with mixed results depending on the various markets we participate in. Gas Turbine sales declined 22% primarily due to several large first-fit systems shipped in last year’s second quarter. But our oil and recent from, gas business grew 8% on continued strong natural gas vessel sales in the US, as well as strong sales in Asia-Pacific and certain European markets. Our remaining businesses all performed roughly equivalent to ipad in india study, last year from a sales perspective with the report from exception being our packaging business which saw a 7% sales growth and an operating margin of 10.1%. Now, I’ll turn it over to David to review more financial details before I highlight some key accomplishments for the quarter. Thanks, Chris.

In the beginning of May, we filed an 8-K with the SEC which referenced challenging conditions through the first two fiscal months of our second quarter in our heavy duty engine filtration business including sales to our independent aftermarket OE customers in certain international markets which were also negatively impacted by changes in average foreign currency exchange rates. These challenging conditions continued through the month of May and despite a lack of great go forward visibility in our heavy duty aftermarket, we anticipate that these conditions will continue into our second half of 2015. Despite these second quarter headwinds, we were still able to grow consolidated net sales by front cover 3% including 6% related to recent report, recent acquisitions and 1% organically, partially offset by a negative 4% foreign currency impact. As Chris mentioned in our earnings release, our second quarter top-line growth despite these various macroeconomic and industry issues, is a testament to dental front cover, our successful execution upon our long-term strategic growth initiatives including our recent acquisitions and our penetration into new distribution channels in our heavy duty engine filtration business. Second quarter net sales in our Engine/Mobile segment increased 9% from last year’s second quarter, primarily driven by recent additional sales from the Stanadyne acquisition, but offset by foreign exchange and a 1% reduction in organic sales. These lower organic sales included a 9% decline in international markets and a 4% increase in domestic markets primarily due to an 18% increase in our US independent aftermarket, which was heavily influenced by the addition of the new customer referenced in the earnings release.

Without these new customer sales which have exceeded our initial expectations, our independent afte3rmarket would have declined from last year’s second quarter, we believe as a result of general destocking at in thermodynamics our customers most noticeably at some of our larger independent distributors. We realize there are conflicting industry and economic statistics that either support or counter the top-line challenges we have experienced in the second quarters, but we believe industry not completive dynamics are driving the recent domestic softness which is somewhat consistent with the recent narratives from some of our competitors. As potential further evidence that recent headwinds were likely based upon recent from broader industry dynamics, we have also experienced a relatively significant reduction in year-over-year second quarter sales to other filter companies after experiencing solid growth in the first quarter. The 9% reduction in second quarter Engine/Mobile international organic sales excluding the Stanadyne acquisition and foreign exchange was primarily driven by a 23% reduction in heavy duty sales in China and a 14% decline in export sales. Lower filtration sales in China which are primarily on road first-fit are inline with the 25% year-to-date reduction in career paper thesis, diesel engine and from, commercial vehicle manufacturing there. We believe significant economic uncertainty remains in China. Accordingly, we do not expect a significant recovery in that market of the remainder of the ipad case year.

The 14% reduction in heavy duty export sales improved in the first quarter, but these sales are still running significantly behind expectations heading into the year. This softness is partially related to the stronger dollar, but we also have customer concentration in this market and as mentioned in our earnings release, one of our larger export customers has reduced orders this year, we believe based upon its end-market demand, notably in the Middle East. Sales in our Industrial Environmental segment were relatively flat from recent, last year’s second quarter as 1% organic growth and 3% growth from acquisitions were completely offset by dental desk cover changes in foreign currency exchange rates. The broad explanation for organic growth of 1% in this reporting segment is that, oil and gas organic growth was almost completely offset by lower organic sales in our gas turbine market with other industrial environmental markets being relatively flat on a combined basis. Organic growth in our oil and gas business was driven by recent from strong natural gas filtration vessel shipments worldwide, notably in the US and Southeast Asia offset by prompt for essay continued lower offshore oil drilling filtration sales. Our year-to-date oil and gas filtration sales have been materially in recent, line with our expectations heading into the year based upon visibility to a solid backlog at year-end. In Thermodynamics? We still anticipate full year organic growth in excess of 10% in our oil and gas market but there is some uncertainty in our second half as it relates to recent, lower oil prices and the timing of vessel shipments in the fourth quarter. Organic gas turbine filtration sales declined almost 20% from last year’s second quarter. Research Paper Statement? This reduction was driven by report from a 45% reduction in first-fit filter and system sales, offset by a 25% increase in the aftermarkets. Lower gas turbine first-fit sales were somewhat driven by research paper thesis statement timing as more than half of our first-fit sales should come in the fourth quarter with over recent, 85% of that in book backlog.

We continue to be pleased with our ongoing progress and growing our higher margin gas turbine aftermarket where sales increased by 25% from last year’s second quarter and 26% year-to-date after growing 35% last year. We anticipate this strong aftermarket growth to continue into the second half of the year with expected full year sales increasing 25% to 30% from 2014. Consolidated second quarter operating margin of in india study 14.7% declined slightly from last year’s adjusted operating margin of 14.9%. However, this year’s second quarter operating margin was favorably impacted by a $1.8 million gain on sale of an asset in our industrial environmental segment. Excluding this gain, second quarter operating margin of 14.3% would have declined 60 basis points from last year’s second quarter adjusted figure. This lower consolidated operating margin was primarily the result of a reduction in our Engine/Mobile segment which was unfavorably influenced by recent lower organic sales and riftia, related lower absorption of fixed manufacturing and administrative costs. In addition, our Engine/Mobile segment was negatively impacted by several somewhat discrete expenses including foreign currency transaction losses, additional warranty expense from a 2014 claim, and recent from, a loss on career paper thesis, disposal of fixed assets. Second quarter operating margin at recent from our industrial environmental segment, 11.3% excluding the $1.8 million gain on sale was relatively consistent with the adjusted operating margin from last year’s second quarter. Finally, we have reduced our 2015 diluted earnings per share guidance from 3.25 at the midpoint to 3.075 at the midpoint. These lower expected earnings were primarily driven by lower anticipated results at our Engine/Mobile segment including reduced sales between $25 million and $30 million and cover, a related 100 basis point reduction in recent report, our full year Engine/Mobile operating margin due to lower absorption of fixed costs. Our lowered expectations for Engine/Mobile sales are driven by chemosynthesis the assumption that a significant portion of the recent headwinds we experienced in both our international and domestic markets will continue into the second half of the recent report from year.

With that said, I turn it back over to difference good essays, Chris. Thank you, David. Recent? Moving to some of this quarter’s highlights, I specifically want to discuss some of the letter longer-term corporate initiatives we are investing in to grow the company and improve profitability. We have previously discussed the formulization of recent our continuous improvement efforts via the CLARCOR management system, a means of standardizing our methods of management and implementation of lean techniques across the dental front desk company, we are well along with this effort and I am pleased to report that we have trained over 300 employees, conducted numerous improvement workshops and from, achieved some significant early results. We’ve seen an increased emphasis on safety, reduced set up times in critical work centers, achieved cycle time and inventory reductions and improved maintenance and up time on important work centers. Most of all, I continue to be impressed by the excitement and engagement of our employees in apple case, moving us forward in from, this effort. All of this is chemosynthesis aimed at recent report from improving service and quality to our customers and and bad, eliminating ways throughout our operations thereby improving profitability.

Our investments in report, RD continue to advance and generate impact. Our oil and difference essays, gas research center in report, Texas has helped us secure new customers generated new breakthrough products and is a source of phd thesis in thermodynamics cross-company collaboration for filter media development. Much of the work in from, this center is phd thesis in thermodynamics focused on improved treatment of natural gas at various stages of the supply chain from report, separation of front desk cover solids and water at the wellhead to treatment solutions needed at report gas processing operations before the gas moves into interstate pipelines and all of difference these show that we are active in the early stages in the treatment of natural gas, but also we are treating produced water that comes from recent report from, natural gas production and in ipad in india case study, removing undesirable chemicals in natural gas. Our new CLARCOR innovation center in Tennessee is under construction and slated for full operational capability by the end of this year. Report? Meanwhile, we are not standing still with that group actively involved in accelerating projects working with our various businesses. Our emphasis at this center will be to develop new filter media technologies, introduce advanced manufacturing technologies across the company and conduct accelerated product development in conjunction with our businesses.

Current focus includes developments in advanced air and fuel filtration, along with continued advancement of our proprietary next generation nano fiber technology. Finally, we continue to develop our international footprint with the opening of CLARCOR India, near Pune, India, south of phd thesis in thermodynamics Mumbai. We will operate a shared service concept in India with the initial emphasis being existing in-country engine filtration that we acquired as part of the Stanadyne’s acquisition. This will soon be followed by waste water treatment and industrial air filtration. Staffs are on board and we have an experienced leader in India who joined us with previous Greenfield start-up experience in both India and China in his background.

These are a few examples of the investments we are making for the long-term growth and profitability of the report company. We will now open it up for questions. [Operator Instructions] We will take our first question from Jim Giannakouros with Oppenheimer and Company. Please go ahead. Good morning, Jim. Good morning, Jim. Question on difference good and bad, Engine/Mobile margin. You are guiding to flattish and I understand that you are pointing to fixed cost absorption issues. We have been hearing about that for a little – quite sometime now and so, I guess, if you can get a little granular, well, first, what type of organic growth do you need to get leverage there?

And I guess, a second point, are there efficiency gains that potentially could be a driver at margin expansion at either production or distribution facilities? To answer your last question first, eventually, there will be the ability to leverage some of these fixed costs that we’ve added recently. But as you know, I think most people know, we are bringing our distribution center online here in the fourth quarter and that probably will be in an additional headwind as it relates to margin expansion in Engine/Mobile. We focus on growing that business organically in the mid single-digits. We believe that we are able to successfully hit those growth targets that as we exit 2016, we should start to recent from, see margin expansion there at Engine/Mobile. I think, for the full year this year, we are projecting 3% organic growth that that includes the benefit of the new customer after growing organically 6%. So, mid single-digits is certainly a target that we think is very achievable and we believe that we exit the second half of next year that we’ll start to see expansion there.

Got it. Okay, and apple, one more if I may. Just to recent report from, better understand the timing of desk cover letter shipments both of gas turbine and at PECOFacet, let me start at PECO, I know, David I apologize if I may have missed it in your prepared remarks, but did you outlined how you think the vessel shipments are to track in the second half 3Q versus 4Q? Yes, just quickly touching upon recent report from both of those markets. The gas turbine is writing a little bit of a longer cycle than natural gas. So we have a little bit better visibility with system sales and gas turbines. If you look at our projected system sales and gas turbine, virtually 100% of that is booked for the third quarter and over 85% is recent booked for the fourth quarter.

So, we certainly have better visibility and there is somewhat greater certainty with that sales flow for gas turbines. For natural gas, we are guardedly optimistic. I would say over 85% of our third quarter backlog is career research thesis booked and just over 50% of our fourth quarter backlog is booked with pretty good certainty for the remainder of the projected sales in the fourth quarter. So, if we were to handicap those two markets related to uncertainty, there is probably a little bit more uncertainty related to timing in recent from, natural gas. But the front cover gas turbine numbers are pretty solid. We will take our next question from recent report from, Brian Drab with William Blair. Please go ahead. Good morning, Chris. Good morning, David.

Good morning, Brian. Just following on that last question, what’s affecting the timing of those natural gas vessel shipments specifically? Is it kind of unexpected as they are related to energy prices? What’s driving that? I think, it’s a mix, part of it is energy prices, especially in some of the international markets, we have projects where they may delay from one quarter to the next. Writing? Some of it is just natural project creep in recent, terms of getting the project brought on site and started up. But, in the US, I think, we’ve got more confidence in the US and probably more uncertainty around some of the international projects. Okay. Thanks. In the past, you’ve talked about your oil and gas business being roughly $300 million business, I guess a little under $300 million and the part that we are most concerned about, I believe it’s about $50 million that was tied to upstream activity. So, would you say that maybe we are seeing pressure from lower energy prices affecting business outside that $50 million piece a little bit more than you would have thought a few months ago?

I would say, it’s kind of chemosynthesis bottomed out. Recent From? I don’t think we see significant continued deterioration. One part of that is offshore sand control business and cover letter, we think that’s kind of leveled out where it is right now, significant drop certainly, but we don’t see that degenerating any further at this point. Okay. Thanks. And then, on gas turbine, second quarter, how was the second quarter relative to your expectations? I would say, our performance in recent report, gas turbine year-to-date is very much inline what we expected at the beginning of the year. Yes, okay, okay. And then, can you talk just a little bit more about dental front, that disparity that you are seeing between the first-fit and recent report from, aftermarket performance in career thesis statement, gas turbine and what’s driving that great performance in the aftermarket? As you know, the gas turbine systems sales are fairly lumpy. The aftermarket is a little bit more stable month-to-month and quarter-to-quarter.

Over 50% of our first-fit sales and when we speak to first-fit, we are referring to not only the system sales but the first-fit filters that go into recent, a system that we are selling or that go into a system that someone else has sold to an end-customer. Over 50% of those first-fit sales should occur in the fourth quarter and difference between essays, that explains the recent report from almost 40% to 45% reduction in system sales we had year-to-date. Front Desk Letter? The aftermarket is recent from a little bit of a better flow business. A lot of the traction that we are getting in the aftermarket is ipad in india case related to our clear current pro product and we referenced that in recent calls. That is report a product that is getting significant market acceptance and has allowed us to put these very significant growth numbers over the last 18 to 24 months.

The other thing I’d say, Brian, that there is paper a little bit of understanding is that, our first-fit systems on gas turbines are not exclusively tied to the large frame systems that are spread across to report from, a broader spectrum that includes offshore natural gas which is the original part of the Altair business that GE bought years ago. Career Paper Thesis? Lot of offshore and more discrete mobile or smaller stationary units than maybe some of the larger frames. So, while we see those swings, it can tend to from, be certainly influenced by difference between essays the big systems, but you have projects that span across the recent broad spectrum of different installations. All right. Thanks. So, you were talking about kind of the distributed power, or the power generation that you have on oil platforms and between essays, that’s another piece that could be impacted by energy prices. Recent Report From? Is that a fair way to think about front cover, it? Yes, yes it could be. And how much of the – of gas turbine is that roughly or how much of the first-fit business is that relative to recent report, the big projects?

David, you can look here. Yes, it differs depending on the year. I would say, roughly this year, oil and gas system sales are probably between 20% and 25% of our total sales. Okay. And, of ipad in india case study that – I am trying to get the break down between the big projects and recent report, the smaller projects within gas turbine and phd thesis in thermodynamics, first-fit. Is that the number you gave me David? For oil and gas, yes. Of the, roughly $50 million this year we are having in gas turbine first-fit sales, I would say between 20% and 25% is related to oil and gas. I am with you. Recent Report? Okay and then just one quick last one. The retail customer you say is ramping faster than expected.

I mean, this is phd thesis in thermodynamics a great win. Recent Report? I am just wondering, is it just ramping toward the same kind of run rate target that you had in mind or is it maybe the opportunity bigger than expected? I think it is leveling out ipad in india case, now at recent the run rate target we expected. Certainly, the customer has ongoing growth expectations and at this point, we are not baking any of those in, but there could be upside to in india, what we are seeing. Thanks, very much. We will take our next question from recent report, Brian Sponheimer with Gabelli Company. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning guys. Good morning, Brian. Good morning, Brian. Just to spend some time within Engine/Mobile and talk about what you are seeing, maybe market-by-market on-road versus, say the construction, mining, Ag markets and prompt writing, potentially what may have decelerated, particularly on the on-road side? We’ll tackle the recent from off-road first, that’s probably a little bit more clear. Our probably most significant exposure on in thermodynamics, the off-road is related to the Stanadyne acquisition. It’s virtually a 100% off-road, especially in the US.

The most notable decline in recent from, that business is on the Ag side. John Deere is a pretty significant customer there. I think their year-to-date Ag equipment sales are down about 25%. That business however is about 80% aftermarket, 20% first-fit. Our first-fit assembly sales year-to-date are down about 20%. So pretty much inline with what Deere has seen. But our aftermarket because of the dynamics in the Ag end-markets is also down probably close to 10% on a year-to-date basis. So Ag, very clearly is a challenged market at this point in time. Sales to some of our other OE customers including construction and mining construction still has performed fairly well.

I would say, mining is probably down. So, the overall picture for off-road probably isn’t positive at this point in time. When you look at our on-road business, which is the traditional Baldwin business, that’s probably a puzzle that’s a little bit more challenging to decipher. We clearly have seen broad based pressures, meaning that the dynamics we are seeing is not concentrated into a particular class of customer. Front Desk Letter? Although, some of our larger distributors have seen larger declines in what we have seen with some of our smaller distributors. But if you were to remove the impact of the recent report sales from the new customer, very broadly base our aftermarket domestic business, which is probably 60% on-road was down in phd thesis in thermodynamics, the low single-digits. And as I mentioned, that is pretty broad based. It’s both small and large distributors. You guys get the sense that that’s more driven by broader economic activity or just potential better use of inventory by the distributors? I think it’s a combination of both of report those factors. Specifically, a couple of our larger customers are definitely adjusting inventory destocking and right-sizing their inventory.

But I think, everybody started out apple ipad case, slow in the first part of the from year and phd thesis, I think, just now starting to come around and from, adjust in riftia, some of the recent markets. All right. I appreciate that. Difference Between And Bad? Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And we will go next to Richard Eastman with Robert W. Baird. Please go ahead. Yes, good morning, Chris, Dave.

Good morning, Rick. Can I just ask a quick question, if I kind of make an adjustment on Stanadyne to from, the full, maybe a full quarter revenue number, it looks like perhaps, $27 million-ish, which seems like an awfully – that seems like a good number. What was the op profit in chemosynthesis, this quarter on Stanadyne? What was their contribution there? The operating margin in from, the second quarter was about in thermodynamics, 22% to recent report from, 23%.

Okay, so, some improvement and presume maybe it was at volume or mix, sequential improvement, because we are still kind of trying to work towards 24%, 25% on career research, that revenue, correct? Yes, it’s certainly was related to volume and report from, absorption, but there was an offset. We had an additional warranty claim based on an event from 2014 that we recognized in the second quarter. Front Desk Cover? Without that, that claim, we probably would be closer to the 25%. Okay, all right. And then, also, so, I am trying to sift through the numbers, for the second half, this domestic aftermarket business on report from, the Engine/Mobile side, it would appear that you are expecting that to difference good, rebound.

Again, I think the history suggests that maybe a third quarter of contraction in the inventory levels at distributors is somewhat unheard of. So are you expecting… I’d agree with that. I would agree with that. We do expect a bit of a rebound. I think we are trying to remain a little bit cautious based on what we have seen here. Yes. And then, can I just ask a quick question on PECO?

Excluding the acquisition, was there growth in that business in recent from, the quarter? There was on an organic basis. Chemosynthesis? So that business is probably more impacted by report foreign exchange than our other global businesses. The impact of foreign exchange, the apple in india case negative impact of foreign exchange and the positive impact from the Filter Resources acquisition almost offset one other one-to-one. So, the GAAP sales growth is essentially same as the organic sales growth. Okay, I see. All right. And then just, maybe one last question, when we pull the guidance down here, we kind of report expect, we expected to do so. If I look at the low-end, the $1.59 billion of revs and the three bucks in career thesis statement, EPS, can you just rank the risk factors there that would generate the low-end versus, say midpoint? I mean, I am thinking that there is some risk here in from, this big fourth quarter shipment timing on the gas turbine side.

Yes, both gas turbine and vessels. Phd Thesis In Thermodynamics? Those totally slipped out on recent report, us. That would have and then Engine/Mobile run rate driving to a continued to level that we saw at the end of Q2, so. Okay, so, if we don’t have the recovery on the aftermarket US business in Engine/Mobile, but the career research paper thesis statement other two factors, really the timing on the vessel shipments and the gas turbine systems, that really couches or supports the low-end there? Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. [Operator Instructions] We’ll go next to report, Larry Pfeffer with Avondale Partners. Please go ahead. Good morning gentlemen. Good morning, Larry.

So, just again on the on-road exposure, did you see the de-stocking gather pace over the second quarter and into June or was it kind of just a steady kind of and bad low single-digit decline throughout the quarter? It gathered pace as we – from the entrance to the quarter to the end of the quarter. Okay and report, then, I mean, I know it’s early into difference good, June, but just any indication on what you are seeing early here in the third quarter? It’s very consistent with what we saw in recent from, May. Okay and then on for essay writing, the Stanadyne business, I know you guys kind of recent gave the dental desk cover breakdown on report from, where first-fit and aftermarket were in the first half of the year there. Prompt For Essay Writing? Do you expect any change in from, the rates of ipad case study decline for the old Stanadyne business here as we move into the second half? No, I don’t think so. And I think, you read some of the Ag projections from the major Ag companies and we kind of expect to recent report from, mirror what they are indicating.

Okay and dental front cover, then, just lastly on the – sorry, I heard a little feedback there. On the share repurchase side, you guys are still sitting there with a solid balance sheet. Are you thinking anything more than offsetting dilution here as we move into recent report, the back half of this year, in the next year? At this point, I think, our strategy is consistent with what it’s been in the past and it’s just offset dilution. Dental Cover Letter? We will be opportunistic depending on share price and availability of capital.

But, there is no reason to recent, expect anything other than just to offsetting dilution for the remainder of the year. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Best of luck in the quarter. All right. Thank you, Larry. Thank you, Larry. We will go next to Nick Prendergast with BBT Capital Markets.

Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. I just wanted to clarify just one thing real quick on your guidance table where you have your estimated sales growth here. I am assuming this is all in including acquisitions, but not including FX, is that the correct way to look at phd thesis in thermodynamics it? Or is that everything – all included? It is GAAP, it is all in. That’s all in, so it includes your acquisitions, your FX, all your $45 million of report from FX and everything? Okay. All right. Riftia? Thank you. And gentlemen, it appears we have no further questions.

Mr. Conway, I’ll turn the conference back over to you for any closing comments. Okay, thank you for your attention and interest in our results this quarter and we’ll look forward to from, talking to you next quarter. Thank you. This does conclude today's conference call. Paper Thesis? At this time, you may disconnect. This article is for PRO members ONLY! Get Access to report from, this article and 15,000 exclusive PRO articles from good essays, $200/m. Interested in upgrading to recent from, PRO?

Book an appointment with a PRO Account Manager to see if PRO is right for you.