text:
< Return To Hearing
Mr. Frank Bowman
Professor of Law Blakely v. Washington and the Federal Sentencing System I am grateful to the Committee for the opportunity to testify today regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's very recent decision in Blakely v. Washington and its effect on the federal sentencing system. My testimony will address four questions: (1) Does Blakely v. Washington apply to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? (2) Should Congress take any immediate legislative action in response to the Blakely decision? (3) If Congress acts in the near term, what sensible options are available to it? (4) Regardless of whether Congress acts in the near term, should the Blakely decision act as a catalyst for a thorough re-evaluation of the state of federal sentencing? I. The Effect of Blakely v. Washington on the Federal Sentencing System A detailed analysis of the Supreme Court's opinion in Blakely v. Washington, __ U.S. __, 2004 WL 1402697 (June 24, 2004), is beyond the scope of this testimony. In summary, the case involved a challenge to the Washington state sentencing guidelines. In Washington, a defendant's conviction of a felony produces two immediate sentencing consequences -- first, the conviction makes the defendant legally subject to a sentence within the upper boundary set by the statutory maximum sentence for the crime of conviction, and second, the conviction places the defendant in a presumptive sentencing range set by the state sentencing guidelines. This range will be within the statutory minimum and maximum sentences. Under the Washington state sentencing guidelines, a judge is obliged (or at least entitled) to adjust this range upward, but not beyond the statutory maximum, upon a post-conviction judicial finding of additional facts. For example, Blakely was convicted of second degree kidnapping with a firearm, a crime that carried a statutory maximum sentence of ten years. The fact of conviction generated a "standard range" of 49-53 months; however, the judge found that Blakely had committed the crime with "deliberate cruelty," a statutorily enumerated factor that permits imposition of a sentence above the standard range, and imposed a sentence of 90 months. The Supreme Court found that imposition of the enhanced sentence violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. In reaching its result, the Court relied on a rule it first announced four years ago in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000): "Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." In the years since Apprendi, many observers (including myself) assumed that Apprendi's rule applied only if a post-conviction judicial finding of fact could raise the defendant's sentence higher than the maximum sentence allowable by statute for the underlying offense of conviction. For example, in Apprendi itself, the maximum statutory sentence for the crime of which Apprendi was convicted was ten years, but under New Jersey law the judge was allowed to raise that sentence to twenty years if, after the trial or plea, he found that the defendant's motive in committing the offense was racial animus. The Supreme Court held that increasing Apprendi's sentence beyond the ten-year statutory maximum based on a post-conviction judicial finding of fact was unconstitutional. In Blakely, however, the Court found that the Sixth Amendment can be violated even by a sentence below what we have always before thought of as the statutory maximum. Henceforward, "the 'statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant." Blakely v. Washington, supra (Opinion of Justice Scalia; emphasis in original). Accordingly, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines seem to fall within the Blakely rule. A defendant convicted of a federal offense is nominally subject to any sentence below the statutory maximum; however, the actual sentence which a judge may impose can only be ascertained after a series of post-conviction findings of fact. The maximum guideline sentence applicable to a defendant increases as the judge finds more facts triggering upward adjustments of the defendant's offense level. In their essentials, therefore, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are indistinguishable from the Washington guidelines struck down by the Court. Thus, although the Court reserved ruling on the application of its opinion to the Guidelines, there seems little question that it does impact the Guidelines. This basic assessment seems to be born out by the actions of federal district and appellate courts over the last two weeks. As related in illuminating detail in the written testimony of Judge Paul Cassell for the morning's hearing, and as documented on an up-to-the-minute basis on Professor Doug Berman's marvelous website, http://sentencing.typepad.com, it appears that every federal district judge who has ruled so far has held Blakely applicable to the federal sentencing guidelines, rendering them either facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as heretofore applied. The consensus on the applicability of Blakely to federal sentencing was joined last Friday by the Seventh Circuit. United States v. Booker, __ F.3d __, No. 03-4225 (7th Cir. July 9, 2004), slip op. at 10. Unfortunately, although there seems to be wide agreement that Blakely applies to the federal system, there is no agreement whatever on how to apply it. In the last two weeks, federal sentencings all over the country have stopped or been postponed while courts and litigants assess the situation. As judges begin to rule, they face three basic options: (a) find that Blakely does not apply to the federal sentencing guidelines and proceed as though nothing has happened; (b) find that the Sentencing Guidelines survive, but that each guideline factor which produces an increase in sentencing range above the base offense level triggered by conviction of the underlying offense is now an "element" that must be pled and proven to a jury or agreed to as part of the plea; or (c) find that the Guidelines are facially unconstitutional, in which case judges can sentence anywhere within the statutory minimum and minimum sentences of the crime(s) of conviction. Consider these options and their practical consequences: (a) Blakely does not apply to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: So far, the only federal judge to articulate this position in writing has been Seventh Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook, dissenting from Judge Richard Posner's opinion holding Blakely applicable to the guidelines. United States v. Booker, __ F.3d __, No. 03-4225 (7th Cir. July 9, 2004). Of the district court judges who have so far issued opinions addressing the Blakely's impact on the Guidelines, none has found that Blakely does not apply. (b) Blakely transforms the Guidelines into a part of the federal criminal code: The second possibility is that the guidelines remain constitutional as a set of sentencing rules, but that the facts necessary to apply the rules must be found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or be agreed to by the defendant as a condition of his or her plea. In effect, all Guidelines rules whose application would increase a defendant's sentencing range would be treated as "elements" of a crime for purposes of indictment, trial, and plea. If this approach is adopted, it has different effects on two classes of cases: (1) those who have already been convicted by trial or plea, and (2) those who have not yet been convicted. For those in the first category, treating the Guidelines as elements of the offense will, in many cases, produce sentencing windfalls. If guidelines enhancements are elements requiring a jury verdict or a defendant admission, judges cannot apply guidelines provisions -- such as those involving role in the offense, loss amount in fraud cases, drug amounts greater than those triggering mandatory minimums, vulnerable victim enhancements, and a host of others - that were not decided by a jury or admitted by the defendant himself as part of the plea. During the last week, several district court judges have used essentially this approach to reduce the sentences of convicted defendants whose cases were awaiting sentencing or pending appeal. For cases in the second category, those where guilt has not yet been adjudicated, the problems are far more vexing. If Guidelines adjustments were henceforward to be treated as elements of a crime to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, a host of new rules and procedures would have to be devised. At this point, no one has fully mapped out all the modifications that would be required; however, the list would seem to include at least the following: ? The government would presumably have to include all guidelines elements in the indictment. However, this is not certain. Perhaps guidelines enhancements sought by the prosecution could be enumerated in separate sentencing informations; but if so, such a procedure would presumably have to be authorized by statute and might not pass constitutional muster. The prospect of redesigning pleading rules, discovery and motions practice, evidentiary presentations, jury instructions, and jury deliberations to accommodate the manifold complexities of the Guidelines should give any practical lawyer pause. It is doubtful that judges alone could effect the transformation. Legislation and Sentencing Commission action would almost certainly be required to modify the Sentencing Reform Act, the Guidelines, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to accommodate the new constitutional model, a process that would take months or years to accomplish. In the interim, uncertainty would be endemic. A second consequence of treating all Guidelines sentencing enhancements as elements would be to markedly alter the plea bargaining environment. This reading of Blakely would transform every possible combination of statutory elements and guidelines sentencing elements into a separate "crime" for Sixth Amendment purposes. This has two consequences for plea bargaining: (a) As a procedural matter, each Guidelines factor that generates an increase in sentencing range would have to be stipulated to as part of a plea agreement before a defendant could be subject to the enhancement. (b) More importantly, negotiation between the parties over sentencing facts would no longer be "fact bargaining," but would become charge bargaining. Because charge bargaining is the historical province of the executive branch, the government would legally free to negotiate every sentencing-enhancing fact, effectively dictating whatever sentence the government thought best within the broad limits set by the interaction of the evidence and the Guidelines. The government would no longer have any obligation to inform the court of all the relevant sentencing facts and the only power the court would have over the negotiated outcome would be the extraordinary (and extraordinarily rarely used) remedy of rejecting the plea altogether. A plea bargaining system that operated in this way might benefit some defendants with particularly able counsel practicing in districts with particularly malleable prosecutors. On the other hand, making sentencing factor bargaining legitimate would dramatically increase the leverage of prosecutors over individual defendants and the sentencing process as a whole, leading to worse results for some individual defendants and a general systemic tilt in favor of prosecutorial power. In any case, any benefit to defendants would inevitably be uneven, varying widely from district to district and case to case. To the extent that the Guidelines have made any gains in reducing unjustifiable disparity, a system in which all sentencing factors can be freely negotiated would surely destroy those gains. (Prevention of this outcome was, after all, the point of the Guidelines' "relevant conduct" rules, see U.S.S.G. §1B1.3.) It might be suggested that the Justice Department's own internal policies regarding charging and accepting pleas to only the most serious readily provable offense would protect against disparity; however, the experience of the last decade, during which variants of the same policy have always been in place, strongly suggests that local U.S. Attorney's Offices cannot be meaningfully restrained by Main Justice from adopting locally convenient plea bargaining practices. Once previously illegitimate "fact bargaining" becomes legally permissible charge bargaining, no amount of haranguing from Washington will prevent progressively increasing local divergence from national norms. Ironically, if Blakely were ultimately determined to require (or at least permit) the Guidelines to be transformed into a set of "elements" to be proven to a jury or negotiated by the parties, the effect would be to markedly reduce judicial control over the entire federal sentencing process. Not only would district court judges be stripped of the power to determine sentencing facts and apply the Guidelines to their findings, but appellate courts would be stripped of any power of review. Neither jury findings of fact nor the terms of a negotiated plea are subject to appellate review in any but the rarest instances. Thus, the interpretation of Blakely discussed here would have the perverse effect of exacerbating one of the central judicial complaints about the current federal sentencing system - the increase of prosecutorial control over sentencing outcomes at the expense of the judiciary. (c) Blakely renders the Federal Sentencing Guidelines facially unconstitutional: The third reading of Blakely open to judges is that it renders the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in their present form facially unconstitutional, at least within the current framework of procedural rules governing criminal trials, sentencings, and appeals. Several district court judges have issued rulings to this effect, including an elegant and persuasive opinion by Judge Paul Cassell who is appearing before you today. I think Judge Cassell is right and that the Supreme Court is likely to agree. Blakely appears to require this result. Blakely finds it unconstitutional for the maximum sentence to which a defendant is exposed based purely on the facts found by a jury or admitted in a plea agreement to be increased based on post-conviction judicial findings of fact. The linchpin of the entire federal sentencing guidelines system is precisely such post-conviction judicial findings. The Guidelines model has three basic components: (1) post-conviction findings of fact by district court judges; (2) application of Guidelines rules to those findings by district court judges; and (3) appellate review of the actions of the district court. Both the Guidelines themselves and important components of statutes enabling and governing the Guidelines were written to effectuate this model. Although it is intellectually possible to isolate the Guidelines rules from the web of trial court decisions and appellate review procedures within which the rules were designed to operate, doing so does such violence to the language, legislative history, and fundamental conception of the Guidelines structure that one could save them only by transforming them by judicial fiat into something that neither the Sentencing Commission nor Congress ever contemplated that they would become. It is certainly true that when construing statutes facing constitutional objections that courts will attempt to save so much of the statute as can be saved consistent with the constitution. On the other hand, if the reading of a statute required to render it constitutional transforms the statute into something entirely at odds with its original design and conception, courts may properly strike down the statute in its entirety. Not only does the reasoning and language of Blakely seem to require invalidation of the Guidelines, but the real world effects of the alternative Guidelines-as-elements interpretation outlined in the previous section will give thoughtful judges reason to shy away from it. Not only would such a system be remarkably ungainly, but far more importantly, it would, as noted, exacerbate those features of the current system that federal judges find most galling. If the only options facing the Court were (a) preserving a simulacrum of the Guidelines system that would make the features judges now find most objectionable even worse, or (b) striking the system down in its entirety and starting anew, it is hard to imagine that a majority of the justices would not strike down the system given a plausible constitutional argument for doing so. Thus, while the Supreme Court could adopt a saving interpretation of the Guidelines which transformed them into elements of a new set of guidelines crimes, the Court could, without any violence to ordinary principles of constitutional adjudication, just as easily find the whole structure invalid. If the Court finds the Guidelines as a whole unconstitutional, a different form of uncertainty would result. Presumably, district judges would then be free to sentence defendants anywhere within the statutory minimum and maximum sentences applicable to the offense(s) of conviction. Some judges might view the Sentencing Guidelines as being advisory and might continue to make factual findings called for by the Guidelines in order to aid them in using the Guidelines to guide their sentencing discretion. Other judges might conclude that the Guidelines, being unconstitutional, were of no further use to the judiciary. Some have characterized this eventuality as a return to the legal regime that predated the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. However, it would differ in at least one critical respect. Prior to the SRA and the Guidelines, federal parole authorities exercised substantial authority over actual release dates of convicted prisoners. Their parole guidelines and discretionary judgments often had the salutary effect of evening out inter-judge sentencing disparities and reducing unreasonably high judicial sentences to more reasonable levels. This backstop on judicial sentencing authority would no longer be in place if the Guidelines were simply cast aside. II. Should Congress Take Action in the Short Term? Although, as discussed below, I have advanced a proposal for a legislative response to Blakely, there exists a real and substantial question about whether Congress should take any action in the near term. 1. The argument for legislating The argument for taking some immediate action is straightforward. The Supreme Court has issued a decision that almost certainly renders the Federal Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional, at least as now written and applied. However, the Court neither addressed the federal system in particular, nor gave any general guidance about how its opinion should be applied in the courts. Consequently, the federal criminal justice system is in a state of turmoil from which it is unlikely to emerge even after the Supreme Court adjudicates the applicability of Blakely to the Guidelines. Consequently, it would be desirable for Congress to pass legislation that would restore order to the federal sentencing process, at least while more permanent and fundamental reforms are considered. 2. The arguments against legislating The arguments against taking prompt legislative action sound five basic themes, which I have labeled (a bit facetiously) as follows: a. "Wait for the Supreme Court." The first instinct of most of us before seeking legislation in response to Blakely is to look to the Supreme Court for additional guidance on two critical points: Are the Sentencing Guidelines constitutional under Blakely? If not, how can we fix the system to make it constitutional? The difficulty is that the Court will not tell us the answer to the first question for months, perhaps many months, even though the answer seems reasonably clear. The bigger difficulty is that if the Court does the expected and declares the Guidelines unconstitutional facially or as applied, the Court will probably not tell us very much about how to fix the problem. In which case, we will be in very much the same fix we are now. b. "Don't worry. We've got everything under control." At least some folks have been heard to suggest that Blakely just isn't that big a practical problem. That the Department of Justice and the courts will, in short order, work out procedures that bring the existing sentencing regime into conformity with Blakely and everything will soon be just fine. While I yield to no one in my respect for the problem-solving capabilities of the Justice Department and the federal bench and bar, this diagnosis seems unduly sanguine. Judge Cassell and others are surely right that the federal system is not in "chaos," at least if chaos means either utter paralysis or the absence of any thoughtful problem-solving, but even a cursory reading of Judge Cassell's testimony or Professor Berman's website shows a justice system in profound disarray. Any system in which judges are routinely issuing two, or even three, alternative sentences in a single case has big troubles. And the issues so far encountered have been mostly confined to dealing with cases where defendants have already been found guilty. The really tough problems will start to unfold as the system tries to make Blakely and the Guidelines co-exist in grand jury, discovery, trial, and appellate practice. Whatever the official organs may say, the front line actors I have talked to recognize that no one has any clear idea how to proceed, and that even intelligent efforts to craft constitutionally acceptable procedures are quite likely to prove either constitutionally unacceptable or practically unworkable in the end. c. "Let 100 flowers bloom." The third school of thought is more realistic in that it does not pretend that achieving post-Blakely stability will necessarily be easy or quick. Rather, folks in this school tend to think the current sentencing system is badly flawed and that permitting a period of legal uncertainty would allow the collective talents of judges and lawyers to fashion new ad hoc sentencing models that would advance the general project of sentencing reform. The idea here is that sentencing policymakers would profit from studying the solutions arrived at in the field as they strive to apply Blakely and replace the current Guidelines model with something better. I confess to some sympathy with this approach. I agree that the current federal sentencing system needs significant reform. As an academic, I think it would be intellectually interesting to see what judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel would do given the chance. I don't doubt that policymakers and their advisors would surely find valuable the many interesting solutions to the variety of problems created by Blakely that would doubtless emerge. The difficulty is that those solutions would inevitably vary from judge to judge, district to district, circuit to circuit, and week to week. Only some of the solutions would ultimately survive constitutional challenge and all the cases applying the ones that didn't would have to be re-sentenced. Therefore, as a practical lawyer, I recoil from consciously turning the federal criminal system into a social science experiment. d. "Don't make a bad situation worse." Some are concerned that legislating hastily risks creating even more problems than letting the system try to figure things out on an ad hoc basis. I agree entirely. Even uncertainty would be better than legislating a solution that would make the current situation worse. As I will discuss below, I believe that several of the proposed legislative solutions, notably the "Kansas plan" endorsed by the Federal Defenders, have that effect. However, at least two of the proposed legislative alternatives - making the guidelines advisory for a set period, and the proposal outlined below to raise the top of guideline ranges to the statutory maximum. e. "Don't waste the moment." A good deal of the opposition to any early legislation stems from a widespread feeling that the current sentencing system is badly flawed, but astoundingly resistant to change, and that the Blakely opinion represents a long-sought opportunity to fundamentally restructure the system. Those who seek such reform worry that any "temporary" legislative solution to the Blakely problem would, if constitutionally sound, tend to become permanent, thus delaying much-needed reform for years. I share this desire for reform, and the worry that the legislation I have suggested below will at least delay it. However, two considerations give me some assurance that in advancing this proposal I am not doing a disservice. First, I think the just and equitable operation of the federal criminal justice system requires stability and predictability, which it will not attain for at least several years without some legislative action. Second, I think those worried that an opportunity may be lost overestimate the transience of the political moment. I venture to predict that Blakely is the beginning of the end of the guidelines in their current form and that, if Congress, the Sentencing Commission, the Justice Department, and others do not move reasonably expeditiously in a cooperative and professional way to make necessary changes, subsequent judicial decisions will force change upon us. My objective is to help, in a small way, to create an orderly process for desirable change. Therefore, taking everything into consideration and being acutely conscious that I may be dead wrong, I conclude that some legislative action is probably desirable. Absent congressional action, in the near term, the federal courts will continue in turmoil as judges try to negotiate the labyrinth created by Blakely. In the longer term, absent congressional action, either the Guidelines will be transformed by judicial decisions into an unwieldy annex to the criminal code, augmenting the power of prosecutors and decreasing the authority of judges, or more likely the whole structure will be invalidated as unconstitutional and the process of creating a federal sentencing system would have to begin anew. Such a process carries great risks for all those interested in federal sentencing. For Congress and the Sentencing Commission, seventeen years of work would be nullified. For prosecutors, the Guidelines have been a boon; acceding by inaction to the collapse of the current structure with no guarantee of what might replace it would present, at the least, a tremendous gamble. Even those who have no investment in the Guidelines and every interest in radical reform should be very concerned that any replacement could be even more punitive and more restrictive of judicial discretion than the Guidelines themselves. III. What Legislative Options Does Congress Have? If Congress wishes to act in the near term, it should only seriously consider legislation that meets four basic criteria: ? First, it has to be simple. Simple to write into statute, simple to understand. If we can't come up with an interim solution that meets all these criteria pretty well, we're probably better off doing nothing. Thus far, three basic legislative options have been suggested: A. Make the Guidelines advisory for a time certain This option will be ably discussed by Ron Weich. I will not expand upon it here other than to say that it seems to meet all four criteria listed above. It is simple. It's effect on the sentencing system (if not on individual cases) is easily predictable. It would solve the short-term litigation crisis by removing the taint of uncertainty that now attends every sentencing proceeding. Finally, and critically, it would be easy to implement. Because guidelines enhancements would no longer have a necessary effect on a defendant's sentence, Blakely would not be implicated and there would be no need to redesign the entire plea, trial, and sentencing process to ram the round peg of the Guidelines into the square hole of Blakely. The objections to this proposal will doubtless be articulated by others. For myself, I think there is a great deal to be said for a period of advisory guidelines. Indeed, if politically possible, it seems to me a desirable and perhaps the best interim solution. B. Raise the top of Guideline ranges to statutory maxima Assuming that one is unwilling to confer increased sentencing discretion on judges, even for a short and experimental period, I believe that the Guidelines structure can be preserved essentially unchanged with a simple modification - amend the sentencing ranges on the Chapter 5 Sentencing Table to increase the top of each guideline range to the statutory maximum of the offense(s) of conviction. As written, Blakely necessarily affects only cases in which post-conviction judicial findings of fact mandate or authorize an increase in the maximum of the otherwise applicable sentencing range. To the extent that Blakely itself may be ambiguous on the point, the Supreme Court expressly held in McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 89-90 (1986), and reaffirmed in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406 (June 24, 2002), that a post-conviction judicial finding of fact could raise the minimum sentence, so long as that minimum was itself within the legislatively authorized statutory maximum. It bears emphasis that Harris was decided only two years ago, and was decided after Apprendi and on the very same day as Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (June 24, 2002), the case whose reading of Apprendi Justice Scalia found so important in his Blakely opinion. Thus, the change I suggest would render the federal sentencing guidelines entirely constitutional under Blakely and Harris. This proposal could not be effected without an amendment of the Sentencing Reform Act because it would fall afoul of the so-called "25% rule," 28 U.S.C. § 994(b)(2), which mandates that the top of any guideline range be no more than six months or 25% greater than its bottom. The ranges produced by this proposal would ordinarily violate that provision. I have attached to this testimony as an appendix an annotated version of statutory language that would effectuate this proposal. Detailed discussion of the proposal is contained in the annotations. In addition to raising the top of the guideline range, this proposal contains the following major features: 1. The proposed bill would direct the Sentencing Commission to enact a policy statement providing non-binding guidance to district courts that would read roughly as follows: (A) the typical case is a combination of offense and offender characteristics adequately represented by a sentencing range the maximum of which should not exceed the minimum by the greater of 25 percent or 6 months; 2. The bill would make any sentence above the guideline minimum appealable on an abuse of discretion standard. The fact that a judge imposed a sentence higher than that suggested by the policy statement for a typical case would be a factor in the determination of whether the judge had abused his or her discretion. The practical effect of such a bill would be to preserve current federal practice almost unchanged. Guidelines factors would not be elements. They could still constitutionally be determined by post-conviction judicial findings of fact. No modifications of pleading or trial practice would be required. The only theoretical difference would be that judges could sentence defendants above the top of the current guideline ranges without the formality of an upward departure. However, for the reasons discussed in more detail in the attached annotated version of the proposed bill, the likelihood that judges would use their newly granted discretion to increase the sentences of very many defendants above now-prevailing levels seems, at best, remote. C. The "Kansas Plan" The Federal Public Defenders and several other groups have expressed interest in attempting to amend federal law to convert Guideline factors into offense elements that must be pled and proven at trial, or admitted in a plea agreement. This suggestion is modeled on the approach taken by the State of Kansas when its court found state guidelines unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey. The same approach has sometimes been referred to as "Blakely-izing" the Guidelines. The most important thing to realize about any effort to "Blakely-ize" the Guidelines is that the Guidelines as now written cannot, as a practical matter, be administered through the vehicle of jury trials and detailed plea agreements. If commanded by statute to treat guidelines factors as elements, judges will work together with lawyers in their districts and will cobble together various arrangements and accommodations in an effort to make the system work. And in due course, sentencings will proceed again. But the effort to make the system work will inevitably require that some sections of the guidelines be ignored or tortured into unrecognizable shapes. Rules will have to be amended, some probably by Congress. Procedures will have to be altered. Some of the resulting arrangements may be better than the Guidelines system we have, some may be worse. But such arrangements will differ markedly from district to district and they will bear only a cousinly resemblance to the Guidelines system now in place. Perhaps the best way to summarize my views regarding the Kansas plan as interim legislation is that it fails every one of the conditions set out above for desirable near-term legislation. IV. Conclusion For reasons I hope to explain in more detail in my oral testimony, I do not see the problem created by the Blakely decision as a short-term glitch for a smooth-running federal criminal sentencing system. Rather, in my view at least, Blakely was decided because the federal sentencing system suffers from serious, long-term, structural problems. The question is not whether reform is needed, but how reform is to be accomplished. My preference is to enable the justice system to work smoothly while reform is crafted. It is to that end that I have offered my proposal and these remarks.
To amend title 18 and title 28, United States Code, with regard to sentencing and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO TITLES 18 AND 28, UNITED STATES CODE. (c) AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3742.C Section 3742 of title 18, United States Code is amended B SEC. 2. DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION. |


text:
St. Louis Rams
Johnny Hekker - #6 - P
Status | Active |
Height/Weight | 6' 5"/ 227 lbs. |
Birthday | 02/08/1990 |
Birthplace | Redmond, WA |
College | Oregon State |
Years played | 2 |
Brees, Tillman, Hekker named NFC Players of the Week
Saints QB Drew Brees, Bears CB Charles Tillman and Rams P Johnny Hekker were named the NFC's Players of the Week for Week Five.
Rams rookie kickers earning rave reviews
It appears Jeff Fisher's gamble that a pair of rookies could handle the Rams' starting PK and punting jobs is paying off so far.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We would all really love you forever if, once you've rooted yor milestone, if you'd be the best person in the universe and upload your Browser.apk somewhere so that we can enjoy the love of pinch and zoom multitouch plus an incredible browser.
To get the apk use the following commands:
adb shell
adb pull /system/app/Browser.apk
And that's it! Host that sucker up and let us partake in the best of both worlds!!
Thanks in advance.


text:
At first, I thought I had a chance.
A chance for glory. A chance to be the first runner, the first reporter to cross the finish line of the St. Peter's Fiesta 5K road race.
I peered at last year's results, saw the winning time of 15:51 and stepped out my apartment for a training run, determined to match it.
I ran flat out. My lungs screamed for me to stop but my legs sped forward. I'd been training for months, when a New Year's resolution got me running again. This 5K was going to be cake.
I snuck a peek at my watch. The analog letters read 16:12, 2.2 miles. Wait — 5 kilometers is 3.1 miles. I was a mile behind. Already, if this were the real race, I'd be toast.
A week later, when I stepped to the starting line behind hundreds of others, I felt relaxed. There was no reason to push forward; I could run comfortably.
This was my first St. Peter's Fiesta, my first summer in Gloucester and the first road race of my life. Why not enjoy it?
The horn sounded; I didn't move. I couldn't. Sweating bodies were packed like sardines into Commercial Street, slowly filtering down the road like sand crystals in a hourglass. The crawling start gave me time to scan our surroundings. Hey, it's not everyday you start a race packed at the edge of a carnival.
Finally, after several stalled seconds, my feet started moving. I saw an opening up ahead and went for it, desperate to reinflate my personal space bubble.
I squeezed between runners and cars and spectators and barely saw the upcoming stroller out of the corner of my eye. I twisted left to avoid it, but I felt my heel clip the wheel. An infant's cry rang out in the background. Bad start. I kept moving.
Nearing the half-way turnaround, I saw the leaders coming at us, only minutes ahead. I picked up the pace. The competition gripped me. Hope entered my mind again.
Then, a few steps after I made the turn, I saw a man jogging along and juggling three tennis balls without the slightest flinch. He couldn't have been more than a minute behind me, and he was "joggling." Talk about gaining some perspective. I slowed back down.
The race settled down. I relaxed once more. The runners dispersed. The fastest group flew out of sight, and I found my niche in the middle of the pack. That was where I found the true spirit of Fiesta.
I saw runners big and small, young and old. There were runners in bare feet and runners in stocking feet. Some ran with tunes and some ran on fumes. The diversity was unlike anything I'd seen at a sporting event.
It wasn't about winning; I had it wrong from the beginning. The race is only one part of the week-long celebration of St. Peter and Gloucester's fishermen. Hundreds of runners competed, but an even larger group stood on the sidelines to recognize tradition, heritage and a collective sense of pure happiness on a warm Gloucester evening.
Kids held self-made signs for their relatives and parents, adults in lawn chairs applauded from the grass and groups of helpful volunteers yelled encouraging words as they handed out cups of water.
Locals waved Italian flags from their homes and cars honked their horns as they passed by. From the sidewalk near one of the final turns, a man in a wheelchair yelled, "Come on guys, you can do it!"
None of these people ran the race. But there they were, cheering on strangers and supporting the community. They were all smiles — all playing their part in Fiesta.
I didn't look at my time as I crossed the finish; I passed the clock before I could make out the numbers. I was too busy looking around at all the excited faces packing the closing chute.
I found out later that I finished the race in 24:09 — 121st out of 454 runners and 8 minutes, 26 seconds behind the winner.
But it didn't matter. The importance of winning was lost. I had my own piece of Fiesta to cherish, and I know I'd be welcomed back if I decide to do it again.
Now, if only I could learn how to juggle ...
Cameron Kittle can be reached at email@example.com


text:
BeerAdvocate on your phone?! True story. Try the beta now.
Tickets for American Craft Beer Fest are on sale now! (May 30 & 31 in Boston, MA)
Vortex I - Pisgah Brewing Co.
Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse. |
Ratings: 168 | Reviews: 131 | Show All Ratings:
Reviews by mikeyv35:
New York
4.15/5 rDev +3.2%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4
Date: 06/12/2011
Vintage: 2009
Glass: DFH Chalice
Type: 22oz. Bottle
Pours a light brown mahoghany in color w/ a skim coat white head that produces light lacing. Aromas of caramel, toffee, oak, some dark fruits, and a touch of pine. The taste was caramel/toffee up front, leading into oak, and finishing w/ hop bitterness and basement mustiness. Medium bodied and creamy/lush as all Pisgah brews are. Pretty easy to drink, but will definately kick you in the rear end.
Overall, very good, but not what I expected at all. I realize I did not drink this fresh by any means, but stylistically this is without a doubt an American Barleywine.
Serving type: bottle
06-26-2011 21:42:10 | More by mikeyv35
More User Reviews:
4.14/5 rDev +3%
look: 3.75 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.25
Pours an amber brown body beneath the rich tan head which dissolves somewhat quickly but leaves a constant ring of lacing floating atop the body and clinging to the glass.
Wow, those are some fresh pungent hops as this was bottled on 9/30/13. Primarily consisting of pine and herbal or floral aromas. Its like the a lumberjack and a florist decided to brew a beer together. Burried in there as well is a nice biscuit or bread like malt which I am assuming has to be a pretty decent helping to off-set this hop monster.
The floral and pine hops just coat the palate through and through and similar to the aroma the biscuit like malt is sitting in the background, yet pleasantly apparent.
This is a tongue buckler all the way with a medium to fuller body and medium carbonation leading up to the robust bitter finish.
This is really a huge beer as the heartier hop profile backed by the generous organic malts packs into this chewy brew. Huge character, well put together and tons to tease the senses.
Serving type: bottle
11-18-2013 00:36:56 | More by CHADMC3
North Carolina
4.14/5 rDev +3%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 4.25 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 4
Bottled on 10/24/13.An Imperial IPA per label, as well as 9.2%ABV..Pours into an oversized wine glass a dull burnt orange infuse golden with a tightly formed white head atop.Aromas of caramel malts and tropical fruit-like hops,not much bitterness detected.A wave of tropical fruits coats the mouth on every sip of this beer,Iam not sure if I have had a beer with such a tropical element.Mango,peach,and overripe pineapple are dominant over top of a mildy sweet caramel base,the alcohol is there but not in your face.A great DIPA from Black Mountain,Iam gonna visit the brewery here in a few weeks,lookin forward to it.
Serving type: bottle
11-16-2013 23:57:50 | More by oberon
3.9/5 rDev -3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.75
Bomber > Chimay Glass
A - Pours a hazed amber color, half a finger of off white head, little lacing
S - Lots of unusual aroma, some oak, pine, pepper, some light grapefruit, very complex
T -Very woody and oak like, biscuit malt, caramels, rye, pepper, pine bitterness.
M - Sticky and lightly sweet.
O - Very complex, which I like, lots of really nice oak flavor, some good bitterness in part of a good hop portion.
Serving type: bottle
11-05-2013 01:50:28 | More by Omnium
3.89/5 rDev -3.2%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 4 | overall: 4
Bottled 8/20/13
Pours cloudy orange with some sediment. One finger white frothy head that has mediocre retention.
Smell is hop forward. Dominated by notes of pine with a little orange rind. Malt is mildly sweet and grainy but barley no taxable through all the hops.
Taste has lots of piney herbal notes and some moderate bitterness. Malt is light and grainy.
Mouthfeel is good, high carbonation and a medium to light body. Bitterness is mild but not as crazy as the bottle said.
Overall this was a decent ipa. Not mind blowing however It is mind blowing that the alcohol is not detectable what what so ever at 9.2%
Serving type: bottle
10-04-2013 01:09:11 | More by Fcolle2
North Carolina
3.76/5 rDev -6.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 3.75
bomber into teku glass. 8/20/13 bottling date.
pours a hazy yellow color with a nice head. smell is of caramel and hops and a bunch of other aromas I can't identify. taste is very sweet up front and then very bitter with grapefruit and pine. hoppy but not too hoppy. weird mix honestly. average drinkability. medium bodied with mild carbonation.
overall its interesting. form your own opinion about this one.
Serving type: bottle
08-28-2013 21:48:17 | More by Axnjxn
South Carolina
4.11/5 rDev +2.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 4.25 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 4
22 oz bottle poured into a tulip at cellar temperature.
L – Hazy medium amber color with a 1-finger cream-colored, bubbly head. Pretty nice retention with spots of lace.
S – Caramel malt with a nice bouquet of orange, grapefruit, pineapple, and resinous pine hops. There's a bit of booze in here, too, but not in an off-putting way.
T – It starts off sweet with bready, caramel malt and then the hops come roaring in with orange and pineapple bittersweetness, followed by grapefruit and resinous pine. The deep resinous flavor gives off a touch of an oniony character, but I'm not opposed to that at all. Very balanced for a DIPA.
F – Medium-to-full-bodied, decent carbonation, a sticky, creamy, and chewy mouthfeel, and a mildly sweet, very bitter, and very dry finish. Dry and bitter hops with mostly grapefruit and pine notes linger for a while. There's a bit of throat-warmth from the alcohol, but not nearly as much as you would think from a beer of this magnitude.
O – This is a nice DIPA. I'm not going to lie, I expected a bit more of a hop-bomb from Pisgah, but I should've known better. Each of their brews that I've had has been so beautifully crafted and well-balanced (including their single IPA) that it only made sense that their DIPA would be the same way. Even though the label says DIPA, I may have to lean a bit more toward the BA designation of "strong ale" as this drinks similarly to a barleywine. Still, it's nicely drinkable and very tasty. Solid beer from Pisgah.
Serving type: bottle
07-27-2013 20:36:04 | More by BlackBelt5112203
Vortex I from Pisgah Brewing Co.
out of 100
based on 168 ratings.


text:
More than a million readers have experienced the Circle series. Now, for the first time ever - and only for a limited time - they can dive deeper with a limited edition boxed set.
Included in this special collector's set is:
This is a "must have" for the thousands of hardcore fans - as well as for the newer Dekker fans who now have a limited window to secure hardcover editions of the entire epic series.


text:
Video: Video Gallery
Battleground Las Vegas (1:20)
Nov. 5 - Obama and Romney fight for votes in battleground Nevada, a state struggling with economic hardship. Deborah Lutterbeck reports. ( Transcript )
Reuters TV Shows
About Reuters TV
Hard-edged reporting, insight and analysis, Reuters TV breaks ground creating informative news and financial videos. Showcasing Reuters' 3000 award-winning journalists, Reuters TV delivers high-energy investigative journalism with concise explanations. Check it out and let us know what you think.


text:
New Orleans Overwhelms Buffalo |
Clubs - Men's DII Clubs | ||
Manassas, VA - New Orleans overwhelmed Buffalo during the men's DII club championship's Round of 16 today, running up a 48-22 victory for the bid to the quarterfinals. But if you speak New Orleans coach Jerry Malina, then you'd realize that it was all part of the plan. "To be fair, we wanted to get out fast, and we did," Malina said. "The game went our way, although we lost some focus and gave up a try late in the half, which you never want to do, but we fought back from it." New Orleans was focused, on point, and did a good job of mixing up play between the forwards and backs. New Orleans had the larger pack, so it was able to gain significant ground via successful mauls and punches off the base of the ruck, before swinging the ball wide to the backs. The result was a balanced attack that saw Pat Kennedy, Ross Bellaci (2), Mauricio Urrutia and Ron Brink all touch down for five-pointers. But Malina pointed toward the pack for the foundation of success. The excellent work of Matt Lytle, Matt Upton, Sean Malek, Wes Eustic and Ben Benvenutti controlled the lineouts and worked the scrums, taking away a lot of ground from the opposition. The expertise of fullback Bellaci, who led the team with two tries, highlighted the backs and changed the game with his speedy counters. Kennedy was also an important substitution, who made his impact known immediately in scoring a try to add to the tally. "We came out knowing what we wanted to do and we did it," Malina closed. "Right now, we have to avoid the let-downs. We let up a couple of soft tries, and you always want that zero. We also have to be smart as a coaching staff and know when to change out legs. There were a couple of guys who went down late, when we thought we needed them. In these tournaments, it's the same for everyone: It's all about recovery. Tomorrow, we're going to bash the hell out of each other." But Malina was happy with the performance overall and hopes to take that momentum into its game against Doylestown, which beat the Village Lions 35-33 in its Round of 16 match today. |


text:
My Account (sign in) or Register Now!
lowest rate guarantee
Sancho de Avila, 32-34
Carrer Arago, 90
Gran Via de les corts catalanes 686
Girona, 97
Las Ramblas 22-24
Five great reasons to book with us!
Over 390,000 hotels worldwide – more added every day
Trusted by over 7,000,000 satisfied customers
Best Price Guarantee
4 million+ hotel reviews by agoda customers
With availability in over 37,000 cities worldwide
agoda special offers
including last minute offers(even same day!)free nightsfree upgrades!
Customer Support
Cleanliness, helpful staff, always...
0.07 Km.
New hotel, clean rooms, good design...
Staff, big room, close to the...
High speed WIFI internet is...
0.13 Km.
Room is clean with shared kitchen...
0.16 Km.
Located in the Barcelona Center,...
0.19 Km.
0.23 Km.
0.24 Km.
Friendliness of the staff,...
0.33 Km.
0.34 Km.
0.35 Km.
location, price, size of appartment...
0.37 Km.
0.39 Km.
Clean, affordable, centrally...
0.4 Km.
0.41 Km.
Location, awesome breakfast, good...
0.44 Km.
0.45 Km.
Access to metro, 5 minuite walk,...
4.5 / 5
over 41,900 reviews
of users recommend us
Go To Top
All material herein © 2005 – 2014 Agoda Company Pte. Ltd., All Rights Reserved. AGODA ® is a registered trademark of AGIP LLC, used under license by Agoda Company Pte. Ltd. Agoda is part of (NASDAQ:PCLN)


text:
click image to zoom
Boys' Canada Flag T-Shirt
Carbon Heather (090)
Please select a size
Only X available
what's it do?
Support Canada as they hit the world stage. These T's are about more than just pride, they're also about performance.
Charged Cotton® is 100% real cotton, engineered to wick moisture & dry faster than regular cotton.
The fundamentals
- Loose: Full, loose fit for enhanced range of motion & breathable comfort no matter where your workout takes you.
- Charged Cotton® has the comfort of cotton, but dries much faster
- Signature Moisture Transport System wicks sweat away from the body
- Durable ribbed collar provides a comfortable fit
- Cotton
- Imported


text:
Croatia's Most Unique Travel Experiences
You've paraded through Diocletian's Palace, you've sauntered along Dubrovnik's city walls. Now it's time to veer off the beaten path for some experiences that are uniquely Croatian -- from sipping wine in an ancient cave under a busy city airport to basking in 5-star luxury in a remote century-old lighthouse. Here are our picks for Croatia's top one-of-a-kind sights.Visit Saintly Mummies
St. Blaise Church, Vodnjan
Just north of the Istrian city of Pula is the sleepy little hamlet of Vodnjan, where the spooky main attraction is inside the town's Baroque church, St. Blaise. Here, a tour guide will escort you to a room behind the church's main altar, wherein lie the very dried but (to varying extents) frighteningly intact remains of 6 long-dead Catholic saints, brought here from Italy for wartime safekeeping nearly 2 centuries ago.Among them is St. Nicolosa Bursa, whose 500-year-old mummy is claimed to be the best preserved in Europe, and is furthermore reputed to work miracles against a host of ailments. The church is also home to a reliquary with more than 350 glass-protected holy artifacts, including a thorn from Jesus' crown and the undecayed tongue of St. Mary of Egypt.
Taste Wine in an Under-Airport Cave
Skyceller, Dubrovnik
Directly under the runway of Dubrovnik's international airport lies a timeless and otherworldly cave filled with stalactites, stalagmites and traces of human activity from the Bronze and Iron ages. For the last few years, the nearly 100,000-square-foot cave has contained something much more modern as well: a naturally-chilled wine cellar, with a selection of great wines from Croatia's nearby Konavle region.Đurović Cave, as it's officially known, is therefore now also called Skycellar, and is accessible by a 130-foot tunnel via an entrance near the airport's main office. After touring the magnificent cave, guests can sample the Skycellar wines; if they like what they taste, more can be had by the bottle at the onsite shop.
Honor Lost Love
The Museum of Broken Relationships, Zagreb
It began as the creation of 2 Zagreb-based artists -- and former lovers -- who wanted to pay tribute to doomed romance by exhibiting its inevitable leftover remnants, from the charming to the heartbreaking to the downright scary (like the actual ax used to destroy a cheating husband's furniture).The ever-growing collection of wildly diverse breakup-related mementos (made up entirely of donations) went on a world tour starting in 2006, eventually being seen by some 200,000 people. In 2010 the collection came home to Zagreb, where its founders turned it into the city's first privately owned museum. The following year it won Europe's esteemed Kenneth Hudson Award, established by the European Museum Forum, for its unique subject matter, with judges noting that the museum "encourages discussion and reflection not only on the fragility of human relationships, but also on the political, social and cultural circumstances surrounding the stories being told."
Sniff Out Truffles
Buzet, Istria
Croatia's northwesternmost region of Istria is well known for its heavenly truffles, and no place here is more celebrated for them than the charming hilltop town of Buzet -- which indeed calls itself the City of Truffles. Every November, Buzet hosts the fantastic Truffles Weekend festival, which says nothing of the massive 2,000-egg truffle-filled omelet that gets cooked up here every September to mark the beginning of the area's Truffle Days.Hunting the prized fungus can be half the fun, and one of the best Buzet resources for this is the expert Karlić family, who (with their team of more sensitive-nosed dogs) lead guided forays into the local forests on the prowl for the underground delicacies.
Really Listen to the Sea
Sea Organ, Zadar
Midway along Croatia's Adriatic coast is Zadar, the city of 75,000 that's perhaps now best known for its unusual seaside audio installation known as the Sea Organ. Using a series of 35 polyethylene pipes of varying diameters and lengths, the Sea Organ was mounted beneath the 230-foot-long steps along Zadar's redeveloped coastline, then opened to the public in 2005.Waves coming in from the sea create different tones, which emerge almost magically through discreet openings in the stairs. The Sea Organ creates oddly beautiful tunes that are never the same twice, making walking along the steps a harmonious delight unlike any other in the world. The instrument earned Croatian architect Nikola Bašić the European Prize for Urban Public Space in 2006.
Sleep in a 5-Star Lighthouse
Villa Lanterna, Vir Island
Opened in the summer of 2012 after an extensive renovation, Villa Lanterna on Croatia's mid-coastal island of Vir is one of about 45 extant lighthouses in Croatia, and the latest of a handful that have been converted into villas to accommodate overnight guests. Though its lighthouse days date back more than 130 years, Villa Lanterna's overhaul has transformed it into a tastefully modern 5-star, 4-bedroom property, located in a tranquil spot beside a pine forest and a lovely beach, but conveniently situated just 5 miles from the town of Vir.It's not cheap (starting at about $1,300 a night), but up to 8 can stay, and airport transfers as well as use of a speed boat (for touring the Zadar archipelago and the National Park Kornati islands) and mountain bikes (trails extend around the entire island) are included.


text:
Advanced Search | Search Tips
We promise to never spam you, and just use your email address to identify you as a valid customer.
This product hasn't received any reviews yet. Be the first to review this product!
Click the button below to add the Five-Light Sussex Fluorescent Chandelier-Nickel; Sea Gull 39062BLE-962 to your wish list.


text:
View your ad here! Cost effective targeted advertising.
Contextual advertising starting as low as $79/month. This includes targeted ad delivery and search results!
Add your business to the Marketplace »
Nummi Jewelers 1120 BELKNAP ST Superior, WI 54880 715-392-3470 |
We specialize in antique clock and watch repair, jewelry repair and engraving. |
Superior Chrysler 1318 Ogden Ave Superior, WI 54880-1596 (715) 392-8191 |
$16.95 Oil Change, Lube & Filter at Superior Chrysler Center. |
Golden Living Centers Superior, WI 55804 715-392-5144 |
FREE quality and inspection report! We offer services to meet many different health care |
Kari Toyota 1002 Tower Ave Superior, WI 54880-1522 (715) 394-4429 |
We've Got Tires!. Road Hazard coverage included with purchase of most tires. |


text:
St. Armands fire station to open in September
Date: August 12, 2009
by: Robin Hartill | Community Editor
Sarasota County Fire Station 3 will soon be blazing trails.
Major construction of the fire station on St. Armands Key, the first Sarasota County fire station to comply with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green-building standards, will likely end within two weeks, said Mike Tobias, chief of logistics with the Sarasota County Fire Department.
Firefighters are expected to move into the facility, located at 47 N. Adams Drive, in mid-to-late September.
Construction of three additional "green" Sarasota County fire stations is under way, Tobias said. Another three are planned for 2010 and 2011.
"We think this is a good step in the right direction," Tobias said.
The St. Armands fire station was built in 1954. The four firefighters who were stationed in the building struggled with its old wiring and bathrooms, which were located in a different building. The county discussed remodeling the building, but the renovations would not comply with FEMA standards.
In December 2007, the old facility was torn down, and construction of the new station began in 2008. Since the demolition, St. Armands firefighters have been stationed at a temporary facility near the Lido Beach Pavilion.
According to Tobias, the station's green features will include solar-water heating, a cistern for collecting rainwater and a greywater system that uses recycled water for flushing toilets.
"Everything was done to minimize the carbon footprint that we leave behind by building," Tobias said.
Construction costs of the 9,100-square-foot station total approximately $2.6 million, Tobias said. Energy-and-water costs for the building are expected to be 15% lower than those of a standard building.
The fire station will have a meeting room with seating for 20, which will be open to the community.
A dedication will take place later this fall.
Currently 0 Responses
- Mar
12 Nia with Gail on Longboat Key
11:30 am - 12:30 pm - Mar
12 'An Evening at Casino Royale'
6:00 pm - Mar
18 Nia with Gail on Anna Maria Island
11:00 am - 12:00 pm - Mar
19 Nia with Gail on Longboat Key
11:30 am - 12:30 pm - Mar
25 Nia with Gail on Anna Maria Island
11:00 am - 12:00 pm - Mar
26 Nia with Gail on Longboat Key
11:30 am - 12:30 pm - Apr
1 Nia with Gail on Anna Maria Island
11:00 am - 12:00 pm - Apr
2 Nia with Gail on Longboat Key
11:30 am
March 10: The great debate
The Observer will hold a debate for Longboat Key Town Commission candidates at 7 p.m. March 10, at Bayfront Park Recreation Center, 4052 Gulf of Mexico Drive. -
Greg Hoffman SCOREs award
Longboat Key resident Greg Hoffman received Manasota SCORE's Platinum Leadership Award at the organization's 50th anniversary awards luncheon Feb. 24. -
Spring forward for Daylight Saving
Daylight Saving Time begins Sunday, so turn your clocks forward by an hour before bedtime Saturday night.


text:
Ever since Hiram Johnson and his fellow Progressives made ballot initiatives a part of the California political landscape 100 years ago, the state's voters have been obliged to grasp some fairly slippery policy issues before casting their votes. Propositions 30 and 38 on the November ballot are representative of the thorny problems other states assign to their legislators, but in California are punted to voters as popular referendums.
Both propositions aim to send more money to the state's public schools, but that's pretty much where the similarities end. For typical voters, even those who care deeply about public education, deciphering the long-term consequences of a simple for or against vote could require hours sifting through the arcana of school finance.
Fortunately, the folks at EdSource did the hard work for us. They've prepared an infographic to explain the two propositions in a clear and illustrative format. As EdSource's executive director Louis Freedberg noted in his accompanying blog, when voters are confused, they tend to vote against propositions—even propositions they might have supported had they possessed more knowledge.
Voters seeking yet more info on the initiatives can visit the Official Voter Information Guide, as well as analyses from the Legislative Analyst's Office, the California Budget Project, the League of Women Voters, and the Silicon Valley Education Foundation. They can also go to the official campaign websites of Prop. 30 and Prop. 38.
News Alert
6.9 Northern California Coastal Quake Felt…
Read More »
Props 30 and 38 Explained: Which Do You Support?
Baffled by the two ballot initiatives seeking to send billions of dollars to public schools? Don't be. EdSource's new infographic makes it all clear. Which proposition do you support?
+ Leave a Comment
Brenda Steffen
October 19, 2012 at 10:47 PM
Parcel taxes work in areas where voters will approve them, but they do nothing to help the students and schools in communities where parcel taxes aren't an option. I live in one of those areas, I am part of the 50+ crowd and I really want my grandchildren to have a quality education. That's why I'm voting for Prop 38.
Susan D.Keeffe
October 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM
This is America. Since when do teachers give up their freedom of speech rights? If they choose to purchase a button and wear it they have a right to do so. What they cannot do is use their teaching as a bullly pulpit and proselytize. That is against the law. Teachers and administrators are free to express their opinions outside of the classroom itself via parent meetings, etc.
David Johnston
October 19, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Even top performing teachers are not going to affect those students who hold no value in an education, or to those students who are more focused on survival before and after school. Children need to come to school ready to learn, and sadly, in many underperforming schools, that's not the case.
Brenda Steffen
October 19, 2012 at 11:01 PM
It costs a lot less to educate a child than it does to incarcerate an adult for the rest of his/her life. I want all of our children to be educated contributors to the society in which we will live the rest of our lives. But they won't be educated if we aren't willing to pay what it costs to educate them. And, we will pay a much bigger bill down the road.
October 19, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Not to mention the concept of bad test scores and performance vs teacher pay is ass backwards. Higher teacher salary at under performing schools happens because skilled teachers require more pay to convince them to work at under performing schools. Very well performing schools offer things that teachers want and are willing to accept less pay to get.
October 19, 2012 at 11:06 PM
SDK- I really have to point out that when you are prosleytizing and advocating a political idealogy or position in a public school it is inappropriate? Really?
Maybe you need to go back to Civics class?
October 19, 2012 at 11:09 PM
Brenda Steffen - very very true however when you have BART drivers making $80,000 a year with a HS diploma and 3rd yr science teachers with 5yrs of college making $35,000 a year you can see why the teaching career faces some major issues regarding truly skilled and qualified teachers in the future.
Back when schools had their own bus service and bus drivers. My dad went to the school board to confront the pay scale affecting his ability to hire qualified teachers for the Science dept. His issue? Simple the school bus drivers were actually being paid more than what his science teachers were being paid. That was back in the 80's.
Brenda Steffen
October 19, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Prop 38 provides funding to restore, strengthen and expand early childhood education programs specifically for the families that need it most.
Susan D.Keeffe
October 19, 2012 at 11:33 PM
You are mixing up teaching a state and school board approved curriculum with a teacher using the classroom to espouse his or her private views- that's proselytizing. And it's an Ed Code violation and can get a teacher fired.
Milan Moravec
October 19, 2012 at 11:40 PM
Keep the California dream alive and well. Vote No on Prop 30, 38, 32. Save California for our children.
Decisions you make on Nov 6 determine California's course for years. We are kidding ourselves by believing that education funding shortfalls disappear with Prop 30, Prop 38.
Prop 30, Prop 38 levy significant taxes on each one of us. The wounds that Prop 30, 38 are to heal have been self inflicted largely by our elected Sacramento politicians who simply do not say no to any influential interest group be they, University of California (29% increase in salaries last 6 years), public employees, business, teachers, or other unions or lobbyists.
And now Prop 30, 38 are used by Sacramento politicians and lobbyists to blackmail us.
Brenda Steffen
October 20, 2012 at 12:13 AM
Chris, Proposition 38 specifies that the dollars it would provide to schools would be in addition to the state's minimum annual Proposition 98 funding obligation and could not be used to "supplant or replace" local, state, or federal support for K-12 education or child care and preschool programs.
October 20, 2012 at 12:16 AM
@Milan - Well said and agree with you - Voting no on both 30 and 38!
RJ Stewart
October 20, 2012 at 12:17 AM
I am voting no on both 30 and 38. I think we are already paying enough in taxes and are throwing good money after bad. With the apparent decline of California's education system why are the systems' top administrators seeminingly increasing in number and pay?
Brenda Steffen
October 20, 2012 at 12:29 AM
I agree that teachers should be paid more and deserve more (there are two teachers in my family, too) - but that is not an option if the school districts cannot even provide the instructional programs and materials that are needed. If our society valued educators as much as we do entertainers and athletes, we'd all be in better place. But, that's not the subject of this column.
Steve Cohn
October 20, 2012 at 12:29 AM
You obviously were not at the symposium last night at the Orinda Library sponsored by the Education Foundation of Orinda. Without prop 30, per student funding from the state will drop about 20% (Prop 38 does not kick in for a year so it will drop next year even if Prop 38 does pass). We are already in the bottom 5 of all 50 states. That will probably put us at the bottom. Pretty darn good. What will it cost? Unless you are a family with a taxable income of over $500,000, its only impact will be to add one quarter of one percent to your sales tax. If you purchase a $40,000 car, that will be an extra $100. (22 gallons of gas). I really don't think that is too onerous. You really had to see the graphs to understand the problem. Orinda is rich. 40% of school funding comes from the community. But the rest of the state will either implode or explode. Enjoy your new car and extra $100 while you can.
Chris Nicholson
October 20, 2012 at 12:30 AM
@Brenda: but there will be a debate about whether Prop 98 spending minimums can be met, in part, with Prop 38 money. Prop 38 should have been a Constitutional amendment to resolve this glitch.
Brenda Steffen
October 20, 2012 at 12:49 AM
Yes, it's possible. I'd rather vote for Prop 38 and then let them have the debate. At least we will have new funding in place for twelve years. Prop 30 will decrease the Prop 98 guarantee, too.
October 20, 2012 at 12:52 AM
Maybe if the state would stop giving away all our tax money to illegal aliens, they would have more to spend on educating Americans.
Back when Californians overwhelmingly passed prop 187, we told you this was going to happen.
Brenda Steffen
October 20, 2012 at 12:57 AM
Prop 38 will go a long way toward supporting education for twelve years. Forty percent of taxpayers will not see any tax increase from Prop 38 and Prop 38 does not levy ANY sales tax increase.
Karen LaRiviere
October 20, 2012 at 12:59 AM
Susan, you sound like one of the few truly informed voters who has done their homework. Unfortunately, everyone else in this "I've got mine, screw the rest of you" society don't care that we are 47th out of 50 states. Making it even worse is that Benicia is the lowest funded Unified School district in the state of California and we couldn't pass a $4.86 a month parcel tax a few years ago because of comments like on here. People who had no problem with everyone paying for THEIR kids back in the day, but hell no, they aren't paying for anyone else's kid now. Or I love the "we had 40 kids in our classrooms so why doesn't it work now?" Maybe because it didn't take so long with stone tablets as it does now with all the technology that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars that they didn't have back in "the day." There's no doubt that California has it's problems but we keep electing people who don't fix the problems. Funny thing is, the reddest part of our state, the real "no more taxes" part uses the most social services of any other part of the state. So, I say cut them off first and then work our way out.
Brenda Steffen
October 20, 2012 at 01:02 AM
I don't know where you are getting your information about administrators. There aren't enough qualified administrators out there anymore who are willing to take jobs in California. Why do you think the education system continues to decline? With $20 billion in state cuts to education over the past four years, it's pretty hard to continue to provide students with a decent and well-rounded education. I don't know where you live, but in my school district, school administrators have been hit hard and school counselors haven't existed for the past 10 or more years.
Milan Moravec
October 20, 2012 at 03:13 AM
Decisions you make on Nov 6 determine California's course for years. We are kidding ourselves by believing that education funding shortfalls disappear with Prop 30, Prop 38.
Prop 30, Prop 38 levy significant taxes on each one of us. The wounds that Prop 30, 38 are to heal have been self inflicted largely by our elected Sacramento politicians who simply do not say no to any influential interest group be they, University of California (29% increase in salaries last 6 years), public employees, business, teachers, or other unions or lobbyists.
And now Prop 30, 38 are used by Sacramento politicians and lobbyists to blackmail us.
Frozen Waffles
October 20, 2012 at 04:36 AM
I feel sorry for the average Californian. These propositions are too confusing. There is no where to turn for an objective opinion. i mean no offense to the fine people who have commented before me but from reading their notes most don't cite facts they just tell their opinion. There is no place to turn to for objective information and the politicians have made everything related to the budget and school funding so confusing that it is impossible for the average person to interpret the issues. I can not vote since I'm a Canadian citizen but my wife is an American citizen. She finally gave up on these two propositions and left them blank. It is a shame that the system is set up so that all we hear are partisan opinions and everything related to the budget is so muddled that your average citizen can't figure this stuff out. There must be a better way. Something more simple for the voter who wants to do the right thing but hears 10 different opinions and none of them objective. Americans had a good model for democracy. What happened?
Chris Nicholson
October 20, 2012 at 02:24 PM
@Steve C: I was at the Library and I have read the voter info guide and the Legislative Analyst's report. You numbers are off. Overall spending on education will INCREASE from $41B to $42B if Prop 30 *fails*, otherwise it will increase to $47B. If is PASSES per pupil funding next year will go DOWN by a few dollars. If it FAILS, per-pupil spending decreases by about 7%. This is all per the current budget.
Notes: this was architected by the marketing department, not the policy department. The anomaly is due to the CHOICE to include in the budget the one-time "catch up" of prior deferrals that, in realty, could be rolled indefinitely. In future years, you won't see this effect. In fact, the math would allow for 15%-20% increases in per-public spending in 2014, but they are careful to not promise this. Why? Because this is NOT hard wired, Sacramento could choose this outcome or choose to shift money out of Ed.
Also: With the economy recovering, the overall revenue outlook for the state is already improving. This means that, even without Prop 30 or 38, we almost certainly have seen the bottom.
There is no (fresh) crisis.
We have time to comprehensively fix the system instead of being duped by a gimmick that will allow the dysfunctional status quo to persist.
October 20, 2012 at 03:28 PM
If you care about public schooling of our kids at all you would vote yes in both.
As the person above said, you get what you pay for. Calufornia has cut spending in public education where we have gone from 1st in nation in spending per capita to 48th.
If prop 30 does not pass, kids will very likely lose 15 days, 3 weeks , if class days. That is very real.
These kids will never get to be kids again. We need to recommit with our pocketbooks to public education.
Milan Moravec
October 20, 2012 at 05:40 PM
Searching for some examples of how the education funds rom Prop 30, 38 will be used? Examples follow. Here's how education funds are used...University of California Chancellor Birgeneau ($450,000), Provost Breslauer ($306,000) pick pockets of in-state students, their parents clean. Birgeneau's, Provost's tuition increases ranked public Cal. the # 1 most expensive (during the greatest recession of modern times) for in-state students. B & B's 14% annual tuition increases (2006 – 20012) illustrates an out of touch, self-serving Cal. senior management.
Robert J Birgeneau and Provost forget they are public servants, stewards of the public money, not overseers of their own fiefdom. Let's review how they used tax funding:
Pay ex-politician $300,000 for several lectures; Recruit affluent foreign & affluent out of state students who displace qualified instate applicants; Spend millions (prominent East Coast university accomplishing same at 0 cost) for OE consultants to remove Chancellor, Provost created inefficiencies but prevent OE from examining Cal. senior management.
Email email@example.com Calif. State Senators, Assembly Members (The author has 35 years' management consulting, taught at Cal. where he observed the culture & ways of senior management & yes was not fired).
Milan Moravec
October 20, 2012 at 05:45 PM
Steven Cohn...some examples of how University of California will use education funds from Prop 30, 38. The facts are always friendly. University of California Chancellor Birgeneau ($450,000), Provost Breslauer ($306,000) pick pockets of in-state students, their parents clean. Birgeneau's, Provost's tuition increases ranked public Cal. the # 1 most expensive (during the greatest recession of modern times) for in-state students. B & B's 14% annual tuition increases (2006 – 20012) illustrates an out of touch, self-serving Cal. senior management.
Robert J Birgeneau and Provost forget they are public servants, stewards of the public money, not overseers of their own fiefdom. Let's review how they used tax funding:
Pay ex-politician $300,000 for several lectures; Recruit affluent foreign & affluent out of state students who displace qualified instate applicants; Spend millions (prominent East Coast university accomplishing same at 0 cost) for OE consultants to remove Chancellor, Provost created inefficiencies but prevent OE from examining Cal. senior management.
Email email@example.com Calif. State Senators, Assembly Members (The author has 35 years' management consulting, taught at Cal. where he observed the culture & ways of senior management & yes was not fired).
Milan Moravec
October 21, 2012 at 04:18 AM
Quinton Tom...everyone cares about public education but unfortunately barnicles - -- Sacramento politicians and lobbyists - skim $ that are targeted for our children. Examples of how the University of California (lobbyist) skims Prop 30, 38 education funds. Let's review how public Cal senior management handled the tax dollars it currently gets. Nobody's perfect, but some higher education chancellor provost are much less perfect as stewards of public funds than others. University of California Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau ($450,000) Provost Breslauer ($306,000) have forgotten they are steward's of public money, not overseer of their own fiefdoms.
Cal tuition triples last decade, Californians income went stagnant.
Birgeneau, Provost Breslauer do not have a grip on financial realities.
Pay ex Michigan governor $300,000 for lectures
Tuition increases exceed national average rate of increase.
University accrues $150 million of inefficiencies over last 8 years
Recruits foreign students who pay $50,600 and displace qualified Californians.
Spends $7,000,000 + for OE consultants to do the work of senior Cal. management. (Prominent East Coast University accomplishes same, 0 costs).
In procuring $7,000,000 consultants failed to receive proposals from other firms (Consultants do their thinking for them, who they then can blame for all unpopular but necessary decisions)
Milan Moravec
October 23, 2012 at 03:32 AM
Einstein on Prop. 30, Prop. 38 – "Spending more money on doing what has been done in the past and hoping for a better outcome is insanity".
Have the innovative, thoughtful, insightful, creative teachers and faculty create methodologies to increase learning with significantly reduced resources $. Be American do more with less!
No on 30, No on 38 and No on 32
October 23, 2012 at 04:31 PM
Milan - there is no Learning methodology that fixes hungry kids - kids that lack sleep or simply can't do basic things to enable them the chance of functioning in a classroom.
Teachers are greatly limited in the types of activities they can do based on the nature of the class they have. One class will function well and do exceptionally well with a particular activity the next class might implode with the very same activity due to behavioral issues or learning disabilities etc.
Teachers who have taught for many years have a bag of activities and tricks they draw from based on the classroom dynamic and the kids they have. My dad did a lab activity last month that he had not done in over 15yrs. How does he know that? Simple when he pulled his file on the activity the last time he used it was 15yrs ago.
Two other science teachers were amazed by the activity and wanted to know where he had read about it etc. He just laughed and said Oh I've been doing that lab for years but hadn't tried it in the past 15yrs because the classes he had were just a bad match to the activity.
A skilled teacher knows what order of events and activities they can run in a class for a successful experience vs one that simply implodes and becomes just a wasted hour etc.
Copyright ©2014 Planck LLC d/b/a Patch Media. All rights reserved.


text:
NextFort Selects Johnson Controls for Innovative Free Air Cooling System
by Marketwire
Highly Flexible and Scalable System Does Not Require Water Enabling Significantly Lower Operating Costs
PHOENIX, AZ -- (Marketwire) -- 01/30/13 -- NextFort Ventures Chandler, LLC, owner and operator of a first-of-its-kind modular data center, today announced the selection of Johnson Controls as the supplier of an innovative free air cooling system being deployed in NextFort's new 180,000 square foot data center in Chandler, AZ.
Targeting a Q1 2013 opening, NextFort's unique modular approach provides each customer with its own turnkey, financial grade data center solution as a completely self-contained environment. Customers benefit from flexibility and scalability in how they deploy modular units of data center capacity underpinning their businesses and customer-facing services.
NextFort's Phase 1 launch in March will feature availability of 130,000 sq. ft. of NextFort High-Density Computing Suites (NextFort HCSs). These are completely self-contained, all concrete and steel rooms designed to house up to 20 high-density IT racks for a total IT load up to 225KW (up to 600 watts/sq ft.) Future expansion calls for 50,000 square feet of additional HCSs that can be rapidly deployed.
NextFort worked closely with Johnson Controls to design the highly-efficient, fully redundant direct expansion air conditioning cooling system that does not require water. Each NextFort HCS has its own cooling system contributing to nearly 40% better energy efficiency compared to conventional data centers, thus reducing energy costs for NextFort's customers.
Featuring Johnson's highly-durable York Equipment compressor, the solution delivers maximum energy efficiently and individual control associated with innovative free air cooling capabilities that can scale from 0 - 100% depending on the individual needs of a customer's environment.
Key Customer Benefits
- Customers can start by deploying two cooling units for a 2N redundant configuration, and easily add more (in a matter of days) as they increase power density inside in the HCS.
- Customers are able to choose the temperature they want to run their HCS(s) depending on the requirements of their computing environment.
- Each cooling system features variable-speed fans and compressor capacity technology to drive cooling efficiency. Depending on outside temperature, each NextFort customer can use varying amounts of outside air (up to 100%) to supplement cooling capacity and save energy.
- Each NextFort customer has a dedicated cooling system where power is metered locally -- customers only pay for power related to their individual cooling system.
- Innovative system controls allow customers to view and operate their cooling system remotely via a secure customer portal.
- Customers can take advantage of NextFort's remote-hands services thus eliminating the need for IT resources on site.
About NextFort
NextFort is the owner and operator of a first-of-its-kind modular data center located in Chandler, Arizona. Focused on the design, construction and operation of energy efficient, highly modular, and ultra secure data centers, NextFort has created an innovative design which facilitates the deployment by our customers of modern, high-density computing infrastructure services such as cloud computing. For more information visit us at www.nextfort.com.
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NextFort/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/NextFort/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/nextfort
Carter B. Cromley
Email Contact
(703) 861-7245


text:
Results 1 to 4 of 4
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- NorthWest Iowa
- Posts
- 20
AM/FM Radio swap to AM/FM/CD/XM unit in 2012 2500 HD
Just bought a new 2500 HD WT and came with AM/FM radio only. Can I just find a stock AM/FM/CD/XM unit (provided I add a XM antenna) and swap it out with no problems?
Anybody have a contact number to call for GM that can give me that answer. The dealership is taking the easy way out and saying no. I just can't take them at their word because the units look the same and should be an easy swap.2012 Silverado 2500 HD Crew Cab 4x4
1999 Corvette- sold but not forgotten
1975 Corvette- will be buried in it
09-06-2012, 11:01 AM #2To be honest I really don't know, but I would think at the most you would need is the antenna for XM. I saw the radios on eBay for $75. The other thing is you might need a different harness, one for the radio you get. Then you just find out which wires go to the XM. I think it would just take time. Don't quote me, just my opinion.
There are many ways you can go about this: that way or just buy the radio with CD and XM from store. That is the way I would go just because if you have the portable XM unit then you can buy the boom box and have XM everywhere for the same price.Tim Walters (Curky)
Wrangler AT/S 265/70R17 - Trail-FX window vents - Husky fitted splash guards - Silver Star zXe - Leveling kit -
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Location
- Piermont,NY, back in Northern NJ now, But may be in IL soon....
- Posts
- 5,266
I know that the older GM's had the XM tuner behind the glove box so you would need that too.. I would just do Aftermarket which will give you a little better RMS power for better sound from your stock speakers..
08 Z71 Avalanche Mods to date: K&N CAI,Hellwig Swaybars and End Links, Corsa Sport Exhaust, Superchips Programer,IPCW LOF & 3rd brake light and tails, AMI Gas door,Show Hooks and Door locks, Enkei Wheels, with Pirelli tires, StreetScene Bowties, Grant Steering wheel,Muth signal mirrors,SSBC Big Brake kit,Huskyliner Mug gards,Floor mats and Hood shield, McGard Lug nuts and locks, Bedrug, Cervini's Ram Air hood,35watt HID Fog lights, Sylvania bulbs all around ZXE's Highs and Lows, WhiteNight Back up lights,Sirius and HD Radio, SnugTop sitting on deck now Got a Softopper on now,Tempress Boat Hatches.... New Bilstein shocks are on... New Mods coming soon..... X
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- NorthWest Iowa
- Posts
- 20
Thanks guys. For me,it's more about the stock look. I trade off trucks about every 3 years, so I am thinking of resale. I don't want anything that looks like someone took a sawsall to the dash and cobbled it up.
I did get alittle farther today with he parts department. They looked up the VIN and found out that the build sheet had "XM delete" so the XM reciever is not in the truck.
They are going to look at ordering a new stock AM/FM/CD radio that is XM compatable. Then they will add a XM unit under the seat so it will play through the truck new radio.
That should solve the problem for me- stock look but still have XM at my finger tips.2012 Silverado 2500 HD Crew Cab 4x4
1999 Corvette- sold but not forgotten
1975 Corvette- will be buried in it
Similar Threads
radio swap
By buddah in forum Audio, Video & Gadget TechReplies: 1Last Post: 01-26-2010, 01:59 PM -
00 Sierra radio swap
By TJbear in forum Audio, Video & Gadget TechReplies: 6Last Post: 10-25-2009, 09:04 PM -
Aftermarket head unit swap
By 5speedsilverado in forum How-to GuidesReplies: 48Last Post: 07-05-2009, 11:10 AM -
head unit swap
By Silverstreak in forum Audio, Video & Gadget TechReplies: 5Last Post: 06-05-2009, 09:53 PM -
Facory Radio Swap
By udderchaos in forum Audio, Video & Gadget TechReplies: 1Last Post: 03-10-2009, 12:05 AM
Tags for this Thread


text:
Skin Cancer (cont.) Medical Author:
Michael S Lehrer, MD
Medical Editor:
Melissa Conrad Stöppler, MD, Chief Medical Editor
Melissa Conrad Stöppler, MD, Chief Medical EditorMelissa Conrad Stöppler, MD, is a U.S. board-certified Anatomic Pathologist with subspecialty training in the fields of Experimental and Molecular Pathology. Dr. Stöppler's educational background includes a BA with Highest Distinction from the University of Virginia and an MD from the University of North Carolina. She completed residency training in Anatomic Pathology at Georgetown University followed by subspecialty fellowship training in molecular diagnostics and experimental pathology. IN THIS ARTICLE
Skin Cancer Treatment
Patient Comments
Treatment for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma is straightforward. Usually, surgical removal of the lesion is adequate. Malignant melanoma, however, may require several treatment methods, including surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. Because of the complexity of treatment decisions, people with malignant melanoma may benefit from the combined expertise of the dermatologist, a cancer surgeon, and an oncologist. Next Page: Must Read Articles Related to Skin Cancer
Common Health Tests
Common health tests may be performed in your doctor's office or even in the pharmacy. Regular health checks and screening for certain diseases and conditions ha...learn more >>
Mole Removal
Moles may be removed using excision and stitches or excision and cauterization. Risks of mole removal include infection, nerve damage, and anesthetic allergy. L...learn more >>
Skin Biopsy
Your doctor may want to obtain a sample of skin in order to diagnose diseases of the skin, such as those caused by bacteria, fungi, or other chronic skin condit...learn more >>
Patient Comments & ReviewsThe eMedicineHealth doctors ask about Skin Cancer: |
Get the latest treatment options.
From WebMD
Skin Protection Resources
- Diagnosing Skin Cancer Without Cutting
- Will Health Reform Affect You?
- How to Save Money on Health Care
Featured Centers
Health Solutions From Our Sponsors
Read What Your Physician is Reading on Medscape
Skin Cancer: Melanoma »
Despite recent declines in the incidence and mortality of cancer overall, the incidence of cutaneous melanoma continues to escalate.


text:
[JURIST] Doe v. Bush [PDF opinion] (February 24, US District Court for the District of Massachusetts [official website]). US District Judge Joseph Tauro dismissed a suit brought by Democratic members of Congress, US military personnel and members of their families seeking to enjoin the President from launching a military invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Congress has neither declared war nor taken any action that would give the President the power to wage such a war: "[A] federal court may judge the war policies of the political branches only when the actions taken by Congress and those taken by the Executive manifest clear, resolute conflict.... Case law makes clear that Congress does not have the exclusive right to determine whether or not the United States will engage in war. Congressional ratification for the continuation of undeclared war activity may be found even though there has not been a formal declaration of approval. The manner and form of ratification is up to Congress, and the courts have no power to second guess the wisdom or form of such approval. The fact that Congress and the President may appear to be at odds from day to day concerning the conduct of military affairs does not necessarily add up to resolute conflict between the political branches."McLaughlin v. Holt Public Schools Board of Education [opinion] (February 24, US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals [official website]). The Court reversed a District Court decision overturning an administrative ruling that a disabled child be enrolled in an educational program some distance from her home that school officials believed would be better able to meet her needs as opposed to a school closer to her home, which is what her parents preferred. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, "states and school districts should be afforded some discretion in determining what type of [educational] program is appropriate based on the individual needs of a disabled child."Also of interest: Schwartz v. TRW and Boeing (February 24, US District Court for the Central District of California [official website]). Judge Ronald Lew dismissed a suit filed under the False Claims act alleging that the defendants had falsified ballistic missile test data and misled the US government about the missile defense system they were building. UCLA law student (and former journalist and Army officer) Phil Carter was in the courtroom and posts this report.
[JURIST] By a vote of 84-0 Monday the Senate passed the Protect Act [text], a child pornography bill designed to help authorities track down pedophiles on the Internet while avoiding free-speech concerns that prompted the US Supreme Court to strike down a similar law last April in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition [decision syllabus]. Read the Senate Judiciary Committee report on the legislation, and review a statement by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Senator Patrick Leahy, who supported its passage. The bill now awaits action by the House.UPDATE: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Orrin Hatch has issued a press release and a copy of his floor statement on the bill.
[JURIST] On the 200th anniversary of Marbury v. Madison [JURIST report], it's appropriate to note that the University of Illinois College of Law [official website] has posted streaming video of In Defense of Judicial Review: The Perils of Popular Constitutionalism , a lecture delivered February 17 by Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of Southern California Law School [official website].
[JURIST] Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Orrin Hatch delivered the Recording Academy's Entertainment Law Luncheon address in New York City on Friday. The full text of his speech is now available online.
[JURIST] Reuters has posted the new US-UK draft resolution on Iraq that is being circulated today at the UN Security Council. The French and German governments are circulating a separate Memorandum [text].UPDATE: White House National Security Advisor Condeleezza Rice gave a press briefing late Monday explaining the US-UK resolution. Read the press conference transcript.
[JURIST] The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary [official website] has released an updated list of judicial nominee ratings [PDF text] for the 108th Congress. Miguel Estrada (previously rated for the 107th Congress) remains "WQ" - "Well Qualified."
[JURIST] Yale Law School [official website] hosted the ninth annual Rebellious Lawyering Conference over the weekend. The Yale Daily News has this report.... The Columbia Law School [official website] branch of the Federalist Society sponsored a talk Saturday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Orrin Hatch in which he discussed the Miguel Estrada nomination and ideology in the court system. Read more in the Columbia Daily Spectator.... Lani Guinier [faculty profile] of Harvard Law School [official website] spoke on race and law Friday at the University of Washington School of Law. The UW Daily reports....
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court granted certiorari in four cases Monday morning - breaking news and more details from DC Supreme Court litigators Goldstein & Howe [SCOTUSblog post]. The full Supreme Court Order List [PDF text] for Monday is now online.
[JURIST] The annual ADR Cyberweek all-online conference [conference website] on online dispute resolution starts Monday, hosted by the Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution [official website] in the Department of Legal Studies, University of U. Mass. Amherst [official website]. Registration and participation in Cyberweek is free.
[JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia confirmed Monday that Serb nationalist leader Vojislav Seselj had entered detention at The Hague pending trial for crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war. Read the ICTY press release and the full indictment against Vojislav Seselj.
[JURIST] The latest issue of the New York University Law Review [official website] is now available online. It includes a commentary on the Supreme Court and the death penalty by Carol Steiker [faculty profile] of Harvard Law School [official website] and courts and the protection of liberty by Rebecca Brown [faculty profile] of Vanderbilt University Law School [official website]. SSRN has posted the Introduction to Democracy by Decree: What Happens When Courts Run Government, the new book by Ross Sandler [faculty profile] and David Schoenbrod [faculty profile] of New York Law School [official website].
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court hears arguments Monday in PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. v. Book [US SC docket] (arbitration, punitive damages, RICO - read backgrounders from DC appellate litigators Goldstein & Howe and Sam Heldman) and California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt [US SC docket] (sovereign immunity, tax collection - more from Goldstein & Howe and Sam Heldman).
JURIST offers a news ticker and preformatted headline boxes updated in real time. Get the code.
Feedroll provides free Paper Chase news boxes with headlines or digests precisely tailored to your website's look and feel, with content updated every 15 minutes. Customize and get the code.


text:
Alexandria woman wins big on Wheel of Fortune
February 11, 2012 - 12:10 am
A special week honoring military wives on Wheel of Fortune is especially rich for an Alexandria woman who won big during tonight's show.
Patricia Bolton gathered with her friends and family tonight at a watch party. While everyone knew she was the winner, they didn't find out how much until they watched the show with her.
WATCH: ABC7's Pamela Brown has her story and how she celebrated.
Short URL:
RecommendedRecent Facebook Activity
Only On 7
Leon Harris and Alison Starling weeknights on ABC7
For all the breaking stories happening in your neighborhood and developing stories happening around the world, join Leon Harris and Alison Starling weeknights on ABC7 News at 5 and 11.
TBD Blogs What you need to read
@TBD Arts
This is what a 'hipster' apartment building on H Street looks like, apparently
@TBD On Foot
Here are the most popular license plates of 2011
Best of TBD In case you missed it
13 ways D.C. is better than NYC
Hey, no city's perfect!


text:
Stay in the brand new luxurious Waterfall Lodge adjacent to the 18th green of the Castle Combe course. The lodge sleeps up to 8 golfers in 4 twin or double rooms and is only a pitching wedge away from the stunning golf clubhouse which boasts the superb Woodbury restaurant.
Golf courses
Experience 18 holes of true championship golf. A testing but fair 6,286 yard, par 72 course designed by Peter Alliss and Clive Clark in 1992.
The Waterfall Lodge is 10 minutes from Junction 17 of the M4.


text:
I'm in year 3 at he shreiking shack. When I'm inthe room catching Peter Pettigrew, when I complete the quest my screen just goes to the home screen and when I go back into the game I have to restart the level again
Has anyone else had this problem? How do I fix it?