text:
TREST v. CAIN, WARDEN
- 1990-1999
Richard Trest sought a writ of habeas corpus that would cancel the sentence he was serving in Louisiana for armed robbery. The District Court rejected his claim. Trest appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but before hearing the facts of the case, the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as a "procedural default." The Court of Appeals ruled that Trent had failed to meet the deadline for filing his federal claims in state court. Though Louisiana had not raised the issue, the Fifth Circuit felt compelled to dismiss the case on its own initiative. Trest appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Fifth Circuit had incorrectly believed that it was required to decide the "procedural default" issue sua sponte - that is, without prompting from one of the parties.
Is a Court of Appeals required to decide issues of procedural default on its own initiative, without prompting from one of the parties ("sua sponte")?
Legal provision:
No. A Court of Appeals is not required to raise an issue of procedural default on its own initiative. In a unanimous opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer observed: "We are not aware of any precedent stating that a habeas court must raise such a matter where the State itself does not do so." The Court held that it was the State's duty to raise issues of procedural default, but did not rule on the question of whether the Court of Appeals retained the option of ruling on the issue sua sponte.
Argument of Rebecca L. Hudsmith
Chief Justice Rehnquist: We'll hear argument next in Number 96-7901, Richard F. Trest v. Burl Cain.
Ms. Hudsmith.
Mr. Hudsmith: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
A Federal court as a general proposition is not and ought not be obligated to raise a nonjurisdictional defense such as procedural default when the party to the proceeding has failed to raise that defense itself.
In this case, in the opinion below the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit evidences a belief that it must have raised, had to raise, was obligated to raise what it perceived to be a defense of procedural default and deny the merits of the petitioner's claim on that basis.
Unknown Speaker: Ms. Hudsmith, you're not asserting here that the court could not have raised it on its own.
You're just asserting that it had no obligation to.
Is that the limit of your argument here?
Mr. Hudsmith: That is the cert question presented.
Unknown Speaker: Right.
Mr. Hudsmith: I actually think we can and ought to go a little further, Your Honor, and I would say, Justice Scalia, that the Federal court--
Unknown Speaker: Well, you presented--
Mr. Hudsmith: --can.
Unknown Speaker: --Yes.
Mr. Hudsmith: It has the power to raise a waived defense that is nonjurisdictional, but it ought not to without first giving the parties an opportunity to be heard, and it... and in this context of procedural default it ought to do so only rarely.
Unknown Speaker: So what you're asking for us, from us is a remand--
Mr. Hudsmith: Yes, Your Honor.
Unknown Speaker: --to let the court of appeals decide whether it wants to exercise its discretion to raise this issue or not?
Mr. Hudsmith: That is the most obvious remedy that we would ask for and hope this Court would grant.
Unknown Speaker: That's an extremely narrow point, perhaps narrower than I thought the question presented.
You agree that the court of appeals could, under Granberry v. Greer, perhaps, have raised this point but it wasn't obligated to.
You read its opinion to say it thought it was obligated to, so then we would remand it and tell the court of appeals you may do it but it's a matter of discretion.
Mr. Hudsmith: No, Your Honor.
I agree that when a case gets this far and is before this Court and, given the different opinions that are available to be read in the courts of appeals on this issue, that is when the Court should raise procedural defaults sua sponte.
I think this Court should give the courts of appeal, then the court of appeal below, more guidance than that, and I'm prepared to offer what guidance I can to the Court in that regard.
Unknown Speaker: I wasn't certain, in reading the Fifth Circuit opinion, that it thought it was obligated to do this.
It wasn't all that clear to me.
Mr. Hudsmith: I will acknowledge, Justice O'Connor, that, unlike the court of appeals' opinion in Granberry, where the court of appeals apparently concluded that it could not ignore a waiver, the Fifth Circuit in the opinion below did not say that.
However, the court must have known, because the dissent, in the form of the Hon.
Richard Parker, made reference to the fact that the State had never raised the defense of procedural default and ought to be barred as a result.
And I would suggest that it is a fair reading of the opinion, despite the lack of information from the court on the significance of that, that its failure, that the panel majority's failure to even discuss that, in effect, if you will, State procedural default, means that it felt obligated, no matter, to do what it did, and that is to decide the claim against the petitioner on the basis of what it perceived to be a procedural default, and the opinion does--
Unknown Speaker: Ms. Hudsmith--
Mr. Hudsmith: --Yes, sir.
Unknown Speaker: --did the State in its opposition to the petition for certiorari, did the State contest whether the opinion below, whether the court below felt obligated?
Mr. Hudsmith: They didn't address the issue, that I'm aware of, that--
Unknown Speaker: Well, if they didn't address the issue, and if the question presented clearly only asks whether the court of appeals is required to raise the defense sua sponte, how do we get into this other point?
I thought the case was taken on the assumption that the court below was... felt itself obliged to raise the defense sua sponte.
Isn't that what the question presented states?
Mr. Hudsmith: --That is, and that certainly--
Unknown Speaker: And the State did not object that the question presented does not--
Mr. Hudsmith: --Well--
Unknown Speaker: --conform to the true state of facts?
Mr. Hudsmith: --The State... and I know they can speak better to this than I, but the State does take the position that the opinion can be read more broadly.
Unknown Speaker: Too late now.
I asked whether they did it in opposition to the petition for certiorari.
Mr. Hudsmith: I am not aware of that, Your Honor.
Unknown Speaker: I don't like getting a case here and then finding that it involves a totally different issue from the one that we granted, and that's what you're essentially saying it does.
Mr. Hudsmith: What I'm saying is that the narrow... there's a very narrow issue presented to this Court in the question presented.
Unknown Speaker: And that's the issue you framed in your question presented--
Mr. Hudsmith: That is.
Unknown Speaker: --which we granted as you framed it.
Mr. Hudsmith: Yes, sir.
Unknown Speaker: Okay.
Mr. Hudsmith: And I'm prepared to speak to that, but I'm also prepared to speak more broadly if the Court so desires to whether, beyond a remand, the Court, this Court should provide guidance to the court of appeals in the exercise of its discretion.
Unknown Speaker: I understand.
I mean, you understand our--
Mr. Hudsmith: Absolutely.
Unknown Speaker: --I would not have voted to take this case if I thought what it was going to come down to is a parsing of the opinion of this court of appeals to decide the cosmic question of whether this one opinion by this court of appeals in fact displays a belief that the court is obliged to sua sponte raise the issue, or does not... I mean, this is not something that we should be spending our time on.
Mr. Hudsmith: I agree.
I believe, however, Your Honor, that a reading of the opinion is... and it is fairly read to reach the conclusion that the court did feel obliged.
It uses the language, precluded, that it is precluded--
Unknown Speaker: We assumed that when we granted the case.
Mr. Hudsmith: --And I would maintain that position, and I think that that is supported by a fair reading of the opinion itself.
Unknown Speaker: Does the answer... does it make any difference, in answering the question that you raise, that here we have some convictions from another State, a State other than Louisiana--
Mr. Hudsmith: Well--
Unknown Speaker: --that are being challenged?
Does that matter?
Mr. Hudsmith: --The way the question's framed, it doesn't matter, but I'm certainly aware of the context in which this case comes to this Court, and it is one in which my client, who is in custody at Angola, at Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, and is challenging a Louisiana enhanced sentence, does so, among many reasons, because he believes the underlying Mississippi convictions were constitutionally invalid and should not be used to enhance.
And in the State's brief in response... and I might add that, given we were not given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and only knew of the court's stance on the case with the opinion being issued, the brief was really the first time I had and the first time the State really had to really join issue, if you will, on this very complex topic, I think, but--
Unknown Speaker: Well, our cases previously, cases like Granberry v. Greer and others, have talked about a procedural default in the sense of failing to raise something in Louisiana, where the... where your client hypothet... or not hypothetically, actually is held in custody.
But what the court of appeals focused on was a failure... the fact that you could not now go back and raise something in Mississippi.
Mr. Hudsmith: --That's correct and, of course, if we had given an opportunity to speak to the issue, the petitioner would have argued that that was no procedural default at all.
Getting back really to the question Justice O'Connor posed and you've added to, Mr. Chief Justice, the question becomes, what is the significance of the fact that we're dealing with an underlying Mississippi conviction?
In fact, the Louisiana judgment for which the petitioner stands in custody is not based in any way, shape, or form on his having defaulted procedurally by failing to first go to Mississippi and attack those convictions.
So in a very real sense, in fact in every sense that I can think of, there is no adequate and independent State law ground from Mississippi supporting this judgment.
Unknown Speaker: But there might be one from Louisiana.
I mean, as I understood it, when I'd gotten through this, it's quite... I don't know where to begin in this, and I'm reluctant to hold them to an answer they had to give to a question that had four parts, and it was an IFP petition, and there were... I mean, I don't know how much I should hold them to what they've written in three pages there.
But the Federal constitutional question, as I'd understood it, would be whether the State of Louisiana can increase an offender's sentence on the basis of convictions in a different State, which convictions either resulted from a guilty plea where he was not told about his right to appeal, or resulted from a guilty plea that was involuntary, or both, and they're collaterally estopped from attacking it, they can't attack it in Mississippi.
That's the Federal constitutional question, isn't it?
Mr. Hudsmith: I agree with that.
Unknown Speaker: Fine.
If that's the Federal constitutional question, I can't find it raised anywhere, ever, in the State of Louisiana.
Of course they didn't answer it, because it's never been raised.
The closest you could come is something like the appeal part of it, where in fact what's cited is a Louisiana case, and then a reference to this case of Griffin, so I would think that that wasn't exhausted.
I don't... I don't... it's never been raised, and there could well be an independent ground that you can't, you know, go through five proceedings in Louisiana and never raise this issue.
Mr. Hudsmith: Well, certainly the State in its brief in response has... has for the first time, Justice Breyer, I might add, suggested that the claim, as you've just described it, was not fairly presented to the State courts in the petitioner's--
Unknown Speaker: I don't see it presented at all, and if I'm right about that, what are we supposed to do now?
Mr. Hudsmith: --Well, I would have two responses to that question.
One is, and I think it's the very first and most important one, and it gets back to a point that Justice Scalia made about this Court knowing what it has before it on the table when it decides to exercise its scarce judicial resources and grant a cert petition, that the State at least as late as the opposition to the cert petition, should have raised the issue of exhaustion and did not, and therefore this Court ought to consider that defense waived by the State of Louisiana.
That would be my first and foremost posture.
Secondly, I'm not prepared to concede, based upon this record, Your Honor, that in fact the claim was not fairly presented in some form to the State courts in the petition filed in 1990 by the petitioner.
Unknown Speaker: Petitioner himself recognized that the... that it was obscure... I forgot what the words were, that--
Mr. Hudsmith: He did--
Unknown Speaker: --Obscurely presented, or inarticulate, or something.
Mr. Hudsmith: --He said that it was obscurely framed and that the claim, something to the effect was floating in muddy waters, and even the Fifth Circuit acknowledged that he had to elucidate more on the claim and did so in his objections to the magistrate's report which were filed in 1994.
But again, it gets back to the point that I made earlier in response to Justice Breyer's point, and that is that the State then certainly, before the district court ruled on the case, could have responded and, I might add, quite simply, particularly with the petitioner making note of the fact that the claim wasn't... wasn't well-articulated before, they could have filed a one-page statement saying, this claim has not been exhausted in the State courts.
Unknown Speaker: Did I--
--They didn't... I'm sorry.
Did I understand you to say at the outset that this really is very narrow because you're not objecting to the authority of the court of appeals to raise the procedural default sua sponte.
The only thing you're objecting to is the notion that they must do so.
Is that true?
Mr. Hudsmith: The question that I framed is very narrow, I will admit, but--
Unknown Speaker: So do you... you're not saying that they couldn't do the same thing here as in Granberry.
That is to say, exhaustion and procedural default, they're very much alike, so it's something that the court can bring up on its own.
Mr. Hudsmith: --Beyond the answer to the narrow question, what I am saying, and I want to be heard very clearly as saying, just in case it's not clear enough in the brief, that once we go beyond that very narrow question, it is the petitioner's position that to the extent that a Federal court can raise a waived or forfeited nonjurisdictional defense, it should only do so in very rare circumstances, and in the context of a procedural default defense it should do so even in more rare circumstances than those presented in Granberry v. Greer.
Because Granberry v. Greer, which is a very instructive case but not controlling, of course, on this issue, concerned the defense of exhaustion, and in very many important respects exhaustion is a different... it is a different defense, it serves different purposes, and its consequences are much graver.
And so I want to be clear that... and I want to be heard to say that the Fifth Circuit not only was not obligated to raise the procedural default defense that it believed existed, but it ought not to have done so under the circumstances of this case, and I think appropriately the Federal courts in general ought not to raise such a defense except in very rare circumstances where, maybe because of comity, and maybe because of concerns of finality, it is indeed appropriate for a Federal court to save the State from itself.
Unknown Speaker: But that's a matter... I'm sorry.
That's a matter on which you've never been heard, as I understand it.
Mr. Hudsmith: Absolutely not.
The first court to hear the parties on this issue is this Court.
Unknown Speaker: Is right here, yes.
Mr. Hudsmith: Yes, sir.
It was not an issue ever even mentioned in the oral argument in the case, and--
Unknown Speaker: Is it clear that Louisiana could not have... the Louisiana courts could not have examined this question, and the validity of and the existence of the alleged bar in Mississippi?
The Louisiana courts never even looked at that, did they?
Mr. Hudsmith: --The Louisiana courts were certainly put on notice with the petition filed by the petitioner in 1990 in the State court that he was attacking the constitutional validity of his Mississippi conviction to be used for the collateral consequence of enhancing his Louisiana conviction, and at... of enhancing his Louisiana sentence, and undoubtedly at that point a Louisiana court could have and, if it wanted to, was put on notice that it could say no, Mr. Trest, you must first go to Mississippi.
But in fact, Louisiana is more generous than Mississippi and more generous in... than the Federal court in the Custis case in allowing in the first instance in a habitual offender proceeding an attack by the defendant on the voluntary and intelligent nature of the guilty plea that forms a basis for prior conviction and, likewise, in post conviction proceedings.
And I might add that even a failure on the part of the petitioner which he must acknowledge to have objected on this basis at the habitual offender proceeding does not prohibit under Louisiana law his raising this issue in post conviction proceedings.
So what I'm saying, I hope in answer to your question, Justice Kennedy, is that the Louisiana court was certainly put on notice it could have raised the issue of a "procedural bar".
It did not, and there is none, then, to support this State court judgment such that a procedural default should be found or is in order.
And I would suggest, and this really sort of gets back to Justice O'Connor's initial question, that the fact that Mississippi may have some vague, or attenuated, or some interest in its judgment, it is not so great to create a procedural bar.
There must first be... the judgment that we must focus on is the Louisiana judgment, and it's not supported by a Mississippi bar, and so we've got interest in the air, if you will, and that's hardly a basis for a Federal court to refuse to exercise its power.
Unknown Speaker: Well, I would think either from the standpoint of discretion or the mandatory rule when a third State, or a second State's interest is involved here, Mississippi, and they're not before it, but that is a compelling case for not allowing the question to be presented.
Mr. Hudsmith: I would think that is.
Unknown Speaker: If it's late.
But Ms. Hudsmith, if I understood your argument properly, weren't you saying that really Mississippi has no interest because there's nothing in this proceeding that's going to set aside the Mississippi judgment?
The only question is whether the Louisiana court, in imposing a sentence, may rely on those judgments even if they're entirely valid.
Mr. Hudsmith: Yes, Justice Stevens.
That is a very critical point, and that is that the Mississippi conviction that was imposed back in 1976 is final, and the petitioner has served his time.
Unknown Speaker: Well, but--
Mr. Hudsmith: He's not revisiting that issue.
Unknown Speaker: --So supposing that the petitioner succeeds in his present action, and then he commits another offense in Mississippi, and Mississippi says we're going to commit you on the basis of our habitual offender statute, and your client says no, you can't do that, because in the Federal proceedings in Louisiana it was held that these... this conviction was invalid.
Certainly Mississippi would have--
Mr. Hudsmith: Yes.
Unknown Speaker: --perhaps not a very direct interest, but you can't say it has no interest.
Mr. Hudsmith: And I haven't, I don't think, been heard to say that Mississippi has no interest.
I acknowledge that it has some interest in general in terms of the finality of its judgment.
Unknown Speaker: But that interest would only arise if he were subsequently prosecuted in Mississippi.
Mr. Hudsmith: Absolutely.
Unknown Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Hudsmith: Absolutely.
Unknown Speaker: Do you claim that Mississippi would be estopped in that case, that there would be any preclusion running against Mississippi in that case?
Mr. Hudsmith: My initial reaction is that no, there wouldn't be, that whether it be in the context of a Mississippi attempt to enhance a sentence because of a Mississippi conviction or otherwise, that Mississippi, because it wasn't a party to this action, ought not be precluded from defending its... both its conviction and asserting its procedural laws that the petitioner failed to comply with vis-a-vis Mississippi.
Unknown Speaker: I suppose a State has a certain interest... whether or not he's prosecuted later in Mississippi, I think a State has a certain interest in not having the solemn judgments of its courts impugned elsewhere.
Mr. Hudsmith: Sure, but--
Unknown Speaker: At least where the Constitution does not permit that to happen.
Don't you think they have a... if they assert that that's the case?
Mr. Hudsmith: --But that's the nature of the beast when it comes to enhanced punishments.
That is happening all the time, certainly in Louisiana, where, in the habitual offender proceeding itself, a defendant can call into question the validity of a guilty plea.
So it's happening, and surely we're not going to stop that and not allow... again, I feel like I'm speaking up for Louisiana here, because Louisiana has its own rules and its own procedures, and they say we can look beyond this judgment if it's presented to us in the right way and it's compelling.
Unknown Speaker: But if Mississippi feels otherwise, and wants to have its judgments final and not looked into later--
Mr. Hudsmith: I think that that... that's the way it is, and Mississippi could do the same with Louisiana's judgments.
Unknown Speaker: --Well, I thought you had to give judgments the effect they had in the State where they were rendered.
Mr. Hudsmith: This... I don't think that when we're dealing with--
Unknown Speaker: It's the Constitution is an impediment to that, but that's a separate issue.
Mr. Hudsmith: --I don't think... I don't think what we're talking about here, that is, Louisiana or any other State determining whether it wants to impose collateral consequences in its State on its sentence with respect to another State's judgment raises an issue of full faith and credit.
Again, and I think--
Unknown Speaker: Well, it doesn't have to have--
--Well, you say that--
--an habitual offender statute, so the Mississippi judgment had no effect by its own force.
Louisiana doesn't have to have--
Mr. Hudsmith: --Absolutely, Louisiana doesn't even have to have a habitual--
Unknown Speaker: --But when you stand back from all of this, and what you're left with is a very old Mississippi... finally he served his time, and it's been years ago, and he doesn't raise this till very late, and you tell us, ah, but the State defaulted because it didn't object on that basis, isn't there something unseemly about allowing a defendant so many years after to raise this issue and say, he can get by because the State out of carelessness, which seems to be what happens here, didn't object?
Mr. Hudsmith: --Your Honor, my response to that would be that first of all the... Louisiana, like Mississippi, now has a prescriptive period, if you will, that's what we call it in Louisiana, for when a petitioner who is in prison in Louisiana can bring a post conviction proceeding, so the oldness of these claims is, I think, going to lessen as more and more States like Louisiana and Mississippi adopt these bars, these time bars to these claims.
But I think it's even more unseemly for us to allow a Federal court, or to give a Federal court the authority, or even require a Federal court to ignore a State's procedural default because of negligence or inadvertence or whatever, when at the same time this Court's jurisprudence clearly holds that the petitioner's inadvertence or negligence does not save him from his procedural default and, as we know, there are petitioners in those circumstances who have been executed because of that inadvertence or negligence.
So yes, it has been a long time, and I think these cases will be less and less so because of these time limitations imposed now by the State systems, but I think it's an appropriate response and more unseemly to allow the State to be forgiven its procedural bar or default.
If there are no other questions, I--
Unknown Speaker: Just your bottom line is, facing your narrow question, what are you asking this Court to do?
Mr. Hudsmith: --The bottom line very narrow question is reverse the U.S. Fifth Circuit and remand it for further proceedings, but I think those further proceedings ought to include a caution or instruction, if you will, that the Court ought to give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue, first of all, and secondarily that the Court ought not freely forgive a State procedural default, but ought to do it only in a rare circumstance, which we contend, the petitioner contends does not exist here.
Unknown Speaker: Thank you, Ms. Hudsmith.
Ms. Petersen, we'll hear from you.
Argument of Kathleen E. Petersen
Mr. Petersen: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
As the argument has pointed out to this point, the petitioner and the respondent are in agreement on the issue stated, and that is whether or not a Federal court of appeal may, on its own motion, invoke procedural default, and thereby find it is precluded from the merits of the habeas claims.
Unknown Speaker: Well, I--
--Well, I didn't think that was what the petitioner had raised.
I thought we had spent a lot of time already this morning establishing that the narrow question presented is whether the court of appeals is required on its own motion to consider this matter.
Mr. Petersen: Well, Justice O'Connor--
Unknown Speaker: This procedural bar.
Mr. Petersen: --Justice O'Connor, if you read the Trest opinion, and as we pointed out in the brief, the petitioner's... I mean, the brief on the merits as respondent, we do not read Judge... the judge's opinion, Edith Jones, to have required the sua sponte invocation--
Unknown Speaker: Did you tell us that in response to the cert petition?
Mr. Petersen: --The cert petition was filed by the District Attorney in this matter, and the Attorney General's Office--
Unknown Speaker: Just answer the question.
Were we told that in response to the cert petition?
Mr. Petersen: --No, Justice O'Connor.
Unknown Speaker: Well then, are you going to argue on the narrow question, as framed in the cert petition, was the Fifth Circuit required--
Mr. Petersen: No.
Unknown Speaker: --to raise it sua sponte?
What do you say in answer to that?
Was it required to?
Mr. Petersen: No, Justice O'Connor.
Unknown Speaker: So you agree with the petitioner.
Mr. Petersen: Yes, Justice O'Connor.
We agree, and we feel that the record that is before the Court shows that that opinion, Trest v. Whitley, was not abuse of discretion and that the petitioner has not established it was an abuse of discretion, therefore we urge this Court to affirm the judgment.
Unknown Speaker: Then how does the... is... you're saying they're not required, but they're permitted to assert an independent State ground.
Mr. Petersen: Yes.
Unknown Speaker: And even if that State ground doesn't exist?
I'm curious to know what is the independent State ground that Louisiana could have affirmed this conviction on.
Mr. Petersen: The--
Unknown Speaker: I mean, that he filed the habeas... he filed the collateral... petition for collateral relief in State court.
It was denied, and what is the independent State ground on which Louisiana could have denied that?
Mr. Petersen: --At this point the independent State ground is under both Louisiana procedural post conviction law and the Mississippi procedural--
Unknown Speaker: What is that it states that would provide an independent State ground for affirming the conviction?
Mr. Petersen: --It would be Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure--
Unknown Speaker: I don't want the citation.
I want the proposition of law.
Mr. Petersen: --That it was a successive petition, that it was not properly presented... in our brief--
Unknown Speaker: Right, it's successive... my impression, and here you can correct me, because I... I thought that he initially pleaded guilty at his trial and was sentenced and didn't appeal, and that's sometime around 1980, and then he brought this petition in about 1990-something.
Mr. Petersen: --He was found guilty in 1979.
Unknown Speaker: Yeah.
I mean, I'm not saying... isn't that basically what happened?
Mr. Petersen: The first time it was raised in State court was in his third application for State post conviction relief, and it was in 1980.
Unknown Speaker: In 19--
Mr. Petersen: 1980.
Unknown Speaker: --His third application for post conviction relief was in 1980?
Mr. Petersen: Yes... I'm... excuse me, 1990.
Unknown Speaker: And when was the first?
Mr. Petersen: --The first one was in 1981.
Unknown Speaker: And when was the second?
Mr. Petersen: 1983.
Unknown Speaker: All right.
So I assume he'll argue that this third one, he didn't really know that he had a Federal claim until the Louisiana courts decided Robisher and he had a chance to digest it, and because Robisher was the first time that anybody had suggested under Louisiana law, in reference to Federal law, that there could be some kind of claim here.
I suppose that will be the argument, as... and... whether he had a chance to do it before or not.
Is it clear how that argument will come out?
Mr. Petersen: No, Your Honor, because it has not been presented to the State court, and Robisher dealt with the right to appeal.
Unknown Speaker: Right.
So then you're saying whether or not there is an adequate State ground has not yet been presented to the Louisiana court, and therefore that hasn't been exhausted, and therefore, what?
Therefore this is a case that, although you conceded exhaustion, it wasn't exhausted?
Mr. Petersen: It was exhausted by the fact of the technical exhaustion in that it was procedurally barred at the point it was raised.
In 1990, when the petitioner put the claim in the petition it was not in the nine claims for relief.
It was attached in a memorandum of law and no one addressed the claim.
We have termed it the needle in the paper haystack.
The trial judge in Louisiana read claim number 7 as being the evidence used by the State of Louisiana was illegal, and in his written opinion, which is in the joint appendix, he addressed the technical aspects, whether or not they were certified documents.
There was no discussion in that opinion at all on the 7(b) claim, which we have termed it in our brief.
Unknown Speaker: Let me be straightforward with you.
The reason I'm asking these questions is in my mind is the tentative idea... I'm certainly not wedded to it... that the correct result here is to say, of course they're not required to assert this on their own, but was it an abuse of discretion here to do so?
Yes, because this is a case where there was no exhaustion.
Indeed, there is a big question as to whether or not there is an adequate State ground, so it is a case, under Granberry, where, despite the State's concession, it should be remanded to the State courts to give people an opportunity to decide whether there is or is not some State ground that would bar it.
Now, I have no... that's quite tentative.
I mean, I'm not advocating that.
I'm trying to... what's your reaction to that?
Mr. Petersen: Justice Breyer, a remand would do no good at this point.
Mr. Trest is procedurally barred in Louisiana and as we read the post conviction articles he couldn't present the claim again in Louisiana.
In 1990, when he presented the claim to Louisiana, he was procedurally barred in Mississippi.
He was barred in 1987 in Mississippi.
Unknown Speaker: Did the Louisiana courts ever say that he was procedurally barred in Louisiana from raising his claims against the Mississippi judgment?
Mr. Petersen: No Louisiana court ever addressed that claim.
Unknown Speaker: Because what, he had never raised it?
He says he raised it, I think.
Mr. Petersen: Well, he raised it but it's not fairly presented.
It's in a memorandum attached.
The District Attorney, under the State law, was not ordered by the trial judge, and our law did not require the trial judge to order the District Attorney to respond, so therefore the trial judge was without benefit of a response by the District Attorney in 1990.
Unknown Speaker: Well, but if the claim was raised, but the District Attorney didn't respond to it, you would think that that was at least preserved.
Mr. Petersen: Well, I may agree with that, Chief Justice Rehnquist, but if you look at what the petitioner did after his claim was presumptively ignored by the trial judge, he went to Federal court and filed the exact same petition.
And that leads us to the point that we did file a motion to enlarge the record based on Gray v. Netherland, and the petitioner has consented, and we put into the record all the briefs, and if you examine all the briefs you will plainly see that the petitioner had no problem with the 7(b) claim being ignored, or else he would have brought it to the Federal court's attention.
The magistrate didn't look at it.
The district court adopted the magistrate's report.
It wasn't until February of 1994 that the petitioner came forward with the transcript.
Back in 1990--
Unknown Speaker: The transcript of the Mississippi proceedings, or the Louisiana proceedings?
Mr. Petersen: --The Mississippi proceedings.
Unknown Speaker: Ms. Petersen, I... correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the other side in this case said that in an objection to the magistrate's report they did make this claim more explicit, that's the point at which it blossomed, that the district court made no response to that objection to the magistrate's report either by committing it to the magistrate again for further proceedings or by ruling on the merits and, that, in fact, the first time it... and that the State once again said nothing about it in the circuit itself, and that the first time it came up on the merits was when the circuit brought it up.
Is my recollection of what they said correct and, if so, are they wrong?
Mr. Petersen: Justice Souter, that is correct.
The first time that this claim was ever brought to the attention of any forum in this form was when the petitioner filed the objections.
The District Attorney did not respond to those objections.
The district court did not address the objections.
It went on to the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit granted the certificate of probable cause which the district court had denied, and you would think that if the petitioner really had a problem that his Boykin claim was not addressed, and further had a problem that the 7(b) claim, which is the right to appeal, right to counsel, and maximum sentence, he would have been screaming in the Fifth Circuit that these courts have ignored me, and if you look at his brief in the Fifth Circuit, it's the exact same brief.
The exact same brief has been moving through the system, and nobody has asked, was this claim ever presented to the State court, and the answer is no.
Unknown Speaker: Ms. Petersen, could... you are asking us to affirm because although you agree that the lower court did not have to take this procedural bar into effect, you believe that it could, in its discretion, do so.
Well, I don't see how you get there from here.
The fact that it could in its discretion do so does not establish that it was exercising its discretion.
Don't we have to give it a chance to exercise its discretion rather than our exercising it on the Fifth Circuit's behalf?
Mr. Petersen: Your Honor--
Unknown Speaker: Unless... unless the argument you're making is that it had no discretion, that, given the facts of this case, it would have been an abuse of discretion not... not to raise the issue sua sponte.
Mr. Petersen: --The Fifth Circuit--
Unknown Speaker: Is that your argument here, that it would have been an abuse of discretion to come out the other way?
Mr. Petersen: --I believe that the Fifth Circuit had no fact-finding whatsoever on this claim.
The Fifth Circuit was faced with the objections that Trest had filed in the district court.
They were aware of Custis v. United States, and they appointed Rebecca Hudsmith as counsel and ordered the parties to brief Custis.
The District Attorney, who is representing the State of Louisiana, briefed Custis.
They argued custody, and secondly they argued whether or not this would be a claim that would be cognizable in habeas.
Unknown Speaker: Let's go to... I'm trying to figure out what to do with this, in my... what I think we should do here.
Suppose we said... all right, suppose you answer the question, required, of course they're not required.
All right.
The next step would be we remand, and I take it one possible thing to do would be to explain when a court has the power, or when it lacks the power under the law to, sua sponte, or in the face of a refusal by the State to raise the issue, assert a claim of an independent State ground.
Now, if you were trying to write that paragraph of when it does and when it doesn't, what does it say?
Mr. Petersen: I think that's where Granberry v. Greer comes in.
Unknown Speaker: Exhaustion is the same as independent State ground?
I'm not sure.
Mr. Petersen: I think it is different.
Unknown Speaker: Yeah.
Mr. Petersen: Because it closes the Federal door to the petitioner.
The exhaustion allows him to go back and let the States decide it in the first instance.
We don't have that here because of the procedural default, and the procedural default is in both Mississippi and in Louisiana.
Unknown Speaker: Can we go back--
--All right, so what you're suggest--
--one step, because there's a large concern here, I think, with a Court raising a nonjurisdictional question on its own, and if you think of the two models of procedure, there's the adversary system that we follow, and the inquisitorial one that we don't follow, and the ordinary rule is that judges are obliged to bring up jurisdictional issues on their own, but for the rest, we follow the principle of party presentation, and if a party doesn't bring it up then it's forfeited, or waived.
So why is this so special that it would be ranked kind of like jurisdiction, that we would let a court deviate from the normal party presentation rule to bring it up on its own, even though the State didn't raise it?
Mr. Petersen: Because the record in this case was clear in the Fifth Circuit.
The District Attorney did not object when the objections were filed by the petitioner.
The Fifth Circuit granted the appeal and looked at the record.
Obviously, the petitioner had conceded.
He did not object in Louisiana back in 1979 when the prosecutor admitted--
Unknown Speaker: You seem to be making all kinds of arguments that would have strengthened the State's plea if it had made it, but it didn't make it, and that's... you're saying there was a terrific defense that the State had here, and because it was so good, the court of appeals can make it for them.
That's what I've heard you say so far.
Mr. Petersen: --Well, the court of appeals addressed the Mississippi interests.
The opinion is silent as to the Louisiana's interests, other than the interest you could infer that Louisiana has the right to presume that out-of-State convictions are valid, and unless the petitioner draws that to the attention of the court either at the time of the habitual offender proceedings or at some time seasonably early in the litigation, the court is on its own motion looking for the procedural bar, and they find a procedural bar in Mississippi.
Mississippi has an interest in the finality of its judgments.
Whether or not Trest returns to the State of Mississippi is an open question.
But they also have an interest in the procedural rules, and they allow Trest 11 years to litigate in Mississippi.
The door in Mississippi closed in 1987, and he didn't even file the claim until 1990.
He waited 3 years past--
Unknown Speaker: May I ask you just another question about the Fifth Circuit's procedure?
They say in their own opinion they are amazed that neither party had cited this Sones case.
Is it the practice in that court, or do you happen to know, if, when they want to rely on a brandnew ground that nobody's addressed, do they ever give notice to the parties and ask them for a brief comment on the issue?
Mr. Petersen: --Justice Stevens, I'm sure that happens.
In Kubick v. Whitley, a case cited by the petitioner, the Fifth Circuit would not invoke sua sponte procedural default and proceeded to the merits.
Unknown Speaker: In this case they did ask for... request briefing on Custis, did they not?
Mr. Petersen: Yes, Chief Justice.
Unknown Speaker: Is that unusual, that the court would ask for a briefing, the Fifth Circuit would ask for a briefing on a particular issue, or is that... do they always do that?
Mr. Petersen: To be honest, Chief Justice Rehnquist, I haven't practiced much in the Fifth Circuit because I'm a State prosecutor, but I don't think that is that unusual.
Obviously, when that happened the District Attorney should have lodged procedural objections, but for whatever reason, which is not in the record, he did not.
The judgment is correct, and this Court sits to review judgments.
You can justify it with the Mississippi interest, which is an independent and adequate State bar, and the petitioner has not claimed it was not an adequate and independent State bar until argument today.
Unknown Speaker: Well, but if we decide the narrow question presented, which one certainly hopes we will, it would be possible to conclude that the court of appeals was not bound to raise this but perhaps could have raised it in the exercise of its discretion, and you say, I take it, that even if that is so, it would have properly exercised its discretion to prevent the... to raise this question on its own, but isn't it best left for them to decide that exercising their discretion, as they're now told to do, rather than feeling that they're obligated to do it?
Mr. Petersen: We don't read the opinion that they felt like they were obligated.
Unknown Speaker: But there I think you're foreclosed by your failure to respond to... your brief in opposition to certiorari.
Mr. Petersen: Well, Chief Justice, we do agree that a remand in light of Granberry v. Greer would... may be proper.
However, it is not necessary on the record as it appears before the Court.
I think that if you look at the record, both as it was in the Fifth Circuit and as it is presented to this Court, that there was not an abuse of discretion.
Unknown Speaker: No, but aren't you assuming more than that?
Aren't you assuming not merely that there was no abuse, but that there was no discretion to be exercised, because he could only... the court could only come out one way.
That would... isn't that the premise upon which we would have to affirm for you, because we're not sitting here to exercise discretion.
That's not what we do.
That's what other courts do.
So if we affirm, it's got to be on the grounds that there was really no discretionary choice except the choice that ultimately is reflected in this judgment, and that would be the only basis upon which we could affirm for you.
Isn't that the premise of your argument?
Mr. Petersen: Yes, Your Honor, but the reasonings for judgment are not for review, it's the judgment itself, and if you feel by looking at the record that under Granberry v. Greer there was an adequate Federal interest, remanding it back, certainly we would not oppose that, but I think that at this point the remand would be unnecessary and that the decision--
Unknown Speaker: I don't know what you mean when you say the reasons for judgment are not under review.
I thought that's precisely what we're reviewing, whether the belief which the lower court had that it must raise this matter sua sponte, which is the reason for the judgment, whether that was correct.
Isn't that what we're reviewing here?
Mr. Petersen: --Well, Justice Scalia, the opinion is solid as far as the propriety of invoking sua sponte default, procedural default.
They did, and when we were writing the brief--
Unknown Speaker: I mean, that's why courts write opinions, so that we can see if the reasons for their judgment are okay, and that's why we reverse when the reasons do not sustain the judgment.
Mr. Petersen: --And we must concede that there is no language in the opinion that addresses their power as a Federal court to invoke--
Unknown Speaker: Yes, that's true, but they do start out saying that the Sones decision precludes us from reviewing the merits, and they end up saying this court is bound to conclude, as we did in Sones.
They thought they were compelled to do what they'd done in Sones.
Mr. Petersen: --Well, Justice Stevens, I read that language that they were precluded by Coleman v. Thompson.
In the Sones opinion that was a Mississippi prisoner attacking a Mississippi conviction.
Unknown Speaker: Right.
Mr. Petersen: You had not... we have a Louisiana prison... prisoner attacking the use of Mississippi convictions in a Louisiana Federal court, so Sones was not exactly on point.
Unknown Speaker: But they surely thought it was on point.
They said so.
Mr. Petersen: And we believe... that's why we built the record.
We believe that the judgment was correct to deny relief to this petitioner.
We believe that Mississippi had a valid interest.
We believe that the reasoning in Sones showing that if you're going to attack a Mississippi conviction, and this is Phillips v. State, you must return to the court in Mississippi that gave you the judgment.
In this case, the petitioner clearly bypassed the State of Mississippi.
He was found a habitual offender in June of 1979.
He had until 1987 to go back to Mississippi, and he did not.
Unknown Speaker: Ms. Petersen, may I ask a question about your internal procedures not related to the merits of this case?
As you see from the discussion today, some very important issues in the case can be precluded by the response to the petition for certiorari, and as I understand what happened here, I wonder if it's the standard procedure in Louisiana that it is the local prosecutor who responds to the petition for certiorari, and that the Attorney General's Office does not get into the matter until the petition is granted, is that the case?
Mr. Petersen: That is correct.
The District Attorneys in Louisiana have the power and authority for all cases in their districts.
The Attorney General is involved only at their request, and when... or a conflict of interest as well, but in this case it was a request by the District Attorney to handle the case on July 7, 1997.
That was after the writ was granted, and when we prepared the brief on the merits we were looking forward to the issue of whether Granberry v. Greer should be extended to encompass procedural default.
Quite honestly, I think that the parties here agree that the Fifth Circuit was not required, and therefore there is no dispute on that.
Unknown Speaker: I will have to say that I think there's merit to the petitioner's argument that you should read the Fifth Circuit's opinion that way.
After the passage Justice Stevens quoted the Fifth Circuit says, again, the Supreme Court has explained that procedural default will block all Federal review unless there's cause and prejudice.
Mr. Petersen: And Justice Kennedy--
Unknown Speaker: That's a pretty straightforward statement from the Fifth Circuit.
Mr. Petersen: --It is, Justice Kennedy, and we read that to believe that they've looked at the record for cause and prejudice, that they felt that the record did not establish it, and therefore denied relief.
That is the only way you can read that correctly, is that they looked at the record, they felt that the petitioner could have shown cause... If you look at the objections to the magistrate's report--
Unknown Speaker: But if there was no objection by the State, if this wasn't in the case until the Fifth Circuit put it there, then how could you expect the petitioner to come up with cause and prejudice?
He was... to anticipate a defense that wasn't there and answer it, that's very strange, so it does suggest that at least he should have had an opportunity to address the cause and prejudice issue.
Mr. Petersen: --Well, Justice Ginsburg, we believe that's the next question, and we do not... in our brief we do not state that it was one that was fairly encompassed in the question presented.
However, I would answer that by saying that the petitioner did have an opportunity when he filed the objections to the magistrate's report, because if you look at his answer, you see that he is admitting new evidence, a transcript, in 1994 from a 1979 conviction which was transcribed in June of 19... excuse me, June of 1976.
It was a May of 1976 conviction.
He brings this new evidence, he cites new case law, and he cites Boykin v. Alabama for the first time for that proposition.
Unknown Speaker: All right.
Can I ask you... are you finished with--
Mr. Petersen: Well... no, go ahead if you--
--Yes, Your Honor.
Unknown Speaker: --All right.
Well, can I ask... I want to ask you this... try a third minimalist approach.
Mr. Petersen: --Yes, Justice Breyer.
Unknown Speaker: Minimalist.
Is there any answer to at least the minimalist?
The question before us is whether they were required.
There's no objection that that's the question, and clearly they're not required to bring it up.
The State then argues that despite that they have the power to bring it up, and this was not an abuse of discretion.
But one thing that is clear is that it is an abuse of discretion to assert an independent State ground to bar a petitioner's claim when you assert the wrong independent State ground, an independent State ground that has nothing to do with this case, or at least very little, since it had to do with Mississippi and we're interested in Louisiana.
At least that's an abuse of discretion.
Now, there are many other issues that have been raised in this very interesting set of briefs, et cetera, and we'll leave those for the court of appeals.
All right.
Is there any answer to that, as a minimal approach?
Mr. Petersen: Yes, Justice Breyer.
You would have to find that the Fifth Circuit abused its discretion by invoking Mississippi law.
Unknown Speaker: Well, the reason is because of course, as you've heard, to focus you right on it, that the question is whether the Constitution bars Louisiana from taking this Mississippi conviction into account when it increases a punishment, a matter that perhaps has never even been argued.
Now, go ahead.
Mr. Petersen: Well, I think you can justify it in that the State of Mississippi was never given any opportunity to pass on these convictions despite the fact that Trest was on notice in June of 1979 in Louisiana that they were being used for enhancement, and he had in the State of Mississippi till 1987.
So therefore you have the State of Mississippi affording this petitioner an opportunity, clearly knowing the State of Louisiana is using these five other prior felonies, and not going to the State of Mississippi.
Meanwhile, you have the interest of the State of Louisiana in presuming that that judgments... those judgments are valid, and furthermore, he had two options.
He could have either gone to the State court in Louisiana... our position is that in 1990 the claim was not fairly presented.
He could have gone back to the State of Mississippi up to the year 1987.
He didn't even raise the Boykin claim until 1994.
Clearly, the petitioner had options in either State.
He's foreclosed in either State.
Therefore, there's a procedural bar in either State, and that would support the judgment of the Fifth Circuit.
Unknown Speaker: Thank you, Ms. Petersen.
Mr. Petersen: Thank you.
Unknown Speaker: Ms. Hudsmith, you have 5 minutes remaining.
Rebuttal of Rebecca L. Hudsmith
Mr. Hudsmith: I would waive the remaining oral argument unless the Court has questions of me.
Chief Justice Rehnquist: Thank you, Ms. Hudsmith.
The case is submitted.


text:
Health and Wellness
- Nation
Mom's feet, hand amputated to stop flesh-eating bacteriaMom's feet, hand amputated to stop flesh-eating bacteriaDoctors thought they also would have to remove fingers on her left hand but decided not to.
- Nation
Drexel University implements new mental health kioskDrexel University implements new mental health kioskThe two-minute anonymous screening can test for six different signs of mental health problems, from depression to alcohol-use disorders.
- Opinion
You pass it, you bought it, says high court: ColumnYou pass it, you bought it, says high court: ColumnObamacare decision leaves government without reverse gear
- Nation
Man dies from bacteria after swimming in GulfMan dies from bacteria after swimming in GulfA Florida man died from a bacteria he got while swimming in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the victim's mother, 26-year-old Cason Yeager was in waist-deep water when he contracted the Vibrio Vulnificus.
- Nation
Flesh-eating bacteria kills Florida swimmerFlesh-eating bacteria kills Florida swimmer26-year-old was dead 2 days after encountering the organism.
- Washington
Supreme Court upholds Obamacare tax subsidiesSupreme Court upholds Obamacare tax subsidiesThe U.S. Supreme Court upheld the nationwide tax subsidies that are a core component of President Barack Obama's health-care law, rejecting a challenge that had threatened to gut the measure and undercut his legacy. Bloomberg's Phil Matti
- Health
5 Hazardous sunscreen mistakes you're making5 Hazardous sunscreen mistakes you're makingSoak up the sun this summer, just remember to bring your SPF smarts! Krystin Goodwin (@Krystingoodwin) has five hazardous sunscreen mistakes you should know.
- Nation
5 Household items to soothe a sunburn5 Household items to soothe a sunburnIf you're sunburnt like a lobster, and out of aloe vera gel, a few items around the house may help ease your sunburned skin. Krystin Goodwin (@krystingoodwin) explains.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
This one looks kinda weird!
Only the one in Mexico who asked me to sit on his lap....
Nope, I find them interesting, actually.
clowns

talking hot dogs

talking cheases burguers

talking... well anything to be honiest
No, I don't like them though. They;re kind of creepy. People who always smile aren't right in the head. ^^;;
I think you want them to.
your avatar scares me
Only the clowns who post questions.
No, but I can't say I've ever liked them much.
Annoying, not frightening.
In a creepy kind of way yes, as long as I never am left alone with them and never have to be around those creepy dolls and figurines I will survive. But leave me alone with one? NO WAY
No. Just ugly and annoying
No. Never.
Related Questions
mojorising 51-55, F 15 Answers 1 Apr 9, 2011
CobaltToad 41-45, M 8 Answers 5 Oct 14, 2012 in EP
"i cant understand y people are frightened of new ideas..i am frightened of the old ones.."-John cageThe mind that opens to a new idea never returns to its original size.― Albert EinsteinEvangeline1985 26-30 10 Answers 5 Mar 14, 2013 in Community
THEMADHATTERXXXX 46-50, M 11 Answers 3 Jul 19, 2013 in Food
Are you one of those people with "coulrophobia", e.g. fear of clowns? Do you actually like clowns at all?metalmaiden79 31-35, F 6 Answers 3 May 21, 2011
plungesponge 26-30, M 9 Answers 7 Jan 11, 2012
I have a friend who's a 25 year old dude. He refuses to watch Killer Klowns From Outer Space.....I just don't get it.LinzeMarie 22-25, F 9 Answers 5 Jan 18, 2012
"There are two types of people in this world. People who hate clowns...and clowns"....Which one are you?
Personally, I have big hatred for killer clowns, why? because i value my right to live. what would you do to clowns?I will f ucking hit those son of a ******* with my unbreakable metal bat. torture them, like how they tortured humans in the movies. and shoot the face with a shot gun, stupid...HulCAWmania 18-21, M 6 Answers 2 Nov 20, 2012 in EP


text:
Martina Reisz Newberry
Martina Reisz Newberry best poems. Martina Reisz Newberry's most recent book is "What we can forgive". She is also the author of "Late Night Radio, Perhaps you could breathe for me, Hunger, After the Earthquake: Poems 1996-2006, Not Untrue & Not Unkind and Running like a Woman with her Hair on Fire: Collected Poems, published.
Popular Poets of All Time
Maya Angelouwas an African-American poet. (April 4, 1928 – May 28, 2014)
Pablo NerudaNobel prize chilean poet. (July 12, 1904 – Sept. 23, 1973)
Rabindranath Tagorewas an indian famous poet (May 7, 1861 – August 7, 1941)
Thomas. S. Eliotwas an English poet and critic. (Sept. 26, 1888 – Jan. 4, 1965)


text:
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#300 - bustercaller (07/13/2013) [-]
I find this to be true but I find it more accurate to replace energy with honor
#346 to #340 - bustercaller (07/13/2013) [-]
You can lose honor. Try thinking about it with the synonyms: recognition; distinction; dignity & respect in mind. It is a broad word
#303 to #300 - mayormilkman (07/13/2013) [-]
#319 to #303 - bustercaller (07/13/2013) [-]
That is how I see it. When I am in a group that I do not know or someone I am not comfortable with, I feel as if they are naturally judging me about how I interact, what I say, my body, my body language & my eye contact. I feel as it they paint a picture of me that is not accurate and negative therefore taking away my honor leaving me with shame due to there perceived judgement of me. Which they then pass that judgement onto others who then also place that negative judgement on me. So I feel I can only fight back by judging them negatively or I just walk away and not be around them therefore protecting myself against their judgement. To me it's a form of bullying. But then you can also argue that how I act is a form of cowardice. I don't hate them for it though, it is what it is
0#317 to #303 - lulzforsandyhook has deleted their comment [-]
#326 to #317 - bustercaller (07/13/2013) [-]
My point exactly
0#342 to #326 - lulzforsandyhook has deleted their comment [-]
#348 to #342 - bustercaller (07/13/2013) [-]
I realise this. It just seemed to me that you proved my point above


text:
Hang tight!
Recipe by Charita Braker
"Avocados and dry ranch dressing make a delicious substitute for boring mayonnaise. Adds a zing to sandwiches and veggies."
Hmm. None of these ingredients are on sale today.
Show ingredients on sale
Sort stores by
Save money at local stores when ingredients are on sale!
Watch video tips and tricks
ripe avocados - peeled, pitted, and mashed
1 (1 ounce) package
ranch dressing mix
2 tablespoons
fresh lemon juice
1 tablespoon
light mayonnaise
I made this with one avocado so I halved the recipe. And since one reviewer said it was salty, I did just 2 tsps of ranch dressing mix, squeezed half a lemon and about 3/4 TB of mayo. It turned out good. Nice avocado spread for sandwiches when you want to change it up a little. I'd make it again.
Way too salty! I think half the amount of seasoning mix would have been plenty. One positive--it does hold its color well.
16 Ratings
all you need to make a great avocado dip/spread is avocado, mayo, lemon and seasoned salt.
Based on the other reviews I did not use a whole package of ranch mix - with really nicely ripe avocados you don't need the mayonnaise - light or not it is just added calories. Personally, I prefer lime with avocado - the lemon just didn't taste quite right.
I thought this was delicious! Great as a spread or a dip!
Yummy. It was a little zesty for my liking so I added another avocado and it toned it down enough for me. Will make again for sure
Listening to other reviewers I didn't want it to be too salty. I halved the recipe. I used one avocado, Tbsp of fresh lime juice, 1 Tbsp ranch seasoning mix, and a tiny dollop of lite mayo. This was still so tangy I could barely stand it. I added another 1/4 of avocado and that seemed to tone it down just enough. I now have way more than I need for my two grilled chicken sandwiches, but I'm pretty sure it will turn easily into guacamole.
After reading the reviews I just sprinkled in the ranch dressing until I got it my taste. I also added red onion. Great recipe!! Perfect on sandwiches or as a dip.
* Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet.
Easy Avocado Spread
Serving Size: 1/20 of a recipe
Servings Per Recipe: 20
Amount Per Serving
Calories: 38
Calories from Fat: 29
Something about the grill's heat brings out the best flavor in the simplest chicken recipe.
We have over 700 dessert recipes just for summer fun.
Delicious recipes, party ideas, and cooking tips! Get a year of Allrecipes magazine for $7.99!
See how to make a hot and sweet salsa for meats, chips, and fish.
A cool avocado salsa with corn, olives, and red peppers in a tangy vinaigrette.
See how to make fresh jams and jellies from scratch—in just 30 minutes!


text:
technology changes
A&E GC joins Cowan DeBaets
The newest addition to the roster at Cowan DeBaets is no stranger to entertainment law, as Doug Jacobs spent almost 20 years as the GC at both A&E Television Networks and Court TV.
Impacts of the recession on the legal industry
Expert Ed Winslow provides insight into how the legal industry is moving towards segmentation in a post-recession world
Western Union under investigation for possible connection to fraud
In a company regulatory filing, Western Union revealed that the U.S. government is investigating it for money moved over its network that may be connected to alleged fraud.
2013 in-house compensation report
In-house lawyers' compensation is increasing as their roles evolve
E-discovery: The relationship between cloud computing, e-discovery and privilege
Regular Internet users have likely heard the terms "cloud storage," "cloud computing," and/or "the cloud."


text:
Vera Artis would seem to be a perfect fit for the state program created decades ago to ease the property tax burden on homeowners with modest incomes.
She has no major assets beyond the tidy East Baltimore townhouse that she and her husband, now deceased, bought in the 1980s. Social Security and a pension bring in just $16,000 a year. "Money," she says, "is tight."
And in fact, based on her income, the state would have picked up more than half of her $1,280 property tax bill this year — if only she had known to apply for the help.
The subsidy that Artis, 61, is missing out on is called the Homeowners' Property Tax Credit, not to be confused with the Homestead Property Tax Credit open to all homeowners regardless of wealth.
To qualify for the homeowners' credit, applicants cannot have household income over $60,000 or assets of $200,000 or more, excluding their primary residence and retirement savings. In some cases, the credit can wipe out a homeowner's entire annual property tax bill.
But an examination by The Baltimore Sun has found that thousands of lower-income homeowners in the city do not receive the credit, even though they would seem to be eligible.
And residents who do get it — legitimately — include a doctor, a lawyer and others who in recent years bought homes for $300,000 or more, in some cases with assistance from parents. One recipient of the low-income credit lives in a home valued at nearly $1 million.
The Sun also discovered that the resident of a waterfront condominium in Canton has gotten $21,700 in breaks over the past four years that were undeserved — money the state now wants back.
Del. Brian K. McHale, a South Baltimore Democrat, supports the credit and has worked to expand it to help elderly constituents on fixed incomes. But when told of The Sun's findings, he said he worried that some residents might be "taking advantage" of the program even while following the rules.
"It's an issue of fairness," he said. "When you develop a program, you obviously want to make sure it benefits the people who it's intended to benefit, not people who figured out a way to game it."
Of the roughly 10,000 city owners who get the credit, more than 700 have bought houses since 2007, and dozens just in the past year, according to The Sun's analysis — a sign that a program created to keep people from losing their homes is being used by some to help acquire one.
Young professionals and graduate students have tapped into the program soon after buying relatively pricey homes. Though the credit applies only to the first $300,000 of value, homes worth more than that still qualify.
For example, in 2007 a newly minted doctor bought a home downtown for $340,000, after a real estate agent pointed out that her modest salary as a medical resident entitled her to a break.
In another case, a graduate student bought a Riverside rowhouse for $350,000 three years ago, after borrowing money from her parents, then got the state to pay half her $8,300 annual property tax tab.
Such cases are allowed under the rules of the program, but state officials say they are exceptions: The average city recipient owns a home worth about $130,000.
Even so, a number of recipients own homes worth several times as much, The Sun found. Many are longtime, elderly owners who once might have earned large salaries but now get by on limited incomes. Some are first-time buyers.
Tax breaks for $500,000 homes
The upper tier includes 189 homes valued by the state at more than $300,000, and more than a dozen — mostly in Homeland and Roland Park — valued at more than $500,000.
The highest-valued city residence with a homeowners' credit is assessed by the state at $985,000. That owner, a retired teacher in her 80s, has lived in the sprawling North Baltimore home for decades. This year the state paid $4,550 of her tax bill.
Many don't know about tax break for lower-income homeowners
Recipients include young professionals in $300,000-plus homes
Vera Artis, 61, in the kitchen of her home on Showell Court in Johnston Square Manor, where she has lived since 1984. Artis, who lives on a fixed income, may be eligible for a property tax break from the state for low and moderate-income homeowners. She was not aware of the program until recently. (Amy Davis, Baltimore Sun / February 12, 2012)


text:
Congress weighed in for the first time today on the FTC's plan for a Do Not Track option for web browsing, and key Republicans weren't exactly supportive of the idea. That skepticism could prove fatal to any legislation on Do Not Track, since the proposal is currently in a public comment period that lasts through Jan. 31. By that time, the lame duck session will have ended and the House of Representative will be under Republican control.
Bobby Rush, the Illinois Democrat who chairs the House subcommittee that considered the FTC's proposal today, introduced the hearing by saying he had real concerns about consumers who "do not wish to be followed by digital snoopers and spies across various websites," but his Republican colleagues showed decidedly less enthusiasm for turning the FTC's report into legislation.
"I appreciate these hearings on the Do Not Track concept," said Kentucky Republican Ed Whitfield, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee considering the proposal, "because I don't think we need legislation." The subcommittee is part of the House Commerce Committee.
Whitfield said he's opposed because there are competing privacy-control technologies available. In addition, targeted ads help pay for content, and are beneficial for consumers. "In order for internet content to stay free to consumers, it is supported by advertising," he said. "I also assume most consumers would rather see advertisements they are interested in than advertisements they are not interested in."
"Web tracking can provide valuable information to businesses and marketers," said another Republican on the committee, Steve Scalise of Louisiana. "Consumers can enjoy a personalized web experience and receive ads tailored to their experience. And tracking and behavioral advertisements underwrite the internet itself [by supporting free services]."
The FTC has put forward its 122-page report [PDF] as a set of guidelines for industry and policymakers, and has not-as a commission-expressed support for a new law. But FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, a Democrat, has said that he personally is in favor of it.
The FTC's position is that industry self-regulation isn't sufficient to protect consumers from overly intrusive advertising practices. The commission, which includes three Democrats and two Republicans, voted 5-0 in favor of approving the privacy report. But one FTC Commissioner, Republican William Kovacic, voted in favor of the overall privacy report but wrote a concurring opinion specifically stating he does not support Do Not Track.


text:
BRASILIA, Brazil, Nov. 9, 2010 /PRNewswire/ -- The Coordination for the Improvement of Personnel in Higher Education (CAPES) today hosts an official signing ceremony, celebrating the 10th anniversary of Portal de Periodicos. CAPES will sign contract renewals with Thomson Reuters and other international publishers who are part of the Portal.
Thomson Reuters is pleased to provide CAPES with access to its Micromedex® solutions, which include evidence-based information on drugs and drug interactions, disease management, toxicology, alternative medicine, and intravenous drug compatibility. By tapping into this integrated reference source, CAPES ensures that Brazil's students are kept up-to-date with the world's best clinical evidence.
It is important for CAPES to provide Brazil's scholarly community access to the world's leading publishers. Medical and pharmacy students, clinical researchers and other members of national academic programs, through Thomson Reuters, can tap into the world's best clinical evidence on drugs and disease.
Affiliated to the Ministry of Education, CAPES is responsible for the Brazilian post graduate academic system. It works as an agency to support, evaluate, regulate and set rules that guide academic programs with the aim of achieving standards of excellence.
The Portal de Periodicos was created in November 2000 to deliver online access to current scientific content in order to reduce regional differences in the Brazilian research and post graduate system. It provides more than 268 institutions with access to more than 15,000 journals.
About CAPES
CAPES is a Foundation within the Ministry of Education in Brazil whose central purpose is to coordinate efforts to improve the quality of Brazil's faculty and staff in higher education through grant programs. CAPES is particularly concerned with the training of Doctoral candidates, Pre-doctoral short-term researchers, and Post-doctoral S
|SOURCE Thomson Reuters
Copyright©2010 PR Newswire.
All rights reserved


text: TH South Wins Tennis Sectional Title 10/04/2013 11:46 PM 10/05/2013 12:00 AM TH South Wins Tennis Sectional Title 10/05/2013 12:00 AM Boys Tennis Sectional Final:TH South 5, West Vigo 0 Copyright 2013 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Page: [[$index + 1]] sports top sports stories


text:
Featured car - Watch the best race finish ever
Watch the best race finish ever
Stadium Supertrucks driver Sheldon Creed spectacularly rolls his way to a podium finishWatch the best race finish ever
Latest news
Face to face with Peugeot's Dakar cars
We take a spin in Pug's legendary 205 T16 and join the insane 2008 DKR test in Morocco
Gallery: up close with the cars of Dakar 2015
Feast your eyes on the machines of this year's epic endurance race before they got all grubby
TopGear.com at Dakar 2015: behind the scenes
Join us for a guided tour of Dakar's fact-ridden nomadic city on wheels
TopGear.com at Dakar 2015: day three
Terrible news from the race as Polish rider Michal Hernik dies during stage three
TopGear.com at Dakar 2015: day two
Our dehydrated correspondent Rowan Horncastle reports back from the sand – look at these pictures!
TopGear.com at Dakar 2015: day one
Or man reports back on the opening stage of the world's most insane race
Dakar Rally 2015: pre-race scrutineering
Before the race, Peugeot's 2008 DKR triplets are sent to the headmaster's office to see if they're fit to race. We were there…
Dakar: TG chats to Cyril Despres
Ahead of his first four-wheeled Dakar, we speak to the new kid on the sandy blockDakar: TG chats to Cyril Despres
Are you ready for the Dakar Rally?
All you need to know about the 37th edition of the tough race… in the worldAre you ready for the Dakar Rally?
Good news! It's the 380bhp Dakar Duster
Christmas has come early: two V8-powered Dusters will contest the 2015 Dakar rallyGood news! It's the 380bhp Dakar Duster
Behind the scenes with Peugeot's Dakar monster
We've had exclusive access to the bonkers Peugeot 2008 that will tackle the gruelling Dakar rally
Watch out Dakar, the Mokka's coming
How do you make the Vauxhall Mokka interesting? Give it a V8 and take it rallying, obviouslyWatch out Dakar, the Mokka's coming
Up close with the Peugeot 2008 DKR
Everything you need to know – and amazing photos – of France's monstrous new Dakar racerUp close with the Peugeot 2008 DKR
The maddest Dakar racers in the world
As Peugeot reveals the 2008 DKR, we look back on some of the wildest Dakar entries
It's the Peugeot 2008 Dakar car!
Monster mini-SUV-buggy heralds Peugeot's return to the Dakar rally for 2015. And it looks excellentIt's the Peugeot 2008 Dakar car!
Peugeot to race in Dakar 2015
Pug returns after 25 years in a 2008. And rally legend Carlos Sainz is driving…Peugeot to race in Dakar 2015
14 reasons why it's not just about F1 in 2014
The F1 season has kicked off, but there's lots more motorsport happening this year to get excited about...
Top Gear drives the Dakar-winning Mini
Before it conquered South America, we took the 311bhp X-Raid Mini Countryman for a shakedown
How to survive the Dakar
A beginners guide to spectating at the world's most demanding endurance competition


text:
Image Gallery
Technical Description
The IRGASON has the following outputs:
IRGASON Specifications
Gas Analyzera,b
Sonic Anemometer Accuracya
Basic Barometer (option -BB)a
Enhanced Barometer (option -EB)a
Ambient Temperaturea, d
bA temperature of 20°C and pressure of 101.325 kPa was used to convert mass density to concentration.
cThe noise RMS specifications assume 25°C, 594 mg/m3 CO2 density, 85 kPa, 10.2 g/m3 water density, and 20 Hz bandwidth.
dThe accuracy specification for the sonic anemometer is for wind speeds < 30 m s-1 and wind angles between ±170°.
Resources and Links
Related Documents
Shipping Weights & Dims
Single Box Shipping Weight: 55 lb
Single Box Shipping Dimensions:
32 x 26 x 17 in.


text:
Hold down Control (PC) or Command (Mac) key + mouseclick to select more than one option
Home >
Upper West Side >
American (Traditional) >
All Sandwiches Served With Lettuce, Tomato & Onion.
Try 'Em Plain Or Smothered In Any Wing Sauce!
Broccoli, Green Peppers, Zucchini, Carrots & Celery With Spinach Dip
Monday-Friday: 11:30am-4pm. Choice Of: Tossed Salad Or Caesar Salad.
Canned Sodas & Snapple For Take-Out And Delivery Only.


text:
Grand Rapids, MI, USA < change city >
Photographers (45)
Caterers (33)
Florists (23)
Cakes (20)
Bands (15)
Wedding Day Beauty (14)
Rentals (11)
Wedding Fashion (10)
Limos (8)
Decorations (8)
Coordinators (7)
Videographers (7)
Officiants (6)
Beverages (6)
Photo Booths (4)
Ceremony Sites (223)
Reception Sites (152)
See All Vendors >
You can count on Celebrity DJz to bring style and elegance to your special event, creating memories that will last a lifetime. With years of experience in live Entertainment, weddings, and event planning, our professionals will work with you throughout the entire process. You can book with confidence knowing you will receive the same preparation, attention to detail, and musical expertise no matter which DJ you choose. Celebrity DJz delivers a level of customer service that leaves satisfied clients using words like, "tremendous, perfect, and flawless!"
Our Professional DJz
Requires Login
You must log in before you can save anything to your wedding notebook Log in here.
If you do not have an account, you can register a new account here.
|DJs, Bands/Live Entertainment
grand rapids, mi, usa
|More Info:
|Contact > Visit Website >
1 rating
1 review
1 wedding
Add Your Review >
liz and kyle 's Wedding
"Amazing!!!!! Celebrity-dj i can not thank you enough for the wonderful job you did. You kept the music going all night long. Thank you so much"
Kristin and Gerald's Wedding
"We were very pleased with Celebrity DJZ. They made the reception fun and the dance floor was full all evening :)"
grand rapids, mi, usa


text:
Make a Trip from Tulsa to Eureka Springs
The drive from Tulsa to Eureka Springs is full of unique cities and stopping points to make a pretty neat day trip. The drive time is around 2…Read MoreRead This Post
The drive from Tulsa to Eureka Springs is full of unique cities and stopping points to make a pretty neat day trip. The drive time is around 2…Read MoreRead This Post
There's nothing better than a fall day in the Natural State of Arkansas. The changing leaves on the mountains and the crispness in the air sets the scene…Read MoreRead This Post
For an evening of fun entertainment for the whole family, the Ozark Mountain Hoedown is the show to see in Eureka Springs. Great for all ages, the Ozark…Read MoreRead This Post
Named as one of the World's Hottest Museums for 2014, Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art is the place to visit this summer. Because it is free to…Read MoreRead This Post
Dogwood Canyon Nature Park is a beautiful and scenic park located in Lampe, Missouri. Spread over 10,000 acres, the park boasts stunning views of the Ozark Mountains. The…Read MoreRead This Post
Nestled in the Ozark Mountains of Northwest Arkansas is a small town called Eureka Springs. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, Eureka Springs is a popular…Read MoreRead This Post
A fun filled, four day event will make its way back to Eureka Springs this September. The 7th Annual Scooting the Ozarks Rally will be held September 10th…Read MoreRead This Post
Take a stroll down Spring Street in Eureka Springs Arkansas and you will find an art lover's paradise. The town is home to over 400 working artists and…Read MoreRead This Post
Eureka Springs Arkansas was named one of America's Dozen Distinctive Destinations by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The Eureka Springs Historic District is a main draw to…Read MoreRead This Post
A great way to get out, exercise and see the beautiful town is to visit one of the many Eureka Springs hiking trails the region has to offer. …Read MoreRead This Post


text:
Related Content:
'Anti-gun crowd' trying to fool American public
Feb 8, 2013 - Dennis Koppenhafer, Shoshoni:  Editor:
Meet the 'Problem Solvers'
Feb 8, 2013 - By James Rosen, McClatchy Newspapers:  WASHINGTON -- For the past three years, some Republican and Democratic lawmakers have sat next to each other during President Barack Obama's annual State of the ... [more]
Desperate for scandal
Feb 8, 2013 - By Steven R. Peck:  The time to audit the state education department was before Cindy Hill was ransacked, not after
Feb 8, 2013 - The Associated Press:  Wolf count nearly done
UW energy school rakes in another big-money gift
Feb 8, 2013 - By Mead Gruver, The Associated Press:  CHEYENNE -- Another major corporate gift from the oil and gas industry, this time from ExxonMobil, seeks to boost hydrocarbon deposit research at the University ... [more]
Honor Farm intersection site of wreck
Feb 8, 2013 - By Katie Roenigk, Staff Writer:  Wyoming Highway 789 north of Riverton was obstructed for about 30 minutes Friday morning after another accident occurred at the Honor Farm Road ... [more]
Skull testing doesn't prove it's Rubano's, but case closed
Feb 8, 2013 - By Christina George, Staff Writer:  Examinations of a human skull discovered near Popo Agie Falls have brought inconclusive results.
Supplemental budget legislation getting last-minute tweaks
Feb 8, 2013 - The Associated Press:  CHEYENNE -- Wyoming's supplemental budget bill faces final amendments in both Houses.
Commission rejects another idea for insignia on coroner's vehicles
Feb 8, 2013 - By Eric Blom, Staff Writer:  A disagreement among county officials over vehicle decals continues to have no end in sight. The Fremont County Commission rejected a "compromise" from county ... [more]
4,250 wells: Gas partners readying big play
Feb 8, 2013 - By Eric Blom, Staff Writer:  Encana Oil & Gas and Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company seek to develop an oil and natural gas field straddling Fremont and Natrona counties. The Bureau of ... [more]
Winter track team warms up
Feb 7, 2013 - Staff:  The high school winter track team will compete Saturday at ... [more]
Muhammad follows path to UW
Feb 7, 2013 - The Associated Press:  Malkaam Muhammad played one year of high school football with his big brother, Ghaali, in St. Joseph, Mo.
Cowboys build big lead to hold off Cal-State Bakersfield 61-53
Feb 7, 2013 - The Associated Press:  It was a night for the underclassmen of the University of Wyoming men's basketball team.
Galey, Savage and Webb make the North roster for Shrine Bowl
Feb 7, 2013 - By Bruce Tippets, Sports Editor:  Five Fremont County football players and one coach have been selected to play in the annual Shrine Bowl game this summer in Casper.
Rustlers keep share of league lead with victory over Western
Feb 7, 2013 - By Bruce Tippets, Sports Editor:  The CWC women fell by 16 points in their game in Rock Springs.
Laura Jean Graves
Feb 7, 2013 - Staff:  Laura Jean Graves, 77, of Pavillion, died Sunday, Feb. 3, 2013, at Riverton Memorial Hospital.
Leo Vincent Cowboy
Feb 7, 2013 - Staff:  Leo Vincent Cowboy, aka Bear, Sonny Bear, Vinny or Shorty, died Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013, in Salt Lake City, following a lengthy illness. He was 43 years old.
Feb 7, 2013 - Staff:  Corrections
Honor Farm announces employees of the quarter
Feb 7, 2013 - From staff reports:  Warden Michael Pacheco has announced Sgt. Robert Koski and Marci Stewart have been selected as the uniform and non-uniform employees of the third quarter, ... [more]
Brunton a sponsor of 'Friends of NRA' show
Feb 7, 2013 - From staff reports:  FAIRFAX, Va. -- The National Rifle Association is pleased to announce that Brunton will serve as the Title Sponsor of the "Friends of NRA" television show for a ... [more]
Tarwater constructs coffins for cowboys
Feb 7, 2013 - By Katie Roenigk, Staff Writer:  Carpenter says he uses local materials to make simple, wooden boxes for burial.
Forever in her debt, U.S. notes centennial of Rosa Parks
Feb 7, 2013 - By Brian Gilmore, For MCT News Service:  This week marks the 100th birthday of civil rights legend Rosa Parks. To celebrate the date, the U.S. Postal Service has issued a Rosa Parks stamp. It is a ... [more]
Food Freedom Act is about common sense, not politics
Feb 7, 2013 - Katie Swistowicz, Lander:  Editor:
I root for all the Harbaughs
Feb 7, 2013 - By Betty Starks Case:  Yes, the Super Bowl game last weekend was exciting. Especially when the lights went out at halftime.
How it's done, and not
Feb 7, 2013 - By Steven R. Peck:  Americans saw a big difference between cabinet nominees Kerry and Hagel
Feb 7, 2013 - The Associated Press:  UW makes 'best value' list
Rare winter call on North Platte placed downstream
Feb 7, 2013 - The Associated Press:  CHEYENNE -- The first winter-time call on administration of water rights in the North Platte River drainage in Wyoming since 2005 means several cities and towns ... [more]
Bill on domestic violence protections passes Senate
Feb 7, 2013 - By Katie Roenigk, Staff Writer:  State Sen. Eli Bebout, R-Riverton, said he sponsored Senate File 117 at the request of a constituent from Fremont County.
District 38 superintendent to step down
Feb 7, 2013 - By Christina George, Staff Writer:  After a year on the job, Fremont County School District 38 superintendent Jonathan Braack submitted his resignation, effective June 30.
County to set up citizen committee on uses for 1 percent tax
Feb 7, 2013 - By Eric Blom, Staff Writer:  Fremont County is establishing a committee of citizens to advise on the spending of optional 1 percent tax revenue.


text:
The Christmas Session
Jon Kyl, rather preposterously, suggests that Harry Reid is somehow disrespecting Christmas by talking about scheduling votes between Christmas and New Year's. Obviously it's unfortunate any time the precious members of the US Senate need to do actual work, but aversion to working is traditionally the reason that the Senate's many tools of obstruction have been used sparingly. But if Senators want to engage in policies of maximum delay, then countermeasures of maximum work are the only realistic response.
That said, I really think Senate Democrats should consider taking advantage of their critical numerical advantage in terms of Jewish Senators and just hold a "no Christians invited" special Christmas Day session. In the all-Jewish Senate, Chuck Schumer is the median member. Joe Lieberman, the most conservative Jewish Senator, is the median in the real Senate.
This year's Christmas falls on a Saturday, so no Joe Lieberman either. That's good, because I suspect he's the kind of guy who'd ruin Jewish Christmas by complaining about the questionable halachic status of Chinese food.


text:
Two former San Francisco health inspectors are in hot water after being accused of accepting bribes to pass hundreds of city restaurants on food safety examinations. Ajamu Stewart, 54, and Clifton Sanders, 41, face up to eight years in prison if convicted of a variety of crimes, including felony counts of falsifying public records.
According to the charges, the men allegedly charged nearly 350 restaurants between $100 and $200 in exchange for a passing score on a written food safety exam. The exam asks questions about the proper temperatures of hot or cold foods and proper sanitation procedures in restaurants. Stewart and Sanders would ask the questions orally or fill in the answers themselves.
"It is of paramount importance that the public have confidence that the employees that are investigating and regulating food safety issues are carrying out their responsibilities with the highest degree of professionalism," District Attorney Dennis Herrara said.
No restaurant employees will face charges. Restaurants involved ranged from well-known establishments to eateries serving more ethnic foods.
Other recent scandals:
Image Sources:
December 30, 2011
Read this story, Orzel is a superstar!
missionlocal.org/.../fired-restaurant-inspector-alleges-the-department- retaliated-after-she-began-criticizing-it/
January 22, 2012
Search the San Francisco Hazardous Materials Unified Program Agency homepage for Inspector Paula Stewart. She needs to lose her California REHS license for not reporting her husband's trangressions toute suite!
How could she raise her head each day?
Related Articles
- Mario Batali Makes Shocking Statements
- Fast Food Companies Defy Happy Meal Ban
- The Next Restaurant Empire? Grilled Cheese
- 10 City Themed Cheeseburgers
- Would You Eat Human Placenta?
- Canstruction San Francisco Features Cantastic Art
- Four Barrel Coffee Bans Instagram and Other Hipster Topics
- Tyler Florence Launches Safeway's Open Nature Brand With World's Longest Picnic Table
- Denny's Christmas Tree Set on Fire by an Irate Customer
- Eating Just Burritos for 2 Weeks
Related Recipes
Want more from Foodista? Sign up below!


text:
share:Remind Me
TCMDb Archive MaterialsView all archives (0)
Shop tcm.com
Bad Men of... - NOT AVAILABLE
Our records indicate this title is not available on Home Video. Vote below for it to be released on DVD.
- Total votes: vote now!
- Rank: (why vote?)
- Acting of Lead Performers
- Acting of Supporting Cast
- Director
- Music Score
- Title Sequence
- Screenplay
- Cinematography
- Historical Importance
- Would You Recommend?
0 Member Ratings
The title has not been reviewed. Be the first to write a review by clicking here to start.
Too Dark
- GypsyPi3000
- 4/8/13
This movie is too dark for my taste. And I don't mean sinister storyline dark. I mean the movie looks like it was shot at night with no flash. It's really bad in the beginning which hampered my ability to ever really figure out who was who. Therefore, I can give it no stars, but the previous rater seemed to really like it. So I would go by that review.
Why is the movie Badmen of Missouri never on TCM?
- Donald Lamutis
- 11/3/11
Even though this is a historically inaccurate description of the Younger Brothers and the James Gang in late ninteenth century Missouri, it is highly entertaining and a fun movie to watch. Because of its short running time of less than 80 minutes, it was a favorite of the late night movie and early afternoon television movie shows of the 50's and 60's. I recommend the movie to all Dennis Morgan, Jane Wyman, and Arthur Kennedy movie fans! I wonder why it is never shown on TMC.
Your Overall Rating
*We protect your personal infortmation and will not provide it to anyone without your consent. For a complete explanation, please refer to TCM's Privacy Policy. By submitting your contribution, you agree to TCM's Terms of Use.


text:
Linda Lietaviete: Alvin Santos appears on murder charge
- 18 December 2013
- From the section Dorset
A man has appeared in court charged with the murder of a teenage girl found fatally stabbed near a Bournemouth flyover.
The body of Linda Lietaviete, 16, was discovered by paramedics at Horseshoe Common early on Friday.
Alvin Santos, 25, from Bournemouth, appeared at Winchester Crown Court and was remanded in custody to appear there again on 28 February.
Linda, who was originally from Latvia, was a business administration student.


text:
Highly Anticipated ARCHITECT(R) i1000SR(R) Analyzer Enhances Workflow and
Boosts Laboratory Productivity
ABBOTT PARK, Ill., April 15 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Abbott (NYSE: ABT) has introduced the ARCHITECT(R) i1000SR(R) immunochemistry analyzer, expanding its ARCHITECT family of diagnostics instrument systems for clinical laboratories. Designed for labs that typically perform less than 200 immunoassay tests per day, the instrument addresses many of the workflow challenges common in today's laboratories.
With the increased demand for diagnostic testing, laboratories, both large and small, need to process tests as quickly and efficiently as possible. By providing continuous access to reagents and samples while the instrument is running, the ARCHITECT i1000SR enhances laboratory productivity. Additionally, a wide test menu, user-friendly software and low maintenance make it easy to train new laboratory personnel on the instrument's operation.
"Because time and ease of use are so critical in the testing environment, Abbott worked extensively with customers very early in the development phase and designed an instrument that could help smaller labs overcome the same productivity obstacles faced by larger labs," said Cass Grandone, divisional vice president, Systems Development, Abbott Diagnostics. "The ARCHITECT i1000SR analyzer is ideal for facilities running less than 200 tests per day and offers productivity benefits, such as highly efficient sample processing, usually reserved for larger testing facilities. Since ARCHITECT utilizes common reagents, consumables and software user interfaces, larger laboratories may be interested in using the instrument as a back-up system to the i2000SR."
The ARCHITECT i1000SR analyzer can process up to 100 tests per hour. The instrument accommodates 65 patient samples and has the capability to prioritize emergency test results and turn them around in less than 16 minutes.'/>"/>
|SOURCE Abbott
Copyright©2008 PR Newswire.
All rights reserved


text:
California Department of Public Health
Health Impacts Of Drought Already Felt In Central Valley
An oversight hearing held in Sacramento revealed some startling details on how the drought will impact access to safe drinking water in disadvantaged communities around California.
2 More Flu Deaths Reported In Santa Clara County, 50 More Statewide
Two more flu-related deaths were recorded in Santa Clara County on Friday as state Department of Public Health officials confirmed there have been 50 more influenza deaths throughout the state as of last week.
Bay Area Flu Deaths Increase; 28 Deaths Investigated Statewide
This season's H1N1 influenza strain is challenging and is affecting young adults and children, said Dr. Gil Chavez, the state's epidemiologist and deputy director of its Center for Infectious Diseases.
Oakland Hospital Fined For Patient Death; Marin Hospital Also Fined For Patient Safety Violations
Alta Bates Medical Center in Oakland has been fined for procedural errors the California Department of Public Health says led to a patient's death.
Health Department Fines 3 Bay Area Hospitals For Serious Patient Mistakes
Three Bay Area hospitals have been fined a combined $225,000 by the California Department of Public Health for infractions that could have caused serious injury or death to patients.
San Mateo County Reports Its First Cases Of West Nile Virus This Year
Two dead birds found in San Mateo have tested positive for West Nile virus, the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District announced on Tuesday.
$455M In Funds For Safe Drinking Water Unspent By State Health Dept.
Federal regulators say California's Department of Public Health failed to spend $455 million meant to improve drinking water infrastructure—at a time when thousands rely on groundwater laced with nitrates and other contaminants.
Health Department Warns Against Eating Some Marin Shellfish
The California Department of Public Health has issued a warning against eating recreationally harvested mussels, clams or whole scallops from Marin County.
Lead Found In Licorice Made By Union City Firm
California health officials are warning consumers not to eat black licorice twist candies made by Red Vines because they contain too much lead.
Food Seized From Fremont Warehouse Over Alleged Rodent Infestation
Food and herbs allegedly contaminated by a rodent infestation were seized from the Fremont warehouse of a natural food company on Tuesday, federal authorities announced Wednesday.


text:
Clinical using. Will need to in poor health young people be given it. Pro's and Con's.
He said that "We put all the options on the table and evaluate the risk/benefit ratio of each," said Sulak. "[Medical marijuana] often emerges as a good choice because of its tolerability and efficacy." In this sense, medical marijuana, though there had been no particular study released specially treating their young patients with medical marijuana, has allowed its use on the young child/patient.
Marijuana, which is also identified as cannabis is considered the most commonly seen herbs which i put to use as the pill. Generally people know marijuana as cannabis. This pill is disallowed in a lot of locations globally for example the United States. The inquiry on regardless if it should be legalized or not is definitely debatable given that newly released investigate demonstrates that weed marijuana can be used as remedy. These information is offered once making use of weed have been forbidden in the nation along with locations (Campbell, 2012).
Marijuana did not have much use because research on what it contains was still being done. in recent times, the debate on marijuana ban is very deep with majority of Americans confused on whether to accept the legalization of marijuana since it has medical value or not initially. In the nation, earlier federal loving pot application within the 1970's sprout some present-day talk about analogues.