text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
August 30, 2013
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appelleev.JACOB MATTHEW CHRISTINE Appellant
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 24, 2010 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0003344-2009
BEFORE: STEVENS, P.J., [*] FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BOWES, J., GANTMAN, J., PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., MUNDY, J., and OTT, J.
Appellant, Jacob Matthew Christine, appeals from the November 24, 2010 aggregate judgment of sentence of nine to 20 years' imprisonment imposed after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault and recklessly endangering another person (REAP).[1] After careful review, we would affirm.
The trial court summarized the underlying facts of this case as follows.
The convictions resulted from an incident that occurred in Northhampton County Prison (NCP) on June 8, 2009. On that date, [Appellant] and the victim, Thomas Missero, were inmates in NCP when a confrontation between the two men occurred in [Appellantj's cell in Unit B-2. The cell housed 8 inmates in four rows of bunk beds. While in [Appellant's cell, [Appellant] was alleged to have slashed Mr. Missero's neck and ear with a razor blade. Immediately after the attack, corrections officers searched [Appellantj's cell. Only one weapon, a shank, was found in the cell. It was hidden within [Appellantj's bed.
Interestingly, [Appellant] testified at trial that the victim came into his cell armed with a razor blade and attacked [Appellant]. [Appellant] claimed that he successfully disarmed the victim, picked up the razor from the floor and then unintentionally sliced the victim when the victim continued to threaten [Appellant]. Even though [Appellant] was the last person to have control of the weapon, it has never been located. [The trial court] also note[d] that there were no injuries suffered by [Appellant].
Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/11, at 1-2.
On July 14, 2009, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with attempted criminal homicide[2], aggravated assault and REAP. Appellant proceeded to a three-day jury trial. On October 7, 2010, the jury found Appellant guilty of aggravated assault and REAP, but found him not guilty of attempted criminal homicide. On November 24, 2010, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of nine to 20 years' imprisonment.[3] On December 6, 2010, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion.[4]Appellant's post-sentence motion was denied on April 26, 2011. On May 5, 2011, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.[5]
On April 24, 2012, a divided panel of this Court vacated Appellant's judgment of sentence and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in not permitting Appellant to introduce evidence of Missero's subsequent criminal convictions. On May 21, 2012, the Commonwealth filed a petition for reargument en banc. This Court granted the Commonwealth's petition on July 10, 2012, and the previous panel memorandum was withdrawn.
In his substituted brief on reargument, Appellant raises three issues for our review.
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it refused to allow Appellant to present testimony at trial regarding a criminal assault in the alleged victim's criminal record?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it permitted the Commonwealth to introduce a "shank" as physical evidence as well as testimony regarding said shank in the course of the jury trial in the instant matter?
3. Was the sentence imposed contrary to the norms which underlie the sentencing process and does this case involve circumstances where the application of the sentencing guidelines was clearly unreasonable?
Appellant's Brief at 4.
In Appellant's first two issues on appeal, he challenges the trial court's rulings regarding the admission of evidence at trial. We begin by noting our well-settled standard of review over such matters.
Admission of evidence ... rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which must balance evidentiary value against the potential dangers of unfairly prejudicing the accused, inflaming the passions of the jury, or confusing the jury. We reaffirm our confidence in our trial judges to oversee the presentation of evidence so that overtly passionate, intentionally biased and inflammatory material is kept out of the courtroom. We will reverse a trial court's decision as to admissibility of evidence only if [Appellant] sustains the heavy burden to show that the trial court has abused its discretion.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 726, (Pa. 2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
First, Appellant avers that the trial court erred in precluding him from "questioning Missero regarding [a] simple assault charge" which "Missero had plead [sic] guilty to, and was sentenced for." Appellant's Brief at 9. Appellant further argues that "[t]his cross examination would have substantially proven the 'alleged violent propensities of the victim to show that the victim was in fact the aggressor." Id. at 10-11, quoting Commonwealth v. Carbone, 707 A.2d 1145, 1154 (Pa. Super. 1998), appeal discontinued, 727 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 1998). The Commonwealth counters, and the trial court concluded, that "[a] subsequent act of violence cannot be considered an indicator of someone's propensity for violence in the past." Commonwealth's Brief at 16; see also Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/11, at 13 (stating, "[a] subsequent conviction arising from events that transpired after the incident involving [Appellant] simply has no bearing on whether Misero [sic] possessed violent propensities on June 8, 2009[]") (footnote omitted).
Our Supreme Court has held that "as far back as 1884, [Pennsylvania courts have] permitted the introduction of character evidence to prove the decedent's violent propensities, where self-defense is asserted and where there is an issue as to who was the aggressor." Commonwealth v. Dillon, 598 A.2d 963, 965 (Pa. 1991), citing Alexander v. Commonwealth, 105 Pa. 1, 9 (1884). Further, our Supreme Court has specifically held that the victim's criminal record can be admissible on two distinct grounds.
(1) to corroborate [the defendant's] alleged knowledge of the victim's quarrelsome and violent character to show that the defendant reasonably believed that his life was in danger; or (2) to prove the allegedly violent propensities of the victim to show that the victim was in fact the aggressor.
Nor do we mean to suggest that our decision here abandons the rule ennunciated [sic] in [Abernethy v. Commonwealth, 101 Pa. 322 (1882)] that the defendant must first establish a foundation of his knowledge of the victim's convictions before he can introduce the corroboratory record when the defendant is seeking to prove his belief that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm. Here again, the determination whether or not the defendant demonstrates a sufficiently particular knowledge of the victim's record rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Commonwealth v. Amos, 284 A.2d 748, 303, 305 (Pa. 1971). We highlight that our Supreme Court held that a defendant must lay a foundation for his knowledge of the victim's convictions only when he "is seeking to prove his belief that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm." Id. at 305. It therefore logically follows that a defendant need not establish knowledge of the victim's record in order "to prove the allegedly violent propensities of the victim to show that the victim was in fact the aggressor." Id. at 303. In every case, the defendant is also required to show that the convictions sought to be introduced "are similar in nature and not too distant in time" from the underlying incident. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738, 741 (Pa. 2012). Because Appellant wished to use Missero's subsequent conviction to establish the second Amos ground as opposed to the first, Appellant was not required to show specific knowledge of the conviction. See Amos, supra at 303, 305.
Applying Amos to the case sub judice, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The facts stemming from Missero's subsequent conviction were as follows.
[Defense Counsel]: May 1st of 2010, Nazareth Police were called to the American Hotel in Nazareth for a report of an assault. Thomas Missero was outside and his girlfriend was there, Melissa Miller. She claimed that [Missero] had grabbed her and pushed her. She had minor damage to her ear as a result of falling, I guess, from the push, and that he had threatened her.
NT., 10/5/10, at 27. As a result, Missero pled guilty to simple assault and REAP. Id. at 27-28. The trial court concluded that Missero's subsequent convictions "[do not] really demonstrate violent propensities." Id. at 29. We agree. In our view, this offense is not "similar in nature" to the events that Appellant alleged transpired on June 8, 2009. Mouzon, supra; see also NT., 10/6/10, at 45-47 (stating that Missero threw a hot cup of coffee on Appellant and punched him multiple times). As a result, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence regarding Missero's subsequent convictions. See Bryant, supra. As a result, Appellant's first claim fails.
In his second issue, Appellant avers that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion in limine to preclude the Commonwealth from introducing the shank found in Appellant's bed and testimony regarding it. Appellant's Brief at 13. Appellant argues that the shank should have been excluded given the Commonwealth's concession that the shank was not the weapon used in the underlying incident. Id. The Commonwealth counters that the shank was relevant to show "that [Appellant] had a weapon similar to the one used in the perpetration of the crime." Commonwealth's Reply Brief at 9.
Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 401 addresses relevancy and provides as follows.
Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence
Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
Pa.R.E. 401; see also Pa.R.E. 402 (stating, "[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by law ... [but ejvidence that is not relevant is not admissible[]"). In Pennsylvania, a weapon that "cannot be specifically linked to a crime" is generally inadmissible at trial. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 721 A.2d 344, 351 (Pa. 1998), cert, denied, Robinson v. Pennsylvania, 528 U.S. 1082 (2000). However, this Court has consistently noted an exception to this rule.
A weapon shown to have been in a defendant's possession may properly be admitted into evidence, even though it cannot positively be identified as the weapon used in the commission of a particular crime, if it tends to prove that the defendant had a weapon similar to the one used in the perpetration of the crime.
Commonwealth v. Williams, 58 A.3d 796, 801 (Pa. Super. 2012), quoting Commonwealth v. Owens, 929 A.2d 1187, 1191 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, 940 A.2d 364 (Pa. 2007).
In Williams, the appellant was charged and convicted of second-degree murder stemming from a shooting that began outside a bar in Philadelphia. Id. at 797. As part of its case, the Commonwealth introduced into evidence a "photograph they discovered on [the ajppellant's phone, which showed [the a]ppellant posing with a Walther P-38 9-mm pistol." Id. at 801. The photograph was admitted despite the fact that the Commonwealth's ballistics expert testified "upon examining the bullets and casings found at the crime scene, [the Commonwealth's expert] determined that the victim was not killed with a Walther P-38, but more likely, a .380 semi-automatic weapon." Id. On appeal, this Court upheld the admission of the photograph, even though the Commonwealth did not believe the gun in the photograph was the murder weapon.
In this case, the photograph of Appellant proudly displaying a P-38 Walther nearly five days before the murder was relevant to show that Appellant had possession and control of a weapon similar to the one used to commit his crimes. Appellant claims that [a friend] gave the P-38 Walther firearm to him "to hold" immediately before the shooting. Admission of the photograph challenges Appellant's claim that this firearm did not belong to him and shows Appellant had access to a firearm similar to the one witnesses claimed he was holding when threatening the victim on the night of the murder.
Id. As a result, we concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photograph. Id.
In this case, Thomas Missero, the victim, testified about the weapon used to attack him, and claimed that it was not his weapon.
Q: Did you see anything in [Appellant's hand?
A: I didn't see nothing in his hand until afterward, I realized I was cut, and it was a modified razorblade lying on the ground covered in blood.
Q: You saw the razorblade on the ground in blood?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Can you describe that for the jury, please?
A: It was a razor made out of like a regular normal Bic Razor that you get from the dollar store, they issue them in the prison. The blade was taken out, and at the end it had paper or tape wrapped around it with the blade sticking out maybe an inch.
Q: How long was the taped part you saw?
A: Just the taped part was about 2 inches.
Q: And that was attached to the razorblade itself?
A: Yes.
Q: And you only saw this on the ground?
Q: Did you have a razorblade on you?
A: No, I did not.
NT., 10/5/10, at63-64 (emphasis added).
However, Appellant presented a different version of events. At the outset, in her opening statement, defense counsel argued to the jury that Appellant acted in self-defense and claimed that it was actually Missero that had the razorblade and brought it into the cell. See id. at 51 (stating to the jury that Appellant "was minding his own business when Thomas Missero came into his cell, there's a hot cup of coffee thrown on him, punches go, and then he sees a razorblade coming at him, and Tom Missero takes a slice at him, doesn't hit him[]"). Appellant later testified in his own defense as to his version of events.
Q: What happened [when you tried to exit the cell]?
A: I never actually made it outside of the cell. When I saw [Missero], he made eye contact with me, I noticed he had a hot cup of coffee in his hand, a steaming hot cup of coffee. I don't know what was in his other hand, I don't know if he had a razor in his hand or concealed some other place in his body.
Q: Was [Missero] saying anything to you?
A: He didn't say anything to me. As soon as he saw me, he ran towards me, I took some steps back into the cell, retreating, wondering if he was actually going to enter the cell and attack me. He did. He ran into the cell, he threw the whole cup of coffee at me, luckily he missed me with that, because that probably might have blinded me and I would have really got hurt then. We kind of engaged in a scuffle. I'm scared. I know he means business. I know he's trying to hurt me. I'm afraid for my life. We exchanged some punches, we exchanged some blows. I kind of covered my face ... to protect myself. When I brought my hands down, I noticed he had a razorblade in his hand and took a swipe at me. We were probably like in the middle area of the cell by now. I kicked him. Luckily, he fell and dropped the razorblade. I saw the razorblade, like at his side, I got him to the ground and pulled him away from the blade. I ran out and I picked it up. But he had brought the razorblade — he had brought a hot cup of coffee and it was his intention to throw the hot cup of coffee at me, blind me and cut me.
NT., 10/6/10, at 45-47 (emphases added).
The Commonwealth provided the testimony of Corrections Officer Nathan Picone. Officer Picone testified that he helped search Appellant's cell immediately after the incident and discovered the shank in question.
Q: What did you do once you got to [Appellant's cell]?
A: Once we noticed all of the bloody towels and blood splattering in the cell, we then took the inmates housed in cell 3 and split them up. We split them up in different rooms around the block. The lieutenant then went and talked to each one individually.
Q: Would that be Lieutenant Lamont?
A: That would be Lieutenant Lamont. I, myself, and a few other officers then proceeded to shake down cell number 3.
Q: And did you find anything?
A: Yes, I did. ... I personally found in what was later identified as [Appellantj's bed, there was a small rip in the plastic cover of the bed. I ripped it open and I found a large metal object... with a sharp point and a handle wrapped around it, which is a piece of cloth wrapped real tight so they can have a grip on it. We identified that as a shank.
Q: ... [F]or the record, could you say how long [the shank] was?
A: 18 to 20 inches.
Q: ... [W]ere you able to determine how [Appellant] got th[e] metal rod [used in the shank]?
A: Yes, there was a metal bookcase in the, I forget the name of the room. They have a room where they do church services or when they want to watch movies on T.V.
Q: Is that the multipurpose room?
A: That would be the multipurpose room. In that room there is a bookcase, you know several stacks of books on it, that rod was, in particular, one of the many rods that the books go on.
Id. at 37-40.
Appellant avers that the shank and testimony surrounding it were irrelevant and inadmissible because the Commonwealth "specifically indicate[d] ... to [the trial court] on the record that A[i]t was not the weapon used in this incident.'" Appellant's Brief at 15, quoting NT., 10/5/10, at 12. While the shank was not the weapon used in this case, it does not automatically follow that the shank was not relevant. The Commonwealth avers that although the razor in the fight and the shank had different blade lengths, the two weapons were nevertheless similar. Commonwealth's Reply Brief at 9. Specifically, the Commonwealth argues that "both the razor and the shank had cloth or tape at the end of the instrument in order to have a handle on it." Id. Indeed, the testimony at trial does reveal this distinctive characteristic of both weapons. Compare NT., 10/5/10, at 63 (Missero stating, "[the razor] blade ... at the end it had paper or tape wrapped around it ..."), with NT., 10/6/10, at 37 (Officer Picone describing the shank as "a sharp point and [having] a handle wrapped around it, which is a piece of cloth wrapped real tight so they can have a grip on it[]") (emphases added).
In our view, the distinctive manner in which Appellant created handles on both weapons for easy gripping makes the shank "a weapon similar to the one used in the perpetration of the crime, " which is what our cases require. Williams, supra. We note that Missero did testify that razor blades were issued to inmates at the prison. See NT., 10/5/10, at 65. While a generic razor blade, the main component of the weapon in this case, is not unique, it is the intentional and specific modification of the razor and the bookcase's metal rod into makeshift weapons, that makes both of them distinctive. See id. at 64; NT., 10/6/10, at 39-40.
Additionally, as noted above, Appellant's theory of the case was that the razorblade was not his weapon, but rather was Missero's weapon. See NT., 10/6/10, at 46. Therefore, the possession of the razorblade was also at issue in the trial.[6] The shank therefore "tend[ed] to make [the] fact more ... probable" that Appellant "had the ability to fashion a homemade weapon from objects in the prison." Pa.R.E. 401; Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/11, at 7. The fact that the Commonwealth and Appellant agree that the shank was not the weapon used to attack Missero does not suddenly render the shank non-probative. See Williams, supra; Commonwealth v. Kubis, 978 A.2d 391, 395 (Pa. Super. 2009) (concluding that knives found in the appellant's car were relevant at trial for robbery to show that the appellant was more likely to have threatened to stab the victim even though "no knife was physically produced during the robbery"); Commonwealth v. Boaster, 863 A.2d 588, 591, 592 (Pa. Super. 2004) (permitting admission of a discarded handgun into evidence to show that the appellant "readily obtained handguns of the same caliber used in the murder" even though the "Commonwealth conceded at trial that the discarded gun was not the murder weapon"), appeal denied, 876 A.2d 392 (Pa. 2005).
Based on the aforementioned considerations, we conclude that the shank was relevant and admissible at trial. We further agree with the trial court that the probative value of the shank was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/11, at 8; Pa.R.E. 403. As a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the Commonwealth to introduce it into evidence. See Bryant, supra. Therefore, Appellant is not entitled to relief on this issue.
In his final issue, Appellant avers that the sentence imposed by the trial court was "manifestly excessive" and unreasonable. Appellant's Brief at 18. Our standard of review in assessing whether a trial court has erred in fashioning a sentence is well settled.
[T]he proper standard of review when considering whether to affirm the sentencing court's determination is an abuse of discretion. [A]n abuse of discretion is more than a mere error of judgment; thus, a sentencing court will not have abused its discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. ... An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous.
Commonwealth v. Provenzano, 50 A.3d 148, 154 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). We observe that Appellant does not challenge the legality of his sentence, but rather his argument goes to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. Appeals regarding the discretionary aspects of sentencing are not reviewable as a matter of right. Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 585 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 14 A.3d 825 (Pa. 2011). In order for this Court to review the discretionary aspects of his sentence, Appellant must comply with the following.
[W]e must ... determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether Appellant's brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is appropriate under the sentencing code.
Commonwealth v. Carrillo-Diaz, 64 A.3d 722, 725 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).
Instantly, Appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, as well as a timely post-sentence motion, and Appellant has included a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief. Therefore, the only remaining issue before we may address the merits of Appellant's claim is whether he has raised a substantial question for our review.
"A substantial question will be found where the defendant advances a colorable argument that the sentence imposed is either inconsistent with a specific provision of the [sentencing] code or is contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process." Commonwealth v. Booze, 953 A.2d 1263, 1278 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 13 A.3d 474 (Pa. 2010); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). "We determine whether a particular case raises a substantial question on a case-by-case basis." Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 297 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). "Additionally, we cannot look beyond the statement of questions presented and the prefatory 2119(f) statement to determine whether a substantial question exists." Provenzano, supra.
In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Appellant raises the following issue.
Under the circumstances of the instant matter, specifically that a dispute arose in the prison between inmates, that there is significant disagreement as to the circumstances under which the alleged assault occurred, along with numerous other factors, the sentence in the instant matter is manifestly unreasonable and creates a substantial question as to the appropriateness of the sentence imposed to warrant [a]ppellate review.
Appellant's Brief at 8. We note that a generic claim that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question for our review. See Commonwealth v. Harvard, 64 A.3d 690, 701 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating, "a bald assertion that a sentence is excessive does not by itself raise a substantial question justifying this Court's review of the merits of the underlying claim[]"). Additionally, this Court has repeatedly held that an allegation that the trial court failed to consider particular circumstances or factors in an appellant's case go to the weight accorded to various sentencing factors and do not raise a substantial question. Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 936 (Pa. Super. 2013); accord Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954 A.2d 1222, 1228-1229 (Pa. Super. 2008). Therefore, Appellant has not raised a substantial question for our review. See Carrillo-Diaz, supra.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the shank found in Appellant's bed, nor in refusing to permit evidence regarding Missero's subsequent conviction. We further conclude that Appellant is not entitled to appellate review of his discretionary aspects of sentence claim. Accordingly, we would affirm the November 24, 2010 judgment of sentence.
OPINION IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE by Mundy, J., joined by Bowes, J. and Shogan, J. Gantman, J. concurs in the result.
OPINION IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL by Ott, J. joined by Ford Elliott, P.J.E., Panella, J. and Lazarus, J.
Judgment Entered.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
How to Be a Funny Clown : How to Be a Caring Clown for Hospitals
from expertvillage
Check Out This Month's Most Popular Topic
Explore Fascinating SubjectsSee all
Get smarter every day! Like us on Facebook.
You'll get the most interesting and engaging topics in your feed, straight from our team of experts.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Subject: [PATCH 3.10 00/80] 3.10.21-stable review
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
Date: Wednesday 27th November 2013 00:56:29 UTC (over 3 years ago)
This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.10.21 release. There are 80 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let me know. Responses should be made by Fri Nov 29 00:56:25 UTC 2013. Anything received after that time might be too late. The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.0/stable-review/patch-3.10.21-rc1.gz and the diffstat can be found below. thanks, greg k-h ------------- Pseudo-Shortlog of commits: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> Linux 3.10.21-rc1 Rob Pearce


text:
Jha, Radhika.
• Terms • Ask a Question
Arles: Editions Philippe Picquier, 1991. 8vo. 349 pp. Novel of Lila, who leaves Africa for life in a Parisian suburb. Translated from the English by Dominique Vitalyos. Near Fine Wraps 2887305759 (Item ID: 53393)
- More: FOREIGN LANGUAGE: FRENCH
- By This Author: Jha, Radhika.


text:
Luggage & Travel BagsTravel and Gear Bags ship fast when ordered at Proboadshop.com. Travel and Gear Bags from Proboardshop are carefully selected to bring you the best in durability performance and value. Proboardshop. We have it all
Please refine here More in the Outlet Shop.
- Color: Orange
- Gender: Men's
Luggage & Travel Bags More in the Outlet Shop.
Burton Air 25 Travel BagReg: $299.95 On Sale: $194.95
Size: 25L, 77L
Burton Backhill 40L Duffel BagReg: $119.95 On Sale: $55.95 - $89.95
Size: 40L (Small)
Burton Backhill 70L Duffel BagReg: $139.95 On Sale: $69.95 - $104.95
Size: 70L (Medium)
Burton Backhill 90L Duffel BagReg: $144.95 On Sale: $101.95 - $108.95
Size: 90L (Large)
Burton Switchback Travel Case
Size: 1L
Our Price: $18.95
Burton Switchback Travel CaseReg: $14.95 On Sale: $11.95
Size: 1L
Burton Token Travel Case
Size: .3L
Our Price: $9.95
Burton Wheelie Cargo Travel Bag
Size: 65L
Our Price: $269.95
Burton Wheelie Double Deck Travel BagReg: $329.95 On Sale: $173.95 - $197.95
Size: 86L, 92L
Burton Wheelie Double Deck Travel BagReg: $339.95 On Sale: $299.95 - $339.95
Size: 86L
Burton Wheelie Flight Deck Travel BagReg: $269.95 On Sale: $229.95 - $269.95
Size: 40L
Burton Wheelie Flyer Travel Bag
Size: 25L, 30L
Our Price: $199.95


text:
Bay roan 5year old mare, registerable out of whipp Hancock Indigo. She has papers she just isn't registered. 15 hands tall, mellow personality, quick…$1,500
This colt is one of the most athletic pretty colts we have raised! Both his parents are black. Sire is a 6 time world champion (Brookstone) His dam is…$2,800
This gorgeous colt has plenty of muscle and the looks to go with it.. This colt is very gentle and easy to handle. His full sister is a big time show mare…$2,800
Nugget is a 3 year old beautifully built red and white miniature gelding. This boy has a super nice comformation and looks just like a large horse…$600
"Noelle" is a beautiful and smart 7 year old paint mare. She has a nice conformation including a feminine head. She has just the right ratio of black…$650
Gorgeous 6yr old , 14hh Quarter pony mare used for youth play days and trail riding. Big enough for a small adult to ride . Friendly, well mannered, meet…$1,000
General is a very good horse. I have really enjoyed having him for the past 5 years. He does wonderfully with children with or without an adult. He will…$1,000
17year old register paint gelding, runs 3d times, would make a great kid horse very gentle, very well behind. Is a large horse 15.5 hands high.$1,200


text:
Oil grate on grill and then preheat.
Season chicken breasts with 1st salt and pepper, and then garlic powder. Set aside. When grill is hot, cook chicken for 5-7 minutes per side, or until juices run clear. Set aside to rest for 10 minutes before slicing. Once sliced, set aside until ready to toss into fettuccine later.
Cook fettuccine in a large pot of boiling water for 8-9 minutes, or until al dente.
While noodles are cooking, prepare alfredo sauce by melting butter into cream in a separate small pot. Once butter is melted into cream, add parmesan cheese and 2nd salt and pepper . Stir to incorporate all ingredients into the sauce. Keep on low heat.
Drain noodles and then place drained noodles back into large pot. Add the alfredo sauce & grilled chicken and toss. Top with fresh chopped parsley. Serve with garlic bread on the side and/or a fresh salad.
View line-by-line Nutrition Insights™: Discover which ingredients contribute the calories/sodium/etc.
|Serving Size: 1 Serving (171g)
|Recipe Makes: 4 Servings
|Calories: 607
|Calories from Fat: 346 (57%)
|Amt Per Serving
|Total Fat 38.4g
|51 %
|Saturated Fat 21.2g
|106 %
|Monounsaturated Fat 11.2g
|Polyunsanturated Fat 3.2g
|Cholesterol 175mg
|54 %
|Sodium 134.1mg
|5 %
|Potassium 315.7mg
|8 %
|Total Carbohydrate 41.4g
|12 %
|Dietary Fiber 2g
|8 %
|Sugars, other 39.4g
|Protein 24.1g
|34 %
Powered by: USDA Nutrition Database
Disclaimer: Nutrition facts are derived from linked ingredients (shown at left in colored bullets) and may or may not be complete. Always consult a licensed nutritionist or doctor if you have a nutrition-related medical condition.
Calories per serving: 607
Get detailed nutrition information, including item-by-item nutrition insights, so you can see where the calories, carbs, fat, sodium and more come from. Try BigOven Pro for Free for 30 days.
Keep all your recipes with free BigOven membership. Clip recipes, make grocery lists, menu plans and more!
If you like it, you might also try this
"Chicken breasts are coated with seasoned breadcrumbs, bathed in Alfredo Sauce, then topped with tomatoes & two cheeses for a delicious twist on a traditional dish." — Firebyrd
A variation on this recipe
"A replica of the slightly spicy dish they serve at high-end restaurants, done at home in a flash!" — Firebyrd
A variation on this recipe
"Sweet crabmeat tossed in a Parmesan cream sauce on a bed of linguini." — Firebyrd
What would you serve with this? Link in another recipe
LindseynormanMade this tonight the best Alfredo sauce I have every made I added fresh garlic to give it a boost the kids loved it. 2 👍👍1m ago
blazcraze212m ago
usefaethGreat! Kids loved it! I newer new how easy alfredo sauce was. I added fresh garlic!3m ago
brittanyharlan5m ago
jkjohnson83h0x1This recipe is spot on and easy, wouldn't change a thing, love it!8m ago
dazzerlkAs good as the best Italian restaurants in any city!10m ago
drainmycockslowlyo4c711m ago
rushie_beanThis is simple but really good! My family loved it!12m ago
lgray320Simple and very tasty. I added broccoli. Separated it into 2 bowls, one for chicken and the other for salmon.2y ago
moefaalMade this recipe and it was delicious. The whole family loved it.2y ago


text:
Life-size tear-off poster
FRANK's latest work for Fox Crime Norway is a giant poster you can bring home. At least (body) parts of it. To promote The Walking Dead – Season 2 – on a shoestring budget – we wanted to give the audience a true and relevant zombie experience, and at the same time drive more traffic to Fox Crime´s website. The solution was to create a tear off poster with full size zombies, and we worked closely with JCDecaux to insert it at one of Oslo´s busiest tube- and train stations – The National Theatre station. It created loads of attention from the audience, arms and legs were torn off in true zombie fashion.
Creative Director: Erik Heisholt
Senior Creative: Jason Kinsella
Junior Creatives: Rebecca Sakshaug Hoseth, Hanne Sandland Nilsen
Highest Rated
This little zombie poster got 18,000+ Youtube hits, free PR in local media, and a finalist spot at Cannes 2012.
That's more than 8 people. Right?
This little zombie poster got 18,000+ Youtube hits, free PR in local media, and a finalist spot at Cannes 2012.
That's more than 8 people. Right?
Brilliant idea for fans of this show. Spot on for the target market, no matter what the haters say.
Popular Reads
Holiday Season
5 Creative Black Friday Campaigns You Should KnowRead More
Signature Style
Shelley Zalis of The Girls' Lounge is "Not Afraid to Be Bold"Read More
Sponsored By the drum
How WildAid & Grey London Created #jointheherd to Impact the World's Ivory TradeRead More
Election Season
The Results Are In: Reflecting on Adland's Election SeasonRead More


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
June 9, 2014
DAVID A. ADEWUMI, Plaintiff,v.RANDY WITHENLE, ET AL., Defendants.
MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge.
David A. Adewumi, an inmate presently confined at the Centre County Correctional Facility, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also submitted an in forma pauperis application (Doc. 2) as well as a Supplement to his Complaint (Doc. 7). For the reasons set forth below, Adewumi's action will be dismissed, without prejudice, as legally frivolous pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Named as Defendants in the Complaint are Correctional Officer Randy Withenle of the Centre County, Pennsylvania Correctional Facility; Centre County District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller; Officers Eric Lesher and Detective John Aston of the Borough of State College, Pennsylvania Police Department; Pennsylvania State Troopers Gretchen Swank and Brian Wakefield. In the Supplement filed by Plaintiff, he indicates an intention to also pursue claims, including pendent state law allegations of libel, slander and defamation, against the Borough of State College Police Department; his alleged victim Terren Lesher and her mother, Lisa Lesher;[1] a witness Elara Sakona and her parents Dean and Kathy Sakona;[2] the State College Area School District and its Superintendent; and the State College Assembly of God Church and its Pastor Steve Silliman.
Plaintiff indicates that beginning on or about April 19, 2013 he became a suspect and was ultimately arrested and charged with the stalking and harassment of Terren Lesher, the daughter of State College Police Officer Eric Lesher and Lisa Lesher. It is alleged that the alleged victim, Detective Alston, Officer Lesher, [3] Lisa Lesher, Troopers Swank and Wakefield, Pastor Silliman, Elara, Kathy, and Dean Sakona, [4] and the Superintendent of the State College Area School District made false, malicious, libelous, and slanderous statements which led to the filing of the criminal charges. The Complaint additionally indicates Officer Lesher fabricated the charges in order to protect himself from being exposed for breaking his daughter's leg.
Plaintiff further indicates hat District Attorney Parks Miller authorized the filing of those false charges and also refused to press charges against Dean Sakona. Adewumi adds that he is scheduled to face trial for those alleged criminal offenses on or about June 13, 2014. See id. at p. 9. With respect to Correctional Officer Withenle. It is alleged that said Defendant made sexually offensive remarks to Adewumi on August 14 & 16, 2013.
As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for emotional distress caused and also asks that the Pennsylvania Inspector General be directed to conduct an investigation into his allegations. His Supplement additionally seeks a change of venue with respect to his upcoming state court prosecution.
28 U.S.C. § 1915 imposes obligations on prisoners who file civil actions in federal court and wish to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, e.g., that the full filing fee ultimately must be paid (at least in a non-habeas suit) § 1915(e)(2)provides:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A district court may rule that process should not be issued if the complaint is malicious, presents an indisputably meritless legal theory, or is predicated on clearly baseless factual contentions. Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); Douris v. Middleton Township , 293 Fed.Appx. 130, 132 (3d Cir. 2008). Indisputably meritless legal theories are those "in which either it is readily apparent that the plaintiff's complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or that the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity from suit...." Roman v. Jeffes , 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting Sultenfuss v. Snow , 894 F.2d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 1990)).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has added that "the plain meaning of frivolous' authorizes the dismissal of in forma pauperis claims that... are of little or no weight, value, or importance, not worthy of serious consideration, or trivial." Deutsch v. United States , 67 F.3d 1080, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995). It also has been determined that "the frivolousness determination is a discretionary one, " and trial courts "are in the best position" to determine when an indigent litigant's complaint is appropriate for summary dismissal. Denton, 504 U.S. at 33.
Verbal Threats
Plaintiff alleges that Correctional Officer Withenle made sexually offensive remarks to him on August 14 & 16, 2013.[5] There is no assertion that those purported statements were accompanied by any physical abuse.
The use of words generally cannot constitute an assault actionable under § 1983. Johnson v. Glick , 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 n.7 (2d Cir.); Maclean v. Secor , 876 F.Supp. 695, 698-99 (E.D. Pa. 1995); Murray v. Woodburn , 809 F.Supp. 383, 384 (E.D. Pa. 1993) ("Mean harassment... is insufficient to state a constitutional deprivation."); Prisoners' Legal Ass'n v. Roberson , 822 F.Supp. 185, 189 (D.N.J. 1993) ("[V]erbal harassment does not give rise to a constitutional violation enforceable under § 1983.").
Mere threatening language and gestures of a custodial officer do not, even if true, amount to constitutional violations. Balliet v. Whitmire , 626 F.Supp. 219, 228-29 (M.D. Pa.) ("[v]erbal abuse is not a civil rights violation..."), aff'd, 800 F.2d 1130 (3d Cir. 1986) (Mem.). A constitutional claim based only on verbal threats will fail regardless of whether it is asserted under the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause, see Prisoners' Legal Ass'n , 822 F.Supp. at 189, or under the Fifth Amendment's substantive due process clause.
Verbal harassment, with some reinforcing act accompanying them, however, may state a constitutional claim. For example, a viable claim has been found if some action taken by the defendant escalated the threat beyond mere words. See Northington v. Jackson , 973 F.2d 1518 (10th Cir. 1992) (guard put a revolver to the inmate's head and threatened to shoot); Douglas v. Marino , 684 F.Supp. 395 (D.N.J. 1988) (involving a prison employee who threatened an inmate with a knife). Moreover, alleged instances of verbal harassment which are not accompanied by any physical contact are constitutionally insufficient. See Hart v. Whalen , 2008 WL 4107651 *10 (M.D. Pa. July 29, 2008); Wright v. O'Hara , 2004 WL 1793018 *7 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (correctional officer's words and gestures, including lunging at prisoner with a clenched fist were constitutionally insufficient because there was no physical contact).
There is no indication that the verbal harassment allegedly voiced against Adewumi was accompanied by a reinforcing act involving a deadly weapon as contemplated under Northington and Douglas. More importantly, it is not alleged that the alleged verbal abuse was accompanied by any physically intrusive behavior. Given the circumstances described by Plaintiff, the purported verbal remarks attributed to Correctional Officer Withenle, although offensive, were not of such magnitude to shock the conscience as contemplated by this Court in S.M. v. Lakeland School District , 148 F.Supp.2d 542, 547-48 (M.D. Pa. 2001) and thus, did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Dismissal will be granted in favor of Defendant Withenle.
Emotional Injury
The Complaint asserts that Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress for which he seeks to recover monetary damages. See Doc. 1, ¶ V (1). There is no allegation that Adewumi has suffered any accompanying physical injury. For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover compensatory damages for mental anguish or emotional injury.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) provides that "[n]o federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury." In Allah v. Al-Hafeez , 226 F.3d 247, 250 (3d Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit recognized that where a plaintiff fails to allege actual injury, Section 1997e(e) bars recovery of compensatory damages. However, the Third Circuit added that an inmate alleging a violation of his constitutional rights may still pursue the action to recover nominal and/or punitive damages even in the absence of compensable harm.
Under the standards announced in Allah, Plaintiff's request for monetary relief to the extent that it seeks compensatory damages for emotional and psychological injuries for violation of his constitutional rights is barred by Section 1997e(e).
Prosecutor Immunity
It is well-established that a state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from liability for damage under Section 1983 for acts such as the initiation of the prosecution and presentation of the state's case which are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. Imbler v. Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409, 420 (1976); Urrutia v. Harrisburg County Police Dep't , 91 F.3d 451, 462 (3d Cir. 1996). However, only qualified immunity is available to prosecutors with regard to allegations based on their administrative and/or investigative duties. See Hawk v. Brosha , 590 F.Supp. 337, 344 (E.D. Pa. 1984).
Any allegations that Centre County District Attorney Parks Miller or any Centre County assistant district attorney unlawfully approved the filing of criminal charges against the Plaintiff and/or refused to prosecute Dean Sakona for threatening Adewumi are claims which are "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." See Imbler , 424 U.S. at 430. Therefore, District Attorney Parks Miller and her staff are absolutely immune from damages with respect to any such malicious prosecution or failure to prosecute claim.
State Actor
Plaintiff also indicates in either his Complaint or Supplement that he wishes to pursue claims against a number of private individuals, namely, Terren Lesher, Lisa Lesher, Elara Sakona, Dean Sakona, Kathy Kakona, and Pastor Steve Silliman based upon remarks or testimony those individuals allegedly made in regards to his alleged criminal conduct.
A plaintiff, in order to state a viable Section 1983 civil rights claim, must plead two essential elements: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) that said conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Groman v. Township of Manalapan , 47 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995); Shaw by Strain v. Strackhouse , 920 F.2d 1135, 1141-42 (3d Cir. 1990).
Plaintiff raises no allegations that any of the above listed persons were acting under color of state law. Furthermore, there is no allegation that any of those individuals was a non-state actor who conspired with state officials to deprive a plaintiff of his constitutional rights. See Dennis v. Sparks , 449 U.S. 24, 27-8 (1980); Bieros v. Nicola , 860 F.Supp. 223, 225 (E.D. Pa. 1994).
Since Terren Lesher, Lisa Lesher, Elara Sakona, Dean Sakona, Kathy Kakona, and Pastor Steve Silliman were not acting under color of law they are not properly named defendants in a Section 1983 civil rights action. In addition, the vague claims that those persons made false statements do not set forth viable assertions that they somehow violated Adewumi's constitutional rights.
Personal Involvement
With respect to the civil rights claims against the Borough of State College Police Department; the State College Area School District; and the State College Assembly of God Church, civil rights claims cannot be premised on a theory of respondeat superior. Rode v. Dellarciprete , 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Rather, each named defendant must be shown, via the complaint's allegations, to have been personally involved in the events or occurrences which underlie a claim. See Rizzo v. Goode , 423 U.S. 362 (1976); Hampton v. Holmesburg Prison Officials , 546 F.2d 1077 (3d Cir. 1976). As explained in Rode:
A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs.... [P]ersonal involvement can be shown through allegations of personal direction or of actual knowledge and acquiescence. Allegations of participation or actual knowledge and acquiescence, however, must be made with appropriate particularity.
Rode , 845 F.2d at 1207.
Plaintiff indicates that he is attempting to establish liability against the Police Department, School District, and Assembly of God Church solely based upon the fact that those entities employed individuals who allegedly made false statements against him. He does not seek relief based upon any alleged unconstitutional policy, practice, or custom of those Defendants nor does he raise any other discernible federal law claims against those Defendants.[6]
Based upon the criteria set forth in Rode, the personal involvement requirement has not been sufficiently satisfied with respect to the Borough of State College Police Department; the State College Area School District; and the State College Assembly of God Church, since the civil rights claims asserted against those entities are solely and improperly based upon a theory of respondeat superior.[7]
Based upon a review of the Complaint and Supplement, there is no indication that Plaintiff was convicted of the criminal charges which are the basis for this claims against Officers Lesher, Detective Aston, Troopers Swank and Wakefield. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking an award of monetary damages against any law enforcement officer, in Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a constitutional cause of action for damages does not accrue "for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid", until the Plaintiff proves that the "conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Id. at 486-87. There is no assertion in the Complaint or Supplement that the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County criminal conviction or prosecution underlying the claims against the above listed state law enforcement officers has been rendered invalid.
Based on the nature of Adewumi's allegations against those police officials, a finding in his favor would imply the invalidity and/or comprise the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County criminal prosecution at issue. Thus, any request by Plaintiff for monetary damages against any law enforcement officer with respect to his Centre County criminal prosecution is premature because Plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action for unlawful imprisonment until the basis for that imprisonment, his criminal conviction or prosecution, is rendered invalid. See Gibson v. Superintendent , 411 F.3d 427, 449 (3d Cir. 2005); Sanchez v. Gonzalez, No. 05-2552 , 2005 WL 2007008 *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2005). Any request by Adewumi for compensatory damages is premature and must be deferred under Gibson and Sanchez until his underlying Court of Common Pleas of Centre County criminal prosecution is rendered invalid. Thus, if Plaintiff is able to successfully challenge his Centre County criminal charges, under Heck, he may then reassert a claim for damages in a properly filed civil rights complaint.
Injunctive/Declaratory Relief
As partial relief, Plaintiff asks that the Pennsylvania State Inspector General be directed to conduct an investigation into the actions of the Borough of State College Police Department. His Supplement further requests that he be granted a change in venue with respect to his upcoming state criminal prosecution.
In Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1981), the United States Supreme Court "held that principles of federalism and comity require district courts to abstain from enjoining pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances." Port Auth. Police Benevolent Assoc., Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J. Police Dep't. , 973 F.2d 169, 173 (3d Cir. 1992). The test for federal court abstention under Younger is whether "(1) there are ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims." Id.[8]
Indeed, "[i]n no area of the law is the need for a federal court to stay its hand pending completion of state proceedings more evident than in the case of pending criminal proceedings." Evans v. Court of Common Pleas , 959 F.2d 1227, 1234 (3d Cir. 1992). It has also been noted that the habeas corpus remedy afforded to state inmates under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was not intended "to argue state law issues pre-trial in a federal forum." Green v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1993 WL 239311 *3 (E.D. Pa. June 28, 1993).
There are no assertions by Plaintiff which suggests that he cannot litigate the merits of his present claims of police misconduct and his request for change of venue in his ongoing state criminal proceedings. This pre-trial civil rights action does not raise the type of extraordinary circumstances contemplated under Younger, thus, intervention by this Court is not warranted at this juncture.
This conclusion is bolstered by Plaintiff's apparent failure to proceed before the state appellate courts prior to seeking federal court relief. Abstention is required in this case out of deference to the integrity of the state judicial process.
Pendent Jurisdiction
Plaintiff also indicates that he wishes to pursue state law claims of libel, defamation, and slander against most of the Defendants. It is well settled that federal courts have jurisdiction over state claims which are related to the federal claims and result from a common nucleus of operative facts. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs , 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966); Aldinger v. Howard , 427 U.S. 1, 9 (1976). Supplemental jurisdiction may be declined over a claim when the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (1997). When rendering a determination regarding pendent jurisdiction district courts should consider judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants. New Rock Asset Partners v. Preferred Entity Advancements , 101 F.3d 1492, 1505 (3d Cir. 1996)(citation omitted).
Once jurisdiction has been exercised over the state claim, elimination of the federal claim does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the pendent claim. Id . (citing Lentino v. Fringe Emp. Plans, Inc. , 611 F.2d 474, 479 (3d Cir. 1979)). However, if a federal claim is dismissed prior to trial, the district court should decline to decide the pendent state claims, "unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness provide an affirmative justification for doing so." Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster , 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995).
Since this Court has dismissed the federal claims against Defendants, jurisdiction will be declined with respect to any pendent state law claims that Plaintiff wishes to pursue.
In light of the fact that Plaintiff's pending civil rights claims are"based on an indisputably meritless legal theory" it will be dismissed, without prejudice, as legally frivolous. Wilson, 878 F.2d at 774. In addition, jurisdiction will be declined with respect to any Pennsylvania state law claims which Plaintiff wishes to pursue.
An appropriate Order will enter.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
11 Teacher-Approved Crafts for School
Bonus: Get our newsletter & special offers for free. We will not share or sell your email address. View our Privacy Policy
Latest Comments
"This is perfect!! I can't wait to get started on my own cute little kitchen herb garden...when I get my own place, that is"
"Very intresting of what projects can be done with tp. We use them a lot for projects with children and this one will be this week project. Though, i think the colors can be more traditional with green and red or maybe golden colors with the green tree. I am sure the children will chose the traditional, but personally i like this one. Can be placed in any wall and every season."
"How cute are these fun and colorful little birds! I really like how easy they are to make. Can you really make a flamingo like mulberrygalprinces s says you can? That would be so cute to make. I love the idea of making several kinds of birds. My stepdad loves birds, so I can see making all kinds of these for him to add to the christmas tree or just to decorate the house."
"What a fun and festive way to use up a pile of paper clips that you never use! I love that you made them in various colors. I think it is so neat to use magnets on them too. You could use them to hang pictures from on a refrigerator or file cabinet."
Scraptastic Notebook
We are adding the craft to your Craft Projects.
The project was added to your Craft Projects.
Click here to view your Craft Projects.
Add some glitz and glamor to your notebooks with this Scraptastic Notebook project from The Crafty Chica. This is a great craft for teens and tweens, and is a clever way to get them in the mood to head back to school! This is also a great way to use up leftover fabric scraps, ribbon scraps, and paper scraps. Mix and match different media to create a notebook cover that's truly unique, colorful, and fun!
- One blank journal
- Assorted trims
- Crystal trim
- Craft knife
- Aleene's Fabric Fusion Peel and Stick Tape
Open the book flat, covers facing up.
Measure and cut the trim so it goes across the entire book.
Set out your trim in an order that you like. I love contrast, but if you look close, you can see I used gold as a repeating theme in the pattern.
Apply the tape to the book all the way across, rub it down with your fingers and then peel off the backing.
Apply the ribbon/trim along the sticky side.
Keep going, when you get the composition part, use your craft knife or scissors to cut away, so that title still shows. That is what really gives the book character!
Add trim around the frame of the title and set the crystal trim in place. If the tape is too wide, cut it in half before applying.
Use your fingers to press the trim in place.
- Trim edges.
Tags / Related Topics
Your Recently Viewed Projects
Images from other crafters
Love these projects? Get MORE delivered to your Inbox – FREE Click Here!
lpalmer59 7490208
Mar 06, 2016
I make these all the time. This is a great way to use up scrap decorative paper, or scrap material. I usually take a rainy day and get out all of my scraps. I pop in a movie I have been wanting to watch and instead of wishing the rain to go away, I make the best of the day and make journals to give away or to keep.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Are you sure you would like to report this comment? It will be flagged for our moderators to take action.
Thank you for taking the time to improve the content on our site.
Something worth saving?
- SAVE all your favorite crafts
- ADD personal notes
- QUICKLY reference your crafts
Free eBooks
- 11 Crochet Shawl Patterns: Crochet Poncho Patterns, Free Easy Crochet Patterns and More
- 11 DIY Christmas Decorations and Gift Ideas
- 12 Knitted Scarf Patterns: Fabulous Free Knitting Patterns for Beginners
- 16 Free Crochet Hat Patterns, Scarves, and Gloves
- 24 Thanksgiving Dinner Recipes and Fall Craft Projects
- 7 Adult Coloring Pages
- 8 Free Apron Sewing Patterns
- Easy Lace Knitting Patterns
- Jolly Holidays: 15 Free Knit and Crochet Gifts and Holiday Projects
- Quick & Easy Decoupage: 12 Fabulous Mod Podge Projects for Your Home
Our Newest Projects & Articles
- Dr. Knit's Curious Creatures Book Review
- Cool Comforts Knit Throw
- Casual Cables Throw
- Color Dip Scarf
- Premier Deluxe Interchangeable Needle Set
- Mason Jar DIY Herb Garden Infographic
- Solar Robot Coloring Page
- Spring Flowers Adult Coloring Page
- Rusty the Robot Coloring Page
- Robot on the Beach Coloring Page


text:
$19.82 Earth Spririt Women's Jaci Sandal +Free Store Pickup
Walmart offers Earth Spririt Women's Jaci Sandal for $19.82 with free store pickup.
Product Description:
The Earth Spirit Women's Jaci Sandal is built for sheer comfort. The upper is made of stylish leather with some mesh for a durable and breezy combination. The top of the sandal is decorated with a floral design and punch-out patterns for a natural and open look. The generously padded footbed rests over a wavy contoured outsole with a trendy wedge heel that conforms to the shape of your foot. The Jaci Sandal is available in assorted styles and pairs beautifully with jeans or a skirt for a casual warm-weather ensemble.
Earth Spirit Women's Jaci Sandal:
Thanks MR. Clutch
Category: Shoes
Posted on 21 June 2016, 04:29 AM


text:
Address correspondence to Howard B. Degenholtz, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Graduate School of Public Health, Center for Bioethics and Health Law, University of Pittsburgh, 3708 5th Avenue, Suite 300, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Rosalie A. Kane, Ph.D., Professor, and Robert L. Kane, MD, Professor, are with the Division of Health Services Research and Policy, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN. Boris Bershadsky, Ph.D., Director, is with the Department Orthopaedic Surgery/A41, Orthopaedic Clinical Research Center, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH. Kristen C. Kling, Ph.D., Associate Professor, is with the Department of Psychology, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN.
Predicting Nursing Facility Residents' Quality of Life Using External Indicators
Version of Record online: 4 JAN 2006
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00494.x
Health Services Research
Volume 41, Issue 2, pages 335–356, April 2006
Additional Information
How to Cite
Degenholtz, H. B., Kane, R. A., Kane, R. L., Bershadsky, B. and Kling, K. C. (2006), Predicting Nursing Facility Residents' Quality of Life Using External Indicators. Health Services Research, 41: 335–356. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00494.x
Publication History
- Issue online: 4 JAN 2006
- Version of Record online: 4 JAN 2006
Options for accessing this content:
- If you are a society or association member and require assistance with obtaining online access instructions please contact our Journal Customer Services team.
- If your institution does not currently subscribe to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
- Login via other institutional login options http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/login-options.
- You can purchase online access to this Article for a 24-hour period (price varies by title)
- If you already have a Wiley Online Library or Wiley InterScience user account: login above and proceed to purchase the article.
- New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.
Login via OpenAthens
Search for your institution's name below to login via Shibboleth.
Registered Users please login:
- Access your saved publications, articles and searches
- Manage your email alerts, orders and subscriptions
- Change your contact information, including your password
Please register to:
- Save publications, articles and searches
- Get email alerts
- Get all the benefits mentioned below!


text: The Best Way to Help Potted Plants Grow EvenlyHeather Yamada-Hosley8/26/16 7:00amFiled to: PlantsHousehold113EditPromoteShare to KinjaToggle Conversation toolsGo to permalink If you've ever had a potted plant that seemed to bend and reach towards a sunny window or light, you know you should probably move it a little closer. Getting the plant to grow evenly though, once it's already started to bend, is trickier without hurting it. Here's how. If you have a plant that starts growing towards sunlight, also called etiolation, slowly move your plant to more and more direct sunlight, and rotate the plant to even out the direction it grows. If you move it too quickly from shade to sun, you can scorch or sunburn a plant that's not ready for that much sudden light, so make the change gradual. Then, even out the growth of the plant by turning the pot a little every few weeks so that the plant has even exposure on all sides to sunlight. Advertisement Advertisement Cactus and Succulent Care for Beginners | Cactus and Succulent Society of San JoseImage from tseenster.Heather firstname.lastname@example.com@Curious_HeatherContributing Writer, Lifehacker.comGear from Kinja DealsBenQ's Stunning Desk Lamp is Also Incredibly FunctionalYou Won't Want to Hide OXO's Pop Containers in the PantryAdd The First Six Star Wars Films To Your Digital Library For $69Reply11 repliesLeave a reply


text:
Kellyanne Conway, senior advisor to the Trump Transition Team, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what's ahead, the president-elect's views on Hillary Clinton and the Paris climate accord, as well as his plan for Obamacare, comments on the alt-right and more. Continue reading
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in the House of Representatives, is facing a challenger. Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan joins Judy Woodruff to discuss his vision for the Democratic Party and a renewed focus on economic issues. Continue reading
President-elect Donald Trump appears to be softening his tone on whether climate change is real and on his stated plans to scrap the recent multinational agreement to limit carbon emissions. Continue reading
President-elect Donald Trump promises big tax cuts, a border wall and massive spending on infrastructure. That's a recipe for bigger deficits that fiscally minded conservative Republicans have railed against during President Barack Obama's tenure. Continue reading
Two days after Donald Trump won the presidential election, Mary Ellison, a single mother in Champaign, Ill., called her gynecologist's office to explore her birth control options.
"I know what you're going to ask," Ellison's gynecologist told her. Continue reading
President-elect Donald Trump disavowed the alt-right in an on-the-record interview with the New York Times on Tuesday. He also responded to questions about the possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton, his commitment to the First Amendment, his plans for Syria, and infrastructure investment in the United States. Continue reading
If a 30- to 40-foot concrete wall is a panacea for illegal immigration, as Trump insisted during the campaign, the locals are not convinced. Continue reading
President-elect Donald Trump's charity admitted in its 2015 tax filing that it violated IRS regulations. Continue reading
At a conference over the weekend, alt-right ideologue Richard Spencer finished his speech, shouting "Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!" His audience responded with cheers and a smattering of Nazi salutes. Continue reading
As a senator, Jeff Sessions became Congress' leading advocate not only for a cracking down on illegal immigration, but also for slowing all immigration, increasing mass deportations and scrutinizing more strictly those entering the U.S. As attorney general, he'd be well positioned to turn those ideas into reality. Continue reading


text:
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google Plus
In stock
These acetate overlay sheets are a church good that works with daily planners available on the Leaflet Missal website. Add to your cart or wish list above.
You might be interested in these other Church Goods:
Be the first to review this product
Get our latest news and offers.
976 W Minnehaha Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Monday-Saturday 9am-5pm


text:
Send Lynette a Confidential E-Mail
Are you in a situation where you cannot pay your bills? The cause of your status may matter when you attempt to negotiate extensions on the debt. If your creditors will not work with you and your bills exceed your ability to pay, the cause of your debts diminishes in importance.
Last week, I focused on initial steps to take when you're faced with bills you can't pay.
After you make a complete list of debts, decide if you have the income to pay any of them.
- Do you have some small bills you can pay in full? It will be to your advantage to clear any debts you can.
- If you don't have funds to pay bills, be sure the accounts are closed.
- When you know your credit is about to be trashed because you must stop paying bills, it is to your advantage to close all of your accounts rather than have creditors close them after they are in default. Close accounts in writing and ask each creditor to send you a letter verifying the account is closed. Keep the letters.
In most cases, financial crises are not anticipated. More than 50 per cent of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. While most of us want to find a way to pay our debts, it is not always possible. The most difficult decision, for you, may be admitting you cannot pay.
First, see a legitimate credit counseling firm. The credit counseling industry is rife with crooks. It's difficult to know who to trust. Pitfalls and horror stories caused me to avoid writing about them previously. The National Federation of Credit Counselors screens credit counseling firms. From their website, you can find reputable credit counselors in your area and on the Internet.
New bankruptcy laws require that your finances be evaluated by a licensed credit counseling firm before you file for bankruptcy. This is your first step toward determining your options. Responsible credit counselors will help you understand what is possible for you.
Until you know what action you will take, allow an answering machine to pick up those aggravating debt collector calls. Avoid them. Don't permit them to upset you.
If your bills far exceed your income, your only option may be bankruptcy. While credit consequences come with bankruptcy, it makes no sense to allow enormous debts to cripple your life for years if it is unlikely you will be able to produce income to pay them. After a bankruptcy is discharged (finalized), you will be able to re-build your credit. With two years of responsible credit history you can buy a house. While a bankruptcy remains on your credit reports for ten years from the date it is initially filed, its impact on your credit diminishes after it is discharged and you construct a solid new credit foundation. During the period while a bankruptcy is on credit reports it is important to let any creditor know about it before they see it. If it was caused by medical bills, the mortgage meltdown, or another one-time crisis be sure to explain that before your credit is checked.
When you and your credit counselor determine the best course of action for you, the credit counselor will contact all your creditors to stop collection procedures or, if you will be filing for bankruptcy, you may need to communicate with them.
It is easy to stop all debt collectors from contacting you. However, if your debts are large and their only alternative is legal action, when you stop them from interacting with you they may proceed with a lawsuit. This is why you let an answering machine take the calls until you develop a plan.
To stop a collection agency from contacting you, write a cease and desist letter. Do not let anyone know you will file for bankruptcy if that is your plan. They will attempt to secure a judgment against you before you file. This New York City Debt Collection Guide contains helpful information. On page four, you will find simple instructions for writing and mailing a cease and desist letter. Federal laws govern fair credit practices, making this letter writing process the same in every state.
Overwhelming debts can create immense stress. Find a debt solution that enables you to move forward with your life.