text:
$2,000.00 3 months ago
2004 dx honda civic - $2000 (winchester, va)
2004 dx honda civic. Good condition. 225k miles. Please contact eric show contact info
3 months ago
Winchester, VA
$2,000.00 3 months ago
Honda Civic DX 1990 - $2000 (Mansfield)
1990 HONDA CIVIC DX206K MILESCLEAN TITLEAMERICAN RACING RIMSGAS SAVER!!!!!needs some work, runs good,need a mufflergoing to need a new battery soonNEW SPARK PLUGSWIRESDISTRIBUTOR CAPROTORVALVE COVER GASKETNEW FRONT TIRESI have new brake padsand extra valve cover gasketINSPECTEDGAS/AUTOMATICMansfield Pa areacall or text for info... show contact infoOPEN TO TRADES FOR ANOTHER CAR OR TRUCK WITH LITTL
3 months ago
Williamsport, PA
$2,000.00 3 months ago
Honda Civic DX 1990 - $2000 (Mansfield)
1990 HONDA CIVIC DX206K MILESCLEAN TITLEAMERICAN RACING RIMSGAS SAVER!!!!!needs some work, runs good,need a mufflergoing to need a new battery soonNEW SPARK PLUGSWIRESDISTRIBUTOR CAPROTORVALVE COVER GASKETNEW FRONT TIRESI have new brake padsand extra valve cover gasketINSPECTEDGAS/AUTOMATICMansfield Pa areacall or text for info... show contact infoOPEN TO TRADES FOR ANOTHER CAR OR TRUCK WITH LITTL
3 months ago
Elmira, NY
$2,000.00 4 months ago
1998 Honda Civic DX Hatchback - $2000 (Watertown)
I have a 98 honda civic hatch. Car has around 135,000 on the body and around 90,000 on the engine. Aftermarket parts include; Aftermarket exhaust, Adjustable S coilovers, camber kit, JDM wink mirrors, Aftermarket horn, Aftermarket hood, Aftermarket steering wheel, and more. I am going to college soon and i dont have the money or time i want to do all the mods i want to do to the car. Mostly look f
4 months ago
Watertown, NY
$2,000.00 4 months ago
99 Honda Civic dx - $2000
low miles: 171kno dentsclean title$2,000 or best offer/ Tradescome get it
4 months ago
Philadelphia, PA
$2,300.00 4 months ago
2000 honda civic dx hatchback - $2300 (elk grove)
2000 honda civic dx hatch188549 miles5 speed transmissionhas power steering and a/c but needs a rechargecar is well maintained with recent tune up and will pass smogasking $2300call or text show contact info
4 months ago
Sacramento, CA
$1,995.00 4 months ago
$1,995, 2000 Honda Civic DX hatchback - $1,995 - 62921308
2000 Honda Civic DX hatchback - $1,995More Details: http://www.autoshopper.com/used-cars/2000_Honda_Civic_DX_hatchback_Brainerd_MN-62921308.htmClick Here for 3 more photosMiles: 163975Engine: 1.6L 4CylStock #: TK615 Midway Auto Sales218-851-6338 10 East Wasington Street,56401 google map | yahoo map
4 months ago
St. Cloud, MN
$2,400.00 5 months ago
2000 Honda Civic DX 5 spd - $2400 (Clifton park)
I'm selling my 2000 civic dx coupe. 5 speed. 185k. Power steering. AC. Brand new tires. Brand new catback exhaust Rear wheel cylinders. Stainless rear brake lines all the way back. New shifter bushings. New valve cover gasket. New plugs. New wires. Oil change.The car gets 41 mpgs. Bought a truck and no longer need the civic. it's a nice straight car that's perfect for commuting. 2400 or reasonable
5 months ago
Glens Falls, NY
$2,000.00 5 months ago
1995 Honda Civic dx - $2000 hide this posting restore this posting
I have a 1995 Honda Civic dx 5 speed Manual for sale ..... Clean title......Runs good nothing wrong with da car ..... Put new shocks on less den 2 months ago ......Use it for work ..... Has Working Ac ...... But is leaking from shatter valves dey will need to b replaced.... I refill it with freon every month or so .....Has tags til June ..... Looking to sell asap...... 2000....... Text only !!!!!
5 months ago
Hanford, CA
$2,000.00 5 months ago
2000 Honda Civic DX Hatch - $2000 hide this posting restore this posting
selling 2000 Honda civic DX hatchback AS IS.190k milesno check engine lightpossible head gasket issueNEW tiresNEW catalytic converterNEW radiator17" Honda fit alloys are on itstarting at 2k. best offer. rare body style.
5 months ago
Baltimore, MD
$2,000.00 6 months ago
Honda Civic DX '97 - $2000 hide this posting restore this posting
1997 Honda Civic DX. 5 speed manual transmission with 19600 miles, one previous owner and i have documented maintenance since 2010 when I purchased the car. In Good condition and driven daily, the car is very well maintained with no real issues besides a broken hood latch handle, has fair tires and a stereo, it avgs 34 mpg and has always been a very reliable ride but I no longer need a car.
6 months ago
Pullman, WA
$2,000.00 6 months ago
1994 Honda Civic DX sedan - $2000 (Eureka) hide this posting restore this posting
5 speed manual/1.5l stock engine223,000 milesclean title in hand, reg til dec 2016smogged 4/13Runs well, call/text whenever
6 months ago
Humboldt, CA
$3,000.00 6 months ago
2000 Honda Civic DX - $3000 (Glenwood Springs) hide this posting restore this posting
2000 Honda Civic DX152,015 Miles4 Cyl5 Speed ManualSilverGood Mechanical Condition Fair-Good Cosmetic Condition ( Some Minor Hail Damage, Driver Door Crease, Rear bumper paint peel)Bridgestone Blizzak Winter Tires (2-3 Seasons Left)Firestone FR710 All season Tires (2-3 Seasons Left)
6 months ago
Rocky Mountains, CO
$2,000.00 6 months ago
1990 Honda Civic DX Excellent Condition - $2000 (Days Creek) hide this posting restore this posting
1990 Honda Civic DX Excellent Condition, One Owner, 159,600 miles, $2,000. Standard transmission, Cassette deck, Paint and interior like new, Everything works. Runs great and gets good mileage. Always kept in the garage or carport and looks close to perfect. We will answer any questions. Have all service records including 150,000-mile tuneup with new timing belt etc., and can give you the name of
6 months ago
Roseburg, OR
Contact Us 7 months ago
2000 Honda Civic DX - 64093921
2000 Honda Civic DXMore Details: http://www.autoshopper.com/used-cars/2000_Honda_Civic_DX_Saint_Albans_VT-64093921.htmMiles: 110136Engine: 4 CylinderStock #: 28088B Handy Toyota800-266-0683 701 Highgate Road,05478 google map | yahoo map
7 months ago
Plattsburgh, NY
Contact Us
$3,500.00 7 months ago
$3,500, 2000 Honda Civic DX 4dr Sedan - $3,500 - 63702962
2000 Honda Civic DX 4dr Sedan - $3,500INFO COMING SOON, Option List:Front Airbags - Dual, Front Seat Type - Bucket, Front Wipers - Intermittent, Multi-Function Remote - Trunk Release, Power Brakes, Power Steering, Radio - Am/Fm, Steering Wheel - Tilt, Tinted Glass, Tire Type, Upholstery - Cloth, Wheel Diameter - 14 Inch, Window Defogger - RearMore Details: http://www.autoshopper.com/used-cars/2000
7 months ago
Reading, PA
$2,000.00 1 year ago
1993 Honda Civic DX Very Clean - $2000 (Ceres)
1993 Honda Civic DX HatchbackDrives and sounds excellentHolds a clean title no accidents Very clean inside and out Automatic four-cylinder Registration up-to-date Title and smog certificate in hand Asking $2000show contact info
1 year ago
Modesto, CA
$2,000.00 1 year ago
1993 Honda Civic DX B18 5-Speed - $2000 (Janesville)
I am deciding to sell my Civic again. 1993 Honda Civic DxB18b1 5-speed ( unknown miles )This is one of the nicest Civics I have seen on Craigslist.. Not rusted out swapped and a manual. That being said, it's not perfect but worth building and not all rusted out. I will list the ups and downs.Pros & Cons: B18b1 swap (valve tap needs adjustment)No power steering or A/C5-speedStrut tower barNew alumi
1 year ago
Mankato, MN
$2,000.00 1 year ago
94 honda civic dx ej1 fs/ft - $2000 (el centro)
For sale or trade is my Clean title civic smogged dx 1.5 d15b7 5 speed s20 ac works no leaks or noises runs perfect no check engine light it has rotas lowering springs cd usb runs great 2000 also willing to trade for a ranger jeep Cherokee explorer suv or small truck....Cons:Cracked windshieldRipped driver's seatPlastic dipped hood
1 year ago
Yuma, AZ
$2,200.00 1 year ago
2000 Honda Civic DX - $2200 (Glens Falls)
2000 Honda Civic DX. 170,000 miles. Runs great, standard, clean, non smoker.
1 year ago
Glens Falls, NY


text:
Anthony Spoleto
this wiki
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Anthony "Tony Black" Spoleto is a Capo in the Ancelotti crime family.
He manages the affairs between the Ancelotti family and their hired Albanian muscle. He was likely the most favored captain in the Ancelotti Family.
Events of GTA IV
Anthony Spoleto is killed by Niko Bellic after a meeting with the Albanians on orders from Gerald McReary in the mission Actions Speak Louder than Words. The hit is designed to sour relations between the Ancelotti family and the Albanian Mob. Niko makes Spoleto's death seem as though it was caused by the Albanians, as he planted a bomb underneath Spoleto's car as he was in a meeting with multiple Albanian mobsters. By doing this, it would cause the Ancelottis to cut ties with the Albanian Mob, thus making themselves weaker.
LCPD Database record
Mission Appearances
- Actions Speak Louder than Words (Killed)
- Spoleto bears the same character model as a certain type of mafia member that can be found in Little Italy and Westdyke. It is that of an overweight, middle-aged man with black hair and a randomized outfit that will always consist of a suit in either beige, gray or black and a tie in either blue, red or yellow.
- It is possible that his nickname is based on that of former Bonanno Familly caporegime "Sonny Black" Napolitano.
- It is also possible that his birth name is based on that of Anthony Spilotro a one time soldier within the Chicago Outfit.

subset: commoncrawl


text: Ok, first person to answer this question wins a Collider promo code: QUESTION: In the game Collider Lite, how many balls total are there on level 11 and how many greens ones are there? You can download Collider Lite here: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/collider-lite/id352247518?mt=8 Good luck! This is what you'll win: Please Register or Log in to view images


text:
Греческие Гамбургеры С Индейкой
Greek Turkey Burgers [{Looks yummy & healthy. (I want to try it!)}].
Tasty Greek Turkey Burgers | Grill | 21 Day Fix Extreme Approved | www.fitmomangelad.com
Greek Turkey Burgers. These were great! I had them with some hummus and cucumber dill yogurt dip - delicious.
Greek Turkey Burgers [{Looks yummy & healthy. (I want to try it!)}].
Greek Turkey Burgers are a healthy mix of ground turkey and Mediterranean flavors. BudgetBytes.com
If you've been following me for a while, you probably already know my secret to juicy, delicious, turkey burgers is adding grated zucchini to them! You also may know that I am a huge fan of DeLallo's Salad Savors which lets you create a crazy-good salad in minutes with top quality ingredients and no fuss! This burger was inspired by the Zesty Feta Salad Savors I had in my fridge. I adapted my original turkey burger recipe and added fresh oregano and Feta cheese to the burgers. Then I…
Skinny Points Recipes » 4 SmartPoints Special Greek Turkey Burgers
Greek Turkey Burgers with Whipped Feta | sweetpeasandsaffron.com @sweetpeasaffron
Greek Turkey Burgers | #healthy: http://lifeloveandgoodfood.com/greek-turkey-burgers
Greek Turkey Burgers with Creamy Tzatziki Sauce - The Lemon Bowl #grill #turkey #burgers


text:
For the second time in a week, a National League manager named Manuel was ejected during a game against the Reds. But unlike Charlie, we don't really have a problem with Jerry … pretty impressive tantrum actually. NO LOVE FOR CHARLIE.
I read John Fay's notebook item about how Votto said he's over the snub (which is impressive, because we definitely aren't. Adrian Gonzalez?! Omar Infante?!?! Come on!!) That he's over it is the right thing for him to say for sure, but HOW COOL WAS IT that he made a nice little statement by CLUBBING two home runs in the Reds' 8-6 win against the Mets on Monday. I'd say that's letting your actions speak. And the fact that the two homers gave him the league lead made it even cooler. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Charlie.
OK, that's enough. Go do some Vott-ing!!


text:
- News
- Gambling News
- Florida and Hawaii Fail to Pass Online Poker Bill
Florida and Hawaii Fail to Pass Online Poker Bill
13 April 2011
At least they are trying…maybe that's is how we should look at all the attempts by state lawmakers to get online gambling legalized within their state borders. At least the attempt is being made and online gambling is being considered, but being considered is about as far as Florida and Hawaii got.
In Florida yesterday, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee killed a bill that would regulate online poker within the state when their vote ended in a 2-2 tie. The Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla sponsored bill would have allowed online poker games among Floridians operated through parimutuel card rooms.
Diaz de la Portilla said when he spoke to the committee, "What we're trying to do here is create Florida intrastate poker network and do it with Florida companies with regulations here — protecting from identify theft and protecting the consumer — and having revenue go to the state."
The bill was opposed by the Florida Sheriff's Association and the Poker Players Alliance. The Sheriff's Association went as far as calling in "internet crack" and the PPA is more interested in a federal bill regulating poker than one approved state by state.
Hawaii also killed a bill that would allow both online and live poker within its borders. The proposed legislation didn't get a public hearing before last week's deadline for bills to advance and thus killing the proposal until next year.
Last month the bill passed the Economic Revitalization & Business Committee and the Judiciary Committee but didn't get a hearing in the House Finance Committee. According to Finance Committee Chairman Marcus Oshiro, D-Wahiawa, the bill didn't have enough public interest to ever get serious consideration.
The Hawaii bill would have allowed Texas Hold 'em and Omaha varieties of poker only and all other games would have remained banned. Hawaii and Utah are the only two states in the U.S. that do not allow any form of legalized gambling.
Related News
15 May 2010Poker Player Alliance to Rally in Olympia
Lee Rousso, the Poker Players Alliance Washington State's Director is trying to overturn a Washington State law that makes playing online poker a Class C felony; a Class C felony is equivalent to child pornography and heroin possession. Rousso's argument is that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.Read full article
01 June 2010California Voting Today on Legalizing Online Poker
California is in a financial bind. It is staring in the face of a $19 billion budget shortfall by the end of this fiscal year (2011). The urgency in producing revenue in the state can be reflected in the introduction of a SB 1485 Friday that will authorize the creation of an online poker system within California.Read full article
02 June 2010Hop-On Inc Seeking Licensees in California for Online Gaming Software
Hop-On Inc , who's patents for GSM and CDMA technologies have resulted in license agreements with some of the biggest names in cell phones such as Qualcomm, Motorola, Ericsson, and Nokia to just name a few, has announced today in a press release that they will be seeking licensees for their gaming software for California.Read full article


text:
Compared to the rest of the Greater Boston market, the Waltham submarket has higher rates, and you'll need to pay a premium to be in this hot region.
In the last 90 days, 18 listings have been made available, which means spaces might be leasing quickly. You'll want to be prepared to make an offer immediately. About 22% of the available space in the Waltham are subleases, so you might be able to find a shorter term or below market rent. There aren't many listings below 2,000 square feet on the market, so finding a space for a small business might be tough.
Even though the median size is 5,792 sqft, there are still 0 new availabilities below 2,000 sqft. Most buildings in this market are approximately 4 stories. Most buildings in this region were built in 1981 and are Class A.
Trends and status of the commercial real estate market in Waltham.
Market Report
Real time and historical data on commercial real estate listings in Waltham.


text:
11/13 Macklin Street Covent Garden London WC2B 5NH
11-13 Macklin Street London WC2B 5NH GB
+44 20 7691 2400+44 20 7691 2400
+44 20 7691 2800Login to Email Enquiry
Our Vision
Ellipsis is an inspiring and creative agency with a passion for successful communication. We exceed client expectations time and again, creating strong, trusting relationships.
For the last 23 years we have worked on a wide range of projects with Diageo, Johnnie Walker, Coca-Cola, IHG, Anglo American, Dyno, Bupa and Marie Stopes.
- Specialties:
- Event management and Production
- Event branding
- Venue finding and Delegate Management
- Internal and External stakeholder communication design
- Entertainment
- Projection Mapping
- Enhancement and creation of Powerpoint Presentations
- Interior branding for offices and meeting rooms
- Corporate and event identity
- Digital media, Apps and Web
- Printed communications
ellipsis-logo.jpg 2 years ago
Ellipsis048a.jpg 2 years ago
- 20m x 4m high LED wall used for conference event in Athens


text:
Chicken Kapama
Total Time
Prep 15 mins
Cook 1 hr 30 mins
The chicken cooks in a yummy, rich, tomato sauce. Pasta is the perfect foil.
Ingredients Nutrition
- 3 lbs chicken, quartered
- 1⁄4 cup fresh lemon juice
- 1 small dried red chili
- 1 teaspoon ground allspice
- 1⁄2 teaspoon oregano, crumbled
- 1 small cinnamon stick
- 1 bay leaf
- 3 peppercorns
- 2 whole cloves
- 1 (1 1/2 lb) can whole tomatoes, drained and chopped
- 1⁄2 cup water
- 1⁄8 cup tomato paste
- 1⁄4 cup dry white wine
- 1⁄4 cup olive oil, just less than
- 1 tablespoon butter
- Arrange chicken in single layer in baking dish.
- Cover with lemon juice and salt and pepper.
- Let stand at room temperature 1 hour, turning occasionally.
- Combine all the remaining ingredients in a large saucepan.
- Bring to a boil over medium heat and cook until sauce thickens, stirring occasionally, 40 minutes.
- Heat oil with butter in large skillet over medium-high heat.
- Drain chicken and pat dry; brown on all sides.
- Return to baking dish.
- Preheat oven to 350F.
- Pour sauce over chicken, cover with foil.
- Bake until chicken is tender, about 40 minutes.
- Discard spices and serve.
- The sauce is excellent and lends itself to this dish being served with buttered pasta (penne or rigatoni would be good).
Most Helpful
ooooohhh....this was GOOOOOD! Big hit with everyone....even the fussy kid. The only change I made was tossing in a handful of pinenuts. Excellent!
Great recipe and very authentic! My family loved it and we'll be making this one again and again!
Yummo!I too did this as a OAMC and left the cinnamon stick in a snack size baggie by itself due to Erindipity's reviw. I assembled and then froze. I put the chicken in a bag by itself, as well the lemon juice, then bagged the other ingredients (minus the butter). Then bagged them all into a large freezer bag, with the recipe, and froze. Once thawed, I started at step 1 for the cooking process. We really loved it!


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.
December 23, 2008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,v.MICHAEL DENNIS WILLIAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
On December 16, 2008, various Motions filed by Defendant Michael Dennis Williams and Defendant Antoine Lamont Johnson came on for regular calendar before this Court. Plaintiff, United States of America, appeared through its counsel of record, Assistant United States Attorneys Elizabeth Yang and Karen Meyer. Defendant Johnson appeared with his counsel of record, Amy Jacks and Richard Lasting. Defendant Williams appeared with his counsel of record, Marcia Morrissey and Lynne Coffin. The matters were submitted, and the Court having considered all papers and arguments, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:
1. Defendant William's Motion to Exclude or Limit "Gang" Testimony, to Compel Compliance with Federal Rule Evidence 404(b) and/or 702; and Motion for a Daubert Hearing [617]
The Court DENIES Defendant William's Motion to Exclude or Limit "Gang" Testimony, to Compel Compliance with Federal Rule Evidence 404(b) and/or 702; and Motion for a Daubert Hearing.
A. The Government Has Not Violated the Notice Requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) Because Evidence of Gang Membership in this Case Does Not Qualify As "Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts."
The Government has not violated the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because evidence of gang membership in this case does not qualify as "other crimes, wrongs, or acts." If evidence of an act is inextricably intertwined with the crime charged, it is not considered "other acts" evidence. United States v. Williams, 291 F.3d 1180-89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 1995)). Evidence is "inextricably intertwined" if it "constitutes a part of the transaction that serves as the basis for the criminal charge" or "[is] necessary to ...permit the prosecutor to offer a coherent and comprehensible story regarding the commission of the crime." United States v. Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 1995).
Where evidence of gang affiliation is probative of the crime charged, it is not Rule 404(b) evidence. See United States v. Santiago, 46 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that evidence of gang affiliation did not qualify as "other crimes" evidence subject to Rule 404(b) where it provided a motive for the crime); United States v. Easter, 66 F.3d 1018, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that evidence of the defendant's gang affiliation was not Rule 404(b) evidence where it related to the identity of the perpetrator for the charged crimes).
Here, similarly to Santiago and Easter, the Government is introducing evidence of Defendant's gang affiliation for its probativeness of the crime charged. The Government intends to introduce the evidence to explain who was involved in the planning of the crime as well as its execution. [Opposition at 8]. The Government has alleged that it will elicit such information to explain the defendants' relationships to one another and with the witnesses. [Id.]. Additionally, the evidence is necessary to give context and coherency to the Government's story of the crime. Without the context of the defendants' affiliation with the Hoovers, the narrative will be fragmented as jurors must speculate as to why defendants would band together seemingly for no reason to commit a robbery and why defendants William and Johnson would admit their participation in a heinous crime to Witness 1.
B. The Admissibility of Expert Gang Testimony, Compliance with Rule 702, Rule 704(b), and Motion for a Daubert Hearing
The Government has stated that it does not intend to call any expert witnesses with respect to Defendant's gang affiliation. [Opposition at 2, n.1]. Therefore, to the extent Defendant's Motion addresses the use of expert testimony, Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and a Daubert Hearing, it is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
C. The Government's Introduction of Testimony Regarding Defendant's Gang Membership is Relevant Under Rule 401 and Should Not be Excluded Under Rule 403 as Unduly Prejudicial.
"[E]vidence of gang affiliation is admissible when it is relevant to a material issue in the case." United States v. Easter, 66 F.3d at 1021. However, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 ("Rule 403") states, "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice..." Fed. R. Evid. 403.
The Government is not introducing gang affiliation evidence to show Defendant's motive or intent. The Government has stated that it intends to use evidence of Defendant's gang affiliation because it is probative of the participants' identities, their relationships among each other and witnesses, and their conduct pertaining to the charged crimes. [Opposition at 10]. For example, the Government will use gang affiliation evidence to prove defendants were present at a planning meeting before the robbery. [Id.]. The Government argues that without the context of Defendant's association with the Hoovers, the jury will be confused about why Defendant would seemingly for no reason band together with the others to commit the robbery and why he would make incriminating statements to Witness 1. Additionally, the jury will be confused about why Defendant is referred to by a moniker without some explanation about how they are used by the Hoovers. As shown above, The Government has shown that the gang affiliation evidence is relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 because it is relevant to the identities of the robbery participants and how the participants and witnesses know each other. See Easter, 66 F.3d at 1021 ("evidence tending to show identity, such as the gang-related connections between the defendants, the mastermind of the crime, and the getaway car, was very probative".
Any potential prejudice to Defendant can be minimized by appropriate steps taken by this Court. For example, in Easter, the Ninth Circuit found that the Court's steps to minimize any potential prejudice rendered the gang affiliation evidence admissible under Rule 403. Here, the Government has offered to submit proposed voir dire questions to screen for juror bias in regards to gang affiliation, to propose a limiting instruction for the jury that makes clear Defendant should not be found guilty because of his gang affiliation, that the evidence may only be considered as it relates to Defendant's identity and conduct in this case, and relationship to other defendants. [Opposition at 13]. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to exclude evidence of Defendant's gang affiliation under Rule 403 is DENIED.*fn1 However, the Government SHALL submit, at the appropriate time, the proposed voir dire questions and limiting instructions.
2. Defendant Johnson's Motion to Adopt Co-Defendant's Motion to Exclude or Limit "Gang" Testimony [672]
To the extent applicable, the Court GRANTS Defendant Johnson's Motion to Adopt Defendant Williams' Motion to Exclude or Limit "Gang" Testimony.
3. Defendant Johnson's Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Government's Destruction of Exculpatory Evidence or, In the Alternative, to Suppress Secondary Evidence Relating to the Destroyed Evidence [632]
After the robbery, Police officers recovered a knit hat with dreadlocks attached ("rasta hat") from the crime scene. They submitted it to criminalists from the LAPD Scientific Investigation Division ("LAPD SID") for examination. Criminalists recovered twelve human hairs from the rasta hat. Four of the twelve hairs had root tissue attached. Those four hairs were subjected to nuclear DNA testing. Testing showed that three of the four hairs did not contain sufficient material to yield a conclusive result. However, one of the four hairs was later matched to Defendant Johnson. During DNA testing all four hairs were destroyed. The other eight hairs were preserved.
Before testing, the criminalist made preliminary notations suggesting that the four hairs varied in color and length. However, the criminalist did not take any photographs of the hairs or examine them under a microscope to make further observations about their physical characteristics.
Defendant seeks to dismiss the Indictment against him or alternatively suppress any secondary evidence relating to the destroyed evidence. The Court DENIES Defendant Johnson's Motion.
A. Defendant's Right to Due Process Was Not Violated by the Government's Destruction of Four Hairs Found in the Rasta Hat
1. The Trombetta Test
The Government has a constitutional duty to turn over exculpatory evidence that raises a reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112 (1976). When the Government destroys or fails to preserve evidence in it's possession, there is only a due process violation if the evidence is material. "...To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means." California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488-89 (1984). If the destroyed evidence is not "material," then there is only a denial of due process of law if "a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police..." Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57 (1988).
In Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), the Supreme Court dealt with the prosecution's failure to preserve semen samples. In that case, neither the prosecution nor the defense knew the test results of the semen samples. Id. at 56. The Court found that the unpreserved evidence did not meet the standard required by Trombetta because the "possibility that the semen samples could have exculpated [defendant] if preserved or tested is not enough to satisfy the standard of constitutional materiality." Id. (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Court reiterated that Trombetta requires the defendant to show that the police knew the semen samples would have exculpated him "before the evidence was destroyed." Id.
Similarly, in this case, the Government did not know of any exculpatory value of the four hairs before they were destroyed because they were consumed by the DNA testing before the Government knew the test results. This is similar to Youngblood where the police did not know the results of the DNA testing before destroying them. The only difference is that Defendant argues the Government knew the DNA evidence could have exculpated Defendant before destroying it because the criminologist made notations about differing physical characteristics of the twelve hairs. However, the Government's Opposition submits evidence explaining that the slight differences in the physical characteristics of the hairs would not give them reason to believe that the hairs were deposited by different persons. For example, the Government has submitted the criminologist's report noting the physical characteristics of the hair samples. In that report, the criminologist notes that the hairs range in color from light brown to very dark brown, and some have roots while others have no follicular tissue. [Opposition, Exhibit A]. However, Linda French, a criminologist with the LAPD SID, states in her declaration that the hairs of one person can exhibit varying characteristics. [French Decl. ¶ 3].
Moreover, not knowing who the hairs came from, the Government could not have known that the evidence would exculpate Defendant. At the time of testing, Defendant was not even a suspect. This case is distinguishable from the case cited by Defendant, United States v. Cooper, 983 F.2d 928 (9th Cir. 1993), where the Government was specifically told and had reason to believe that evidence seized from the specific defendant was exculpatory, but destroyed it anyway. Therefore, Defendant cannot carry his burden to show that the destroyed evidence had an "apparent" exculpatory value before it was destroyed.*fn2
Even if the destroyed evidence had an apparent exculpatory value before it was destroyed, Defendant must show that he is "...unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means." Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 488-89.
Here, the Government has given Defendant the eight remaining hairs found in the rasta hat for comparison with Defendant's hair. The only apparent difference of the eight remaining hairs from the destroyed hairs is that the destroyed hairs had root tissue attached.
Therefore, Defendant has access to comparable evidence by reasonably available means because he has the remaining eight hairs to test. In fact, the Government's testing of these eight hairs reveals that they come from multiple sources. [Opposition, Ex. F]. The Defense's main theory is that there were multiple sources of hair in the rasta hat because multiple persons wore the rasta hat. Therefore, Defendant can still use the remaining hairs to support this theory and is thus able "to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means." Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 488-89.
Based on the above, Defendant has not met his burden to show a due process violation under Trombetta.
2. The Youngblood Test
If a defendant cannot meet the Trombetta test to show constitutional materiality of the destroyed evidence, there is only a denial of due process of law if a "defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police." in failing to preserve the evidence. Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 57.
"The presence or absence of bad faith by the police for purposes of the Due Process Clause must necessarily turn on the police's knowledge of the exculpatory value of the evidence at the time it was lost or destroyed." Id. at 56. The Government's conduct does not indicate in any way that it believed or should have believed that the evidence could form a basis for exonerating Defendant because at the time of destruction Defendant was not even a suspect. In fact, the Government did not intentionally destroy the evidence. It was consumed by the testing that sought to identify a suspect.
Moreover, failing to photograph or conduct microscopy before DNA testing did not violate the LAPD SID's standard operating procedures. See United States v. Heffington, 952 F.2d 275, 280-81 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding that "a police department's compliance with "departmental procedure" should be regarded as an indication that the disposal of evidence was not performed in "bad faith"). Contrary to Defendant's assertion, the LAPD SID's standard procedures do not require photographing or conducting microscopy on hair samples. [See Blanton Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; Opposition, Ex. 2].*fn3 As cases above illustrate, this factors toward a finding of good faith.
Additionally, courts have consistently found no bad faith where evidence was destroyed during scientific testing. See United States v. Stevens, 935 F.2d 1380, 1386-88 (3rd Cir. 1991) (no bad faith where saliva sample consumed during testing); Carlson v. State, 945 F.2d 1026, 1029 (8th Cir. 1991) (destruction of entire blood sample during prosecution testing did not violate due process). See also, Garrett v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 113 (5th Cir. 1998) (finding that sample consumed during testing did not even qualify as "destroyed evidence" under Trombetta because testing was necessary and there was no evidence left to preserve after the test was conducted). Here, the evidence was destroyed during scientific testing.*fn4 Therefore, Defendant has not met his burden to show bad faith on the part of the Government, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment is DENIED.
B. Secondary Evidence Relating to the Destroyed Hairs Should Not be Suppressed
"When primary evidence is destroyed and secondary evidence is used, the latter's admissibility at trial turns on a balancing test aimed at insuring a fair trial." United States v. Lillard, 929 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing United States v. Loud Hawk, 628 F.2d 1139, 1151 (9th Cir. 1979). "The court must weigh the extent of the Government's culpability for the lost evidence and the degree of prejudice to the defendant." Id. at 504.
After examining the Loud Hawk factors, it is clear that the Government's conduct was reasonable. Weighing in the Defendant's favor is only the fact that the evidence was destroyed while in the custody of federal officers. However, as explained above under the Youngblood analysis, the Government did not act in disregard of the Defendant's interests. The Government did not intentionally destroy the hairs; but rather, they were destroyed during testing that sought to identify a suspect. The Government's failure to photograph or conduct microscopy on the hairs does not violate it's standard operating procedures [Blanton Decl. ¶¶ 3-4]. Furthermore, such tests had little or no value to the investigation at the time of testing.*fn5
[French Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4]. Lastly, none of the Government's attorneys were involved in the testing or destruction of the hair. As these facts indicate, the Government's actions were reasonable under the Loud Hawk factors and weigh against suppressing the evidence.
In regards to prejudice to Defendant, the destroyed evidence at issue is central to the case. The one hair identifying Defendant is allegedly the only piece of physical evidence linking him to the robbery. This is substantial proof of his identity as one of the robbers. The other three hairs are central to the case because Defendant's main defense is that multiple persons wore the rasta hat.
However, it is unlikely that Defendant is prejudiced from the destroyed evidence for several reasons. First, the Government still has eight remaining hairs found in the rasta hat. The Government has given these to Defendant for testing. As stated previously, some of these hairs do not match Defendant. Therefore, there is adequate substitute evidence to support his theory that other persons wore the rasta hat. As for the three destroyed hairs that were inconclusive, Defendant is free to argue to the jury that they might have not matched as well.
Second, Defendant is not prejudiced by his inability to conduct further testing on the incriminating hair because the DNA extracted from that hair is still available for testing and likely only to further incriminate him. Defendant is also free to cross-examine the Government's witness as to the reliability of the testing. See also United States v. Traylor, 656 F.2d 1326, 1335 (9th Cir. 1981) (finding no prejudice to the defendant because he was not able to conduct independent tests of the evidence where secondary evidence was probative and reliable and defendant cross-examined chemist about the testing).
Weighing the Government's culpability with any prejudice to Defendant, this Court finds that Defendant will still receive a fair trial. The Government acted reasonably and the prejudice to Defendant is minimal. Therefore Defendant's Motion to Suppress Secondary Evidence Relating to the Destroyed Evidence is DENIED.
4. Defendant Johnson's Motion to Traverse Search Warrant of March 18, 2005 [627]
Defendant Johnson's Motion to Traverse Search Warrant of March 18, 2005 is DENIED. On March 18, 2005, Judge Fidler of the Superior Court issued a search warrant for police officers to obtain a sample of Defendant Johnson's blood and saliva. Judge Fidler found probable cause and issued the warrant based on the affidavit of LAPD Detective Maria Tomes.
A. Requirements for Franks Hearing
"[W]here the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request." Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978). The defendant is also "permitted to challenge a warrant affidavit valid on its face when it contains deliberate or reckless omissions of facts that tend to mislead." United States v. Stanert, 762 F.2d 775, 781 (9th Cir. 1985). A substantial preliminary showing does not require clear proof of deliberate or reckless false statements. United States v. Chesher, 678 F.2d 1353, 1360 (9th Cir. 1982). However, allegations that the "affidavit displayed a pattern of deliberate omission[s]," without further evidence, is insufficient to warrant a Franks hearing. United States v. Chavez-Martinez, 306 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2002).
"Not all information in the government's possession need be included in the warrant affidavit." United States v. Garza, 980 F.2d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. Johns, 948 F.2d 599, 606 (9th Cir. 1991). "Only if omitted facts 'cast doubt on the existence of probable cause' do they rise to the level of misrepresentation." Id.
The Court determines if the falsehood was necessary to the finding of probable cause by determining if there is probable cause on the face of the warrant after (1) deleting the falsity from the affidavit and (2) inserting the omissions which misled the Court. United States v. Ippolito, 774 F.2d 1482, 1486-87 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1985).
B. Analysis
1. Larry Jordan
Defendant argues that Tomes made misleading omissions in regards to Larry Jordan's criminal history, suspected involvement in the crime, and inconsistent statements to the investigating officers.
Defendant does not meet the requirements entitling him to a Franks hearing. Defendant must show, "[T]he affiant intentionally or recklessly omitted facts required to prevent technically true statements in the affidavit from being misleading." Stanert, 762 F.2d at 781. In addition, the defendant must show that the "affidavit, once corrected and supplemented," would not "provide . . . a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed" to search defendant's residence. United States v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565, 582 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Stanert, 762 F.2d at 782).
It is true that Tomes omitted Jordan's convictions for various crimes ranging from involuntary manslaughter, narcotics, and stealing. However, Tomes included in her affidavit that Jordan was Mirandized prior to his interview. The Ninth Circuit has stated that an affidavit which states a person was Mirandized makes clear that he is a suspect in the crime. See Belmontes v. Brown, 414 F.3d 1094, 1122 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, it is unlikely that Tomes was intending to mislead the magistrate into believing that Jordan was an upstanding citizen by not revealing his criminal history because she included information that indicated he was a suspect in the robbery and murder, and that his van was used in the crime. Additionally, Defendant has not made any showing, other than a blanket assertion, that Tomes made these omissions intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth. Most importantly, omitting Jordan's criminal history would not change the finding probable cause because it would not change any credibility issues in regards to Jordan because the affidavit taken as a whole alerts the magistrate to the potential credibility issues with Jordan.
The same is true for any omissions regarding Jordan's suspected involvement in the crime. The fact that Tomes included the fact that Jordan was Mirandized and his van was used in the crime is sufficient to alert the magistrate to any lack of credibility on Jordan's part. See Johns, 948 F.2d at 606 ("The government need not include all of the information in its possession to obtain a search warrant."); United States v. Ellison, 793 F.2d 942, 947 (8th Cir. 1986) (affiant's omission that several informants were in jail and had received financial consideration from the government, did not undermine informant's information or cast doubt on probable cause). Therefore, there is no material omission, let alone an omission sufficient to remove probable cause. Additionally, there is no substantial showing that this omission was deliberate or reckless.*fn6
See United States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297, 301-302 (4th Cir. 1990) (finding that the court could not infer intent or recklessness from the fact of omission itself, otherwise it would collapse the two distinct elements of "intentionality" and "materiality" into one element). See Chavez-Miranda, 306 F.3d at 979 (finding that bare assertions that the omissions were reckless or intentionally misleading fall short of the preponderance of the evidence that Franks requires.").
Lastly, Defendant cannot make the requisite showing in regards to Jordan's inconsistent statements about selling his van to Defendant, his inconsistent descriptions of the purchaser of his van, and his initial identification of another person as the purchaser of the van.
The Government argues that despite Jordan's inconsistent statements, he consistently stated that Defendant was present at the sale of his van. Despite having initially provided varying descriptions of the purchaser and tentatively selecting the photograph of another, Jordan did ultimately identify Defendant as the purchaser of his van. This was collaborated by CW-2. Additionally, it was reasonable for the detective to determine that these inconsistencies were more akin to false exculpatory information*fn7 or motivated by fear.*fn8 The Government's argument is reasonable because Tomes could have determined that the prior inconsistent statements were false and/or not relevant to the probable cause determination, especially in light of other collaborating information. Courts have found that negligent omission does not rise to the level of deliberate or reckless. Colkley, 899 F.2d at 301-02. Additionally, the court should not "infer[] intent or recklessness from the fact of omission itself." Id.
Regardless of whether a material omission was made, Defendant has not shown that the omission is necessary for a finding of probable cause. For an omission to serve as the basis for a hearing under Franks, Defendant must show "that the affidavit . supplemented by the omissions would not be sufficient to support a finding of probable cause." Stanert, 762 F.2d at 782. If the information regarding Jordan's inconsistent statements were submitted in the affidavit, it would not have changed the fact that there was probable cause. The affidavit includes information from CI-I, a professed member of the Hoovers and one of its robbery crews, that Johnson was part of the robbery. It also includes information from CW-1 and CW-2 that Defendant helped plan the robbery. See also United States v. Meling, 47 F.3d 1546, 1555 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that when other information supports a finding of probable cause, an informant's low credibility is inconsequential).
Therefore, Defendant should not be granted a Franks hearing on the basis of any omissions made concerning Larry Jordan.
Defendant argues that the statements provided by CI-1 are misleading because the Government failed to provide information concerning CI-1's criminal history, that CI-1 committed other bank robberies in robbery crews that did not include Defendant, he denied any involvement in the crime at issue, he gave a false alibi as to his whereabouts during the robbery, and he has been implicated in the robbery at issue. As a result, he argues, the statement that CI-1 is "currently assisting the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office in solving bank robberies committed by members of his robbery crew" is misleading because it omits critical facts about CI-1's credibility.
In its totality, the affidavit would not mislead the magistrate into thinking that CI-1 was unbiased and credible. The affidavit states that CI-1 is a member of the Hoovers, conducted armed robberies, and served as the crew leader for a robbery crew. [Tomes' Aff. ("Ex. 1") at 8]. See also United States v. Furlong, 844 F. Supp. 624, 628 (D. Mont. 1994) (finding "it is reasonable to conclude that law enforcement assumed that the [magistrate] would have supposed that the informant had an ulterior motive, such as a reward, for turning in the information; United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that magistrate would naturally have assumed that informant was not a disinterested citizen). More importantly, these omissions would not have effected the probable cause determination because the magistrate was already apprised that CI-1 had a criminal history from the facts given about CI-1's membership in the Hoovers. Lastly, Defendant makes no allegation that these omissions were done knowingly or intentionally to mislead.*fn9
Defendant is correct that Jordan, CW-1, and CW-2 implicated CI-1 in the robbery.*fn10 However, this is not clear on the face of the affidavit because CI-1 is not named as Day Day. Therefore, the magistrate could not have made an accurate assessment of CI-1's credibility.
However, adding this information would not change the probable cause determination for two reasons.
First, CI-1's statements were collaborated by CI-2. See Meling, 47 F.3d at 1555 (explaining that when other information supports a finding of probable cause, an informant's low credibility is inconsequential); United States v. Landis, 726 F.2d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1984) (interlocking tips from different confidential informants enhance the credibility of each).*fn11
Additionally, the court should not "infer[] intent or recklessness from the fact of omission itself." Id. Lastly, the purpose of CI-1's statement was to establish that Defendant was a member of the Hoovers and known as a "shooter". CI-1 did not make any statement that Defendant was involved in the crime at issue. Therefore, any credibility issue with CI-1 because of his implication in the crime at issue would not be as relevant or as important if the information he provided directly implicated Defendant in the robbery at issue.
Therefore, Defendant should not be granted a Franks hearing on the basis of any omissions made concerning CI-1.
Defendant argues that Tomes made misleading omissions in regards to CI-2's criminal history, included a false statement that CI-2 identified Defendant as a "shooter" in the gang, and misled theCourt by stating that Defendant was part of the gang's robbery crew, when in reality there are multiple robbery crews.*fn12 *fn13
Defendant's argument about omissions regarding CI-2's criminal history lacks merit for the same reasons explained above in regards to Jordan and CI-1. Tomes stated that CI-2 was a member of the Hoovers, conducted armed robberies, and served as the crew leader for a robbery crew. [Ex. 1 at 8-9].
Defendant's allegation that Tomes included a false statement that CI-2 identified Defendant as a "shooter" in the gang is also unpersuasive. Tomes states in her affidavit that her information from CI-2 is based on information provided by Detective O'Donnell and Jaramillo. [Ex. 1 at 8]. Attached to the Government's Opposition as Exhibit C is O'Donnell's notes from his interview with CI-2. In those notes, CI-2 identifies Defendant as a "shooter." [Ex. C at 3]. The apparent confusion comes from the fact that Special Agent Mike Haluahni, who was present at that same interview, did not include this information in his report. However, Tomes did not include a false statement in her report as shown by O'Donnell's notes.
Lastly, Defendant argues that Tomes' statement that CI-2 was part of "the gang's robbery crew" was misleading because it suggests that the "Hoovers have only one robbery crew" instead of multiple crews. Thus, he argues, this would have weighed against a probable cause finding because it implies that CI-2 and Defendant were part of the same robbery crew, when really there were multiple crews.
This argument also fails because Tomes' affidavit states that the Hoovers have smaller "sets," "factions," or "cliques," some of which "form robbery crews." Therefore, the magistrate was alerted to the fact that there are multiple robbery crews within the Hoovers. Defendant has not made a showing that Tomes' made this statement intentionally or in reckless disregard for the truth in light of the fact that Tomes clearly explained there were multiple robbery crews. Changing the affidavit to include this information might lessen probable cause to the extent that the magistrate might infer that if there is only one crew it was the one responsible, but it would not negate probable cause because CI-2's statement was provided to show that CI-2 knew Defendant was in one of the robbery crews, not that they were in the same crew, the Hoover's only crew, or Defendant was in a specific crew.
Defendant argues that Tomes' omitted the fact that CW-1 came forward after a reward was offered, the murder was public knowledge, the police were not looking for someone in a charger's jacket, and $300,000 was not the correct amount stolen. Additionally, Defendant omitted CW-1's criminal history.
In regards to any alleged omissions, Defendant does not make a substantial showing that any omitted facts were intentionally or recklessly omitted to mislead the magistrate. To begin, the magistrate would not have been misled about $300,000 being the incorrect amount stolen because Tomes' states in the affidavit that $436,000 was stolen. [Ex. 1 at 6]. Additionally, it is apparent from the affidavit that the crime was public knowledge because Tomes states that CW-1 told her she saw a press conference about the murder on television. [Ex. 1 at 10]. Furthermore, there is no allegation, other than the omission itself, that Tomes' intentionally or recklessly omitted this information. See Chavez-Miranda, 306 F.3d at 979 (finding the defendant's allegation of that affiant had a pattern of deliberate omission, without specific evidence, was insufficient to support claim that affiant recklessly or intentionally misled the court); Colkley, 899 F.2d at 301-02 (finding that the court could not infer intent or recklessness from the fact of omission itself, otherwise it would collapse the two distinct elements of "intentionality" and "materiality" into one element).
In actuality, Defendant's primary argument is that the information provided by CW-1 was hearsay and public knowledge, and therefore unreliable. However, this is not sufficient to entitle Defendant to a Franks hearing because "the veracity of only the affiant [may] be challenged." United States v. Perdomo, 800 F.2d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Staves, 383 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2004). This argument challenges the veracity of CW-1.
Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing based on any omissions in regards to CW-1.
Defendant states that the affidavit falsely represents that CW-2 heard the planning of an "armored truck robbery" as opposed to the originally reported "bank or truck robbery." Defendant argues that this is significant because during this time there were multiple robberies, and it is believed that CW-2's statement shows she overheard the planning of a different robbery in question. Defendant supports this argument by stating that in CW-2's first interview she identified four individuals as planning a bank or truck robbery. In the next interview, several months later, CW-2 identified two additional persons, not originally named, as present at the planning meeting. One of these persons included Defendant. Defendant argues this is significant because Tomes was aware of the fact that there was another armed robbery of a bank one week earlier to the crime at issue, in which two of the persons CW-2 identified were involved. Therefore, if this information was included, the magistrate would have realized CW-2 was unreliable as to who was present at the meeting and what crime was being discussed.
Defendant's argument fails for several reasons. First, Defendant is incorrect that CW-2 did not identify Defendant in the first interview. Although, not included in Tomes' affidavit, according to the Government, Special Agent Stephen May's notes show that CW-2 identified Defendant in that meeting.*fn14 [Yang Decl. Ex. J].
Defendant's next claim about Tomes making a false allegation that CW-2 overheard the planning of the "armored truck robbery" when Detective O'Donnell's interview report states that CW-2 overheard the planning of a "bank robbery or a truck robbery," also fails. Defendant has not alleged facts to show that this was a deliberate or reckless omission. He only argues that in the context of another similar crime at the time, this is significant because it is impossible to conclude the robbery being discussed was the robbery at issue in this case. Whether CW-2 said bank robbery, truck robbery, or armored truck robbery, in the context of CW-2's statement it was not unreasonable for Tomes to conclude that this was the armored truck robbery at issue.*fn15 This is true, especially since CW-2 said that she heard about the murder and knew the Hoovers were involved. See United States v. Senchenko, 133 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding there was no reckless falsity unless high degree of awareness of probable falsity).
Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing on the basis of CW-2's statements.
For all the reasons stated above, Defendant has not met his burden to entitle him to a Franks hearing.
5. Defendant Johnson's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as Result of Service of Search Warrant Obtained in Violation of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [624]
Defendant Johnson's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Service of Search Warrant Obtained in Violation of Rule 41 is DENIED.
"The mere fact that evidence obtained by state officers, under a state warrant, based upon violations of state law, is used in a federal prosecution does not invoke the requirements of Rule 41." United States v. Crawford, 657 F.2d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1981). However, if the search is "federal in character" then the "provisions of Rule 41 designed to protect the integrity of the federal courts or to govern the conduct of federal officers" apply. Id. "...A search is federal if from the beginning it was assumed a federal prosecution would result." United States v. Palmer, 3 F.3d 300, 303 (9th Cir. 1993).
If the Government violates Rule 41, then Court must suppress the evidence if the violation is "fundamental." United States v. Johnson, 660 F.2d 749, 753 (9th Cir. 1981). "A violation is 'fundamental' only where it, in effect, renders the search unconstitutional under traditional fourth amendment standards." Id. Where the alleged violation is not fundamental, suppression is mandated only if "(1) there was prejudice in the sense that the search might not have occurred or would not have been so abrasive if the Rule had been followed, or (2) there is evidence of intentional and deliberate disregard of a provision in the Rule." United States v. Radlick, 581 F.2d 225, 228 (9th Cir. 1978) (internal citation omitted).
In Palmer, 3 F.3d at 303, the Ninth Circuit found that a search conducted pursuant to a state search warrant was not federal in character where state officers initiated the investigation and merely provided information to the federal government, and the federal government had no intent to prosecute the case before the search occurred. The Court in Palmer distinguished the facts from Crawford because local officials initiated and controlled the investigation.
A. Defendant Has Not Met his Burden to Show that the Search Was "Federal" in Character
Based on the evidence submitted thus far, the Court finds no evidence showing that "from the beginning it was assumed a federal prosecution would result."*fn16 The facts show the LAPD processed the scene, collected the physical evidence, and conducted almost all of the forensic analysis. [Opposition at 31; Ex. A]. Although the Government had some level of participation initially, it appears that early on the investigation diverged as the Government's primary goal was investing the Rolling 30's for other armed robberies, while LAPD pursued the crime at issue.*fn17 This is supported by the Government's lack of participation in obtaining or executing the search warrant, and the evidence submitted of the LAPD's primary role in investigating the crime at issue.*fn18
Nevertheless, the Court is mindful of Defendant's argument that he has information leading him to believe that the LAPD detectives were deputized federal agents, either prior to or during the investigation, and that there is evidence of extensive meetings between Federal prosecutors and LAPD detectives. However, at this time there is no evidence that the investigation was "federal in character" and without further facts to substantiate these claims, this Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
B. Regardless of Whether the Search was "Federal," the Evidence from the Search Warrant Should Not be Suppressed
Even assuming the search was "federal," the evidence should not be suppressed because there was no fundamental violation, prejudice, or evidence of intentional and deliberate disregard of a provision in Rule 41. Radlick, 581 F.2d at 228.
Defendant's argument is that the Government violated Rule 41 because the search warrant was issued by a state judge at the request of the LAPD, as opposed to application by a federal officer to a federal magistrate. Additionally, the return was not made to a federal magistrate and the warrant failed to allege that a federal crime was committed. [Motion at 5].
Defendant is correct that the Government violated Rule 41.
1. There Was No "Fundamental" Violation
Defendant argues that the violation of Rule 41 mandates suppression because the violation was fundamental in that the affidavit supporting the search warrant contained material misrepresentations and omissions that if corrected fail to establish probable cause. This argument is set forth in Defendant's Motion to Traverse Search Warrant. As concluded in that Order, the search warrant had probable cause, and thus no fundamental violation.
2. There is No Prejudice Because the Search Would Still Have Occurred if Rule 41 Had Been Followed
Defendant explains that when the Government sought wiretap applications in federal court, it advised the judge of the various inconsistent statements of Larry Jordan and his criminal history, unlike the affidavit to the superior court magistrate. As a result, he argues, if the Government had done the same for the warrant at issue in federal court, the federal magistrate would not have found probable cause.
Defendant's argument fails because, as explained in the Order for Defendant's Motion to Traverse Search Warrant, these statements were not material omissions and there was still probable cause even if they were submitted to the superior court magistrate. See United States v. Ritter, 752 F.2d 435, 441 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding no prejudice where state magistrate issued search warrant because there was "no indication that a federal magistrate would have handled the search warrant application differently than did the state judge."). Additionally, Defendant's argument is undermined because he states that the federal judge found probable cause to grant an application for a wiretap, even after the Government explained Jordan's inconsistent statements and prior criminal history.
3. There is No Evidence of Intentional and Deliberate Disregard of Rule 41
Defendant argues that the Government must have deliberately and intentionally disregarded Rule 41 because given the misrepresentations and omissions in the affidavit, the federal officers would not have wanted to risk their reputation and credibility by presenting a misleading affidavit to a federal judge or magistrate. Therefore, they "made an end run around the rule" by sending local police to the state magistrate, who were unfamiliar with the investigation. [Motion at 10].
Again this argument fails because there was probable cause for the search warrant with or without the alleged omissions and misrepresentations. Additionally, this speculation is insufficient to show that the Government deliberately and intentionally disregarded Rule 41.*fn19
There being no "fundamental" violation of Rule 41, prejudice, or deliberate and intentional disregard of Rule 41, any evidence obtained from the search should not be suppressed. Defendant's Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
6. Defendant William's Motion to Exclude DNA Test Results and Request for Daubert Hearing [609]
Defendant Williams' Motion to Exclude DNA Test Results and Request for Daubert Hearing is DENIED. However, this Order does not apply to Defendant's argument that the Government conducted "Low Copy Number" testing on both DNA samples found to match Defendant.
A. Legal Standard Under Daubert and Rule 702
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that "if scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," an expert "may testify thereto." Fed. R. Evid. 702. In order for scientific evidence to be admissible under Rule 702 and Daubert, the Court must find that the testimony is reliable. To make this determination the court must assess (1) whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of a particular scientific technique and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; (4) whether the technique is generally accepted. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 593-594 (1993). "The focus [] must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate. Id.
B. Analysis of PCR/STR Testing Under the Daubert Factors
1. Whether the Theory or Technique Can and Has Been Tested
Defendant does not seem to contest the fact that PCR/STR testing can and has been tested. In United States v. Ewell, the District Court of New Jersey found, "There is little doubt that [PCR-STR DNA typing] has a testable hypothesis. 'The hypothesis of PCR/STR DNA typing [utilizing Profiler Plus and Cofiler] is that with proper procedures an expert can determine the allelic types of given DNA samples at the thirteen core STR loci.' . . . [T]his hypothesis can be tested by any laboratory with the proper equipment to perform the PCR process." United States v. Ewell, 252 F. Supp. 2d 104, 111 (D.N.J. 2003) (quoting United States v. Trala, 162 F. Supp. 2d 336, 346 n. 11 (D. Del. 2001). Moreover, this is further supported by the extensive peer review that this method has received (as explained below). Thus, this factor of the Daubert test weighs in favor of admissibility.
2. Peer Review and General Acceptance in the Scientific Community
Courts have consistently found that PCR/STR testing has not only been extensively peer reviewed, but is also generally accepted in the scientific community.*fn20 In United States v. Morrow, 374 F. Supp. 2d 51, 61 (D.D.C. 2005), the D.C. Court of Appeals found that "Given the weight of [judicial] authority, . as a general matter, PCR/STR DNA testing meets the strictures of Daubert and is admissible." Based on the above and evidence to the Court, the Court finds that PCR/STR testing is properly peer reviewed and generally accepted in the scientific community. This Court does not need a Daubert hearing to conclude what countless other courts have virtually unanimously agreed upon.
Defendant attempts to distinguish the DNA testing in this case because it involves the Profiler Plus and COfiler kits. However, this argument fails for several reasons. First, many courts in other jurisdictions have concluded that these kits are sufficiently peer reviewed and generally accepted in the scientific community. See People v. Smith, 107 Cal. App. 4th 646, 665 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2003) (listing numerous validation studies in peer-reviewed journals for Profiler Plus and COfiler, and finding they are sufficiently accepted in the scientific community); Ewell, 252 F. Supp. 2d at 111 (same).
Second, the Court does not need to undergo a Daubert analysis if the only subject of review is a new PCR/STR test kit. In People v. Hill, 89 Cal. App. 4th 48 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2001), the court found that each new PCR/STR test kit need not, as a matter of law, be subjected to an analysis to determine scientific reliability as long as it complies with PCR/STR methodology. See also People v. Jackson, 77 Cal. Rptr. 3d 474, 482 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2008). Here, Defendant has not suggested that the Profiler Plus or COfiler kits do not comply with general PCR/STR methodology. The only distinction between the Profiler Plus and COfiler kits and other test kits already subject to Daubert analysis is that the Profiler Plus and COfiler kits analyze more loci than prior testing kits. The PCR/STR methodology remains the same as the other test kits. In fact the only difference is that the Profiler Plus and Cofiler are more accurate because they analyze more loci.
3. The Known or Potential Rate of Error of a Particular Scientific Technique
According to evidence submitted by the Government, FBI standards, and other case law, the known potential rate of error for PCR/STR testing is virtually zero. The Government has submitted the declaration of Charlotte Word, a forensic DNA consultant and former Laboratory Director at Orchid Cellmark who has testified in over 250 cases. Word states that when proper procedures are employed, PCR/STR testing will "generate[] results that may always be relied upon as accurate." [Word Decl. ¶ 22]. In Morrow, the Court found that "... if an analyst follows the FBI protocol and uses properly calibrated instruments, there is essentially zero rate of error, i.e., obtaining a wrong result, within established measurement conditions." Morrow, 374 F. Supp. 2d at 67. The LAPD SID follows the FBI Standards.*fn21 [Word Decl. ¶ 17]. Therefore, this factor favors admissibility.
The rate of error described above excludes any potential human error. Daubert concerns the methodology of the scientific evidence, and is not normally concerned with human error in applying the methodology.
According to some Circuits, Daubert only excludes evidence in such a case where the methodology "was so altered [by a deficient application] as to skew the methodology itself.'" United States v. Beasley, 102 F.3d 1440, 1448 (8th Cir. 1996).*fn22 Here, Defendant presents arguments that the DNA evidence should be inadmissible because the Government has failed to include in its statistical computation an estimate of the lab error rate and has failed to apply reliable scientific procedures. The argument regarding the lab error rate reflects a "fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of Daubert. The Court's concern under Rule 702 and Daubert is the reliability of the scientific methodology at issue, not the reliability of the laboratory performing the test." Morrow, 374 F. Supp. 2d at 67. Thus, such challenge to the lab's error rate, actually "challenge[s] the proficiency of the tester rather than the reliability of the test. Such challenges go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility." Id.
Human error in testing for this particular case might only render the evidence inadmissible if "the methodology "was so altered [by a deficient application] as to skew the methodology itself.'" Beasley, 102 F.3d at 1448. See also Morrow, 374 F. Supp. 2d at 68. In Morrow, the defendant's claims of sample mishandling were not sufficient to exclude the evidence under Daubert. The Court stated, "If actual or potential human errors do not rise to this level, they simply go to the weight of the DNA evidence proffered." Id. ///
Here, Defendant alleges various errors in the lab procedures, but he has not alleged any specific error in the testing for this case. These arguments are relevant to assess the weight of the evidence, but not its admissibility. For example, in United States v. Hicks, 103 F.3d 837, 846 (9th Cir. 1996), the Court found that claims about likelihood of contamination go to weight, not admissibility.*fn23
Moreover, Defendant does not make any specific allegations of improper procedures applied in the testing done in his case. Instead he makes various arguments about the procedures followed by the lab, in general.*fn24 As shown above, the LAPD SID follows the FBI Standards. These Standards are and have been determined as reliable. There is no evidence that accepted protocol was inadequately followed in this case. While, Defendant cites other standards that may very well be more cautious, this is not sufficient to deem the method employed here as unreliable. Instead, any allegations of improper procedures should go to the weight of the evidence and be further explored on cross-examination or expert witness testimony. See also Chischilly, 30 F.3d at 1154 ("With regard to admissibility, the mere existence of scientific institutions that would interpret data more conservatively scarcely indicates a 'lack of general acceptance' under Daubert...").*fn25
Therefore, this Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to exclude the evidence derived from the Government's use of PCR/STR testing and use of the Profiler Plus and COfiler kits. Moreover, this Court DENIES Defendant's request for a Daubert hearing because the Court is not required "to conduct a pre-trial evidentiary hearing if the expert testimony is based on well-established principles." United States v. Cooper, 91 F. Supp. 2d 79, 82 (D.D.C. 2000) (citing United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255, 1263 (10th Cir.).
C. Daubert and Rule 702 Challenges to the Statistics Associated with a "Cold Hit" DNA Case
Defendant argues that any testimony about the random match probability or likelihood ratio statistics set forth in the LAPD SID report is inadmissible because the use of such statistical devices in a "cold hit" case is unreliable and not generally accepted in the scientific community.
The likelihood ratio approach or a random match probability approach are often used in probable cause cases, in which DNA from a crime scene is compared directly to the DNA profile of a known suspect. If the suspect's profile matches the crime scene profile, then a calculation is performed to determine the statistical significance of a match between the two profiles. This calculation is completed using the "product rule." The product rule takes the expected frequencies of the set of markers (alleles) at a discrete, identified set of locations (loci), from the evidence profile and multiplies those frequencies together to get the random match probability ("RMP") for that profile. The RMP represents the chance that a single randomly selected unrelated individual would match the evidence profile by coincidence. The RMP also represents the rarity of a particular DNA profile in the population.
In contrast, a "cold hit" case arises when the DNA profile from a crime scene is not compared to a known suspect; but rather, to DNA profiles in a computer database. Defendant argues that the RMP in a cold hit case does not properly calculate the likelihood that a coincidental erroneous match has occurred. In simpler terms, the chance of a coincidental match is elevated in a cold hit case. Thus, in a cold hit case,
[T]he product rule derived number no longer accurately represents the probability of finding a matching profile by chance. The fact that many profiles have been searched increases the probability of finding a match. Instead, the 'database match probability' more accurately represents the chance of finding a cold hit match.
United States v. Jenkins, 887 A.2d 1013, 1018 (D.C. 2005). Importantly, the statistic representing the rarity of the DNA profile remains unchanged in a cold hit case. Id. at 1018 n.7. Therefore, the issue becomes whether expressing the rarity statistic is sufficient to meet Daubert and Rule 702.*fn26
The real issue ultimately concerns a relevance inquiry rather than a Daubert analysis. Daubert focuses solely "on principles and methodology, not the conclusions that they generate." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593. The final stage in PCR/STR testing is statistical calculation to express the significance of the DNA match. Use of the product rule to calculate the rarity statistic easily meets the standards of Daubert. There is no argument, nor does Defendant argue otherwise, that the method in calculating the rarity statistic is unreliable. The issue is whether the rarity statistic has any relevance without the random match statistic. As the DC Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court found, this is an issue of relevance, not methodology. United States v. Jenkins, 887 A.2d 1013, 1023-1024 (D.C. 2005); People v. Nelson, 43 Cal. 4th 1242, 1263-1264 (2008) (finding that the use of the product rule in a cold hit case is not the application of a new scientific technique subject to further Kelly (or Kelly-like) test). This Court adopts the reasoning of Jenkins which states:
At the heart of this debate is a disagreement over the competing questions to be asked, not the methodologies used to answer those questions. The rarity statistic, the database match probability, and the Balding-Donnelly approach each answer unique and potentially relevant questions. More importantly, there is no controversy in the relevant scientific community as to the accuracy of the various formulas. ... The rarity statistic accurately expresses how rare a genetic profile is in a given society. Database match probability accurately expresses the probability of obtaining a cold hit from a search of a particular database. Balding-Donnelly accurately expresses the probability that the person identified through the cold hit is the actual source of the DNA in light of the fact that a known quantity of potential suspects was eliminated through the database search. ... Instead, the arguments raised by each of the proponents simply state that their formulation is more probative, not more correct.
Jenkins, 887 A.2d at 1022-1023. Thus, there is no issue under Daubert because the Government intends to use the rarity statistic to express how rare the genetic profile is in a given society.*fn27
Additionally, the rarity statistic is clearly relevant because it informs the jury about how rare the DNA profile is in a population and thus how likely it is that someone other than Defendant was the source of the evidence.
Therefore, Defendant's request for a Daubert hearing to challenge to the statistics associated with this "cold hit" case is DENIED.
D. The FBI's Population Estimates are an Accurate Expression of the Rarity of a Genetic Profile
Defendant argues that improper restriction of statistics to Caucasians, African-Americans, and Southeast Hispanics renders any statistical probability calculation inadmissible.
However, this assertion is untrue because LAPD SID used population frequency estimates for ten distinct populations. [Opposition at 17; Exhibit D: Statistical Reports]. LAPD SID used ten population frequencies, and ultimately used the frequency from the ethnic group that reflected the most common frequency (thereby favoring Defendant). Therefore, Defendant's argument is DENIED.
E. Lab Error Rate
Defendant argues that LAPD SID has lab error rate that should be used to adjust the population frequency estimates used to assess the significance of the DNA match. This argument fails for two reasons.
First, Defendant has not alleged any lab error specific to this case. Second, the scientific community has found that "a calculation that combines error rates with match probabilities is inappropriate." People v. Reeves, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 728, 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001); Roberts v. United States, 916 A.2d 922, 930 (D.C. 2007). Therefore, Defendant's request is DENIED.
F. Source Attribution Testimony
Defendant argues that the Government impermissibly intends to use "source attribution" when presenting expert testimony explaining the DNA test.
The Government responds that it does not intend to give a source attribution. Word's Declaration states that the DNA report from Criminalist Mastrocovo states,
The DNA profile obtained from item #166 'Michael Williams' matches the major DNA profile obtained from item # 141A (Analyzed Evidence Report dated 6/15/04). The combination of genetic marker types exhibited by the major DNA profile of item #141A occurs in approximately 1 in 10 quadrillion unrelated individuals.
This is not a source attribution statement. Therefore, Defendant's request is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
G. Rule 901(b)(9)
Defendant requests that this Court require the Government to lay an adequate foundation before any of its computer generated DNA evidence is admitted into evidence.*fn28 Specifically, Defendant cites Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(9), and asks that the Court require compliance with this rule.*fn29
While Rule 901(b)(9) certainly describes one way to authenticate the evidence at issue. It is not a mandatory rule for authenticating the type of evidence at issue. It specifically states that it is not to be used "by way of limitation." The Court should not unduly restrict the Government in authenticating its evidence. The Government will have to properly authenticate its evidence under Rule 901 in order for it to be admitted. If the Government fails to do so, then Defendant can object accordingly. Therefore, Defendant's request is DENIED.
7. Defendant Johnson's Motion to Adopt Co-Defendant's Motion to Exclude DNA Test Results and Request For Daubert Hearing [614]
To the extent applicable, the Court GRANTS Defendant Johnson's Motion to Exclude DNA Test Results and Request For Daubert Hearing.
8. Defendant Williams' Motion to Join in Defendant Johnson's Request for Compliance with Court Order or Imposition of Sanctions for Continued Non-Compliance Defendant Williams' Motion is GRANTED.
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:
Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Essay:
Global Financial Stabilty
Global financial stability
Financial stability refers to a situation in which the global financial system is capable of performing its functions simultaneously (International Monetary Fund, 2012). It encompasses the ability of the financial system to be able to facilitate and enhance economic process, absorb shocks and manage risks. In addition, financial stability is usually changeable with time, and it is always consistent with various combinations of all the elements of finance. Financial stability, as a concept, is wide as it comprises of various parts of the financial systems markets, institutions and infrastructure. There is a significant among the three components. This implies that any disorder in any of them would affect the whole financial system.
Financial stability plays a significant role in enhancing financial system to accomplish its responsibility of allocating resources, transforming and managing risks and mobilizing reforms. In addition, it also plays a substantial role in sustaining the payment flow across private and official, whole sale and retail, and formal and informal mechanism of payment (International Monetary Fund, 2012). This is for the purpose of enhancing smooth functioning of the economy.
In order to maintain global financial stability, it is necessary to diminish financial crisis as well as lessen the possibilities which limit the emergence of various financial imbalances before they cause a threat to financial instability. When there is financial stability, this is possible through self corrective and market disciplinary mechanisms which create resilience.
There are various challenges encountered in an attempt to achieve, preserve and maintain global financial stability. In order to achieve financial stability, it is crucial to have effective mechanisms designed to prevent financial challenges or threats which compromise the financial, as well as the economic system (International Monetary Fund, 2012). One of the most vital aspects of the financial stability challenge is to maintain the ability of the economy for the purpose of sustaining growth, while performing other vital functions.
Issues Increasing risks to Financial Stability
According to the IMF report, it is true that the report indicates increased risks to the financial system globally. The report continues to state that the euro area is the key source of concern. There are several significant issues that are increasing risks to global financial stability. These are banking crisis, speculative bubbles and crashes, international financial crises, and wider economic crises (International Monetary Fund, 2012).
Banking crisis occurs when the banks suffers sudden rushes of withdrawals by the depositors. Since banks usually lend most of the money that they receive as deposits, it becomes difficult for them to pay all the deposits at once, in case all the clients demand all their money. In case this happens, it leaves the bank in bankruptcy and clients may also lose all their savings. Through this, the bank can accelerate financial crisis leading to financial instability (International Monetary Fund, 2012).
On speculative bubbles and crashes, economist indicates that a financial asset exhibits a bubble in case its price becomes more than the present value (International Monetary Fund, 2012). Most of the participants in the market always buy assets mainly hoping that they will sell them later at a higher price, instead of buying them for the income that they will generate. This implies that there is a bubble, hence creating a risk of increased prices of assets. These speculative bubbles and crashes are leading to financial instability in many parts of the world, resulting to global financial crisis.
International financial crises occur when a country which maintains a fixed exchange rate is forced to devalue its currency due to a speculative attack. This results to disruption in the flow of capital in the country which in turn leads to increased risk to global financial stability (International Monetary Fund, 2012).
Lastly, wider economic crises, as a key issue which is fueling increased risk in financial stability is primarily as a result of a recession, which is a negative Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth, lasting two or more quarters (International Monetary Fund, 2012). A prolonged recession is a depression. Both recession and depression are significantly contributing to the global financial instability. This is because they cause economic stagnation in the entire globe.
The IMF report of October 2012 urges and recommends the policy makers to act immediately for the purpose of…[continue]
"Global Financial Stabilty Global Financial Stability Financial" (2013, April 01) Retrieved December 8, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/global-financial-stabilty-87170
"Global Financial Stabilty Global Financial Stability Financial" 01 April 2013. Web.8 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/global-financial-stabilty-87170>
"Global Financial Stabilty Global Financial Stability Financial", 01 April 2013, Accessed.8 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/global-financial-stabilty-87170


text:
Latest News
EuroBasket Coverage
Gameday Coverage
About Logo
Advertise With US
CK Podcast
Artículos en Español
Our Team
Leo Beas
Emmanuel Basulto
Magaly Ortega
Matt George
Anthony Bertacchi
Manny Vieites
Dominic Urrutia
Custom Widget Area 1
Please login and add some widgets to this widget area.
Custom Widget Area 2
Please login and add some widgets to this widget area.
Custom Widget Area 3
Please login and add some widgets to this widget area.
672 results for
Ben McLemore
CK Podcast 239: Jason Ross and Leo Beas discuss the future of Cousins and Rondo
In this episode, Joe Morgan and Leo Beas cover the end of Sacramento's playoff hopes, and how to achieve better results next year. They go deep about who to keep, who to lose, and what to do about the remaining games of this season.Then Jason Ross of KHTK joins Joe and they cover the Kings' season (starts at the ...
Karl doesn't think it's doomsday for the Kings
What's left to talk about when it comes to the Sacramento Kings?Their star center was suspended, their coach just had a cancer-related procedure on Thursday, and the team keeps on losing. Barring any injuries, the team can't reach any new lows.A logical mind would think this team has officially hit rock ...
La reivindicación de Quincy Acy
Cada año, sólo 450 privilegiados visten una camiseta de la NBA en partido oficial. A veces son algunos más, otras algunos menos. Llegar es complicado, mantenerse es muy difícil. Más si cabe si mides dos metros pelados, has gastado tus cuatro años universitarios y siempre jugaste por dentro."Eres un tweener". "No ...
Another loss but this one has a stronger significance
There comes a point during every Sacramento Kings season where the attention of the fans turns away from the Western Conference standings and redirects itself more appropriately towards mock drafts.It has been that way for the past ten years and the legacy will continue. Last night was that turning point.And ...
A general perspective for the final 20 games
With 20 games remaining for Sacramento, the question arises. What will the game plan be for the rest of the season? Do you make a final playoff push being only 6.5 games out? Or do you look towards the offseason, where the team can be picked apart and assets can be secured?For most fans, the 2015-2016 season has been ...
Kings se fijan en Bobby Marks
Los Sacramento Kings se han fijado en el ex asistente de general manager Bobby Marks, según el periodista Sam Amick, y que actualmente trabaja como columnista en el nuevo portal, The Vertical, coordinado por Adrian Wojnarowski, para trabajar en la gestión deportiva de la franquicia.Según la información que maneja ...
A disappointing end to the road trip
It's always a high-anticipated matchup when Anthony Davis and DeMarcus Cousins take the floor and tonight lived up to the hype. Despite Cousins scoring 40 points and 16 rebounds, the Kings lost its third game of the season to the New Orleans Pelicans 115-112.Davis came up huge for the Pelicans when they needed him the ...
Kings stop the bleeding in Dallas
Rajon Rondo joked before the game and said he expected a standing ovation in his return to the American Airlines Center. The complete opposite happened but it didn't matter because it did not faze him.Rondo helped the Kings end a 22-game regular-season losing streak in Dallas by scoring 18 points and dishing out 12 ...
CK Podcast 238: After four straight losses, is the Kings' season over?
The Cowbell Kingdom team discusses the locker room feelings after some recent tough losses and dangerous plays from DeMarcus Cousins during the last four losses.Managing Editor Leo Beas and Producer Joe Morgan have five minutes of fun with some off the wall questions about the Kings' staff and players.In the ...
Thibodeau acting in a consultant role for Sacramento
Earlier we found out via social media that former Chicago Bulls head coach Tom Thibodeau is acting in a consultant role for the Sacramento Kings. He is currently with the team in Memphis and the request came from George Karl.Karl knows his team is struggling defensively, so why not ask one of the best defensive minded ...


text:
Hutchison Essar auction12 Feb 2007
Take a Financial News trial today:
- Breaking industry news & commentary
- 10 year searchable archive
- FN Powerlists & Special Reports
- FN on mobile and iPad
Does your company already have an FN licence? Email us now
Vodafone wins India's Hutchison Essar in $19bn deal
Vodafone, the mobile phones giant, last night seized control of Hutchison Essar, India's fourth-largest operator, in a deal that values the business at just under $19bn (€14.5bn).
In an acquisition that marks India's single largest investment from overseas, Vodafone will pay $11.1bn for a 67% stake in Hutchison Essar, being sold by Hutchison Whampoa, the conglomerate controlled by Li Ka-shing, the Hong Kong billionaire.
Along with net debt of $2bn, the deal values Hutchison Essar at $18.8bn and is Vodafone's biggest since its record €180bn acquisition of Germany's Mannesmann in 2000.
Vodafone fought off bids from Reliance Communications, the Hinduja brothers and Essar itself, on Sunday after just the first round of bidding - and received the news by telephone following a board meeting of Hutchison Telecom on Sunday in Hong Kong.
But Essar, which owns the remaining 33%, immediately moved on to the defensive. Having claimed that, under an shareholder agreement, it believed it had right of first refusal to buy Hutchison's 67% stake, Essar vice-chairman Ravi Ruia refused to rule out making a claim for the business.
Vodafone will offer to buy Essar out at the same price in the coming days, as it is obliged to do.


text: Home —› Products —› Astrology Books —› Valmiki Ramayan mein Jyotishiya Rooprekha (Hindi) Note: The images represent real and authentic product however colour of the image and product may slightly differ. Valmiki Ramayan mein Jyotishiya Rooprekha (Hindi) Be the first to review this product In stock $ 2.40 Quick Overview Author : Priya Singh Published By :Vani Publications Language : Hindi Quantity: Add To Cart Add To Wishlist Add To Compare Email to a Friend 100% Genuine Secure Payment 100% Certified PRODUCT Valmiki Ramayan mein Jyotishiya Rooprekha (Hindi) SKU BOAS-0107 . Reviews Only registered users can write reviews. Please, log in or register Need Help? TALK TO US AVAILABLE ON MON-SAT Want to speak to someone? We 're here (11:00 AM to 06:00 PM IST +5:30 Hours from GMT) to answer any questions. Just call! +91-9650511113 Your inquiry was submitted and will be responded to as soon as possible. Thank you for contacting us. CONTACT US Name* Email* Telephone * Required Fields Comment* Submit


text:
Flowers Baking Co
3554 Hillabee Rd Alexander City, Alabama 35010(256) 329-9766
Print | Save | Directions
AboutFlowers Baking Co is located at the address 3554 Hillabee Rd in Alexander City, Alabama 35010. They can be contacted via phone at (256) 329-9766 for pricing, hours and directions.
Flowers Baking Co has an annual sales volume of 1M – 1,999,999. .For more information contact Jeff Powell, Manager
For maps and directions to Flowers Baking Co view the map to the right. For reviews of Flowers Baking Co see below.
You must Sign in to post reviews.
0 Reviews
Key Contacts
- Jeff Powell
- Phone: (256) 329-9766


text:
"These beverages have been a life saver too many times to count. We don't drink without them if AT ALL possible. We order them by the case."
by tink20 via shop.nohodrink.com
"Headline says it all. I get very bad hangovers. Most of the time I get hangovers that last all day, and sometimes for 2 days. I saw an episode of Manswers a while ago noting that Prickly Pear Extract was the only thing scientifically proven to help prevent hangovers. I found that NoHos use it as one of their main ingredients, so I gave it a shot. I was hooked from the first use..."
by Ben Cartwright via shop.nohodrink.com
"This stuff is awesome, i swear by it and wouldn't drink without it! you CANNOT go wrong! follow us on Instagram @y0ungandhealthy "
by Y0oungandhealthy via shop.nohodrink.com
"I got this stuff for Las Vegas and did some crazy stuff I can't tell anyone about. NoHO kept me going by not being hungover so I could continue my crazy antics! Thanks NoHo"
by Unknown via shop.nohodrink.com
"This stuff is like a sore weenie, you just can't beat it!
If your on it heavy be sure to drink 2 bottles at least!"
by Garrett via shop.nohodrink.com
"NOHO and Stoli vodka was the hit at our lake bar... The #1 mixed drink of the night... 2 case used up and they wanted more..."
by RJF via shop.nohodrink.com
"I used to take the product Chaser a long time ago until it was discontinued. I took this 2 nights, this past weekend and woke up both mornings feeling great, no hangover, no headache, etc. Just needed some water and I was good to go. Would buy again."
by Matthew Vogel via amazon.com
"Honesty I thought this might be total bs but it totally works. Took one before I started drinking and felt fabulous the next day. Absolutely no hang over whatsoever. The taste is really not as bad as everyone lets on and seriously for the effects it gives, it's totally worth it."
by Just a life of the Wrist via amazon.com
"This stuff is AH-MAZING. Its so easy - drink 1 before you first alcoholic drink and 1 after your last alcoholic drink and you wake up hangover FREEEEE. THANK YOU NOHO!!! There is no other product out there that is this effective - IT WORKS."
by DonnaM via amazon.com
"This stuff works! Great tasting when cold! I will never have a hangover again! I have found the miracle to prevent hangovers. Thank you NOHO!"
by Jessica F via amazon.com
"Tried this product and although skeptical at first, it actually worked!! Dont drink a ton but when I do I will more than likely use this stuff."
by SS via amazon.com
"Honestly bought this with great doubt. But wow! Really worked. Not to brag, but ...I drank one of these, went out for a lovely time of imbibing, came home, visited the great white bowl...the next morning actually felt great.
On a side note, this stuff does not taste very good, but far better than another brand I tried after I tried this...Just do it like a horrible shot and your good to go."
by Trixie2428 via amazon.com


text:
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Exam Review Materials for Engineers and Building Professionals
Availability: In stock
In Stock
Harry C. Friebel, Ph.D., P.E., is a Hydraulic Engineer and a Civil - Water Resources and Environmental Engineering - P.E. review course instructor. Dr. Friebel has formerly taught Hydraulic Design to both undergraduate and graduate students.
Sample Pages
Email to a Friend
A Dictionary of Civil, Water Resources & Environmental Engineering is the first ever dictionary written exclusively for the Civil Professional Engineering (PE) exam. Whether you're a water resources or environmental engineering expert, or from another discipline (construction, geotechnical, structural, or transportation) A Dictionary of Civil, Water Resources & Environmental Engineering will help prepare you for the Civil Professional Engineering (PE) exam.
Terms You Need to Understand to Pass the Civil PE Exam
• Approximately 8,000 terms, phrases, acronyms, and definitions from the fields of civil engineering, water resources, environmental engineering, and many others.
• Comprehensive definitions providing reliable, easy-to-understand descriptions.
During the exam, the dictionary will supplement your understanding of the questions being asked (especially the morning qualitative questions) providing the necessary edge of getting additional problems correct, increasing your chances of passing the Civil PE exam, and maximizing your potential as a professional engineer.
Use spaces to separate tags. Use single quotes (') for phrases.
There are no items in your cart.