text:
Lilly Discontinues Phase 3 Rheumatoid Arthritis Program For Tabalumab Based On Efficacy Results
INDIANAPOLIS, Feb. 7, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY) announced today that it will discontinue the Phase 3 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) program for tabalumab, an anti-BAFF (B cell activating factor) monoclonal antibody, due to lack of efficacy. The decision was not based on safety concerns. The tabalumab Phase 3 program for systemic lupus erythematosus, ILLUMINATE, is ongoing and will continue as planned.
In December 2012, Lilly discontinued the Phase 3 RA registration study FLEX-M for lack of treatment effect. FLEX-M was investigating tabalumab in patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had an inadequate response to methotrexate therapy.
Based on FLEX-M findings, an interim futility analysis was conducted of the FLEX-V study, which was investigating tabalumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.
Based on the outcomes of these two separate interim futility analyses, Lilly has decided to discontinue development of tabalumab in the current RA program. All ongoing Phase 2 and Phase 3 RA studies will be stopped."While we are obviously disappointed by these results in rheumatoid arthritis, we continue to believe that tabalumab could have significant potential for patients in other disease areas," said Eiry Roberts, M.D., vice president of autoimmune product development at Lilly. "Autoimmune disorders are highly individualized. We believe that targeting BAFF with a molecule such as tabalumab may still represent an important advance for patients, and therefore we will continue the ongoing Phase 3 tabalumab lupus program." The decision to stop the current RA program for tabalumab is expected to result in a first-quarter charge to research and development expense of approximately $50 million. The company's previously issued financial guidance for 2013 remains unchanged. About the FLEX-V Study The FLEX-V study (study BCDV) is a Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tabalumab in patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had an inadequate response to one or more TNF inhibitors. About BAFF and Tabalumab BAFF (B cell activating factor) is a cytokine that promotes B cell survival, proliferation and activation. In the presence of excess BAFF, B cells, including autoreactive B cells, are not appropriately eliminated by the immune system and may therefore contribute to the development of RA by producing autoantibodies and proinflammatory cytokines and "helping" autoreactive T cells. BAFF exists in both membrane-bound and soluble forms. Tabalumab is a human immunoglobulin G subclass 4 (IgG4) monoclonal antibody (MAb) that inhibits both membrane-bound and soluble B cell activating factor (BAFF). Tabalumab is currently in Phase 3 development as a potential treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus and in Phase 2 development in combination with bortezomib for patients with previously-treated multiple myeloma. About Lilly's Autoimmune Pipeline Tabalumab is one of three potential new medicines in late-stage clinical development for a variety of autoimmune conditions. The others are ixekizumab, an anti-IL-17 monoclonal antibody, for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis; and baricitinib, a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor being developed in collaboration with Incyte Corporation, for RA, psoriasis and diabetic nephropathy. About Lilly's Pipeline Lilly currently has a number of unique potential medicines in its Phase 3 clinical development pipeline, representing a variety of therapeutic areas including diabetes (four), cancer (three), neuroscience (two), autoimmunity (three) and cardiovascular (one). To learn more about the molecules in Lilly's clinical development pipeline, please visit Lilly's interactive pipeline website available at www.lilly.com/pipeline. About Eli Lilly and Company Lilly, a leading innovation-driven corporation, is developing a growing portfolio of pharmaceutical products by applying the latest research from its own worldwide laboratories and from collaborations with eminent scientific organizations. Headquartered in Indianapolis, Ind., Lilly provides answers -- through medicines and information -- for some of the world's most urgent medical needs. Additional information about Lilly is available at www.lilly.com. This press release contains forward-looking statements about the potential of tabalumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, and reflects Lilly's current beliefs. However, as with any pharmaceutical product, there are substantial risks and uncertainties in the process of development and commercialization. There is no guarantee that the compound will receive regulatory approval, or that it will be commercially successful. For further discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties, see Lilly's filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Lilly undertakes no duty to update forward-looking statements. P-LLY
Select the service that is right for you!COMPARE ALL SERVICES
Action Alerts PLUSTry it NOW
Jim Cramer and Stephanie Link actively manage a real portfolio and reveal their money management tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.
Product Features:
- $2.5+ million portfolio
- Large-cap and dividend focus
- Intraday trade alerts from Cramer
- Weekly roundups
TheStreet Quant RatingsTry it NOW
Only $49.95/yr
Access the tool that DOMINATES the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500.
Product Features:
- Buy, hold, or sell recommendations for over 4,300 stocks
- Unlimited research reports on your favorite stocks
- A custom stock screener
- Upgrade/downgrade alerts
Stocks Under $10Try it NOW
David Peltier, uncovers low dollar stocks with extraordinary upside potential that are flying under Wall Street's radar.
Product Features:
- Model portfolio
- Stocks trading below $10
- Intraday trade alerts
- Weekly roundups
Dividend Stock AdvisorTry it NOW
Jim Cramer's protege, David Peltier, identifies the best of breed dividend stocks that will pay a reliable AND significant income stream.
Product Features:
- Diversified model portfolio of dividend stocks
- Alerts when market news affect the portfolio
- Bi-weekly updates with exact steps to take - BUY, HOLD, SELL
Real Money ProTry it NOW
All of Real Money, plus 15 more of Wall Street's sharpest minds delivering actionable trading ideas, a comprehensive look at the market, and fundamental and technical analysis.
Product Features:
- Real Money + Doug Kass Plus 15 more Wall Street Pros
- Intraday commentary & news
- Ultra-actionable trading ideas
Options ProfitsTry it NOW
Our options trading pros provide daily market commentary and over 100 monthly option trading ideas and strategies to help you become a well-seasoned trader.
Product Features:
- 100+ monthly options trading ideas
- Actionable options commentary & news
- Real-time trading community
- Options TV


text:
For thousands of years, dogs have comforted us, protected us and given us their unconditional love. To repay the favor, American Humane Association's Hero Dog Awards searches out and recognizes America's courageous canines who unconditionally avail themselves to us in so many important ways, whether it's saving lives on the battlefield, lending sight or hearing to a human companion, providing therapeutic support to children suffering from cancer or other illnesses, or just greeting with a wagging tail and the end of a hard day. We celebrate all of the heroic hounds in each of the 2014 American Hero Dog Award categories.
Children lost in the wilderness, elderly people who have wandered away from home or the hospital, hikers lost in the woods, victims of drowning accidents, victims of avalanche, earthquake, flood, explosion, fire, train wrecks, plane crashes, tornadoes and other disasters - dog teams have a very special role in the world of search and rescue. The dogs' ultra-sensitive hearing, night vision, endurance and keen sense of smell have continually proven to be invaluable in the effort to locate missing persons and to return them home safe to their families and friends.
Read the amazing stories of the 2014 nominees for Search and Rescue Hero Dogs, and vote for your favorites!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Latest Batatais Videos
Latest Batatais Match Round Up
Latest Batatais Transfer Rumours
Nothing to display. Know something we don't? Add a transfer rumour.
Share your thoughts
Page 1 of 0
In the Batatais Forum
In the Stands
by SKool
6 comments
1 comments
by araz
2 comments
1 comments
3 comments


text:
The Broken Empire Ranks On The Following Lists:
Best Fantasy Series(Ranked 28 out of 216)
The publicly ranked version of the Best Fantasy Series list. The best fantasy series ever as ranked by the public. You can vote on the entries and/or add a new entry to the list.
Snake Bacon's Favorite Fantasy Series(Ranked 7 out of 19)
Epic Fantasy(Ranked 19 out of 36)
Books that are considered epic fantasy ONLY.
Reviews/Comments On The Broken Empire
0 out of 2 people found this review helpful
By: Anonymous
2014-08-26 10:49:09
gayWas this review helpful to you?
How Would You Rate The Broken Empire? (leave blank if you just want to comment on the book and not review it):


text:
DPM provides protection of the following items:
System Center Data Protection Manager 2012 is designed to run on a dedicated server. It is not supported to install it on servers when the following roles/products are installed:
A account with Domain Administrator privileges is not necessary. Only Local Administrator on the SCDPM server are required. SQL sysadmin rights are required when using an remote SQL Server instance.
SCDPM can only be installed on supported 64bit editions of Windows Server operating systems. The following are supported:
Carsten Siemens edited Revision 12. Comment: Added tag: en-US
Very Good Post ... Very Detailed Document
Agreed, love the wiki!


text:
David Chilton net worth: David Chilton is a Canadian investor and author who has a net worth of $20 million. David Chilton is a best selling author and television personality in Canada. His self-published personal finance book "The Wealthy Barber" has sold over three million copies so far to date. Chilton was born on October 27, 1961. He has also written a series of popular low fat cook books that each became a best seller. These books were also eventually marketed into a line of frozen dinners and a TV show. David Chilton has gained visibility after becoming one of the judges on the Canadian Broadcasting Company show "Dragon's Den".
David Chilton
David Chilton October 27, 1961 is a Canadian author, investor, and television personality from Sarnia, Ontario. Today he resides in Kitchener, Ontario where he runs his own financial planning business and publishing company. David graduated from Wilfrid Laurier University wi...
Date of Birth
- October 27, 1961
- Canada
View Full Profile
- Canada
Notable AppearancesView All Appearances


text:
Three-vehicle accident clogs SPID
CORPUS CHRISTI - A three-vehicle accident on SPID near the Staples Street exit is causing major traffic slowdowns Tuesday morning.
The accident happened just before 8 a.m. and left one vehicle on the left shoulder, one vehicle in the center lane and one in the right lane.
Corpus Christi police are on the scene. It is not known at this time if anyone was seriously injured.


text:
Mirabella Home Owners Association
We want to extend a warm welcome to all of our Mirabella residents, their families, and guests. We trust you are as thrilled and proud of our magnificent neighborhood, as we are.
Our first residents moved into Mirabella approximately eleven years ago; since that time, the community has blossomed and will continue to be a special place to call home.
One of Murfreesboro's most respected real estate developments as well as the Mirabella Homeowners Board of Directors are committed to ensuring that Mirabella's status as a premier neighborhood in Murfreesboro,TN is maintained.
This incredible place has created for residents a sense of belonging, where memorable times are being spent with families and friends.
Mirabella is managed by: Property Solutions of Tennessee
Rick Cantrell - firstname.lastname@example.com
Blan Trollinger - firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Monday, December 02, 2013
What sentencing issues should SCOTUS be taking up to fill out its docket?
I have noted (and been disappointed by) the relative paucity of major sentencing cases on the Supreme Court docket this Term. But, as highlighted by this new Washington Post article, headlined "Supreme Court busy looking for cases — but finding fewer than usual," SCOTUS is now facing a relative paucity of all cases on its docket.
That all said, this recent Politico article, headlined "Digital era confounds the courts," spotlights that a number of cases concerning the intersection of the Fourth Amendment and new technology likely to be on the SCOTUS docket soon:
[T]he nation's top court is set to consider whether to take up three key related cases ... [with] big tech issues that could finally get decided:...
Lower courts have been split on the authority of police to search your technology [incident to an arrest]. Currently, court rulings have required warrants to search a cellphone in six states, while they are not required in 20 other states, according to a map put together by Forbes and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.....
In the age of encryption and passwords, law enforcement officials can obtain a warrant for a hard drive, but they may not be able to access the material on it. So can police compel someone to provide a password or to unlock an account or decrypt a file? Courts have in some cases ruled that individuals can refuse to provide a password under their Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves....
Another nettlesome issue brought up in part by the ubiquity of cellphones and smartphones is the ability of police to track a person's movements. While the Supreme Court ruled last year that police cannot affix a GPS tracking device to a car without a warrant, it decided U.S. v. Jones based on a question of trespassing, which doesn't apply when police get location information from a suspect's devices or service provider.
The courts are also split on this issue. In July alone, two courts made opposite rulings: The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas found that law enforcement may get cell location data from service providers without a warrant. In a New Jersey case, a very different result -- the state supreme court held that the state's constitution requires a warrant.
Like all criminal procedure issues, these constitutional search question are sure to have eventual sentencing echoes. But, of course, hard-core sentencing issues are the ones that really get me excited, and I think there are plenty the Justices should be taking up to fill out their docket.
Some of the most obvious sentencing issues seemingly ready for SCOTUS review are follow-ups to its recent Eighth Amendment work in Graham and Miller. Lower courts are deeply split over the retroactivity of Miller and also concerning what kinds of crimes and sentences fit within the categorical ban of juve LWOP sentences for nonhomicide offenses announced in Graham.
In addition, plenty of federal sentencing issues in the post-Booker world are still roiling district and circuit courts. I personally would like to see the Justices throw some more dirt on the worst guidelines by taking up, and then reversing as unreasonable, a poorly-justified, within-guideline sentence based on guidelines widely recognized to be badly broken (e.g., the crack or CP or fraud guidelines). But I doubt many Justices are eager to spend their spring further fighting with Justice Breyer over the mysteries of his Booker remedy.
I could go on issue spotting here for the Justices, but I am really eager to hear from informed readers about the question in the title of this post. What issues do folks working day-to-day in the sentencing vineyards believe the Supreme Court should take up ASAP?
December 2, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Years after Graham and Miller, Florida still working on its legislative response
As reported in this local article, Florida is continuing to struggle with how it wants to respond legislatively to the Supreme Court's determination that the state cannot be so quick to give so many juvenile offenders life without parole. Here are the details:
After a stinging defeat last year on the floor of the Senate, Rob Bradley, a Fleming Island Republican, has again filed legislation to align Florida's juvenile-sentencing laws with recent United States Supreme Court rulings.
In 2010, the Supreme Court said it's unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life in prison without the possibility of parole, though it allowed exceptions for juveniles convicted of murder. Ever since, lawmakers have failed to pass legislation changing Florida's juvenile sentencing laws to comply with those opinions. There are 265 inmates in custody of the Department of Corrections that were given life sentences as juveniles.
Additionally, without a tweak to state law, courts across the state have been left to interpret the Supreme Court's decisions differently. "We owe it to our courts to provide guidance," Bradley said. "It's the Legislature's job."
During the 2013 legislative session, Bradley, a private attorney, ushered a proposed legislative fix through three committee stops, but halted his own bill on the Senate floor after opponents tacked on an amendment he opposed. Bradley's bill would have required a judge to consider factors like background and ability for rehabilitation during a mandatory hearing before sentencing a juvenile convicted of murder to life in prison.... Bradley's bill also capped at 50 years the sentence a judge could give a juvenile who did not commit murder.
The amendment, offered by state Sen. Rene Garcia, R-Hialeah, would have allowed a parole hearing every 25 years for juveniles given life sentences for non-fatal crimes and for those who committed murder. "Why not give that judge the ability to review a case after 25 years?" Garcia asked during April floor debate.
This year, Bradley's legislation offers parole hearings after 25 years for juveniles convicted of non-fatal crimes, and caps sentences for those offenders at 35 years. It does not offer hearings for juveniles convicted of homicide. "The bill I filed still does not offer hearings to murderers," Bradley said.
November 30, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
"Reducing Incarceration for Youthful Offenders with a Developmental Approach to Sentencing"
The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper by Samantha Buckingham now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Current sentencing practices have proven to be an ineffective method of rehabilitating criminal defendants. Such practices are unresponsive to developmental science breakthroughs, fail to promote rehabilitation, and drain society's limited resources. These deficiencies are most acute when dealing with youthful offenders. Incarcerating youthful offenders, who are amenable to rehabilitative efforts, under current sentencing practices only serves to ensure such individuals will never become productive members of society.
Drawing on the author's experiences as a public defender, studies in developmental psychology and neuroscience, and the Supreme Court's recent line of cases that acknowledge youthful offenders' biological differences from adult offenders, the author proposes a restorative-justice approach to replace current sentencing practices. This solution includes tailoring a youthful offender's sentence to his or her developmental level and offering a community-based mediation between victims and offenders.
The proposal counteracts a major deficiency of current sentencing practices — the failure to offer youthful offenders an opportunity to truly understand their crimes. Only by providing an opportunity to learn from an offense will a youthful offender be in a position to rehabilitate. This Article responds to possible critiques of the proposal, including concerns about the ability to accurately measure the success of a restorative-justice sentencing model, the fear of implicating the offender's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and the cost of implementing mediation-based efforts. Ultimately, this Article determines that a developmentally appropriate, community-based sentencing scheme — with restorative justice overtones — best addresses the unique situation youthful offenders find themselves in. A sentence for a youthful offender should — indeed, must — present meaningful opportunities for the youthful offender to rehabilitate, and age-appropriate sentences grounded in restorative-justice principles will do this effectively.
November 27, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Thursday, November 14, 2013
"Misconstruing Graham & Miller"
The title of this post is the title of this notable new piece by Cara Drinan now up at SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In the last three years the Supreme Court has decreed a sea change in its juvenile Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. In particular, in its Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama rulings, the Court struck down a majority of the states' juvenile sentencing laws, outlawing life without parole for juveniles who commit non-homicide offenses and mandating individualized sentencing for those children who commit even the most serious crimes. An examination of state laws and sentencing practices, however, suggests that the Graham and Miller rulings have fallen on deaf ears. After briefly describing what these two decisions required of the states, in this Essay, I outline the many ways in which state actors have failed to comply with the Court's mandate. Finally, I map out a path for future compliance that relies heavily upon the strength and agility of the executive branch.
November 14, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Clemency and Pardons, Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Can and should brain science research become a regular (and regulated) part of sentencing decision-making?The question in the title of this post is prompted by this notable new NPR segment (misleadingly?) headlined "The Case Against Brain Scans As Evidence In Court." Here are excerpts from the piece:
It's not just people who go on trial these days. It's their brains.
More and more lawyers are arguing that some defendants deserve special consideration because they have brains that are immature or impaired, says Nita Farahany, a professor of law and philosophy at Duke University who has been studying the use of brain science in court.
About 5 percent of murder trials now involve some neuroscience, Farahany says. "There's a steady increase of defendants seeking to introduce neuroscience to try to reduce the extent to which they're responsible or the extent to which they're punished for a crime," she says.
Farahany was a featured speaker at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego this week. Also featured were several brain scientists who are uncomfortable with the way courts are using brain research....
The approach has been most successful with cases involving teenagers, Farahany says. "It seems like judges are particularly enamored with the adolescent brain science," she says. "Large pieces of their opinions are dedicated to citing the neuroscientific studies, talking about brain development, and using that as a justification for treating juveniles differently."...
So judges and juries are being swayed by studies showing that adolescent brains don't function the same way adult brains do. One study like that was presented at the neuroscience meeting by Kristina Caudle, a neuroscientist at Weill Cornell Medical College. The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, used a technology called functional MRI to look at how the brains of people from 6 to 29 reacted to a threat.
"The typical response — and what you might think is a logical response — is to become less impulsive, to sort of withdraw, to not act when there is threat in the environment," Caudle says. "But what we saw was that adolescents uniquely seemed to be more likely to act. So their performance on this task became more impulsive." And Caudle found that in adolescents, an area of the brain involved in regulating emotional responses had to work much harder to prevent an impulsive response. This sort of study is great for understanding adolescent brain development in a general way, Caudle says.
"What it doesn't do is allow us to predict, for example, whether one particular teenager might be likely to be impulsive or to commit criminal behavior," she says. And Caudle worries that a study like hers could be used inappropriately in court. "Jurors tend to really take things like MRI scans as fact, and that gives me great pause," she says.
When it comes to nature versus nurture, brain scientists think both matter. A lot of the neuroscience presented in court is simply unnecessary, says Joshua Buckholtz, a psychologist at Harvard. "Anyone who's every had a teenager would be able to tell you that their decision-making capacities are not comparable to adults," he says.
And relying on brain science to defend juveniles could have unexpected consequences, Buckholtz says. For example, he says, if a prosecutor used an MRI scan to show that a 16-year-old who committed a capital crime had a very mature brain, "Would we then insist that we execute that juvenile?"
The task of integrating brain science into the judicial system will in large part be the responsibility of judges, Buckholtz says. And how it works will depend on how well judges understand "what a scientific study is and what it says and what it doesn't say and can't say," he says.
I do not see anything in this piece which suggests that brain scans amount to "junk science," and thus I do not fully understand why NPR thinks this segment reveals a "case against" against brain science as evidence in legal proceedings.
Of course, I fully understand concerns expressed by scientists about the potential misuse or misunderstanding of their nuanced brain scan research. But juries and judges are drawn to scientific research largely because the decision-making alternative is to rely more on gut feelings, emotions, instincts or biases. Unless brain scans provide a worse foundation for making judgments than gut feelings, emotions, instincts or biases, it seems to me they ought to have a role in legal decision-making.
As the question in the title of this post suggests, I think the really tough questions here are not whether brain science is worthy of consideration, but rather when and how brain science should be considered by judges and juries. Indeed, the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment rulings in Roper and Graham and Miller have already given brain science research some constitutional import, and thus I hope both scientists and law professors will now turn their attention to debating how the legal system might most fairly and effectively operationalize what the brain research is telling us about the scientific realities of human behaviors and personal development.
November 12, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Thursday, November 07, 2013
State judge in Pennsylvania finds lifetime sex offender registration for juve offenders unconstitutional
As reported in this local article, "a York County judge has ruled unconstitutional a two-year-old Pennsylvania law that imposes lifetime registration requirements on juvenile sex offenders." Here is more:
Senior Judge John C. Uhler issued his ruling against the juvenile registration provisions of the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act while weighing the cases of seven county teens adjudicated as having committed serious sex crimes.
Uhler found that the registration mandate "unconstitutionally forecloses a court's considerations of the many unique attributes of youth and juvenile offenders" under age 18 and improperly treats them the same as adult sex offenders. SORNA, as the act is known, also doesn't take into account the greater capacity juvenile offenders have to reform, he noted.
The state law was passed by the Legislature in late 2011 to comply with a federal law, the Adam Walsh Act. The state faced a loss of federal funding if it didn't adopt a measure compatible with the Walsh Act.
Uhler's ruling is in reply to a challenge mounted on behalf of the seven York County youths by the county public defender's office, the Juvenile Law Center and the Defender Association of Philadelphia. The children involved were subject to registration after being found to have committed crimes including rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and aggravated indecent assault. They were ages 14 to 17 when the offenses occurred.
In a statement issued Thursday, officials of the Juvenile Law Center and the defender association called Uhler's decision a "landmark ruling."
"It is our hope that this decision will result in similar findings across the commonwealth," said Riya Saha Shah, a staff attorney with the law center. "To impose this (registration) punishment on children is to set them up for failure."
County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Tim Barker said his office is reviewing Uhler's decision for a possible appeal to the state Supreme Court. A decision is expected next week, he said. "We're thoroughly going through everything," Barker said.
Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed, president of the Pennsylvania District Attorney's Association, predicted an appeal is likely. Prosecutors are well aware of arguments for and against the juvenile sex offender registration requirement, he said. "I'm not surprised that the judge would rule this way," Freed said. "We'll see what happens in the appeals courts."
The full 40+ page ruling reference here is available at this link, which I found via this helpful page from the helpful folks at the Juvenile Law Center.
November 7, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Collateral consequences, Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Offender Characteristics, Reentry and community supervision, Sex Offender Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
Monday, October 14, 2013
Florida legislature told to "End confusion on juvenile sentencing"The title of this post is drawn from the headline of this effective recent editorial from the Tampa Bay Times, which makes these points about the post-Miller mess in Florida:
By reinstating the original sentence of life in prison without parole for Nicholas Lindsey on Friday, a Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court judge entered muddy legal waters. Lindsey and other juveniles convicted of murder continue to be sentenced under a state statute that is now unconstitutional as applied to them. There is no clear road map for judges, because the Florida Legislature has failed to bring state law into conformance with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Lindsey's reconsidered sentence for shooting and killing a St. Petersburg police officer will likely be challenged, wasting resources and prolonging the pain for the victim's family. Had the Legislature acted responsibly, the courts would not be operating in the dark and creating law as they go.
State courts are puzzling through what to do with juveniles who were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced under state law that provides for a death sentence or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Minors cannot be sentenced to death because of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Last year, the court ruled that a life sentence without parole cannot be mandatory for juvenile offenders — people who committed their crime before reaching 18 years old. The court said that in light of a young person's lack of maturity and capacity to change as he grows up, courts must be permitted to take these circumstances into account in sentencing. Florida law gives judges no discretion to impose a lesser sentence....
Other circuit court judges have ruled inconsistently. A judge in Hillsborough County recently resentenced Amer Ejak, now 20 years old, to life without parole for clubbing and strangling a man in 2009 — the same sentence Ejak originally received. But compare that to a teen murderer in Pasco County who was sentenced last month to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years, even though state law makes no provision for it. An August ruling by the 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach said that the only legal sentence for juveniles guilty of capital murder is life with the possibility of parole after 25 years, but that decision is only controlling precedent for part of the state.
The Florida Legislature surely knew that by not rewriting state law to reflect the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and giving judges the opportunity to impose lesser sentences it would cause confusion and result in disparate treatment of juvenile offenders across the state. Lawmakers shifted their responsibility to the courts. The Florida Supreme Court will have to bring clarity to the law. In the meantime, trial courts faced with resentencing some of Florida's more than 200 inmates who were convicted and sentenced on murder charges should follow the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling as best they can.
October 14, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Monday, September 30, 2013
Detailing Florida's continuing struggle to deal with Graham and MillerThis lengthy and interesting local article, headlined "Lawmakers committed to solving juvenile sentencing," highlights how legislators in the Sunshine State have been struggling to fix its sentencing laws in the wake of two Supreme Court rulings concerning limits on LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders. Here are excerpts:
With the courts threatening to intercede, Florida lawmakers say they are committed to finding a solution to sentencing juveniles under U.S. Supreme Court rulings that restrict the use of life sentences. The issue is likely to be a focal point of debate in next year's legislative session and could affect two local cases.
But lawmakers have failed to find an agreement for the last three years, leaving Florida Supreme Court justices to suggest earlier this month that they could impose a parole system to review lengthy sentences for juveniles in light of the Legislature's inaction....
Heading toward their 2014 session, lawmakers must address two groups of juvenile offenders. One group is juveniles convicted of non-homicide crimes — for which the U.S. Supreme Court banned life sentences in 2010. The other group is juveniles convicted of murder, who can be sentenced to life but their punishment must follow protocols outlined by the nation's highest court in a 2012 ruling.
In the 2013 session, the sentencing legislation failed when [Sen. Rob Bradley, R-Fleming Island, a former state prosecutor] advanced a bill capping sentences at 50 years for non-homicide juvenile crimes and establishing a sentencing procedure for juvenile murderers, who would face a minimum 50-year sentence if they were not sentenced to life. But senators, who believed the bill was still too harsh, amended the bill in 20-19 vote, calling for a sentence review at 25 years for the juvenile offenders. In response, Bradley killed the legislation.
He and other lawmakers say they understand the frustration of the state's highest court — where two cases are pending involving juveniles who received 70- and 90-year sentences for non-homicide crimes — but they said they hope to resolve the issue without putting the burden on the court....
Rep. Ray Pilon, R-Sarasota, who sponsored the House version of the sentencing bill, said he understood why the courts are not happy with the lack of legislative action. "They're pushing us to do something," Pilon said. "I think it was kind of travesty that we couldn't come to a compromise last year. I'm certainly hopeful that we do this year. It's our responsibility."
There has been tension between the Legislature and the court in recent years, with some legislative leaders suggesting the justices have intruded into the legislative arena. But some lawmakers say the failure to act on the juvenile sentencing would leave the court little choice. "If we're lawmakers we need to make the law," said Rep. Dave Kerner, D-Lake Worth, a member of the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee, which would initiate the juvenile sentencing legislation. "We talk a lot about judges acting outside their authority. But it's hard to blame them when we don't write the laws."...
Lawyers for an Orlando juvenile facing a 90-year sentence have suggested the state Supreme Court re-impose a parole system — which was abolished for non-capital crimes in 1983 and for all crimes in 1995 — to review lengthy juvenile sentences. In their questioning during oral arguments on the case, several justices talked about using the Parole Commission, which still exists to handle prisoners sentenced before parole was abolished.
But reviving the parole system would likely meet resistance from lawmakers. "Parole has become a dirty word in Florida," said House Criminal Justice Chairman Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach. "I don't know that there is enough momentum to sort of change that cultural shift that has occurred in our state."
Nonetheless, lawmakers generally agree that they may have to come up with some review process for the non-homicide juveniles since the U.S. Supreme Court has said they must be given "some realistic opportunity to obtain release" before the end of their prison term. "We can call it whatever you want but we have to have that ability to go back and look," Kerner said.
While acknowledging a review process for the non-homicide juveniles is necessary, Bradley said he would strongly resist any type of review for the juveniles convicted of murder. He said that would impose an emotional burden on the families of the crime victims, calling it unfair "to bring them back for a hearing and to go relive the crime over and over again."
Under Bradley's previous legislation, juveniles could be sentenced to a life sentences for murder if the judge weighed some 10 factors in the sentencing, including the offender's level of maturity and the nature of the crime. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling has called for "individualized sentencing decisions" for juveniles based on the argument that they were different from adult offenders.
September 30, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Sunday, September 29, 2013
"Life Without Parole as a Conflicted Punishment"The title of this post is the title of this lengthy and notable new article available now via SSRN and authored by Craig Lerner. Here is the abstract:
Life without parole (LWOP) has displaced the death penalty as the distinctive American punishment. Although the sentence scarcely exists in Europe, roughly 40,000 inmates are serving LWOP in America today. Despite its prevalence, the sentence has received little academic scrutiny. This has begun to change, a development sparked by a pair of Supreme Court cases, Graham v. Florida (2010) and Miller v. Alabama (2012), which express European-styled reservations with America's embrace of LWOP. Both opinions, like the nascent academic commentary, lament the irrevocability of the sentence and the expressive judgment purportedly conveyed -- that a human being is so incorrigible that the community brands him with the mark of Cain and banishes him forever from our midst. In the tamer language of the Graham opinion, LWOP "forswears altogether the rehabilitative ideal."
This Article tests whether that phrase is a fair characterization of LWOP today, and concludes that the Graham Court's treatment of LWOP captures only a partial truth. Life without parole, the Article argues, is a conflicted punishment. The community indulges its thirst for revenge when imposing the sentence, but over time softer impulses insinuate themselves. LWOP is in part intended as a punishment of incalculable cruelty, more horrible than a prison term of many years, and on par with or worse than death itself. In practice, however, LWOP also emerges as a softer punishment, accommodating a concern for the inmate's humanity and a hope for his rehabilitation.
September 29, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Linda Greenhouse reflects on changing crime culture changing SCOTUS jurisprudenceLinda Greenhouse's new commentary piece at the New York Times "Opinionator" blog is focused on crime and punishment issues. The lengthy piece, headlined "Winds of Change," is worth a full read and here are excerpts:
Back in 1991, the Supreme Court upheld a Michigan man's prison sentence of life without the possibility of parole for possessing more than 1.5 pounds of cocaine. The sentence did not represent the third strike of a three-strikes law: the prisoner, Ronald A. Harmelin, 45, had no previous criminal record. The police found the drugs when they stopped him for running a red light. Since simple possession was enough to trigger Michigan's mandatory life-without-parole sentence, the prosecution didn't even have to bother trying to prove that Mr. Harmelin intended to sell the cocaine.
In upholding the sentence, the court rejected the argument that it was so disproportionate to the crime as to violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The three justices who then occupied the middle of the court (yes, there was a multi-justice middle back then) — Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor and David H. Souter — voted with the 5-to-4 majority.
In "Five Chiefs," the very interesting (and underappreciated) Supreme Court memoir he published in retirement, Justice John Paul Stevens reflected on the Harmelin decision, from which he dissented. Those three justices were all relatively new to the court at the time, he wrote. The justices they had replaced — Lewis F. Powell Jr., Potter Stewart and William J. Brennan Jr. — were all long-serving veterans who Justice Stevens speculated would have voted to invalidate the sentence. It may be, he added, that "the views of individual justices become more civilized after 20 years of service on the court."
That was an intriguing thought, and when I had a chance last year to interview Justice Stevens, I asked him to say more. He said he still thought about the case "a lot." He was "quite sure" that Justice Kennedy would come to the opposite conclusion today, and that the other two probably would as well if they were still on the court. Nonetheless, he added, "the precedent is still there, and it's really a very unfortunate case."
I've been thinking a lot myself about the Harmelin decision in light of recent events. First there was the announcement last month by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that the Justice Department was revising its prosecution strategy in order to avoid the impact of mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenses. That was followed by the announcement that the federal government wouldn't sue to block state laws that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use. Either policy shift would have been greeted with amazement not too many years ago, but neither provoked anything approaching a fuss....
Something is clearly in the wind. I've also been thinking about the New York City mayoral primary. It's impossible to read the election outcome as other than, at least in part, a public repudiation of the Bloomberg administration's law-enforcement policies, particularly the administration's embrace of stop-and-frisk. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg not only denounced Federal District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin's ruling last month that stop-and-frisk as the police were using it was unconstitutional, but he also attacked the judge herself as an "ideologically driven" judicial activist.
Unlike the days when politicians could score easy points by attacking courts as soft on crime, however, the mayor got no traction. Bill de Blasio, the Democratic primary winner, ran as the non-Bloomberg, making opposition to stop-and-frisk a centerpiece of his campaign. An exit poll indicated that black New Yorkers and white New Yorkers were equally supportive of Mr. de Blasio, who also received nearly identical support across the income spectrum — a fascinating development. People so often separated by race and class, seemed to unite around the conclusion that enough was enough.
The question is what this shift in public attitudes might mean for the courts, the Supreme Court in particular. The Supreme Court operates inside the mainstream culture — which is, after all, where the justices live — influenced not by the "weather of the day" but by the "climate of the age," as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg likes to say, quoting the great constitutional scholar Paul Freund....
In his reflection on the Harmelin decision, Justice Stevens offered the tantalizing idea that longevity on the bench makes justices "more civilized." Can that prediction apply not only to individual members of the court, but also to the court as a whole? As the Roberts court begins year nine, that may be a distant hope, but one worth clinging to.
The recent SCOTUS Eighth Amendment rulings in Graham and Miller reflect, in my view, the impact of these "winds of change." But it remains to see whether and when these winds will blow hard enough to knock over the problematic precedent set by the Harmelin decision 22 years ago.
September 19, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, Scope of Imprisonment, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Florida Supreme Court considers important issues concerning Graham's meaning and reachAs reported in this local piece, headlined "Supreme Court hears juvenile sentencing arguments," the top court in Florida heard oral argument on a very important issues concerning the reach of the Supreme Court's recent Eighth Amendment jurisprudence concerning juvenile sentencing. Here are the details:
In the wake of a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upended sentencing guidelines for juveniles, the Florida Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a case involving Shimeeka Gridine, who was sentenced to 70 years in prison for crimes committed when he was 14 years old.
The case is one of several that have surfaced in Florida courts since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that life sentences without parole for juveniles in non-homicide cases violate the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment.
Gridine, now 18, pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree murder, attempted armed robbery and aggravated battery after he shot a man in 2009 while trying to rob a Jacksonville gas station. He was sentenced to 70 years for the attempted murder and 25 years for the armed robbery, with the sentences to run concurrently.
Assistant Public Defender Gail Anderson argued Tuesday that amounts to a life sentence. A mandatory minimum sentencing requirement makes Gridine ineligible for gain time for good behavior on the 25-year sentence. And under Florida's "truth-in-sentencing" law requiring offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their prison sentences, he must then serve at least 85 percent of the remaining 45 years of the 70-year sentence. "Assuming he got all the gain time he was eligible for on the remainder of the sentence, he would be 77 years old before he was released," Anderson said. "And I think that, under any reasonable construction, is a life sentence."...
But Assistant Attorney General Kellie Nielan said the Graham ruling provided no time limits. "(The) Graham (decision) has said that someone needs review sometime within their life," she told the court. "They need an opportunity for release within their life. It doesn't say when."
"Aren't we condemning him from the outset?" asked Justice James E.C. Perry. "I thought he had to have a meaningful review at the outset."
"No, Graham does not require that," Nielan replied. "And Graham only applies to the life sentences — or, if you want to extend that to de facto life sentences, which are going to be sentences of at least 50 years. So a juvenile who is sentenced to 40 years is not entitled to any review."
Justice Charles Canady said that was hypothetical. "We've got cases here where it seems like by just about any reasonable understanding of what a life sentence is, this case falls into the equivalent of a life sentence," he said.
In Gridine's 2009 trial, Judge Adrian G. Soud of the 4th Judicial Circuit in Duval County ruled that the teen was not protected by the Graham decision "because he had a clear and premeditated intent to kill. … Just because this juvenile defendant failed in his criminal and deadly endeavor does not preclude this court from sentencing the defendant commensurate with the defendant's intent — the same intent possessed by a juvenile murderer."
After the hearing, Anderson said she was hoping the justices would find unconstitutional the 85-percent law that abolished parole as it applies to Gridine and make him eligible for parole after 25 years. She said another possibility is that the high court could order that Gridine be resentenced. "That's what the district courts have been doing — just ordering a resentencing," she said. "But that just leaves everybody in the same limbo they've been in up to now."
Since the Graham decision, the Florida Legislature has taken up bills that would have allowed life sentences for juveniles with the possibility of release after 20 years if they show signs of rehabilitation. So far, however, none has passed.
This report suggests that the Florida Supreme Court could find two ways to avoid declaring the long juvenile sentence here unconstitutional, but it also suggests that at least some of the Florida Justices may not be so eager to do so.
September 18, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Monday, September 16, 2013
New York Times editorial says "End Mandatory Life Sentences"The title of this post is drawn from the headline of this new New York Times editorial, which is actually focused mostly on giving Miller v. Alabama retroactive application. Here are excerpts:
Young people are different. The Supreme Court has delivered that message repeatedly over the last decade in limiting or flatly prohibiting the most severe criminal punishments for those under 18 at the time of their crime.
In 2005, the court banned the death penalty for juveniles. In 2010, it outlawed sentences of life without parole for juveniles convicted of crimes other than homicide. And, in a 2012 case, Miller v. Alabama, it said juveniles may never receive a mandatory sentence of life without parole, which prisoners refer to as "the other death penalty."...
In each case, the court was silent on the question of whether its ruling applied retroactively to inmates who had already been convicted. The just answer would surely be yes, and courts have largely agreed, making those first two juvenile justice rulings retroactive. But some states insist that the ban on mandatory life without parole does not apply to offenders who have already been sentenced.
In the Miller case, the court required lower courts to make "individualized sentencing decisions" for juvenile defendants because juveniles are not as morally culpable as adults, and they are more capable of changing over time. If the ban on mandatory life without parole is retroactive, more than 2,000 prisoners would be eligible for a new sentencing hearing. So far, whether these individuals can get a new hearing depends on where they live.
Courts in Michigan, Iowa and Mississippi have ruled that the ban applies to previously sentenced juveniles. The Department of Justice takes that position as well. Yet the Minnesota Supreme Court and one federal appeals court have taken the opposite view....
Critics fear that allowing resentencing would increase violent crime. But courts may still impose life without parole, provided that the judge first gives proper consideration to the mitigating effects of youth. The Alabama Supreme Court set out guidelines last week that require a court to consider 14 factors, including a defendant's age, emotional maturity, family environment and potential for rehabilitation before issuing such a sentence.
Ideally, life without parole would never be a sentencing option for juveniles. The Supreme Court's own logic suggests this, even if it was not willing to go that far. After the Miller case, three states entirely eliminated juvenile life without parole, joining six other states that had already banned the sentence, and lawsuits on the retroactivity issue are pending in several states. As lawmakers and courts deal with this issue, they should remember — as the Supreme Court has declared — that adolescents are not adults, and that principle should apply regardless of the date of a conviction.
September 16, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Monday, September 02, 2013
"Against Juvenile Sex Offender Registration"The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper by Catherine Carpenter now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Imagine if you were held accountable the rest of your life for something you did as a child?
This is the Child Scarlet Letter in force: kids who commit criminal sexual acts and who pay the price with the burdens and stigma of sex offender registration. And in a game of "how low can you go?," states have forced children as young as nine and ten years old onto sex offender registries, some with registration requirements that extend the rest of their lives.
No matter the constitutionality of adult sex offender registration — and on that point, there is debate — this article argues that child sex offender registration violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Once a sex offender, always a sex offender is not an apt adage when dealing with children who commit sexual offenses. Low recidivism rates and varied reasons for their misconduct demonstrate that a child's criminal sexual act does not necessarily portend future predatory behavior. And with a net cast so wide it ensnares equally the child who rapes and the child who engages in sex with an underage partner, juvenile sex offender registration schemes are not moored to their civil regulatory intent.
Compounding the problem is mandatory lifetime registration for child offenders. This paper analogizes this practice to juvenile sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida. This article argues that mandatory lifetime registration applied to children in the same manner as adult offenders is cruel and unusual punishment because it violates fundamental principles that require sentencing practices to distinguish between adult and child offenders.
Scrutiny of child sex offender registration laws places front and center the issue of what it means to judge our children. And on that issue, we are failing. The public's desire to punish children appears fixed despite our understanding that child offenders pose little danger of recidivism, possess diminished culpability, and have the capacity for rehabilitation. In a debate clouded by emotion, it is increasingly clear that juvenile sex offender registration is cruel and unusual punishment.
September 2, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Criminal Sentences Alternatives, Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision, Sex Offender Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
Friday, August 16, 2013
Iowa Supreme Court rules in favor of juve defendants in three post-Graham appealsAs reported in this local article, headlined "Hundreds of juveniles could appeal felony sentences under Iowa court rulings," the Iowa Supreme COurt handed down three notable opinions today that operationalize the US Supreme Court's opinion in Graham concerning LWOP sentences for juve non-homicide offendes. Here are the basics:
Hundreds of juveniles convicted of felonies could apply to have their sentences reviewed under three decisions handed down Friday by the Iowa Supreme Court.
Iowa's high court upheld a lower court's decision to reduce the sentence of Jeffrey Ragland, now 44, to life in prison with a possibility of parole after 25 years. Ragland, when he was 17 was convicted of first-degree murder, which carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole, even though he did not swing the tire iron that killed a man.
The Iowa court also ordered two other juvenile cases for resentencing that did not involve mandatory life sentences without parole: Denem Anthony Null, now 20, is serving a minimum sentence of more than 52 years for a 2010 murder and robbery. He was 16 at the time of his crimes. Desirae Monique Pearson, now 19, is serving a minimum of 35 years for robbery and burglary committed in 2010....
In today's rulings, the court said Gov. Terry Branstad overreached last year when he sought to keep 38 juveniles in prison who were convicted to life in prison without a chance of parole. The governor imposed life sentences with a chance of parole after 60 years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a teenager convicted of murder must be sentenced differently than adults.
Friday's decisions produced sharp divisions on the high court. Justice Edward Mansifeld, in his dissent in Pearson's case, cautioned the high court's broad interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding juvenile sentencing could produce a "flurry" of court hearings. He said the 425 juvenile inmates serving time in Iowa prisons "may now have a ticket to court and a potential resentencing."
"This would be unprecedented," said Mansfield, noting other state courts have chosen to reconsider sentences that locked up juveniles for life without parole.
The impact of the court's decision remains to be seen. Dozens, or even hundreds of cases, spread across Iowa should not strain the court system, said Robert Rigg, a Drake University law professor. The fact that juveniles convicted of serious felonies can ask for new sentences only opens the door to a hearing, and does not guarantee anything beyond that, Rigg said. The high court has required a judge consider a variety of factors during sentencing, such as a youth's history, socioeconomic background, history of substance abuse and psychiatric evaluations, he said.
All this information is already gathered. But under mandatory sentencing laws, a judge is not allowed to consider these factors, Rigg said. "When we have mandatory minimums, you order these investigations but can't use them in sentencing," Rigg said.
Gov. Terry Branstad intends to work with the legislature to establish criminal sentences that keeps convicted juveniles in prison, said Tim Albrecht, the governor's spokesman. The high court's decision does not affect the governor's authority to grant clemency, which includes commutation of life sentences, he said. "Victims must never be re-victimized and can never be forgotten from the process," Albrecht said. "The governor and lieutenant governor look forward to working with the Iowa Legislature to find a way to keep dangerous juvenile murderers off the streets and keep Iowans safe."
Lawmakers could find it difficult to change the state's juvenile sentencing laws if they disagree with the court's rulings, because justices used the Iowa constitution to make its case. Those who disagreed with the court's 2009 decision that legalized same sex marriage ran into similar roadblocks, said Rigg, the Drake professor, who noted this approach also means the decision can't be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
State law until last year required anyone sentenced for first-degree murder, regardless of age, to spend life in prison without parole. Other mandatory sentences also existed for serious felonies. In June 2012, though, U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama found such sentences to be cruel and unusual based on brain research showing that juveniles are less culpable for their crimes due to differences in brain development and impulse control.
Branstad's immediate response to that federal ruling was a blanket commutation order that allowed parole for teen murderers only after they had spent 60 years behind bars. That move was widely criticized by lawyers and advocates for the 38 people serving time for such murders. Several of the offenders are appealing saying that 60 years still constitutes a long period of time behind bars....
After the U.S. Supreme Court, Ragland's attorney sought parole for his client. The district court ruled that Branstad exceeded his authority and resentenced Ragland to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years.
The Iowa Supreme Court, in Friday's unanimous decision, upheld the lower court's ruling. The court agreed with the district court's findings that the governor's commutation still amounted to a life sentence without parole. Ragland would be 78 before he could possibly be released and near the end of his statistical life expectancy....
The court continued in its opinion: "In light of our increased understanding of the decision making of youths, the sentencing process must be tailored to account in a meaningful way for the attributes of juveniles that are distinct from adult conduct. At the core of all of this also lies the profound sense of what a person loses by beginning to serve a lifetime of incarceration as a youth."
In a concurring opinion, Justice David Wiggins wrote that Branstad's imposition of a sentence "might constitute a denial of due process." In his concurring opinion Justice Bruce Zager wrote that he believed Branstad exceeded his constitutional authority when Branstad removed Ragland's ability to earn good time credit against the commuted sentence.
Jon Kinnamon, Ragland's attorney, said the court's decision will open the door for his client to seek parole. He doesn't know when Ragland's case could be reviewed by the board, he said. He said he planned to contact Ragland and his family yet today. "I would presume that the next step would be that he would be in front of the parole board," he said.
All three of the Iowa Supreme Court opinions are available via this webpage, and the Ragland opinion reference above is at this link. The longest opinion of the three is in Iowa v. Null, and its 83 pages can be found at this link.
August 16, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Sentences Reconsidered, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
When are very long juvenile sentences really LWOP sentences under the Eighth Amendment?The question in the title of this post, which has been lurking in lower courts for years since the Supreme Court's landmark Graham ruling in 2010, is now before the Florida Supreme Court in a set of cases. This recent South Florida Sun Sentinel article, headlined "Lengthy prison sentences for juveniles under scrutiny," discusses the issue effectively. (Hat tip: How Appealing.) Here are excerpts:
The 2007 gang rape of a mother and torture of her son by as many as 10 masked assailants at a West Palm Beach public housing complex resulted in four convictions two years later. But the horrific Dunbar Village case still continues through the Florida court system, as justices reconsider the rules on the sentencing of juveniles for serious crimes.
Jakaris Taylor, initially given a life term, and later 60 years in prison, for the attack committed when he was 15, now has a chance of winning his freedom well before a target release at age 66 through gain time. The 4th District Court of Appeal, while affirming Taylor's conviction and sentence, this month asked the Florida Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of such lengthy sentences for teenage defendants on non-murder raps.
But it turns out the state's highest court already plans to explore similar issues in the case of a Jacksonville man sentenced to 70 years for committing attempted murder when he was 14. The Supreme Court has scheduled Sept. 17 oral arguments in the case of Shimeeka Daquiel Gridine v. Florida.
The outcome ultimately could shorten the prison terms for numerous young felons from across the state, including Taylor, said Gerard F. Glynn, who formerly led Barry University's Juvenile Justice Center. "The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that sentencing of children is different, and long sentences that are equivalent to life require constitutional scrutiny," said Glynn, an Orlando-based attorney who has long advocated for juvenile sentence reforms. "At some point, a multiple-year sentence is a life sentence."...
The Graham ruling led to reduced sentences for dozens of Florida inmates convicted of violent crimes, including rape, kidnapping and armed robbery. But the U.S. Supreme Court did not specify an appropriate length of time for such sentences, apparently prompting the state appellate court questions in the Gridine and Taylor cases, among others.
In 2011, a Palm Beach County Circuit Court judge reduced life terms to 60-year terms for Nathan Walker Jr. and Taylor, who were 16 and 15 when they participated in the brutal Dunbar attack of the 35-year-old woman and her 12-year-old son. A jury had convicted them of multiple charges, including kidnapping and sexual battery.
Walker's appeal is pending. But in its Taylor opinion, the 4th District Court of Appeal questioned whether the Graham ruling applies "to lengthy term-of-years sentences that amount to de facto life sentences."
"If so, at what point does a term-of-years sentence become a de facto life sentence?" the appellate court asked.
Bernard Fernandez, the attorney who fought Taylor's appeal, says the 60-year sentence for his client is unconstitutional under Graham because it has all the force of a life sentence. Parole is not available in Florida's criminal justice system. "Isn't it tantamount to a life spent in prison?" Fernandez asked.
Moreover, Fernandez argues that Taylor, who is now 21, "cannot be expected to survive until his possible release at age 66, much less age 75." In an appellate court brief, Fernandez cited a 2010 report from the Centers for Disease Control concerning life expectancy for black males. The report found that in 2006, then 14-year-olds like Taylor would live only another 50 years. This clearly violates the Supreme Court's intention for juvenile defendants to gain release from prison based on "demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation," Fernandez argued.
But Assistant Attorney General Celia A. Terenzio, in a response, wrote Taylor's 60-year sentence didn't violate the Supreme Court decision simply because it's not a life term. The state also contends Taylor would be released "well before his life expectancy age of 71 years."
State prosecutors, in asking for the sentence to be upheld, also argued Taylor was a willing perpetrator who stuck around during the entire nearly three-hour attack. "Whatever mitigating factors must be considered regarding the shortcomings of adolescence and how those should impact a juvenile's culpability, the facts of this case do not support any finding that such mitigation was at play in Appellant's participation in these thirteen horrific and sadistic crimes," Terenzio wrote.
July 16, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Scope of Imprisonment, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Saturday, July 13, 2013
"Constitutionally Tailoring Punishment"The title of this post is the title of this great-looking new article by Richard A. Bierschbach and Stephanos Bibas. Here is the abstract:
Since the turn of the century, the Supreme Court has begun to regulate non-capital sentencing under the Sixth Amendment in the Apprendi line of cases (requiring jury findings of fact to justify sentence enhancements) as well as under the Eighth Amendment in the Miller and Graham line of cases (forbidding mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile defendants). Though both lines of authority sound in individual rights, in fact they are fundamentally about the structures of criminal justice. These two seemingly disparate lines of doctrine respond to structural imbalances in non-capital sentencing by promoting morally appropriate punishment judgments that are based on retail, individualized input and reflect the views and perspectives of multiple institutional actors.
This new understanding illuminates how both doctrines relate to the Court's earlier regulation of capital sentencing and how checks and balances can promote just punishment in a pluralistic system. It also underscores the need for other actors to complete the Court's work outside the confines of rights-based judicial doctrines, by experimenting with a broader range of reforms that are not constitutionally required but rather are constitutionally inspired.
July 13, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Blakely Commentary and News, Death Penalty Reforms, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Who Sentences? | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Monday, July 01, 2013
A year after Miller confirmed kids are different, how may kids have different sentences?The question in the title of this post is inspired in part by this public letter posted last week from the director of The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth. Here are excerpts from the letter (with one key link preserved):
The item linked in the above-quoted discussion is this fascinating three-page document headlined "State Legislative Roundup One Year after Miller v. Alabama." That document notes, inter alia, that since "the Miller decision last June, three states passed legislation that removed JLWOP as a sentencing option for youth."
[The last week of June 2013] marks the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which struck down mandatory life-without-parole sentences for children. Since then, strides have been made to move our justice system toward one that recognizes the fundamental differences between children and adults, and that provides all youth with a chance to demonstrate their unique capacity for growth and change. Advocates across the country have ushered in better outcomes for youth convicted of serious crimes, and have successfully laid the groundwork for future legislative reforms. But much work remains. Today we want to share with you some of the highlights and challenges faced by our movement in the year since the Court handed down its decision in Miller.
The Miller decision advanced the fundamental notion that "kids are different" in youth justice reform across the country. We saw an advocacy community leverage Miller to spark meaningful debate in state legislatures across the country, furthering the education of policymakers about why children should not receive adult sentences. Bills were introduced in more than 15 states, which we describe in more detail in our Miller legislative roundup. We saw a growing and engaged coalition of local and national organizations — including the Boy Scouts of America, the American Correctional Association, the National PTA, and the American Psychological Association — come together to voice their support for fair, age-appropriate alternatives to death-in-prison sentences for children. And due to the tireless work of legal advocates, people declared irredeemable as youth in Illinois, Delaware, and Indiana were given second chances.
We are also mindful of the immense challenges that lie ahead. In the coming year, we expect to confront legislative proposals in a handful of states that undermine the letter and spirit of the Miller decision. We expect courts-which to this point have handed down varied interpretations on the reach and scope of the decision-to weigh in on whether Miller applies to the more than 2,000 individuals currently serving mandatory life-without-parole sentences. And we anticipate difficulties in advancing our reform message in a legislative and criminal justice climate that for years has been dominated by racially-charged rhetoric and shortsighted "tough-on-crime" policies.
As the question in the title of this post suggests, unmentioned in all the terrific materials assembled by The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth (from which I got the inforgraphic posted here) is any accounting one-year after Miller of what is happening specifically to the "more than 2,000 individuals currently serving mandatory life-without-parole sentences" for crimes committed while juveniles. I hope this public policy group and/or others are working toward a full (or even partial) accounting of just how many of these juvenile criminals serving LWOP are succeeding in now securing different sentences as a result of Miller and its aftermath.
I know it is likely very challenging (and very costly) to review and monitor all those defendants whose sentences were called in to question by the Miller ruling. But a number of organizations, government agencies, and even public websites and have shown an affinity for, and an ability to, keep a close watch on many thousands of death sentences and all the murder defendants who go on and off state death rows. If even a small portion of the attention now given to capital cases could be redirected to track juve LWOP cases, we could and would over time all be able to garner a much keener sense of the real impact and import of the Miller ruling.
July 1, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Prisons and prisoners, Scope of Imprisonment, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
"Efforts to Fix a Broken System: Brown v. Plata and the Prison Overcrowding Epidemic"The title of this post is the title of this Note available via SSRN and authored by Lauren Salins and Shepard Simpson. Here is the abstract:
Excessive incarceration is a national problem. Across the country, prisons face dangerous levels of overcrowding, which has led to unconstitutional conditions of confinement and the inability of states to effectively rehabilitate their inmates. Ardent public support of "tough on crime" policies inhibits state legislatures from enacting successful reforms. In turn, states spend large percentages of their budget to sustain failing and ineffective corrections systems. By some estimates, states could save hundreds of millions of dollars annually if they reduced prison populations through proactive reforms, such as early release programs and diversionary tactics. In light of these factors, a consideration of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Plata to uphold an unprecedented prisoner release order is both timely and necessary as the case approaches its two-year benchmark.
This Note argues that the Court's holding in Brown did not overstep the judicial boundaries imposed by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), but rather was a step in the right direction toward acknowledging and remedying constitutional violations occurring in California's severely overcrowded prison system. Moreover, the Court's analysis of PLRA will help courts navigate the statute's procedural requirements.
While California has made progress toward complying with Brown's prisoner release order, this seminal case sheds light on the need for proactive reform in prison systems nationwide to prevent unconstitutionally high levels of overcrowding in the first place. As states are confronted with this new "release or reform" reality, this Note will facilitate the much-needed discussion surrounding long-term solutions to the overcrowding epidemic in U.S. prisons.
UPDATE: This recent article from the Los Angeles Times, headlined "California's prison crowding is growing, state report says," provides a useful reminder that all discussions of prison overcrowding problems remain very timely.
June 18, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Prisons and prisoners, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
In lengthy split opinion, Minnesota Supreme Court concludes Miller should not apply retroactivelyWith thanks to the reader who made sure I did not miss the ruling from late last week, I can report on another state Supreme Court deciding whether to give the Miller's decision prohibition on the mandatory LWOP sentencing of juvenile murderers retroactive effect. Specifically, in a lengthy split opinion in Chambers v. Minnesota, No. A11-1954 (Minn. May 31, 2013) (available here), a majority of the Minnesota Supreme Court decided that "the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), is a new rule of criminal constitutional procedure that is neither substantive nor a watershed rule implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding."
A little concurrence by one of the state Justices expressed hope that "perhaps a clearer explanation of retroactivity doctrine by the United States Supreme Court" might come down in the future.
And the lead dissent gets off to a scientific start via this notable quote by Danish physicist Niels Bohr: "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."
June 5, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Offender Characteristics, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
"Not Just Kid Stuff? Extending Graham and Miller to Adults"The title of this post is the title of this notable new article by Michael O'Hear available now via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The United States Supreme Court has recently recognized new constitutional limitations on the use of life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences for juvenile offenders, but has not clearly indicated whether analogous limitations apply to the sentencing of adults. However, the Court's treatment of LWOP as a qualitatively different and intrinsically more troubling punishment than any other sentence of incarceration does provide a plausible basis for adults to challenge their LWOP sentences, particularly when they have been imposed for nonviolent offenses or on a mandatory basis. At the same time, the Court's Eighth Amendment reasoning suggests some reluctance to overturn sentencing practices that are in widespread use or otherwise seem to reflect deliberate, majoritarian decisionmaking.
This Essay thus suggests a balancing test of sorts that may help to account for the Court's varied Eighth Amendment decisions in noncapital cases since 1991. The Essay concludes by considering how this balancing approach might apply to the mandatory LWOP sentence established by 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(A) for repeat drug offenders.
May 28, 2013 in Assessing Graham and its aftermath, Assessing Miller and its aftermath, Offense Characteristics, Sentences Reconsidered | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack


text:
Tag: expenditure
TUAW's Daily App: Expenditure
Expenditure is another great-looking app found via the excellent Well-Placed Pixels blog. It's an expense tracker -- you can add transactions into the app with just a few taps (and even attach a photo, note, or category to each debit or credit), and then browse your collected budget. Obviously, y...
Subscribe to Newsletter
Software Updatesmore updates
- Dropbox adds file/folder renaming and Office document editing to iOS app
- Vizzywig 8xHD price tag now a very affordable $49.99
- Automatic targets teen drivers with License+ service
- Dropbox adds support for TouchID
- YouTube for iOS gets updated with full support for iPhone 6 and 6 Plus
- iOS 8.0.1 update now available (Updated -- Don't update!)


text:
What does DPRD mean in Unclassified?
This page is about the meanings of the acronym/abbreviation/shorthand DPRD in the Miscellaneous field in general and in the Unclassified terminology in particular.
Dalton Parks and Recreation Department
Find a translation for DPRD in other languages:
Select another language:
Discuss this DPRD abbreviation with the community:
Use the citation below to add this abbreviation to your bibliography:
"DPRD." Abbreviations.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2014. Web. 21 Dec. 2014. <http://www.abbreviations.com/term/1512607>.
DPRD also stands for:
- Dead Poets Remembrance Day
- Department of Planning and Regional Development
- Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah
- Parepare
... see them all »
Nearby & related abbreviations:
Alternative search:
- Search Dalton Parks and Recreation Department on Amazon.com
- Search Dalton Parks and Recreation Department on Google


text:
It is not the best kept secret in the NBA, but now it is all but official. Kevin Love is going to be traded to the Cleveland Cavaliers. Along with LeBron James and Kyrie Irving, Love will make up yet another Big 3 in the world of basketball, but is it enough to make the […]Read More
Archive for NBA
Lance Stephenson: Are the Charlotte Hornets A Contender?
The biggest news in the NBA on Wednesday was that Lance Stephenson signed a deal with the Charlotte Hornets. The deal changed the odds for the Hornets to win a title. Charlotte @hornets sign Lance Stephenson and are now +8000 to win a #NBA title. Odds: http://t.co/nWPWqzRjyF #goodbet pic.twitter.com/AGgOTiXmRT — Bookie Blitz (@jtsneaks) July 16, […]Read More
LeBron James Free Agent Instant Tracker
LeBron James is the biggest free agent on the NBA market. Latest reports is that he is interested in going back to the Cleveland Cavilers, but there is one thing for sure he will be the only player to make or break the Miami Heat. We have set up an Instant Free Agent tracker with […]Read More
NBA Free Agency Rumors: Are the Cleveland Cavaliers a Good Bet For LeBron James?
LeBron James is a free agent and right now he is controlling the NBA free agent market. The signs on social media are all pointing to LeBron leaving the Miami Heat. Rumors have the Cleveland Cavaliers as a landing spot. If you are believe that James could go back to the Cavaliers, now is the […]Read More
NBA Free Agency Rumors: Signs Say LeBron James And Chris Bosh Leaving the Miami Heat
LeBron James is the best player in the NBA and he is a free agent. When LeBron opted out of his contract, the belief was that it was a move to restructure his deal along with Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade so the Heat can get even better. That is not the case. The Miami […]Read More


text:
Grave Encounters 2
Rent, buy and watch the latest movies and TV shows online
blinkbox has more of the latest movies and TV shows than our competitors.
No subscription, so you only pay when you rent or buy a movie or TV show, from just 99p.
blinkbox is available on PC/Mac, tablets, consoles, smart TVs, set-top boxes and Blu-ray players.
The rules are simple. Kill your opponent, stay at the top of the leader board and win £10 million. Fail and you're dead. SJ is the star of the show, the girl next door with a killer instinct.
The Lost Generation is set in a dystopian world which is governed by entertainment companies and corporate banks, where public executions are in vogue but with a gory, reality-TV twist. An all powerful media have the corrupt police in their pocket. It is able to discredit the ineffectual government whenever it feels fit, creating propaganda on how to live your life and leaves broken people in its wake. But there is hope. They are called The Unknown.
An underground movement, fragmented youth in revolt, rebels with a cause, are waiting for the right moment to strike back... The Unknown rescue SJ from her certain fate and show her a world where choice is a possibility. But the only problem is; she will have to become the evil she is trying to escape.
Horror, Thriller
Contains strong threat and sadistic violence
1 hour 21 minutes
PC, Mac, iPad, Android tablets, Windows tablets, Xbox, PS3, Chromecast, smart TVs, set-top boxes and Blu-ray players.
Windows PC (UK internet connection required to acquire license)


text:
Tag Archives: afternoon
Jessamin & Aiden
rachel | big island senior portraits
Rachel is one of the top swimmers in Hawai'i, winning age group and high school championships in distance events like the 500-yd freestyle and 1-mile. It was a pleasure to meet her and her mom out at Kukio for her senior portrait photosession. It couldn't […]
Photos for Tani, a gifted singer and musician, based out of Waikoloa.
poop water.
Senior portrait photosession @ Sunset Beach!
Kati & Orrin
Family wedding in Santa Rosa, CA
Kyle & Hannah
impromptu UW session!
pathetic little ankle biters.
becca + adrienne | senior portrait photosession
afternoon senior portrait photosession with becca & age!
HB southside
Two different afternoon sessions with Brett & Kaj. Conditions were a bust for shooting in the water. Next time I need to bring a board.
huntington pier rip tides
big waves, high tide, nasty rips at huntington pier.
Santa Ana Afternoon
Shooting around at the Santa Ana skatepark and canal with Ben and Pids.


text:
0cart: $0.00
Previous Page
[x] Close Window
Send your friend(s) a link to this product along with a personal message!
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
To: (your friend's email)
Your Message:
Cc me
Please enter the text below:
Overall Rating:
Read all reviews |
Write a review
Shine with your flower power in this groovy ensemble this Halloween! Costume includes a dazzling mini-dress with fun and flirty flower print, matching headband and a brilliant orange belt with a sparkling silver buckle. 3-Piece Set. Dry clean only. Polyester.
Does not include Jewelry or boots. Please Note: Buckle is differs from image. It is orange instead of silver.
© CelebrateExpress.com. All Rights Reserved.CEWEB02


text:
BETT Check List
by, 19th January 2014 at 09:37 PM (6694 Views)
Ok, ok...no panic. My train is in just over 12 hour time, and if I've forgotten anything it's far too late...soooooo........
Train tickets - Check
Hotel reservations for Team EduGeek - Check
Assorted documentation that only those doing a show would ever need - Check
Clothes - Check
Laptop - Check
Other laptop - Check
Mobotix webcam - Check
Plethora of device chargers + cables - Check
Small Canon digital camera because the one on the Nexus 4 is pants - Check
Oyster card.....damn, damn, damn....can buy a new one - Check
Small black box full of random bits and pieces - Check
Stand freebies couriered to London - Check
Dance Dance moves worked on.....Perhaps later.
BETT apps installed and then uninstalled - Check
Sense of anticipation and excitement - Check
I honestly don't think there is anything left for me to do now as it is all in the hands of the gods.
See you on stand F137 next week
vBulletin Message
Total Trackbacks 0
Trackback URL:


text:
December 18, 2014
CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Police in Clarksville believe the same man committed three pharmacy robberies in two days, taking prescription painkillers after showing a handgun.
A third drug store was held up Monday afternoon by a slender white man who had asked a pharmacist about various medications and pulled the weapon when he was told the pharmacy stocked Oxycontin. The robber was described as being in his 20s or early 30s, about 5-feet-7 and having a triangular tattoo on the back of his neck.
That robbery was at a Walgreens. Earlier Monday, a Rite-Aid was robbed of medication. Another pharmacy was hit on Sunday.
Police ask that tips be phones to (931) 645-8477.
(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
To comment, the following rules must be followed:
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content, but the station is under no legal obligation to do so.
If you believe a comment violates the above rules, please use the Flagging Tool to alert a Moderator.
Flagging does not guarantee removal.
Multiple violations may result in account suspension.
Decisions to suspend or unsuspend accounts are made by Station Moderators.
Links require admin approval before posting.
Questions may be sent to firstname.lastname@example.com. Please provide detailed information.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
People. Fit. Perfectly. more
People. Fit. Perfectly. more
Where great people and great companies meet.® more
Express is a staffing agency with employment solutions in administrative, professional and commercial are... more
Enjoy the beauty of the San Juan Islands from a front row seat. The Beach Cabin at Agate Cove on Guemes I... more
Top Trending Articles
Top 10 U.S. Temp Agencies to Help You Find Wo...
Looking for the right job is easier with the help of a ... more
What Are the Best Job Sites for Finding Jobs ...
Looking for a job can be difficult and time consuming. ... more
Should You Include Your Website Address in Yo...
If you are putting together your resume, will it help o... more
The Inside Scoop on Escort Services: What to ...
Learn about the delicate balance that must be kept when... more
How to Calculate the Self-Employment Contribu...
Find detailed information on how to calculate the Self-... more
We purchased a really nice '08 Ford Expedition from Pacific Coast Auto 2 months ago. It was in good shape... more
© 2014 Local Corporation - US Patent 7,231,405
Some data provided by Acxiom. Questions and Comments?


text:
Should facebook be banned of ever?
The reason that facebook should be banned for ever is that the facebook page "DRAW MUHAMMAD DAY" was hacked by Turkish Hackers(not confirmed that it was hacked by turkish hackers but it was hacked), the info of one of mod of the page was leaked... And someone hacked it... At that time, Facebook officials helped the admin of the page to restore the page... And the page was clearly against (TOS) and still after thousands of reports against the page, the page was not banned... This all above confirms that facebook is a part of ZIONISTS and Facebook officials are equally involved in the creation of page... So can't we leave facebook for the RESPECT OF PROPHET S.A.W when it is clear that facebook officials have helped in creating the page... Decision is yours!!!
No comments yet.join the discussion
Recent signatures
Debbie Michael, South Africa1 year ago Should Facebook be banned forever?: Yes!
Country: South Africa
Comments: -
Gareth Prentice, United Kingdom5 years ago Should Facebook be banned forever?: Yes!
Country: United Kingdom
Comments: -
TAimur Shafiq, Pakistan5 years ago Should Facebook be banned forever?: Yes!
Country: Pakistan
Comments: Facebook guys are biased when they did not remove the "DRAW MUHAMMAD DAY" event coz of freedom of expression and on the contrary there is not holocaust related material because of being HATE related content. I strongly recommend a ban on facebook foreever.
Petition highlights
There are no highlights yet.


text:
Forgot Password? | Not a User? Sign up
Your browser does not support iframes.
Chapter 10
The 21st century! Our family was relieved to be back to the familiar world we know and love. Even though I was pleased to return, I was also thankful I'd had the opportunity to take a trip through time and learn some very valuable lessons. Because of one single penny, I had learned lessons that would stay with me the rest of my life.
The high school students at Hillview Academy recently celebrated Veterans Day by preparing post cards for soldiers stationed in Iraq. Pictured are: (front, from left) Kayla Nation, Kelly Mobley, Lindsey Zeitz, Rachelle Dial, Chris Kaiyaraj, (back, from left) Wesley Burns, Michael Troka, John McKinley, Travis Campbell and Dyllan Sauer.
Photo submitted to The Spencer Magnet
The recent discovery of Curly Calf Syndrome in the Angus cattle breed has some producers feeling uncertain about the future of the breed, but University of Kentucky Extension Beef Specialist Darrh Bullock says there's no reason for Kentucky's beef producers to panic. He believes the best course of action is to stay informed.
Jeanie M. Williams, county executive director (CED) of the Bullitt-Spencer-Jefferson County Farm Service Agency (FSA) will be leaving the Mt. Washington office after 19 years of service to tri-county farmers. Williams will be transferring to the Meade County FSA office in Brandenburg and moving back to the area where she grew up.
William started her employment with FSA at the Meade County office as a program assistant in June 1979. From there she went to Jefferson County to serve in the CED position until she was transferred to the Bullitt-Spencer counties FSA office in 1996.
Romans 8:24-31 "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Plum Creek Baptist Chili Supper
First Baptist Thanksgiving
banquet tonight
The First Baptist Church of Taylorsville will be hosting its Thanksgiving Banquet tonight at 6:30 pm. Cost is $10 for adults, $5 for children. The community is invited and encouraged to attend this event. Call 477-8197 for information.
Community Thanksgiving service
The SCES PTA Fall Book Fair will be taking place next weekt. It will be open every day from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Taylor Carden was named Commonwealth Ambassador by Secretary of State Trey Grayson. Carden was selected for outstanding leadership and commitment to community service. Taylor is a Hugh O'Brian Youth Leader (HOBY) and has been invited to serve as a People to People ambassador. The invitation would allow Carden to explore the iconic European capitals of London and Paris with 40 other outstanding students.
Copyright © 2014
The Spencer Magnet is your source for local news, sports, events, and information in Spencer County, KY and the surrounding area.


text:
* All fares below were last found on: . Fares are round trip. Fares incl. all fuel surcharges, our service fees and taxes. Displayed fares are based on historical data, are subject to change and cannot be guaranteed at the time of booking. See all booking terms and conditions
With over 20 great locations to choose from, ConViasa gives passengers the chance to find competitive flights to some top South American destinations as well as flights to Spain and Syria. Based in Venezuela, enjoy friendly in-flight service with this top South American based airline.
Start your Venezuelan journey at the beautiful Plaza Venezuela in Caracas before venturing out to the Parque del Este for a romantic picnic or a solo stroll through this stunning landmark. The Museum of Contemporary Art hosts some impressive Venezuelan contemporary works too.
Business Class: Passengers are welcomed with complimentary drinks, and are offered everything from appetizers, complete meals to exotic desserts. In terms of comfort, the experience is unbeatable with seats offering features like ample legroom, superior reclining, headrest and footrest. In terms of in-flight entertainment the carrier offers a collection of Spanish and English movies, so good time is guaranteed.
Economy Class: Whether you want to treat your taste buds to avocado salad, chicken with saffron rice or exotic desserts, the choice is yours. Seats are not only comfortable but also spacious, equipped with all the latest features. Passengers can also request magazines and newspapers from the crew.
* Fares are round trip, Fares incl. all fuel surcharges, our service fees and taxes.
‡ Savings of up to 40 to 65% off claim is based on a comparison of non-refundable restricted fares to the applicable classes of domestic and international lowest unrestricted fully refundable published fare. The actual discount amount will vary based on availability, advance notice, minimum stay, travel dates and blackout dates. Fares change from time to time without notice. Other restrictions may apply. Savings claim is based on our research of popular routes on major scheduled airlines based on 21 days advance purchase. Travel dates range Jan 20- Jan 30.
◊ Applies to all domestic travel. Book by December 31, 2014. Enter Promo Code at time of check out. The advertised Promo Code provides discounts against our service fees on stated routes. Promo Code and Instant Savings offers can be combined up to the amount of our . Excess savings will not be applied. Promo Code expires on date indicated and can be withdrawn at anytime without notice. Our standard service fees are $28 per person one-way/roundtrip for economy class tickets.
California: CST #2073455, Florida: ST37449, Iowa: SOT #967, Nevada: SOT #2007-1137, Washington: WASOT #602755832 (Affiliate DBA of Travelong Inc.)CheapOair.com is covered under E&O insurance policy © July, 2012-2014. Fareportal, Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2006-2014. Fareportal, Inc. All rights reserved.