text:
Want to be on Popular TV?
Here's how to join our anti-social network.
- Record a short video of yourself. Tell us where you are, what you love, and what you do all day. Want inspiration? Click here
- Upload your file.
Follow these
- Enter your full name and email so we can contact you.
- Follow us on social media! We'll announce new videos there first.
Video length should not be longer than 10:00. Videos are reccomended to be in Codec: H.264. If you're uploading High Definition (HD) video, choose the High Profile H.264 setting instead of Main Profile. Files can be in .mov, .mp4, .m4v, .avi, file format.
Files will be compressed when uploaded, however it is reccomended that video size does not exceed 300MB in file size.
Thank You.
We will contact you shortly with details.


text:
By Lori Atherton
Law School Communications
To hear University of Michigan Law Professor Eve Brensike Primus share her favorite stories of working as a trial attorney in the Maryland Office of the Public Defender is to get a glimpse of the human drama that often unfolds in the courtroom, particularly on the part of police officers, judges, lawyers, and witnesses.
Primus fondly recalled some of her zany experiences as a public defender for a standing-room-only crowd during her recent Blue Jeans Lecture, sponsored by the Law School Student Senate.
"Sometimes, people admit to doing things illegally." Primus represented a client who claimed a police officer searched him for drugs without probable cause. When questioned during the trial as to why he searched her client, the officer blatantly responded, "That's a crime-ridden neighborhood. I search everyone; they're all criminals."
"Some officers justify the use of force." In another case, Primus's client claimed a police officer used excessive force when putting her in the back of a squad car. The woman's friend witnessed the incident and called 911 to report the assault to the sheriff's department, and the tape was played in the courtroom as evidence. Afterward, the officer in question approached Primus as she was walking out of the courtroom and threatened her, only to realize the judge was in earshot and heard the threat.
"Judges don't always know the law." In her first month on the job, while defending a woman who left her young child unattended in her apartment while she went to the pharmacy, Primus was forced to challenge the judge who seemingly had his own version of the hearsay rule. The two officers involved in the incident were subpoenaed, but only one was at the trial; the other was on vacation. The officer who took the stand was not the officer who searched the woman's apartment, but the judge asked him to report on what he was told by the other officer. Primus challenged the judge, stating that hearsay could not be used as evidence. The judge said the officer's testimony was an exception to the hearsay rule, and when she asked to see the hearsay clause he referenced, the judge refused to provide it.
"Some judges are easily distracted." During a case in which she represented a client who brandished a knife against another man outside a restaurant, Primus soon learned the people involved in the case were seemingly "sleeping with one another." During the trial, Primus noticed the judge "was meticulously writing during the testimony." The reason became all too clear when the judge later said to Primus, "Here, you'll need this," and handed her an inappropriate judicial doodle: a diagram of who was having relations with whom.
"Clients sometimes do stupid things." In another case, one of Primus's clients violated his probation by failing a drug test, his first misstep after being clean for two years. The judge said the man's sobriety "didn't count" because he had been in jail for the majority of that time. Primus's client told the judge that he was wrong in thinking one couldn't access drugs in jail. He reiterated his stance after the trial by mailing a letter to the judge detailing how easy it was for inmates to get drugs while locked up.
Published: Wed, Mar 7, 2012

subset: commoncrawl


text:
From fitness trackers to communication devices, wearable gadgets and gizmos are all the rage. While not the first interactive watch to come on the market, the Apple Watch, debuting in April 2015, may be one of the most powerful and accessible. In addition to keeping time, the Apple Watch will run a variety of apps, notify you of incoming messages, or allow you to send a tap, sketch, or even your heartbeat to another Apple Watch user. The Apple Watch also has built-in activity tracking that can help you monitor and reach personal fitness goals.
As with the iPhone, apps are where the real power and personalization lie. In this slideshow, we've featured 21 apps that will be available when the Apple Watch ships.
Related Topics : In Their Own Words: The Four Dark Horses for the Third Major Mobile OS Speak, HTC, Mobile Search, 3G, Location-Based Services
Wearables are revolutionizing the workplace, with innovations that create a safer work environment or enhance the way professionals are able to go about their job. ... More >>
Here are the top 10 strategic technology trends that will impact most organizations in 2017. Strategic technology trends are defined as those with substantial disruptive potential or those reaching the tipping point over the next five years. ... More >>
Digital innovation is by far the biggest influencer, changing the way we do just about everything, from shopping to communication to running a business. ... More >>


text:
A tentative deal was reached Tuesday for the Erie County comptroller to return confidential documents that his office seized in the course of an audit of the Department of Social Services.
Earlier in the day, Deputy County Executive Richard M. Tobe had alleged during a hearing of the Legislature's Government Affairs Committee that the documents were obtained by the deputy comptroller through subterfuge three months ago. Tobe threatened a lawsuit if the documents were not immediately returned.
At a subsequent news conference, County Executive Mark C. Poloncarz reiterated Tobe's charge and also demanded that the Comptroller's Office return the documents.
"My office continues to be willing to work with the comptroller in any audit that he does. I demand, though, demand the return of the documents that were stolen by the Comptroller's Office from the sub-basement," Poloncarz said.
The confidential documents in question were seized in March by Deputy Comptroller Teresa M. Fraas from a storage area in the subbasement of the Rath County Office Building. The seizure took place while the Comptroller's Office was in the midst of an audit of the Department of Social Services and how its workers went about recertifying participants in the county's Medicaid and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families programs.
Two months later, Comptroller Stefan I. Mychajliw revealed that social services workers had been improperly disposing of reams of sensitive documents in unlocked totes and had left them unsecured at the curb for pickup.
Among those records were copies of birth certificates, personal medical records, Social Security numbers, bank accounts, tax returns, inmate records, payroll information, court records and passports, the comptroller said.
He added that the unsecured disposal of the documents exposed county residents, who had applied to the county for benefits, to the prospect of identity theft.
Administration officials have acknowledged that social services workers were disposing of sensitive documents in unlocked totes, but Tuesday they insisted that the documents seized by Fraas were not in an unsecured area.
During the Legislature's Government Affairs Committee meeting, Tobe shared with lawmakers surveillance video of Fraas accessing the subbasement of the Rath Building and retrieving the documents with the assistance of James L. Duman, a worker assigned to the Department of Buildings and Grounds.
Tobe also presented lawmakers a sworn affidavit from Duman, who said the area from which the documents were taken was locked.
"Based on his testimony – his affidavit testimony that was presented before the Legislature today – Ms. Fraas did not stumble upon a confidential document tote in an unsecured location, but it was in a secure location, and she basically created a half-truth saying that she was looking for a tote that had confidential comptroller documents in it," Poloncarz said at his news conference.
"They took those documents without the approval of the Department of Social Services," Poloncarz added.
Fraas, who attended the Legislature committee meeting with Mychajliw, disputed assertions that the area from which the documents were taken was secured.
Meanwhile, Tobe and Social Services Commissioner Carol Dankert-Maurer took members of the local news media on a tour of the subbasement area from which they said the documents were taken.
Mychajliw, who met with County Attorney Michael Siragusa after Tuesday's committee meeting, later said an agreement was reached that the comptroller would return the tote full of sensitive documents to the area of the subbasement where they were seized.
Mark Cornell, a spokesman for Poloncarz, confirmed the Comptroller's Office will continue to have access to documents under the original terms of a signed confidentiality agreement between the administration and the Comptroller's Office.
Meanwhile, the comptroller Tuesday released an audit of the Social Services Department's recertification process for those receiving benefits under the Needy Families and Medicaid programs.
The six-page audit concluded that it could not render an opinion on the adequacy of the department's internal controls because the administration had denied the comptroller access to the department's records.
email: firstname.lastname@example.com


text: Courses for Fall 2011 have been brought in to Springboard. Instructors – now would be a great time to request that your Fall courses be combined! You can request course merges by sending an email to email@example.com. Please be sure to include the course number (1234:567-890, for example) for each course that you would like to have combined.


text:
GROSSE POINTE PARK, Mich. - The Bashara home in Grosse Pointe Park is where investigators believe Jane Bashara was killed.
It's where her husband Bob Bashara later confessed his innocence and where he talked with Dateline NBC about his wife's murder. The home now is up for sale.
Photos from Realtor.com take you inside the 2,800 square-foot house on Middlesex Road. It features four bedrooms, four baths and an incredibly sad story of a family's tragedy. It's a story that must be revealed to any potential buyers.
Special section: Grosse Pointe Park woman's murder
Local 4 is told the home is in a trust and any money from the sale would likely go to the Bashara children.
Selling a home that made headlines for a murder mystery is difficult but not impossible. For instance, the Washington Township home where Stephen Grant murdered his wife Tara was sold after he was convicted. A family bought that home well under its asking price.
The Bashara home is available for showings but all potential buyers must be screened and prequalified.
Handyman who pleaded guilty in trouble behind bars
Meanwhile, handyman Joe Gentz, who investigators say was pressured by Bob Bashara to kill Jane, recently was moved to the Macomb Correctional Facility.
Gentz received a violation on March 12 while he was at the Chippewa Correctional Center. He was written up for an altercation with a prison guard. Another incident like that and Gentz could lose the privilege of having visitors.
Read more: Gentz's behavior could hurt case against Bob Bashara
Copyright 2013 by ClickOnDetroit.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
As the loss and suffering caused by Hurricane Katrina becomes increasingly evident, we hope our readers join their neighbors and us in offering all possible assistance to the victims and their families. The need is urgent and immense. Amidst this disaster, we are heartened to learn that farmers, ranchers and agricultural organizations across the country are sending donations of money, hay and supplies to assist farm families in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama whose farms and livestock were devastated by Hurricane Katrina.
Our publishing company, Primedia Business, is making donations to the American Red Cross Hurricane Relief Fund on behalf of the employees of Farm Industry News and more than 80 other publications. Many employees of Primedia are giving individually as well. If everyone helps, we can make a difference. Please work through your local charitable organizations or consider the following national organizations for your donation.
American Red Cross
www.redcross.org (The site is running slow due to high traffic.)
Salvation Army
America's Second Harvest
National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD)
Also, for long-term assistance focused on farm families, the American Farm Bureau will contribute to a Hurricane Ag Fund. County Farm Bureaus, state Farm Bureaus and individuals may mail checks directly to the AFB Foundation. Donations are tax deductible when made out to AFBFA/Hurricane Ag Fund. Checks should be mailed to AFBFA/Hurricane Ag Fund, 600 Maryland Ave. S.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024.


text:
All formats/editions
It's 1966 and Detroit has entered its Golden Age. America throbs to the throaty rumble of Motor City's powerful road-eating machines. It'll never be this good again, and Big Auto is fighting to keep it that way. Ex-cop Ricky Amery is hired to go undercover to put the brakes on runaway consumer advocacy that would legislate Detroit right out of business. They couldn't have chosen a more loyal disciple. Amery's god is horsepower, and his house of worship is the open road. Meanwhile, the rattle of automatic weapons fire sweeps the streets as the mob fights a rear-guard action against a union president and the ruthless street gangs that rule the black community, led by Quincy Springfield. It's in the middle of this free-fire zone that Amery finds himself paying the price for his obsession with four-wheeled thunder. Will he sell himself out? Or will he drop a match in a high-octane blend of race, violence, greed, and corruption? The city has reached critical mass, and there's no time for decline and fall. When Detroit blows, she's going in a mushroom cloud-every bloodstained block, all at once.
All formats/editions
Click the Download button to download a copy of the MARC file.
Enter your FTP details below to send the MARC export file via FTP.
Product recommendations
by Loren D. Estleman
Sign up for our email newsletter


text:
No. 94,667
SANDRA TROUTMAN, LARRY GALES, and GERALD CROOKS,
JEFFREY CURTIS, M.D., STORMONT VAIL HEALTHCARE, INC., and
1. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, state laws that conflict with federal laws are without effect. There is a presumption against federal preemption of state law. To federally preempt state law, Congressional intent must be clear.
2. 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) (2000) preempts state common-law tort claims alleging liability as to Class III medical devices that have entered the market pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration's rigorous premarket approval process, except for a claim that a manufacturer has failed to comply with the approved federal standards.
3. In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. A party cannot avoid summary judgment on the mere hope that something may develop later during discovery or at trial.
Appeal from Shawnee District Court, TERRY L. BULLOCK, judge. Opinion filed September 22, 2006. Affirmed.
J. Todd Hiatt, Eugene B. Ralston, and Kevin L. Diehl, of Ralston, Pope & Diehl, L.L.C., of Topeka, for appellants.
Donald Patterson, of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP, of Topeka, and Brian J. Mooney, of Gordon & Rees LLP, of San Francisco, California, for appellee Perclose, Inc.
Before MALONE, P.J., ELLIOTT and CAPLINGER, JJ.
MALONE, J.: This is a products liability case in which Sandra Troutman, Larry Gales, and Gerald Crooks (plaintiffs) suffered complications following cardiac catheterization procedures performed by Jeffrey Curtis, M.D., at Stormont-Vail HealthCare, Inc. (Stormont-Vail). The plaintiffs alleged Perclose, Inc. (Perclose) was negligent in the design, manufacturing, and labeling of its product, the Closer Mediated Closure System (the Closer). The Closer is a Class III prescription medical device designed to deliver a polyester suture to close the femoral artery access site following a catheterization procedure. Perclose moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiffs' claims were expressly preempted by federal law. The district court granted the motion.
This case presents an issue of first impression in Kansas. It requires us to determine the scope of the preemption provision set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) (2000) of the 1976 Medical Device Amendments (MDA) to the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. (2000 ed. & Supp. III 2003). Specifically, we must decide whether § 360k(a) preempts state common-law tort claims alleging liability as to Class III medical devices that have entered the market pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) rigorous premarket approval (PMA) process. We join the growing consensus of legal authority across the United States and hold that state common-law tort claims alleging liability as to a PMA-approved Class III medical device are preempted by § 360k(a), except for a claim that the manufacturer failed to comply with the approved federal standards. We further hold that the plaintiffs failed to come forward with any evidence to support a claim that Perclose failed to comply with the approved federal standards in the design, manufacturing, and labeling of the Closer. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Perclose.
Factual and procedural background
In granting summary judgment, the district court found the following facts to be uncontroverted. The district court's factual determinations have not been challenged on appeal and are summarized as follows:
1. In 2000 and 2001, the plaintiffs underwent cardiac catheterization procedures for diagnostic purposes performed by Dr. Curtis at Stormont-Vail. Each catheterization was closed, using the Closer, manufactured by Perclose. Complications occurred following each catheterization.
2. The Closer is a Class III prescription medical device designed to deliver a polyester suture to close the femoral artery access site following a catheterization procedure.
3. Class III devices are those devices which are to be used for supporting or sustaining human life, or are of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, or present a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. These devices are subject to the FDA's most stringent regulations.
4. To be approved by the FDA, Class III devices are subject to either the less stringent § 510(k) (the original MDA section designation) premarket notification process, if the device is substantially equivalent to a medical device already on the market prior to enactment of the MDA in 1976, or the more rigorous PMA process.
5. Perclose initially requested approval of the predecessor to the Closer, the Prostar Percutaneous Vascular Surgical Device (Prostar), under the § 510(k) premarket notification process. However, on October 24, 1996, the FDA denied that request, requiring that the Prostar be subjected to the more rigorous PMA process.
6. On November 26, 1996, Perclose applied for PMA of the Prostar, which was approved on April 30, 1997, subject to several conditions which were ultimately met.
7. On May 1, 1997, Perclose submitted PMA Supplement No. 1 seeking approval of the Techstar 6 French Percutaneous Vascular Surgical System (Techstar), a modified version of the original Prostar device. The FDA approved this design modification on November 5, 1997.
8. From 1997 to 1999, Perclose submitted a series of PMA Supplements commensurate with various modifications to its closure device, eventually submitting PMA Supplement No. 19 in May 1999, seeking approval for the Closer.
9. With the submission of PMA Supplement No. 19, Perclose also introduced design modifications to the approved Perclose Knot Pusher, Perclose Mini Knot Pusher, and Perclose Snared Knot Pusher, as well as the Clincher Knot Tying Device, a new accessory device that would automatically tie a sliding surgical knot in the suture.
10. Thereafter, Perclose submitted four amendments to PMA Supplement No. 19 for the Closer on June 22, October 12, November 2, and November 17, 1999, respectively. On November 22, 1999, the FDA approved the Closer and its accessories.
11. Perclose submitted a fifth amendment to PMA Supplement No. 19 on November 24, 1999, which included copies of the final approved labeling. In January 2002, the FDA reviewed the labeling and confirmed that Perclose could proceed with distribution and marketing of the Closer.
12. As part of the process for approval, the Closer, through its predecessors, Prostar and Techstar, underwent extensive clinical investigation. In total, before the Closer was approved by the FDA, over 1,600 patients were studied at over 30 institutions in the United States and Europe over a span of 6 years, in order to establish both safety and efficacy.
13. Two of the first clinical studies, which were submitted with the original PMA for the Prostar, were performed between October 1993 and March 1996: the Prostar Feasibility Study and the Prostar Investigational Device Exemption.
14. Perclose provided two clinical studies in submitting PMA Supplement No. 19 for the Closer: The Closer Percutaneous Vascular Surgical Device European Trial Feasibility Study and The Closer Percutaneous Vascular Surgical Device European Trial. Prior to approval of the Closer on November 22, 1999, the FDA reviewed the clinical studies submitted by Perclose.
15. On October 27, 1999, subsequent to the submission of PMA Supplement No. 19, in an attempt to finalize the labeling for the Closer, the FDA made the request that the final labeling for the Closer also include the adverse events and clinical trial summary from the STAND I Trial (a multi-center study designed to prospectively examine the safety and effectiveness of femoral artery closure using the Techstar).
16. The FDA determined that the STAND I Trial should be included in the labeling for the Closer, even though it evaluated a predecessor design to the Closure, explaining that the Closer is a design evolution of the Techstar. Thus, the results of the STAND I Trial are applicable to the Closer because of equivalent intended use and basic operating principles.
17. In submitting the Closer's design specifications to the FDA, Perclose submitted PMA Supplement No. 19, which included detailed explanations of the design and use of the Closer, including details on the suture, sheath, foot, guide, handle, and needle plunger. It also identified the use of the Tevdek polyester suture, which was previously the subject of its own submissions to the FDA by Howmedica, Inc., and approved by the FDA on December 22, 1982.
18. PMA Supplement No. 19 specified that the suture used by the Closer is a nonabsorbable polyester suture. It also provided details regarding procedural steps necessary to use the Closer, including deployment and postangiogram care.
19. The FDA approved the design of the Closer as safe and effective.
20. Perclose also provided detailed information as to the manufacture of the Closer in PMA Supplement No. 19. This manufacturing process was considered, revised, and ultimately approved by the FDA.
21. Labeling for the Closer was also approved by the FDA, which included substantial information regarding the device and its safety effectiveness.
22. The only document Perclose was required to provide with the Closer was a package insert, which Perclose entitled Instructions for Use. These instructions were detailed in the PMA Supplement No. 19 and the amendments thereto.
23. The Closer's instructions for use provided, under clear headings, a description of the Closer, the indications for use of the device, contraindications, warnings, precautions, and special patient populations.
24. Although not required by the FDA, Perclose also included in the packaging for the Closer, a patient guide providing additional information and home care instructions on the Closer, which could be provided to the patient should the physician decide to do so. Because the patient guide was to be included in the package with each Closer, it had to be approved and was approved by the FDA.
On October 23, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a petition against Curtis, Stormont-Vail, and Perclose. As to Perclose, the plaintiffs asserted state law claims that Perclose was "negligent in its design, testing, inspection, manufacturing, sale, [and] warning post and pre-sale" of the Closer. The plaintiffs also alleged Perclose was strictly liable for their injuries. Perclose filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims based on federal preemption.
On August 13, 2004, the district court granted Perclose's motion for summary judgment. The district court determined that the FDA, through the PMA process, established device-specific requirements for the Closer and the plaintiffs' claims based upon state law theories of liability were inconsistent with those requirements. The district court subsequently denied a motion for reconsideration. The plaintiffs requested an interlocutory appeal which this court denied. Thereafter, the plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice their claims against Dr. Curtis and Stormont-Vail, resulting in a final judgment. The plaintiffs timely filed a notice of appeal.
Standard of review
"'"Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court is required to resolve all facts and inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought. When opposing a motion for summary judgment, an adverse party must come forward with evidence to establish a dispute as to a material fact. In order to preclude summary judgment, the facts subject to the dispute must be material to the conclusive issues in the case. On appeal, [an appellate court must] apply the same rules and where . . . reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied." [Citations omitted.]'" State ex rel. Stovall v. Reliance Ins. Co., 278 Kan. 777, 788, 107 P.3d 1219 (2005).
Where facts are not in dispute, appellate review of an order regarding summary judgment is de novo. Roy v. Young, 278 Kan. 244, 247, 93 P.3d 712 (2004).
Federal preemption
The plaintiffs claim the district court erred in granting Perclose's summary judgment motion on the basis of federal preemption. According to the plaintiffs, the MDA does not preempt state law remedies, as incorporated in the Kansas Product Liability Act (KPLA), K.S.A. 60-3301 et seq. The KPLA applies to any claim for harm caused by the design, manufacturing, or labeling of a product, and the KPLA incorporates such common-law claims as strict liability in tort, negligence, breach of express or implied warranty, and failure to discharge a duty to warn. K.S.A. 60-3302(c). The plaintiffs argue the district court erred in finding that the FDA, through the PMA process, established device-specific requirements for the Closer and that the plaintiffs' claims, based upon state law theories of liability, are inconsistent with the FDA requirements.
The doctrine of federal preemption is founded in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
Under the Supremacy Clause, state laws that conflict with federal laws are without effect. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516, 120 L. Ed. 2d 407, 112 S. Ct. 2608 (1992). There is a presumption against federal preemption of state law. To federally preempt state law, Congressional intent must be clear. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485, 135 L. Ed. 2d 700, 116 S. Ct. 2240 (1996).
Congressional intent supporting federal preemption may be either express or implied:
"Congress' intent may be 'explicitly stated in the statute's language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.' [Citation omitted.] In the absence of an express congressional command, state law is pre-empted if that law actually conflicts with federal law [citation omitted], or if federal law so thoroughly occupies a legislative field '"as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it."' [Citations omitted.]" Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 516.
Overview of the MDA
The FDA regulates the marketing and sale of prescription medical devices in the United States pursuant to the MDA. "Congress enacted the MDA of 1976, in the words of the statute's preamble, 'to provide for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use.' 90 Stat. 539." Lohr, 518 U.S. at 474. The FDA has enacted regulations to enforce the MDA, which are found at 21 C.F.R. § 800 et seq. (2006).
In enacting the MDA, Congress intended to expand the authority of the FDA to regulate medical devices, while also protecting innovations in device technology from being "stifled by unnecessary restrictions." See H.R. Rep. No. 94-853, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., at 12 (1976); Lohr, 518 U.S. at 490. Specifically, by enacting the preemption provision, Congress attempted to shield medical devices from undue burdens imposed by differing state regulations and recognized that "if a substantial number of differing requirements applicable to a medical device are imposed by jurisdictions other than the Federal government, interstate commerce would be unduly burdened." H.R. Rep. No. 94-853, at 45; see Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 451 F.3d 104, 122-23 (2d Cir. 2006).
The MDA classifies medical devices into three separate and distinct categories based upon the potential risks to the public. Class I medical devices are those which generally pose little or no threat to public health or safety; e.g., tongue depressors, bedpans, stretchers, and scissors. Class I devices are subject only to "general controls" by the FDA. See 21 U.S.C. § 360c(a)(1)(A) (2000); Lohr, 518 U.S. at 476-77. Class II medical devices are more complex than Class I devices and are subject to more stringent "special controls" by the FDA; e.g., oxygen masks, syringes, and hearing aids. These devices pose greater risks to health and safety. See 21 U.S.C. § 360c(a)(1)(B); Lohr, 518 U.S. at 477. Class III devices are those devices for which there is insufficient information to determine that Class I or Class II controls are enough, standing alone, to provide reasonable assurance of the device's safety and effectiveness; e.g., pacemakers, bone screws, and vascular devices. Class III devices are to be used for "supporting or sustaining human life" or are of "substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health" or present "a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury." These devices are subject to the FDA's strictest regulations. See 21 U.S.C. § 360c(a)(1)(C); Lohr, 518 U.S. at 477.
Before a Class III medical device can be sold commercially in the United States, the manufacturer must provide the FDA with a reasonable assurance that the device is both safe and effective. See 21 U.S.C. § 360e(d)(2) (2000). To meet this requirement, a new device is subject to either (1) the premarket notification process, known as the § 510(k) process, or (2) the PMA process. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 344-45, 148 L. Ed. 2d 854, 121 S. Ct. 1012 (2001). Under the § 510(k) process, if the FDA concludes on the basis of a manufacturer's premarket notification that the applicant's Class III medical device is "substantially equivalent" to a preexisting device, the MDA permits marketing of the device without further regulatory analysis. See 21 U.S.C. § 360e(b)(1)(B). The less stringent § 510(k) process only requires the manufacturer to submit limited information concerning the device, and the FDA spends only about 20 hours reviewing a solicitation submitted under this process. Buckman, 531 U.S. at 345-46; Lohr, 518 U.S. at 478-79.
On the other hand, for the PMA process, "[m]anufacturers must submit detailed information regarding the safety and efficacy of their devices, which the FDA then reviews, spending an average of 1,200 hours on each submission." Lohr, 518 U.S. at 477. Once the FDA has approved a medical device through the PMA process, the applicant is required to comply with the standards in the PMA approval order. 21 C.F.R. § 814.80 (2006). Any changes the applicant wishes to make must be submitted through an additional PMA supplement for approval. 21 C.F.R. § 814.39(a) (2006). The FDA has the power to withdraw approval of a medical device if it determines that the design of such a device does not conform with the applicable regulations. See 21 U.S.C. § 360e(e).
As previously noted, it is undisputed that the Closer is a Class III device that was subjected to the more rigorous PMA process before it was granted FDA approval. The vast majority of Class III medical devices, however, reach the market through the less rigorous § 510(k) premarket notification process. As noted by the court in Riegel:
"Indeed, from the FDA's website, it appears that in the fiscal year 2005, out of the 3,180 new Class III devices that were permitted to enter the market through either the § 510(k) or PMA processes, 3,148 of them went through the § 510(k) process and only 32 went through the PMA process. In other words, in 2005, approximately ninety-nine percent of such devices went through the § 510(k) process and only one percent went through the PMA process." 451 F.3d at 111-12.
The preemption provision
Congress attempted to shield medical devices from undue burdens imposed by differing state regulations by including in the MDA an express preemption provision, 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) (2000), which provides:
"(a) General rule
"Except as provided in subsection (b), no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement–
(1) which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter to the device, and
(2) which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under this chapter."
This provision appears straightforward, although its interpretation and application have proven otherwise. The FDA has promulgated regulations implementing § 360k(a), which state:
"State or local requirements are preempted only when the [FDA] has established specific counterpart regulations or there are other specific requirements applicable to a particular device under the act, thereby making any existing divergent State or local requirements applicable to the device different from, or in addition to, the specific [FDA] requirements." 21 C.F.R. § 808.1(d) (2006).
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) was interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, where the plaintiffs brought various state law tort claims regarding the design, manufacturing, and labeling of a pacemaker that had entered the market pursuant to the § 510(k) process. The Court unanimously determined there was no preemption on the negligent design claim because the FDA's "substantially equivalent" determination under the § 510(k) process did not amount to a specific federally enforceable design requirement that could not be affected by state law. The Court concluded that nothing in the statutory scheme or the legislative history suggested that the § 510(k) process was intended to do anything other than maintain the status quo, which included the possibility that a device's manufacturer would have to defend itself against state negligent design claims. 518 U.S. at 492-94.
In considering the manufacturing and labeling claims, however, the Court fractured over two issues regarding the interpretation of § 360k(a). First, the justices diverged over whether the reference to "requirements applicable under this Act" meant that only device-specific requirements could give rise to preemption, or instead meant that any general FDA requirements could give rise to preemption. A majority of five justices concluded that only federal device-specific requirements could give rise to preemption. 518 U.S. at 497-500. The majority held that because the only FDA manufacturing and labeling requirements that covered the pacemaker at issue were general in nature rather than device-specific, the plaintiffs' manufacturing and labeling claims were not preempted. By contrast, the remaining four justices concluded that even general FDA requirements could give rise to preemption. 518 U.S. at 511-14 (O'Conner, J., concurring in part; dissenting in part).
In addition to the 5-4 split over whether the applicable federal requirement needed to be device-specific, the justices also divided over whether a state "requirement," as that term is used in § 360k(a), could derive from state common law or only from state statutes and regulations. On this issue, a different majority of five justices concluded that § 360k(a) preempts any state common-law action, as well as any state statute or regulation, that would impose a requirement different from or in addition to that applicable under the MDA. 518 U.S. at 509-11 (O'Conner, J., concurring in part; dissenting in part). By contrast, the other four justices adopted the view that only state statutes and regulations would typically give rise to a state requirement for purposes of preemption under the MDA. 518 U.S. at 502-03.
In reaching the conclusion that § 360k(a) preempts state common-law actions that would impose different or additional requirements, the majority adopted its prior holding in Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 522. In Cipollone, the United States Supreme Court found that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) preempted state tort law claims, and the Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that common-law claims do not amount to positive enactments. "[C]ommon law damages actions of the sort raised by petitioner are premised on the existence of a legal duty and it is difficult to say that such provisions do not impose 'requirements or prohibitions.'" Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 522.
Thus, Lohr has established a two-pronged approach on the issue of preemption under § 360k of the MDA. First, on the federal side of the analysis, courts must consider whether there are any device-specific federal requirements with respect to the medical device at hand. If so, courts must then turn to the state side to determine whether there would be a conflict between that device-specific federal requirement and "any of the liability-creating premises of the plaintiffs' state-law tort suit." 518 U.S. at 508 (Breyer, J., concurring part and concurring in judgment). In Lohr, the Court left open the question in the present case, which is whether FDA approval pursuant to the PMA process for a Class III medical device constitutes imposition of a "device-specific federal requirement" within the meaning of § 360k(a), thereby preempting state law tort claims. 518 U.S. at 502-03.
Post-Lohr case law
Since Lohr, there has been a split in authority regarding whether § 360k(a) preempts state law tort claims in which damages are sought for alleged defective medical devices that have received PMA approval. The Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that claims regarding PMA-approved medical devices are preempted, at least as to common-law claims that allege the approved product design is defective or unreasonably dangerous or that allege the approved labeling or warnings are inadequate. See Riegel, 451 F.3d at 123; Cupek v. Medtronic, Inc., 405 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2005); McMullen v. Medtronic, Inc., 421 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2005); Horn v. Thoratec Corp., 376 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2004); Martin v. Medtronic, Inc., 254 F.3d 573 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied 534 U.S. 1078 (2002); Brooks v. Howmedica, Inc., 273 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2001), cert. denied 535 U.S. 1056 (2002); Kemp v. Medtronic, Inc., 231 F.3d 216 (6th Cir. 2000); Mitchell v. Collagen Corp., 126 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 1997). These circuits have all concluded that (1) approval through the PMA process, unlike the § 510(k) process, amounts to a federal device-specific requirement and (2) common-law tort actions that allege liability as to a PMA-approved device, notwithstanding that device's compliance with the PMA-approved standards, would conflict with that federal device-specific requirement.
However, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has reached a contrary conclusion. See Goodlin v. Medtronic, Inc., 167 F.3d 1367 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that the PMA process does not impose specific federal requirements because government permission to market a device does not fit within the preemptive provision of a requirement). The plaintiffs also cite Oja v. Howmedica, Inc., 111 F.3d 782, 789 (10th Cir. 1997), in which the court held that state common-law claims of negligent failure to warn and negligent manufacture were not state requirements "specifically developed 'with respect to' medical devices" and therefore were not preempted under § 360k(a). However, Oja involved a § 510(k)-approved Class II medical device and, thus, is clearly distinguishable from the present case. The court's analysis in Oja has been rejected by the majority of circuit courts in subsequent cases involving PMA-approved medical devices.
The decisions on both sides of the issue are well reasoned. Many of the decisions include dissenting opinions which indicate the courts' separation on this issue. "The substantive split among the circuit courts mirrors a methodological difference: the majority focuses on the rigor of the PMA process and often restrictive post-approval conditions, whereas the minority focus on congressional intent as expressed in the statute." Webster v. Pacesetter, Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2001)
Kansas case law
Kansas appellate courts have not addressed the specific issue of preemption under 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) of the MDA. However, the Kansas Supreme Court has determined that the requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq. (2000), preempts state common-law claims regarding a failure to warn. Jenkins v. Amchem Products, Inc., 256 Kan. 602, 625, 886 P.2d 869 (1994), cert. denied 516 U.S. 820 (1995). In Jenkins, a farmer brought a products liability action against herbicide manufacturers, alleging that his long-term use of a chemical caused or contributed to his development of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that FIFRA preempted state law claims based upon inadequate labeling and failure to warn.
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. 256 Kan. at 625, 637. Relying primarily on the United States Supreme Court holding in Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 522, the court determined that a common-law tort claim which challenged the labeling or packaging of products governed by FIFRA constituted a "requirement for labeling or packaging" barred by 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b) (1988). 256 Kan. at 618. The court concluded:
"[I]t is clear that § 136v(b) of FIFRA preempts state law damages actions which impose labeling requirements beyond the FIFRA requirements. Negligent failure to warn claims and strict liability failure to warn claims necessarily impose requirements concerning labeling because to avoid liability a manufacturer would alter the labels affixed to its products; therefore, such claims are preempted under FIFRA. . . . Because all failure to warn claims are preempted under FIFRA, plaintiff has no claim which survives preemption." Jenkins, 256 Kan. at 625.
While the holding in Jenkins does not control the outcome of this case, the language of the court's decision clearly supports Perclose's argument in favor of federal preemption. In Jenkins, the Kansas Supreme Court followed the majority view that a common-law tort claim can impose a "requirement" different from applicable federal regulations. Also, as to FIFRA, the court found clear evidence of Congressional intent to completely preempt state authority in regard to labeling and packaging. 256 Kan. at 614-15.
Application of Lohr's two-pronged test
We now turn to the primary issue of whether the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against Perclose based on federal preemption. Following the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Lohr, our analysis proceeds in two steps. First, we must consider whether a device such as the Closer which has obtained approval pursuant to the PMA process is subject to a federal device-specific requirement. Second, we must analyze the plaintiffs' tort claims to determine whether there is a conflict between that federal device-specific requirement and "any of the liability-creating premises of the [plaintiffs'] state-law tort suit." Lohr, 518 U.S. at 508 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
We agree with the majority of courts that have held that PMA-approved medical devices are subject to federal device-specific requirements. The majority view emphasizes the rigors of the FDA process and recognizes that "[a]pproval by the FDA constitutes approval of the product's design, testing, intended use, manufacturing methods, performance standards and labeling" and is "specific to the product." Mitchell, 126 F.3d at 913. The majority view emphasizes the thorough nature of the PMA process and concludes that the PMA process itself imposes federal device-specific requirements upon the manufacturer:
"There is no doubt that, as a practical reality, the PMA process imposed requirements that were specifically applicable to the [device], and that triggered preemption under § 360k(a). It imposed mandatory conditions–created through a decades-long process of correspondence, clinical testing and device alteration–pertaining to the [device's] manufacturing, packaging, storage, labeling, distribution and advertising. [Citations omitted.]" Horn, 376 F.3d at 170.
Here, in receiving approval for the Closer and its accessories, Perclose was subject to the rigorous PMA process. Through this process, Perclose was required to adhere to specific requirements in accordance with FDA rules and regulations. As part of the process for approval, the Closer, through its predecessors Prostar and Techstar, underwent extensive clinical investigations. In total, over 1,600 patients were studied at over 30 institutions in the United States and Europe over a span of 6 years, in order to establish both safety and efficacy. Before obtaining approval, Perclose was required to submit specific product design, testing, intended use, manufacturing methods, performance standards, and labeling information.
Subsequently, the FDA approved Perclose's PMA application for each of these areas; specifically the Closer's design, manufacturing methods, and warning labels. The FDA gave Perclose approval to distribute the Closer and its accessories, accompanied by the warning labels, subject to stated "Conditions of Approval." Had the conditions of approval not been met, Perclose would not have been allowed to distribute the Closer and its accessories. Moreover, once the Closer obtained PMA approval, Perclose could not make any changes which would affect the safety and effectiveness of the device without further FDA approval. At that point, the device was clearly subject to the federal device-specific requirements of the FDA.
As to the first prong of the Lohr test, the district court concluded:
"The question before this Court, is whether the PMA process imposed specific requirements on Defendant in its design, manufacturing methods, and warning labels for the Closer. Prior to the development of the Closer, Defendant, over a period of many years, developed the Prostar and the Techstar through the PMA process. Each of these devices, along with the Closer, were required to undergo extensive clinical investigation, including patient and clinical studies. The design and manufacturing methods, along with the warning labels, were submitted to determine safety and effectiveness, and to ensure compliance with FDA regulations. The results of these tests and investigations were submitted to the FDA for approval, which was granted.
"Therefore, the Court finds that as a result of the rigorous PMA process, and in order to gain FDA approval, Defendant was required to meet specific requirements pertaining to the Closer, thus satisfying the first prong of the Lohr test."
We agree with the district court that the Closer, as a PMA-approved device, was subject to federal device-specific requirements in terms of complying with the particular standards set forth by the FDA. Accordingly, the first prong of the Lohr test has been satisfied in determining whether the plaintiffs' claims against Perclose are barred by federal preemption.
We next consider whether the plaintiffs' tort claims would, if successful, result in state "requirements" that differ from or add to the federal standards. We conclude that they would. As we have previously discussed, the United States Supreme Court has determined that the reference in 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) to state "requirements" encompasses state common-law tort claims in addition to state statutes and regulations. See Lohr, 518 U.S. at 511 (O'Conner, J., concurring in part; dissenting in part); Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 522; see also Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 443, 161 L. Ed. 2d 687, 125 S. Ct. 1788 (2005) (Court determined that in interpreting the labeling and packaging provisions of FIFRA, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had correctly held that the term "requirements" in 7 U.S.C. § 136v[b] [2000] reaches beyond positive enactments, such as statutes and regulations, to embrace common-law duties).
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs claim that the word "requirement" in § 360k(a) should not encompass state common-law remedies or remedies under the KPLA. According to the plaintiffs, the preemption doctrine applies only to positive enactments imposed by states such as statutes or regulations and not to common-law claims in a court of law. The plaintiffs argue, for example, that even if a manufacturer of a medical device lost against a negligence claim at trial, there would be no rule of law that would mandate or require that the manufacturer do or refrain from doing anything except for paying damages to the injured party. The plaintiffs assert the manufacturer would be free to continue producing its medical device with the same design, instructions, and manufacturing techniques as before the jury verdict.
A similar argument was recently rejected by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Riegel. In that case, a cardiac patient sued the manufacturer of a balloon catheter used in his angioplasty, asserting state law claims including strict liability, breach of implied warranty, and negligent design, testing, inspection, distribution, labeling, marketing, sale, and manufacture. The balloon catheter had been subject to PMA approval. In upholding summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer based on federal preemption, the court concluded that the tort claims would, if successful, impose state requirements that differed from or added to the PMA-approved standards for the balloon catheter. In support of this analysis, the court stated:
"Indeed, a verdict in the Riegels' favor on any of these claims would represent a finding that the Evergreen Balloon Catheter [medical device] had not adhered to the various state common law duties implicated by those claims, e.g., that its design did not comport with the duty of due care, or that its labeling did not comport with the duty to warn. Such a verdict would clearly differ from the FDA's PMA approval of the device (and its related packaging, labeling, distribution, and so on) as being reasonably safe and effective, and, moreover, from the FDA's prohibition against making any modifications affecting the device's safety and effectiveness without first obtaining FDA approval.
. . . .
"In fact, it is unclear what a manufacturer of a PMA-approved medical device would do when faced with such a jury verdict on a plaintiff's common law claims, given that the manufacturer would nonetheless be unable to make any modifications affecting the device's safety and effectiveness without obtaining further FDA approval. Moreover, it is certainly conceivable that different juries would reach conflicting verdicts about the same medical devices, thus rendering it almost impossible for a device to comply simultaneously with its federal PMA (which, after all, can only change after an extensive process) and with the various verdicts issued by different juries around the country.'" 451 F.3d at 122.
We agree with the court's analysis in Riegel. The plaintiffs' argument that a tort claim does not constitute a requirement under § 360k(a) ignores the realities of the effect of a jury verdict on manufacturing and commerce. For example, if a jury in this case found the Closer was defectively designed and awarded substantial damages to the plaintiffs, Perclose would obviously want to modify the Closer's design to avoid potential adverse jury verdicts in other cases. However, the design already complies with all standards and conditions imposed by the FDA after years of testing and study. In fact, Perclose is not permitted to modify the Closer's design without further approval by the FDA. Clearly, a successful tort claim against Perclose as to the Closer's design would amount to a state requirement that differs from or adds to the PMA-approved standards for the Closer. The same conclusion can be reached concerning the plaintiffs' claims as to the manufacturing and labeling of the Closer. Accordingly, the second prong of the Lohr test has been satisfied.
For these reasons, we hold that state common-law tort claims alleging liability as to a PMA-approved Class III medical device are preempted by 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) (2000) of the MDA. We thus affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment to Perclose based on federal preemption. As we will discuss in the following section, however, federal preemption does not apply to a claim that the manufacturer of a medical device failed to comply with the approved federal standards in the design, manufacturing, and labeling of the medical device.
Failure to comply with approved federal standards
On appeal, the plaintiffs claim the district court erred in granting summary judgment on their claim that Perclose failed to comply with the approved federal standards in the design, manufacturing, and labeling of the Closer. The plaintiffs correctly assert that the MDA does not have any impact on claims that a manufacturer has failed to comply with the design, manufacturing process, and warning labels the manufacturer submits to the FDA. A manufacturer must abide by the FDA guidelines or face potential liability. The MDA clearly does not preempt state courts from hearing claims that a manufacturer violated the FDA requirements. "[W]hen a statute only preempts state requirements that are different from or in addition to those imposed by federal law, plaintiffs may still recover under state tort law when defendants fail to comply with the federal requirements." National Bank of Commerce v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 38 F.3d 988, 993 (8th Cir. 1994).
Perclose concedes that any claim that it failed to comply with FDA requirements in the design, manufacturing, and labeling of the Closer is not preempted by § 360k(a) of the MDA. However, Perclose maintains that the plaintiffs never asserted such a claim in district court. Thus, Perclose argues the plaintiffs cannot raise the claim for the first time on appeal. See Board of Lincoln County Comm'rs v. Nielander, 275 Kan. 257, 268, 62 P.3d 247 (2003).
A review of the record indicates that Perclose's assertion is correct. The plaintiffs' petition only alleged that Perclose was "negligent in its design, testing, inspection, manufacturing, sale, [and] warning post and pre-sale" of the Closer. The petition also alleged Perclose was strictly liable for the plaintiffs' injuries. However, the petition does not contain any allegations that Perclose failed to comply with FDA requirements. There is no mention in the record of any such claim until the plaintiffs filed their motion for reconsideration after the district court had granted summary judgment based on federal preemption.
Even if the plaintiffs' pleadings could be liberally construed to include a claim for noncompliance with federal standards, Perclose would still be entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiffs failed to come forward with any evidence to support such a claim. During discovery, Perclose submitted interrogatories requesting the plaintiffs to state the factual bases for any claims for relief. In their response, the plaintiffs did not provide any factual basis to support a claim against Perclose for failure to comply with approved federal standards. In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Doughty v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 258 Kan. 493, 496, 905 P.2d 106 (1995).
The plaintiffs complain that summary judgment was granted in this case before discovery was complete. "Ordinarily, a summary disposition motion of a pending case before the district court should not be granted until discovery is complete. [Citation omitted.]" Montoy v. State, 275 Kan. 145, 149, 62 P.3d 228 (2003). Nevertheless, a defendant moving for summary judgment is entitled to prevail if a plaintiff's claim is not supported by any evidence of negligence. A party cannot avoid summary judgment on the mere hope that something may develop later during discovery or at trial. Crooks v. Greene, 12 Kan. App. 2d 62, 66, 736 P.2d 78 (1987).
Here, the plaintiffs came forward with no evidence in district court supporting a claim that Perclose failed to comply with the approved federal standards in the design, manufacturing, and labeling of the Closer. The plaintiffs did not even properly assert such a claim in their pleadings. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are precluded from raising this issue on appeal, and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Perclose on all claims.


text:
Intel has just launched Sandy Bridge CPUs and two new motherboard chipsets on the eve of the Consumer Electronics Show (CES). The combination of the replacement for the LGA-1156 CPUs, the Sandy Bridge CPU integrates the graphics chip onto the processor chip itself, rather than on the same die but separate from the CPU. The LGA-1155 CPUs consist of three families the Core i7 with four cores and Hyper-Threading, the Core i5 with four cores and no Hyper-Threading and the i3 with two cores and Hyper-Threading.
The P67 chipset is the top of the line for Intel Sandy Bridge CPU support at the moment. This adds support for SATA 6 Gb/second per second ports, and more to the Intel motherboard line. The H67 chipset on the other hand, is designed to work with the integrated graphics on the Sandy Bridge CPUs and provide a tightly integrated system that only requires the keyboard, mouse, drives and memory besides the CPU and motherboard to make a full system perfect for HTPCs and casual gamers not wanting to buy external video cards.
ASUS of course is the number one manufacturer of motherboards in the world. With every new chipset from manufacturers like AMD and Intel and have done motherboards from others in the past like NVIDIA and VIA. With the launch of the P67 and H67 chipsets ASUS has gone into it full bore with a full lineup of both motherboards for different markets. Their 6 series chipsets have over 16 different models with different segments. Today's review is of the ASUS P8P67 Pro motherboard designed to be a mainstream board.


text:
Artificial intelligence: can computers think?
Boyd & Fraser Pub. Co., 1978 - Computers - 146 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Common terms and phrases
Academic Press algorithm analog computer answer applications approach approximate policies arithmetic artificial intelligence average axioms Bellman BIBLIOGRAPHY AND COMMENTS bility calculus of variations chapter chess COMMENTS Section complex concept consider Control Processes criterion function deal dealer determine device difficulty digital computer discussed dynamic programming effect example experience fast storage feasible fifteen puzzle foregoing functional equation fuzzy human humor idea important instinct interesting large number learning levels lever logic machine mathe mathematical analysis mathematical problems mathematical theory mathematician matical mean methods minimize minimum multistage decision process observe operations optimal policy paradox particular path patient pattern recognition play player possible precise probability distribution probability theory puter puzzles question rational behavior reasonable simple simulation situations solve stochastic stochastic approximation structure talking techniques tion uncertainty unknown variables W. V. O. Quine words York Zadeh


text:
Report: Badgers official groped student
MADISON, Wis. – A University of Wisconsin student alleged that an athletic department official grabbed his crotch at an alcohol-fueled party during the football team's trip to the Rose Bowl, according to an independent report released by the school on Tuesday night.
The report says the student alleges former senior associate athletics director John Chadima put his hand down the student's pants at the end of a party in Chadima's suite at a Los Angeles hotel on Dec. 31.
The student – identified only as John Doe in the report – said he was "shocked and frightened" and slapped Chadima's hand away.
Chadima was put on administrative leave on Jan. 6 and resigned the same day. He previously had issued an apology for a "lapse in judgment," and issued another statement through his attorney Tuesday.
"I make no excuses and have come to the realization that over the past few months, alcohol had controlled and consumed my life," Chadima said. "I am taking steps to correct that problem in my life at this time. I will take full responsibility for my lack of judgment and actions that evening."
The report said its findings were based on interviews with 23 people, including students and professional staff – but they were "unable to arrange an interview" with Badgers football coach Bret Bielema.
Three student employees of the athletic department declined to be interviewed.
The report also reviewed information from Chadima's office computer and school-issued cell phone.
Chadima declined to speak with the panel.
The report said Chadima hosted a bowl game party for staff and student employees for at least the past four years. The most recent party began Dec. 30 and lasted into the early morning hours of Dec. 31, at Chadima's hotel suite. According to the report, Chadima provided "alcohol, beer and mixers" and guests were invited to serve themselves. Some of the guests were under age 21.
Somewhere between 1:30 and 2 a.m., the alleged victim was leaving along with the last few people left at the party when he said Chadima asked him to "stay here and have a drink with me." The alleged victim said he and Chadima both had several more drinks and "probably were intoxicated" but were coherent and in control of their physical movements.
According to the report, Chadima then said he thought the student was gay and said some of the other student employees thought he was gay. The student said it made him "uncomfortable and defensive."
The student then said Chadima reached over and removed the student's belt, putting his hands inside the student's pants and touching his genitals. The student said he slapped Chadima's hand away and swore at him.
At that point, the student said Chadima said he thought the student liked it, asking "What are you going to do about it?" and saying "I could have you fired."
The student said he quickly left the room, and Chadima seemed to want to gloss over the incident as "just joking around."


text:
Loyola at a Glance
Subscribe to our Newsroom RSS feed | What is RSS?
Follow Loyola University New Orleans on Twitter
Georgia rockers the Black Lips to speak at Loyola
February 8, 2013
Georgia garage/punk rock band the Black Lips will speak about the modern-day music industry at a forum at Loyola University New Orleans Monday, Feb. 25 at 5 p.m. Moderated by Instructor of Music Industry Studies Billy O'Connell, the forum will also address how the band gained success and their tour of the Middle East.
The event is free, open to the public and will take place in Nunemaker Auditorium in Monroe Hall. For those unable to attend in person, the forum will be available via live streaming on Loyola's website.
A rough mishmash of blues, rock, doo-wop, country and punk, the Black Lips have slowly built a fan base that appreciates their energy and style. Since their founding in 2000, they have gone through several incarnations, and the current roster includes bassist Jared Swilley, drummer Joe Bradley, guitarist Ian Saint Pé and vocalist/guitarist Cole Alexander.
Their debut full-length album, "Black Lips!" was released on Bomp! Records in 2003, and the group has since gone on to release numerous records. Currently signed to VICE Records, The Black Lips have completed multiple tours around the U.S., Asia and Europe. In 2007, they traveled to Israel and Palestine to play for Israeli radio.
The event is part of the student-organized "Get Inforumed" series, a weekly forum throughout the spring featuring experienced music professionals from across the industry. Each event is designed to excite the community of creative minds and art entrepreneurs through conversations with the most experienced, sincere and relatable professionals in the industry.
For more information, contact Lukas Cox.
For the latest updates about Loyola University New Orleans, follow us on Twitter @LoyolaNOLANews or become a fan on Facebook at www.facebook.com/loyno.
Loyola at a Glance is written and distributed for the faculty, staff, students and friends of Loyola University New Orleans. It is published by the Office of Public Affairs, Greenville Hall, Box 909, 7214 St. Charles Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118. (504) 861-5888.
Information to be included in Loyola at a Glance must be received 2-3 weeks in advance of the publication date. Send us your news here.


text:
DIY Guitar Pick Punch
Punch your own picks!
- Turn almost anything into a guitar pick - with one simple punch.
- Guitar pick punched is similar to a standard 351 style pick.
- Punch a pick and then rock the night away!
Guitar picks are small, and we have to admit, sometimes we lose 'em. And sometimes, you just discover you need one at the strangest times (impromptu flashmob jam sessions, raucous children's parties, boring company meetings, etc.). Well, the good news is: if you have a DIY Guitar Pick Punch and some imagination, you'll never be without a guitar pick again.
Just insert the material you want a pick out of into the DIY Guitar Pick Punch, and... well... squeeze. Instant guitar pick! Make them out of expired credit cards, those grocery store club cards, plastic packaging material, and more! Hey, want to get super DIY-ey? Then punch a few thin picks and glue them together into the ultimate pick of density. Keep a DIY Guitar Pick Punch in your gigbag, and you'll never be without a pick again. Now, if only someone can invent a guitar punch for punching out fully-functional guitars!
DIY Guitar Pick Punch
- Never be without a guitar pick again - just punch your own!
- Can punch a variety of materials - up to 0.9mm thick!
- Punch a few slimmer picks and glue them together for a truly custom pick experience.
- Pick Dimensions: similar to a 351 style picks - approx. 1.1875" (30mm) x 1.0625" (25.5mm)
- Punch Dimensions: approx. 6" x 1.25" x 4.25"


text:
On This Week in Tennis Phil is joined by Professional Photographer/Tennis Blogger Craig Doyle. Please listen in as they discuss Marcos Baghdatis, the WTA's new grunting policy, the China Open, the Rukaten Japen Open Tennis Championships, the Shanghai Masters and the Weekly Joker Report.
To listen to the program from the site please click the link provided below. To save this program to your portable listening device please right click the link below and select "save as".
To nominate This Week in Tennis for podcast of the year please visit www.podcastawards.com scroll down to sports, enter The Phil Naessens Show and then feed which is http://www.thisweekintennispodcast.wordpress.com/
Craig Doyle's website is here. You can follow Craig on Twitter @cdtennisblog
For your free book download and free trial please visit;http://www.audibletrial.com/flashtennis
This Week in Tennis Facebook Page is here
Check out the brand new Phil Naessens Media site here
This Week in Tennis is now on Max Sports Channels
This Week in Tennis is now on itunes. You can subscribe here
This Week in Tennis can also be downloaded on Zunes here and Stitcher here. The program is also available at Miro Guide here
Follow Phil on Twitter @flashtennis31
Views: 31
© 2019 Created by Mark / The Mayor. Powered by


text:
Larry Jason Somera, West Linn, Oregon, has been ordered, in an ongoing effort to better protect Oregon mortgage borrowers from fraud, by the Department of Consumer and Business Services, to cease and desist permanently from the mortgage lending industry after he pleaded guilty in Multnomah County Court to one count of forgery. Somera agreed to sign the state's order as part of his plea agreement.
As a branch manager for Northwest Funding Group, Portland, Oregon, Somera forged another person's signature on a document to support rental income in order to obtain a personal mortgage loan. He was sentenced in December by Multnomah County Judge Michael J. McShane to five years of probation, and was ordered to compensate the victim – the person who Somera victimized by forging his signature – with $1,500, and complete 200 hours of community service.
Somera has been a loan originator for several mortgage brokers in Oregon and Washington since 2003 including Comcor Corp., dba Cyber One Mortgage, and American Pacific Mortgage Corp. Somera also was the manager of West Coast Capital LLC, a company he created.
"Oregonians should be able to expect the highest professional and ethical standards when working with a mortgage lender and loan originators," said David Tatman, administrator of the department's Division of Finance and Corporate Securities. "We will not allow persons who breach those standards to work in the Oregon mortgage lending industry."
The state's order concludes a joint investigation conducted by the Portland Police Bureau, Multnomah County District Attorney, and DFCS investigators.
With additional staff provided by the 2008 Legislature, the Department of Consumer and Business Services has stepped up its enforcement efforts in mortgage lending. In 2008, the department issued sanctions in 49 mortgage lending cases, including fines totaling $278,500 and 11 cases in which it revoked a license or prohibited an individual from conducting mortgage business in Oregon.


text:
The Louisiana Office of Tourism is offering DMO partners the opportunity to buy a badge in the Louisiana booth at the 2014 U.S. Travel Association IPW, April 5 – 9, in Chicago. The cost per badge is $3,000, which includes booth-share status, shared appointments and all official meals and functions. The buy-in does not include travel expenses nor access to the Media Marketplace. The deadline to apply for one of nine slots is Oct. 18. If interested, contact Mike Prejean at firstname.lastname@example.com or 225.342.4354.
If you have comments or suggestions for future issues of Travel Pulse, contact Jay Tusa at email@example.com or 225.342.8142.


text:
John W. Kasper, PGA
John Kasper, PGA ** Instruction "Trick Shots from China" and 2014 featured Final Day Speaker, China Golf Show on Junior Golf Learning Theories
Main Address:
John Kasper, PGA ** Certified Teaching Professional has been playing golf for over forty years and teaching golf professionally for over twenty. With a degree in Psychology from Northern Arizona University and having graduated from the PGA Golf Professional Training Program, John has the extensive education and experience in Golf Instruction to help all students of the game to play your best golf. Only 2% of all PGA members have achieved the prestigious level of education, Certified Teaching Professional. Having taught more than 30,000 Professional Lessons and having developed many Celebrity Champions and Amateur Champions, such as Junior PGA Masters, High School All State selections, and a Collegiate All American, John feels fortunate to be able to teach and play Golf Professionally. He will quickly demonstrate his passion and commitment to improving a student's skill sets in Golf. Professional playing experience in Mini Tours such as the Taylor Made and the Srixon Series. John has the patients and the experience to coach all golfers to reach their potential. On the Lesson Tee John has the ability to demonstrate all skills, drills, and motions that are specific to each individual's unique style and needs. Building upon each students strengths and targeting their weakness to objectively measure and achieve total game improvement. Having been employed and trained by World Class Teaching Professionals, John Jacobs and Jimmy Ballard Golf Schools, this unique background creates planed performance objectives with each student to and starts by measuring strengths and weaknesses to develop an individual action plan for each student to play their best golf. Using a High Speed Camera, High Definition Monitor and the latest V 1 Online Coaching System with current PGA and LPGA Tour Models, these systems enhance visual and audio retention of what was learned and demonstrated with on-line Internet documentation.
Services Offered:
- Trade-In Network
- Club Fitting
- Play Golf of America Participant
National Awards
- 2009 PGA President's Council on Growing the Game
- 2008 PGA President's Council on Growing the Game
- 2007 PGA President's Council on Growing the Game
- 2006 PGA President's Council on Growing the Game
- 2005 PGA President's Council on Growing the Game
PGA of America Championships
Bethpage State Park, Black Course
Farmingdale, New York
Oak Hill Country Club
Rochester, New York
Hazeltine National Golf Club
Chaska, Minnesota
Bluffton, South Carolina
Whistling Straits
Kohler, Wisconsin


text:
Nubber Duckie is my pet Rubber Duck. I have had him for a long time and decided to get him his own blog so that he wouldn't feel left out. Some people may thing I'm a whack job, but it's way funner than you may think. I have wanted to star him a blog for a really long time and finally got around to doing it.
And so now I give you the Nubber Duckie Website.
He will be posting allot of pictures and all about his stories of his *EXCITING* life as a duckie in Vegas.
I also think his blog would be cool for little kids to go read. Lolz.
Go check it out.
Cait Hagar


text:
Cara's West Coast Salmon with Pineapple Salsa
Author: Cara
Recipe type: Entree
Prep time:
Cook time:
Total time:
Serves: 6
Our last taste of California Cuisine of salmon glazed with Thai sweet chili sauce, soy sauce, mustard, and lime juice. Topped with pineapple salsa.
- 1 2.5-3lb salmon filet (we used wild-caught Alaskan sockeye) skin on
- 3 limes
- ½ cup Thai sweet chili sauce
- ¼ cup soy sauce
- 2 Tbs Dijon mustard
- 1 pineapple
- Rice for serving
- Cut pineapple into bite sized pieces and set aside. Position oven rack 4-5" below broiler. Heat broiler on high.
- Place salmon on foil-lined rimmed baking sheet sprayed with oil.
- Combine juice of the limes, chili sauce, soy sauce, and mustard. Divide glaze in half.
- Use one half to baste the salmon and set the other half aside. Baste salmon with glaze and broil for 4 minutes.
- Continue reglazing the salmon every 3-4 minutes until the glaze is well caramelized and fish flakes easily.
- Serve sections of fish with rice and pineapple chunks, drizzling with reserved glaze.


text:
Don't see your question? Visit our help section.
Get access to great in-store deals and local pick-up
Sign up for our email deals newsletter!
The biggest first-person action series of all time and the follow-up to last year's blockbuster Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 returns with Call of Duty: Black Ops.
Call of Duty: Black Ops will take you behind enemy lines as a member of an elite special forces unit engaging in covert warfare, classified operations, and explosive conflicts across the globe. With access to exclusive weaponry and equipment, your actions will tip the balance during the most dangerous time period mankind has ever known.
Cinematic Single Player Campaign
An epic campaign and story that takes you to a variety of locations and conflicts all over the world where if you are caught, captured or killed, your country will disavow all knowledge of your existence.
Signature Multiplayer
Call of Duty's signature multiplayer gameplay returns with new perks and killstreaks, deeper levels of character and weapon customization, and all new modes including:
Fan favorite Zombie mode is back providing endless hours of Zombie-slaying entertainment, solo or Co-Op
If you are a fan of the Call of Duty franchise, check out all the latest Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, games and accessories available for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PC and Digital Download.
If you are a fan of the Call of Duty franchise, be sure to check out the latest Call of Duty Ghostsgames and accessories for the Xbox 360, PS3, and PC.


text:
NEW YORK, N.Y. - No offence to Cinderella, but she sort of had it backwards. The shoe should be at the end of the to-do list for a wedding fairy tale.
After the engagement, first consider the venue, then the dress — then the shoes and other accessories, experts say. Collectively, they should have a complementary vibe.
"It's all a picture that comes together," says gown designer Reem Acra.
No flip-flops for a formal setting and dress, and satin pumps would be silly on the beach.
Tanya Dukes, accessories editor at Brides magazine, suggests these practical questions:
—How high for the heel? Think of the proportions of the dress, how tall you'll stand and if you are used to wearing heels at all, she says.
—Is the wedding outside? A lawn wedding, for example, could be trouble for a spiky heel. A wedge would fare better.
—How formal is the occasion? Fabric matters here. "Satin is the traditional choice, and it's a safe bet," Dukes says.
And then there's deciding whether you ever want to wear the shoes again.
"Most women don't wear their bridal shoes again not because they're not wearable, but because they're a memento," says footwear designer Stuart Weitzman, who got his start in business in bridal more than 25 years ago. "I make every bridal shoe in dyeable satin, so you could wear them again, but you'd lose the memento, and then you'd wear those dyed shoes once and ruin those 'bridal shoes.' Most women never throw them out."
Weitzman says his success in this market is due partly to an observation by Judith Leiber, founder of the famous beaded bag collection, who noted an "ugly bluish tone" to most wedding shoes. He created a pair out of Swiss lace, won a design award for them and the rest is history.
He sees as much variety in wedding-shoe styles as he does on the street: Women want sandals, stilettos, platforms and lace booties, but the traditional pump is the most popular.
Shoes often spend most of the big day covered by the gown's hemline, but they can be a glimpse of the bride's personality. The moment the shoes will probably get the most attention is right before she kicks them off to dance, says Acra with a laugh.
Crafting a head-to-toe mood is a delicate balancing act between modernity and timelessness, she explains. Now, the shoe? That's a place to have a little fun.
"If I have a bride in the showroom, I might say, 'Why not an orange shoe?'" Acra says. "It's fun to have something different. I love playing with shoes. I really prefer colored shoes or something with bling or fun."
Metallics are a good middle-of-the-road option, as is blush pink, and even black is doable, especially if you add a black ribbon sash around the waist of the dress.
"I do think more out-of-the-box choices will be revisited and worn again," says Brides' Dukes. "Maybe something with a lot of colour, you're more likely to wear that again, like a red shoe, or cowboy boots or sneakers."
She adds, however: "If you want the memento, your Cinderella slipper, and you want to keep them pristine, then white is a valid choice."
There is more variety now than ever in gown silhouettes — including shorter cocktail dresses, asymmetrical high-low hemlines, slim columns and mermaid shapes, in addition to the ballskirt — and that does mean almost endless choices in footwear.
Bring multiple pairs of shoes to gown fittings to explore the options, recommends Acra, who chooses the overall look for models in her bridal runway shows and personally consults with some private clients.
The most important thing, as with all decisions on the bride's look, is that she is happy and comfortable in it, Acra says. "When you're walking down the aisle, really no one will be looking at your shoe. But you'll remember what you were wearing, and if it was bright red, when you talk to your children 20 years later, you can say, 'I was ahead of my time.'"


text:
Major Section: ACL2 Documentation
In ACL2, a ``single-threaded object'' is a data structure whose use is so syntactically restricted that only one instance of the object need ever exist and its fields can be updated by destructive assignments.
The documentation in this section is laid out in the form of a tour that visits the documented topics in a reasonable order. We recommend that you follow the tour the first time you read about stobjs. The list of all stobj topics is shown below. The tour starts immediately afterwards.
counters stobj
counters stobj
counters stobj
From the logical perspective, a single-threaded object is an ordinary ACL2 object, e.g., composed of integers and conses. Logically speaking, ordinary ACL2 functions are defined to allow the user to ``access'' and ``update'' its fields. Logically speaking, when fields in the object, obj, are ``updated'' with new values, a new object, obj', is constructed.
But suppose that by syntactic means we could ensure that there were
no more references to the ``old'' object, obj. Then we could
create obj' by destructively modifying the memory locations
involved in the representation of obj. The syntactic means is
pretty simple but draconian: the only reference to obj is in
the variable named
The consequences of this simple rule are far-reaching and require
some getting used to. For example, if
OBJ has been declared as a
single-threaded object name, then:
OBJ is a top-level global variable that contains the current
object, obj.
* If a function uses the formal parameter
OBJ, the only
``actual expression'' that can be passed into that slot is the variable
OBJ, not merely a term that ``evaluates to an obj'';
thus, such functions can only operate on the current object. So for
example, instead of
(FOO (UPDATE-FIELD1 3 ST)) write
* The accessors and updaters have a formal parameter named
thus, those functions can only be applied to the current object.
* The ACL2 primitives, such as
CAR and
CDR, may not
be applied to the variable
OBJ. Thus, for example, obj may not
be consed into a list (which would create another pointer to it) or
accessed or copied via ``unapproved'' means.
* The updaters return a ``new
OBJ object'', i.e., obj'; thus, when
an updater is called, the only variable which can hold its result is
* If a function calls an
OBJ updater, it must return an
OBJ object.
* When a top-level expression involving
OBJ returns an
object, that object becomes the new current value of
What makes ACL2 different from other functional languages supporting such operations (e.g., Haskell's ``monads'' and Clean's ``uniqueness type system'') is that ACL2 also gives single-threaded objects an explicit axiomatic semantics so that theorems can be proved about them. In particular, the syntactic restrictions noted above are enforced only when single-threaded objects are used in function definitions (which might be executed outside of the ACL2 read-eval-print loop in Common Lisp). The accessor and update functions for single-threaded objects may be used without restriction in formulas to be proved. Since function evaluation is sometimes necessary during proofs, ACL2 must be able to evaluate these functions on logical constants representing the object, even when the constant is not ``the current object.'' Thus, ACL2 supports both the efficient von Neumann semantics and the clean applicative semantics, and uses the first in contexts where execution speed is paramount and the second during proofs.
To start the stobj tour, see stobj-example-1.


text:
MizzimaBurmese reports that those who got arrested by just watching the protests can go free if their homes come and pay a deposit of 200,000 kyats (about US$ 200).
UP-TO-DATE BURMA SITUATION REPORTS: Here, we present you most updated news about current ongoing genocide in Burma/Myanmar. Translated into English for international viewers from many Burmese/Myanmar blogs and informers from within the country. Our hero reporters are risking their lives to get and to submit this information. For updated pictures, please see original sources listed in the right column.
MizzimaBurmese reports that those who got arrested by just watching the protests can go free if their homes come and pay a deposit of 200,000 kyats (about US$ 200).
Leave your comments here.
Genocide in Burma (Myanmar) A genocide has currently been going on in Burma for over 40 years under military government. People get arrested, tortured, lost jobs, lost licenses, abused, killed, and unfairly treated for believing in democracy. Justice is a dream in Burma.
What are "International War Crime Tribunals"? International war crimes tribunals are courts of law established to try individuals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Who should be put on trial at International War Crime Tribunals? Criminals who committed crimes that include use of outlawed weapons; intentionally bombing schools, hospitals, mosques and churches; killing after a cease-fire; and starvation of citizens.
MASS MURDERERS = ThanShwe = Binladin = SadamHusein = Milosevic = Hitler
Our Bloggers: There are bloggers, who has been updating blogs, risking their lives, jobs, businesses, and even families, for you, for the world to know. This is an effort so far as we can do to translate up-to-minute news from all different sources within Myanmar. You are the heroes, NikNayman, MMEdWatch team, KoHtike, and SoneSeaYar teams! The world thank you!
Write to UN: Send your demand to send UN forces or NATO forces to Burma. Most military men wants a good leadership. But they are ordered to do anything. The world is a family now. Will you just stand there if your family member being attacked, abused, and killed? Click here to write to UN.


text:
Facts About Puerto Rico
Administrative Divisions: None (Commonwealth associated with the U.S.); there are no first-order administrative divisions as defined by the U.S. Government, but there are 78 municipalities. Municipalities are further subdivided into barrios, and those into sectors.
A municipality (municipio) is an administrative local area generally composed of a clearly defined territory and commonly referring to a city, town, or village government. In Puerto Rico, a municipality is a city and the government unit that is the primary legal subdivision; each municipality has an elected mayor. However, the Census Bureau treats the municipio as the statistical equivalent of a county.
Other territories include: Mona (5,517 hectares), Monito (15 hectares), Desecheo (122 hectares), and Caja de Muertos (202 hectares). Numerous other small cays lie offshore of Puerto Rico.
Mona and Monito are located between Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. These small islands are considered the Galápagos Islands of the Caribbean Sea. No other reef and offshore island habitat within U.S. jurisdiction possesses such ecological uniqueness, invaluable habitat, and biological diversity within such a reduced surface area. For these reasons, Mona and Monito Islands have been recognized by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a Natural Reserve. The islands are a critical habitat of endangered marine turtles, sea birds and occasional migratory marine mammals.
Major Cities:
San Juan, Ponce, Caguas, Mayagüez, Bayamón, Carolina, Arecibo, Guaynabo, Cayey, Aguadilla, and Fajardo.
Metropolitan Area:
San Juan, Bayamón, Carolina, Guaynabo, Trujillo Alto and Caguas.
Climate: The climate is Tropical Marine, Puerto Rico enjoys year round summer temperatures, an average annual temperature of 80°F (26°C).
Time Zone: Atlantic Standard Time (AST), which is one hour later (+1) than Eastern Standard Time (EST) and four hours earlier (-4) than Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Puerto Rico does not observe Daylight Savings Time.
Atlantic Standard Time (AST, GMT-4, Zone Q), which comprises Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
What is the current local time now in Puerto Rico?
Sunrise/Sunset Average: 6:54 am to 6:21 pm
Because of the latitude of Puerto Rico the sun is high overhead all year, there are no great variations from day to day between the times of sunrise and sunset.
Interesting Fact
Spanish or Castilian (español or castellano) is, like French, Portuguese, Italian, an Iberian Romance language, derived from Latin. Spanish is a phonetic language, words are pronounced exactly as they are spelled.
Language: Spanish and English are the official languages, but Spanish is without a doubt the dominant language. English is spoken by about 1/4 of the population-with limited capabilities. English is required in all federal matters. English is spoken in all major tourist areas (80% Spanish, 20% other).
National Holiday: November 19 (The Discovery of Puerto Rico
All U.S. government holidays are celebrated in Puerto Rico. Additionally, there are nine local holidays, which usually honor important leaders or events in the island's history. Government offices, banks, the post office and most stores are closed on the official holidays.
National Hymn (Anthem): "La
The national hymn reflects the character of the people very accurately. The air, "La Borinqueña ", recalls the island's Indian past. It was originally a dance measure. Now in a slower tone, and the orchestration of Ramón Collado, the Puerto Rican anthem has a gracious, melancholic tone, agreeably free of the bombast that often characterizes national anthem.
National Bird: Reina Mora
Spindalis portoricensis (formerly called the Stripe-headed Tanager (Spyndalis zena portoricensis))
National Flower: Flor de Maga
Puerto Rican hibiscus (Thespesia grandiflora; Maga grandiflora; Montezuma)
National Tree: Ceiba
Silk-cotton tree (ceiba pentandra)
National Symbol:
While the coqui -a tiny frog found everywhere in the island- is only an "unofficial national symbol", its image figures prominently in Puerto Rican culture and heritage.
Interesting Fact
When Puerto Ricans want to express their nationality, they say: Soy de aquí como el coquí (I'm as Puerto Rican as a coquí).
Motto: Joannes Est Nomen Eius (John is his name)
Tourism Motto: Puerto Rico lo hace mejor! (Puerto Rico does it better!)
For more, read the most frequently asked questions.
- Explorer's Guide San Juan, Vieques & Culebra: A Great Destination
- Puerto Rico's Birds in Photographs (Photo source: Spindalis portoricensis)
- Fodor's Puerto Rico (Fodor's Puerto Rico)
- Moon Puerto Rico
- National Geographic Adventure Map Puerto Rico
- Puerto Rico Fly & Drive Map - It includes a list of attractions to visit per region!
- Puerto Rico Map Source: Frommer's Puerto Rico, 5th Edition
Other Resources
- Porto [Puerto] Rico, 1920 Map from Putnam's Handy Volume Atlas of the World.
- Silk Cotton Tree (Photo source: Silk cotton tree)
- Department of Botany and Plant Pathology - Dr. Gerald (Gerry) Carr (Photo source: Puerto Rican hibiscus)
- Sunrise and Sunset in San Juan


text:
Promark Jonathan Haas Timpani MalletsJH1 GreensThe greens are the most articulate with a very hard felt head excellent for performing early classical...Click To Read More About This Product
Promark Jonathan Haas Timpani Mallets
JH1 Greens
The greens are the most articulate with a very hard felt head excellent for performing early classical compositions.JH2 Reds
The reds are also a hard felt mallet useful for all performing situations They provide the timpanist with a complementary choice of hard mallets. One degree harder than white felt.JH3
The JH3 are the hardest of the white felt mallets. They produce a warm and resonant tone yet the small head can be used for pas-sages that need to be defined.JH4
The general purpose mallet of the series. They have the weight to play loud, the softness to play soft, and the balance needed to control the speed and accuracy of the mallets.JH5
They are larger than normal general purpose mallets which is needed for that extra volume to bring the orchestra in, and bring the house down.JH6 Rollers
This mallet provides the lushness and warmth that is essential for your long rolls.JH7 Woods
These mallets require very little effort in order to produce a full and brilliant tone.The mallets are also designed to help mini-mize "dings" in the timpani heads.Jonathan Haas
He is the principal timpanist of the New York Chamber Symphony, Aspen Chamber Orchestra, principal percussionist of the American Symphony Orchestra and is a member of the American Composers Orchestra. Since 1984 he has been on faculty at the Peabody Institute.
Our product catalog varies by country due to manufacturer restrictions. If you change the Ship-To country, some or all of the items in your cart may not ship to the new destination.


text:
Dear visitor, welcome to SPRINKLER TALK FORUM - You Got Questions, We've Got Answers. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains how this page works. You must be registered before you can use all the page's features. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Wednesday, November 5th 2003, 7:38pm
Thursday, November 6th 2003, 4:23am
Tuesday, November 11th 2003, 2:09pm
Tuesday, November 11th 2003, 2:11pm
Supreme Member
Location: USA
Wednesday, November 12th 2003, 6:13am
Supreme Member
Location: USA
Wednesday, November 12th 2003, 6:14am
Monday, November 17th 2003, 3:55am
Friday, November 21st 2003, 2:04pm
Friday, November 21st 2003, 2:18pm
Saturday, November 22nd 2003, 3:53am


text:
You're unable to add anyone new to your family on Xbox One.
Solution 1: Make sure you're using an adult account
You must be using an adult account to add a member to your family. Children and teens will need to get a current adult family member to add the new person.
Solution 2: Make sure the new person isn't part of another family
An account can only be a member of one family at a time. To find out if someone is already in a family:
1. Have the person you're trying to add to your family sign in on their console and go to Family (press the Xbox button to open the guide, select All Settings, and then select Family. Or, have them sign in to their Microsoft account and select Family from the menu).
2. If any accounts are listed there, the person is currently in a family and must be removed from that family before they can be added to a different family.
Note Individuals can't remove themselves from a family through the Xbox One console—this can only be done by another adult in the same family. However, the person can remove themselves through their Microsoft account in a web browser.
The new family will now be able to invite the new person to join.
Thanks for your feedback!
Provide feedback for this topic
Would you like to contact Support regarding the "You can't add someone to your family on Xbox One" issue you were reading about or a different issue?


text:
Welcome to Focus on the Family Malaysia Online!
Visit our bookstore:
Our Opening Hours:
Note: In support of the local community in Malaysia, we only accept payment from local bank accounts (including debit and credit cards) and ship to a local address.
Gift Items
Last Updated: Wednesday, 19 June 2019 11:57