text:
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Jean Joseph Deeb, Defendant-appellant, 13 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1994)Annotate this Case
Neal R. Lewis, Miami, FL, Terence J. Anderson, The University of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, FL, for defendant-appellant.
Laurence M. Barfeld, Linda Collins Hertz, Carol Herman, Miami, FL, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before CARNES, Circuit Judge, FAY* and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judges.
CARNES, Circuit Judge:
Jean Joseph Deeb was convicted of importation and possession of cocaine. At his trial, the evidence against him included testimony that a co-conspirator had given at a prior trial at which Deeb was neither present nor represented. We conclude that the testimony from the prior trial was admissible under the residual hearsay exception and that its admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Accordingly, we affirm Deeb's conviction.
In August 1988, agents of the United States Customs Service inspected a coastal freighter that had recently arrived from Haiti at a Miami shipyard. They discovered a substantial quantity of cocaine in the freighter's forward ballast tanks. Assisted by agents of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Customs agents kept the freighter under continuous surveillance. They observed the freighter's crew transferring boxes from the freighter to a van. Agents followed the van to a duplex in northwest Miami where they saw two individuals unload some of the boxes and carry them into the duplex. The van, with the remaining boxes, was left parked outside.
The agents watched the duplex, the van, and any individual who had contact with either. Later, as several individuals attempted to leave with the van, the agents arrested seven individuals who had had significant contact with the van and the boxes. Deeb and Serge Biamby were among those arrested. The agents found a total of approximately 491 kilograms of cocaine in the boxes.
On August 31, 1988, a grand jury issued an indictment against all seven of those arrested. Deeb and Biamby were charged with knowingly and intentionally importing and conspiring to import cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a) (1) and (b), 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and with knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute and conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1), 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The other five individuals were charged with related crimes arising from the same facts. Biamby and two other defendants agreed to cooperate with the Government. Biamby pled guilty to one count of importing cocaine, in exchange for which the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the remaining charges against him and agreed that his cooperation could be used as a basis for a downward departure at sentencing. Biamby was later sentenced to five years imprisonment and five years of supervised release.
Deeb and the remaining defendants were scheduled to stand trial in July 1989, but Deeb failed to appear. The Government moved to try him in absentia. The district court denied the motion, severed the charges against Deeb, and proceeded with the trial against the remaining defendants. Biamby testified at that trial. Neither Deeb nor his counsel was present for any part of that trial.
In February 1990, authorities apprehended Deeb in the Dominican Republic and brought him to Miami for trial. Two months later the Government disclosed that Biamby was terminally ill with AIDS and was suffering progressive memory deterioration. The Government moved for permission to depose Biamby on videotape for the purpose of introducing the tape at Deeb's trial. Over Deeb's objection, the district court authorized the deposition, which was held on May 24, 1990. At the deposition, the Government questioned Biamby about Deeb's involvement in the crime, and Deeb, through counsel, cross-examined Biamby. On July 3, 1990, the Government filed a memorandum indicating that it would move at Deeb's trial to admit Biamby's testimony from the trial of the codefendants in July 1989.
Deeb was tried in December 1990. As part of its case against Deeb, the Government showed Biamby's videotaped deposition to the jury. Deeb did not object to the introduction of the videotaped deposition and, in this appeal, does not contend that its admission was erroneous. During the presentation of its case against Deeb, the Government moved to introduce Biamby's direct-examination testimony from the July 1989 trial of the codefendants, and over Deeb's objection, the district court admitted that testimony. Because neither the Government nor Deeb moved to introduce Biamby's cross-examination testimony from the former trial, that testimony was not admitted.
After the close of the evidence, the jury found Deeb guilty. The district court sentenced him to 270 months imprisonment and ten years of supervised release.
This Court reviews a district court's admission of former testimony for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lang, 904 F.2d 618, 624 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924, 111 S. Ct. 305, 112 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1990).
The district court relied on Fed.R.Evid. 801(d) (1) (B), 804(b) (1), and 804(b) (5) as authority for allowing the Government to introduce Biamby's former testimony. Deeb argues that Biamby's testimony was not admissible under any of these rules and that its admission violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. We will address Deeb's evidentiary and constitutional challenges in turn.
The district court apparently accepted the Government's argument that Biamby's former testimony was admissible at Deeb's trial under Rule 801(d) (1) (B) as a prior statement by Biamby that was consistent with his deposition testimony and that was offered to rebut Deeb's express charge of "recent fabrication or improper influence or motive." Rule 801(d) (1) (B) provides:
(d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if--
(1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is ... (B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive....
Even assuming that the admission of Biamby's deposition testimony satisfied the requirement that Biamby "testif [y] at the trial," and that his former testimony was offered to rebut a charge of "recent fabrication or improper influence or motive," we conclude that it still was not admissible under Rule 801(d) (1) (B). That rule requires that Biamby have been "subject to cross-examination concerning the statement," and "the statement" in this case was the former trial testimony. The rule envisions a situation where the hearsay declarant is available at trial (or as here, at deposition) to be cross-examined about his prior consistent statement when it is introduced. Such a situation never arose in this case. Neither the Government nor Deeb questioned Biamby at the deposition about his former testimony, probably because at the time, the Government had not expressed any intention of offering Biamby's former testimony at Deeb's trial. The Government stated at oral argument that it did not decide to offer Biamby's former testimony until after it had taken his deposition, and nothing in the record indicates otherwise. The Government did not notify Deeb of its intention until five weeks after the deposition had been completed, too late for Deeb to cross-examine Biamby about the former trial testimony. Because Biamby was not subject to cross-examination about his former testimony and because the declarant being "subject to cross-examination concerning the statement" is a predicate for admission under Rule 801(d) (1) (B), that rule cannot justify admission of Biamby's former testimony.
The district court also relied on Rule 804(b) (1) as authority for admitting Biamby's former testimony at Deeb's trial. That rule provides:
(b) Hearsay exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
(1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.
Rule 804(b) (1) clearly requires that Deeb have had an opportunity to cross-examine Biamby at the codefendants' trial. Deeb had no such opportunity.
The district court concluded that the cross-examination of Biamby by Deeb's codefendants satisfied the requirement that Deeb have had an opportunity to cross-examine Biamby. That conclusion is contrary to the plain words of the rule that condition admissibility upon "the party against whom the testimony is now offered" having had an opportunity to develop the testimony through cross-examination or otherwise. At least as to criminal cases, Rule 804(b) (1) neither states nor implies that it is sufficient that another party with similar interests cross-examined the witness at the prior trial. The Government has not cited any decision of any court so construing the rule, and absent controlling authority, we will not place upon the rule a construction contrary to its plain wording. See, e.g., North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300, 312, 103 S. Ct. 1095, 1102, 75 L. Ed. 2d 77 (1983); Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108, 100 S. Ct. 2051, 2056, 64 L. Ed. 2d 766 (1980). Thus, because Deeb had no opportunity to develop Biamby's former testimony through cross-examination, Rule 804(b) (1) did not authorize admission of that testimony.
The Government contends that by fleeing before the trial in July 1989, Deeb waived his right to cross-examine Biamby. Deeb contends that the Government's argument is contrary to the Supreme Court's recent holding in Crosby v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 748, 122 L. Ed. 2d 25 (1993). In Crosby, the Court unanimously held that Fed. R. Crim. P. 43 prohibits the trial in absentia of a defendant not present at the beginning of the trial, because the Court was unwilling to impute to a defendant who flees before trial the knowledge that he was waiving his right to be present at trial. Id. --- U.S. at ----, 113 S. Ct. at 752. Deeb contends that under the Court's reasoning in Crosby, it would be impossible to impute to a defendant the knowledge that by fleeing before trial, he had waived his right recognized by Rule 804(b) (1) to cross-examine the witnesses against him. We agree.1
The district court suggested that Biamby's former testimony was admissible under the residual hearsay exception in Rule 804(b) (5), which provides for admission of hearsay statements satisfying the following requirements:
(5) Other exceptions. A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, his intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.
Deeb contends that Rule 804(b) (5) cannot authorize admission of Biamby's former testimony because Biamby's former testimony is not "a statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions." Deeb contends that Biamby's former testimony is "specifically covered by" Rule 804(b) (1) but is not admissible under that rule. Deeb's position has been characterized elsewhere as the "near-miss argument," which maintains that a hearsay statement that is close to, but that does not fit precisely into, a recognized hearsay exception is not admissible under Rule 804(b) (5). See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 505 F. Supp. 1190, 1262-63 (E.D. Pa. 1980), aff'd in part on other grounds and rev'd in part, In re Japanese Elec. Products Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 302 (3d Cir. 1983), rev'd on other grounds, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 580, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1352, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986).
This Court rejected the near-miss argument in United States v. Fernandez, 892 F.2d 976, 981 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. dismissed, 495 U.S. 944, 110 S. Ct. 2201, 109 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1990). In Fernandez, we addressed the propriety of admitting grand jury testimony under Rule 804(b) (5). See 892 F.2d at 980-84. The district court had relied on that rule in permitting the government to introduce, at the defendants' trial, the testimony of a witness who had died from natural causes five months after testifying before the federal grand jury that had indicted the defendants. Id. at 980. On appeal from their convictions, the defendants contended that grand jury testimony is never admissible under Rule 804(b) (5) because it is not " [a] statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions." Id. at 981. They argued that grand jury testimony satisfies the definition of former testimony in Rule 804(b) (1) and, therefore, is a statement "specifically covered by" Rule 804(b) (1), even if it is not admissible under that rule because the defendants had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the grand jury proceeding. Id. This Court rejected the defendants' argument, stating:
We decline to rally behind appellants' call for a per se ban on the admission of grand-jury testimony under the residual exception. If a statement does not satisfy all of the requirements of Rule 804(b) (1), then it is not a statement "covered by [one] of the foregoing exceptions" within the meaning of Rule 804(b) (5). We consider admissible those statements that are similar though not identical to hearsay clearly falling under one of the four codified exceptions, if the statements otherwise bear indicia of trustworthiness equivalent to those exceptions. The contrary reading would create an arbitrary distinction between hearsay statements that narrowly, but conclusively, fail to satisfy one of the formal exceptions, and those hearsay statements which do not even arguably fit into a recognized mold. If the proponent can show that a particular piece of hearsay carries "circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness" equivalent to one of the four codified exceptions, that statement should be admissible regardless of its affinity to a statement falling squarely within a codified exception.
Id. at 981 (footnote omitted).
The Fourth Circuit recently relied on our Fernandez decision in rejecting a defendant's near-miss argument against admission under Rule 804(b) (5) of suppression-hearing testimony which, like grand jury testimony, is a type of former testimony dealt with in Rule 804(b) (1). See United States v. Clarke, 2 F.3d 81 (4th Cir. 1993). The Clarke court reasoned that " 'specifically covered' means exactly what it says: if a statement does not meet all of the requirements for admissibility under one of the prior exceptions, then it is not 'specifically covered.' " Id. at 83 (citing Fernandez, 892 F.2d at 981); see also Myrna S. Reader, Confronting the Catch-Alls: Residual Clauses Also Benefit the Defense, 6 Crim.Just. 31, 33 (1991) (concluding that the "not specifically covered" language of Rule 804(b) (5) has not been used to limit that exception to statements that are not addressed in another category). In light of Fernandez, we reject Deeb's near-miss argument.
Deeb's only other challenge to the admissibility of Biamby's former testimony under Rule 804(b) (5) is that it lacked the "equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness" necessary for admission under that exception.2 For reasons discussed below regarding the admissibility of Biamby's former testimony for purposes of the Confrontation Clause, we conclude that Biamby's former testimony possessed sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness for admission under the residual hearsay exception. Cf. United States v. Chapman, 866 F.2d 1326, 1331 n. 1 (11th Cir. 1989) (" [T]he contours of the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause are not wholly congruent. However, they clearly protect similar values, and thus analysis under the two provisions will unavoidably involve similar factors." (citations omitted)).
Deeb argues that the admission at his trial of Biamby's former testimony violated Deeb's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. That Clause provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him...." U.S. Const. Amend. VI. The Clause accords criminal defendants a "constitutional right to cross-examine adverse witnesses." Chapman, 866 F.2d at 1330; accord Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 63, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2537, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597 (1980). "However, the right to confrontation is not absolute." Chapman, 866 F.2d at 1330. The admission of hearsay against a defendant deprives the defendant of an opportunity to confront the declarant, but when such a statement satisfies two requirements, the absence of an opportunity for confrontation is not unconstitutional. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 64-65, 100 S. Ct. at 2538. The two requirements are, first, that the prosecution establish that the hearsay declarant is unavailable, id. at 65, 100 S. Ct. at 2538, and, second, that the prosecution establish that the hearsay statement bears the "indicia of reliability" necessary " 'to afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement.' " Id. at 65-66, 100 S. Ct. at 2539 (quoting Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204, 213, 92 S. Ct. 2308, 2313, 33 L. Ed. 2d 293 (1972) (citations omitted)). The second requirement reflects the purpose of the Confrontation Clause "to augment accuracy in the factfinding process by ensuring the defendant an effective means to test adverse evidence." Id. at 65, 100 S. Ct. at 2539.
The Supreme Court has determined that the indicia of reliability requirement is satisfied when the evidence at issue falls within one of the firmly rooted hearsay exceptions. Id. at 66, 100 S. Ct. at 2539. Assuming that no such exception applies here, we instead will decide whether Biamby's former testimony exhibited the indicia of reliability necessary for admission under the residual hearsay exception, Rule 804(b) (5).3 The Supreme Court has stated that evidence offered under that exception is presumptively unreliable, Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 543, 106 S. Ct. 2056, 2063, 90 L. Ed. 2d 514 (1986), and "must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S. Ct. at 2539. Such particularized guarantees of trustworthiness must, like the circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness necessary for admission under the hearsay exceptions, "be drawn from the totality of the circumstances that surround the making of the statement and that render the declarant particularly worthy of belief." Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 820, 110 S. Ct. 3139, 3149, 111 L. Ed. 2d 638 (1990); accord United States v. Accetturo, 966 F.2d 631, 634 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 1053, 122 L. Ed. 2d 360 (1993). Also, the Supreme Court has held that "evidence corroborating the truth of a hearsay statement" is not relevant to a finding of trustworthiness. Wright, 497 U.S. at 822, 110 S. Ct. at 3150.
The Government has pointed out three facts about Biamby's former testimony that it contends are guarantees of trustworthiness: Biamby gave the former testimony under oath; his testimony was self-inculpating; and his testimony was subject to cross-examination by Deeb's original codefendants.
As the Government acknowledges, the mere fact that a statement is made under oath is not enough to guarantee its trustworthiness. See United States v. Lang, 904 F.2d 618, 623 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924, 111 S. Ct. 305, 112 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1990). Likewise, the fact that Biamby's testimony was self-inculpating is no guarantee of trustworthiness under the circumstances. Though self-inculpating, Biamby's testimony was not against his interest because, at the time he testified, Biamby had already pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to import cocaine and, in exchange for his cooperation with the prosecution of his alleged co-conspirators, the Government had agreed to dismiss the remaining counts against Biamby and to use his cooperation as a basis for a downward departure at sentencing. Biamby had a strong motive to testify in a manner that would win him favor with the Government, and he could achieve that goal by inculpating Deeb as the principal conspirator in the cocaine importation scheme. Cf. United States v. Gonzalez, 559 F.2d 1271, 1273 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding that the pressure put on a co-conspirator, who had been convicted and granted immunity from further prosecution, to testify before a grand jury that indicted the defendant, made the giving of the testimony in the co-conspirator's best interest and therefore not a statement against interest). As the Sixth Circuit has stated:
A long line of Supreme Court cases interpreting the Confrontation Clause has created a strong presumption against the trustworthiness of co-conspirators' statements that are made after the conspiracy has terminated in arrest.... Due to a co-conspirator's "strong motivation to implicate the defendant and to exonerate himself," a co-conspirator's statements about the defendant's involvement in the crime should be viewed with "special suspicion." This suspicion stems from the "reality of the criminal process, namely, that once partners in a crime recognize that the 'jig is up,' they tend to lose any identity of interest and immediately become antagonists, rather than accomplices."United States v. Gomez-Lemos, 939 F.2d 326, 329-30 (6th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted) (quoting Lee, 476 U.S. at 541, 544-45, 106 S. Ct. at 2062, 2063-64).
The remainder of our analysis focuses on the codefendants' cross-examination of Biamby. As previously indicated, their cross-examination was not introduced in evidence at Deeb's trial. For this reason, Deeb contends that this Court should not consider the fact that the codefendants cross-examined Biamby. He argues that Biamby's testimony should be treated as a grand jury witness's testimony. He points out, correctly, that this Court has yet to hold that any of the grand jury testimony it has reviewed had particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. See, e.g., Lang, 904 F.2d at 622-23; Fernandez, 892 F.2d at 982-83 (concluding that, even though Rule 804(b) (5) does not prohibit the admission of grand jury testimony thereunder, we would admit "only extraordinarily trustworthy grand-jury testimony ... as proof of the matter asserted" and we would not "sanction admission of proffered grand-jury testimony if its trustworthiness and reliability were open to troubling doubt").4 Also in Deeb's favor, the Supreme Court has generally held the uncross-examined statement of an alleged co-conspirator insufficiently trustworthy for admission under the Confrontation Clause. See, e.g., Lee, 476 U.S. at 541, 106 S. Ct. at 2062 (holding inadmissible against the defendant his co-conspirator's confession on the ground that the co-conspirator was not available for cross-examination); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 136, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 1628, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968) (same). Thus, were we to treat Biamby's former testimony as though it has not been subject to cross-examination, we probably would hold its admission to be error.
However, Biamby was cross-examined by Deeb's codefendants at their trial. That cross-examination was available to Deeb who deliberately chose not to introduce it. We cannot allow a defendant to render former testimony inadmissible by the simple expedient of electing not to afford himself of the benefit of cross-examination that occurred when the testimony was taken. Deeb's contrary position would render Rule 804(b) (1) useless, and it is tantamount to saying that the prosecution cannot offer any testimony, even live testimony, against a defendant unless he deigns to cross-examine the witness. We refuse to accept such an absurd position. Instead, we turn to the task of deciding whether the cross-examination of Biamby that was available to Deeb rendered Biamby's testimony sufficiently trustworthy under the Confrontation Clause had Deeb chosen to utilize that cross-examination.
The principal purpose of cross-examination is:
to challenge "whether the declarant was sincerely telling what he believed to be the truth, whether the declarant accurately perceived and remembered the matter he related, and whether the declarant's intended meaning is adequately conveyed by the language he employed."
Roberts, 448 U.S. at 71, 100 S. Ct. at 2541 (quoting Davenport, The Confrontation Clause and the Co-Conspirator Exception in Criminal Prosecutions: a Functional Analysis, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1378 (1972)). In light of this purpose, we conclude that when testimony offered under the residual hearsay exception has been subject to cross-examination by someone other than the defendant, that cross-examination serves as the functional equivalent of cross-examination by the defendant if two conditions are met: 1) the cross-examination probed the witness's motive or inducement to lie; and, 2) the defendant has not shown that the absence of an opportunity personally to cross-examine the witness deprived him of an opportunity to present evidence that would have undermined the probative value of the witness's testimony against the defendant.
Deeb contends that the codefendants' cross-examination was not adequate to demonstrate Biamby's motive to lie about Deeb's involvement in the cocaine importation conspiracy. Deeb points out that Biamby had a motive to minimize his own role in the scheme to import cocaine by implicating Deeb as a principal. Deeb testified at his trial that he and Biamby were friends, that they had had legal business dealings in the past, and that, at the time of their arrest, Deeb was accompanying Biamby on a legitimate errand. Deeb argues that Biamby's testimony at the trial of the codefendants was a fabrication in which Biamby placed Deeb in the role actually played by Biamby in the conspiracy to import cocaine. Deeb contends that the codefendants had no motive to cross-examine Biamby about his allegedly false implication of Deeb as a principal in the importation scheme.
Although we recognize that the codefendants did not have precisely the same objectives as Deeb for discrediting Biamby, we believe the objectives of at least one of the codefendants were sufficiently similar to Deeb's that his cross-examination could and did probe Biamby's motive or inducement to lie. The transcript of the codefendants' trial reveals that Biamby was vigorously cross-examined by counsel for Abelardo Munera-Cadavid. Biamby's testimony implicated Cadavid, along with Deeb, as a principal conspirator in the importation scheme. In his cross-examination of Biamby, Cadavid's counsel established that Biamby had been heavily involved in narcotics trafficking since 1983 and that the terms of Biamby's plea agreement presented him with a strong motive to falsely inculpate Deeb and Cadavid. Also, Cadavid's counsel brought out the fact that Biamby had pled guilty to only one count of a five-count indictment, each count of which carried a 15 to 40-year term of imprisonment, and that the Government had agreed to dismiss the remaining counts against Biamby if he cooperated by testifying. Cadavid's counsel asked Biamby the following about the consequences of his plea agreement:
Q. So instead of looking at a potential of 240 years, anywhere from 90 to 240 years [,] by your coming into this court and testifying, you knocked that down [to] anywhere from 15 to 40 years, is that correct?
A. Sir, this is my plea agreement.
Q. Well, that's what your plea agreement says?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And, as a matter of fact, it even goes further. It also states in your plea agreement--I am referring to the 5th paragraph--that ... the United States prosecutor ... has the right to evaluate and make decisions about how your testimony went, you are aware of that, aren't you, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that the Government, the prosecutor [,] can come before the court and ask the judge to even give you less than the 15 years, depending on how you testify, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you are aware in paragraph number 6 that the Government prosecutor has the right to make a recommendation as to the quantity and quality of your punishment. That's what it says there, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So obviously one of your motives is that you want to testify. You want to impress [the prosecutor]. You want to do a good job so that hopefully [the prosecutor] will come to court at the time of your sentencing and say, "Judge, Serge Biamby did a great job for us and we want you to go below 15 years."
I mean, that's what you are hoping for, isn't that correct, in all fairness?
A. Yes.
. . . . .
Q. ... [I]f you don't testify the way that [the prosecutor] expects you to testify or if he's not happy with your testimony, you don't have an agreement, do you?
. . . . .
A. I have to help myself.
Q. Exactly. You have to do whatever is necessary to help yourself, to save you from doing a long prison sentence, isn't that correct?
A. No, sir. I am telling the truth.
Q. Yes, sir. And your motive for testifying today is to get the least possible jail sentence that you can get, isn't that correct?
A. It's part of it and at the same time, telling the truth, sir.
This cross-examination by Cadavid, which was available to Deeb, is sufficient to demonstrate Biamby's motive or inducement to lie. There is little or nothing Deeb could have added to that line of inquiry. The first prong of the test is satisfied.
The second part of our inquiry into the trustworthiness of Biamby's testimony concerns whether Deeb has shown that the absence of an opportunity to cross-examine Biamby cost Deeb an opportunity to present evidence to undermine the probative value of Biamby's testimony against him. Deeb maintains that he would have pursued five lines of questioning, not pursued by the codefendants, that would have undermined the probative value of Biamby's testimony against him. Deeb contends he would have cross-examined Biamby regarding: (1) the legitimate nature of his business relationship with Biamby; (2) inconsistencies between Biamby's former testimony and testimony given by Customs Agent Gonzalez as to the events surrounding Deeb and Biamby's arrest; (3) details of the importation procedure described by Biamby; (4) a statement Biamby allegedly made to Deeb, after their arrest, that Biamby had told the Government that Deeb was innocent; and (5) Biamby's health. All of the evidence that Deeb sought to establish with the suggested lines of inquiry either was or could have been established through other means. First, Biamby admitted at the codefendants' trial that he had met Deeb sometime before Deeb allegedly approached him about importing cocaine. Although further inquiry might have elicited testimony from Biamby about the legitimate nature of his business relations with Deeb, there is no indication that such testimony would have conflicted in anyway with Biamby's implication of Deeb as a principal in the cocaine importation conspiracy. Further, when Deeb had an opportunity at Biamby's deposition to inquire into the legitimate nature of their business relations, he posed no questions regarding those dealings. Second, any inconsistencies between Biamby's and Gonzalez's versions of the events surrounding Deeb and Biamby's arrest was readily apparent. Third, Deeb could have discredited Biamby's description of importation procedures through means other than cross-examination of Biamby. Fourth, Biamby's alleged statement that Deeb was innocent could likewise be introduced through means other than cross-examination of Biamby. Finally, Deeb questioned Biamby extensively about his health at the deposition, which was admitted at trial.
For these reasons, we conclude that the codefendants' cross-examination of Biamby afforded his former testimony the particularized guarantees of trustworthiness required for admission under the Confrontation Clause.
We conclude that Biamby's former testimony had circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness necessary for admission under 804(b) (5) and that its admission did not violate Deeb's rights under the Confrontation Clause. Accordingly, we AFFIRM Deeb's conviction.
See Rule 34-2(b), Rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
We express no opinion about whether the waiver question might be answered differently if Deeb had fled in order to gain a strategic advantage from the death of an ailing witness. The Government has conceded that there is no evidence to indicate that when he fled Deeb knew that Biamby was dying
Rule 804(b) (5) requires the proponent of a statement offered under that exception to provide the adverse party with notice "sufficiently in advance of the trial ... to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it." Deeb did not object at trial to the adequacy of the Government's notice of its intention to offer Biamby's former testimony, nor has he raised any question about it on appeal
The Government contends, for the first time on appeal, that Biamby's former testimony was admissible under Rule 804(b) (3), authorizing admissions of statements against interest, because Biamby's former testimony inculpated him in the conspiracy to import cocaine. The Government's belated Rule 804(b) (3) contention raises difficult issues, compare, United States v. Gabay, 923 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1991), with United States v. Gonzalez, 559 F.2d 1271, 1273 (5th Cir. 1977), and United States v. Atkins, 618 F.2d 366, 372 (5th Cir. 1980), which we need not resolve in light of our holding that Biamby's former testimony is admissible under Rule 804(b) (5)
This Court appears to have considered independent corroborating evidence in deciding Fernandez and Lang, both of which were decided before Wright. To the extent that those decisions turned on the existence of independent corroborating evidence, their analysis is inconsistent with Wright, 497 U.S. at 818, 110 S. Ct. at 3148


text:
Rachel Dissell and Brie Zeltner of The Plain Dealer visited Friendly Inn to talk with high school students in Central, as part of the paper's ongoing "Dear Cleveland" project.
Dissell said the Dear Cleveland name was inspired by a previous conversation with teens at Martin Luther King Jr. High School, in which one student suggested that they wish they could write a letter to Clevelanders to show them the parts of the city that they don't see in the media.
"Cleveland's children have a lot to say to the adults around them, about what's wrong, and right, in their lives," Dissell and Zeltner write in The Plain Dealer. "They also have ideas about how to fix what they see that's not working.
At Friendly Inn, Dissell and Zeltner asked students to highlight elements of the community that they saw as strengths, and then list things that they would like to change, if they could.
Among Central's strengths, according to the students, were community centers like Friendly Inn, and the close-knit ties of the people in Central. They said they would like to change a number of things, including gun violence, gang activity and the prevalence of drugs. Dissell and Zeltner encouraged conversation to elaborate on these points, prompting students to talk about their experiences with both the positive and the negative, and how they may be able to tell the stories that the rest of Cleveland doesn't know.
Thanks to The Plain Dealer for including the voices of Promise in the Dear Cleveland project.
If you have a story of your own you'd like to share, contact Dear Cleveland:
- Phone or text message at: 216-217-4501.
- Email: email@example.com
- Instagram: @dearcleveland

subset: commoncrawl


text:
On Dec. 10, SEIU Local 221 members presented 500 petitions to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors demanding #EquityforSD.
If you haven't signed the petition, you can still join your co-workers. Sign the petition and invite your co-workers who haven't signed it to do the same. Add your name here: http://www.seiu221.org/equity/
Members informed the County Board of Supervisors that paying competitive county salaries is crucial to retain experienced staff.
"I am one of twelve county microbiologists," said Supervising Public Health Microbiologist Paul Temprendola. "We currently have three vacancies, and my colleagues and I are concerned that our staffing problems could turn into another public health crisis if we cannot find a way to attract and retain California state certified public health microbiologists. … We are responsible for the laboratory testing needed following a bioterrorist attack, an E. coli O157 outbreak, a pandemic flu outbreak, a Zika virus outbreak, or a Hepatitis A outbreak in the homeless population."


text:
It can be quite upsetting to arrive home to find that your air conditioner or heating unit isn't working right. Your HVAC system helps you to stay comfortable in your home, so you want to make sure you treat it right. Use the recommendations below as part of your approach to maintaining your HVAC system.
Before calling for help, know the system you have. Know what the manufacturer's name is, which particular model you have and what's gone on with the unit in the past. This makes sure your contractor will be sufficiently prepared.
Go through your home before you call HVAC professional. Figure out which rooms feel hot and which feel cold. This gives the repairer a starting point to work from.
What do you need done? Know this before calling a contractor. It will be hard for a contractor to give you a price estimate over the phone if they have not seen your current system. It will be even harder if you cannot explain what you have done. So be aware of this information ahead of time.
Regularly remove debris from outside condenser units. Leaves and debris can accumulate quickly, particularly following storms, and that can cause problems for your system. It could get too hot, leading to even more problems.
Clean your condenser's fan blades and coil in the spring. Turn it off first so you don't get hurt or break something. Next, remove the grill, take the blades and clean them gently, then clean the actual unit.
Hvac System
Use the tips you've just read to keep your HVAC system up and running. Arriving home to find a broken HVAC system does not feel good. It's even worse to think about how much it will cost to fix. With the great information found in this article, you can prevent this disaster. Keep this advice close to you while you work on an HVAC system to be successful.
Capstone College
HVAC Training Pasadena, Ca
Call Today: (626) 486-1000 – Capstone College
Monday through Friday: 8:00 am to 6:00 pm: Call for Night Class Hours
1200 N Fair Oaks Ave #32, Pasadena, CA 91103


text:
Bouquet? Okay! with Pizzle Paints
Pizzle Paints, Ain't no party like a Pizzle Party!
- 0.5x
- 1x (Normal)
- 1.25x
- 1.5x
- 2x
1. Bouquet? Okay!0:39
2. Pizzle's Picks1:51
3. Colour Palettes!2:57
4. Loose Florals and Leaves6:31
5. Bouquet 1#4:25
6. Bouquet 2#3:57
7. Thanks!0:38
About This Class
Welcome to my Loose Watercolour Bouquet class! I am so glad you're back. This class makes you want to go buy yourself some flowers - that is fo'sure. Interactive, creative and a world of fun.
What you will learn:
- My go-to materials (Prima Marketing Inc. Paper and Pallets 'Vintage Pastels and Woodlands', Silver Brushes 'Black Velvet - Sizes 4, 6 and 8') www.artphilosophy.co - Coupon Code: Pizzlepaints15%
- The colour palettes I'll be using for two different bouquets (Rich and Pastel)
- How to paint loose florals including Roses and Four Petal flowers all with 1 brush
- How to paint loose leave/fillers all with 1 brush
- Brush control!
- How to construct a bouquet using examples of previous works
- How to paint a bouquet (Pizzle's Tips - Statement florals first, Colour consistency & Balance)
This class was created to encourage you to explore different ways you can use your brush because brushes are underused (in my opinion). I hope you enjoy painting loose bouquets that resonate with your unique style and I cannot wait to see them.
My thanks is endless!


text: Encourage your son or daughter to join our Annual Summer Adventure Trip. Campequette offers your Children an unforgettable summer experience in the United Kingdom. A traditional summer camp with a modern twist. We passionately believe that the best way to grow is through new experiences and outdoor learning. At Campequette we offer both these aspects alongside English education and activities. Summer Camps are about independence, achievements, adventure and memories that will last a lifetime. That's what Campequette is all about. Through our emphasis on experiential education, we encourage kinaesthetic learning and independence at every point. It's for children themselves to discover and learn by getting involved. This innovative and modern approach to education is what sets us apart from more traditional camps. By nurturing independence and building skills Children equip themselves with invaluable skills for the future broadening the opportunities available to them. Children leave Campequette with self-confidence, a smile and friends from across the world. We are an extremely experienced team with nearly a decade of experience in offering Summer Camps. An international atmosphere lies at the heart of our camps. Every year we welcome pupils between 5 and 17 from more than 35 different countries around the world. An unforgettable experience to the United Kingdom (UK) which helps children grow in confidence, create lasting international friendships and make wonderful summer memories.


text:
Your search results
2 resources
Donovan, Patrick. Saint Brigid's and Its Foundation: A Tradition of Caring Since 1856. Quebec: Saint Brigid's Home Foundation, 2016.
St-Hilaire, Marc, Laurent Richard, and Richard Marcoux. "Individual and Familial Life Course in Quebec City, 1871-1911: Some Consideration on Two Biographical Data Sets." In The Dawn of Canada's Century: Hidden Histories, edited by Gordon Darroch, 322–358. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2014.


text:
Knitting for your life.
Your Interest in Make by Hand
Maybe you've become interested in knitting…. That would not be that surprising since in our modern world knitting has become top of mind for many creative people like you. There are plenty of on-line instructional videos to guide you. One of my favorite sources of knitting info is from Expression Fiber Arts….
The Benefits of making by hand
There are so many options. You can make for yourself. You can make for others. You can find your work/life balance through knitting.
But why would you make by hand?
Two, of the many reasons would be relaxation and altruism.
Your maker world for health and work/life balance
From a maker's perspective it's not surprising for me to learn that knitting is a popular pastime during cancer treatment at Georgetown Hospital in Washington, DC. Making things by hand has emotional and neurological connections to wellness and beneficial outcomes for everyone. Reducing stress in a hospital setting is beneficial. That's what we all want. Reduced stress !
Nurses there at Georgetown report that knitting needles, yarn and training classes are offered, through a program called Project Knitwell, to the pediatric floors where the brave young women and men, being treated for their cancer and other chronic conditions, can knit hats and scarves for themselves, their new friends and their roommates. That would be community building and altruism.
This is the power of making by hand.
In addition to the fun of trying a new skill, there are a growing number of neurological studies that show the health benefit of the meditative and stress reducing results of making by hand. A Mayo Clinic study in 2011 showed that knitting and other hand made crafts offer significant neurological benefit to the makers.
Other benefits for these makers:
Wellness Community-building
Through this project there is a building of community at the hospital. For many, the new skill of knitting and making by hand can become a way to lessen the impact of a gloomy prognosis. Beginner knitters can learn from the more experienced, long-time crafters. Long timers with more time on their hands can become more skilled and accomplished in their craft.
Altruism-Making for others.
There is an altruistic component to this making, creating a sense of wellness and good feeling in a place often known for sadness and heartbreak. The patients can make for themselves, for a member of their biological family or for a new friend who has lost her hair from the effects of the chemotherapy.
Mental activity-
Hanging out in a hospital room with bland color palette and unchanging ceiling tiles can be very dull. Having something to do where focus and consistency of effort is rewarded with the creation of a valuable object is an attractive ideal. Knitting is something that these cancer warriors can do while seated or lying in bed, day after day, until they are released to go home.
The knitter can focus their attention on the thing they are making instead of waiting there compounding their anxiety about their next MRI or chemo session. The negative effects of the stress hormone, cortisol, and neurological insults are reduced through the efforts of making by hand.
Knitting for the health and wellness benefits.
So knitting might be the solution you seek to create work/life balance for yourself, or to create something for others. Humans have been making by hand for centuries, perhaps making by hand is what you can do today to re-join the that human experience.
Randy Gafner
I'm a maker and author of "Zen and the art of Making a Morris Chair" I'm also, a lifetime learner in Latin dance.
Get Started!
Contact Us


text:
UNR College of Engineering Faculty Excellence Award 2014.
Mentor of UNR Herz Gold Medalist - James Bridegum - 2014.
UNR Donald Tibbitts Distinguished Teacher of the Year Award 2011.
UNR Outstanding Undergraduate Research Mentor Award 2011.
Mentor of UNR College of Engineering's Senior Scholar - Steve Komarov - 2011.
Runner-up, UNR Donald Tibbitts Distinguished Teacher Award 2010.
Nevada Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology (NCET) Faculty Advisor Award 2009.
Best Paper Award, the 21st International Conference on Computers and Their Applications in Industry and Engineering (CAINE-2008) Honolulu, HI, November 2008. Paper - A Recursive Hyperspheric Classification Algorithm, by Salyer Reed, Carl Looney, and Sergiu Dascalu.
Best Paper Award, the 21st International Conference on Computers and Their Applications (CATA-2006) Seattle, WA, March 2006. Paper - vHand: A Human Hand Simulation System, by Beifang Yi, Fred Harris, and Sergiu Dascalu.
Recognition and Appreciation Award for contribution to the conference organization, 18th Intl. Conference on Computers Applications in Industry and Engineering (CAINE-2005), Honolulu, HI, November, 2005.
Lemelson Award for innovation and entrepreneurship, College of Engineering, UNR, April 2005.
Certificate of contribution to ITE-2005 Symposium (Information Technology and Entrepreneurship), Langston University, Oklahoma City, OK, April 2005.
Achievement Award for research contributions to the field, Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP-2004), Las Vegas, NV, June 2004.
Recognition Award for contribution to the conference organization, 12th Intl. Conf. on Intelligent and Adaptive Systems and Software Engineering (IASSE-2003), San Francisco, CA, July 2003.
Achievement Award for research contributions to the field, Intl. Conf. on Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP-2003), Las Vegas, NV, June 2003.
Best Paper Award at the 11th Workshop for Information Technologies and Systems (WITS 2001), New Orleans, LA, Dec. 2001. Paper - Harmony: An Environment for the Combined Use of UML and Z++ in Software Specification, by Sergiu Dascalu and Peter Hitchcock.
Scholarship for PhD studies, School of Computer Science, Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada, 1993/1994 to 1996/1997.
Bruce and Dorothy Rosetti Award, Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada, 1994/1995 and 1995/1996.
Honorary mention, Analog Input Processor, Students Scientific Communications Session, Polytechnic of Bucharest, Romania, 1981.
Honorary mention for an original solution, Final phase of the national competition (High Schools) Olympiad of Mathematics, Brasov, Romania, 1976.


text:
2018 Lawrence Lecture and Negotiation Competition
2018 Lawrence Lecturer Charles Craver presents Negotiator Styles and the Six Stages of the Negotiation Process
September 24 @ 12:10, Saxbe Auditorium – Registration is now closed – a handful of boxed lunches are available for unregistered guests.
Professor Craver will leverage decades of experience teaching negotiation and alternative dispute resolution as he discusses stages and styles of negotiation and prepares the audience for an interactive negotiation exercise. Professor Craver will discuss and identify the distinctions between cooperative, competitive, and cooperative / competitive negotiation. Then he will highlight and illustrate how to identify six stages of negotiation: 1) Preparation 2) Preliminary 3) Information 4) Distributive 5) Closing 6) Integrative.
Professor Craver is the Freda H. Alverson Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School where he regularly teaches a course on Legal Negotiating. Over the past thirty-five years, Professor Craver has made presentations on Effective Legal Negotiation and on Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures to over 95,000 individuals throughout the United States and in Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Austria, England, Turkey, and China. He was formerly associated with Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco, where he specialized in employment and litigation practice. Professor Craver is a member of the American Law Institute, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the American Bar Association, the Association for Conflict Resolution, the American Arbitration Association, the National Academy of Arbitrators, and the International Society for Labor and Social Security Law. He was previously affiliated with the Lawyers Mediation Service. He has won teaching awards at three different law schools.
Professor Craver is author of Effective Legal Negotiation and Settlement (LEXIS: 8th ed. 2016), Skills and Values: Legal Negotiating (LEXIS 3rd ed. 2016), The Art of Negotiation in the Business World (LEXIS 2014); and The Intelligent Negotiator (Prima/Crown 2002), and coauthor of numerous negotiation, dispute resolution and labor law texts. He has published numerous law review articles pertaining to various aspects of dispute resolution and employment law. In 2018, he received the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution Award for Outstanding Scholarly Work.
Professor Craver received his J.D. from the University of Michigan in 1971, his M. Indus. & Lab. Rels. from the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations in 1968, and his B.S. from Cornell University in 1967.
2018 Schedule of Events
- September 24, 6 to 9 pm – Introduction to Negotiation – designed for students participating in the Lawrence Negotiation Competition who have not participated in a negotiation course.
- September 24 @ 12:10 in Saxbe – Lawrence Lecture with Professor Charles B. Craver
- October 1 through 5 – Lawrence Negotiation Competition
Every fall, Moritz students compete in the intramural Lawrence Negotiation Competition, named for James K.L. Lawrence ('65). The winners and runners-up in this week-long competition move on to Regional and National Negotiations Competitions, which the American Bar Association conducts.
During the competition, teams of two law students working as advocates for a fictitious client negotiate against one another. They are judged on their ability to work together, establish rapport with the opposing team, and maximize the interests of their client. Every team competes in the first two rounds, after which the competition becomes single elimination.
Working with the Moot Court and Lawyering Skills Program, the Program on Dispute Resolution enriches the competitors' experience in two ways. First, the Program hosts a speaker with a distinguished career as a negotiator. Second, the Program conducts a negotiation workshop for students who have no prior experience in negotiating to introduce them to effective negotiation skills and strategies and to prepare them for the competition.
These events, together with the competition itself, create an engaging and stimulating learning experience for all participants.
Any Moritz student may participate in any aspect of the week-long event; those students pursuing the Certificate in Dispute Resolution may earn Externship hours through their participation.
James K. L. Lawrence '65
James K. L. Lawrence ('65) is a retired partner with Frost Brown Todd in Cincinnati. Following graduation from law school, he worked as an attorney at the National Labor Relations Board. He left the Board to join his firm and, for more than 30 years, practiced labor-relations and employment law. He is a skilled advocate in arbitration and an astute negotiator in collective bargaining and settlement discussions.
He has pursued vigorously the sustained study of dispute resolution materials at programs throughout the country, including the Program on Negotiation at Harvard, and has blended that study and practice into teaching courses in negotiation and mediation at Moritz and at the University of Cincinnati Law School.
He has given generously of his time, talent, guidance and resources to Moritz and our Program on Dispute Resolution over the years, so it is perfectly fitting that this expanded educational enterprise with Negotiation at its core be conducted in his name.


text:
Aloe Vera Deodorant with Saccharomyces Ferment (No. 1814)
Properties: Contains botanical extracts and mild deodorants together with coconut oil and shea butter emollients. Mild deodorant formulation based on zinc ricinoleate and saccharomyces ferment.
Formula: PDF
Coconut Charcoal Deodorant (No. 1763)
Properties: Almond & Coconut based deodorant containing zinc ricinoleate that traps and absorbs odor molecules formed during bacterial decomposition of perspiration. Glides on well leaving a light emollient feel. Charcoal powder is optional.
Formula: PDF
Fragrance Balm (No. 1320)
Properties: The fragrance balm leaves a nice dry feel on the skin. Can be poured into small jars and re-applied on the go. Can also be used with our Kala stick container.
Formula: PDF
Lightening Deodorant Stick (No. 1454)
Properties: The lightening power of licorice extract in conjunction with our SkinWhite MSH Fluid can help reduce the darkness of underarms. DeoConcentrate Personal Care reduces odor and Talc helps keep your underarms feeling dry and comfortable. You can even add 1% fragrance if you prefer.
Formula: PDF
Herbal Deodorant Roll-On (No. 1041)
Properties: Gel-type deodorant with soothing aloe vera and witch hazel water, sage leaf extract acts anti-bacterial and our fragrance oils will give a pleasant scent.
Formula: PDF
Deodorant stick with Cucumber (No. 1221)
Properties: Nice dry feel with good consistency. Works well as deodorant. Perfume can also be replaced by essential oils.
Formula: PDF
Deodorant stick with Sage (No. 1222)
Properties: Nice soft feel, glides on easily and feels good and dry. Essential oils can be used instead of "fragrance" in phase B.
Formula: PDF
Deodorant Cream with Zinc Ricinoleate (No. 1040)
Properties: Zinc ricinoleate works in that it chemically fixes (traps & absorbs) odor molecules formed during bacterial decomposition of perspiration. It does not inhibit natural transpiration and has no bactericidal or fungicidal properties. Therefore it does not interfere with the natural flora of the skin. Very mild deodorant type.
Formula: PDF
Herbal Deodorant Roll-On II (No. 1220)
Properties: Mild deodorant with herbal extracts and natural anti-microbial ingredients. Liquid solution for roll-on bottles.
Formula: PDF


text: Nacholympic 82 Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 Months later than Chile had been held the America Cup, it will host the FIFA World Cup U - 17. From October 17 and November 8. The city of the final match is to be defined. It is known it will not be in Santiago. There are 8 host cities that will hold the matches. Quote Link to post Share on other sites


text:
Baldwin Elementary opened in 2010 and serves approximately 725 students in the Meridian neighborhood in southwest Austin. The school is named after Ross F. Baldwin, a respected community leader and dedicated student mentor. Baldwin maintains high standards for student achievement while providing a positive learning environment for every student. The school offers more than twenty after-school and summer programs. The school has an active PTA and there are many different opportunities for parents to be involved in their child's education.
For more information visit the Campus Website
This feeder pattern represents the path students take as they advance to high school. Each child's exact path is determined by his or her home address. To find out where your child will attend, click on the school finder below the feeder pattern.
Points of Pride
Signature Programs
Certified Academic Language Therapist
Social and Emotional Learning
Student & Family Supports
After-school Programming
Child Care During the Day
Performance | Demographics
2019 STAAR Passing Rates
2019 Accountability
Source: Texas Education Agency


text:
The battle against the conspiracy begins again.
Posted By Ravi Sinha | On 21st, Sep. 2012 Under News
Deep Silver is offering it's first taste of the upcoming Secret Files 3, providing players an opportunity to play the first few scenes of the upcoming point & click adventure.
From the PR: "In the third installment of the popular adventure series, Nina and Max are finally looking forward to their marriage. In the demo, players will witness Max's arrest by a SWAT team, throwing the couple's lives into disarray once more. Nina starts to search for her fiancé and soon hits upon the trail of a long-forgotten mystery that extends from ancient Alexandria through the times of Leonardo da Vinci to the present day."
Again, CERN. Has Steins;Gate taught us nothing about their evil ways?
Secret Files 3 via digital download through the developer's site and Steam for the PC. The full version will be released on October 12. Check out the free demo version here and decide just how deep the mystery runs.
Contact Us About Us Staff Advertise With Us Privacy Policy Terms of Use Reviews Policy Hooked Gamers Community Policy


text:
Your location is
Is this correct?
Each order comes with one jewellery box, please specify in "Additional Comments" if you require more.
Please note we cannot ship to a PO Box address.
This design will be sent from our Sydney studio. Please allow 4-10 days for delivery.
A classic, textured disc, this piece can be worn as is; and for those with something to say, it is also primed for your creativity. Write a poem or a message, and have it engraved on the underside of this disc, where you can keep those special words close to your heart. The perfect layering piece, combine the Engraved Poem Disc with the Herringbone Chain for a great everyday look.
Please take note of the handcrafted texture when designing your engraving, we recommend a minimal message to allow for larger font.
Eternally enchanting, Morocco forms the backdrop of SHE. Cradled by the desert, SHE sits between the golden light and the ochre tones. Inspired by the artisans, the labyrinthine of the alleyways, and the magic found behind every riad door, this collection is a time-honoured nod to hand crafted textures, satin finishes and the captivating colours of tiger's Eye and Agate.
Our engraving service allows you to select your desired font, size and text. From monograming to coordinates, you can create a truly personalised piece.
Click the ENGRAVE ME button to start your design. Please note that each piece may vary in the number of characters possible due to sizing. We recommend manually writing your engraving message, if copy and pasted, it will override the character limit and the engraving won't be able to be processed.
All engraving is complimentary and done in house. Please allow up 1-2 business days for us to process your order (excluding delivery). All items in your order will be sent together with the engraved designs.
Please note: Due to the nature of engraving, we cannot accept returns with engraved designs.
ORDER PROCESSINGCurrent Status: We are currently processing orders within 12-24 hours on business days.
PACKAGING RESTRICTIONSPlease note, our gift box supply is restricted due to COVID-19 impact. Each order will come in one gift box and if you require more for gifting, please specify in order comments. Thanks for your understanding!
30 DAY RETURNSYou may return jewellery that is in original condition within 30 days of the order date. We offer a refund or credit voucher for returns, please note this excludes engraved orders & due to hygiene reasons, earrings cannot be returned.
DELIVERY TIMELINEAll European orders are sent with UPS Express.
For further details on shipping, including international orders please click here: https://eu.kirstinash.com/pages/shipping
To lodge a return or for our full returns policy, please visit: https://nz.kirstinash.com/pages/returns


text:
Coaching and strategy sessions are typically 90 mins per session. The recommended time to set aside for assignment is three hours, and you'll work with your coach to determine your assignment due dates.
The Thinkey Business Design program is led by The Thinkery's founder Michelle Badejo, a business coach and consultant of 12 years.
The program is not a an online-course with primarily video instruction but rather a coaching program, with one-on-one coaching.
The program is designed to work in cycles. Each cycle deepens your learning and gives you the opportunity to further develop every aspect of the business iteratively.
12 weeks is recommend for the first cycle, in which you'll start your Venture Playbook. However, we're dedicated to your success so you will work with your coach to set manageable pace that's right for you.


text:
The following article about the Wellness Centre's upcoming Consent Tea event appeared in the Nov. 1, 2016 online edition of University Affairs.
The Wellness Centre is hosting a tea party, but don't expect your grandmother's scone-and-clotted-cream affair. For starters, the party games all revolve around sex.
Wellness coordinator Chelsea Corsi found her inspiration for a tea-time talk on sexual consent thanks to a viral video. Tea and Consent, a three-minute animated video, aiming to clarify the issue of sexual consent by comparing it to having a cup of tea.
In the video, the narrator says:
"If you say, 'Hey, would you like a cup of tea,' and they say, 'Uh, you know, I'm not really sure,' then you can make them a cup of tea, or not, but be aware they might not drink it. And if they don't drink it then – and this is the important part – don't make them drink it."


text:
The mission of Advocates for Justice and Education (AJE) is to educate parents, youth, and the community about the laws governing public education, specifically for children with special needs. We seek to empower youth and parents to be effective advocates and youth to self advocate to ensure that children receive an appropriate education. It is also our mission to make the public aware of the consequences of institutional negligence of children with or without disabilities and to promote school accountability.
Parent Training and Information Center
The Parent Training and Information Center is a comprehensive resource library and training center. The Center offers parents information on the laws of special education, specific disabilities, the latest research on treatment and interventions, and adaptive technology. This resource center is especially critical to our work, as it is accessible to families that traditionally would not have had access to this information. Our training and advocacy sessions are specifically designed to: clarify legal obligations and rights; assist parents and advocates in the preparing for educational meetings and conferences; and to orient the individual on the various services available for children with special needs. An important component of our mission at AJE is to empower parents to be effective advocates for their children. In addition to offering a comprehensive resource library and operating a training center, the PTI also provides one-on-one assistance to families of children and youth with special needs, offers advance leadership training for parents and provides a supportive network through peer-to-peer support for families


text:
git pull origin ramp-marshall-base
remote: Counting objects: 37, done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (16/16), done.
remote: Total 29 (delta 12), reused 8 (delta 6)
Unpacking objects: 100% (29/29), done.
From gitorious.org:~omega95/fg/omega95s-fgdata
* branch ramp-marshall-base -> FETCH_HEAD
Auto-merging Nasal/ramp_marshall.nas
git push origin ramp-marshall-base
error: src refspec ramp-marshall-base does not match any.
error: failed to push some refs to 'email@example.com:~omega95/fg/omega95s-fgdata.git'
git checkout ramp-marshall-base
# Nasal Script here
And when the function is eng_start, it should run the nasal script. :)
Philosopher wrote:omega95 wrote in Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:41 pm:Sorry this is out of topic, but behold the flying turtle!
But if you do need to compile a Nasal bit of code, use compile() - compile(str[, name]) generates a func who's contents are str (like func {*str} if you could use the *-prefix operator to embed the contents of the string into the code), and then you call that (you can use call(func[, arg[, me[, namespace[, var err = []]]]]) to call it in a specific namespace, or just a regular function call it in it's own namespace).
var string = " print('hello'); "
var code = compile(string);
there isn't a condition xml tag yet but I'm thinking of making one. Then a user can add signals by only playing with the xml file.
If it has a <wait> then:
omega95 wrote in Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:48 am:Hmm, so you said you don't want to mess with the thumb and fingers. I wanted it to be able to do a thumbs up so I made a thumbs up model and we coud just hide the hand with the wand, both the wands on the other hand and show the thumbs up but it didn't seem to be worth the troubles, form the ICAO annex 2, you can just put the right wand up over your head to signal that everything's ok.
omega95 wrote:So, other than the hands, what joints are you talking about? I understood 3 axes on the wrist = 1joint. Do you need anymore axes on the other joints (shoulder ane elbow)? I think the elbow is fine because humans can only flex their elbow in 1 axis. For the shoulder, we could put a y-axis too.
omega95 wrote:And what are your your thoughts on using xml to store the marshaller's signals and sequence? I think it would limit some options but might some people find that easier to use? For example, in an xml file, we can have positions and sequences...
And define a fixed system to parse sequences. Again like I said, this won't give us the freedom nasal does to define sequences...
# check for front gear anytime _nlg_offset is set to zero
if( me._nlg_offset == 0 )
me._nlg_offset = 0.01; # ensure it does not stay 0
# get distance of nose wheel to center
# we assume that the foremost gear is the nose landing gear
for(var i = 0; 1; i += 1)
var n = props.globals.getNode("/gear/gear[" ~ i ~ "]");
if( n == nil )
if( !n.getValue("wow")
or n.getValue("position-norm") != 1.0 )
var x = n.getValue("xoffset-in") * IN2M;
if( x > me._nlg_offset )
me._nlg_offset = x;
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


text:
The Jump Canarias Tour 2017
Saturday, July 22nd at 9:00 p.m.
Recinto Ferial Esplanade of Arrecife.
Tickets: in bleachers 25€, children 18€;
Chairs 22€, children 18€;
VIP 50€, children 25€.
The Jump Canarias Tour 2017 is an extreme sport show that will bring together the best riders from different disciplines such as Bicycle Motocross BMX, Freestyle Motocross FMX and Show Car, with a strong side: Jimmy Blaze, twice the best freestyle rider and four times European freestyle champion, who will perform, for the first time in Spain, a "backflip" with a Polaris Razor model 2015 car, with a displacement of 900cc.
The Jump Canary Tour 2017 will also include the specialized pilots of Freestyle Motocross FMX Dani Torres, Miguel Espada, Pedro Moreno, Javier Dols "Jabato", Jeremy Ruanet and Peter Pilat, and the BMX riders Xavi Pasamontes and Bienvenido Aguado, among others.


text:
Plants Need CO2 To GrowMarch 26, 2012
Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming?
Source: Daily Mail
Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study.
Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times areas as far apart as Europe and Antarctica both warmed up.
A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that the 'Medieval Warm Period' approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn't just confined to Europe.
At present the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argues that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe.
However, Professor Lu has shown that this the Medieval Warm Period had a much broader reach - and the evidence lies with a rare mineral called ikaite, which forms in cold waters.
Lu says that his research has no direct bearing on the current climate, and points out that his research is restricted to one area in Antarctica, and is not in itself proof that the whole Earth warmed up.
** For additional peer-reviewed scientific references and an in-depth discussion of the science supporting our position, please visit Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental Planel on Climate Change (www.climatechangereconsidered.org), or CO2 Science (www.co2science.org).


text:
Retail: Solvents evaporate from Nail Polish, Executive Base and Top Coat every time that the bottle is left open or when the neck is clogged with product. This will result in product thickening. To replace the solvent, pour 3 to 4 drops of Dilute into the bottle and shake well.
Code 706/50 – 50 ml Dilute with Spout


text:
La Storia: Researching Italian Women in Chicago--An Invitation
La Storia: Researching Italian Women in Chicago is a community gathering of the sources for documenting and sharing the story of Italian-American women in Chicago. The community is invited to bring photos, documents, memorabilia clipping and other resources for possible use in an upcoming book.
To RSVP and for more information, call 708.345.5933
March 9 - 7:30 p.m. in the Florentine Room of the Italian Cultural Center.
Casa Italia | 3800 Division Street | Stone Park, IL 60165 |


text:
Welcome at Biesterfeld Italy!
Biesterfeld is present in Italy since 1997. The joint venture between the companies Polybass srl and Biesterfeld Plastic GmbH Hamburg was founded in Milan.
For almost twenty years Biesterfeld Polybass S.p.A. distributes plastics materials and thermosetting elastomers of the world's leading manufacturers and offers a full range of high quality products. The Team help you to select the right technical, functional and aesthetic material with the that your applications require. We like to think outside the box, turn problems into opportunities and concretely develop your projects. In any area of Italy you will find us ready to listen and have extended our support.
In 2011 it was established for the Biesterfeld Polychem srl in agreement with Biesterfeld Spezialchemie GmbH. entrepreneurial culture, synergy and innovation are key features of Biesterfeld Polychem. We distribute specialty chemicals and additives in Italy collaborating with leading manufacturers worldwide. Experience, technical expertise and a local presence have allowed us to take a broad view of the Italian and European markets. Developing synergistic activities between plastics, chemicals and tires qualify us as reliable and innovative partners.
Read more about Biesterfeld in Italy: History of Biesterfeld Polybass and Biesterfeld Polychem
- engineering plastics and thermoplastic elastomers (polyamides, acetal homopolymer resin, polyester and polyurethane resins DuPont, Exxon, BASF, Nurel)
- thermoset rubber
- specific cable products (for insulation, sheathing and Melos fillers)
- silicones (liquid and in DowCorning loaves and Xiameter)
- polyolefins (polypropylene, polyethylene of Ineos Polyolefins)
- acrylic and styrene resins (ABS, PC, PC/ABS, PMMA, SMMA, SBC von ChiMei, LG Chemicals, Idemitsu and Chevron Phillips)
- compounding additives, adhesives and production of masterbatch (antioxidants, anti-UV, blowing agents, flame retardant Songwon, Chemtura, GreatLakes, Advansa)
- ingredients for the nutrition industry
Claudio Giorio
Managing Director
Send E-Mail
Phone +39 02 7621281
Fax +39 02 76006403
Specialty Chemicals
Roberto Calvi
Managing Director
Send E-Mail
Phone +39 02 76006424
Fax +39 02 76006403
VAT numbers
Biesterfeld Polybass S.p.A.: IT08933150156
Biesterfeld Polychem S.r.l: IT07504850962
Image film: Competence in Solutions
Our Suppliers
Biesterfeld receives additional distribution rights for Dymax light-curing adhesives in Eastern Europe
Biesterfeld and US manufacturer Dymax are extending their distribution partnership for light-curing adhesives, casting compounds and conformal coatings, which are primarily used in medical technology, industry and electronics. The products have been…
Biesterfeld and CP Kelco expand their cooperation in the food and nutrition sector in Europe
Biesterfeld is expanding its long-term partnership with US-based ingredients manufacturer CP Kelco in the food and nutrition sector. Following on from their successful cooperation in Germany and Poland, the distribution of CP Kelco's nature-based…
Biesterfeld and DuPont: celebrating 30 years of collaboration
Biesterfeld Plastic and DuPont Transportation & Industrial (T&I) are proud to celebrate more than 30 years of exclusive collaboration in the field of engineering polymers and high-performance materials. The two companies are looking forward to…


text:
Q&A About Flood Zones
Is my property in a flood zone?
Yes. The entire city of Palo Alto is in a flood zone of one kind or another. But most of the city is in an "X" zone, which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) describes as an area either lying outside the so-called 100year flood limit and inside the 500year flood limit, or as lying within the 100year flood limit but shallow enough to not represent a special hazard. The remainder of the city lies within Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), which, roughly speaking, means the area of special hazard from a so-called "100year flood". (The Foothills area is a special case. It has not been studied and is Zone X by default.)
What's a "100year flood"?
"100year flood" is actually something of a misnomer: such a flood does not happen every 100 years. Rather, over a very long period of time such a flood occurs every hundred years on the average. To be accurate, such a flood has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. This can be misleading as to the actual chances: by simple statistical math it can be calculated that such a flood has a 26% chance of occurring during the life of a 30year mortgage.
FEMA's choice of the 100year flood as the limit of the SFHA is quite arbitrary. A property lying just outside this area but within a 105year zone is almost equally likely to be flooded. And, like the Big Earthquake, the question is not "if" such a flood will occur but "when".
When was the last time we had a 100year flood?
No one's really sure. Historically, development in the area is relatively recent. It hasn't been that long since most of the floodprone areas were bayland or farmland and no one really cared whether a flood was a 100year flood. There have been major floods, though, with the 1950s being noteworthy: once, Baylands levees failed and a large area extending into Louis Road was flooded; another time the entire area from Middlefield Road at San Francisquito Creek to the Oregon Avenue/Bayshore area and beyond was flooded, with water flowing over the Bayshore Highway; this event was largely repeated in the disastrous flood of February 1998, considered roughly to have been a 70 or 80year flood.
What kinds of Special Flood Hazard Areas are there?
There are three basic types of SFHA in Palo Alto: areas where the flood waters are "ponded", with a more or less level surface like a lake (AE zone), areas where water flows down a gentle slope up to two feet deep (A0 zones), and the AH zones, which may be either.
The largest AE zone in Palo Alto is an area predicted to be flooded by extraordinary bay tides overtopping the levees around the Baylands and reaching a height of nearly 8feet above sea level. This AE zone covers a large area generally from Middlefield Road to the bay. Some properties within this area have an elevation as low as 2.1 feet above sea level, meaning the predicted flood would be some 6feet deep.
The largest AH zone lies along a wide strip from west of Middlefield Road from San Francisquito Creek to Hamilton Avenue and extending down to the Embarcadero Road/Bayshore interchange and between Channing Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, and is subject to flooding by overflow from San Francisquito Creek; this was roughly the area of the disastrous flooding of February 1998.
The next largest SFHAs lie west of the Southern Pacific/CalTrain tracks along Park Boulevard between Page Mill Road and Charleston Road.
These areas are shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) published by FEMA.
Didn't the work done on the creeks eliminate the flood zones?
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (not the City of Palo Alto) did extensive work on some of the creeks. This work was to eliminate or reduce the SFHAs lying west of the railroad tracks. It does not have any impact on the large AE zone caused by bay flooding. FEMA has already issued a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) removing some areas from the SFHAs due to completion of some of the work along Adobe Creek and these are now incorporated into the latest Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Unfortunately, the work along Matadero and Barron Creeks did not go completely as planned and as of this writing there have been no further map changes due to creek work.
How can I find out for myself if I'm in a Special Flood Hazard Area?
Both the Public Works and Planning departments at the Palo Alto Civic Center have the flood maps available for viewing. Or Public Works will give that information over the phone at 3292151, by FAX at 3292240, or by CLICKING HERE. Public Works can also supply a letter stating the flood zone for a given property. There is a fee associated with providing this letter.
Do I have to buy flood insurance if I'm in an SFHA?
No, not if you own the property outright. But federal regulations require that loans for property in an SFHA be protected by flood insurance, and lenders will require it. And given the aforementioned 26% chance of a 100year flood during the life of a typical mortgage, a lender would be less than prudent if it did not require flood insurance in any case.
When the flood occurs, FEMA will begin its emergency financial assistance on the premise that maximum insurance was carried on the property and that relief is only needed for an amount over that "deductible". As a practical matter, then, little or no disaster relief will be available for uninsured property.
There are only two ways out of an insurance requirement: assume the risk for yourself by paying off the mortgage, or get the property removed from the SFHA.
How can I get my property out of the SFHA?
There is a misconception that all that's necessary to be considered out of the SFHA is to demonstrate to the City of Palo Alto that a structure's lowest floor is above the flood height. This is not true: a structure is in the SFHA as long as any aboveground part of the structure or its foundation lies below the flood height. However, you may have been incorrectly included in the SFHA even though your land is high enough to be above the flood height. Only FEMA has the authority to decide whether you were improperly included in an SFHA. There are two basic ways to do this:
FEMA can publish new maps. This would require a new areawide study and would only be done if there were major changes which might affect the SFHA. For instance, the work on the creeks will justify a future study. Or, if the levees around the Baylands were raised, a new study would probably eliminate the large AE SFHA.
FEMA can issue you a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) which states that your specific property is so situated and configured that when the 100year flood comes your house would, in effect, be sitting on its own little island. To obtain a LOMA you must submit data to FEMA showing that you would indeed be high and dry during the flood. Some of this data will require the hiring of a licensed surveyor or registered professional engineer. Public Works Engineering has an information sheet on LOMAs available on request.
FEMA does have one other method available: the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). A LOMR is used when fill is to be added to the site to elevate the property above the Base Flood Elevation, or has been added since 1980. It is not as useful as a LOMA in getting out of some of the flood requirements.
I've been issued a LOMA and it says the structure isn't in the Special Flood Hazard Area. What's that mean?
All the rules and insurance requirements apply to structures, not land (there isn't any flood insurance for damage to the land). If FEMA determines that during a 100year flood a structure will sit on its own little island, no matter how small, it will issue a LOMA for the structure, even though the rest of the property may still be low enough to be in the flood. This LOMA is then valid until either the flood map is revised or some sort of remodeling expands the footprint of the house.
Who decided we had to have flood zones? It doesn't seem like floods are all that big a deal.
In the past, insurance companies have been unable or unwilling to provide flood insurance for the simple reason that one flood could bankrupt an insurance company; the risk of flood damage is too high and tends to happen all at once; it might not be covered by distributed premiums already collected. In fact, the 1% per year chance of a flood in an SFHA is higher than the risk of fire. However, fire damage happens singly, here and there, at random, and can be covered as it occurs. This is not true of floods.
In order to make flood insurance available, Congress provided for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) with the government acting pretty much as the insurer. But flood insurance was made available only on a community basis, and a community wishing to have flood insurance available had to join the NFIP and enforce the federal regulations by implementing them with local ordinances.
I understand that there are special requirements for construction in an SFHA. What are they?
As a community participating in the National Flood Insurance Program, Palo Alto is required to impose the federal rules regarding construction in an SFHA. These rules are spelled out in Section 16.52 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and apply to "substantial improvement" and new construction in an SFHA, and to any improvement, no matter how small, to a structure in an SFHA built or "substantially improved" since 15 February 1980. Excerpts from the Code are contained in the Public Works Engineering Information Sheet "Requirements Applicable to Special Flood Hazard Areas", available on request.
The requirement that hurts the most is that the lowest floor be elevated above the flood level. This effectively prohibits basements (which are defined as any enclosed area below grade on all sides). Because of zoning requirements which limit building height and prohibit building beyond a specified "daylight plane", the need to elevate the lowest floor can create a "squeeze" which might prevent the building of a second floor.
Other provisions require openings in areas below flood level to allow water to enter and exit, flood proofing of utilities below the flood level, etc.
Wait a minute. First you say the lowest floor must be above flood level, and then you say that areas below flood level require openings. Isn't that a contradiction?
The exception to the elevation requirement is that any enclosed area used only for storage or parking does not have to be elevated (but it can't be below grade). Such an area may not be used for any other purpose. That means that crawl spaces and garages can be below flood level, but would require the openings.
So how do I know how high to make the lowest floor?
That information comes from the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). For AE and AH zones the Base Flood Elevation is given as an absolute elevation "above sea level", and the lowest floor must be at or above that elevation. For A0 zones the depth of the water is given, and the lowest floor must be at least that amount above the highest point of adjacent grade. For A0 zones, then, the absolute elevation of the lowest floor must be determined, and, for the adjacent grade, the highest point on the perimeter of the projected final "footprint" of the structure has to be determined. The difference between the two absolute elevations must be equal to or greater than the depth given on the FIRM.
Obviously, this can be important information in making your decision as to whether to proceed with your plans. In order to help keep your costs down during the preliminary planning stages, the City Surveyor has been instructed to cooperate in establishing a benchmark near your property for your surveyor to work from. Unfortunately, the City Surveyor can't survey on private land for private purposes.
If you do proceed with plans for a new structure or a "substantial improvement" you will have to hire a surveyor to complete an "as built" certification of these elevations once construction is advanced enough to determine the final elevation of the lowest floor.
I think my lowest floor is already high enough. Is there any way to document this ahead of time?
The FEMA elevation certificate can be used. For a substantial improvement it would be required in any case if you proceed with your plans. It may also be useful if you might be selling your house in the near future. The elevation Certificate must be completed by a licensed surveyor. Public Works engineering has a supply of blank forms available.
If you plan to use the certificate as a selling point, be cautioned that the certificate is valid only for the current flood map revision and only for the current configuration of the house; it would not necessarily permit future expansion. Nor does the certificate indicate that the house is "not in a flood zone": it remains in the SFHA and the certificate only documents that one of several SFHA construction requirements are met.
I want to do some remodeling and the city says I have to jack up my house and fill in my basement. What's going on?
For "substantial improvements" these rules apply to both the new work and the existing structure even if only a second floor is to be added. So, yes, you may be required to jack up your house and fill in the basement.
There's an exception though, if your "substantial improvement" is a so-called "horizontal" or "vertical" addition. If your addition is either a "wing" attached to the existing house through just a new doorway, or your addition is pure second story, without altering the structural integrity of the existing house or doing any additional remodeling in the existing house, the existing house may not have to be modified to meet current flood requirements. However, the new addition itself must meet current requirements, so for "horizontal" additions you may end up with a splitlevel.
You put "substantial improvement" in quotes, why?
Because the term has a special definition for flood zone development:
Substantial Improvement
"Any improvement to an existing structure for which the total cost of all improvements to be made exceeds 50% of the current market value of the existing structure, exclusive of land, improvements to the land, swimming pools, detached structures, decks not a part of the structure, etc."
This calculation also applies to any house built since 1980 which was built in accordance with requirements but where FEMA has adjusted the flood elevation upward. For instance, the flood elevation for the large AE area subject to bay flooding was changed to 8feet from 7feet in September 1989.
So if my remodeling is small enough I won't have to raise my house?
No. If it's obviously not a "substantial improvement", or if the "substantial improvement" requirement appears to apply but you can demonstrate that your improvements will actually be less than 50%, then no requirements would have to be met.
How do I prove what I'm doing isn't a "substantial Improvement"?
The "proof" would consist of the submittal of a reasonably detailed estimate by a qualified person of the cost of all the work to be done to the structure, and a professional appraisal of the current value of the structure.
The estimate must include all work to be done to any addition to the existing house, and any work to be done in the existing house. In other words, all the work covered by your anticipated building permit, except for the cost of permit, license, architect, design, or other fees, and the cost of any improvements not part of the structure, such as pools, landscaping, and detached structures.
The cost estimate must also include minor work such as painting and flooring, built-in appliances, and the fair market value of any free or donated labor or materials.
The appraisal must be by a practicing appraiser (of a stature acceptable to lenders) of the current market value of the structure to be improved. This value cannot include the value of the land or any improvements not a direct part of the structure. For instance it cannot include the value of pools, guest houses or detached garages (although an attached garage can be included).
The documents will be compared to the submitted building plans and reviewed for reasonableness by Public Works Engineering to determine whether the figures supplied justify the conclusion that the proposed work is not a "substantial improvement". If not, that conclusion will be documented and the applicant will be able to proceed without needing to meet the flood zone requirements.
If my house were damaged by fire or earthquake, do the repairs count towards "substantial improvement"?
Damage is handled a little differently. The requirements depend on the concept of "substantial damage":
Substantial Damage
". . . damage of any origin . . . where the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 per cent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred." [44CFR59.1]
The regulations go on to require that the "substantial improvement" rules apply to "substantial damage" even if the structure is not restored fully to its predamage condition. Scope of current repair work is not what counts, but rather what it would cost to do the complete restoration. For instance, if it would cost 55% of the predamage market value of the structure to fully repair the damage, it will be necessary to meet the elevation and basement requirements even if the current repair work will only be 5% of the predamage market value.
Variances are available for relief from other zoning requirements. How about the flood zone requirements?
Theoretically, variances are available for cases of sufficient hardship. In the past, the city issued a number of variances based on a misunderstanding of the degree and nature of hardship required. Subsequently, FEMA issued more detailed interpretations that the hardship had to be due to the peculiar nature of a single piece of land compared to other land in the area and that personal or economic hardship was insufficient. Thus far, FEMA has provided a number of examples of hardship that do not qualify for a variance, but none that demonstrate what does qualify. For all practical purposes, variances are extremely difficult to justify.
My property is commercial. Does it have to meet all of the requirements?
Nonresidential construction and improvement must meet all of the requirements, with one significant exception: it is not necessary to construct the first floor level at or above the flood height as long as the structure is "dry" floodproofed up to the flood level. Such "flood proofing" must be certified as meeting the requirements by a registered professional engineer.
This publication is intended to be an informal means of informing the public about a City process. Although it is assumed the information provided is accurate, this publication only provides an overview and is not intended to create any sort of legal obligation on the City's part. The actual process is governed by City ordinances, regulations and procedures which implement relevant provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations. The reader should make specific inquiry for specific cases.
Last Updated: March 14, 2007


text:
You can call our Baby Rocking Boat whatever you want. A boat. A rocker. Steps. A stage. Either way, the baby rocking boat is the perfect toy for tots!
Handcrafted in Australia using hardwearing and strong ply and Australian timber dowel rungs.
The baby rocking boat is compact and can be stored flat under a bed or inside a cupboard, so it is perfect for apartment-living families, or just those who want to save some space in their living areas.
This multi-functional toy brings out the best in your little ones, mastering new skills of climbing up and down stairs and creating a fun environment for movement and imagination.
Create your own adventure playground with our baby rocking boat, and watch as your children are entertained for hours!
- 1190mm long x 300mm high x 610mm wide
Items are shipped flat packed for self-assembly.
Please note that one additional rung is provided, and holes to attach it pre-drilled to allow for a ramp or ladder to be attached. This is standard to all boats.
The current dispatch time is 15 working days, please note this excludes public holidays and weekends.
Please see our FAQs for more information.
Delivery time is dependent on your location for delivery. We are only able to use a courier to deliver due to the large size of the items so cannot guarantee delivery times. There are no express shipping services available.
We are proud to produce our products using 100% Australian grown timber. As our materials are natural, and sourced from Australian sustainable forests the timber may differ in colour depending on species and location of the forests. We trust you will embrace the uniqueness of our gorgeous Australian timber.
Safety information:
Never leave your children unsupervised.
Equipment should be placed on soft, sturdy ground.
Suitable for indoor and outdoor use. Equipment should be kept dry and protected from the elements.
Customer Reviews
Great product
Very well made. My 1 year old loves it and will get a lot of use out of it as he grows and develops.
We got this as gift for our son's first birthday. He loves it! And his big brother (almost 3) loves it too. Great for climbing, rocking and using as a surface to play with trucks and trains! Nice sturdy construction - took a little while to get it together (there are lots of screws) but that might just be me. Looking forward to adding to the collection with some ramps and a triangle in the future!!
Absolutely exceptional! Prompt delivery and ease of order.
3 YO and 1 YO are using it non stop !!!
Thank You :)
Happy Nana.
Great quality