text:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John William STINSON, aka; Seal C; Youngster; The Youngest, Defendant–Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Robert Lee Griffin, aka Seal E, Blinky, McGrif, McGriff, Defendant–Appellant.
John Stinson and Robert Griffin appeal their convictions for RICO conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), for operating the Aryan Brotherhood (AB) prison gang. Stinson also appeals his conviction for violent crime in aid of racketeering (VICAR), 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The AB started in 1964 as a group of white prison inmates who asserted the need to protect themselves and later evolved into an organization designed to traffic narcotics across numerous California and federal prisons. In the early 1980s, the California AB was reorganized such that it was governed by a three-member commission. The commission had final say on AB orders to kill, orders to enforce AB rules, and the AB's business efforts. Griffin was an original member of the commission. By 1990, Stinson had joined Griffin on the commission.
A federal grand jury indicted Griffin and Stinson for operating a RICO conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and for two counts of VICAR in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1). The RICO count set forth numerous overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, including operating the California Commission and 11 murders, attempted murders, or conspiracies to murder. The VICAR counts alleged the murders of Arthur Ruffo and Aaron Marsh for the purpose of maintaining or increasing Griffin and Stinson's positions in the AB.
The case proceeded to a 27–day jury trial. The jury found Stinson and Griffin guilty of the RICO count and Stinson guilty of the VICAR counts. As for Griffin, the jury returned special verdicts finding him guilty of all the charged overt acts of murder, attempted murder, or conspiracy to murder, except the murder of Marsh and the attempt and conspiracy to murder Jeffrey Barnett. The jury returned a special verdict finding that Griffin had not withdrawn from the conspiracy prior to the running of the statute of limitations on August 28, 1997. As for Stinson, the jury returned special verdicts finding him guilty of the same overt acts as Griffin, plus the Marsh murder. The jury also found Stinson guilty of VICAR for aiding, abetting, and conspiring to murder Ruffo and Marsh.
Stinson and Griffin were sentenced to life terms on the RICO count. Stinson was sentenced to additional life terms for the VICAR counts. Stinson and Griffin timely appeal.
This appeal centers on numerous procedural decisions by the district court before and during the trial.
Stinson and Griffin moved for dismissal of the VICAR counts on the basis that venue was improper in the Central District of California because the alleged murders occurred at the Pelican Bay State Prison in the Northern District of California. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the VICAR counts charged offenses that continued into the Central District.
In claims for improper venue in criminal cases, "the underlying legal basis is reviewed de novo, [though] a district court's ruling on a motion for change of venue is reviewed for abuse of discretion." United States v. Valdez–Santos, 457 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir.2006). On such a pre-trial motion to dismiss, courts presume the truth of the allegations in the indictment. United States v. Jensen, 93 F.3d 667, 669(9th Cir.1996).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), continuing offenses, defined as offenses "begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district," may be prosecuted "in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed." Venue is proper under § 3237 when an "essential conduct element" of the offense continues into the charging district. United States v. Rodriguez–Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 280–82 (1999). Venue is not proper when all that occurred in the charging district was a "circumstance element ․ [that] occurred after the fact of an offense begun and completed by others." Id. at 280 n.4 (quoting United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have instructed that "[c]rimes that are not unitary but instead span space and time ․ may be considered continuing offenses." United States v. Pace, 314 F.3d 344, 350 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Corona, 34 F.3d 876, 879 (9th Cir.1994)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Barnard, 490 F.2d 907, 911(9th Cir.1973).
We have not yet squarely reached the question of whether VICAR can be a continuing offense under § 3237. In answering that question, "a court must initially identify the conduct constituting the offense (the nature of the crime) and then discern the location of the commission of the criminal acts." Rodriguez–Moreno, 526 U.S. at 279. As for the first step, we have already identified four elements of a VICAR conviction:
(1) that the criminal organization exists; (2) that the organization is a racketeering enterprise; (3) that the defendant committed a violent crime; and (4) that the defendant acted for the purpose of promoting his position in a racketeering enterprise.
United States v. Banks, 514 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Bracy, 67 F.3d 1421, 1429(9th Cir.1995) (alterations omitted). As for the second step, "essential conduct elements" occurred in the Central District of California in addition to the Northern District of California. While the physical killing of Ruffo and Marsh occurred in the Northern District, the indictment charged that Stinson, "within the Central District of California" did "aid, abet, advice, encourage, and otherwise participate in the murder of Arthur Ruffo ․ [and] Aaron Marsh." The indictment therefore charged that the essential conduct element of committing a violent crime continued in the Central District. VICAR is consequently a continuing offense in this case. As a result, venue was proper in the Central District under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a). The district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss for improper venue.
Griffin moved to sever his case from Stinson's under Fed.R.Crim.P. 14 on the ground that he would be prejudiced by allegations against Stinson that do not apply to him. The district court denied severance. The court also issued limiting instructions to the jury that "you must decide the case for each defendant on each charge against that defendant separately."
We review a denial of a motion for severance under Rule 14 for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Sullivan, 522 F.3d 967, 981 (9th Cir.2008).
Rule 14 provides that "[i]f the joinder of offenses or defendants ․ appears to prejudice a defendant," then "the court may ․ sever the defendants' trials, or provide any other relief that justice requires." Fed.R.Crim.P. 14(a). Severance is appropriate under Rule 14 "only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence." Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993). "There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together." Id. at 537.
Griffin does not identify a "specific trial right" that was compromised by his joint trial. He argues that the district court's decision not to sever prejudiced him, because Stinson asked questions of a government agent that led to improper "vouching testimony" that was harmful to Griffin. Yet that is an objection to the admission of that testimony, which we address in subpart H, not to the court's decision not to sever. Any difference in trial strategy between Griffin and Stinson was not analogous to cases in which co-defendants seek to present mutually exclusive defenses, such that severance is a prerequisite to the defendants' due process right to mount a defense. See, e.g., United States v. Mayfield, 189 F.3d 895, 899–900 (9th Cir.1999).
Nor may Griffin show that the joint trial "prevent[ed] the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence" in light of the district court's instruction. Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 539. Where "the district court uses great diligence in instructing the jury to separate the evidence, severance is unnecessary because the prejudicial effects of the evidence of codefendants are neutralized." United States v. Patterson, 819 F.2d 1495, 1503 (9th Cir.1987) (footnote and internal quotation marks omitted). See also United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1242–43 (9th Cir.2004). The district court explicitly instructed the jury that it "must decide the case for each defendant on each charge against that defendant separately." It is clear that the jury was able to compartmentalize the evidence because it returned different verdicts with regard to Griffin and Stinson on the overt act of the murder of Marsh. "[T]he fact that the jury rendered selective verdicts is highly indicative of its ability to compartmentalize the evidence." United States v. Lazarenko, 564 F.3d 1026, 1043(9th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Cuozzo, 962 F.2d 945, 950 (9th Cir.1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Griffin's motion to sever.
The government originally sought the death penalty against Stinson and Griffin and consequently sought to "death qualify" the jury by excluding those who would automatically vote against the death penalty because of their opposition to capital punishment. Griffin filed a motion objecting to death qualification on the footing that it violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury selected from a representative cross section of the community. The district court denied the motion, and the jury was death qualified. The government subsequently withdrew its intent to seek the death penalty.
We review "independently and non-deferentially" challenges to the composition of a jury based on the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a fair and impartial jury. United States v. Sanchez–Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 546 (9th Cir.1989).
The Supreme Court has made clear that death qualifying a jury in a capital case does not violate the Sixth Amendment's impartial jury or fair cross section requirements. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 174, 184 (1986). The Court has similarly found no Sixth Amendment violation in death qualifying a jury even when a non-capital defendant is tried jointly with a capital defendant. Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 420 (1987).
We have since applied McCree and Buchanan in a habeas case to hold that the use of a death qualified jury in what the state supreme court held should have been a non-capital case was not a clear due process violation. Furman v. Wood, 190 F.3d 1002, 1004–05 (9th Cir.1999). In Furman, we explicitly rejected the argument that Buchanan was limited to cases in which non-capital defendants are tried jointly with capital defendants. Id. at 1005. In light of Furman, there was no Sixth Amendment violation here. The district court did not err in proceeding with a death qualified jury.1
During jury selection, the district court rejected two Batson challenges by Stinson and Griffin. Their first challenge was to a government peremptory strike of a female potential juror, number 78. The district court overruled the objection, reasoning that number 78 had mentioned that she wanted to get off the case twice. The judge explained that he therefore could see the government not being satisfied with her. After the court denied the Batson challenge, the government indicated that it was challenging number 78 so as not to anger her.
During the selection of alternates, the government used a peremptory on potential alternate number 101, also a woman. Griffin and Stinson raised a second Batson challenge on the ground that the prosecution was systematically removing women from the jury. The government responded that number 101 had a nephew who spent many years in prison for robbery and was familiar with the gangs on a personal basis. The district court overruled the objection based on the years of imprisonment of the nephew and the connection with the gangs. The court noted that of the six people who were then the alternates, there were three men and three women.
The government later challenged potential alternate number 118 for cause on the basis that she was hesitant when she talked about her boyfriend's incarceration and seemed biased with respect to the penal system. The district court denied that challenge. The government then sought to remove the juror with a peremptory challenge. Stinson and Griffin again raised Batson for systematic exclusion of women. This time, the court sustained the objection, reasoning that it was not impressed with number 118 having any problems.
In Batson challenges to discriminatory peremptory strikes, district court determinations of whether a prima facie showing of discrimination has been made are reviewed for clear error. Tolbert v. Page, 182 F.3d 677, 685 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). The same applies to determinations of whether purposeful discrimination has been shown. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 369 (1991) (plurality). If the district court applies the wrong legal standard, however, we review the claim de novo. Paulino v. Castro, 371 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir.2004).
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination in jury selection on the basis of gender. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 146 (1994). In order to challenge such discrimination:
First, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge has been exercised on the basis of gender. Second, if that showing has been made, the prosecution must offer a gender-neutral basis for striking the juror in question. Third, in light of the parties' submissions, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination.
United States v. Alanis, 335 F.3d 965, 967 (9th Cir.2003) (internal brackets omitted).
Under this framework, the district court did not clearly err. Regarding potential juror 78, the district court appears to have concluded that Stinson and Griffin did not meet the first requirement of making a prima facie showing of discrimination, as the court denied their request without seeking a response from the government. The record supports this conclusion. Number 78 had asked several times not to be selected because of a personal conflict. This led the judge independently to suggest that she be excused. While the government had previously challenged four women, it had also challenged two men. Considering the totality of the relevant facts, the record suggests that number 78 was stricken because of her insistence that she did not want to serve, not because of her gender.
Regarding potential alternate 101, the district court appears to have concluded that Griffin and Stinson made a prima facie showing, as it went on to call for a response from the government. At the second step, the government offered a gender neutral explanation: her nephew's long time in prison and her personal familiarity with gangs. At the third step, the court accepted that explanation and did not find purposeful discrimination. At root, this was a credibility determination that the district court was in the best position to make. Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 365. Furthermore, the proffered explanation appears credible because the government had not challenged the previous three female alternates.
Regarding potential alternate 118, Stinson and Griffin were not harmed because the district court did not excuse her. In sum, the district court did not clearly err in rejecting the two Batson challenges.
Stinson served a subpoena on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for the confidential file that the CDCR kept on him. The district court ordered the CDCR to produce Stinson's confidential file in unredacted form to the government and ordered the government to redact any sensitive information in order to protect the safety and security of witnesses. Stinson then filed two motions to compel discovery from the government of an unredacted version of the confidential file or, in the alternative, for the court to review the redacted material in camera to determine what must remain redacted. The district court denied the motions.
We generally review asserted Brady violations de novo. United States v. Brumel–Alvarez, 991 F.2d 1452, 1456(9th Cir.1993). Decisions concerning redactions or the production of specific information within a document are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Si, 343 F.3d 1116, 1122(9th Cir.2003); United States v. Monroe, 943 F.2d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir.1991).
Under Brady, "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). There are three components of a Brady violation: "[t]he evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued." Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281–82 (1999). "To determine whether prejudice exists, we look to the materiality of the suppressed evidence." Jackson v. Brown, 513 F.3d 1057, 1071 (9th Cir.2008). When looking to materiality, the question is "whether admission of the suppressed evidence would have created a reasonable probability of a different result," so the defendant "must show only that the government's evidentiary suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial." United States v. Jernigan, 492 F.3d 1050, 1053–54 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Stinson has not shown that the redacted documents constituted a Brady violation. The documents referenced are debriefing interviews of inmates who did not testify at trial, so the redacted identities of the debriefers were not material, let alone exculpatory or impeaching. Nor is Stinson able to show a "reasonable probability of a different result" by speculating about what might have been redacted. Jernigan, 492 F.3d at 1053–54. A district court need not make such documents available based on "mere speculation about materials in the government's files." United States v. Mincoff, 574 F.3d 1186, 1200 (9th Cir .2009) (quoting United States v. Michaels, 796 F.2d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir.1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Neither does Stinson show that the district court erred in not reviewing an unredacted version of the documents in camera. In United States v. Alvarez, 86 F.3d 901, 906–07 (9th Cir.1996), we discussed the Jencks Act's requirement that the government produce any statement of a witness that relates to his testimony. We recognized that, under the Jencks Act, when the United States claims that a statement ordered to be produced does not relate to the testimony of a witness, "the court shall order the United States to deliver such statement for the inspection of the court in camera" and "the court shall excise the portions of such statement which do not relate." Id. at 907 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3500(c)). In this case, however, the redaction procedure discussed in Alvarez does not apply because none of the redactions at issue concerned statements of testifying witnesses. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in supervising discovery because the government did not redact Brady material and the court was not required to review unredacted documents in camera.
Government witness Clifford Smith admitted on direct and cross-examination that he had previously perjured himself, including in a related trial against other members of the AB. Smith also testified that he had received a total of $1,000 to $1,500 for his testimony over the past four or five years from a federal agent, Michael Halualani, including payments after his perjury in the related AB case. Government witness Brian Healy testified on cross-examination that agent Halualani had made him feel threatened that he could be indicted and get the death penalty if he did not cooperate. Halualani later testified that he probably did threaten Healy in that way. Government witness David Griffin testified on cross-examination that a California corrections officer threatened to send him to solitary confinement if he did not produce information about defendant Robert Griffin.
Griffin and Stinson moved the district court to dismiss the indictment for extreme and outrageous conduct and under the court's supervisory powers, citing the government's conduct with regard to these three witnesses. Stinson moved to suppress their testimony. The district court denied both motions. The court subsequently instructed the jury that it could consider a witness's previous acts of perjury in deciding whether or not to believe that witness.
We review de novo a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment due to outrageous government conduct. United States v. Gurolla, 333 F.3d 944, 950 (9th Cir.2003). A district court's decision not to use its supervisory powers to dismiss an indictment is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Id. We review denials of motions to suppress de novo. United States v. Crawford, 372 F.3d 1048, 1053(9th Cir.2004) (en banc).
In order to show outrageous government conduct, defendants must show conduct that violates due process in such a way that it is "so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice." United States v. Restrepo, 930 F.2d 705, 712 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. O'Connor, 737 F.2d 814, 817 (9th Cir.1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The defense is therefore "limited to extreme cases in which the government's conduct violates fundamental fairness." Gurolla, 333 F.3d at 950.
The government's conduct with regard to Smith does not meet this standard. We are unaware of any case in which we have dismissed an indictment for similar witness compensation or for the testimony of a witness with a history of perjuring himself. We have upheld much greater compensation. United States v. Cuellar, 96 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.1996). As for the witness's history of perjury, the jury was made aware of this history on direct and cross-examination and was free to weigh the testimony accordingly. The court explicitly instructed the jury that it could consider previous acts of perjury in deciding whether or not to believe a witness. This is not a case in which the credibility of a witness came into question only after the trial or in which the government knowingly introduced false testimony. See, e.g., Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1 (1956); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). In light of the "traditional safeguards" of disclosure to the jury on cross-examination and the jury instruction, the government's conduct regarding Smith was not outrageous. Cuellar, 96 F.3d at 1183.
Nor was the government's conduct with regard to Healy and David Griffin outrageous. We have upheld similar pressure by the government to secure witness cooperation. United States v. Ryan, 548 F.2d 782, 788–89 (9th Cir.1976); see also United States v. Dudden, 65 F.3d 1461, 1466(9th Cir.1995). Accordingly, the government's conduct did not rise to the level of coercion. See, e.g., Hysler v. Florida, 315 U.S. 411 (1942). The government's conduct with regard to these witnesses was thus not "so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice." Restrepo, 930 F.2d at 712.
Even if the conduct did not rise to the level of a due process violation, the court could have nonetheless dismissed the indictment under its supervisory powers. United States v. Barrera–Moreno, 951 F.2d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.1991). Such a power may be exercised "to remedy a constitutional or statutory violation; to protect judicial integrity by ensuring that a conviction rests on appropriate considerations validly before a jury; or to deter future illegal conduct." Id. The power is not strictly limited to those uses. United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 511 n.9 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Here, as we have explained, there was no constitutional violation or illegal conduct to be deterred. Nor was judicial integrity at risk, as cross-examination and jury instructions addressed concerns about witness credibility.
We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct or under its supervisory powers. Because there was no constitutional or other violation, the district court similarly did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
In 2006, a different district court granted Griffin's writ of habeas corpus, which asserted that his indefinite confinement in a segregated housing unit unless he would debrief the government about the AB violated the Eighth Amendment. That court reasoned that Griffin's confinement for what was by then 20 years had vitiated his active gang participation and rendered insignificant any information he still had about the AB.
In this case, defense expert witness Robert Ayers testified that Griffin was inactive in the AB, at least as of 1997. After cross-examination, Griffin sought to rehabilitate the witness by introducing the habeas order to ask Ayers what effect it had on his opinion of Griffin's withdrawal. The district court ruled that the order was not admissible.
We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.2004). This includes the exclusion of evidence under a hearsay rule. United States v. Ortega, 203 F.3d 675, 682 (9th Cir.2000).
A prior judgment is "hearsay to the extent that it is offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted in the judgment," but is "not hearsay, [ ] to the extent that it is offered as legally operative verbal conduct that determined the rights and duties of the parties." United States v. Boulware, 384 F.3d 794, 806 (9th Cir.2004). In Boulware, we held that a prior judgment determining the ownership of assets was not hearsay in a tax prosecution to the extent it was offered not for its truth but merely to establish its legal effect. Id. at 806–807. On the other hand, in United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1036–37 (9th Cir.2007), we held that a prior court order was hearsay when findings from the order were used to cross-examine a witness, since the purpose was for the jury to agree with the prior judge's findings.
In this case, the order granting the habeas petition was inadmissible hearsay because it was offered for its truth, as in Sine. Griffin sought to reinforce Ayers's testimony by introducing the habeas order that reached a similar conclusion as Ayers. He implied this purpose when he told the court he would show it to Ayers and ask him what effect that has on his opinion. This indicates that the order was offered for its truth, specifically so that the jury would agree with the prior judge's conclusions which corroborated Ayers's testimony. The order was not being offered merely to establish its legal effect, i.e. that Griffin had a legal right to be released from segregated housing as of the date of the order. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in excluding the order.2
During trial, Stinson called government investigator Halualani to testify concerning the background of government informant-witnesses Smith, Harper, Roach, and Healy. Stinson elicited testimony that Halualani was aware of prior perjury by Smith but had still paid him for his testimony because he did not deem him unreliable at the time. Stinson also asked what if anything Halualani had done to verify Harper's prior statement that he heard Stinson order Healy to murder Ruffo. Finally, Stinson elicited testimony suggesting that Roach and Healy could have fabricated their stories with other informants housed in the same unit.
Before cross-examination, Stinson and Griffin raised with the court their concern that the government on cross-examination would try to use Halualani to vouch for the credibility of Smith, Harper, Roach, and Healy. The district court responded that the "door [h]as been opened" to questions like "if you say that some of these informants ․ are unreliable why do you use them," but the government could not ask "whether or not ․ these three witnesses are believable."
On cross-examination, the government asked Halualani about his use of the four informants. Regarding Smith, the government asked Halualani why he had continued to pay Smith after his prior perjury, to which Halualani responded, "I still found him to be reliable about the things he had testified about concerning the Aryan Brotherhood." Regarding Harper, the government elicited that Halualani determined that Harper had not lied to him by reviewing prison records and based on Harper's knowledge as well as letters and meetings between AB members and Harper. Regarding Roach and Healy, the government asked how Halualani countered concerns that they had fabricated testimony in a certain unit, to which Halualani responded that both had been debriefed before entering that unit. He also testified that information corroborated 99 percent of what Roach had said, and that Healy's statements seemed reliable because they were against his interests.
Griffin and Stinson objected to this testimony as vouching and moved to strike, but the district court overruled the objections. The district court also denied Griffin and Stinson's motion for a new trial based on the alleged vouching.
We review alleged vouching for harmless error when, as here, the defendant objected at trial. United States v. Hermanek, 289 F.3d 1076, 1098 (9th Cir.2002). We review for abuse of discretion a district court's rulings on alleged prosecutorial misconduct, including vouching. United States v. Sarkisian, 197 F.3d 966, 988 (9th Cir.1999).
"Improper vouching occurs when the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind the witness by providing personal assurances of the witness's veracity. Improper vouching also occurs where the prosecutor suggests that the testimony of government witnesses is supported by information outside that presented to the jury." United States v. Wright, 625 F.3d 583, 610 (9th Cir.2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "[P]rosecutorial misconduct may occur through the prosecutor's own vouching remarks or when the prosecutor elicits vouching testimony from witnesses." Cheney v. Washington, 614 F.3d 987, 996 n.4 (9th Cir.2010). We have rejected the proposition that "whenever a defense counsel attacks the credibility of witnesses the prosecutor can respond with vouching statements." United States v. Weatherspoon, 410 F.3d 1142, 1150 (9th Cir.2005).
We have previously concluded that it is not vouching when the government elicits testimony from a government agent about the prior reliability of an informant-witness after the defendant opens the door on direct examination. United States v. Nobari, 574 F.3d 1065, 1078 (9th Cir.2009). In Nobari, the defendant called a government informant to testify and attempted to impeach him with alleged prior untruthfulness in violation of a prior plea agreement. We held that this "opened the door" so that questions by the prosecution to the informant about his prior truthfulness under that agreement would not be vouching. Id. We also held that it was not vouching for the government then to elicit testimony from a government agent about whether that informant had proven reliable and truthful in his daily contacts with agent. Id. On the other hand, we have rejected the testimony of government agents as vouching when it addresses an informant-witness's present credibility in the case. United States v. Rudberg, 122 F.3d 1199, 1204 (9th Cir.1997).
Applying these cases, the testimony elicited from Halualani regarding Smith and Harper was not vouching. Halualani testified that he paid Smith after past perjury because he still found him reliable at that time. Similarly with Harper, Halualani limited his testimony entirely to whether Harper had lied to him during his investigation and what steps he took in the past to confirm that. As in Nobari, nowhere did his testimony address the credibility of the trial testimony of Smith and Harper.
With regard to Roach and Healy, the government elicited vouching testimony only to the extent that Halualani referred to the corroboration of statements and evidence used in this trial. Regardless, we do not reverse on the basis of vouching if the error was harmless. Sarkisian, 197 F.3d at 990. "In applying a harmless error analysis in the context of vouching, we must determine whether it is more probable than not that the prosecutor's conduct materially affected the fairness of the trial." Hermanek, 289 F.3d at 1102. When a small amount of vouching occurs in the context of a large trial and strong government case, we have found the error harmless. See Wright, 625 F.3d at 613(vouching statements were harmless because they "were relatively isolated incidents over the course of a ten day trial"); Hermanek, 289 F.3d at 1102; Sarkisian, 197 F.3d at 990.
Even assuming that vouching occurred, it is unlikely that the vouching materially affected the fairness of the trial because the government put forward a significant amount of evidence of a RICO conspiracy and VICAR. Any vouching for Roach and Healy occupies only six pages in the record of a trial in which the government put on 29 witnesses over at least 15 days of testimony in its case in chief. Ruffo's killer testified that he killed Ruffo on behalf of Griffin and Stinson and that another AB member killed Marsh for them. Documentary evidence of the RICO conspiracy included a letter from Stinson and Griffin describing the AB's strategy against other gangs and justifying and planning murders. Another document described the organization of the AB to pursue criminal activities. The government admitted in evidence a letter from Griffin acknowledging that he had been a member of the AB Commission prior to 1985. The government also admitted receipts of documents exchanged among Griffin, Stinson, and other AB members in 1993 and 1994.
The government also put forward a large quantity of evidence that Griffin did not withdraw from the AB prior to the 1997 date relevant to the statute of limitations, so any vouching was harmless with respect to this defense as well. As explained, Harper's testimony was not vouched for, and he linked Griffin to the AB during the Marsh murder, which was just before the 1997 date. David Griffin testified that defendant Robert Griffin offered to help him join the AB in 1999. Corroborating the testimony that Griffin had not withdrawn before 1997, the government introduced documentary evidence including: a sham pleading from 1999 discussing the AB's business efforts that indicated it was to be sent to Griffin; 2001 and 2002 AB membership lists showing Griffin still in the AB; a 2002 postcard to Griffin from an AB member; and pen register data showing numerous calls in 1998 and 1999 between the place where Griffin was housed and another AB member. The strength of this documentary evidence in combination with the testimony of Harper and David Griffin rendered any vouching harmless to Griffin's withdrawal defense. We therefore conclude that even if the government elicited vouching testimony, it was harmless in light of the strength of its case.
Griffin called as an expert witness Robert Ayers, a warden at the Pelican Bay state prison while Griffin was housed there. He testified that, in 1997 or 1998, he read Griffin's confidential file and had an investigation conducted into whether Griffin was still active in the AB. Ayers testified that his opinion from that investigation was that Griffin was no longer active in the AB.
On cross-examination, the government posed a series of hypotheticals about whether Ayers's opinion would be different if there were more recent evidence in Griffin's confidential file showing AB activity. Some of these hypotheticals concerned matters for which evidence was introduced at trial. Others concerned redacted inmate debriefings not in evidence, though the government later unsuccessfully attempted to introduce them. Others concerned matters that were never introduced in evidence nor even disclosed to Griffin and Stinson. At the end of cross-examination, the government told Ayers that a defense attorney "didn't share any of that stuff with you."
The district court told the jury that "if the underlying facts of a hypothetical question are not proved in court then the opinion has no meaning ․ you are not to assume any of this happened unless it's proved later." In addition to this admonition to the jury during cross-examination, the district court at the close of evidence instructed the jury: "Questions were asked of the witness Robert Ayers on cross-examination about documents he had not seen. In light of the fact that the questions are not evidence, you are to disregard such questions and answers given concerning any documents obviously that he had not read or seen." The court also more generally instructed that "[q]uestions and objections of the lawyers are not evidence."
Partly on the basis of this cross-examination, Griffin and Stinson moved for a new trial, which the district court denied. We review alleged prosecutorial misconduct for harmless error when, as here, the defense objected at trial. Wright, 625 F.3d at 610. We review for abuse of discretion a district court's rulings on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Sarkisian, 197 F.3d at 988.
"It is improper under the guise of artful cross-examination, to tell the jury the substance of inadmissible evidence." United States v. Sanchez, 176 F.3d 1214, 1222 (9th Cir.1999) (quotations omitted). Experts may be asked hypothetical questions on cross-examination, but such questions "must not require the expert to assume facts that are not in evidence." Taylor v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 787 F.2d 1309, 1317–18 (9th Cir.1986). "[P]roceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means." Fed.R.Evid. 103(c)
All the hypotheticals based on debriefs not admitted in evidence told the jury the substance of inadmissible hearsay. The debriefs were out of court statements offered for their truth—that Griffin had, for example, recently ordered a hit on the so-called Black Dragon Rapist, and therefore had not withdrawn from the AB. The debriefs were not suggested merely to show that documents existed that Ayers had not seen, because the government had already established that Ayers had not seen documents added to Griffin's confidential file after 1998. Nor could the debriefs be disclosed under Fed.R.Evid. 703 or 705, as they were explicitly not the basis of Ayers's opinion. We therefore conclude that it was prosecutorial misconduct to pose questions or hypotheticals to Ayers concerning debriefs that were not admitted in evidence.
However, we do not reverse for prosecutorial misconduct if it is harmless. Wright, 625 F.3d at 610. The inquiry is "whether it is more probable than not that the prosecutor's conduct materially affected the fairness of the trial." Hermanek, 289 F.3d at 1102. "To determine whether the prosecutor's misconduct affected the jury's verdict, we look first to the substance of a curative instruction․ Another important factor contributing to the prejudicial effect of improper statements is the strength of the case against a defendant." Weatherspoon, 410 F.3d at 1151.
As for the first factor, the district court offered a curative instruction that "you are to disregard such questions and answers given concerning any documents obviously that [Ayers] had not read or seen." The court also instructed that "[q]uestions and objections of the lawyers are not evidence." It further warned the jury during the cross-examination that "you are not to assume any of this happened unless it's proved later." As we have observed, "juries are assumed to follow the court's instructions." United States v. Cardenas–Mendoza, 579 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir.2009). As for the second factor, as we have explained, the government had a strong case that Griffin had not withdrawn from the AB.
We have found misconduct similar to that in this case to be harmless in light of such jury instructions and strong evidence. United States v. Schindler, 614 F.2d 227, 228(9th Cir.1980); see also Sarkisian, 197 F.3d at 988 (1999). The government's case was strong enough that the cumulative effect of the misconduct and the minimal vouching was still harmless. As a result, we conclude that the prosecutorial misconduct in posing hypotheticals concerning debriefs not in evidence was harmless in light of jury instructions and an otherwise strong government case.
In light of the cross-examination of Ayers, Griffin requested that the district court instruct the jury that:
[G]overnment's counsel ․ implied that defense counsel had not provided Mr. Ayers with the entire confidential file․ [D]efense counsel provided Robert Ayers with all of the confidential documents and debriefings that defense counsel had received from the government. Therefore, you should not consider the fact that Warden Robert Ayes did not read all of the documents and debriefings in Robert Griffin's confidential file as a factor that in any way lessens the persuasiveness of his expert testimony.
The district court denied the request. The court did, however, instruct the jury that:
Questions were asked of the witness Robert Ayers on cross-examination about documents he had not seen. In light of the fact that the questions are not evidence, you are to disregard such questions and answers given concerning any documents obviously that he had not read or seen.
The government proposed a jury instruction that acts intended to conceal a conspiracy may be in furtherance of the conspiracy's goals. In response to Griffin's objection, the district court modified the instruction and ultimately instructed the jury that "acts intended to conceal or cover up the existence of the conspiracy may or may not be in furtherance of the conspiracy's aims or goals."
The standard of review for a district court's denial of a proposed jury instruction "turns on the nature of the error alleged ." United States v. Knapp, 120 F.3d 928, 930(9th Cir.1997). "We review de novo whether the district court's instructions adequately presented the defendant's theory of the case," but "we review the instruction's'precise formulation' for an abuse of discretion." Id. (quoting United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.1993).
With respect to the instruction on Ayers, assuming the government improperly implied that the defense concealed documents from Ayers, the instruction the district court gave addresses it. Any such implication arose from the hypotheticals about documents not in evidence and asking Ayers why the defense "didn't share any of that stuff with you." However, the district court instructed the jury to "disregard such questions and answers given concerning any documents obviously that he had not read or seen." When the jury accordingly disregarded the government's questions, it was not able to draw inferences about defense counsel from those questions. The instruction given therefore addressed any improper inference.
As for the instruction on acts intended to conceal, the district court's instruction was a correct statement of the law under Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957). The Court in Grunewald held that "a vital distinction must be made between acts of concealment done in furtherance of the main criminal objectives of the conspiracy, and acts of concealment done after these central objectives have been attained, for the purpose only of covering up after the crime." Id. at 405. Depending on the scope of the alleged conspiracy, we have since noted that concealment may or may not be in furtherance of the conspiracy. Compare United States. v. Finlay, 55 F.3d 1410, 1415 (9th Cir.1995) (in furtherance), with United States v. Green, 594 F.2d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.1979) (potentially not in furtherance).
In this case, the conspiracy as charged specifically includes the "attempt to conceal from law enforcement the existence of the Aryan Brotherhood, the identity of its participants, and the ways in which it conducts its affairs." This case therefore fits neatly into the Grunewald category of cases concerning "acts of concealment done in furtherance of the main criminal objectives of the conspiracy." Grunewald, 353 U.S. at 405. As a result, the district court's instruction was entirely consistent with Grunewald, as it properly gave the jury latitude to interpret recent acts of concealment as acts in furtherance that defeat Griffin's withdrawal defense. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in its jury instructions.
During the trial, Ricky Rose, a potential government witness who was never called, left the courthouse and said "they're not guilty" in the presence of two jurors. In response, the district court interviewed those jurors, telling them that "the people that approached you are not parties to this case" and asking "whether or not their having any contact with you would have any effect on your deliberations." The jurors indicated that the contact would not affect their deliberations. Griffin requested that the court instruct the jurors that Rose was a government witness. The court denied the request.
"We review alleged jury misconduct independently, in the context of the entire record" but "accord substantial weight to the trial judge's conclusion as to the effect of alleged juror misconduct." United States v. Madrid, 842 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir.1988).
"When there has been improper contact with a juror or any form of jury tampering-whether direct or indirect-we apply a presumption of prejudice." United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir.2007) (citing, e.g., Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954). "[T]he presumption of prejudice applies when the unauthorized conduct or contact is possibly prejudicial." United States v. Rutherford, 371 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir.2004).
We have affirmed convictions despite improper contact with a juror when the district court held a hearing and determined that there was no prejudice. United States v. Elias, 269 F.3d 1003, 1019–20 (9th Cir.2001). By contrast, courts have expressed concern about prejudice when district courts fail to interview jurors to evaluate prejudice after discovering the contact. Remmer, 347 U.S. at 229; Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1064–65; United States v. Angulo, 4 F.3d 843, 846–67(9th Cir.1993).
The district court's interview with the jurors was sufficient to overcome the presumption of prejudice. The district court interviewed both affected jurors and asked "is there anything about that contact that would affect your deliberations in this case?" The jurors answered that they weren't affected. The district court was satisfied with their answers, and the "trial judge is uniquely qualified to appraise the probable effect of information on the jury․ The judge's conclusion about the effect of the alleged juror misconduct deserves substantial weight." United States v. Bagnariol, 665 F.2d 877, 885(9th Cir.1981).
We see no reason why the judge would have needed specifically to instruct the jurors that Rose was a government witness to prevent juror bias. Any concern that jurors would assume Rose was affiliated with the defense was addressed by the instruction that "the people that approached you are not parties to this case." In light of the district court's instruction distancing Rose from both parties and the court's interview with the jurors to ensure a lack of prejudice, the district court did not err in declining to instruct the jurors that Rose had been a potential government witness.
During its deliberations, the jury requested that only portions of the testimony of four witnesses be read back to it, specifically their testimony concerning a murder and three attempted murders that were alleged overt acts. Stinson and Griffin objected to the reading of only parts of the testimony of these witnesses.
The district court allowed the partial read backs, which included those portions of the witnesses' direct and cross-examinations that pertained to the specified murders and attempted murders. The testimony was read in open court. The court told the jury it could have any additional testimony read back. Yet the district court did not admonish the jury against unduly emphasizing the testimony that was read back. Defense counsel did not object to this lack of admonition.
"We review for abuse of discretion the 'decision to honor a request that the court reporter read his notes of certain testimony for the jury's benefit after deliberation has begun.' " United States v. Sandoval, 990 F.2d 481, 486 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting United States v. Birges, 723 F.2d 666, 671(9th Cir.1984)). Under that standard, we will not reverse unless we have a "definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error in judgment." United States v. Richard, 504 F.3d 1109, 1113 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Hernandez, 27 F.3d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir.1994)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Failure to give an admonition against overemphasizing read back testimony is reviewed for plain error where, as here, the defendant does not object and "can lead to reversal only if prejudicial." United States v. Newhoff, 627 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir.2010).
We recently addressed partial read backs of testimony in Newhoff, in which we summarized our prior cases and observed that:
to avoid the inherent risk of undue emphasis from a readback: (1) preferably the readback or replay should take place in open court with all present; (2) the jury should ordinarily be provided with the witness's entire testimony, direct and cross-examination; and (3) the jury should be admonished to weigh all the evidence and not just one part.
Id. at 1168. In Newhoff, we held that the district court erred in reading back one witness's testimony without admonishing the jury not to give it undue emphasis. Id. at 1167–68. In Richard, we considered the read back of only a portion of a witness's testimony and found error where the district court required the jury to select only a portion of the witness's testimony and where that testimony was the core of the government's case. Richard, 504 F.3d 1113–15; see also United States v.. Hernandez, 27 F.3d 1403, 1408–09 (9th Cir.1994). But see Sandoval, 990 F.2d at 487(partial read back was not an abuse of discretion in light of other precautions).
Yet regardless of whether the district court erred in permitting the partial read backs without additional precautions, we would not reverse any such error unless it affected the defendant's substantial rights. Newhoff, 627 F.3d at 1169. In Newhoff, we declined to reverse the conviction, despite the district court's plain error in failing to admonish, because "several witnesses, not just the one whose testimony was read back, put Newhoff in possession of the pistol." Id. Similarly in this case, the read back testimony was only a small amount of the evidence showing Griffin and Stinson's involvement in the RICO conspiracy. We therefore conclude that the partial read backs of testimony without additional precautions such as an admonition did not affect Griffin and Stinson's substantial rights in light of other evidence presented and therefore do not warrant reversal.
Griffin requested a special verdict form that asked the jury, "Did the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant Robert Lee Griffin did not withdraw from the conspiracy charged in Count One before August 28, 1997?" The district court modified the verdict form to read, "Did Defendant Robert Lee Griffin withdraw from the conspiracy charged in Count 1 before August 28, 1997?" The district court also instructed the jury that "the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not withdraw from the conspiracy prior to August 28th, 1997." Griffin objected that the modified version of the special verdict form "may imply to the jury that the defendant has some burden of proving the withdrawal." The court overruled the objection.
We treat verdict forms like jury instructions, see United States v. Reed, 147 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1998), the formulation of which we review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Shipsey, 363 F.3d 962, 967 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we review a district court's formulation of a special verdict form for abuse of discretion.
Nothing in the special verdict form creates the impression that the burden was on Griffin. The form simply does not address the burden of proof, and the court properly instructed the jury that the government bore the burden on this point. Juries are presumed to follow such instructions. Cardenas–Mendoza, 579 F.3d at 1030. As a result, we conclude that the district court operated well within its discretion when it chose the wording of the special verdict form on withdrawal.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions of Griffin and Stinson on the RICO count and Stinson's convictions on the VICAR counts.
1. The argument that VICAR is not an offense eligible for the death penalty under the Federal Death Penalty Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3591, is contrary to our precedent. United States v. Fernandez, 231 F .3d 1240, 1242–43 (9th Cir.2000).
2. Nor is the order admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 703. That rule concerns the "facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference." Fed.R.Evid. 703. The order was not a basis for Ayers's opinion.
RYMER, Circuit Judge:


text:
Xlibris can help you publish almost anything in full-color, from children's books to cookbooks, family photo albums to corporate materials, graphic novels to catalogs—a wealth of possibilities. Xlibris offers eight full-color publishing packages for you to choose from.
By choosing Xlibris you get first-rate digital color publication, and your book will be published in a beautiful, full-color edition.
Take the simple and straightforward route to full-color publication.
Focus on image enhancements within the framework of a standard design.
Ideal for the author who has a clear artistic vision of the way his or her book should be presented, this package also offers hardback availability and a book returns program that will make your book more attractive to brick-and-mortar bookstores.
Reap the benefits of additional bookselling services that make your book more accessible to readers and give it more online exposure.
Enjoy full customization, more marketing materials, and a veritable buffet of publishing options.
Appease the stickler in you with a diverse assortment of publishing and marketing services that will surely meet your discriminating taste.
Prices listed do not include any applicable sales, use, excise, value-added, goods and services, or other tax, which will be added to the total at the time of purchase. Prices listed do include the copies of the book; the cost of shipping and handling will be calculated and charged after your book is made available for sale.
Fill in the required fields
to download the brochure.
By clicking "Get Free Publishing Guide", you are providing your electronic signature, voluntarily authorizing Xlibris and its affiliates to contact you using a manual or automated telephone dialing system and send you advertisement or telemarketing messages by email or text/SMS/MMS message to the address and phone number you have provided above. You are not required to agree to this in order to buy products or services from Xlibris. You certify that you are over the age of eighteen (18). You'll get up to ten [10] messages per month. Standard message and data rates may apply. Click here to view our privacy policy.
By requesting a publishing guide, you acknowledge your call
may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance and training purposes.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Study finds no link between acrylamide and breast cancer
A large study involving 100,000 women has found no evidence to suggest that the compound acrylamide - found in a range of common foods - causes breast cancer.
The research supports the findings of previous studies and should help to ease concerns about the compound, which is found in a range of food products, primarily fried and baked goods.
Previous animal studies have led it to be classed as a cancer-causing compound, but the animals were exposed to acrylamide levels 1,000 to 100,000 times those found in the human diet and there is no current consensus about whether or not it poses a threat to human health.
The latest study, conducted by researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, indicates that such a risk is "unlikely", according to epidemiologist and lead researcher Dr Lorelei Mucci.
Researchers followed a group of 100,000 American nurses between 1980 and 2000. The nurses completed regular questionnaires about their eating habits, allowing the researchers to estimate their daily acrylamide intake.
They found that the incidence of breast cancer among the women was approximately the same, regardless of whether they had a high or low intake of acrylamide.
"Although we do not rule out that very high levels of acrylamide could cause cancer, it appears that at the levels found in the diet, it is unlikely," Dr Mucci said.
Henry Scowcroft, senior information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "Despite being carcinogenic in the laboratory, population-based studies have repeatedly shown that our everyday exposure to acrylamide in food is too low to be of concern. And several other large studies have found no increase in cancer risk in people exposed to above-average levels of acrylamide, such as food industry workers. This new study adds to that evidence.
"However, it's worth pointing out that chips and other fried starchy foods are usually full of fats and obesity does increase your risk of several cancers."


text:
TCS reported results for the third quarter ended 31 December, 2017. The revenue for the quarter stood at Rs 30,904 crore. The net income was at Rs 6531 crore.
The board of Directors have declared a Third Interim Dividend of Rs.7 per Equity Share of Re.1 each of the Company and that the same shall be paid to the equity shareholders of the Company whose names appear on the Register of Members of the Company or in the records of the Depositories as beneficial owners of the shares as on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 which is the Record Date fixed for the purpose.
The Third Interim Dividend will be paid to the equity shareholders of the Company on Wednesday, January 31, 2018.
Commenting on the Q3 performance, Rajesh Gopinathan, CEO and MD, said: "We wrapped 2017 with a strong performance in the December quarter, marked by the signing of industry-defining deals, robust client metrics and broad-based demand across industry verticals. As lagging parts of our portfolio turn around, and areas of softness reduce, we are well placed for stronger growth ahead."
Gopinathan added: "Progressive organizations looking to take advantage of new opportunities in the Business 4.0 era are ramping up their Digital investments, and TCS has emerged as their preferred transformational partner. We signed our first $50Mn+ deal in Digital this quarter, crossing an important milestone in the mainstreaming of Digital technologies. The investments we have been making over the last few years in Research and Innovation, and in building intellectual property, are
giving us a distinct edge in the market in winning such large transformational programs."
Q3 Segment Highlights
Industries: Most industry verticals grew above company average in Q3. The Retail and CPG vertical showed a strong turn around, growing 6.4% Q-o-Q. Growth was led by Energy & Utilities (+8.5% Q-oQ),Travel & Hospitality (+2.9% Q-o-Q) and Life Sciences & Healthcare (+2.5% Q-o-Q). On a year on
year basis, all industry verticals – with the exception of BFSI and Retail – grew above 9.5%, with four verticals growing in double digits Y-o-Y.
Markets: Growth was led by Latin America (+5% Q-o-Q), Continental Europe (+2.6% Q-o-Q) and North America (+1.5% QoQ). On a Y-o-Y basis, Continental Europe (+22.3%), UK (+8.2%) and India (+4.1%) performed very well. North America grew 2.8% YoY.


text:
Ropa Vieja from the Crispy Cuban
Sundays in Los Angeles are for Smorgasburg! A few Sundays back, the Crispy Cuban truck was right at the entrance to the main market area -- but as soon as I saw the words "ropa vieja," I knew I didn't need to go any farther.
I've been in love with Cuban cuisine ever since I visited Miami and ate my way through Little Havana, with my first stop at La Carreta for their "El Criollo Cuban Sampler." When I lived in East Tennessee, I even drove to a neighboring town (nearly an hour away!) when I discovered that there was small, family-run Cuban restaurant called Smokies Cuban Cafe that served killer empanadas and flavorful ropa vieja.
So, yes, ropa vieja is my jam. There's something very comforting about shredded beef that has been stewed with tomatoes, onions, peppers, and spices -- especially when it's served over steaming white rice with a side of seasoned black beans. And I'm happy to say that the ropa vieja from the Crispy Cuban totally met my expectations.
First of all, the portion size was very generous! Not what I expected from a food truck. The large container was packed, nearly overflowing, with seasoned meat and rice and beans. And second, the ropa vieja tasted like it had been slow cooking in grandma's kitchen for a full day. The shredded beef was so tender and practically melted in my mouth with each bite. I could seriously eat this dish every day. I don't know how you can get tired of the deep umami-ness of beef that has been cooked in tomatoes and peppers for hours.
I ordered a side of yuca fries from the Crispy Cuban as well. I had to make sure that they lived up to their name -- and they did. The yuca fries were crispy on the outside and soft on the inside, and the fries were served with a mojo sauce that gave it a nice garlicky, citrusy zing. I could put mojo sauce on everything.
Lunch by the Crispy Cuban was fantastic. In fact, the ropa vieja bowl was so large, I couldn't finish it all. I probably should've shared with Brandon, but he ended up eating and enjoying their signature Crispy Cuban sandwich -- which I'll have to order for myself in the future!
Looking forward to many happy returns to the Crispy Cuban!


text:
Posts Tagged 'social justice summer camp'
Interview with YEA Camp founder Nora Kramer
This blog post is taken from an interview Massmoms.com conducted with YEA Camp founder and Executive Director Nora Kramer. What is YEA Camp, and what's your role there? Youth Empowered Action (YEA) Camp is a unique, week-long overnight summer camp for teens who want to make a difference in the world. The focus of the…Read More


text:
Get the unit cost ― and deets ― on the most comfortable and absorbent disposable tape diapers in the market.
As a new parent, diapers are among the most essential items you'll need to keep stocking up on.
If you've decided that you aren't going to put your peewee in cloth diapers, you'll be buying lots of disposable diapers.
To find the ideal disposable diaper for your little one, you'll need to consider a number of factors. This includes its absorbency and the softness of the material (to prevent diaper rash), and of course, the price.
For comparison purposes, we checked out a range of size M disposable tape diapers across the board ― we've also sussed out the best prices available. Check out the reviews here.
Drypers Touch M (6-11kg)
PRICE $53.80/set (Each set is 64 pieces x 4 packs); about 21 cents per piece.
FROM Lazada
WHAT Created with Pro Skin Technology, this diaper is made with soft material that has a cottony feel, so that bubba's skin can breathe. The super-absorbent core effectively absorbs and distributes urine, while the soft stretchable waistband and fastening system will not leave red marks on your baby's skin.
PARENTS SAY Drypers Touch is thick and absorbent and just as just soft as other pricier brands in the market. Francesca Fong, mum to Jared, 10 months, says although she had never considered using Drypers, she fell in love with this range. "The other Drypers ranges always felt a bit rough to the skin, but this one feels very high quality and super soft. The price is right, too."
Pampers Premium Care Tape Diaper M (6-11kg) Japanese Version
PRICE $75.00/case (48 pieces x 4 packs); about 39 cents per piece.
FROM Lazada
WHAT Micropores in this diaper help release moisture, while the ultra-dry core quickly absorbs and ensures dryness for up to 12 hours. Three "absorbing channels" lock wetness away, and a wetness indicator will allow you to check easily if you need to change your baby's diaper. Your little one's skin will stay comfortable, thanks to the soft and silky material, plus a unique baby lotion sheet protects skin from irritation.
PARENTS SAY Pampers is one of the pricier brands, but you know you're paying for quality. "I always swore by pampers and this range doesn't disappoint," says mum of two, Yvonne Ong. However, some other mums preferred the older Pampers range.
Merries Tape Diaper M (6-11kg)
PRICE $79/carton (64 pieces x 4 packs); about 31 cents per piece.
FROM LuvBabies
WHAT Merries has a triple layer air-through system, which keeps your little one's skin dry. The first airy mesh layer expels moisture, while the second layer absorbs pee and lets air pass through. The third breathable layer draws moisture and heat away from the pee. A wetness indicator that changes colour lets you know when your baby needs a change.
PARENTS SAY One of the more costly brands around, Merries tape diapers may feel thin, but they are gentle on the skin and surprisingly absorbent. Says Leong Qi Kai, mum to Ci Ci, 7 months, who switched brands frequently in her baby's initial months because of her eczema. "Merries is the one brand that suits her skin because it's very soft and smooth."
MamyPoko Extra Dry M (6-11kg)
PRICE $25.05 carton (72 pieces); about 34 cents per piece.
FROM Lazada
WHAT With a cotton-like material that's gentle on skin, this diaper uses layered fabric sheets to absorb urine instantly, so the surface feels dry. The waistband is made of an ultrafine woven material that won't irritate your baby's skin, while soft leg gathers prevent leakage.
PARENTS SAY MamyPoko is a trusted diaper brand that is of high quality. Not as thin as other Japanese brands, it holds moisture well, and can definitely hold a large volume of pee, even through the night. As these run slightly larger, they're a good fit for bigger babies. A good price for the quality you get.
Huggies Platinum Diapers M (7-11kg)
PRICE $62.90/carton (64 pieces x 3 packs); about 32 cents per piece.
FROM Lazada
WHAT This premium diaper boasts a flexible and ergonomic 3D shape to enable your active baby allow to move better. Superior absorbency locks away wetness, so that bubba stays dry overnight, while a wetness indicator lets you know when a change is needed. It's also clinically proven to prevent diaper rash.
PARENTS SAY These slim and soft diapers are very comfortable for your baby. "Huggies has upped its game with this new range. I didn't like the old Huggies Ultra range because it always leaked, but this one is good," says mum of three, Joan Cheng.
Pet Pet M (5-11kg)
PRICE $38/carton (76 pieces x 3 packs); about 17 cents per piece.
FROM LuvBabies
WHAT Pet Pet diapers feature a super absorbent magic gel layer and micro-ventilation air channels for good air circulation. An aloe vera liner helps prevent nappy rash and irritation, while keeping your baby's skin fresh and dry. The elastic band and standing side leak guard don't just provide a comfortable fit, it prevents leaks.
PARENTS SAY This value-for-money brand holds up surprisingly well even for an extended period. It will save you a considerable amount of money, especially in the early weeks where you can go through more than 10 diapers a day.
Goo.n M (6-11kg)
PRICE $21.90/carton (64 pieces); about 34 cents per piece.
FROM Lazada
WHAT Soft and gentle on baby's skin, these Japanese diapers feature a deodorant polymer to minimise odours. Has a wetness indicator, while the innermost layer of the diaper prevents leakage, even locking in loose stools. Extra stretchy gathers provide the perfect fit.
PARENTS SAY Goo.n diapers are thin, light and very absorbent. "I like Goon and Merries ― both are similar in terms of softness and quality, but Goon is cheaper and offers better value for money," Cheng says.
Moony AirFit M (6-11kg)
PRICE $91.90/carton (64 pieces x 4 packs); about 36 cents per piece.
FROM Lazada
WHAT Under the MamyPoko brand, Moony diapers are curved to ensure a comfortable fit, and also to prevent leakage. The very stretchy waistband offers your baby ultimate comfort, while the full breathable cover helps bubba's skin stay dry.
PARENTS SAY Although Moony diapers are soft and light, the cutting is smaller. We also like that the newborn diapers have a cut-out in the waistband below the belly button, so that it won't chafe his navel and allows it to heal faster. Moony tape diapers only go to size M, so you'll need to get pull-ups when your baby grows bigger.
Check out our other product reviews here.
Main photo: iStock
Like us on Facebook and check SmartParents regularly for the latest reads!
In case you missed these stories…
Baby poop — What's normal and what's not
10 signs your tot is ready for potty training


text:
The experimental determination of structural design parameters for roof covering systems
Thesis (MScEng)--Stellenbosch University, 2011.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: All structures are designed for a particular set of load combinations. For roof structures the critical loading combinations are predominantly wind actions. The accumulative effect of wind actions, by wind entering through dominant openings to exert pressure on the inside of roof structures together with the suction of wind vortices on the outside of the roof, can contribute to extreme load combinations. Frequently recorded failures on roof structures suggest that either the loads are underestimated or the resisting capacity of the roof coverings is overestimated. The focus of this study is directed on the latter, determining the effective resistance of roof coverings in the form of sheeting against a Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) such as wind actions. To determine the carrying capacity of a roofing structure, the standard approach used involves experimental tests on certain configurations with two or more spans. The structural test set-up is loaded with sandbags until failure is reached. For the design of roofing systems, design tables are used that list the maximum allowable purlin spacing. The purlin spacing is presented in the form of a fixed value in units of length and is shown independent of a UDL that the roof needs to be designed for. The need to a new approach to determining the resistance of roof covering systems was identified. The resistance of roof coverings for the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) depends on a number of parameters such as the bending resistance, the stiffness of the sheeting in bending and the carrying capacity of the fastening system. To evaluate these structural parameters, experimental tests were performed. A full-scale experimental test setup, capable of simulating a UDL on roof sheeting, was developed. The experimental test set-up consists of four different configurations, each specifically schematized to evaluate a certain structural design parameter. The magnitude of the structural design parameters depends on the applied UDL and the span length, which is the distance between consecutive supports of the sheeting system. Therefore, by using the structural design parameters determined experimentally, a set of design tables could be generated. The design tables produce the maximum allowable span length of a roofing system that uses a desired UDL as a variable. By using the design tables, the purlin spacing for any roof structure can be calculated given its design loading combination. The calculated purlin spacings are now a function of the basic parameters that determine the resistance of the roof sheeting.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Geen opsomming


text:
Learn more about the Book
Our Lady of Guadalupe: Mother of the Civilization of Love by Carl Anderson & Msgr. Eduardo Chávez traces the history of Our Lady of Guadalupe from the sixteenth century to the present and discusses how her message was and continues to be an important catalyst for religious and cultural transformation. You can find more information in our featured excerpt*, or at our website GuadalupeBook.com. Get your copy of Our Lady of Guadalupe: Mother of the Civilization of Love in stores, via one of your favorite internet sites, or or at any of the online outlets listed below. All author proceeds from the sale of the book will be donated to the Knights of Columbus Charities.
*Book Excerpt
Excerpted from Our Lady of Guadalupe by Carl Anderson and Eduardo Chavez. Copyright © 2009 by Carl Anderson. Excerpted by permission of Image, a division of Random House, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.


text:
Their gentleness defies those redheaded stereotypes. It drips from their soft, melodic voices, a mother and daughter I spent sitting poolside with last summer, as Sarah wore her youngest and her oldest splashed in the baby pool, her own mother, Sue, nearby to help.
Gentleness is often misunderstood, mistaken for weakness. But there is something about this family of women that speaks to a strength wrapped in compassion. Sue and Sarah are drenched in kindness. They radiate grace. And in turn, the next generation seems just as thoughtful. Two little girls who I am not so naive to believe are always as well-mannered and joyful as they have always appeared before me, but who I know are shown so much love that they can't help but reflect it back.
In short, I treasure this family which, when they were still not much more than strangers, encouraged me and supported me. They are the sorts of people it makes you feel lighter and brighter to have been around. I so look forward to another summer spent with them, three generations of beautiful women living in love.


text:
Current Students
About us
Our History
Our Mission
Our Staff
News and Events
Our Schools and Institutes
Academic calendar
Equality and Diversity
Contacts and Maps
Study here
Undergraduate Study
Postgraduate Study
Part-Time Study
Foundation Degrees
Make an Enquiry
Online Distance Learning
How to apply
The Gateway
Fees and Funding
Student Support
Open days
About our Research
Research Degrees
Institutes and Centres
Research Highlights
Access Our Expertise
Access Research Papers
WLV Blog
Why Wolverhampton?
Country Specific Information
Courses for International Students
Visas & Immigration
Centre for International Development & Training
International Fees
How to apply
Regional Managers
International Academy
Centre for African Entrepreneurship & Leadership
Contact us
Alumni Associations
News and publications
Benefits and services
Societies and networks
Graduate services
Business services
Starting your business
Access our expertise
Access our graduates
Funding and Support
Working Internationally
Knowledge Hub
News and Events
Open Days
Latest News
Media Relations
University of Wolverhampton
About us
News and Events
September 2008
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
Mobile Menu
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
Students celebrate graduation
Launch of ginger exhibition
Students blogging China experiences
Keeping it in the family....
Chance to study Uni modules
Focus on student volunteering
Fashion icon awarded honorary degree
Degree for Athlete Michelle
Artwork showcased to the public
University of Honour for Lisa
Focus on high street shopping
New course for businesses
Top job for Hannah
Dancers to perform at ArtsFest
Pupils say "Bore Da" to new resource
All the world's a stage....
Official launch for Hi-Tech Mannequins
New mentoring scheme launched
New book on social work
New degree in auctioneering
Good Vibrations
Uni opens doors to visitors
Centre receives top award nomination
Charity success for cyclists
Historian to address prestigious international conference
National awards for students
Great Wall trek for Uni staff
Top win for record-breaker Steve
New book on social work
Tuesday 23 September 2008
Paul Stepney, Lecturer in Social Work at the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, has launched a new book, 'Social Work and the Community: A critical context for practice'.
The book explores how in an age of globalisation the concept of community continues to influence policy makers and resonates with the world of the social work practitioner. With an analysis of contemporary social problems, such as poverty, crime and exclusion in a variety of international settings, the book demonstrates why community-based approaches remain important today.
Paul said: "We wanted to explore a central paradox: sociologists have been predicting the death of community for some time, pointing out that in our increasingly fragmented society we no longer know our neighbours let alone care for them.
"On the other hand, social workers frequently find evidence that communities are alive and kicking, and community groups survive sometimes against all the odds in the most disadvantaged areas. The notion of community is also a very seductive concept beloved by politicians of all persuasions."
Further information
Picture: The front cover of Social Work and the Community: A critical context for practice.
Stepney, P. and Popple, K. (2008) Social Work and the Community: A critical context for practice is published by Palgrave Macmillan, and is available in all good bookshops or direct from the publishers priced £19.99.
Paul's previous work includes 'Social work models, methods and theories', published by Russell House in 2000.
For media inquiries, contact Vickie Woodward in the Press Office on 01902 322736 or 07973 335112.
Share this release


text:
QuickShell™For Sig P938RH IWB/LH OWB1.50" FOMI KitQuickShells™ are the cost effective, simple approach to creating a near custom-quality holster. With minimal tools, a hairdryer and a ¼" drill, you can quickly create a high-performance alternative to an expensive over-the-counter holster. Each KYDEX® QuickShell™ is created using a high-precision CNC weapon mold and is pre-designed for multiple attachment options. Every QuickShell™ is constructed to be carried as an IWB or OWB. Each shell is designed with dual sweat guards, allowing you to determine which carry style you prefer.
SpecificationsMaterial: Black KYDEX® (.080)Model For: Sig P938Carry Orientation: RH IWB/LH OWB
QuickShell™ FOMI Kit Includes:1.50" FOMI Clip - MM-FOMI150-1 (1)Mounting Screws - AV-832THP-BK-250-1 (2)Mounting Screws - AV-832THP-BK-375-1 (2)Slotted Posts - AV-SP-250-BK (4)Silencing Washers - W-EPDM-500180125-1 (2)Silencing Washers - W-EPDM-500180375-1 (2)
Note: Call (1-877-255-6433) for larger volume pricing.
Molle-Lok - Accessory Mount - 1.5in (w/4mm Belt Cavity) - (without Hardware)
Molle-Lok - Accessory Mount - 2in - (without Hardware)
Molle-Lok - Accessory Mount - 3in - (without Hardware)
Belt Clip - Universal Sheath/Holster - Model 5 - 3-Hole - Black (Tactical Finish)
Belt Loops - DCL Combat Loop - Holster/Sheath Mount - (Large) - (without hardware)
Belt Loops - Tek-Lok™ - Tactical Black - (Large) - (without hardware)
QuickShell™ - For Sig P938 - RH IWB/LH OWB
Photo Gallery #1
Photo Gallery #2
Knife Terminology
General Knife Safety
Basic Knife History
Kit Instructions
Knowledge Base
Meet Our Staff
Password Forgotten


text:
In 2017 as the 13th location, the F.V.S. Fachbetrieb für Verkehrseinrichtungen auf Straßen GmbH [Specialized Company for Traffic Devices on Roads], a high-performance traffic safety company based in Wendelstein near Nuremberg, joined the service network of the AVS. Partnership-based company relationships have existed for a long time and even the predecessor company of FVS was founded almost 40 years ago by Mr. Peter Berghaus as a Nuremberg office location.
The company was renamed AVS Nuremberg GmbH in 2018 in order to clearly demonstrate the affiliation with the strong service network of the AVS Traffic Safety Group to the outside world.
With their know-how from 40 years of successful traffic safeguarding in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, the 60 specialists of AVS GmbH Nuremberg are a competent and strong partner in the service network of the AVS.
AVS Nürnberg GmbH
Sperbersloher Straße 568
D-90530 Wendelstein
Sperbersloher Straße 556
D-90530 Wendelstein
Telephone: +49 9129-909996-0
Fax: +49 9129-909996-19
E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Human Magneto Sensitivity
Turns out human's might have magnetic sensing ability just like other animals. Steven Reppert, MD, the Higgins Family Professor of Neuroscience and chair and professor of neurobiology, grad student Lauren Foley, and Robert Gegear, PhD, a post doctoral fellow in the Reppert lab now an assistant professor of biology and biotechnology at Worcester Polytechnic Institute took the human cryptochrome 2 protein (hCRY2) and placed it in drosophilia flies by making a making a transgenic model that lacked their native cryptochrome protein and included the hCRY2. The modified drosophilia were able to sense & respond to generated magnetic fields.
So as humans we either have a dormant magnetoreception ability or a developing one. Fun stuff!


text:
The cute stuff just couldn't continue and I had to get back to grunge. So here are the lastest cards with a box to hold them in. These stamps are my favourite ones that I have and they are Stampotique ones. The paper another big favourite Basic Grey.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
No more cute
Posted by jean at 11:50 am
5 comments:
- katharine said...
hi i love those not cute stamps can you tell me where you got them from,katharine, i love the cards you made and i have a friend who would love a set like that, katharine
- 8:35 pm
- GlitteryKatie said...
- 9:58 pm
- Alix said...
lol i love those stamps...must buy them now!!! great cards :)
- 10:12 am
- Hazel said...
Love these cards, Jean!
- 8:34 pm
- Minxy said...
Oh these cards are just AWSOME, i'm going through the cute phaze but i still adore the stampotique range, think i need to get saving for some more as i only own 1 so far lol
- 7:37 pm
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Video Upskill: Adobe Premiere Pro Smooth Transition Quick Mask Effect Tutorial
Here is a fast way to create a smooth transition by using a quick mask effect in adobe premiere pro. In this video example I use an object in the frame that floats past us (a pole) and apply the crop effect and set the start keyframe just as we see the pole and go to the end of the pole on screen and wipe across and set the end keyframe. A simple feather will smooth the transition look. This is a very quick way to get a smooth natural wipe transition happening in your edit. —Video Upskill
More Transition Tutorials


text:
High Quality, Great Warranty and Customer Care, Fantastic Prices! Reliable and Trusted. Have Been Building Our Saunas Since 1994.
High Quality Modular Far Infrared Saunas
High quality, reasonable price, and easy installation make our quality saunas a personal luxury you can now afford to enjoy in the privacy and comfort of your home. Our far Infrared Saunas come in many sizes and consist of 6 pre-fabricated, tongue & groove fitted panels. All models feature far infrared premium heating elements; top grade, precisely cut wood boards; state of the art designs; feature-rich dual digital control panels, and top of line electronics. Our infrared saunas have been tested and approved for safely use in the US and around the world. Quality craftsmanship and attention to details can be appreciated in all of our saunas.
Nov 30, 2015 (11:00 pm)
Heating Foot pad included
It weights only 10kg, bring it anywhere when you travel.
Fold it up in your home to move it out of your way, when you are done!
Product Specifications:
Far infrared foot heating pad to warm up the feet.
Super conductive and ultra thin Infrared carbon fiber heating elements.
Low energy consumption and high heating impact equivalent to 1800 W thermal energy.
Digital time and temperature controller allows you to set desired temperature levels.
Compact folding chair (free of charge, for light weight only, replaceable with one of your own chairs)
Zipper at the entrance.
Zippers for neck and arms allow your head and hands to stick out for reading, watching TV.
Minutes to set up and fold.
Power consumption: AC 120V, 60 Hz, 635W,
Sauna size: 28" (W) x 31" (D) x 39" (H)
Fold size: 5 X 28 X 40 inches
Time to heat up: 5-10 min.
Temperature range: room to 150 F
Assembly in Minutes.
Three premium fiber carbon far-infrared heaters, producing radiant heat output in 5 to 14 micron wavelength.
This sauna uses 120 V, 15 amp regular household outlet, 635W
Minutes to set up and fold
Fold Size:
No plumbing, no maintenance, no disinfecting is needed
Neck and arms. Allows you to wathc TV and read a book while using sauna.
When all parts of the body function harmoniously, a tremendous feeling of well-being can result. Quality Sauna promotes this feeling.
High quality, reasonable price, and easy set up make our quality saunas a personal luxury you can now afford to enjoy in the privacy and comfort of your home. Starting with premium infrared heaters, adding remarkable design and high industry standard of quality control, we build and deliver high quality saunas. Quality craftsmanship and attention to details can be appreciated in all of our saunas.
Select the model that best suits your needs. We would like the opportunity to introduce you, our prestigious sauna in its premium quality that you will enjoy for the rest of your life!
Have a question? We welcome your questions.
Call 206-323-8886
We are committed to provide buyers with excellence customer service.
Shipping Details:
Standard curbside delivery. It will take around 7 business days for you to receive the product after your payment has been processed. Please note that for customers residing in Alaska or Hawaii, additional shipping charges will apply. We ask that you include a contact number with your order so that the shipping company can arrange the delivery schedule with you.
Customers who would like to pick up their saunas from our warehouse in Washington State will be charged a pick up fee of $50. Shipping charges do not apply for pick up orders.
Payment Details:
We accept money order, cashier check, visa/master card and personal checks (Note that if you choose to pay with a personal check, your order will be shipped 1 or 2 business days after the check clears our bank account)
For some hard to reach areas, i.e. rural areas or mountain areas where the road condition is either difficult or very poor, additional shipping charges may apply. Under these circumstances, the customer will be provided with document of shipping cost, and charged for the difference (The billing period of the trucking company is around one month.)
Item can be returned within 30 days of purchase. Email or call us with reason of return. A RA# will be given. Returned items will be freight pre-paid by customer. Shipping charges are non-refundable. There will be a $40 cancellation charge. Returned item must be in resellable condition. For health code, we will need to charge 15% parts replacement fee.


text:
Uber, an internationally-recognized ridesharing company, plans to expand its New York services beyond the five boroughs of the city to Long Island and upstate. Car-hailing apps like Uber are currently illegal everywhere in New York State with the exception of New York City. And, despite reluctance to allow the unregulated operation of Uber in other states, a piece of piece of legislation to legalize it in New York State is currently pending. Still, the fact remains: the faultiness of the Uber background check process allows for convicted criminals to get behind the wheel for the company.
What the Uber Background Check Process Entails
The Uber background check process only involves a name-based background check. During this screening procedure, social security traces and name-based criminal database searches are administered. On the surface, this sounds safe—at least there is a screening process in place, after all.
However, a closer look reveals the faulty nature of name-based background checks. In fact, according to a peer-reviewed study conducted by a team of law enforcement experts, they're up to 43 times more likely to have errors than the fingerprint-based background checks traditional taxi companies are required to carry out by law.
The entire Uber application process is conducted online, which makes it remarkably easy for unqualified criminals to slip through the gaping holes in Uber's so-called safety procedures.
Evidence of the Unreliability of Name-Based Background Checks
For example, a Florida Uber driver was arrested for his fourth DUI (the first three occurred prior to his employment by Uber) after police responded to calls about him driving aggressively and attempting to hit another vehicle. Clearly, the Uber background check procedure failed to detect the first three DUI charges brought against this man, and ultimately put other motorists and pedestrians in harm's way.
Perhaps the two most outrageous examples of Uber's defective screening process come from Houston. After one driver was accused of sexually assaulting a passenger who was severely intoxicated, it emerged that the driver spent 14 years in federal prison—a lengthy prison sentence that a fingerprint-based background check would have detected.
Another Houston Uber driver who passed the background check was later revealed to have 24 alias names, five listed birthdates, 10 listed Social Security Numbers and an active warrant for arrest—all went unnoticed by Uber's shallow screening process.
The NBC4 Los Angeles Investigative Team looked into Uber themselves. During their investigation, they worked with an ex-felon named Beverly Locke who had a violent past and a rap sheet of convictions including burglary, cocaine possession and the issuance of criminal threats with intent to harm. Locke's background check came back clear and she was able to chauffeur passengers right away.
The list goes on, but perhaps the scariest part of this all is Uber's shameless deflection of liability for incidents like these within their very terms and conditions: "you agree that Uber has no responsibility or liability to you related to any transportation, goods or logistics services provided to you." That's not the rhetoric of a company that cares about the safety of its passengers.


text:
Best Organic gluten-free Banana Bread/ Pancakes/
So this is my famous 5 star recipe that has been published 2x. I use it as a base for pancakes as well. You may substitute the maple for agave and the flour for any of your choice . I found that this is the best and yields the moistest and tastiest cake and pancakes. Add nuts or chocolate chips... of both :)
1 cup organic quinoa flour
1 cup organic ground almond meal
1 tsp organic cinnamon
1 tsp organic nutmeg (or 2 tsp pumpkin spice)
2 tsp (gluten free) baking powder
1/2 cup maple syrup
pinch of salt
3 organic eggs
3 very ripe organic bananas (TIP: Freeze brown bananas instead of throwing them out. They only take about 15 minutes to thaw and then are ready to bake with)
1 tsp organic vanilla extract
1/2 cup of olive oil (or any fat of your choice)
Preheat oven to 340°F/170°C
Grease pan and sprinkle some almond meal on it. This will make it easier to take bread out.
Mix wet and dry ingredients separately and then together. Be sure not to over mix.
BAKE for 1 hour or until toothpick comes out clean.


text:
account_circle Rakesh
date_range ec-2016 to ec-2016
location_onPort Blair - Havelock Island - Port Blair
Package Cost 52000/- INR*For 4 Adults Enquire
Arrive at Port Blair – Pickup from Port Blair airport in afternoon and you will be transferred to the hotel. Check-in at the hotel and after some leisure, we'll head to Carbyn's Cove Beach. In eve...
Arrival at Port Blair, get meet and assisted by our representative at Airport and transfer to respective hotel. After check-in city tour. Visit Fisheries Museum*, Anthropological Museum*, Samudrika Mu...
Arrive at Port Blair - Reach Port Blair airport from where you'll be transferred to your hotel. Check-in at the hotel. After some leisure, start the sight-seeing with Carbyn's Cove Beach, the pictur...
About Us
Rental Store
Terms & Conditions
Cancellation Policy
location_on Office address - 177 Squadron
Leader Mohinder Kumar Jain Marg, Opp. B2 Prajapat Nagar, New Delhi,
India - 110049
location_onRegistered address -95 B Second Floor,
Gautam Nagar
Green Park, New Delhi, India - 110049
mail_outline email@example.com
phone +91-9643823183/84/86
Bali Fixed Departures
Ladakh Fixed Departures


text:
As a big fan of "We Got Married", when I heard Ruby Lin and Siwon officially joined "We Are In Love", I knew I had to check this out. Continue reading
As a big fan of "We Got Married", when I heard Ruby Lin and Siwon officially joined "We Are In Love", I knew I had to check this out. Continue reading
The highly anticipated movie "You Are My Sunshine" moves up its released date by a day to April 30. I don't know what difference that would make but they better released the movie soon because I am getting bored out with their lackluster MVs.
It's funny because I loved all their posters that has been released thus far and their posters have been attracting me to watch the movie but their MV seem to be having the opposite effect on me.
Check out their newly released character posters Continue reading
"You Are My Sunshine" movie version continues to tease us as they release the MV of the theme song that is sung by Huang Xiao Ming. We get to see glimpses of the movie in the mv. Continue reading
Or at least what I plan to watch. I have been converted into an avid korean drama fan ever since I was introduced to it from my college buddies. However the past february and march, I felt like there was nothing to watch and started venturing into chinese dramas that seemed quite interesting. Have I been missing out in chinese dramas or did it just recently become popular because I was addicted to chinese drama more than ever before. What's even better is that chinese dramas release about 1-2 episodes each day so you don't have to wait what seems like forever for a new episode to be release. Continue reading
I have always loved watching Korea's We Got Married and imagined myself dating in sweet situations like those in the show. Continue reading
Hong Jung Hyun's romantic-comedy with Jin Se Yeon is getting released at the end of this month. Continue reading
"You Are My Sunshine" releases it's first trailer with a "going back in time" theme. Continue reading
Drama Reviews - because I love them
Everything that Flash in My Mind ^.^
A Community Blog for all lovers of C-Entertainment
Let's Talk K-Fashion and more!
random girl who loves random boys like him~
Verbal Screenshots - Capturing Kdrama moments in real time
What happens when there are dramas to watch...
Product Reviews from a Beauty Addict
Smitten with Japanese Dramas
Review Korean Dramas and Thoughts
a place where I can talk about dramas all I want
a place where I can talk about dramas all I want
Milk all them dramas
here, there, everywhere