text:
Department of Energy--December 2004 Agreement with the United States Enrichment Corporation
B-307137: Jul 12, 2006
Additional Materials:
- Full Report:
(202) 512-8156
Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
Section 3112(b) of the USEC Privatization Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-335, 1321-344 (Apr. 26, 1996), 42 U.S.C. sect. 2297h-10(b), authorized the Department of Energy (DOE) to transfer to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) Russian-origin uranium so that USEC could sell the uranium on DOE's behalf for consumption by domestic end users, as provided for in a December 2004 agreement between DOE and USEC. DOE violated 31 U.S.C. sect. 3302(b), the miscellaneous receipts statute, and augmented its appropriations when it authorized USEC to hold, invest, and use the proceeds from public sales of government-owned uranium to compensate USEC for costs it incurred in decontaminating uranium on behalf of DOE, prior to enactment in November 2005 of specific statutory authority exempting the proceeds of those uranium sales from the miscellaneous receipts statute.
B-307137, Department of Energy--December 2004 Agreement with the United States Enrichment Corporation, July 12, 2006
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici
Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources
United States Senate
Subject: Department of Energy—December 2004 Agreement with the United States Enrichment Corporation
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This responds to the Committee's request for a legal opinion regarding what has been referred to as a barter arrangement between the Department of Energy (DOE) and the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) under a
As discussed below, on the first issue, we conclude that DOE was authorized to enter into the December 2004 Agreement by section 3112(b)(2)(D) of the USEC Privatization Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. sect. 2297h-10(b)(2)(D). As required by that provision, DOE sold and received payment for Russian-origin uranium to be consumed by domestic end users, and DOE's failure to act within statutory deadlines did not terminate its authority. On the second issue, we conclude that DOE's actions violated the requirements of 31 U.S.C. sect. 3302(b), the miscellaneous receipts statute. When DOE directed USEC to receive, retain, and use proceeds from the sale of government-owned uranium to compensate USEC for expenses it incurred on behalf
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 created USEC as a wholly owned government corporation to perform all uranium enrichment services for commercial purposes in the
In early 2001, USEC notified DOE that up to 9,550 MTU that DOE had transferred to it was potentially contaminated with technetium[6] and claimed that DOE was liable for damages arising from this transfer.[7] To resolve its claim, USEC asked DOE to replace USEC's contaminated uranium with uncontaminated, or clean, uranium.
In the June 2002 Agreement, DOE compensated USEC for decontaminating some of the uranium by taking title to and assuming responsibility for some of USEC's stockpile of depleted uranium waste, which would reduce USEC's eventual disposal costs.[11] In a 2004 Work Authorization, DOE compensated USEC for decontaminating additional transferred uranium by paying an estimated $31 million from DOE's appropriations.[12] In an October 2004 Agreement, DOE agreed to exchange clean DOE-owned uranium for contaminated USEC uranium.[13]
Finally, in December 2004, DOE and USEC entered into the agreement at issue here, Memorandum of Agreement for the Continued Operation of the Portsmouth S&T Facilities for the Processing of Affected Inventory in Fiscal Year 2005 and Thereafter, Dec. 10, 2004 (December 2004 Agreement). Like most of the previous agreements, the December 2004 Agreement specified that USEC would decontaminate the contaminated uranium transferred to it by DOE and that USEC would release DOE from liability for the previous contaminated transfers.
The clean uranium that DOE agreed to transfer to USEC was deemed Russian-origin uranium under section 3112(b)(1) of the USEC Privatization Act. December 2004 Agreement, sect. 4.2, at 7. The Agreement also acknowledged that if the transferred uranium were sold for consumption by domestic end users, it would be subject the use restrictions in section 3112(b)(2)(D) of the act.
Twelve days after DOE signed the December 2004 Agreement, it approved USEC's marketing strategy for sale of 900 MTU of DOE clean uranium. In its approval memorandum, DOE stated that the December 2004 Agreement has in effect made USEC the department's sales agent for the uranium.[14] From December 2004 to November 2005, DOE transferred about 900 MTU to USEC under the Agreement, and USEC sold this uranium to four buyers for a total of $62 million for eventual consumption by domestic end users. GAO-06-723, at 18.
In November 2005, in section 314 of DOE's appropriations act for fiscal year 2006, Congress expressly authorized DOE, notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 3112 of the USEC Privatization Act and the miscellaneous receipts statute, 31 U.S.C. sect. 3302(b), to barter, transfer or sell uranium . . . and to use any proceeds . . . to remediate uranium inventories held by DOE. Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-103, sect. 314, 119 Stat. 2247, 2281 (
A. DOE's Sale and Receipt of Payment for Its Uranium
DOE relies on section 3112(b)(2)(D) of the USEC Privatization Act as authority for the December 2004 Agreement. In support of its position, DOE provided us with a draft memorandum entitled Sales of Uranium Hexafluoride Pursuant to Section 3112(b) of the United States Enrichment Corporation Privatization Act, 42 U.S.C. 2297h-10, dated 4/18/03 + 4/24/03 (2003 DOE Memo), addressing DOE's authority under section 3112(b)(2)(D). DOE told us that this 2003 memorandum represents the department's current legal position on its authority for the December 2004 Agreement. Telephone Conference Call with Mary H. Egger, Deputy General Counsel, and Susan F. Beard, Assistant General Counsel, DOE, and Susan D. Sawtelle, Associate General Counsel, GAO, and others, May 5, 2006. See also 2006 DOE Letter, Attachment at 2–3.[15]
Section 3112(b)(2) authorizes DOE sales of Russian-origin uranium and provides that DOE shall sell, and receive payment for this category of uranium within 7 years of enactment, that is, no later than
DOE maintains that its transfer of uranium to USEC under the December 2004 Agreement constituted the requisite sale under section 3112(b)(2)(D), and that USEC's release of its liability claims against DOE, together with its decontamination of DOE's uranium, constituted the requisite payment. 2006 DOE Letter, Attachment at 6; 2003 DOE Memo, at 7–9.
We agree that DOE ultimately sold and received payment for the uranium, but not that it was a sale to USEC. Instead, the December 2004 Agreement established USEC as DOE's sales agent for sales of the uranium to other entities. The extent of control that DOE retained over the uranium it transferred to USEC under the Agreement does not support DOE's characterization of the transfer as a sale to USEC.
While the Agreement provided that DOE would transfer to USEC title to and possession of clean uranium belonging to the United States, December 2004 Agreement, sect. 2.2, at 7, USEC had no discretion over use of the uranium. The Agreement required that USEC sell the uranium on terms and conditions detailed in a DOE-approved marketing strategy using its good faith efforts to obtain the best possible price given market conditions at the time of the sale.
The December 2004 Agreement also restricted the uses to which USEC could apply the sale proceeds—they could be used only to compensate USEC for allowable costs. December 2004 Agreement, sect. 6.2, at 8. Allowable costs were defined as the direct, indirect, and plant overhead costs that USEC incurred in operating its facilities for processing Affected Inventory, which included both USEC-owned and DOE-owned contaminated uranium.
We cannot reconcile these contract terms and practices with DOE's assertion that it sold the uranium to USEC. USEC had no choice in whether to sell the uranium, or in how to go about it. The agreement required sale and required DOE to approve the marketing plan. The relationship between the two parties was more like a principal-agent relationship. The principal instructed the agent, USEC, in the sale, the placement of proceeds in a separate account, the allowable uses of proceeds, and allowable costs. We find it far more reasonable to conclude that the December 2004 Agreement accomplished not the sale of uranium to USEC, but rather the designation of USEC as DOE's sales and marketing agent. DOE itself, 12 days after signing the December 2004 Agreement, identified USEC as DOE's sales agent for the uranium transferred pursuant to the Agreement, not the purchaser of the uranium. See Gunter Memorandum.
As the
While the December 2004 Agreement obligated DOE to transfer title to and possession of the uranium to USEC, the terms of the Agreement together with its collateral security agreement demonstrate that the purpose of the transfer actually was to facilitate the sale of the uranium to other commercial entities by USEC on behalf of DOE. It is common for selling agents to be given title and possession to property in order to effect a sale on behalf of the principal. Restatement (Second) of Agency sect. 14N (1958) (independent contractor agents also fall within the category of trustees, as in the case of a selling agent who has been given title to the subject matter . . . [and] there is an agency [relationship] if in the transaction which they undertake they act for the benefit of another and subject to his control). The terms of the December 2004 Agreement and the security agreement show that DOE retained control over the use and disposition of both the uranium and the proceeds from its sale. Despite the recitation in the December 2004 Agreement transferring title and possession to USEC, the security interests that DOE retained in its security agreement served to protect DOE's title to the uranium and the sales proceeds. DOE actually parted with no incidents of ownership.
Between December 2004 and November 2005 (when Congress passed section 314), USEC sold the uranium to four different buyers for a total of $62 million. GAO-06-723, at 18. USEC, acting as DOE's sales agent, received payment from the four buyers on behalf of DOE. While we disagree with DOE's assertion that it sold the uranium to USEC, we conclude that DOE, using USEC as its agent, sold the uranium and received payment, satisfying the requirements of section 3112(b)(2)(D).
B. DOE's Failure to Meet Statutory Deadlines
As noted above, section 3112(b)(2) provided that DOE shall sell and receive payment for its Russian-origin uranium no later than April 26, 2003, and section 3112(b)(2)(D) provided that sale of this uranium for consumption by domestic end users shall occur in calendar year 2001. Thus, the next issue is whether DOE's authority under section 3112(b) had expired before it entered into the December 2004 Agreement. Although arguably the word shall in these provisions could be construed as a mandatory command that terminated DOE's authority when it missed the deadlines, rendering the December 2004 Agreement unauthorized under that section,[17] DOE asserts that the deadlines were only hortatory and did not affect its authority. Conference Calls of May 8 and 9.
DOE relies on Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149 (2003), and related cases. See 2003 DOE Memo, at 5–6. Barnhart involved a requirement under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 (Coal Act) that the Social Security Administration (SSA) shall, before
The Supreme Court ruled in Barnhart that SSA's authority to make assignments did not expire on
Based on the absence of an explicit statutory consequence for noncompliance with the deadlines and the lack of intent to terminate SSA's authority in the structure, purpose, or legislative history of the Coal Act, the Court held that SSA's authority was not time-limited. The fact that the deadline was located within the same subsection as the Commissioner's authority to act did not indicate the agency's authority was co-terminous with the deadline. The Court rejected this as a formalistic rule that would thwart the statute's object of having private companies pay for most of the retiree benefits, because under the fallback provision that allegedly applied if SSA's authority were read as time-limited, benefits would largely be paid by the public. Barnhart, 537
As in Barnhart, section 3112(b)(2) of the USEC Privatization Act provided that DOE shall sell its Russian-origin uranium by 2001 or 2003, but specified no consequence for failure to do so. As DOE notes, the statute did not condition the department's authority by use of terms such as unless or until. 2003 DOE Memo at 6. Thus under Barnhart, the deadlines in section 3112(b) are to be read as targets rather than jurisdictional mandates unless the Privatization Act's structure, purpose, or history reveals a contrary legislative intent.
We find no such contrary intent. Section 3112 contains a non-time-limited provision authorizing DOE sale and transfer of uranium at any time—section 3112(d)—which arguably indicates that DOE's section 3112(b) authority was time-limited. Under this argument, even if DOE missed the deadlines in section 3112(b), it could still sell its Russian-origin uranium under the fallback provision of section 3112(d). However, we agree with DOE that as in Barnhart, there is no indication that Congress intended section 3112(d) as a fallback to section 3112(b).[18]
Section 3112, entitled Uranium transfers and sales, directs DOE how to carry out virtually every step of the disposition of both Russian-origin and other uranium in DOE's inventory—from the allowable timing of sales and transfers, to the permissible recipients and uses, to the maximum volumes, and even to end user consumption rates—with different sections governing different categories of uranium. Section 3112(b) specifically authorizes DOE to sell Russian-origin uranium, setting detailed timetables and quantity limits on the sale of this category of uranium. Section 3112(d), by comparison, authorizes DOE's sale and transfer of uranium from its stockpile (an undefined term) at any time subject to certain conditions. Under the basic tenet of statutory construction that the more specific statute takes precedence, see, e.g., Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
The legislative history of the USEC Privatization Act lends further support to the interpretation that section 3112(d) was not intended as a fallback to section 3112(b). Congress believed that one of the biggest impediments to privatizing USEC was investor concern about the potential adverse impacts of an agreement known as the Russian HEU Agreement.[19] The concern was that under this agreement, inexpensive Russian-origin uranium would flood the U.S. market, depressing prices for domestic uranium producers, threatening job security for domestic uranium enrichment industry workers, and making USEC's enrichment and marketing services less competitive.[20] Congress therefore carved out section 3112(b) as a separate, specific authority for sale of Russian-origin uranium, imposing restrictions on its sale to minimize adverse impacts on the domestic market, while still meeting
The same legislative history indicates that Congress intended the section 3112(b) deadlines as a spur to . . . action, not as a bar to tardy completion of DOE's obligation to sell Russian-origin uranium. Barnhart, 537
II. DOE's Authority to Use Proceeds from USEC's Sales of the Uranium
The second issue is whether DOE had authority to use the proceeds of USEC's sale of DOE uranium pursuant to the December 2004 Agreement. Under the miscellaneous receipts statute, 31 U.S.C. sect. 3302(b), an official or agent of the Government receiving money for the Government from any source shall deposit the money in the Treasury as soon as practicable without deduction for any charge or claim. 31 U.S.C. sect. 3302(b). See, e.g., B-302825,
As noted above, DOE asserts that with the December 2004 Agreement, the Department sold uranium to USEC but not for cash. Conference Calls of May 8 and 9; 2006 DOE Letter, Attachment at 1. DOE officials conceded that at the time of the Agreement, the department had no authority to retain proceeds from its sales of uranium, and that if USEC had paid cash for the uranium, DOE would have been required to deposit the proceeds into the miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. Conference Calls of May 8 and 9. According to DOE officials, USEC, instead of paying cash in consideration for DOE's sale of uranium, agreed to (1) release any claims of liability for the decontaminated uranium that DOE had transferred to USEC under previous agreements, and (2) decontaminate DOE-owned uranium.
As discussed above, the terms of the December 2004 Agreement, as well as DOE's actions in implementing the Agreement, do not support the department's characterization of the transfer of uranium as a sale to USEC. DOE itself characterized USEC as its sales agent, not its buyer. Gunter Memorandum. By transferring uranium to USEC for sale and permitting USEC to use sales proceeds to defray its costs of decontaminating the uranium that DOE had transferred to it pursuant to earlier agreements, DOE received from USEC a release from any claims of liability that USEC might have against the department for transferring contaminated uranium. We, of course, have no objection to DOE transferring clean uranium to resolve its dispute with USEC. Public policy dictates in favor of the government addressing its disputes. 71 Comp. Gen. 340, 341 (1992). See also Cannon Construction Co., Inc. v. United States, 319 F.2d 173, 178–79 (Ct. Cl. 1963); B'306860, Feb. 28, 2006 (OFHEO could use an enforcement settlement agreement to require regulated entity to format electronic documents to enable OFHEO to pursue charges against the entity's former officers); B'237742, Mar. 14, 1990 (Army may use settlement agreements to resolve claims by contractors). A transfer of uranium in these circumstances and for this purpose would relate back to the original transfers (between 1993 and 1998) and, like those transfers, is authorized by the Privatization Act. See 42 U.S.C. sect. 2297h-2(b).
That, however, is not what happened here. With the December 2004 Agreement, DOE initiated a stream of revenue (the sales proceeds) that DOE used to cover the costs of decontaminating both the USEC-owned and DOE-owned contaminated uranium. This is problematic. It is well understood that in the absence of statutory authority, what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. E.g., B'303927,
In similar circumstances both GAO and the courts have recognized that a contractor constructively receiving money for an agency is not free of the requirement of the miscellaneous receipts statute that funds received for the use of the United States be deposited in the Treasury just as if they had been received directly by the agency. See, e.g., Scheduled Airlines Traffic Offices, Inc. v. Department of Defense, 87 F.3d 1356, 1361–63 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Defense Department cannot require payment to morale fund of a portion of concession fees derived from unofficial travel); Motor Coach Industries, Inc. v. Dole, 725 F.2d 958, 968 (4th Cir. 1984) (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cannot hold in a trust fund amounts paid by airlines to defray FAA's cost of acquiring new shuttle buses for Dulles Airport); B-300826, Mar. 3, 2005 (National Institutes of Health (NIH) could not authorize its contractor to charge a fee to cover the costs of a formal conference that NIH hosted); B-265727, July 19, 1996 (Securities and Exchange Commission may not reduce its obligation of appropriated funds resulting from a lease, and correspondingly increase its available appropriations, by subleasing space and arranging for the sublessee to make its payments directly to the landlord).
DOE clearly had authority to decontaminate its own contaminated uranium using funds appropriated for that purpose. At the time of the December 2004 Agreement, if DOE itself had sold its clean uranium, rather than transferring the uranium to USEC to carry out the same task, the department admits that it could not have legally retained the sales proceeds and applied them to pay its decontamination costs. Instead, DOE would have been required to deposit the sales proceeds into the miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury and to use DOE's appropriations to acquire decontamination services. With the December 2004 Agreement, DOE circumvented the miscellaneous receipts statute by its use of USEC as its sales agent and its direct control of the disposition of the sales proceeds. See B-287738, May 16, 2002 (because Maritime Administration had effective control of the disposition of amounts held in an escrow account, it had constructively received those amounts within the plain meaning of the miscellaneous receipts statute).
DOE's acquisition of decontamination services for its own uranium is conceptually indistinguishable from a Small Business Administration (SBA) contract that we addressed in 2004, B-300248, Jan. 15, 2004. In that case, SBA retained a contractor to help it perform regulatory reviews of lenders participating in its Preferred Lenders Program (PLP). SBA arranged to compensate its contractor by imposing fees on the PLP lenders and requiring the lenders to pay those fees directly to the contractor. SBA had no authority to retain and use those fees itself, nor could it allow its agent to do so. 31 U.S.C. sect. 3302(a) and (b) (an official or agent of the United States Government . . . shall keep the money safe without . . . using it [and] shall deposit the money in the Treasury as soon as practicable without deduction for any charge or claim). We observed that an agency receives money under the miscellaneous receipts statute if the receipts are to cover the expenses of the government or pay government obligations, B-300248, citing B-205901,
Here, as in the SBA case, DOE arranged for an independent revenue stream not appropriated to it by Congress; had no authority to retain the proceeds of that revenue stream if received directly; and arranged for its agent, USEC, to receive the proceeds of the unauthorized revenue stream and to use those amounts to pay for expenses incurred on behalf of DOE. In our view, DOE's agent received money for the government but failed to deposit the money in the Treasury, and therefore, DOE violated the miscellaneous receipts statute and augmented its appropriations.
In defense of this aspect of the December 2004 Agreement, DOE points to a 1988 decision of this Office, 67 Comp. Gen. 510 (1988). See 2006 DOE Letter, Attachment at 6. The 1988 decision and other decisions in that line address in-kind replacement or repair of damaged government property, in lieu of a cash payment, by a tortfeasor. In the 1988 case, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) asked if it could accept a replacement vehicle from a negligent third party, who had damaged an ATF vehicle beyond repair, without violating the miscellaneous receipts statute. We concluded that ATF could accept the replacement vehicle, despite the fact that, had the tortfeasor paid the government . . ., the money would have to be deposited as miscellaneous receipts. 67 Comp. Gen. at 511.
The 1988 decision and related decisions have no application here. These decisions address damage to government property resulting from tortious acts, clearly not the factual situation present here. The purpose of the ATF and related decisions is to facilitate the government, which has suffered damage, being made whole. To require an agency to insist on cash payable to the miscellaneous receipts account of the Treasury rather than replacement or repair would not serve the public interest. Again, that is not the situation here. The purpose of the December 2004 Agreement was not to remedy a tortious act against government property, but to settle claims, to acquire decontamination of DOE-owned uranium, and to identify a source of funds to pay for that service.[24]
As noted above, in November 2005, Congress enacted in DOE's appropriations for fiscal year 2006 a provision that expressly authorizes the department to barter, transfer or sell uranium . . . and to use any proceeds, without fiscal year limitation, to remediate uranium inventories held by DOE, notwithstanding any other provision of federal law, including section 3112 of the USEC Privatization Act and the miscellaneous receipts statute. Pub. L. No. 109-103, sect. 314. Thus, at least for fiscal year 2006, section 314 permits DOE, through an agent like USEC, to sell government-owned uranium and to use the proceeds to compensate USEC for decontaminating DOE's uranium.
We are aware that USEC is the only American vendor currently offering domestic commercial uranium enrichment services, and that all of the agreements DOE negotiated to address USEC's claims have included language reflecting the department's desire that USEC continue as a viable entity. Our objection here is with DOE's improper augmentation of its appropriations.
Because DOE's fiscal year 2005 Departmental Administration appropriation was available for the purpose of decontaminating its uranium,[25] to remedy its violation of the miscellaneous receipts statute, DOE should adjust its accounts by transferring $62 million from this appropriation to the miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury.[26] If DOE finds that it lacks sufficient budget authority to cover the adjustment, it should report a violation of the Antideficiency Act in accordance with 31 U.S.C. sect. 1351. In the alternative, DOE may wish to seek and obtain congressional ratification of its use of the $62 million.
DOE was authorized under section 3112(b)(2)(D) of the USEC Privatization Act to transfer uranium to USEC under the December 2004 Agreement, as an interim step in USEC's sale of such uranium, on the department's behalf, for consumption by domestic end users. However, prior to the enactment of section 314 of DOE's fiscal year 2006 appropriations act, the department used uranium sales proceeds (and earnings on those proceeds) in violation of the miscellaneous receipts statute, 31 U.S.C. sect. 3302(b), which resulted in DOE unlawfully augmenting its appropriations. To resolve its improper use of the sales proceeds, DOE should either seek and obtain congressional ratification of its use of the proceeds or adjust its accounts.
If there are questions concerning these matters, please contact Susan A. Poling, Managing Associate General Counsel, at (202) 512-2667, or Susan D. Sawtelle,Associate General Counsel, at (202) 512-6417. Assistant General Counsels Thomas H. Armstrong and Doreen S. Feldman, Senior Attorney Neill Martin-Rolsky, Senior Staff Attorney Omari Norman, and Senior Analyst Ryan T. Coles also made key contributions to this opinion.
Sincerely yours,
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
1. Section 3112(b) of the USEC Privatization Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104'134, 110 Stat. 1321-335, 1321-344 (Apr. 26, 1996), 42 U.S.C. sect. 2297h-10(b), authorized the Department of Energy (DOE) to transfer to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) Russian-origin uranium so that USEC could sell the uranium on DOE's behalf for consumption by domestic end users, as provided for in a December 2004 agreement between DOE and USEC.
2. DOE violated 31 U.S.C. sect. 3302(b), the miscellaneous receipts statute, and augmented its appropriations when it authorized USEC to hold, invest, and use the proceeds from public sales of government-owned uranium to compensate USEC for costs it incurred in decontaminating uranium on behalf of DOE, prior to enactment in November 2005 of specific statutory authority exempting the proceeds of those uranium sales from the miscellaneous receipts statute.
[1] On June 16, 2006, GAO reported to the Committee concerning our review of certain management issues regarding this Agreement in U.S. Enrichment Corporation Privatization: USEC's Delays in Providing Data Hinder DOE's Oversight of the Uranium Decontamination Agreement, GAO-06-723 (Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2006).
[2] The Antideficiency Act prohibits making or authorizing expenditures or obligations that exceed available budget authority. 31 U.S.C. sect. 1341.
[3] Consistent with our regular practice, we requested DOE's legal views on these issues. Letter from Susan A. Poling, Managing Associate General Counsel, GAO, to David R. Hill, General Counsel, DOE, Feb. 9, 2006. On
[4] See Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486, title IX, sect. 901, 106 Stat. 2776, 2924 (
[5] See USEC Privatization Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, sections 3103–3106, 110 Stat. 1321-335, 1321-336 to -338, 42 U.S.C. sections 2297h-1 to 2297h-4; GAO-06-723, at 2.
[6] Technetium is a radioactive metal created as a by-product of nuclear fission. Commercial specifications for nuclear fuel severely limit the amount of technetium that may be contained in uranium fuel, and the contamination discovered by USEC exceeded those limits. GAO-06-723, at 9.
[7] Memorandum from Dennis J. Scott, Assistant General Counsel, USEC, to Matt Urie, Attorney-Advisor, DOE, Contaminated Uranium Inventory,
[8] See, e.g., Agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and USEC, Inc.,
[9] See, e.g., June 2002 Agreement pt. A, para. (a), at 12; Letter Work Authorization,
[10] See, e.g., June 2002 Agreement art. 2, at 1, and art. 3, at 7.
[11] June 2002 Agreement pt. B, at 12.
[12] 2004 Work Authorization, sect. 4.1, at 5.
[13] October 2004 Agreement, sections 1.3, 1.4, at 3.
[14] Memorandum from Linda L. Gunter, Associate Director, Office of Nuclear Fuel Supply Security, DOE, to William E. Murphy, Manager, Portsmouth Paducah Project Office, DOE, Approval of USEC's Marketing Strategy For the Sale of 900 Metric Tons of Uranium (MTU) in Response to Article 4 of the Memorandum of Agreement for Continued Operation of the Shipping and Transfer facilities in FY 2005 and beyond, Dec. 22, 2004 (Gunter Memorandum).
[15] DOE also asserts that certain general authorities under the Atomic Energy Act are in harmony with the results achieved from the December 2004 Agreement or likely also would have or might well have authorized the Agreement. See 2006 DOE Letter, Attachment at 1–3, citing Atomic Energy Act sections 3(d), 63, 66, 161(g), 42 U.S.C. sections 2013(d), 2093, 2096, 2201(g). See also Memorandum for David K. Garman, DOE Acting Under Secretary for Energy, Science and Environment, from Paul M. Golan, DOE Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, Action: Approve the transfer of programmatic responsibility to the Office of Environmental Management for implementation of a barter agreement with USEC for Continued Operation of the Portsmouth Shipping and Transfer (S&T) Facilities to Process USEC and DOE contaminated inventories of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) (Sept. 30, 2004) (citing same authorities). Because we find that the December 2004 Agreement wasauthorized by section 3112(b)(2)(D) of the USEC Privatization Act, we do not address whether these or other statutes may have provided additional authority.
[16] USEC agreed to waive any claim for fees for these decontamination services. December 2004 Agreement, at 2. Instead, USEC was entitled to credit the allowable direct, indirect, and plant overhead costs incurred in decontaminating the uranium against the revenues derived from the uranium sales.
[17] Perhaps the most fundamental principle of statutory construction is that words in a statute must be given their ordinary or natural meaning whenever possible. See Walters v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc., 519
[18] An interpretation that section 3112(d) applied as a fallback where DOE missed the section 3112(b)(2) deadlines would render the December 2004 Agreement unauthorized. DOE staff told us that because the Department did not believe section 3112(d) applied, it took no action to meet the section 3112(d) sale conditions.
[19] See Agreement Concerning the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, U.S.-R.F.,
[20] See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 104-173, at 14 (1995) ([T]he unrestricted entry into the market of new, low cost feed materials could significantly disrupt uranium markets and depress market prices.); USEC Privatization Act, Hearing on S. 755 Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, S. Hrg. No. 104-105, at 2 (June 13, 1995) (remarks of Chairman Murkowski) ([W]e must . . . balance the interests of a very important national nonproliferation initiative, the U.S.-Russian Highly Enriched Uranium agreement. We must maintain the chance of a free market for uranium enrichment. We must maintain the health of the uranium mining industry, and we must ensure fairness to the workers of the enrichment plants in
[21] It was precisely because DOE was concerned about an already weak domestic market that it had not sold all of its Russian-origin uranium by the April 2003 statutory deadline. See 2003 DOE Memo, at 1–2. The same concern had prompted DOE to recommend to Congress, in 2000 and 2002, that it remove or modify this deadline. See DOE, Report to Congress on Maintenance of Viable Domestic Uranium, Conversion and Enrichment Industries (December 2000), at 22; DOE, Report on the Effect [that LEU] delivered under the Russian HEU Agreement has on the Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment Industries, and the Operation of the Gaseous Diffusion Plant (
[22] See, e.g., S. Hrg. No. 104-105, at 17 (statement of USEC President William H. Timbers) ([S]ome have asked, '. . . [W]hy is this taking so long?' . . . [T]his is a difficult, complex, technically challenging program to implement. This is not just acommodity. We are not talking about orange juice futures . . . This has never been done before . . . We do not want to just [d]o it quickly, we want to do it right.).
[23] Because DOE's position on its legal authority for the December 2004 Agreement has been developed informally rather than through a formal rulemaking, adjudication, or other rigorous process, it is not entitled to substantial deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842–45 (1984). See
[24] We also distinguish our recent decision, B-306860,
[25] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 2952 (
[26] Between December 2004 and November 2005, USEC sold DOE's uranium for a total of $62 million and used the proceeds to cover the costs of decontaminating USEC-owned and DOE-owned uranium. GAO-06-723, at 18.
Sep 17, 2020
Sep 16, 2020
Sumaria Systems, Inc.
We deny the protest.
We deny the protest.
Sep 15, 2020
CenturyLink QGS
We deny the protest.
Patronus Systems, Inc.
We sustain the protest.
Sep 11, 2020
Looking for more? Browse all our products here


text:
A place to get away from 'The Office'
Should they need to get away from "The Office" from time to time, actor John Krasinski and his movie star wife, Emily Blunt, have bought a country home in Ojai for $2.15 million.
Once the site of the Ojai Foothills Hotel, the 5-acre-plus property centers on a 4,177-square-foot main house with high ceilings, four fireplaces, four bedrooms and 51/2 bathrooms. There is solar power, a swimming pool with spa and a three-car garage.
Krasinski, who turns 33 on Oct. 20, has starred on "The Office" since 2005. Blunt, 29, will star with Tom Cruise in the film "All You Need Is Kill." She starred last year in "Salmon Fishing in the Yemen" and "The Adjustment Bureau."
Tonya Peralta of Keller Williams Realty was the listing agent. Patricia Waltcher of Coldwell Banker Property Shoppe represented Krasinski and Blunt.
Flipper banks on Rihanna's vibe
Rihanna took a financial hit last year when she sold her water-damaged home in Beverly Crest. Now an industrious flipper is trying to make back some of the money the pop star lost and has listed the newly improved place at $9.95 million.
The multiple Grammy Award winner paid $6.9 million for the property in 2009 and sold it two years later for $5.03 million. When listed then, the gated house was described as a "major fixer" with "extensive damage from moisture."
The 8,520-square-foot contemporary and a swimming pool sit on about three-quarters of an acre with unobstructed canyon and city views. Details include a custom closet with suede ceilings in the master suite, tiered seating in the home theater and 35-foot-high tongue-and-groove wood ceilings in the open-plan living space. There are three fireplaces, a bar, a library/study den, seven bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
The water damage rained on the pop star's parade, but not her style, which remains in evidence in the home. There's a 20-foot-long white leather headboard in the master suite, a black-and-white bathroom with Swarovski crystal accessories, and that custom closet includes shoe racking and handbag systems "like being in a store," said listing agent Valerie Fitzgerald of Coldwell Banker's Beverly Hills North office.
Rihanna, 24, is one of the world's top-selling recording artists. Her earnings from May 2011 to May 2012 were estimated by Forbes at $53 million.
Joseph Babajian of Rodeo Realty shares the listing.
'Live!' co-host trades up and out
Kelly Ripa co-host Michael Strahan has been active on the real estate market front this year. The Fox football analyst and his fiancee, television personality Nicole Murphy, bought a home in Bel-Air, sold one in Hermosa Beach and have another on the market in the beach city.
The gated Bel-Air estate they purchased for $7.9 million centers on a 1926 Mediterranean with a courtyard entry. Among features are walls of glass, a screening room with a bar, a gym, a sauna, five bedrooms and 61/2 bathrooms. The 1-acre-plus property includes a detached guesthouse and a swimming pool.
The pair sold a four-bedroom, 41/2-bathroom house with 3,291 square feet of living space in Hermosa Beach for $3 million. They also have a 2,560-square-foot custom town house in Hermosa Beach for sale at $1.849 million.
Strahan, 40, co-hosts "Live! With Kelly and Michael." He replaced longtime co-host Regis Philbin. The defensive end played for the New York Giants his entire NFL career, setting a record for sacks in a single season and retiring in 2008 after winning Super Bowl XLII. He starred in the 2009 TV series "Brothers."
Murphy, 44, was married to comedian Eddie Murphy from 1993 to 2006. She stars in the reality series "Hollywood Exes," which documents five high-profile women who are former wives of Hollywood A-listers or music stars.
Myra Nourmand and Fariba Meskin of Nourmand & Associates and Joseph Babajian of Rodeo Realty were the listing agents for the Bel-Air estate. Bob Hurwitz of Hurwitz James Co. represented the buyers.
Lee LeGrande of NW Real Estate Brokers was the listing agent on the Hermosa Beach house that sold and is listing the one on the market.
Actress terminates ownership
Actress Linda Hamilton has terminated her ownership of a gated villa in Malibu, selling it for $4 million. The property came on the market in February at $5.495 million.
The 4,754-square-foot residence features open-plan living spaces, vaulted wood-beam ceilings, terra-cotta floors, a skylighted kitchen, two fireplaces, a bar, five bedrooms and 41/2 bathrooms on one level. The 1.1-acre compound includes several patios, a guesthouse, garage space for six cars and beach access. Expansive lawns, palm trees and boulders surround the swimming pool.
Hamilton, 56, has had a recurring role on "Chuck" for the last two years. She is best known for her role as Sarah Connor in the "Terminator" movies starting in the mid-1980s. She will star in the upcoming thriller "Right Next Door."
Susan Monus of Coldwell Banker's Malibu West office was the listing agent. Christopher Cortazzo of Coldwell Banker's Malibu West office represented the buyer.
Drummer gives up his old beat
Drummer Brad Wilk of Rage Against the Machine and his wife, vocalist Selene Vigil, have snared a buyer for their Malibu house, selling it for $2.453 million.
Wilk is known to have an affinity for the number three, and this sales price delivered one. He uses threes in his drum playing and decision-making.
The ocean-view contemporary, built in 2001, features walls of glass, a large deck, a loft office, two bedrooms and 21/2 bathrooms. The house has about 2,750 square feet of living space.
Wilk, 44, also has played with Audioslave and Greta. Vigil was lead singer for the band 7 Year Bitch.
Public records show he bought the property in 2003 for $1.9 million. The couple put it on the market in June at $2.699 million.
Isidora Fridman and Tomer Fridman of Ewing Sotheby's were the listing agents. Uni Mayesh of Shorewood Realtors represented the buyer.
Inside the homes of the rich and famous.
Glimpse their lives and latest real estate deals in our weekly Hot Property newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Caveat emptor: How $2.75 generates $145
48 comments
Whiny one, isn't he? Pay to park and you don't get towed. Are you really 60 years old and have never been towed before? It stinks. To prevent it, I try to follow the instructions that are posted at the parking lot so that I don't go through this(hint, hint).
you got ripped off on that $26.00 pizza, bub.
You seriously thought you could get out of an opera in less than 3 hours? That's the real mistake here- no good can come from going to the opera.
I'm almost 60, 6ft 3, 200lbs, was left an estate in a will. I called a lawyer to file it, never heard back filed it myself after 2 months. When I told the lawyer, I did it myself, I got a bill for close to $700. I didn't tell anyone, and probably should be repeating it now. You however can have the benefit of my advise. If you are left an estate in a will, try filing it your self first. Maybe your lawyer will overpark at a lot and pay out some of the bucks you paid them some day.
I have a suggestion... everytime you see their tow truck parked somewhere look for a worn tire, body damage or ANYTHING leaking underneath and report them to the DOT. The number is printed on the side of the truck. The DOT will perform an inspection and make them fix EVERYTHING. The drivers also have to have medical cards and the owner is required to have alcohol prevention training. If you see the driver on a cell phone you tube it.. it is a DOT violation and up to a 12,000 dollar fine. Also, by LAW cars need to be anchored at 4 places on a flat bed. If you see a tower with two straps youtube it and report them.
This problem could be solved very easily. The city could regulate towing lots like any other business. They could require minimum signage sizes and locations with explicit warnings. The sign could be required to disclose that the owner recieves a kickback for every tow. That way people would be informed that it is a predatory business. Additionally the city could put a 1 dollar "towing tax" on every impound which would mean that the tower would have to provide a copy of every reciept to the city which the paper trail could then be used by the IRS to make sure these people pay their taxes on all that CASH. The city could use the dollar to police the towing industry. The police could make sure they strap the cars down properly and, use proper signals and lights and following traffic laws.
This lot is not the only problem, there is an underground economy of kickbacks and corruption at apartment complexes and condos where people call the towers to get a money for squealing on someone who inadvertently parks in the wrong spot even for a minute.
If the towers want to be predatory and take advantage of technicalities to rob people then lets make them pay taxes and follow the rules themselves.
I agree - the City should regulate towing companies.
Oh, that's right, they're probably high from smoking pot and have the munchies themselves. Pass the pizza and the chips.
@bill marshall
great blog But city council already regulates this lot. For that matter it is already over regulated and over taxed. Maybe the cash payments are a way to avoid further taxes?
So the county is soon opening its new mall with all kinds of amenities to attract people. Free parking, modern movie theaters, trendy restaurants, stores selected to coordinate with the others, great lighting, no pan handlers, public and private police, easy access. This mall, being privately owned for profit, will compete with the City Council (CC) regulated mall. CC is self described as a Democratic/Socialistic organization of individuals who have limited interest and no ownership.
There is a lot to learn as these two shopping venues compete into the future. Nobody is right; nobody is wrong. But The People will vote with their feet and their pocketbooks. The tax revenues will tell the story.
A $160 tow fee is criminal! Too bad our city council doesn't deal with real issues.
I wonder if their City Council parking pass (to be displayed in the window like a handicapped parking permit) is honored by this lot?
I had a major vehicle malfunction not long ago in the city, and had to have my vehicle towed to Jim Price Chevrolet. One of the larger local tow companies charged me $40, with their usual fee being $50. They gave me somewhat of a discount because I do a lot of programming for them and they all know me (including the owners).
I wonder if tow fees would be much less if these privately owned lots were to contract with this larger towing company.
gas dog... the "fees" are set by how much they can get away with.
It is a trap and on the interest of the general welfare of the public consumer protections should be in place.
Unless the lot is full the lot is not being harmed by the car being there and there is no reason to move it other than to create a reasaon to charge.
Perhaps the law should require a business to have an employee on hand at all times they are charging money, or require unattended lots to only tow if it is over 75% full and needs the space. If they want to lock a car in then make the customer come back tomorrow and pay the late fee.
I have never been towed before, but it makes me very angry when I drive by the tow truck company on East High Street and they have things written on their truck like "we're going to get you!!" If I ever needed a tow, I would never call them because they are obviously terrible people.
On most things I agree with you, but on this I do not. The City Council doesn;t act very socialist at all, except for one or two aspects. They act quite Republican, and are being just as silly as Republicans too. The fact that the DT Mall has panhandlers is because it isn all private property, its an open Mall. What might be nice for local residents is that this County wonder drags away the COunty traffic, so that businesses who meet real city dweller needs take over the businesses that cater to those from out of town all the time.
Thanks "Old Timer". I am from Charlottesville but lived far away for many years. Had to come home to die, in about 20 or 30 years I hope, Undoubtedly I am learning a lot from the Old Timers but little from the Newly Arrived from a different culture entirely.
I could have be a bit clearer in explaining that I do see the Downtown Mall as a publically owned mall controlled by City Council. THe businesses and most buildings are private but absolutely controlled by CC.
I do not see much of the "Republican" principals at work in City Council. Certainly no Republicans are present.
THe real downtown residents needs do need to be better served and maybe dragging the "out of town" shopper away will help this situation. But consider the effect of yet another shrinking of the tax base.
So sick of people who either can't read the instructions on their parking lot tickets that clearly say to put the ticket in full view on your dashboard, or, who don't pay for enough time and then write verbose essays about how they got towed as a result.
Yes, these privately owned lots are running a racket. We all know this.
But you as a patron of said lot *need to read and follow the instructions on your ticket and/or PAY FOR ENOUGH TIME.
Paying a total of three hours.....for an evening on the downtown mall to go see an OPERA? Are you for real? Everybody knows how long an opera can be. I'd call this guy some colorful names that allude to his lack of intelligence, but, my comment will most likely get "Deleted by administrator." But I will say this, the dude obviously doesn't have any common sense.
If I were having an evening with the OPERA and dinner, and I needed to pay ahead of time then I'd pay for a good four hours, minimim.
So so so tired of these people who can't read instructions and/or have no common sense, who then write colorful, dramatic, winded essays whining about their towing experience and trying to over dramatize the situation and play up their victimhood to the max. Get some sense.
"I do not see much of the "Republican" principals at work in City Council. Certainly no Republicans are present."
For that matter, I don´t see that much in the way of Republican stated values in the GOP either, hahahaha. I think they show it everytime they cave to a developer interest such as SD. They try and pat themselves on the back because in doing so, they are caving to that other special interest group. Which is a big problem in the County as well. Otherwise why the dam? Or the YMCA in a city park?
Truly socialist on the Council? Not much. Maybe Szakos on a few issues.
One party government is bad though. We can certainly agree on that one.
I think the point is not that they didn make a mistake, but that the consequences are absurd and have some real safety issues involved. A machine not giving change is just plain bogus. No excuses on that one. No, old people who overstay by 20 minutes should not be required to stop by a cash machine for 150$ and then walk a mile + to get their car. Especially in an area that is dark and not well policed. Sorry.
I wonder if you are one of those who whines about lawsuits that hand out large rewards as being unjustified.
@ Richard
The rules are clearly stated in these privately owned lots. As usual people don't read and/or have no common sense and then think that the rules don't apply to them.
People just need to not park in these lots. End of story. These stories are good in that they get the word out about these parking lot rackets going on, I'll give it that, but at the same time I'm sick of people who don't read or have no sense acting shocked and appalled when they get towed. I got towed years ago on Hollywood Boulevard in L.A. when my meter ran out or something, can't remember. And it cost me $125 to get my car back, that much I do remember. And this was back in 1995. Can only imagine what the rate would be like now with inflation. And yeah, there I was with my then guy friend walking around seedy dark side streets in Hollywood at 1 in the morning to find the lot where my car was impounded. But the point is I took responsibility for being at fault. Yeah, there were predator tow trucks trolling up and down Hollywood Boulevard just waiting to pounce on cars like mine, but it was my fault for going beyond the limit. It was what it was. But so it goes. You have to pay attention when parking in private lots or with metered parking. Always. Don't assume they aren't just sitting around waiting to tow you the moment you go a minute beyond the limit. Assume the worst, always, and be vigilant. In an ideal world things wouldn't (and shouldn't) be like this. But we don't live in that world. Too many people are innocent and dopey and naive, just boppin' along, with no clue. Time to wise up.
This is an abusive distoriton of the impound law to begin with. The law is there to stop trespassing .... to say that you are trespassing because your time expired is a stretch at best and perhaps it should be challenged in court.
If the city towed every car that overstayed at a parking meter this problem would be solved in ONE DAY.
I don't object to the lot owner having a high rate, or even predatory penalties. It may be a very bad management decision but he is the owner and he is certainly at risk for his income from his investment.
Personally, I do not like CC managing the Downtown Mall. Baltimore, Norfolk Seattle and a host of other cities both large and small have hired property management firms to manage their inner city malls. Charlottesville CC spends considerable time on the brick size, the placement of the chains for outside dining and signage. Is that their elected duty?
Just be happy we aren't in a Metro area (Philly, NY, DC). As painful as this is, it could be very much worse.
@Just sayin
Are you just saying CC is like Duck Dynasty? I don't watch Parking Wars or Duck Dynasty but the are said to have common appeal. What do I know anyway?
It would be nice if there was a live person working there that would just levy a fine if you were late. A Republican council would give the parking lot owner a tax break on the hope of the parking lot owner would hire a live person to be on site. A Socialist council would force him by laws to hire someone and pay them a living wage. A Democrat council would build their own parking lots and join in with the overcharge.
This is a problem, but the issue appears to be with the VA state code. Section § 46.2-1231 gives parking lot owners permission to tow "trespassing" vehicles, as long as signs are clear and some other conditions are met. I'm not sure if Cville has the authority to fix this with a regulation.
Really, this is an archaic business model for parking. You should be able to just swipe your card and pay for whatever time you used, just like every other service we pay for. Nobody wants the hassle of having to remember how much time they have left on the meter, and experiences like the one recounted here just leave a bad taste in your mouth - which hurts the entire downtown mall. Does your waiter suddenly slap a $150 fee on your bill for staying at the table a little too long? That would be ridiculous.
Other cities are modernizing their public parking payment systems. This transition is happening, but it's been painfully slow.
My point is that in the bigger Metro areas, to get your car released there are alot, (I mean alot) more hoops and fees to go through to get your car. Now, that being said, the City Government is running those towing "services" and not a private entity. So, for those who want to the City to regulate or even take over the towing of vehicles be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
The city should employ homeless 'runners' to find & alert patrons when their allotted parking time is about to expire.
Perhaps the city could simply issue a legal opinion that overstaying a paid meter is not trespassing but a civil breach of contract and if the owner wants the car removed he must first call the police who will come by in due time to approve the tow and call towers who have registered with the city as subs to tow police impounded vehicles. This would eliminate the owners kickback, and colliers would not be getting all the tows so they would no longer have an incentive to stake out the lot and hang people. It might be inconvienient for the police in the short term but once the owner realized he is not getting the kickbacks any longer than he would proabably just come up with an all night fee of 10 or 12 bucks and have loyal customers and a full lot. You know.. the way a DECENT businessman would operate.
Or perhaps the city could put up a giant sign at the entrance saying that people should beware that this business owner is using technicalities in the law to harang people and the city council is too busy trying to end the war in afghanastan, building apartments for the bums, kissing the backside of disgraced civil rights zealots and occupiers to actually deal with a real problem.
I agree with Bill Marshall. This can and should be solved by City Council
State code, Section 46.2-1233 allows localities to set "reasonable limits" on towing fees and Section 46.2-1232 allows them to regulate removal of trespassing vehicles generally.
As GSOE points out, the going rate for a tow in the area is $50 or less. That is the free market price for a tow. A reasonable limit for private lot operators might be to allow them to charge no more than 50% more than the free market price, ie $75. That would not prevent cars from being towed, but would remove the predatory incentive that can occur when one company has a towing monopoly for a particular lot.
Keith Woodard, like other private parking lot owners, needs a way to prevent freeloaders on his lot. However in the long run, predatory towing does not appear to be a good business decision to me. Collier claims that they do about 20 parking violation tows a week, which works out to about 1000 per year. Assuming that half of these tows are from Mr Woodard's lot, this would result in $12.5K per year in towing fees to Mr Woodard, which I expect is about a month's worth of parking revenue on this lot. That is not insignificant, but hardly a huge windfall for someone who owns a lot of commercial and residential property. Ruining someone's evening over a few minutes of extra parking is the sort of thing that people dont forget easily. Charlottesville is still a small town and ruining the evenings of 1000 random people a year (assuming 2 people in each car) for 12.5K does not seem like a sustainable strategy for someone with varied business interests
The same State law that allows parking lot owners to tow also allows them to have cars ticketed for overstaying their time. This would seem to be a more rational solution for all concerned.
As a student, my car was towed from my apartment complex one day (along with 7 others at the same time.)
I had the pass of the apartment complex clearly on the dashboard of my car. When I went to the tow lot, and told the attendant/crook that the pass was there, he said "He could not see it because it weren't (sic) in plain view." Complete and total bullsh*t. I called my father for some advice, and then informed the attendant that I was calling the police to report my car stolen. While this was going on, a few girls from my apartment complex came and paid for their car, in cash, instead of doing what I was doing. IMO the tow company and the apartment owner figured the students would accept their explanation and just pay for their cars instead of fighting it.
Long story short, the police came and I got my car back for free. The redneck attendant and some other employee there maintained that they couldn't see the pass and tried to pass it off as a misunderstanding or mistake instead of predatory towing practices. I filed a complaint but never heard anything back. I heard later the same company was shut down for overcharging for tows and had opened up under a new owner (probably the guy's cousin or brother).
IMO tow truck drivers are usually scum.
The city should use imminent domain and take that lot back from Woodard if he does not get his shi@ straight.Ripping people off this way is criminal, and simply just so wrong. But, in the short-term, before Karma gets him, DONT FREAKING PARK THERE.
I would think that the City can't do an apology for taking Vinegar Hill from private owners "for the greater good of downtown" one month and then use Imminent domain on this parking lot the next month. But I agree don't park there and don't park at Judge's spot at court house for even a few minutes. How many times I've seen people blocked in by police and towed from the Judge's reserved spot you'd be surprised. Handicapped it better be on your license plate also.
Sam, last time I looked this was not about race, but both things are about what is right and wrong. What Woodard is doing is immoral, and wrong and he must stop doing it. Redo the signs, lower the tow fee......or how bout build a cool building there that actually does something for our community... DONT FREAKING PARK THERE..
People hit up your friends on facebook, tell every single person in your email list not to park there. Write him a letter, stop by his office. Tell him how you really feel. That is how things get down here. Occupy Woodard. He will then get the idea...
I'm not saying its about race. Imminent domain should only be used rarely is what I am saying.
"Eminent domain", darlings, not Imminent domain. And that's a bad idea, but i really like the Facebook /email/letter campaign. I am a great believer in the free market, and part of the free market is that consumers get to withhold their business from people they believe to be unscrupulous. Plenty of other places to park downtown.
I had a similar experience at this lot and was pissed (and totally agree with you the towing company is sketchy), but occasionally I still park there if I'm running late or can't find a free spot downtown.
After my towing incident, I went back to read the instructions and if I recall they are pretty clear to park in that lot. Paying to park is standard in many areas. If you stay longer than you originally intended, sometimes you have to be responsible about it and go pay the difference. Crazy to think that because it's sweet lil' Charlottesville, or you have wives with you, or are a lawyer that you are exempt from this.
p.s. I too have escaped kidnapping though only travelled to 20 plus countries.
entitlement much?
Perhaps if the City had allowed Woodard to develop his property in the 100 b lock of E. Main he wouldn't be using it as a parking lot. He paid about $15M for that property I believe. It seems people always want something for nothing. This is the guy many in the community wanted him to put in underground parking beneath LEE PARK which he doesn't own.
"No, old people who overstay by 20 minutes should not be required to stop by a cash machine for 150$ and then walk a mile + to get their car." Yes they should. If they park in my yard they should expect more than that. It's time they learned that they don't deserve something for nothing either. I am over 80 years old and I have never gotten towed or a parking ticket.
Perhaps if the City had allowed Woodard to develop his property in the 100 b lock of E. Main he wouldn't be using it as a parking lot. He paid about $15M for that property I believe. It seems people always want something for nothing. This is the guy many in the community wanted him to put in underground parking beneath LEE PARK which he doesn't own.
"No, old people who overstay by 20 minutes should not be required to stop by a cash machine for 150$ and then walk a mile + to get their car." Yes they should. If they park in my yard they should expect more than that. It's time they learned that they don't deserve something for nothing either. I am over 80 years old and I have never gotten towed or a parking ticket.
Perhaps if the City had allowed Woodard to develop his property in the 100 b lock of E. Main he wouldn't be using it as a parking lot. He paid about $15M for that property I believe. It seems people always want something for nothing. This is the guy many in the community wanted him to put in underground parking beneath LEE PARK which he doesn't own.
"No, old people who overstay by 20 minutes should not be required to stop by a cash machine for 150$ and then walk a mile + to get their car." Yes they should. If they park in my yard they should expect more than that. It's time they learned that they don't deserve something for nothing either. I am over 80 years old and I have never gotten towed or a parking ticket.
80+ years old? Wow!!! The only thing you've missed living through was the Great Depression? Or possibly born just about then? You've seen it all over the years..... the good, the bad, and the ugly! Now you get to watch the Charlottesville Parking Wars.
Oh well, wishing you 20+ more good years!
Hey cry baby..next time don't be so cheap and prepay 4 hours...haha airborne ranger; too tough for the kidnappers and shooters, but no match for Colliers..
Cry me a river.
This has been going on for years and people still just don't get that private lots have the right to do these things..
Hey Cville Eye, I often agree with you, but I disagree about the response to overstaying your parking time. My mother is disabled, she pays her bills on time, and is a responsible citizen. She is just hanging on to her independence, and to be blunt, the DT area is shy on handicapped spots in the garages and elsewhere.
They give away what they have close to city hall everytime there is a concert, which makes it worse.
I hate to think of my mother, because of her body,and slow travel, ending up being a few minutes late and finding her car gone. She CAN'T walk a mile, and you seem to think its appropriate. I don't. I hate to think of what would happen to her.
Parking in your yard is a stupid analogy. My mother wouldn't park in your yard, and neither are these people. They are paying to park.If they stayed over, I am sure most of them would happily pay an overage fee.
I don't know any parking lot owners or tow truck operators. But something tells me they are thinking of ways to redeem their soiled reputations and protect the cash flow from their investments. Let the free market and free press work. Keep City Hall regulation out of it.
Maybe a system where parking is paid at a standard rate until the time expires and then goes to a punitive rate with a boot installed on the tire, then the tow in 48 hours. With a larger penalty and processing fee. Is that a legal system? Just a thought.
No auto should be towed unless directed by a police officer and the tow fee should be capped at $40.
@Caesonia, I can't walk a mile either so I don't stayed parked longer than I have paid for. That is why I have never parked in ht e parking deck on Elliewood and I have never parked behind the bank. Every service or amenity is available for everyone even if she is old, sick, mentally ill, or sick. It's for this reason I do not frequent downtown unless it is convenient for me to park in one of the garages. Private property is private property and I do not use it without obeying the owner's rules.
If someone parks in your yard you can call the police and THEY will authorize the tow under the trespassing law. or abandoned. These folks are using these laws to tow cars for profit. The car has exceeded the time alloted and common sense says they are not abandoned and an officer of the law needs to confirm the trespass.
The city has the right to regulate the tows and can simply take the position that the cars are not trespassing until confirmed by an officer which means the car stays put and the owner can pay the "bailment" just like they do in parking garages. If the owner of the lot does not want to keep staff there to collect the money then he can lose out or chain the gate at closing time. It is easily solved. The city just has no guts.
Its really not a 'private lot' any more than a grocery store is a private venue Cville Eye. they are using that private lot to provide a facility open to the public. A grocery store can have a patron removed if they are a problem, but the police have to be called to forcibly do so. Towing someone's car is forcibly removing it. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, which is what the property owner wants.
I think to myself:
1. I am under 40
2. I work in computing.
3. I am skinny and hardly a physical threat.
4. I grew up in Charlottesville and still live here.
5. I've survived a diet solely consisting of Ramen noodles and Miller Lite.
6. I've been caught in a bad rainstorm without an umbrella.
7. I have been shot at from close range with a BB gun. I kicked the other dude in the nuts.
8. I'm getting married.
And even I know you don't mess around with parking too long in paid lots downtown that say they will tow. Yes, it is an outrage. Yes, they are criminals. They will tow you and it will be a pain in your ass. To them, you are simply a car.
Bill Marshall's post above is GOLDEN. I am printing that out and putting it in my wallet. Seriously.


text:
The NHL and NHL Players' Association have cleared their schedules with progress being made in collective bargaining talks.
The sides were granted an adjournment to a hearing with the Quebec Labour Board in Montreal concerning the legality of locking out members of the Canadiens. That meeting, originally scheduled for Thursday, now will be pushed back beyond Friday.
That issue was less pressing with the league and union making a push to end the work stoppage in New York.
The sides were expected to return to the bargaining table after a Board of Governors meeting wrapped up early Wednesday afternoon. The league owners gathered as a group for the first time since authorizing the lockout in September.
The NHL and NHLPA were looking to build on the progress made Tuesday, which NHLPA special counsel Steve Fehr described as the best day yet in more than five months of talks. He stood alongside deputy commissioner Bill Daly and spoke briefly following more than eight hours of meetings that ended just before midnight.
"There's still a lot of work to do and a lot to be done," Steve Fehr said late Tuesday.
Daly thanked the 18 players involved in talks that saw commissioner Gary Bettman and NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr left out of the room. The new dynamic seemed to spur progress.
"I appreciate the efforts of the players in particular," said Daly. "We had 18 players in there today and six of our owners. I think everybody is working hard, I think everybody wants to get a deal done so I think that's encouraging.
"We look forward to hopefully making more progress tomorrow."
Money has been the biggest issue the sides needed to bridge.
Even though both the league and union proposed a 50-50 split of revenues over the last month, they remain separated on payments to be made outside the system to help ease the transition from the previous deal, which saw players receive 57 per cent. The NHL has offered $211 million in deferred compensation while the union has asked for $393 million.
There are also a number of rules governing player contracts that must be worked out before a new CBA is signed.


text:
Hi, Unregistered. | Today's Posts
Discussion, tips, pictures, reviews and peer to peer support for current and future owners of BelQuette manufactured machines, including the MOD-1 DTG machine and the Flexi-Jet set series of printers.
This is a discussion about So what is the genesis? that was posted in the BelQuette section of the forums.
Do NOT Post Self Promotional URLs, Advertisements, Sales Offers or Requests. It is against our Forum Guidelines.
A confirmation email will be sent to this address, so please make sure it is accurate and that your email software is set to allow emails from our domain: t-shirtforums.com (sometimes the confirmation email gets accidently filtered into Yahoo/AOL/Hotmail/Gmail spam folders)


text:
Padraic Brady has a new post today mentioning both the PEAR::Encryption package and the Zend_Crypt component of the Zend Framework.
It's been a while since I did some active ZF/PEAR component development. It's been one of those 6 month periods where time to commit was a rarity for a few reasons. So now that I'm back on the road, where to?
He sets his sights on the Zend_Crypt component and details some of the encryption methods it contains - HMAC, the Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Protocol, a hashing wrapper and proposed support for a RSA public key cryptography. He mentions that a lot of this support is already in a beta package for PEAR.


text:
Surgical Procedures for Infertility in Women
]]>Main Page]]> | ]]>Risk Factors]]> | ]]>Symptoms]]> | ]]>Diagnosis]]> | ]]>Treatment]]> | ]]>Screening]]> | ]]>Reducing Your Risk]]> | ]]>Talking to Your Doctor]]> | ]]>Living With Infertility]]> | ]]>Resource Guide]]>
The are two main types of surgical procedures for infertile women are:
Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART)
ART is a general term used to describe several techniques that are used to establish a pregnancy without sexual intercourse. ART involves using human gametes, sperm and egg cells, in a lab to help with conception. The eggs and sperm can be from you and your partner or can be donated. The embryo formed from the egg and sperm can be implanted in your uterus or in the uterus of a surrogate.
ART methods include:
Artificial Insemination
Semen is collected and processed in a lab and then inserted directly into the woman's cervix or uterus. The woman who is inseminated provides the egg, and fertilization takes place inside her body (usually in the fallopian tube). The inseminated woman may be you (the prospective mother) or a surrogate mother. If you provide the eggs and your partner supplies the semen, the child will carry 100% of genes from you and your partner. However, if a surrogate woman is inseminated, the child will carry either 50% genes from your male partner and 50% from the surrogate mother, or 50% genes from a sperm donor (if used) and 50% genes from the surrogate mother. Genes are carried in the eggs and sperm to the next generation through conception. Whoever provides the egg and sperm determines the genetic makeup.
In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
IVF proceeds in several stages. First, your ovaries are stimulated through hormone treatment to cause several eggs to mature instead of the usual one egg per month. When the eggs are considered mature, a long thin needle is inserted into your vagina. With the help of ultrasound, the needle is guided to your ovary and the eggs are collected. The entire harvesting procedure usually takes 10-20 minutes, depending on the number of eggs that are collected. In many centers, the procedure is performed with local anesthesia and mild sedation. You can usually leave the office after an hour or so of observation.
Once eggs are harvested, they are separated from the fluid that surrounds them and placed in an incubator where the environment can be precisely controlled. Next, the eggs are fertilized. This usually just involves preparing sperm from a semen specimen (produced by either the your male partner or a sperm donor) and placing it in the same dish as the egg or eggs. After about 24 hours, the eggs are examined to see if they are changing in ways that indicate fertilization has occurred. In the next phase (anywhere from 2-5 days), fertilized eggs that have developed into multiple-cell embryos are drawn up into a plastic catheter that is passed through the cervix into the uterus, and the embryos are released. Hormone therapy may continue for several days, and blood hormone levels will be monitored. A pregnancy test is usually performed within 12-14 days to determine whether an embryo has implanted and a pregnancy has begun.
In some cases, more embryos develop than can be introduced into the uterus. These embryos can be frozen for an indefinite period of time through a process called cryopreservation. The frozen embryos can be thawed and transferred if the initial round of IVF is unsuccessful or if you want to have an additional child in the future. It should be noted, too, that IVF is often done with a donor egg and/or sperm.
There are several variations of the IVF procedure:
Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer (GIFT)
An egg is removed from your body and mixed with sperm in a laboratory. The egg and sperm mixture is then placed in your fallopian tube through a surgical procedure. The egg may be supplied by you or from an egg donor.
Zygote Intrafallopian Transfer (ZIFT)
An egg is removed from your body and mixed with sperm in a laboratory. The resulting embryo (2-3 days old) is then placed in your fallopian tube. The egg may be supplied by you or obtained from an egg donor.
Carrier Gestation
If you have eggs but do not have a functional uterus, you may supply eggs that are fertilized and placed in the uterus of a surrogate mother. If your male partner's sperm is used to fertilize the eggs, the offspring will contain 100% of genes from you and your partner. If your male partner cannot provide the sperm, a donor can be used. If donor sperm is used, the child will have your genes but not your partner's.
Women who do not have eggs and do not have a functional uterus may obtain eggs from a donor or surrogate. These eggs can be fertilized in vitro by your male partner's sperm or that of a donor. They can then be transferred to the surrogate. Depending on the source of the sperm, the child will have either 50% of genes from your male partner or no genes from your partner. Because you did not supply the eggs, the child will not have your genes.
Procedures to Correct Anatomic Abnormalities
Many surgical procedures are available to correct anatomic abnormalities that may interfere with normal reproduction in women. These abnormalities include fallopian tube obstructions, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, or scarring of the ovaries or other pelvic tissues due to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).
Laparoscopy and Laparotomy Microsurgery
Both of these procedures are frequently performed in outpatient settings.
Laparoscopy]]> is performed to examine, diagnose, and treat many of the causes of infertility. The surgeon cuts a small opening in the abdomen. The location of this incision varies depending on the procedure, either near the navel or in the lower abdomen for pelvic conditions. A needle is inserted and used to inject carbon dioxide gas into the abdomen. This gas causes the abdominal cavity to expand and makes it easier for the doctor to see the internal structures. The doctor inserts a long, thin tubular instrument (laparoscope) that lights, magnifies, and projects an image of the internal organs onto a video screen.
If necessary, several other tiny incisions may be made in the abdomen to insert instruments that can take biopsies (samples of tissue) or perform various types of surgery, such as removal of scar tissue, endometrial implants, or repair of blocked fallopian tubes. After the laparoscope and other instruments are removed, the incisions are closed with stitches or clips and covered with a dressing.
Laparotomy microsurgery is similar to laparoscopy except that it requires magnification and thus allows very precise cutting and suturing.
Hysteroscopy is a surgical procedure in which a small, lighted telescopic instrument (hysteroscope) is inserted through the vagina and the cervix into the uterus. The hysteroscope transmits an image of the uterine canal and cavity to a television monitor, which allows the surgeon to insert surgical instruments. This procedure is used to diagnose and treat numerous disorders, including abnormal bleeding, ]]>fibroids]]> , and uterine polyps.
There are no surgical incisions with this procedure. After the cervix is dilated, the hysteroscope, which is a long, thin rod with a video camera and light attached to it, is guided through the cervix into the uterus. Carbon dioxide gas or fluid is also pumped into the uterus to inflate it. This frequently causes discomfort or cramping. After the surgeon visualizes the uterus, other surgical procedures can be performed, such as removal of scar tissue, adhesions, small fibroids and polyps, and intrauterine devices. Hysteroscopy is also used to diagnose uterine abnormalities that may be treated with another surgical procedure and may be performed in conjunction with laparoscopy.
American College of Surgeons website. Available at: http://www.facs.org/ .
International Council on Infertility Information Dissemination, Inc. website. Available at: http://www.inciid.org/ .
RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association website. Available at: http://www.resolve.org/site/PageServer .
Last reviewed November 2008 by ]]>Jeff Andrews, MD, FRCSC, FACOG]]>
Please be aware that this information is provided to supplement the care provided by your physician. It is neither intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice. CALL YOUR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER IMMEDIATELY IF YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider prior to starting any new treatment or with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.
Copyright © 2007 EBSCO Publishing All rights reserved.


text:
Petition of the day
The petition of the day is:
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (Granted )
Docket: 12-10
Issue(s): Whether the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, 22 U.S.C. § 7631(f), which requires an organization to have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking in order to receive federal funding to provide HIV and AIDS programs overseas, violates the First Amendment. (Kagan, J., recused.)
Certiorari stage documents:
Recommended Citation: Ben Cheng, Petition of the day, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 30, 2012, 11:39 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2012/08/petition-of-the-day-325/


text:
Beauty of the Contract
This show is not available in your regionWant to see it in your area? Tell us about it!
Can a relationship founded on mutual need survive? Hua Mei Li (Song Dan Dan) is a migrant business owner of a hot-pot restaurant in Beijing. She needs to establish local residency in order to send her son to the Beijing schools. When she meets Liu De Yi (Fan Ming), a single man who needs money to restart his business, they enter into a contract marriage so they can each get what they need. In order to meet the residency requirements, Mei Li then has to transfer the ownership of her house to De Yi. Can De Yi be trusted with everything that Mei Li has? "Beauty of the Contract" is a 2014 Chinese drama series.


text:
I came across this brilliant idea for sunbleached puzzles. They were so easy to create and great entertainment (and practice) for a puzzle-lover. It was also a great little lesson in the sun's effects.
I set out foam bath letters and numbers on dark construction paper and left them to sunbathe awhile on the deck. J enjoyed watching the process, impressed by the magical results! We then brought it all inside to start putting it all together. You can make this activity more difficult by adding extra foam letters to the choices.
This is great practice at letter recognition. It's also great way to help them learn how to spell their name, memorize their phone number or address.
The link above used magnetic letters and shape blocks to create their puzzles. You could also cut your own shapes out of colorful foam.


text:
"The taste of kale is tempered by old favorites like cheese and avocado." —Bittman
- Yield
- Makes 4 servings
- 4 tablespoons olive oil, divided
- 1/4 cup balsamic vinegar
- 2 tablespoons Dijon mustard
- 1/2 teaspoons dried thyme or tarragon
- 1 pound kale, stems and center ribs discarded
- 1 cup canned fava, garbanzo or cannellini beans, drained and rinsed
- 1 garlic clove
- 1/4 cup grated Parmesan
- 8 slices whole-grain bread
- 1 ripe avocado, sliced
- In a small jar, combine 2 tablespoons oil, vinegar, mustard, thyme and 1/4 cup water; season with salt and pepper. Cover and shake until well combined.
- Stack kale leaves and roll into a cigar shape. Slice into thin strips; turn 90 degrees and slice again crosswise until you have what looks like kale confetti. Toss in a bowl with vinaigrette.
- In a food processor, blend beans, garlic and salt to taste for less than a minute. Add remaining 2 tablespoons oil slowly through the feed tube, blending, until mixture is smooth. Stir in Parmesan.
- Spread 1 slice whole-grain bread with 1/4 bean spread; top with 1/4 kale, 1/4 avocado and another bread slice. Repeat with remaining bread, spread, kale and avocado.
Per serving: 453 calories, 23 g fat, 4 g saturated fat, 49 g carbohydrate, 11 g fiber, 16 g protein


text:
Hello all, I am new to the forums and fairly new to Java so please take it easy on me
I am given this assignment to create an Inventory Program and this is part 2 of the assignment. Here are the requirements:
Modify the Inventory Program so the application can handle multiple items. Use an array to store the items. The output should display the information one product at a time, including the item number, the name of the product, the number of units in stock, the price of each unit, and the value of the inventory of that product. In addition, the output should display the value of the entire inventory.
Create a method to calculate the value of the entire inventory.
Create another method to sort the array items by the name of the product.
I am having a heck of a time trying to figure out how to sort this array by the name of the objects. I have tried both a bubble sort (commented out) and using the compareTo but keep getting errors. I got it down to one error saying I need to make the class InventoryConstruct abstract, but when I do that I get even more errors that pop up. Can someone please help me understand this? I have already looked online for hours trying to figure out what I am doing wrong and I cannot seem to get it right. The assignment is also asking us to do something that is not covered in our materials and this is an online course... can't get a real timely response from my instructor. Here is the code:
import java.util.Arrays; public class InventoryProduct { //main method starts execution public static void main (String[] args) { //welcome message System.out.println("Welcome to the inventory tracker!\n "); //inventory information InventoryConstruct[] software = new InventoryConstruct[4]; InventoryConstruct p1 = new InventoryConstruct(1, "FL Studio ", 99.99, 14); InventoryConstruct p2 = new InventoryConstruct(2, "Reason ", 149.99, 5); InventoryConstruct p3 = new InventoryConstruct(3, "Ableton Live ", 399.99, 8); InventoryConstruct p4 = new InventoryConstruct(4, "Pro Tools ", 299.99, 6); software[0] = p1; software[1] = p2; software[2] = p3; software[3] = p4; Arrays.sort(software, InventoryConstruct.InventorySort); for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++ ) { System.out.println("ID#: " + ++i + " Name: " + InventoryConstruct.getName() + " Price: " + InventoryConstruct.getPrice() + " In Stock: " + InventoryConstruct.getStock()); } /*sort (software[] software) { for (int a = 1; a < software.length; a++) { for (int b = 0; b < software.length - a; b++) { if (((software[b].getName()).compareToIgnoreCase((software[b+1].getName()))) > 0) { InventoryConstruct temp = software[b]; software[b] = software[b + 1]; software[b + 1] = temp; } } } } //display ID number System.out.printf("Product ID number: %d%n", software.getName()); //display product name System.out.printf("Product name: %s%n", p1.getName()); //display product price System.out.printf("The item's price is: $%.2f%n", p1.getPrice()); //display amount in stock System.out.printf("Amount in stock: %d%n%n", p1.getStock()); //display inventory total System.out.printf("The total value of inventory is: $%.2f", p1.getTotal()); }*/ }//end main }//end class
import java.util.Comparator; public class InventoryConstruct implements Comparable<InventoryConstruct> { private int itemNum;//declare ID number private static String itemName;//declare item name private static double itemPrice;//declare item price private static int itemInStock;//declare amount in stock private static double inventoryTotal;//declare total of inventory product //initialize constructor public InventoryConstruct(int itemNum, String itemName, double itemPrice, int itemInStock) { this.itemNum = itemNum; InventoryConstruct.itemName = itemName; InventoryConstruct.itemPrice = itemPrice; InventoryConstruct.itemInStock = itemInStock; setTotal(); } //return ID number public int getNum() { return itemNum; } //return item name public static String getName() { return itemName; } //return item price public static double getPrice() { return itemPrice; } //return amount in stock public static int getStock() { return itemInStock; } //calculate total public void setTotal() { inventoryTotal = itemPrice * itemInStock; } //return total public double getTotal() { return inventoryTotal; } public static Comparator<InventoryConstruct> InventorySort = new Comparator<InventoryConstruct>() { public int compare(InventoryConstruct software1, InventoryConstruct software2) { String itemName1 = InventoryConstruct.getName().toUpperCase(); String itemName2 = InventoryConstruct.getName().toUpperCase(); return itemName1.compareTo(itemName2); } }; }//end class
Any assistance would be GREATLY appreciated...
This is what is printing out in the compiler when I run it (with errors)
Welcome to the inventory tracker!
ID#: 1 Name: Pro Tools Price: 299.99 In Stock: 6
ID#: 3 Name: Pro Tools Price: 299.99 In Stock: 6
Edit: I got it to print this out now (still with errors):
Welcome to the inventory tracker!
ID#: 1 Name: Pro Tools Price: 299.99 In Stock: 6
ID#: 2 Name: Pro Tools Price: 299.99 In Stock: 6
ID#: 3 Name: Pro Tools Price: 299.99 In Stock: 6
ID#: 4 Name: Pro Tools Price: 299.99 In Stock: 6
by changing it to for(i = 1; i <= 4; i++) and taking the increment off the print statement, but it is still printing only one of the object's info and I have no clue if the sort code is correct because of this.


text:
The Library
Welcome to the Empathy Library search page. Use keywords to search for books and films, or browse the collection using filters (e.g. under Book Type select 'fiction' or under Theme choose 'love' or 'poverty'). Results are automatically ranked by popularity. Join the library to add items, comment and give ratings.
Sort by
Displaying library items 1 - 4 of 4
The Maze Runner is one of the latest batch of Dystopian films aimed at a young/new adult audience and it has plenty of potential to kick start discussions with teens.


text:
Available Homes
Barrington - Unit 23
Harvard Place Apartments1045 Academy Drive, Rochester Hills, MI 48307
- Title: Barrington - Unit 23
- Subtitle: Harvard Place Apartments
- Address: 1045 Academy Drive, Rochester Hills, MI
- Postal code: 48307
- Phase: Complete
- Size: 1,651.0 SQ FT
- Unit Style: Upper Unit
- Beds: 2
- Baths: 2
- Garage: 2
- School District: Rochester Community Schools
Available for lease, new construction apartment located at Harvard Place Apartments in Rochester Hills. Unit includes maple cabinets throughout, all appliances, double basin stainless steel kitchen sink with disposal, no wax resilient flooring at kitchen and laundry room, ceramic tile at all baths, full size washer and dryer at laundry room, walk in closet at master suite, fireplace at great room, blinds at all windows, vanity mirrors at all baths. The site includes a community pool and walking paths and is in close proximity to parks, freeways, medical and shopping areas. Each apartment has its own private front entry door for guests and private garage entry for everyday use to protect your privacy.
Beds: 2
Baths: 2
Garage: 2 Car
Floor Plan
Site Plan
Schools: Rochester Community Schools
Virtual Tour - Barrington Model*Pricing requires payment made by EFT
$50 per month processing fee without EFT
$50 per month wooded/open view site premium


text:
360 members9 Likes
285 members13 Likes
92 members4 Likes
129 members3 Likes
93 members42 Comments 3 Likes
Started this discussion. Last reply by CoachV - William Vazquez Jan 3, 2014. 1 Reply 0 Likes
Let's see those New Year's Resolutions be put to the test! Week 4 of our Winter Tennis Program @ La Jolla Tennis Club…Continue
Dane Thomson has not received any gifts yet
Posted on January 3, 2014 at 2:18pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
Nice to have another TOP player on the site!
Hi, I'm Mark, the founder of Tennisopolis, the world's largest and most active tennis network. Please share Tennisopolis with your friends by supporting our Facebook page. Click here for a Guide to Meet Tennis Partners.
Have a look at our introduction page which will help you navigate the massive network which now has over 46,000 members and 700 local tennis groups.
Let me know if you have any questions. I'm here to help.
Friend me,
Mark, The Mayor of Tennisopolis
© 2020 Created by Mark / The Mayor. Powered by


text:
***This was one of my favorite reviews that Timperial ever did and I wanted share it with you all. Enjoy!***
Enjoyed on: 1/11/10
Brewery: The Bruery
Location: Placentia, CA
Beer: Hottenroth
Web: http://www.thebruery.com/
Presentation: 750 ML – Brown Glass Bottle
Vintage: 2009
Style: Berliner Weisse
Barrel: N/A
Hops: N/A
Malt: Wheat
Vessel: Goblet
Recommended Serving Temp: 45 degrees
Notes from the bottle: Brewed in memory of Fred & Sarah Hottenroth, this traditional ale can be served with raspberry or woodruff syrup, or simply enjoyed as is! Sour = Yum!
Food Pairings: Salad, chicken, raspberry or woodruff syrup
Cheese Pairings: Brie, gouda, havarti
Beer Advocate: B+
Rate Beer: 94 (3.68)
Timperialstout's Notes:
Once again, one requires a degree in linguistics to pronounce The Bruery's latest offering. Luckily, their creations continue to be so downright inspirational that it's easy to forgive them for their indulgences. Well, in this case, it seems to be a noble cause. This one is named in memory of owner and head brewer Patrick Rue's grandparents.
First, a bit about the Berliner Weisse, for the tale is an intriguing one. A German story says that the Berliner Weisse style was once called "The Champagne of the North". "Champagne" was actually one of the first words that came into my head after sipping this rare style, after, of course, thinking: "whoa…sour, I wasn't expecting that". Berliner Weisse literally translates to wheat beer from Berlin, and in addition to the obvious use of wheat, it is also characterized by a sour flavor and a very low abv. The style was once the most popular drink in Berlin, with over 700 breweries producing it. Not so rare back then, but now there are only 2 breweries left producing it in Berlin.
One thing (yes, there is a few) that Germany has been good at through the years, when it comes to brewing, is making up strange laws to govern beer's production. The Reinheitsgobot, or German Purity Law, once strictly stated that all beer brewed in Germany must be made with water, barley and hops, and nothing else. The word "Berliner Weisse" has been reserved, much in the way that the word "Champagne" is throughout the world for sparkling wine from the Champagne region of France, for beers brewed in Berlin. In other words, you can't produce a Berliner Weisse in Germany unless your brewery is in Berlin. Unlike the Champagne rule, the Berliner Weisse rule seems to only apply within Germany.
A final intriguing note on Berliner Weisse is that it is often traditionally served with flavored syrups to cut the tartness. The two suggestions given on the bottle are raspberry and woodruff syrup. Woodruff is a potently scented herb that is used in a variety of foods and drinks, mainly in Germany. Beyond its addition to beer, it can be found in sausages, jellies/jams, and even ice cream.
Oh by the way, we are drinking a beer here.
Pours a very peculiar hue. Extremely pale, straw-yellow that reminds me of white tea. It's quite hazy, with sediment clumps found on the bottom of the glass. A pure white head barely rises on the pour and settles quickly. Despite the fleeting head, this brew has a lot of carbonation. Tiny bubbles quickly race from the depths of the goblet up to their freedom. This breathing lasts for quite a while. The sharpness of the fluid dancing in your mouth plays a large role in its reminiscence of Champagne.
If it weren't for the carbonation I'd say this looks a lot like a lawnmower beer. Maybe we call this a plough beer? Either way, there is a lot of land around us…and farm animals.
We have just traveled to a backcountry German farm. A curious stroll from pasture to horse barn brings a battering to the olfactory nerves. Hay and earth and wet wood and mold and all sorts of horse related funkiness. It's all there.
Side note: If I ever own a horse, his name will be Hottenroth, end of story!
Point is, the smells are plentiful if you really breathe deep and reflect. Wheat/hay and lactobacillus/brettanomyces (both used in fermentation) funkiness are most present, with some unleavened sourdough, a bit of lemon peel, white or skinless grapes (possibly infiltrating my mind due to the lingering Champagne thoughts) and periodically, a very faint strawberry and green apple odor persist.
The flavors…well…tart and funky, but in a really good way. Also, she is surprisingly sweet for a wheat beer. The carbonation makes it feel more like a lemon soda pop…that was…possibly left in the sun for too long…but in a good way. The wheat is omnipresent and makes it feel all the more like a hot summer day at the homestead. Ahh, escapism at its finest.
And then there is the matter of Hottenroth's extreme session-worthiness. There is no mistake above. This beer is 3.1% abv. This is where Hottenroth is most noteworthy in my opinion. What do you session with, a lawnmower beer or a plough beer?
I'm not going to tell you that this 3.1% beer is the most complex-mind-blowing-must-buy-immediately beer I've ever had, but I can tell you that this sessionable beer is not thin and boring, and it sure doesn't taste like the mash was cut with rice. It is a darn tasty beer, and you can easily drink a few of them in one sitting without slobbering on yourself and blathering like an idiot about farm animals or god-knows-what. Hottenroth is exciting, refreshing, delicious, and most of all inspiring. I choose the plough beer, and plenty of it.
My hat's off, yet again, to the Famille Rue.
If you like Hottenroth you should try:
Dogfish Head Craft Brewery's Festina Peche; Telegraph Brewing Co.'s Berliner Weisse; Sly Fox Brewing Co.'s Berliner Weisse
Disclaimer: This beer was purchased on my own with my own hard earned money at a local bottle shop.
Filed under: The Cellar Tagged: Berliner Weisse, Hottenroth, The Bruery