text:
Instant 2.0 – Meet New Template Builder !!
Instant – Responsive Email Template for your businessInstant Email Template is Clean, Modern, and Multi-Purpose email template. The Design is Well-Polished specially for you to use with any purposes. The layout is Responsive which will display beautifully in desktop, tablet, mobile phone, and any device you have.
What our customer said
Very easy to import into MailChimp, and all the layout sections are in there (so you don't need to import 6 layouts – just turn on/off the ones you want.) Very very happy with this. Thanks for making it!
- newdaycigs
HTML Code is Clean, Commented, and Well-Organized. We Tested the template with famous email testing service Litmus to ensure it will look wonderful in every email clients! (Yes, including all version of that evil Outlook)
If you don't know anything about HTML, we also support MailChimp and Campaign Monitor. You will be able to use Drag and Drop editor to reorder, add, remove modules in this template. Changing content and image will also be done in few clicks!
HTML Geek will also be happy with Easy to use Repeatable Modules system. We provided you with 10+ modules to use and 100+ possibilities!
With Well-Written Documentation, you will be able to follow our instruction to use our template as an expert! We also include step by step guide to use the template in MailChimp and Campaign Monitor.
EVEN BETTER with Sliced PSD File included if you want to edit the template from very beginning.
Not satisfied with this design? Each of our templates are unique, and you may like other works by us! Please check more of our works in Portfolio.
Key Features
- 50 HTML Files – Clean, Modern, Multi-Purpose Email Template
- 7 Layouts in 5 Colors – Suits every needs of email template
- Fully Responsive Layout
- Clean, Commented, Well-Organized HTML Code
- Tested to work in every major email clients – We want to make it looks beautiful everywhere, including all versions of Outlook!
- Support MailChimp and Campaign Monitor – No HTML knowledge required. Start Drag and Drop, edit this template now!
- Repeatable Modules – Create your own layout fast and easy!
- Well-written Documentation – Easy to follow instructions to make you become an expert in no time!
MailChimp & Campaign Monitor Support: Drag & Drop Editor
Files in Download Package
- HTML Files – HTML Email Templates with inline CSS, seperated in folders by colors
- MailChimp HTML – Email Template file with MailChimp supported tags for image, content, and repeatable modules (mc:edit, mc:repeatable)
- Campaign Monitor HTML – Email Template file with Campaign Monitor supported tags for image, content, and repeatable modules (singleline, multiline, editable images, repeater modules)
- Template Builder V1.0 – Create your own unique layout with Template Builder in just a few clicks.
- Layered PSD Files – Well-organized PSD for heavy-editing, included Sliced PSD which will make your life very comfortable
- Very Detailed Documentation for Beginners – We includes everything you need to know from the start in our documentation. Including how to work with HTML, PSD, MailChimp, and Campaign Monitor.
SupportIf you have any question about this email template, feel free to get in touch with us at our 24-HR support forum http://support.midnize.com/
You can also contact us via Twitter @midnizestudio, we will be answering you in less than 1-2 days (Most of the time we will response within than 12 hours).
Streamline Icon (For Generator)
Trebuchet (System font)
Helvetica (System font)
Photos: All images are from Photodune. If you are interest in buying these photo, please visit List of Photos used.
Version 2.0 – 06/09/2013
- include Template Builder V1.0 - Fix many bugs e.g. Outlook font style - Rewritten Mailchimp/Campaign Monitor TagVersion 1.3 – 03/08/2013
- Fix naming bug in Mailchimp templateVersion 1.2 – 24/07/2013
- Fix MailChimp responsive image errorVersion 1.1 – 07/07/2013
- Add Android Gmail supports (from request)Version 1.0 – 27/06/2013
- Initial Release


text:
Halle Berry had to drop out of New Year's Eve so she could devote all her energy to taking down her baby father. Her replacement is Katherine Heigl. It's amazing to me that Heigl wasn't involved in this from the beginning, that she wasn't in Valentine's Day either. How is it that she also wasn't in She's Just Not That Into You? Or was she? Even if she wasn't, it feels like she was.
New Year's Eve is just like the others, except that it's trying to be Love Actually on, surprise!, New Year's Eve. But not Chinese New Year's Eve, though the idea of Hollywood making a movie about Chinese New Year's Eve with an 85% white cast is actually not as farfetched as it sounds.
Let's take a stab at this pitch:
Jane Callahan (played by Katherine Heigl) works out of her house. She runs her own organic food company. Everyone knows Jane. She's the neighbourhood favourite. She bakes cookies and casseroles for all her neighbours and they all want to know why she's single, but Jane got out a bad relationship with her ex-boyfriend Matt last year. She was devoted to him, but he ultimately left because a 20 year old came along and gave him a blowjob in his car, just as Jane was walking by.
One day, Jane develops a new recipe. It's going to be life-changing. It's called the Commitment Cake, not only delicious, but every one of her friends who's tried it has immediately hooked up for marriage. In order to start selling it, Jane has to get it passed by the health food inspection people.
Wilson Wong is a health food inspector. He loves biology and science, wears glasses, and drives badly because he has no peripheral vision. We know this because we meet Wilson behind the wheel of his Toyota Camry, driving to Jane's to inspect her food. He eats Commitment Cake. They fall in love.
She meets his family. Cue jokes about the white girl. Cue ching chong montage of Jane acclimating to Chinese customs. Cue judgy Chinese mom telling Jane she's not good enough because she doesn't own an abacus. Jane explodes, and in a fit of rage, knocks over the display case – the one guarded by the ceramic cat with the fist pump that you see at your local Chinese restaurant – containing the ashes of Wilson's grandfather.
She is expelled.
Jane knows the only way she can make it up to Wilson is to do something really great for him for Chinese New Year. She enlists the help of all her friends – Alex, Sam, and Joan (played by Judy Greer, Jenna Fischer, and Kristen Wiig) and endeavours to get Chinafied in three weeks. The three of them spend 30 minutes crash-coursing Chinese-ness. Hi-jinks happen. At some point, she has to eat chicken feet at dimsum, etc.
Jane shows up at the house on Chinese New Year's Eve. She is rejected. She goes to the Chinese temple and meets an old lady. She interrupts the old lady's meditation with her crying. The old lady comforts her and tells her a story about the Moon and the Old China Village where the Wise Men used to do Yoga. Jane is enlightened. There's a commotion behind her. It's Wilson's family who've come to temple. And it turns out the old lady is Wilson's grandma who tells Wilson if he doesn't marry Jane the gods of a thousand China dynasties will curse him forever. Credits during the wedding. Commitment Cake is served at the Chinese banquet. Kristen Wiig's character catches the bouquet (yes, Chinese people do this too), and when she gets up off the floor, she locks eyes with Will's pervy Chinese uncle. The end.
PS. I really like the colour of Heigl's rubber boots.
Photos from Jackson Lee/Splashnewsonline.com
Halle's replacement
Halle Berry had to drop out of New Year's Eve so she could devote all her energy to taking down her baby father. Her replacement is Katherine Heigl. It's amazing to me that Heigl wasn't involved in this from the beginning, that she wasn't in Valentine's Day either. How is it that she also wasn't in She's Just Not That Into You? Or was she? Even if she wasn't, it feels like she was.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
U.S. Championship Underway
The 2014 U.S. Chess Championship and U.S. Women's Championship both begin today in St. Louis, Missouri. For the sixth straight year, the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of St. Louis will play host to both events.
With 12 players instead of 24, the field is more condensed than last year in the U.S. Championship. It also feels much younger, as many veteran American GMs are notably absent (including of course the not-old GM Hikaru Nakamura). This edition marks the first time that no one over 40 has competed in the championship.
A strong group of GMs seeking their first title (left to right): Mackenzie Molner, Sergey Erenburg, Varuzhan Akobian, Josh Friedel, Alejandro Ramirez, Chess.com columnist Daniel Naroditsky
The opening ceremony took place across the street Wednesday, at the World Chess Hall of Fame. Club founder Rex Sinquefield noted that this tournament is the 50 year anniversary of Bobby Fischer's remarkable perfect score at the U.S. Championship. (The club regulary offers a "Fischer Prize" of $64,000 to any player who can repeat his 11-0 performance; to date no one has collected, with the closest being GM Gata Kamsky's 4-0 start last year.)
Sinquefield, a devout St. Louis sports fan, also noted that 50 years ago the St. Louis Cardinals beat the New York Yankees in the World Series.
Rex Sinquefield
Sinquefield also praised the U.S. Senate, which passed a bill recognizing St. Louis as the chess capital of the nation. The bill had bipartisan support and he said he was confident that the U.S. House of Representatives, the other half of America's bicameral legislature, would follow suit shortly. Sinquefield, a staunch fiscal conservative, then joked that he hoped Washington would not create a department to oversee chess education.
The ceremony continued with the induction of two players into the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame, and two players into the World Chess Hall of Fame - GM Paul Keres and GM Maia Chiburdanidze.
The drawing of lots commenced, and reigning (5-time) U.S. Women's Champion GM Irina Krush picked first. Sinquefield's newest book, "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States," hid the numbers, and Krush's selection was the uncoveted slot ten.
GM Irina Krush
The remainder of the field followed, then the men got their chance. There was some mild confusion when defending champion GM Gata Kamsky opened his book and looked at his numeral - it was either a "6" or a "9." After some consultation with the arbiter, it became clear that the "6" had a line underneath signifying its correct value, and the "9" did not. Kamsky was thus "9" and immediately after him, second-seeded GM Timur Gareev drew number four, meaning the top two will play in the first round!
GM Gata Kamsky and tournament chair WGM Jennifer Shahade
Some research shows that Kamsky, only a few months shy of his 40th birthday, adds a first to his resume. He is now the only player to have been the youngest (1991) and oldest (2014) in a U.S. Championship field - that's quite a career.
Rounds will be at 1:00 p.m. local time (U.S. Central Time, GMT -5). The U.S. Championship is a 12-player round robin; the Women's a 10-player round robin. First prize is $45,000 and $20,000, respectively. The full schedule is here.
Recent law school graduate Alisa Melekina will be one of many women trying to break the hegemony of GM Irina Krush and IM Anna Zatonskih, who have collectively won the last eight women's titles
"The Irinas" as they are known - good friends WIM Iryna Zenyuk (left) and GM Irina Krush
Pairings for the first round have now been posted at the official site here. Chess.com will have the official feed of the US Championship coverage at Chess.com/TV.
Chess.com and FIDE Master Mike Klein also got a chance to speak with Shahade, 2013 Runner-Up GM Alejandro Ramirez, and the tournament's youngest player, 13-year-old NM Ashritha Eswaran.


text:
Graffiti Shader
Started by Stefan, December 09, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote Massive Entertainment's new engine brings realistic lighting and more to Xbox One and PS4 open world shooterUbisoft and Massive Entertainment have shown off some of the things the new Snowdrop Engine can do with a fresh trailer for Tom Clancy's The Division.The new footage of the next-gen shooter was shown at last weekend's Spike VGX Awards and can be viewed <here>.The tech demo reiterates that the Snowdrop Engine was created from the ground up for the Xbox One and PS4 title, and allows Massive Entertainment to create a world with high levels of detail.Crucial to this is the volumetric lighting, which adds to the atmosphere created by the game's changing weather and day/night cycle. The studio has approached lighting in a similar way to Hollywood studios, using light probes to capture lighting as realistically as possible in both indoor and outdoor environments.This works hand in hand with a new shader system that reacts to the constantly changing weather in the game. Massive has also promised the most realistic surface reaction seen in a game to date, with textures changing depending on where objects are shot or damaged.


text:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY. Vanilla Cake Coconut Wax Blend Candle.
Our 16 oz. coconut wax blend "Happy Birthday" candle is a buttercream birthday cake sensation. Candle is double wicked and has burn time of over 100 hours.
Made with a luxurious coconut wax blend and scented with fragrance oil & essential oils. Phthalate-free, paraben-free, and sulfate-free. Lead-free 100% cotton wick; hand-poured in the USA.
Product Details
SCENT FAMILY: Bakery/Sweet
Top Notes: Buttery
Middle Notes: Maple, Sugar
Base Notes: Vanilla
Burn time: 16 oz. Limited Edition Vessel - 100+ hours
Jar Height: 5"
Jar Diameter: 4"
All of the candles in our Sketchy Notions® Collection feature an original design by Chelsea Ward, a Southern California native and travel addict. Sketchy Notions® was established in 2011 and started out as a tiny blog. After graduating from the University of Texas at Austin with a BFA in Studio Art, Chelsea and Sketchy flew off to Italy for 2 years to fill sketchbooks and create while abroad. In 2012, she returned to California and started turning her sketches and paintings into prints and cards. It has grown and taken over her small studio is located in scenic Northern California.
Candle Care & Safety
- Burn within sight.
- Keep away from things that catch fire.
- Keep away from children.
Burning Instructions: Center and trim wick to 1/4" before each lighting. Keep wax pool free of debris. Do not burn candle longer than 3-4 hours at a time. The container will be hot when the candle is lit. Allow jar to cool completely before handling. Discontinue use when 1/4" of wax is left. Failure to follow these instructions can result in personal injury and/or property damage.
Download a complete list of candle safety rules from the National Candle Association.
Shipping, Returns & Exchanges
Shipping Times
All orders ship from our studio shop in Los Angeles, CA. Most orders will ship between 1-3 business days after an order is placed. Some products are made to order and require more time. The majority of our orders ship via USPS and arrive within 1-3 business days. On occasion, we will ship larger orders via UPS or FedEx. Orders shipped via UPS/FedEx typically arrive within 1-5 business days. You will receive a shipping notification with tracking information once your items have left our studio.
Full-price items
We want you to be completely satisfied with our products and your purchases from our site! If there is any reason you are not totally satisfied with your online purchase, we're happy to offer a refund on unopened and unused, full-price items within 7 days of your delivery date. You may also exchange your product for another product of the same price and size within 7 days of delivery. Buyer is responsible for shipping costs on all returned and exchanged items.
Sale items
All sale products are final sale and are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
To process a return
Email firstname.lastname@example.com or call Customer Service at (626) 345-5838 (Monday-Sunday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM PST). Please have your order number ready (available on your original confirmation email from Banter & Bliss Candle Co. and the package slip enclosed in your shipment).
If any part or all of your order is damaged during shipment, please email firstname.lastname@example.com within 7 days of your delivery date. Please include your order number and a picture of the damage. A member of our Customer Service team will be in contact with you to provide with possible options.
For further questions
Contact Customer Service at (626) 345-5838 (Monday-Sunday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM PST) or email firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
You must login before you can run this tool.
OMEN Nanowire
Full-band 3D quantum transport simulation in nanowire structure
Version 1.19 - published on 01 Sep 2021
doi:10.21981/SX3C-YN45 cite this
This tool is closed source.
Published on
As the size of semiconductor devices have been shrinking to the nano-scale, great interest has arisen among scientists and engineers. Even though the full quantum simulation of nanowire structures is still computationally very expensive, OMEN Nanowire, which is powered by OMEN, makes possible the simulation of nanowire structures at the atomistic level using reasonable computational resources. OMEN Nanowire uses OMEN under the hood to calculate the bandstructure and transport characteristics. The bandstructure is calculated in the semi-empirical tight-binding model and the transport characteristics is calculated in the wavefunction approach. The scattering boundary approach is used for efficient calculation of boundary conditions for integration of tight-binding model into transport code. OMEN is also a fully parallelized using message passing interface(MPI) for wave vectors in the bandstructure and energy grids in the transport. Great flexibility in OMEN Nanowire for device structure and simulation options allows users to simulate a circular or rectangular nanowire with or without strain effect. Advanced 1D, 2D or 3D output plots make it possible for users to pioneer the nanowire devices more precisely. This tool is supported by First Time User Guide and Supporting Document. A video demo for this tool is also avaiable. Following documents are useful for further understanding
- Nanotubes and Nanowires: One-dimensional Materials - presentation by Timothy Sands
- Investigation of the Electrical Characteristics of Triple-Gate FinFETs and Silicon-Nanowire FETs - presentation by Monica Taba
A topic page is available for more study with homeworks/tests/real-life problems. Follow twitter on @omenwire
---- Improvements
- Ge, GaAs, InAs materials added with example runs
- Data postprocessing error fixed
- Default workfunction is changed from 4.2eV to 4.1eV
- Default doping density for source/drain is changed from 1e20/cm3 to 2e20/cm3
- The limitation of the number of CPUs is increased to 512.
- Examples for 110, 111 circular nanowire, 110 gate-all-around rectangular nanowire added
- Wrong gate configuration in inputdeck for all-around gate fixed
- Minor interface change on material section
- Minor fix on confusing labels in plot
- Expert options for poisson iteration added
- Plot options in rappture interface changed
- Images for plot option and crystal orientation in device structure uploaded
- Vd default change from 0.6 to 0.4
- default workfunction of gate change from 4.25eV 4.2eV
- Camera angle changed for 2D density of states
- Automatic adjustment of calculated energy range for current transport calculation to cover the whole range of current flowing
- Updated description of input field in rappture interface
- First time user guide
- The error in postprocessing of the density of states is fixed
- 3D carrier density log-plot improved(for more meaningful plot the minimum of plotted carrier density is limited to 1e-14)
- Channel doping included
- Number of CPU's will be limited to 256 in the Steele cluster. If number of CPUs to fullfill the simulation is lager than 256, then users will be asked to reduce the size of structure or the number of bias points.
- The cross section of nanowire is limited to 3 nm in width and 3 nm in height of square nanowire (for circular nanowire the diameter will be limited 3.5 nm).
- The length of nanowire is limited to 60 nm.
- Figures to help users understand strain are included in the strain section.
- Errors in postprocessing of the data for multiple bias points for Vds and Vgs fixed.
- Improved simulation time estimation for small and large nanowires
Powered by
Sponsored by
Mahieu Luisier, et. al., Atomistic simulation of nanowires in the sp3d5s* tight-binding formalism : From boundary conditions to strain calculations, Physical Review B 74, 205323 ,2006
Cite this work
Researchers should cite this work as follows:


text:
Lending Library
Feeding the mind and growing the soul through deeper understanding of the Word
The Annie Vallotton Christian Lending Library
Come check out the library! The Annie Vallotton Christian Lending Library is open to all members and filled with wonderful Christian materials for every age. A wide range of books, DVDs, videos and CDs are all available to help you and your family grow in Christ.
The library is in room G4, basement level, directly across from the elevator. Faithful volunteers open the library on Sundays before and after the 11h and 14h services. The library is free and available to all; however, donations are welcome.
Most items may be checked out for three weeks; DVDs are only for a week at a time. Returns can be made directly to the library or at the ACP reception desk, where there is a library drop-off box.
If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact us here.
We hope to see you. Happy reading, and be blessed!


text:
318 results for Kentucky Pawn Shops
Don't miss out on a good Kentucky horserace because you're low on cash. Head to a local Kentucky pawn shop and trade in your old valuables for cash. You can apply for a collateral-based loan or just sell your items outright. You can also save hundreds of dollars by shopping at a pawn shop when you purchase large items for a fraction of the cost sold in retail stores.
It doesn't matter if you reside in Lexington-Fayette, Louisville, Bowling Green or Richmond, there's a KY pawn shop nearby. Search our listings of online KY pawn shops and locate a shop in your community. Read pawn shop reviews and share your own experiences.


text:
Spy novelist Lynn Boughey and director of the International Spy Museum, Peter Earnest, examine whether or not Harry Potter would make a competent CIA agent.
Ergaster and the Habilis Review
The Universe Builders – Book Review
Hohokum Review
Guest Post: Album Review: Strand of Oaks – Heal
Guest blogger Peter Getty returns to review the frighteningly emotional album Heal by Strand of Oaks.
Mukashi and The Scrolls of Hope Preview
Top-down adventure game goes OUYA-exclusive in a bid to support indie creativity.
The Swapper Review
The Swapper is as challenging as it is chilling with its mixture of Sci-Fi horror and puzzle platforming.
Fire With Fire Preview
The Indie Mine betas this eye-catching tower defense – and offense – game.
July 2014 Music Roundup
The Indie Mine staff highlight the best and brightest in July's music releases.
Mount Your Friends Review
Become a master of mounting in this muscle-bound multiplayer party game.
Infinity Runner Review
Strap on your running shoes and get sprinting in this speedy runner about werewolves in space.
The Ice Cap and the Rift – Book Review
Action-adventure with a mystical sci-fi twist that promises a lot, but can it deliver?
Gravia Tactics Preview
London studio Punchbag Entertainment prepares to launch Kickstarter for anime-styled tactical RPG.
Guest Post: Album Review: The Pains of Being Pure at Heart – Days of Abandon
Guest reviewer Peter Getty sounds off on the evolved musical stylings of The Pains of Being Pure at Heart.


text:
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
We're doing monsters this week at the BlueSky challenge. Classic monsters....the Phantom of the opera by Basil Gogos was always a favorite. He's my inspiration for this.....those eyes and those teeth! Rad.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
character line up
these are some characters i'm working on for a side project. a sweet modeler at work asked me if i was interested and i said "ppsshhh....yeah!" Anyways, I'll post more about it once the ball gets rollin'.
...and a close up of a few of the guys.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
America's Got Talent: Episode 9 Review
What makes Florida so great? No, not the faux zombie apocalypse, but rather the people. There's all sorts of individuals residing in Tampa Bay, Florida who are yearning to have their chance in the spotlight. Luckily for them, 'America's Got Talent' gives them that opportunity. But the question is: will they shine or flub on their first try out on that stage.
Tampa Bay's got spirit, yes it does, as we're brought into the new town by the always energetic Nick Cannon. Usually Howard Stern, Howie Mandell and Sharon Osborne aren't that incredibly happy to be sitting in the judges chairs but there must be something in Tampa to make them so happy. Crocodiles? Nah. It's probably the superb talent out there.
It's time to meet The Untouchables, a group headed by a couple who previously appeared on the show with their dance troupe Miami All Stars. Is it legal for somebody to be in a show twice? Guess it doesn't count if all of the dancers are new. What makes it even cuter is the fact that this couple has their own children in the group and that they're all between the ages of 8-13. Now, are you ready for some awesome dancing? Of course you are. And no duh they're advancing to the next round.
We've got a couple of brothers, the Scott Brothers to be precise. No, they're nowhere near similar to the Super Mario Bros but from their robotic moves they could definitely fit in the 8-bit video games. Then there's Charley C, an awesome R&B singer who probably could sing songs to make out to. Lastly there's Taylor Reed, a magician who proves he's worth a million dollars by making a motorcycle appear out of thin air. Yes, they're all going to Las Vegas.
Puppets on Hand has arrived, and this may not be good given the horribly mischievous music playing for them in the background. Howard busts their chops and their act is cute if we were all first graders watching puppets live for the first time. Unfortunately they're all being booed off which is a bit sad to see.
Bad performers montage is here! There's a dance troupe that can't even tell us their name properly, a paper tearer who shows us how to properly waste trees in order to get on a show. Then there's an expert at the sport of air sex. Gross. Now here's a group who feels like they're inspired by the movie "Mirror Mask." This group isn't really doing much of anything but showing how goofy they look.
Oh no, here comes the pirates. Secretly we were hoping that Captain Dan and the Survy Crew is secretly a goofy rap crew and they are! Except they aren't as funny as people thought they'd be. "This is getting worse as we go along." says Howard. Thankfully they got booed off the stage. Thank you audience!
Everyone loves animals, right? Well Luanne wants to show everybody how awesome her water-skiing squirrel Twiggy is. Unfortunately for Nick Cannon he experienced how much her squirrel likes him by it pissing on his shoulder. But he's cute and chunky so we would forgive him. Okay, so Twiggy didn't make it to the next round but he was still adorable to watch.
Welcome the American BMX Stunt Team. They're brought together by their love for BMX. Let's see if somebody finally breaks their bones during this show. Believe us, we've been waiting for awhile to see if this will happen. They aren't super impressive, which is probably because they decided to do their act on the stage instead of outside. Maybe they'll really strut their stuff on the next round.
Want to see an act that really shines? Look no further than Lindsey Norton, a sixteen year old acrobatic dancer. She's just a ball of happy ready to show off her great acrobatic skills. She's very nimble on her feet and the fact that she's doing a solo makes this all the more great.
It's time to see some older folks perform, or as Nick Cannon says "Don't break a hip!" What we're exposed to is a series of bad dances from several groups of older people. One that stands out in particular is Richard, the lackluster dancing man who hits himself in the face with a cane by accident. Sharon's mean enough to laugh when he does that. That's rude.
Last we have Big Barry, a supposed seventy year old teenager whose specialty is singing. "Hopefully this is the start of something big, no pun intended." Sadly Big Barry can't sing if his life depended on it. Howard starts talking about how much he didn't like the act, then Howie tells him he'd love to see the two next to each other. Hilarity ensues. What's even more hilarious is the fact that Howard caved in and decided he's going to Vegas.
Now we're finally going to our last stop before Vegas. But will there be an act that will top the others we've seen so far? We'll just have to find out next week on 'America's Got Talent.'


text:
Sergio Leone
Quick Facts
|Italian film director, screenwriter and producer
|Musician Film director Screenwriter Film producer Actor Composer
|Film, TV, Stage & Radio Music
|3 January 1929, Rome
|30 April 1989, Rome (aged 60 years)
Sergio Leone (Italian: [ˈsɛrdʒo leˈɔːne]; 3 January 1929 – 30 April 1989) was an Italian film director, producer and screenwriter, credited as the inventor of the "Spaghetti Western" genre.
Leone's film-making style includes juxtaposing extreme close-up shots with lengthy long shots. His movies include the sword and sandal action films The Last Days of Pompeii (1959) and The Colossus of Rhodes (1961), the Dollars Trilogy of Westerns featuring Clint Eastwood: A Fistful of Dollars (1964), For a Few Dollars More (1965) and the epic Western The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966); Once Upon a Time in the West (1968); Duck, You Sucker! (1971) and the crime drama Once Upon a Time in America (1984).
Early life
Born in Rome, Leone was the son of the cinema pioneer Vincenzo Leone (known as director Roberto Roberti or Leone Roberto Roberti) and the silent film actress Edvige Valcarenghi (Bice Waleran). During his schooldays, Leone was a classmate of his later musical collaborator Ennio Morricone for a time. After watching his father work on film sets, Leone began his own career in the film industry at the age of 18 after dropping out of law studies at the university.
Working in Italian cinematography, he began as an assistant to Vittorio de Sica during the movie The Bicycle Thief in 1948. Leone began writing screenplays during the 1950s, primarily for the 'sword and sandal' (a.k.a. 'peplum') historical epics, popular at the time. He also worked as an assistant director on several large-scale international productions shot at the Cinecittà Studios in Rome, notably Quo Vadis (1951) and Ben-Hur (1959), financially backed by the American studios.
When director Mario Bonnard fell ill during the production of the 1959 Italian epic The Last Days of Pompeii (Gli Ultimi Giorni di Pompei), starring Steve Reeves, Leone was asked to step in and complete the film. As a result, when the time came to make his solo directorial debut with The Colossus of Rhodes (Il Colosso di Rodi, 1961), Leone was well equipped to produce low-budget films which looked like larger-budget Hollywood movies.
In the mid-1960s, historical epics fell out of favor with audiences, but Leone had shifted his attention to a subgenre which came to be known as the "Spaghetti Western", owing its origin to the American Western. His film A Fistful of Dollars (Per un Pugno di Dollari, 1964) was based upon Akira Kurosawa's Edo-era samurai adventure Yojimbo (1961). Leone's film elicited a legal challenge from the Japanese director, though Kurosawa's film was in turn probably based on the 1929 Dashiell Hammett novel, Red Harvest. A Fistful of Dollars is also notable for establishing Clint Eastwood as a star. Until that time Eastwood had been an American television actor with few credited film roles.
The look of A Fistful of Dollars was established by its Spanish locations, which presented a violent and morally complex vision of the American Old West. The film paid tribute to traditional American western films, but significantly departed from them in storyline, plot, characterization and mood. Leone gains credit for one great breakthrough in the western genre still followed today: in traditional western films, many heroes and villains looked alike as if they had just stepped out of a fashion magazine, with clearly drawn moral opposites, even down to the hero wearing a white hat and the villain wearing a black hat (except for the most successful of the 'traditional western cowboys' - Hopalong Cassidy, who wore a black outfit upon a pale horse). Leone's characters were, in contrast, more 'realistic' and complex: usually 'lone wolves' in their behaviour; they rarely shaved, looked dirty and sweated profusely, and there was a strong suggestion of criminal behaviour. The characters were also morally ambiguous by appearing generously compassionate, or nakedly and brutally self-serving, as the situation demanded. Relationships revolved around power and retributions were emotion-driven rather than conscience-driven. Some critics have noted the irony of an Italian director who could not speak English, and had never even visited the United States, let alone the American Old West, almost single-handedly redefining the typical vision of the American cowboy. According to Christopher Frayling's book Something to do with Death, Leone knew a great deal about the American Old West. It fascinated him as a child, which carried into his adulthood and his films.
Leone's next two films – For a Few Dollars More (1965) and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) – completed what has come to be known as the Man with No Name trilogy (or the Dollars Trilogy), with each film being more financially successful and more technically accomplished than its predecessor. The films featured innovative music scores by Ennio Morricone, who worked closely with Leone in devising the themes. Leone had a personal way of shooting scenes with Morricone's music ongoing. In addition, Clint Eastwood stayed with the film series, joined later by Eli Wallach, Lee van Cleef and Klaus Kinski.
Based on the success of The Man with No Name trilogy, Leone was invited to the United States in 1967 to direct Once Upon a Time in the West (C'Era una Volta il West) for Paramount Pictures. The film was shot mostly in Almería, Spain and Cinecittà in Rome. It was also briefly shot in Monument Valley, Utah. The film starred Charles Bronson, Henry Fonda, Jason Robards and Claudia Cardinale. Once Upon a Time in the West emerged as a long, violent, dreamlike meditation upon the mythology of the American Old West, with many stylistic references to iconic western films. Audience tension is maintained throughout this nearly three-hour film by concealing both the hero's identity and his unpredictable motivation until the final predictable shootout scene. Perhaps unsurpassed as a retribution drama, the film's script was written by Leone and his longtime friend and collaborator Sergio Donati, from a story by Bernardo Bertolucci and Dario Argento, both of whom went on to have significant careers as directors. Before its release, however, it was ruthlessly edited by Paramount, which perhaps contributed to its low box-office results in the United States. Nevertheless, it was a huge hit in Europe, grossing nearly three times its $5 million budget among French audiences, and highly praised amongst North American film students. It has come to be regarded by many as Leone's best film.
After Once Upon a Time in the West, Leone directed Duck, You Sucker! (Giù la Testa, 1971). Leone was intending merely to produce the film, but due to artistic differences with then-director Peter Bogdanovich, Leone was asked to direct the film instead. Duck, You Sucker! is a Mexican Revolution action drama, starring James Coburn as an Irish revolutionary and Rod Steiger as a Mexican bandit who is conned into becoming a revolutionary.
Leone continued to produce, and on occasion, step in to reshoot scenes in other films. One of these films was My Name Is Nobody (1973) by Tonino Valerii, a comedy western film that poked fun at the spaghetti western genre. It starred Henry Fonda as an old gunslinger facing a final confrontation after the death of his brother. Terence Hill also starred in the film as the young stranger who helps Fonda leave the dying West with style.
Leone's other productions included A Genius, Two Partners and a Dupe (1975, another western comedy starring Terence Hill); The Cat (Il Gatto; 1977, starring Ugo Tognazzi), and A Dangerous Toy (Il Giocattolo; 1979, starring Nino Manfredi). Leone also produced three comedies by actor/director Carlo Verdone, which were Fun Is Beautiful (Un Sacco Bello, 1980), Bianco, Rosso e Verdone (White, Red and Verdone – Verdone means "strong green" – a pun referring to the three colours of the Italian flag, the star and to director Verdone, 1981) and Troppo Forte (Great!, 1986). During this period, Leone also directed various award-winning TV commercials for European television.
In 1978, he was a member of the jury at the 28th Berlin International Film Festival.
Leone turned down the opportunity to direct The Godfather, in favor of working on another gangster story he had conceived earlier. He devoted ten years to this project, based on the novel The Hoods by former mobster Harry Grey, which focused on a quartet of New York City Jewish gangsters of the 1920s and 1930s who had been friends since childhood. The four-hour finished film, Once Upon a Time in America (1984), featured Robert De Niro and James Woods. It was a meditation on another aspect of popular American mythology, the role of greed and violence and their uneasy coexistence with the meaning of ethnicity and friendship. Feeling the final cut was too long, Warner Bros. recut it drastically for the American market, abandoning its flashback structure for a linear narrative. Lasting just over two hours, the recut version shown in North America received much criticism and flopped. The original version, released in the rest of the world, achieved somewhat better box office returns and a mixed critical response. When the original version of the film was released on home video in the US, it finally gained major critical acclaim, with some critics hailing the film as a masterpiece.
According to biographer Sir Christopher Frayling, Leone was deeply hurt by the studio-imposed editing and poor commercial reception of Once Upon a Time in America in North America. It would be his last film.
In 1988, he was head of the jury at the 45th Venice International Film Festival.
Later years and death
Leone died on 30 April 1989, of a heart attack at the age of 60. Before his death he was part way through planning a film on the Siege of Leningrad, set in the Eastern Front during World War II. He was survived by his wife and three children.
In his later years, Leone had a falling out of sorts with actor Clint Eastwood. When Leone directed Once Upon a Time in America, he commented that Robert De Niro was a real actor, unlike Eastwood. This may have been in response to Eastwood declining to play the Irish police detective in the aforementioned film, according to one biography. However, the two made amends and reconciled before Leone's death. In 1992, Eastwood directed Unforgiven, a revisionist western drama for which he won an Oscar for best director, as well as Best Picture. Leone was one of the two directors whom Eastwood dedicated his award to (the other was Don Siegel) and the film contains the dedication "To Sergio & Don" before the end credits roll.
Unrealized projects
A Place Only Mary Knows
A treatment for an "Americanized" western was written by Leone, Luca Morsella, and Fabio Toncelli. It is speculated to have been Leone's last western and was to have starred Mickey Rourke and Richard Gere as the two main leads. Set during the height of the American Civil War, the story focused on a Union drafter, Mike Kutcher from Georgia, whose job is to enroll men into the Union army. The other is Richard Burns, a Southern shady businessman transplanted to the North after a successful heist with his ex-lover and partner, Mary. Searching for the buried treasure left behind in an unmarked grave outside Atlanta in "A Place Only Mary Knows". Joined by a freed slave and an Italian immigrant, Francesco, who arrives via the port of Boston, they try desperately to avoid the battles of the ongoing war between the states.
The film was to have been a homage to classic writers from literature such as — Edgar Lee Masters (Spoon River Anthology), Ambrose Bierce (An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge), Mark Twain (A Military Campaign that Failed), Stephen Crane (The Red Badge of Courage), and Margaret Mitchell (Gone with the Wind), of whose novel he had wanted to film a remake. Although the written treatment never got turned into a full screenplay, Leone's son Andrea had it published in a June 2004 issue of the Italian cinema magazine Ciak. It is unsure if the treatment's publication will ever lead to a full production in America or Italy.
Leningrad: The 900 Days
While finishing work on Once Upon a Time in America in 1982, Leone was impressed with Harrison Salisbury's non-fiction book The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad, and he planned on adapting the book as a war epic. Although no formal script had been completed or leaked, Leone came up with the opening scene and basic plot. According to the documentary Once Upon a Time, Sergio Leone, the film opened in medias res as the camera goes from focusing on a Russian hiding from the Nazis' artillery fire to panning hundreds of feet away to show the German Panzer divisions approaching the walls of the city. The plot was to focus on an American photographer on assignment (whom Leone wanted to be played by Robert De Niro) becoming trapped in Russia as the German Luftwaffe begin to bombard the city. Throughout the course of the film, he becomes romantically involved with a Russian woman, whom he later impregnates, as they attempt to survive the prolonged siege and the secret police, because relationships with foreigners are forbidden. According to Leone, "In the end, the cameraman dies on the day of the liberation of the city, when he is currently filming the surrender of the Germans. And the girl is aware of his death by chance seeing a movie news: the camera sees it explode under a shell .... "
By 1989, Leone set the film's budget at $100 million, and had secured half of that amount in financing from independent backers from the Soviet Union. He had convinced Ennio Morricone to compose the film score, and Tonino Delli Colli was tapped to be the cinematographer. Shooting was scheduled to begin sometime in 1990. The project was cancelled when Leone died two days before he was to officially sign on for the film. Alex Cox hoped to replace Leone as director, but was unable to secure the remaining $50 million required to produce the film.
Don Quixote
According to Frayling's biography of Leone, Something to Do with Death, he envisioned a contemporary adaptation of Cervantes' 17th century novel Don Quixote with Clint Eastwood in the title role and Eli Wallach as Sancho Panza. He had discussed doing the project throughout the 1960s-1970s, and he started seriously considering it towards the end of his life.
In 1987, Sergio Leone contacted his old collaborators Sergio Donati and Fulvio Morsella, pitching an idea for a TV miniseries about a Colt revolver that passed from owner to owner throughout the Old West, similar to Anthony Mann's film Winchester '73 (1950). Donati indicated that Leone was interested in a more revisionist take on the genre than his earlier works, wanting to show the Old West "like it really was." Leone abandoned this project in favor of A Place Only Mary Knows, though Donati wrote a treatment and the project remained in gestation for years after Leone's death.
Other planned films
Leone was also an avid fan of Margaret Mitchell's novel Gone with the Wind and the 1939 film adaptation. His relatives and close friends stated that he talked about filming a remake that was closer to the original novel, but it never advanced beyond discussions to any serious form of production.
Leone was a fan of Louis-Ferdinand Céline's novel Journey to the End of the Night and was considering a film adaptation in the late 1960s; he incorporated elements of the story into The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Duck, You Sucker! but his idea of adapting the novel itself never got past the planning stages.
Leone also started writing a screenplay based on Lee Falk's The Phantom, and scouted locations for the project. Despite this, he never got to make a movie based on the comic book hero. He declared he would have liked to follow his Phantom project with a movie based on another Falk-created character, Mandrake the Magician.
Leone was an early choice to direct Flash Gordon (1980). Leone was a fan of the original Alex Raymond comic strip, but turned down the film because the script did not resemble Raymond's work.
Awards and honors
- David di Donatello
- 1972: Duck, You Sucker! (Won)
- British Academy of Film and Television Arts - Award for Best Direction
- 1984: Once Upon a Time in America (Nomination)
- Golden Globe
- 1984: Once Upon a Time in America (Nomination)
He received the America Award in memory, from the Italy-USA Foundation in 2014.
|English title
|Italian title
|Rotten Tomatoes
|The Last Days of Pompeii
|Gli ultimi giorni di Pompei
|Mario Bonnard is the credited director; Leone served as assistant director and reportedly took over completion of the film when Bonnard became severely ill during production.
|The Colossus of Rhodes
|Il Colosso di Rodi
|His début film
|A Fistful of Dollars
|Per un pugno di dollari
|First part of the Dollars Trilogy
|For a Few Dollars More
|Per qualche dollaro in più
|Second part of the Dollars Trilogy
|The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
|Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo
|Third part of the Dollars Trilogy
|Once Upon a Time in the West
|C'era una volta il West
|First part of the Once Upon a Time Trilogy
|Duck, You Sucker!
(aka A Fistful of Dynamite or Once Upon a Time... the Revolution)
|Giù la testa
|Second part of the Once Upon a Time Trilogy
His last credited western film
|My Name Is Nobody
|Il mio nome è Nessuno
|Producer, uncredited co-director
|A Genius, Two Partners and a Dupe
|Un genio, due compari, un pollo
|Uncredited producer, co-director; his last western film
|Once Upon a Time in America
|C'era una volta in America
|Third part of the Once Upon a Time Trilogy
His last film
- 1958: Afrodite, dea dell'amore
- 1959: The Last Days of Pompeii
- 1959: Nel Segno di Roma
- 1961: The Seven Revenges
- 1961: Romolo e Remo
- 1961: Il Colosso di Rodi
- 1964: A Fistful of Dollars
- 1964: Slave Girls of Sheba
- 1965: For a Few Dollars More
- 1966: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
- 1968: Once Upon a Time in the West
- 1971: Duck, You Sucker!
- 1973: My Name Is Nobody
- 1975: A Genius, Two Partners and a Dupe
- 1984: Once Upon a Time in America
- 1986: Troppo forte
Assistant director or second unit director
- 1946: Rigoletto
- 1948: Bicycle Thieves
- 1948: La Legenda di Faust
- 1949: Fabiola
- 1949: Ill Trovatore
- 1950: Taxi di Notte
- 1950: Il Voto
- 1950: Il Brigante Musolino
- 1951: Quo Vadis
- 1952: I tre corsari
- 1952: Jolanda, la figlia del Corsaro Nero
- 1952: The Mad Marechiaro
- 1953: Man, Beast and Virtue
- 1953: La tratta delle bianche
- 1953: Frine, cortigiana d'Oriente
- 1954: Tradita
- 1954: Of Life and Love
- 1955: La ladra
- 1956: Mi permette, babbo!
- 1957: Il Maestro
- 1958: Afrodite, dea dell'amore
- 1959: La legge mi incolpa
- 1959: Il figlio del corsaro rosso
- 1959: Ben-Hur
- 1962: Sodom and Gomorrah
Recurring actors
|A Fistful of Dollars (1964)
|For a Few Dollars More (1965)
|The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
|Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)
|Duck, You Sucker! (1971)
|Once Upon a Time in America (1984)
|Clint Eastwood
|Lee Van Cleef
|Gian Maria Volontè
|Mario Brega
|Joseph Egger
|Antonio Casale
|Aldo Sambrell
|Benito Stefanelli
|Antonio Molino Rojo
|John Frederick
|Antoñito Ruiz
|Al Mulock
|Lorenzo Robledo
|Frank Braña
|Luigi Pistilli
|Claudio Scarchilli


text:
Your cart is empty.
Product 21/111
Half a TILA bead! Thin, flat two-hole tile beads. Aprox 150 in approx 5 grams.
2-Hole Bead. Made in Japan. 5mm x 2.3mm x 1.9mm Hole size is approx. 2 x 0.8. (5g)
New in 2010 - a new shape from Miyuki - TILA beads (pronounced Tee-la, rhymes with Lee-la.)
These are a flat, square bead with two holes.
Miyuki would like you to know the following:
... certain care should be taken in handling TILA BEADS to prevent being chipped or cracked. Because of the character of TILA (thin, square and double hole), it is a little bit easier to be chipped or cracked, compared with other Miyuki beads (donut-shaped or cylinders). Please do not dump them out from a height onto a hard surface, rather, pour them out gently onto a bead mat ...
Not that we think you are dumping your beads on the counter from a great height, but just so you know.
Here are some design ideas from Miyuki. They have some patterns on their web site too that maximize the rather interesting two hole design possibilities. (Site will open in new window. Be patient - it takes awhile to load.)


text:
Returning Customer ?
Don't have an account ?
No products in the cart.
Username or Email
Remember Me
login with
Welcome back! Sign in to your account.
Username or Email Address *
Password *
Remember me
Register |
Lost your password?
Create new account today to reap the benefits of a personalized shopping experience.
Username *
Email Address *
Your personal data will be used to support your experience throughout this website, to manage access to your account, and for other purposes described in our privacy policy.
Log In | Lost your password?
Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.
Username or Email Address
Log In
| Register


text:
Child Custody > U.S. Family Courts > Virginia > Middlesex County Family Court
Middlesex County, Virginia Family Court
Child Custody Information
Welcome! Browse the Virginia resources provided by the links below to find your county family court along with state level information about filing a child custody case, including where to get child custody forms and where to get help.
Where To File for Child Custody in Middlesex County, Virginia
Family Court Directory for All Virginia Counties, including Middlesex County
Middlesex County Child Custody Forms
Virginia Child Custody Forms Used in Middlesex County
Get Help With Virginia Child Custody
Before you file legal papers, take some time to familiarize yourself with the resouces offered by your local court. Most courts now offer at least some materials and forms to help you understand and manage your child custody case. Even if you plan to work with a lawyer, it's smart to do some research before you turn things over. When you're ready to find a lawyer, the resources below can help you locate a child custody attorney near you.
Virginia Self-Help Information for Child Custody
Virginia Resources for Making a Parenting Plan
Middlesex County Free or Low Cost Legal Help
Middlesex County Child Custody Lawyers


text:
Tarheel Sports Car Club Monthly Meeting @ Randy's Pizza
Tarheel Sports Car Club
Wednesday, May 11, 2022
Randy's Pizza, Durham, NC
Our monthly meetings are held the second Wednesday of each month (except December) at Randy's Pizza on Miami Blvd. in Durham. Eating starts at 6:30pm; meeting starts at 7:00pm. Come hang out with like-minded people and learn about all the latest club news!


text:
Every two weeks, the gents at Free Darko will be taking a look at the deranged ecosystem that is the National Basketball Association in their own indelible fashion. Here's this week's entry, from Bethlehem Shoals.
Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett have a lot in common. Both were drafted right out of high school. Both are almost pathologically competitive. And both have the kind of star quality that makes a silly little ball game actually seem weighty. You could look into their eyes and feel your own existence dwindle by comparison.
But oh, the differences. Garnett has no ring; Kobe's got three. If you asked two-hundred NBA fans who they'd most like to see get themselves a championship, most of them would answer KG. Bryant, on the other hand, must constantly face questions as to whether or not he actually deserves his three-peat, or if they belong mostly to Shaq. Garnett is unflinchingly honest, so real it scalds. He inspires profound feelings of respect and adulation; yours truly would gladly follow him into the mouth of a live volcano. Kobe? Introspective, guarded, and makes even those who worship him a little uncomfortable.
Going into this season, both were at a crucial junctures in their careers. Garnett teamed with Pierce and Allen in Beantown so he might not die ring-less. Kobe, now in his prime as a player, needed another of his own to inject himself back into the G.O.A.T. discussion. This season, Andrew Bynum came into his own, giving Bryant an exceptional big man to work with. And with this week's acquisition of Pau Gasol, the Lakers now have the talent to take a solid shot at the ultimate prize.
However, a trade isn't only about whether or not a franchise takes flight. Trades transform teams and jumpstart legacies, but they also change the meanings of those involved.
That's why it's with great pain and a heavy heart that I admit: The Celtics have diminished Garnett in my eyes. Not as a player, or a warrior, or anything real like that. I mean that when I watch him, there's no aura, none of that mystique that makes me want to howl at the moon. One time a few years back, I saw this Inside Stuff segment where KG took an at-risk youth on a London vacation for the hell of it. It stayed with me for months.
Now, Garnett's just a fiery veteran on a very good team. I no longer feel like he's got the power to make the world end, or at least lives each second like the end is near. He's been normalized, and frankly, that's not the stuff myths are made of. He's gone from a regional god, the identity of a franchise whose very font seemed ripped from their star's consciousness, to a professional athlete capable of moving on.
It doesn't help that I hate the city of Boston, the Irish, kelly-green, Tommy Heinsohn, and most every Celtic ever (no, Len Bias doesn't count as one). I wanted badly to feel that KG and crew were pimping this noble city, which would've given me no small amount of satisfaction. And yet here we are, nearing the halfway mark, and when I look at Garnett, I see a Celtic. He's embraced a lot of things that I—and plenty of others who once fed off of his energy—can't stand. Kevin Garnett may well get his title this season, but he'd be just as stoked about restoring the Celtics to glory. And that bums me out. While "sell-out" is a little strong, KG's now the company man.
Conversely, with this Gasol trade, Bryant suddenly finds himself on one of the West's premier buzz teams—and likely, one of its more fashionable postseason picks. Overnight, the Lakers went from "winning with Kobe" to "&(A*S()U)DHJWOIQHD%#^%@HWQ". Shanoff quoted me as saying that the Lakers are the new Suns, a team of exciting, bizarre players thrown together to achieve a dream. It's just as likely that they're the new Anthony/Iverson Nuggets, whose reputations preceded them coming together. Either way, they'll be must-see in a way the Celtics can only dream of.
Since Shaq's departure, the Lakers have been Kobe, dull and dull. Even Lamar Odom's been reduced to only intermittent breakthroughs. Best case, this dulled Bryant's luster; worst case, he was somewhat to blame. But then, with Bynum's emergence as one of the league's most exciting young bigs, already Kobe seemed less rote. Bringing in Gasol, who is harder than people think and can pass more than anyone knows, allows Odom to move to his natural three. All of sudden, this is one of the most intriguing front-courts known to man, plus Kobe Bryant.
I have no idea how good this team will be. But I also have zero idea what these players will look like together, or how it could be any less than enthralling. Garnett willed himself into a new situation; Bryant's team finally got him a vet, without giving up the future star they'd been reluctant to give up. Now, for the first time in years, we can truly say that Kobe Bryant is novel, unpredictable and part of a real basketball madhouse. This trade's instantly helped Kobe's championship chances, but it's also made him relevant in a way he wasn't before, and that KG always was.
If the Celtics and Lakers do somehow meet in the Finals, everyone will harp on history repeating itself. But they'll be missing the real story: That Garnett got there by giving up his revolutionary stripes, while Kobe got over being a "student of the game" and ended up joining the fun house. Two different paths to the top, and not the ones anyone would've predicted.


text:
Deuter USA ACT Lite 40+10
Brand: Deuter USA
Model: ACT Lite 40+10
Existing modelThese athletic, sleek packs remain true to their lightweight credentials: with their minimal weight and purist, technical look, the ACT Lite models are good-looking, light, yet reliable companions on any tour. Twin lid buckles and a stretch front compartment provide more options for storage. Front gear loops also mean you can easily attach a sleeping mat to the outside. The slimline body of the pack and the compact hip belt allow plenty of freedom of movement when trekking or mountaineering.
* Stretch front compartment
* Compact multi-layer hip belt construction with pull-forward function makes the hip belt easy to fasten, even with even heavy loads
* Contoured shoulder straps with soft edges
* Lightweight multi-chamber aluminium X-frame
* Top lid pocket with valuables pocket
* Top gear loops on Lid compartment
* Separate bottom compartment
* Inner separator pocket
* Mesh side pockets
* Ice axe loops
* stretch side pockets
* Compression and stabiliser straps
* Double-layered base.


text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Petitioner, along with numerous codefendants including Gomez-Barajas and Bravo, was charged with participating in a far-flung drug distribution conspiracy. At the time of petitioner's trial, the District Court was considering Gomez-Barajas' offer to plead guilty to certain charges stemming from the conspiracy, and had already accepted Bravo's guilty plea to one count. Both Gomez-Barajas and Bravo were represented by attorney Iredale. Two court days before his trial was to commence, petitioner moved for the substitution of Iredale as his counsel as well. Despite petitioner's assertion of his Sixth Amendment right to the counsel of his choice, and his willingness, as well as that of Gomez-Barajas and Bravo, to waive the right to conflict-free counsel, the court denied the substitution motion on the basis of irreconcilable and unwaiveable conflicts of interest for Iredale created by the likelihood that petitioner would be called to testify at any subsequent trial of Gomez-Barajas, and that Bravo would testify at petitioner's trial. Petitioner therefore proceeded to trial with his original counsel and was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The District Court did not err in declining petitioner's waiver of his right to conflict-free counsel and in refusing to permit his proposed substitution of attorneys. In multiple-representation cases, district courts have a duty to take such measures as are appropriate to protect criminal defendants against counsel's conflicts of interest, including the issuance of separate representation orders. Moreover, they often must do so at the pretrial stage, where relationships between parties are unclear, and the likelihood and dimensions of nascent conflicts of interest are hard to predict. The provision of waivers by all affected parties will not necessarily cure any problems, since the courts have an independent interest in assuring compliance with ethical standards and the appearance of fairness, and since several Courts of Appeals have demonstrated an apparent willingness to entertain ineffective-assistance claims by defendants who have specifically waived the right to conflict-free counsel. Thus, the district courts must be allowed substantial latitude to evaluate in the light of their informed judgment the facts and circumstances of each case, including any attempt by the Government to "manufacture" a conflict to prevent a defendant from [486 U.S. 153, 154] obtaining particularly able counsel. Although the courts must recognize the Sixth Amendment presumption in favor of counsel of choice, that presumption may be overcome not only by a demonstration of actual conflict but also by a showing of a serious potential for conflict. Here, where the substitution motion was made so close to trial, it cannot be said that the District Court abused its discretion, since it was presented with complex litigation that was likely to engender conflicts of interest for Iredale if he was permitted to represent both petitioner and his codefendants. Pp. 158-164.
813 F.2d 1399, affirmed.
REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, J., joined, post, p. 165. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN, J., joined, post, p. 172.
John J. Cleary argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
Michael K. Kellogg argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Weld, Deputy Solicitor General Bryson, and Louis M. Fischer.
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the District Court erred in declining petitioner's waiver of his right to conflict-free counsel and by refusing to permit petitioner's proposed substitution of attorneys.
Petitioner Mark Wheat, along with numerous codefendants, was charged with participating in a far-flung drug distribution conspiracy. Over a period of several years, many thousands of pounds of marijuana were transported from Mexico and other locations to southern California. Petitioner acted primarily as an intermediary in the distribution ring; he received and stored large shipments of marijuana at his home, then distributed the marijuana to customers in the region. [486 U.S. 153, 155]
Also charged in the conspiracy were Juvenal Gomez-Barajas and Javier Bravo, who were represented in their criminal proceedings by attorney Eugene Iredale. Gomez-Barajas was tried first and was acquitted on drug charges overlapping with those against petitioner. To avoid a second trial on other charges, however, Gomez-Barajas offered to plead guilty to tax evasion and illegal importation of merchandise. At the commencement of petitioner's trial, the District Court had not accepted the plea; Gomez-Barajas was thus free to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial.
Bravo, evidently a lesser player in the conspiracy, decided to forgo trial and plead guilty to one count of transporting approximately 2,400 pounds of marijuana from Los Angeles to a residence controlled by Victor Vidal. At the conclusion of Bravo's guilty plea proceedings on August 22, 1985, Iredale notified the District Court that he had been contacted by petitioner and had been asked to try petitioner's case as well. In response, the Government registered substantial concern about the possibility of conflict in the representation. After entertaining some initial discussion of the substitution of counsel, the District Court instructed the parties to present more detailed arguments the following Monday, just one day before the scheduled start of petitioner's trial.
At the Monday hearing, the Government objected to petitioner's proposed substitution on the ground that Iredale's representation of Gomez-Barajas and Bravo created a serious conflict of interest. The Government's position was premised on two possible conflicts. First, the District Court had not yet accepted the plea and sentencing arrangement negotiated between Gomez-Barajas and the Government; in the event that arrangement were rejected by the court, Gomez-Barajas would be free to withdraw the plea and stand trial. He would then be faced with the prospect of representation by Iredale, who in the meantime would have acted as petitioner's attorney. Petitioner, through his participation in the drug distribution scheme, was familiar with the sources [486 U.S. 153, 156] and size of Gomez-Barajas' income, and was thus likely to be called as a witness for the Government at any subsequent trial of Gomez-Barajas. This scenario would pose a conflict of interest for Iredale, who would be prevented from cross-examining petitioner and thereby from effectively representing Gomez-Barajas.
Second, and of more immediate concern, Iredale's representation of Bravo would directly affect his ability to act as counsel for petitioner. The Government believed that a portion of the marijuana delivered by Bravo to Vidal's residence eventually was transferred to petitioner. In this regard, the Government contacted Iredale and asked that Bravo be made available as a witness to testify against petitioner, and agreed in exchange to modify its position at the time of Bravo's sentencing. In the likely event that Bravo were called to testify, Iredale's position in representing both men would become untenable, for ethical proscriptions would forbid him to cross-examine Bravo in any meaningful way. By failing to do so, he would also fail to provide petitioner with effective assistance of counsel. Thus, because of Iredale's prior representation of Gomez-Barajas and Bravo and the potential for serious conflict of interest, the Government urged the District Court to reject the substitution of attorneys.
In response, petitioner emphasized his right to have counsel of his own choosing and the willingness of Gomez-Barajas, Bravo, and petitioner to waive the right to conflict-free counsel. Petitioner argued that the circumstances posited by the Government that would create a conflict for Iredale were highly speculative and bore no connection to the true relationship between the co-conspirators. If called to testify, Bravo would simply say that he did not know petitioner and had no dealings with him; no attempt by Iredale to impeach Bravo would be necessary. Further, in the unlikely event that Gomez-Barajas went to trial on the charges of tax evasion and illegal importation, petitioner's lack of involvement [486 U.S. 153, 157] in those alleged crimes made his appearance as a witness highly improbable. Finally, and most importantly, all three defendants agreed to allow Iredale to represent petitioner and to waive any future claims of conflict of interest. In petitioner's view, the Government was manufacturing implausible conflicts in an attempt to disqualify Iredale, who had already proved extremely effective in representing Gomez-Barajas and Bravo.
After hearing argument from each side, the District Court noted that it was unfortunate that petitioner had not suggested the substitution sooner, rather than two court days before the commencement of trial. The court then ruled:
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed petitioner's convictions, 813 F.2d 1399 (1987), finding that, within the limits prescribed by the Sixth Amendment, the District Court has considerable discretion in allowing substitution of counsel. The Court of Appeals found that the District Court had correctly balanced two Sixth Amendment rights: (1) the qualified right to be represented by counsel of one's choice, and (2) the right to a defense conducted by an attorney who is free of conflicts of interest. Denial of either of these rights threatened the District Court with an appeal assigning the ruling as reversible error, and the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion [486 U.S. 153, 158] in declining to allow the substitution or addition of Iredale as trial counsel for petitioner. 1
Because the Courts of Appeals have expressed substantial disagreement about when a district court may override a defendant's waiver of his attorney's conflict of interest, 2 we granted certiorari, 484 U.S. 814 (1987).
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 364 (1981), we observed that this right was designed to assure fairness in the adversary criminal process. Realizing that an unaided layman may have little skill in arguing the law or in coping with an intricate procedural system, Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 69 (1932); United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300, 307 (1973), we have held that the Sixth Amendment secures the right to the assistance of counsel, by appointment if necessary, in a trial for any serious crime. Gideon v. Wainwright, [486 U.S. 153, 159] 372 U.S. 335 (1963). We have further recognized that the purpose of providing assistance of counsel "is simply to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial," Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984), and that in evaluating Sixth Amendment claims, "the appropriate inquiry focuses on the adversarial process, not on the accused's relationship with his lawyer as such." United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 657 , n. 21 (1984). Thus, while the right to select and be represented by one's preferred attorney is comprehended by the Sixth Amendment, the essential aim of the Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant rather than to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers. See Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 13 -14 (1983); Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983).
The Sixth Amendment right to choose one's own counsel is circumscribed in several important respects. Regardless of his persuasive powers, an advocate who is not a member of the bar may not represent clients (other than himself) in court. 3 Similarly, a defendant may not insist on representation by an attorney he cannot afford or who for other reasons declines to represent the defendant. Nor may a defendant insist on the counsel of an attorney who has a previous or ongoing relationship with an opposing party, even when the opposing party is the Government. The question raised in this case is the extent to which a criminal defendant's right under the Sixth Amendment to his chosen attorney is qualified by the fact that the attorney has represented other defendants charged in the same criminal conspiracy.
In previous cases, we have recognized that multiple representation of criminal defendants engenders special dangers of which a court must be aware. While "permitting a single attorney [486 U.S. 153, 160] to represent codefendants . . . is not per se violative of constitutional guarantees of effective assistance of counsel," Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 482 (1978), a court confronted with and alerted to possible conflicts of interest must take adequate steps to ascertain whether the conflicts warrant separate counsel. See also Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980). As we said in Holloway:
For this reason, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure direct trial judges to investigate specially cases involving joint representation. In pertinent part, Rule 44(c) provides:
To be sure, this need to investigate potential conflicts arises in part from the legitimate wish of district courts that their judgments remain intact on appeal. As the Court of Appeals accurately pointed out, trial courts confronted with multiple representations face the prospect of being "whipsawed" by assertions of error no matter which way they rule. If a district court agrees to the multiple representation, and the advocacy of counsel is thereafter impaired as a result, the defendant may well claim that he did not receive effective assistance. See, e. g., Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987). On the other hand, a district court's refusal to accede to the multiple representation may result in a challenge such as petitioner's in this case. Nor does a waiver by the defendant [486 U.S. 153, 162] necessarily solve the problem, for we note, without passing judgment on, the apparent willingness of Courts of Appeals to entertain ineffective-assistance claims from defendants who have specifically waived the right to conflict-free counsel. See, e. g., United States ex rel. Tonaldi v. Elrod, 716 F.2d 431, 436-437 (CA7 1983); United States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1211 (CA2), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1069 (1974); see also Glasser, supra, at 70 ("To preserve the protection of the Bill of Rights for hard-pressed defendants, we indulge every reasonable presumption against the waiver of fundamental rights").
Thus, where a court justifiably finds an actual conflict of interest, there can be no doubt that it may decline a proffer of waiver, and insist that defendants be separately represented. As the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated in United States v. Dolan, 570 F.2d 1177, 1184 (1978):
For these reasons we think the district court must be allowed substantial latitude in refusing waivers of conflicts of interest not only in those rare cases where an actual conflict may be demonstrated before trial, but in the more common cases where a potential for conflict exists which may or may not burgeon into an actual conflict as the trial progresses. In the circumstances of this case, with the motion for substitution of counsel made so close to the time of trial, the District Court relied on instinct and judgment based on experience in making its decision. We do not think it can be said that the court exceeded the broad latitude which must be accorded it in making this decision. Petitioner of course rightly points out that the Government may seek to "manufacture" a conflict in order to prevent a defendant from having a particularly able defense counsel at his side; but trial courts are undoubtedly aware of this possibility, and must take it into consideration along with all of the other factors which inform this sort of a decision.
Here the District Court was confronted not simply with an attorney who wished to represent two coequal defendants in a straightforward criminal prosecution; rather, Iredale proposed to defend three conspirators of varying stature in [486 U.S. 153, 164] a complex drug distribution scheme. The Government intended to call Bravo as a witness for the prosecution at petitioner's trial. 4 The Government might readily have tied certain deliveries of marijuana by Bravo to petitioner, necessitating vigorous cross-examination of Bravo by petitioner's counsel. Iredale, because of his prior representation of Bravo, would have been unable ethically to provide that cross-examination.
Iredale had also represented Gomez-Barajas, one of the alleged kingpins of the distribution ring, and had succeeded in obtaining a verdict of acquittal for him. Gomez-Barajas had agreed with the Government to plead guilty to other charges, but the District Court had not yet accepted the plea arrangement. If the agreement were rejected, petitioner's probable testimony at the resulting trial of Gomez-Barajas would create an ethical dilemma for Iredale from which one or the other of his clients would likely suffer.
Viewing the situation as it did before trial, we hold that the District Court's refusal to permit the substitution of counsel in this case was within its discretion and did not violate petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights. Other district courts might have reached differing or opposite conclusions with equal justification, but that does not mean that one conclusion was "right" and the other "wrong." The District Court must recognize a presumption in favor of petitioner's counsel of choice, but that presumption may be overcome not only by a demonstration of actual conflict but by a showing of a serious potential for conflict. The evaluation of the facts and circumstances of each case under this standard must be left primarily to the informed judgment of the trial court.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
[ Footnote 2 ] See, e. g., In re Paradyne Corp., 803 F.2d 604, 611, n. 16 (CA11 1986) (the right of counsel "does not override the broader societal interests in the effective administration of justice . . . or in the maintenance of `public confidence in the integrity of our legal system'") (citation omitted); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Doe, 781 F.2d 238, 250-251 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Roe v. United States, 475 U.S. 1108 (1986) ("[C]ourts have the power and duty to disqualify counsel where the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system outweighs the accused's constitutional right"); United States v. Reese, 699 F.2d 803, 805 (CA6 1983) (a trial court should override a defendant's knowing waiver only in "compelling circumstances"); United States v. Flanagan, 679 F.2d 1072, 1076 (CA3 1982) (a trial court may refuse a waiver when an actual conflict is "very likely"), rev'd on other grounds, 465 U.S. 259 (1984).
[ Footnote 3 ] Our holding in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), that a criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to represent himself if he voluntarily elects to do so, does not encompass the right to choose any advocate if the defendant wishes to be represented by counsel.
[ Footnote 4 ] Bravo was in fact called as a witness at petitioner's trial. See Tr. 728 et seq. His testimony was elicited to demonstrate the transportation of drugs that the prosecution hoped to link to petitioner. [486 U.S. 153, 165]
JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, dissenting.
This Court today concludes that the District Court did not commit reversible error by denying the motion of petitioner Mark Wheat to add or substitute counsel of his choice. In the course of discussing the District Court's ruling, the Court sets forth several principles with which I agree. The Court acknowledges, as it must, that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of assistance of counsel comprehends the right to select one's own attorney. The Court also states that, although this constitutional right is not absolute, it mandates a presumption in favor of accepting a criminal defendant's choice of counsel. Having articulated these principles, however, the Court unaccountably grants broad discretion to the trial court to decide whether this presumption has been overcome. As a consequence of this unwarranted deference to a trial court's decision respecting a constitutional right, the Court countenances a ruling that is patently incorrect. Because I believe that the potential for a conflict of interest in this case did not overcome petitioner's right to choose his own counsel, I dissent.
This Court long has recognized, and today reaffirms, that the Sixth Amendment provides protection for a criminal defendant's choice of counsel. More than 50 years ago, we stated that "[i]t is hardly necessary to say that, the right to counsel being conceded, a defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice." Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 (1932). This Court has reiterated this principle on frequent occasions. See, e. g., Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S. 3, 9 (1954); Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 70 (1942). Our statements on this score stem largely from an appreciation that a primary purpose of the Sixth Amendment is to grant a criminal defendant effective control over the conduct of his defense. As this Court previously has stated, the Sixth Amendment "grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense," because [486 U.S. 153, 166] "it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 -820 (1975). An obviously critical aspect of making a defense is choosing a person to serve as an assistant and representative. In addition, lodging the selection of counsel with the defendant generally will promote the fairness and integrity of criminal trials.
The right to counsel of choice, as the Court notes, is not absolute. When a defendant's selection of counsel, under the particular facts and circumstances of a case, gravely imperils the prospect of a fair trial, a trial court may justifiably refuse to accede to the choice. Thus, a trial court may in certain situations reject a defendant's choice of counsel on the ground of a potential conflict of interest, because a serious conflict may indeed destroy the integrity of the trial process. As the Court states, however, the trial court must recognize a presumption in favor of a defendant's counsel of choice. This presumption means that a trial court may not reject a defendant's chosen counsel on the ground of a potential conflict of interest absent a showing that both the likelihood and the dimensions of the feared conflict are substantial. 1 Unsupported or dubious speculation as to a conflict will not suffice. The Government must show a substantial potential for the kind of conflict that would undermine the fairness of the trial process. In these respects, I do not believe my position differs significantly, if at all, from that expressed in the opinion of the Court. See ante, at 161-162, 164.
I do disagree, however, with the Court's suggestion that the trial court's decision as to whether a potential conflict justifies rejection of a defendant's chosen counsel is entitled to some kind of special deference on appeal. The Court grants trial courts "broad latitude" over the decision to accept or reject [486 U.S. 153, 167] a defendant's choice of counsel, ante, at 163; although never explicitly endorsing a standard of appellate review, the Court appears to limit such review to determining whether an abuse of discretion has occurred, see ante, at 164. This approach, which the Court supports solely by noting the difficulty of evaluating the likelihood and magnitude of a conflict, accords neither with the nature of the trial court's decision nor with the importance of the interest at stake.
The trial court's decision as to whether the circumstances of a given case constitute grounds for rejecting a defendant's chosen counsel - that is, as to whether these circumstances present a substantial potential for a serious conflict of interest - is a mixed determination of law and fact. The decision is properly described in this way because it requires and results from the application of a legal standard to the established facts of a case. See, e. g., Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 309 , n. 6 (1963). Appellate courts traditionally do not defer to such determinations. See, e. g., ibid.; Sumner v. Mata, 455 U.S. 591, 597 , and n. 10 (1982). For this reason, the Court in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980), held that a trial court's determination as to whether an attorney had represented conflicting interests at trial was not entitled to any deference. The determination at issue here, which focuses on the potential for a conflict of interest, is not different in any relevant respect. 2 [486 U.S. 153, 168]
The inappropriateness of deferring to this determination becomes even more apparent when its constitutional significance is taken into account. Cf. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 502 -503 (1984) (stating that "[w]hen the standard governing the decision of a particular case is provided by the Constitution," close appellate scrutiny is particularly important). The interest at stake in this kind of decision is nothing less than a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice. The trial court simply does not have "broad latitude," ante, at 163, to vitiate this right. In my view, a trial court that rejects a criminal defendant's chosen counsel on the ground of a potential conflict should make findings on the record to facilitate review, and an appellate court should scrutinize closely the basis for the trial court's decision. Only in this way can a criminal defendant's right to counsel of his choice be appropriately protected.
The Court's resolution of the instant case flows from its deferential approach to the District Court's denial of petitioner's motion to add or substitute counsel; absent deference, a decision upholding the District Court's ruling would be inconceivable. Indeed, I believe that even under the Court's deferential standard, reversal is in order. The mere fact of multiple representation, as the Court concedes, will not support an order preventing a criminal defendant from retaining counsel of his choice. As this Court has stated on prior occasions, such representation will not invariably pose a substantial risk of a serious conflict of interest and thus will not invariably imperil the prospect of a fair trial. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, supra, at 346-348; Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 482 -483 (1978). The propriety of the District Court's order thus depends on whether the Government showed that the particular facts and circumstances of the multiple representation proposed in this case were such as to overcome the presumption in favor of petitioner's choice of counsel. I believe it is clear that the Government failed to [486 U.S. 153, 169] make this showing. Neither Eugene Iredale's representation of Juvenal Gomez-Barajas nor Iredale's representation of Javier Bravo posed any threat of causing a conflict of interest.
At the time of petitioner's trial, Iredale's representation of Gomez-Barajas was effectively completed. As the Court notes, Iredale had obtained an acquittal for Gomez-Barajas on charges relating to a conspiracy to distribute marijuana. Iredale also had negotiated an agreement with the Government under which Gomez-Barajas would plead guilty to charges of tax evasion and illegal importation of merchandise, although the trial court had not yet accepted this plea arrangement. Gomez-Barajas was not scheduled to appear as a witness at petitioner's trial; thus, Iredale's conduct of that trial would not require him to question his former client. The only possible conflict this Court can divine from Iredale's representation of both petitioner and Gomez-Barajas rests on the premise that the trial court would reject the negotiated plea agreement and that Gomez-Barajas then would decide to go to trial. In this event, the Court tells us, "petitioner's probable testimony at the resulting trial of Gomez-Barajas would create an ethical dilemma for Iredale." Ante, at 164.
This argument rests on speculation of the most dubious kind. The Court offers no reason to think that the trial court would have rejected Gomez-Barajas' plea agreement; neither did the Government posit any such reason in its argument or brief before this Court. The most likely occurrence at the time petitioner moved to retain Iredale as his defense counsel was that the trial court would accept Gomez-Barajas' plea agreement, as the court in fact later did. Moreover, even if Gomez-Barajas had gone to trial, petitioner probably would not have testified. The record contains no indication that petitioner had any involvement in or information about crimes for which Gomez-Barajas might yet have stood trial. The only alleged connection between petitioner and Gomez-Barajas sprang from the conspiracy to distribute marijuana, [486 U.S. 153, 170] and a jury already had acquitted Gomez-Barajas of that charge. It is therefore disingenuous to say that representation of both petitioner and Gomez-Barajas posed a serious potential for a conflict of interest.
Similarly, Iredale's prior representation of Bravo was not a cause for concern. The Court notes that the prosecution intended to call Bravo to the stand at petitioner's trial and asserts that Bravo's testimony could well have "necessitat[ed] vigorous cross-examination . . . by petitioner's counsel." Ibid. The facts, however, belie the claim that Bravo's anticipated testimony created a serious potential for conflict. Contrary to the Court's inference, Bravo could not have testified about petitioner's involvement in the alleged marijuana distribution scheme. As all parties were aware at the time, Bravo did not know and could not identify petitioner; indeed, prior to the commencement of legal proceedings, the two men never had heard of each other. Bravo's eventual testimony at petitioner's trial related to a shipment of marijuana in which petitioner was not involved; the testimony contained not a single reference to petitioner. Petitioner's counsel did not cross-examine Bravo, and neither petitioner's counsel nor the prosecutor mentioned Bravo's testimony in closing argument. All of these developments were predictable when the District Court ruled on petitioner's request that Iredale serve as trial counsel; the contours of Bravo's testimony were clear at that time. Given the insignificance of this testimony to any matter that petitioner's counsel would dispute, the proposed joint representation of petitioner and Bravo did not threaten a conflict of interest. 3 [486 U.S. 153, 171]
Moreover, even assuming that Bravo's testimony might have "necessitat[ed] vigorous cross-examination," the District Court could have insured against the possibility of any conflict of interest without wholly depriving petitioner of his constitutional right to the counsel of his choice. Petitioner's motion requested that Iredale either be substituted for petitioner's current counsel or be added to petitioner's defense team. Had the District Court allowed the addition of Iredale and then ordered that he take no part in the cross-examination of Bravo, any possibility of a conflict would have been removed. Especially in light of the availability of this precautionary measure, the notion that Iredale's prior representation of Bravo might well have caused a conflict of interest at petitioner's trial is nothing short of ludicrous. 4 [486 U.S. 153, 172]
The Court gives short shrift to the actual circumstances of this case in upholding the decision below. These circumstances show that the District Court erred in denying petitioner's motion to substitute or add Iredale as defense counsel. The proposed representation did not pose a substantial risk of a serious conflict of interest. The District Court therefore had no authority to deny petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to retain counsel of his choice. This constitutional error demands that petitioner's conviction be reversed. I accordingly dissent.
[ Footnote 1 ] In stating this principle, I mean to address only cases in which all parties to the potential conflict have made a fully informed waiver of their right to conflict-free representation. It is undisputed in this case that petitioner, as well as Juvenal Gomez-Barajas and Javier Bravo, had agreed to waive this right.
[ Footnote 2 ] It is true that a trial court, in making a determination regarding the potential for a conflict of interest, must make a prediction as to future events, which frequently is a difficult task. This aspect of the decision, however, does not call for a lax standard of review. The question on review is whether the trial court was correct in holding that the facts and circumstances apparent at the time of its decision demonstrated a substantial potential for a serious conflict of interest. Appellate courts are fully capable of posing and resolving this question. A deferential standard of review therefore is not necessary to generate appellate decisions that take into account and appropriately reflect the uncertainties existing at the time of the trial court's ruling.
[ Footnote 3 ] The very insignificance of Bravo's testimony, combined with the timing of the prosecutor's decision to call Bravo as a witness, raises a serious concern that the prosecutor attempted to manufacture a conflict in this case. The prosecutor's decision to use Bravo as a witness was an 11th-hour development. Throughout the course of plea negotiations with Bravo, the prosecutor never had suggested that Bravo testify at petitioner's trial. At Bravo's guilty-plea proceedings, when Iredale notified the District Court of petitioner's substitution motion, the prosecutor conceded [486 U.S. 153, 171] that he had made no plans to call Bravo as a witness. Only after the prosecutor learned of the substitution motion and decided to oppose it did he arrange for Bravo's testimony by agreeing to recommend to the trial court a reduction in Bravo's sentence. Especially in light of the scarce value of Bravo's testimony, this prosecutorial behavior very plausibly may be viewed as a maneuver to prevent Iredale from representing petitioner at trial. Iredale had proved to be a formidable adversary; he previously had gained an acquittal for the alleged kingpin of the marijuana distribution scheme. As the District Court stated in considering petitioner's motion: "Were I in [petitioner's] position I'm sure I would want Mr. Iredale representing me, too. He did a fantastic job in that [Gomez-Barajas] trial . . . ." App. 124-125. The prosecutor's decision to call Bravo as a witness may well have stemmed from a concern that Iredale would do an equally fantastic job at petitioner's trial. As the Court notes, governmental maneuvering of this kind is relevant to a trial court's decision as to whether to accept a criminal defendant's chosen counsel. The significant possibility that the prosecutor was engaging in such bad-faith conduct provides yet another reason to dispute the Court's resolution of this case.
[ Footnote 4 ] The Court somewhat obliquely suggests that the timing of the motion to substitute or add Iredale as trial counsel helps to justify the District Court's ruling. See ante, at 155, 157, 163. I cannot agree. Iredale made clear to the District Court that notwithstanding the proximity of the scheduled trial date, he would neither need nor request a continuance of the trial were he substituted or added as defense counsel. The timing of petitioner's motion is therefore relevant only insofar as it affected the ability of the [486 U.S. 153, 172] District Court to consider the issues that the motion raised. The District Court itself believed that it had sufficient time to consider these issues. Far from denying the motion because of its timing, the District Court issued a decision on the merits after full briefing and oral argument.
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE BLACKMUN joins, dissenting.
This is not the first case in which the Court has demonstrated "its apparent unawareness of the function of the independent lawyer as a guardian of our freedom." Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 371 (1985) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted). But even under the Court's paternalistic view of the citizen's right to select his or her own lawyer, its analysis of this case is seriously flawed. As JUSTICE MARSHALL demonstrates, the Court exaggerates the significance of the potential conflict. See ante, at 168-172. Of greater importance, the Court gives inadequate weight to the informed and voluntary character of the clients' waiver of their right to conflict-free representation. Particularly, the Court virtually ignores the fact that additional counsel representing petitioner had provided him with sound advice concerning the wisdom of a waiver and would have remained available during the trial to assist in the defense. Thus, this is not a case in which the District Judge faced the question whether one counsel should be substituted for another; rather the question before him [486 U.S. 153, 173] was whether petitioner should be permitted to have additional counsel of his choice. I agree with JUSTICE MARSHALL that the answer to that question is perfectly clear.
Accordingly, although I agree with the Court's premise that district judges must be afforded wide latitude in passing on motions of this kind, * in this case it is abundantly clear to me that the District Judge abused his discretion and deprived this petitioner of a constitutional right of such fundamental character that reversal is required.
[ Footnote * ] In my view, deference to the trial judge is appropriate in light of his or her greater familiarity with such factors as the ability of the defendant knowingly and voluntarily to waive a potential conflict (including the possibility that a codefendant may be exerting undue influence over the defendant), the character of the lawyers, the particular facts of the case, and the availability of alternative counsel of a like caliber. [486 U.S. 153, 174]
Was this helpful?
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)