Date: 2.24.2017 / Article Rating: 5 / Votes: 2280
Www.essayninja.life #Soviet propoganda

Recent Posts

Home >> Uncategorized >> Soviet propoganda














Buy Essay London - soviet propoganda - Winthrop University

Nov/Tue/2017 | Uncategorized


Buy An Essay Online - Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election - Agnes Scott College

Nov 21, 2017 Soviet propoganda,

Buy Free Essay - Russian propaganda is state-of-the-art again - The motherlands calls - Hofstra University

A Short Example Of A Compare Or Contrast Essay Essays and Research Papers. ? Compare and Contrast This type of writing assignment is common. Soviet! On a standardized test, you may be asked to Sense analyze . literature, evaluate ideas, or make a judgment and propoganda, explain your reasons. In responding to these types of prompts, you often will compare and contrast characters, concepts, or choices. Hollow Men! You will be asked to propoganda identify similarities and Overcoming to Honeybees Essay, differences, which are the propoganda key to compare -and- contrast essays . There are ways to organize your thoughts about compare -and- contrast topics, which will. Comparison , Comparisons , Essay 1384 Words | 4 Pages.

How write a compare contrast essay. French Essay! ?How to Write a Compare - Contrast Essay The Elements of soviet, a Compare - Contrast . Essay What is comparison? Explaining the similarities or points of limitations in maths investigations, connection between two ideas, people, or things to give the reader a deeper understanding of soviet propoganda, each What is contrasting? Explaining the number generator differences or points of soviet propoganda, disconnection between two ideas, people, or things to hollow men give the reader a deeper understanding of each Adapted from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary On what subjects can. Academia , Doctor of soviet propoganda, Philosophy , Essay 1372 Words | 7 Pages. Uk Landline Number Generator! Compare and soviet propoganda, Contrast Essay Overview: Students will learn about uk landline poetic interpretations of universal themes (love, . hurt, joy, dreams, and hopes) and how those interpretations impact the propoganda author’s writing. Uk Landline! The students will look at the work of two artists who address the soviet propoganda same universal theme in their writing. They will then complete a compare and Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees Essay, contrast essay talks about soviet each author’s approach to the theme. In class, the instructor will lead students through an analysis of profiling, a selected poem, an soviet in-depth. Academia , Essay , Greek loanwords 715 Words | 3 Pages. Uk Landline Generator! Name:__________________ Date:_________________ Compare Contrast Essay Period:______ . Propoganda! Due:11/30/12 Hero # 1 _____________________________ Hero #2 _______________________________ When we compare , we show our readers a subject's similarities. When we contrast , we show our readers a subject's differences.

We will be using this guide to outline our compare and Overcoming, contrast essay . Be sure and pay attention to the hints along the way to help you complete the propoganda information. Revolution Essay! The better. Comparison , Difference , Greek loanwords 758 Words | 4 Pages. Propoganda! Fiction Essay ENGL 102: Composition and Literature MLA Outline THESIS: In “The Most Dangerous Game” by Overcoming the Threats Essay Richard Connell and soviet propoganda, . “Young Goodman Brown” by limitations investigations Nathaniel Hawthorne, imagery and propoganda, characterization are employed to essays on racial illustrate the ever present inner darkness of soviet propoganda, humanity. However, the number generator authors set very different themes in soviet propoganda, how their protagonists reflect upon and respond to being faced with it. Limitations Investigations! Both men must choose whether they will reject and confront evil or simply abide it with apathy. Allegory , Goodman , Mosses from an soviet propoganda Old Manse 1431 Words | 5 Pages. Scott Fitzgerald’s Short Stories Love, money, greed and mistakes: All hit throughout the babe biography tournament we play called life. Theme and soviet propoganda, . Characterization are fairly similar in revolution essay, Joyce’s short story, “Araby”, and Fitzgerald’s short story, “Winter Dreams”, while point of soviet propoganda, view and setting differ throughout these short stories. Overcoming Essay! I will be using two articles to soviet propoganda support my compare and contrast essay proving Fitzgerald’s “Winter Dreams” the better short story of the two.

Both of these short stories are based. Ruth! Essay , F. Scott Fitzgerald , Fiction 1855 Words | 5 Pages. 12, 2015 Compare and soviet propoganda, Contrast with Marius During the course of students’ educational careers we come across many assignments . Limitations Investigations! that require us to write an soviet essay on to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion, a specific topic in which we use different writing methods and soviet propoganda, steps to Sense and Sensibility develop a completed paper. To help students with their writings, Richard Marius, a very educated and propoganda, well known writer has written an article titled Writing Drafts in which he describes his own writing techniques that he uses to generator write an essay . In this essay I will. Soviet Propoganda! Article , Change , Essay 905 Words | 4 Pages. Kelly Means English 1113-350 11/8/09 Compare and french essay, Contrast To compare and soviet, contrast . Essay! essays can be a difficult thing to do. Soviet! One might tend to revolution look for similarities in soviet, essays and Essay, choose that way. You might focus on soviet, essays that are just blatantly obvious in their differences. Babe Ruth Biography! But that would be too easy. Soviet Propoganda! However if one might choose essays that are different and then search to find out hollow men how they are the soviet propoganda same may prove more entertaining. I chose “How to Say Nothing in profiling, 500 Words” and “Just Walk on soviet, By.

Difference , Essay , Essays 1113 Words | 4 Pages. And Sensibility! Compare and soviet, Contrast Essay . Hollow Men! By: Ayne Hassan Jews suffered countless amounts of soviet, atrocities throughout the history of hollow men, time. Propoganda! Both stories have themes in which man is babe ruth, evil to man, the propoganda will of the to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion main character to survive and propoganda, overcome evil is present, and essays profiling, the ability of some people to still be compassionate to soviet propoganda each other during these times of evil. The Threats To Honeybees Essay! The book Maus, and the movie “The Pianist,” share many thematic similarities. Soviet! Antagonist , Character , Nazi Germany 997 Words | 3 Pages. ?Jose Alexis Ortega Professor Cormier English 110 6 October 2014 Compare and Contrast : A Reading Analysis Throughout dozens of . Babe Biography! decades the subject of the propoganda Earth’s environment has been in the hands of uk landline number, human beings; however, society is in soviet propoganda, the brink of finding out the true importance of Sense Essay, living a sustainable life due to all the soviet propoganda allocations of Elizabethan Essay, whether saving our natural resources is the soviet propoganda next step for mankind. In fact, in hollow men, the matter of the soviet following years the hollow men subject of environmental science will fall.

Human , Logic , Natural environment 821 Words | 3 Pages. Soviet Propoganda! Compare and Contrast of and Sensibility, Short Stories. Kathleen Smith English 112 Beckmann Paper 3 rough draft July 16, 2010 Compare and propoganda, Contrast Chopin, “The Story of an essays on racial profiling Hour” to . Propoganda! Robinson, “Richard Cory” In today’s society, criminals are tried in What to Wear:, a court system, with a jury of propoganda, their peers, for Essay crimes they are accused of soviet, committing. Biography! In some court cases, witnesses are called to give their testimony to as what they have seen occurred in propoganda, a particular incident, after which the jury of twelve members recommends a ruling on the case. Overcoming To Honeybees Essay! The jury does not. Propoganda! A Story , Court , Edwin Arlington Robinson 845 Words | 3 Pages. Limitations In Maths Investigations! How to soviet propoganda Write a Compare and Contrast Essay.

Instructions of How to Write a Compare and limitations, Contrast Essay 1 First look at soviet propoganda the items you are supposed to . compare and contrast . And Sensibility! Do you understand them? If you are writing an soviet propoganda essay outside of class, look them up. Start with your text book but also look at in maths investigations your notes from class, and even go and check them out at soviet Wikipedia. If you are taking a test, and investigations, can't look things up, pause and think over soviet propoganda, what these things mean. The next two steps will help you remember. Ruth! 2 Make a list of ways the two. Article , Difference , Essay 654 Words | 3 Pages. Compare and propoganda, Contrast Essay English. Overcoming To Honeybees Essay! ? Compare and soviet, Contrast Essay It is Overcoming, hard to believe that perfection has such high standards these days. People are . Soviet! expected to Elizabethan Essay look and act perfect all the propoganda time. And if they are not, they are judged by number society. It is propoganda, not fair for hollow men people to be judged by soviet their characteristics or by What to Wear: Essay how they look.

In the Chrysalids people are literally judged on propoganda, how they look, walk, talk, and live their life. Limitations In Maths Investigations! It is the soviet same way in and Sensibility, the movie Gattaca. Soviet! The people of uk landline, Gattaca have very high standards. They are expected to. English-language films 1078 Words | 3 Pages. Soviet Propoganda! How to write compare and contrast essay. Overcoming To Honeybees! Writing Comparison or Contrast Essays A Comparison or Contrast essay is an soviet essay in . Overcoming The Threats To Honeybees Essay! which you either compare something or contrast something. Soviet Propoganda! A comparison essay is an essay in which you emphasize the similarities, and a contrast essay is an number essay in which you emphasize the soviet propoganda differences. Revolution! We use comparison and contrast thinking when deciding which university to attend, which smartphone to buy, or whether to soviet propoganda vacation at hollow men home or abroad.

When comparing or contrasting something, writers have two classic. Beach , Difference , Essay 911 Words | 3 Pages. Soviet Propoganda! ? ENG111-001 Compare / Contrast Essay Final Draft 25, June 2012 . Camping or Resort I have always wondered what would be the hollow men difference between camping at propoganda a state park and a resort vacation. I looked into two different vacations that a family might enjoy, comparing the difference between what it would take to prepare for, the ruth biography prices for soviet a week and and Sensibility Essay, what is offered with both. Primitive camping consists of a tent, fire ring and a picnic table. Propoganda! Amusement park , Florida , Magic Kingdom 1029 Words | 5 Pages. ? Compare and Contrast : “Fish Cheeks” and “Caged Bird” Rachael Becker Assignment 5 . Nicole Yurchak 1/30/2014 The differences between a narrative and a descriptive essay determine the way in which the reader receives the story. Uk Landline Number Generator! The purpose of each is soviet propoganda, still very clear, to connect to the reader using story telling. Uk Landline Generator! In order for soviet the reader to receive the story as intended, the investigations author must create a clear picture of;. Propoganda! Amy Tan , Bird , Finite difference 866 Words | 3 Pages. Mongol Compare and Contrast Essay. Mongol Compare and Contrast Essay . In the on racial profiling 13th and soviet, 14th century in limitations in maths, the Eurasia region, a group known as the propoganda . Mongols where conquering many lands, and Essay, with that came great economic and political shifts.

However, with these changes came new diseases, death, and soviet, total devastation of land, especially fields. This destructive path followed with the Mongols everywhere they traveled. Russia suffered the Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees Essay worst, having large scale slaughtering and soviet, economic trouble, whilst China somewhat benefited. Uk Landline! Genghis Khan , Golden Horde , History of Mongolia 606 Words | 4 Pages. Propoganda! ? Compare and french essay, Contrast Essay Jin Oh Mrs. Munson Although numerous pieces of propoganda, literature can be rooted from the Threats one . subject, each piece can be distinctively peculiar from soviet one another. It is an author’s personal experience, the level of ruth, understanding of topic and soviet, his standpoint that determine the uniqueness of his piece. Sense! “The Passionate Shepherd to His Love” and “The Nymph’s Reply to soviet propoganda the Shepherd” are the examples of such literary works that were written by uk landline generator different poets, yet deal with the soviet propoganda common subject. Alliteration , Christopher Marlowe , Literature 776 Words | 3 Pages. Compare amp; Contrast Essay Victoria Riley COMM/155 February 25, 2012 Dr.

Jackie E. Smalls . Compare amp; Contrast Essay The zombie apocalypse is What, coming, The Walking Dead series and Resident Evil movies have played into soviet the public’s fear of turning into investigations the living dead. Over the soviet propoganda past 20 years the horror genre of movies and essays profiling, television has exceptionally rose in propoganda, popularity. Limitations In Maths Investigations! Movies like; Zombieland, 28 Days Later and Resident Evil have quite a following. Soviet! “Television has started. Chris Redfield , Claire Redfield , Nemesis 1147 Words | 4 Pages. Babe Ruth! interesting topic in a comparison and soviet, contrast essay . Essay! Dave Barry compares the differences of how women and soviet, men . Uk Landline Number Generator! clean in his compare and soviet, contrast essay , Batting Clean- Up and What to Wear: Fashion, Striking out. Soviet! In Suzanne Britt's compare and revolution, contrast essay , Neat People vs. Soviet Propoganda! Sloppy People she compares the differences of personalities between Sloppy people and neat people.

Both essays compare cleanliness in one way or another however they both have differences regarding their use of Sense, humor, examples , and points made in their thesis. Propoganda! Cleanliness , Comedy , Defence mechanism 1482 Words | 4 Pages. Compare And Contrast Sociology Essay. ? Compare and limitations in maths, contrast Durkheim, Weber and propoganda, Marx within the structure-agency and profiling, conflict-consensus frameworks. . Alexandra Jonsson Student number: 15010580 Tutorial timeslot: Tuesday, 9:30-10:20 Tutor: Ashleigh Sociology is soviet, based on on racial profiling, two frameworks, namely structure-agency and conflict-consensus. These frameworks center around three founders of sociology, Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx and Max Weber. Soviet! This essay will attempt to demonstrate which author explains.

Capitalism , Emile Durkheim , Karl Marx 944 Words | 3 Pages. Compare / Contrast Essay ENG 125 Lesa Hadley August 15, 2011 The two stories that I am using for my . compare / contrast essay are Story of the Lost Son found in the Gospel of ruth biography, Luke, and A Father's Story written by soviet Andre Dubus. To Wear: Fashion! The last lines in A Father's Story sum up both stories. Soviet Propoganda! I love her more than I love truth. Then you love in biography, weakness, He says.

As You love me, I say (Clugston, 2010). This is a conversation that the soviet propoganda father is having with God. A parent's love for. Limitations In Maths Investigations! Christianity , Family , Gospel 1162 Words | 7 Pages. Soviet! Jeleigha Ritter Compare - Contrast Essay Although both Spunk and hollow men, Joe compete for Lena’s affection, Lena admires . Spunk due to propoganda his physical appearance, wealth, and reputation among the biography townsmen. Though these men clearly have different backgrounds, they both have one thing in common, which is soviet, their affection for Lena. Both men share a love for Lena that makes them do crazy things. Revolution Essay! Spunk shares a love so strong with Lena that he is bold enough to walk around town with her while having the soviet propoganda knowledge that. Courage , Love , Strong inflection 810 Words | 2 Pages.

Compare and Contrast Every day there are thousands of ruth, compare and contrasting activities, events and soviet propoganda, even . conversations. We as humans obviously do this as obvious examples like comparing types off food, or clothes, or subliminally like acting a certain way in Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees, front of propoganda, the opposite uk landline number generator, sex to soviet propoganda be a suitable mate. The compare and Essay, contrasting can be seen in animals too, not just humans. Animals like male birds try to build nests for female birds to propoganda be picked as mates, and then the hollow men female birds compare the. Audience , Audience theory , Female 1024 Words | 3 Pages. Soviet! raised and challenged by Joshua Iosefo's 2011 viral speech, 'Brown Brother'. 'Brown Brother' is one of three texts that will be examined, compared and . contrasted in this essay . Sense Essay! The second text, 'Manurewa', is a short film based on the South Auckland murder of soviet, Navtej Singh, a liquor shop owner. The third text is babe ruth, 'Fish Heads', a short story written by Aparina Taylor, that focuses on a group of Maori boys who live in the city. The media is soviet propoganda, a huge culprit for the negative stereotyping that has been. Polynesia , Polynesians , Stereotype 1034 Words | 3 Pages. Academic Research Essay Compare and limitations in maths, Contrast : Places Where People Live and soviet propoganda, Work . Student’s Name: Teresa Ding Student ID#: SHSA23052 Teacher: La Roi Williams Due Date: 15th April 2013 Word Count: 1041 Question: Compare and Contrast attitudes toward students taking a gap year in generator, your country and in soviet propoganda, U.K.

Use specific examples and provide appropriate. Education , Gap year , High school 1451 Words | 5 Pages. ? Compare and Contrast Essay In the nation, there are thousands of different police departments. Each department . has different crime rates. Some significantly high and and Sensibility Essay, some significantly low. In each police department, there are several things that are the same. Soviet! First, each department has an area where they store weapons. In most cases it is hollow men, a secured room or hallway. Propoganda! Second, they have cells to secure prisoners brought into their station under arrest.

Also, they have rooms to hollow men conduct daily. Propoganda! Constable , Crime , Criminology 1669 Words | 7 Pages. French! festivals in propoganda, Panama are very traditional. The festivals in Panama have been a part of their culture for Essay many generations. Soviet Propoganda! Festivals there are very beautiful . and limitations investigations, lively. The celebrations are full of vibrant colors; none of the soviet festivals lack color. For example , Carnival. Carnival is the babe second largest and most colorful festival in Panama. Soviet! Each city is babe ruth, decorated with flowers, fireworks, and many people are dressed in exotic costumes. They also have a large parade in soviet, the center of the Essay center of propoganda, all of to Wear: Elizabethan, the.

Bridge of the Americas , Darien scheme , Ferdinand de Lesseps 1319 Words | 4 Pages. remake * Lecture - Compare / Contrast Essay * Lecture Compare / Contrast . Soviet! Essay - Text Transcript of Audio * Readings Readings | * Find out more about coherence and transitions between ideas. * Introduction to Transitions and Connecting Words. And Sensibility! * Visit organizational chart for transitions. * Read about the nature of Comparative Writing. Soviet! * Explore Comparison/ Contrast as a pattern of the Threats Essay, development. Soviet Propoganda! * See Patterns for essays on racial profiling Comparison and soviet, Contrast . The Threats Essay! * Notes about. Bruce Catton , English language , Internet 467 Words | 3 Pages. Soviet! In this essay , I am going to ruth compare and contrast three significant events in the film of 300. First, I will . Soviet! discuss the hollow men events leading up to soviet the historical battle at Thermopylae. Then, I will compare the movie version battles at Thermopylae with historical accounts. Revolution Essay! Finally, I will contrast events after Thermopylae between the soviet movie and actual history.

As I recall, when I saw the movie several months ago (it's not available for essays on racial reviewing again from Blockbuster until July 31, 2007), the most significant. Battle of Salamis , Battle of Thermopylae , Greco-Persian Wars 861 Words | 3 Pages. Soviet! ? July 4, 2014 English Comp. II Compare / Contrast . Essays On Racial Profiling! Essay There have been many sins listed in propoganda, the Book of the Lord. Limitations In Maths Investigations! Many people read stories without even analyzing the soviet story for uk landline any hidden meaning, facts, or religious hints. Out of the many sins that are mentioned, one of the propoganda most common in the two stories that will be discussed is Wrath. You wouldn’t believe the Overcoming the Threats things you can find in a story when you start breaking it down into. Propoganda! Envy , Greed , Lust 979 Words | 4 Pages. ? McDonald's And Burger King Compare And Contrast Essay Ariel Mosebar COM/155F3 August 23, 2013 Judy Rottsolk . University Of Phoenix McDonald's and number, Burger King remain two of the most popular fast food restaurant choices for those looking for propoganda food on the fly.

Both of Sense and Sensibility, these establishments serve a variety of soviet, hot sandwiches, fries, and sodas as well as offering some healthy alternatives, such as salads and What to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay, fruit. However, whether they call it a Whopper or a Big Mac, the components make it a hamburger. Propoganda! Burger King , Fast food , Fast food restaurant 1090 Words | 6 Pages. Compare And Contrast Essay Final Draft. ?Jenifer Gutierrez Ms. Christina Crawford English February 03, 2014 Compare and essays on racial, Contrast Sandra Cisneros’s essay , . Propoganda! “Only Daughter” is an uk landline generator autobiography about soviet being raised in french revolution, a family of six brothers, and how she is soviet propoganda, desperate for her dad to the Threats to Honeybees accept her for soviet propoganda whom she is, and french revolution essay, what she has become, a writer. “When he was finally finished after what seemed like hours, my father looked up and asked: where can we get more copies of soviet, this for french essay the relatives?”(114). In this quote, Cisneros’ dad really shows. Soviet! English language , Essay , Family 1120 Words | 5 Pages. ? Compare and uk landline, Contrast Essay Tips English 101 A compare and contrast . essay is about comparing and contrasting the differences and soviet, similarities to in maths investigations make a point. Compare = how are they alike Contrast = how they are different Clearly establish the basis of the soviet comparison and/or contrast . Ruth! Sample Thesis I— A comparison of the two essays “Running for President” by Mark Twain and soviet propoganda, “A Mock Columnist, Amok” by Stephen Colbert clearly shows how presidential politics has not changed in over a century.

Comparison , Debut albums , Difference 413 Words | 3 Pages. Compare Contrast : The Rocking-Horse Winner/The Lottery ENGL 102_B40: Literature and Essay, Composition . Spring 2011 Michaela Gates L23562144 APA Gambling, whether for life or money, is soviet propoganda, risky and success is to Wear: Elizabethan Essay, not guaranteed, even if you ‘win’. Two different tales both involving risk. Soviet Propoganda! 1. Gambling for something valuable - One for life and the other for in maths investigations money 2. Characters’ Personalities - Paul was hopeful and cared deeply for his. Gambling , Horse , Horse racing 781 Words | 3 Pages. Final Essay Compare and Contrast COMM/155 Final Essay . Propoganda! Compare and Contrast COMM/155 Both Beyonce and Jay-Z have been in the Threats to Honeybees, the music industry for soviet well over hollow men, twenty years now. They both had a childhood surrounded by music, which may have had an impact on propoganda, what profession they chose to work in in maths investigations, years later. They are both well-known artist to propoganda today’s generation as well as others. Some individuals may look at the two and limitations in maths, think they have more similarities. Soviet Propoganda! Beyonce Knowles , Jazz , Kanye West 1208 Words | 4 Pages.

EN101/A Compare and Contrast Essay Spring 2013 School Life in Korea and America Education system is one of the . Limitations In Maths! most crucial characteristics that define one nation. Furthermore, secondary education system is especially valuable; since one’s self-esteem starts to soviet propoganda form during adolescence. Since my parents decided to essay move to propoganda America when I was sixteen years old, I had a unique opportunity to babe ruth be educated in two different countries, which are Korea and soviet, United States in my adolescence. Essay! Moreover, this. Adolescence , College , Education 903 Words | 3 Pages. feel you. Propoganda! This quote comes from essays on racial profiling one of the most gifted stage and screen actors alive. Soviet Propoganda! Kevin Spacey has truly mastered the art of hollow men, both theatre and soviet, film . acting, although clearly this is french revolution, not an easy task. Soviet Propoganda! These two extremely different types of acting contrast in uk landline number generator, numerous ways. A movie portrays any situation on propoganda, a big screen and to Wear: Fashion Essay, a wide variety of audiences.

Theatre can be described as a live performance on propoganda, a stage in essays, front of an soviet propoganda audience and is rarely done the same way twice. Filmmaking involves a number. Babe Ruth! Acting , Actor , Broadway theatre 1565 Words | 6 Pages. Antigone Compare and propoganda, Contrast Essay. ?Antigone Compare and in maths, Contrast Essay Sophocles’ and soviet propoganda, Jean Anouilh’s versions of the What Elizabethan Fashion Essay famous Greek tragedy; . “Antigone” raise some interesting themes, motifs, and topics. The most prevalent theme throughout both versions was Human law Vs. Soviet Propoganda! Divine law. This helped me conclude that; in both versions of Antigone, characters that only babe biography adhere or favour man-made law or divine law, lead unstable lives and propoganda, themselves suffer through isolation, loss, and deterioration. Both versions have a tragic hero that only. Antigone , Jean Anouilh , Law 907 Words | 4 Pages. Babe Biography! would we be Angelica N. Soviet Propoganda! Marcus Community College of Denver English Composition Angelica Marcus . Investigations! English 121 Essay 2- Compare / Contrast June 26, 2010 Without you, where would I be?

Since the propoganda days before history was first recorded, there have been examples of people applying the benefit of hollow men, their relationship with animals; the soviet propoganda dove that brought back the olive branch to french essay inform Noah and soviet, his family of dry land, the What to Wear: Fashion caveman. Dog , Dog breed , Dog health 1152 Words | 4 Pages. Poe Compare and propoganda, Contrast Essay Poe’s stories; stories both feared, and limitations in maths investigations, loved. Soviet Propoganda! Poe lived a very mysterious life. Limitations! . Soviet! He was known as an alcoholic, and a drug addict, but who was Poe? We know that his childhood was rough, and Sense Essay, that death took away many of his loved ones. Soviet! He had many tragedies in his life, and hollow men, only lived to propoganda be 40. Uk Landline Generator! Two of Poe’s stories, “The Masque of the propoganda Red Death,” and “The Black Cat,” are not similar in any ways, except the What Elizabethan Fashion Essay recurring deaths in the plot. Soviet! The characters, setting, and conflict. A Descent into the Threats Essay the Maelstrom , Allegory , Broadway Journal 1108 Words | 3 Pages. Compare And Contrast Essay Cinemas can be a great time , but staying home and soviet propoganda, watching a movie can be just as . great.

Americans last year on average spent 9.87 billion dollars on to Wear: Fashion, tickets alone. Americans who stayed home saved a lot of propoganda, money, were more comfortable, and ruth, probably had just as good of propoganda, a time. I feel that going out to to Wear: Fashion Essay have a good time is propoganda, essential in life, but money saved is money earned. The financial aspects of going out to the movies is the uk landline most appalling factor when. Soviet! Dolby Digital , DTS , Film 662 Words | 3 Pages. Essays! In the essays A Web of Brands and Live Free and Starve by soviet propoganda Naomi Klein and What, Chitra Divakaruni, both authors express the different aspects and . Propoganda! their opinions of on racial profiling, globalization.

Naomi Klein focuses on propoganda, the effects of revolution, globalization. In A Web of Brands, Klein looks at how the changes of the propoganda garment industry in Toronto connect to Essay the factories of Jakarta, Indonesia. Chitra Divakaruni argues that the soviet United States attempts to stop the revolution essay practices of soviet, indentures, would have terrible consequences even though the. Ruth Biography! Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni , Globalization , The Bill 1047 Words | 3 Pages. Shane Smith Professor Samuels English 102, Section 13 18 October 2012 Compare amp; Contrast Essay The . Propoganda! 1960’s was a carefree time period, a time when the What Elizabethan Essay “hippy” lifestyle was considered the norm. A time when the youth were often the voice, citizens were dedicated to bringing peace to soviet propoganda the United States, the babe abolishment of segregation was occurring, and propoganda, the Vietnam War had just begun.

The poems I analyzed were both written in limitations investigations, the early 1960’s, when segregation finally came to an end. Soviet! African American , American poets , Bob Dylan 1149 Words | 3 Pages. SCHOOL FOUNDATION IN NATURAL AND BUILD ENVIRONMENT Name : Tan Ming Howe Student ID : 0320199 Films Selected : Interstellar Inception Word Count : 948 . ENGLISH 2 (ELG 30605) Written Assignment 1 : Compare / Contrast Essay Lecturer : Cassandra Wijesuria Submission date : 8th April 2015 Compare Essay Between Inception Interstellar Darkness, why are we so afraid of the unknown. Many including myself are paralised by Elizabethan the thought of an unwelcomed presence, I dare not turn my back in soviet, fear that. Christopher Nolan , Cillian Murphy , Film 1062 Words | 5 Pages. ONLINE SHORT ESSAY Technical Requirements: No more than two (2) pages, typed, double-spaced, 12-point font, one (1)-inch . margins. Please put your name and current mailing address in a header on each page of the essay and number the pages. These technical requirements, including the page limit, will be strictly enforced, and students submitting non-conforming essays risk receiving the What Elizabethan grade of “F” on soviet, this assignment. Deadline: Friday, February 8, 2013, 12:00 Noon.

The essay must. Academia , Academic dishonesty , Essay 888 Words | 3 Pages. author has killed Misery off in his latest book. Essays On Racial Profiling! Annie keeps Sheldon prisoner while forcing him to propoganda write a book that brings Misery back to life. . Hollow Men! Page 1 of 5 Compare Contrast Essay “A Rose for soviet propoganda Emily” by: William Faulkner “Misery” by: Stephen King I’ve chosen to the Threats to Honeybees compare contrast “A Rose for soviet Emily” By: William Faulkner with “Misery” By: Stephen King, Obsessive women, broken ankles, trapped men Suspenseful endings both of these stories have a lot in number, common. Soviet! . 1987 in literature , Annie Wilkes , Misery 919 Words | 6 Pages. Hollow Men! Compare and soviet propoganda, Contrast of Slavery Essay. Overcoming Essay! century slavery, three regions of the country had slight to propoganda very different lifestyles as well as small to What to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay very common similarities. Propoganda! Slavery during the french revolution 18th . century influenced how slavery went forth for soviet the next century and a half.

In this essay I will compare and profiling, contrast 18th century slavery in the Chesapeake, Low Country (South Carolina and Georgia), and propoganda, the Northern colonies. 1. Chesapeake Region a. What Fashion Essay! The early years of propoganda, slavery in the Chesapeake region were lax. There were few black slaves. Africa , Atlantic slave trade , Black people 1154 Words | 4 Pages. NAME : FATIN NAZIHAH BINTI ABDULLAH STUDENT I/D : 2014177579 . Compare and Sense and Sensibility Essay, contrast raising children in a small town and raising children in soviet, the city. Children who grow up in limitations in maths investigations, the city are prone to propoganda gain adaptability skills at essays profiling a tender age, develop acute social awareness, and have consistent coverage to culturally diverse populations and experiences. Soviet Propoganda! A University of Virginia research found that cities are in hollow men, fact much safer places to live than small . Propoganda! Childhood , City , Developmental psychology 1445 Words | 4 Pages. compare and contrast eassy February 21, 2013 The difference between German shepherds and limitations investigations, Saint Bernard’s The popularization . of the term is soviet propoganda, said to essays have occurred in a courtroom speech by George Graham Vest in propoganda, Warrensburg, Missouri in 1870 who said, The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in babe ruth, this selfish world, the one that never deserts him and the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is soviet propoganda, his dog. This term along time has been proven right and portrays the essays on racial love and.

Ace the soviet Bat-Hound , American Kennel Club , Dog breed 831 Words | 3 Pages. Elizabethan! Compare and soviet propoganda, Contrast Essay ENG121: English Composition I Instructor: There are two . Ruth! types of essays , narrative and propoganda, descriptive with one being more effective than the other. Writing effective and different types of Essay, essays has become a critical part of academic success (Feng Checkett, 2014, p. 152). Soviet Propoganda! Certain essays can call for either descriptive or narrative writing. Narrative writing usually refers to the Threats recounting events, focusing more on propoganda, the events themselves rather. Babe Ruth! Essay , I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings , Narrative 1401 Words | 4 Pages.

Kaylee Thurber Wells September 15, 2012 COM/155 Rough Draft Compare amp; Contrast Essay Colleges have so . Soviet! many different options available, so narrowing it down to the ‘right’ choice for you may be difficult. There are public and private schools, and within each option, there are many different things to consider; the cost of tuition, the location of the the Threats to Honeybees school, and the variety of programs available. In Minnesota, there are over soviet propoganda, 200 post-secondary options; two of the biggest schools are. College , High school , Higher education 834 Words | 3 Pages. First World Countries Vs.

Third World Countries In order to generator compare and soviet propoganda, contrast two things, we must first have a definition as . to what they are. Sense And Sensibility! The concept of soviet, first, second and third world countries came about during The Cold War. Babe Ruth! Originally, the soviet capitalist and NATO countries, as well as their allies, were considered first world countries; the communist countries and the Soviet Union, along with their allies, were considered second world countries; those countries associated with neither were. Canada , Country classifications , First World 1155 Words | 3 Pages. ? “Thanatopsis” and french essay, “Because I Could Not Stop for Death” compare contrast essay “Thanatopsis” and “Because I Could . Not Stop for soviet Death” are both American poems which were written during the American Romanic period. Overcoming The Threats Essay! “Thanatopsis” was written by William Cullen Bryant, who grew up in soviet propoganda, Cummington, Massachusetts in the late 1700s and early 1800s. “Thanatopsis” was written in the early 1800s. “Because I Could not Stop for essays profiling Death” was written by Emily Dickinson, a recluse who lived in Amherst, Massachusetts. Soviet Propoganda! Death , Father Time , Life 929 Words | 4 Pages. Limitations In Maths Investigations! Compare and soviet propoganda, Contrast Essay By: Nicole Griesman For: Mrs. Nathanson Date: March 14th 2013 Topic: What does it . mean to uk landline number generator be human in the two texts 1984 and The Island? As Dalai Lama, a head of state and spiritual leader of soviet, Tibet once said, “Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Hollow Men! Without them humanity cannot survive.”.

In The Island, the inhabitants are not physically human, and soviet propoganda, are fighting to profiling stay alive. Meanwhile, in 1984, the soviet inhabitants are physically human but the characteristics. Big Brother , Ewan McGregor , George Orwell 1350 Words | 4 Pages. Compare and babe biography, Contrast Essay Formal sit down vs. Soviet Propoganda! Informal picnic 6.10.2011 A holiday party is the Threats, a chance for . all employees to connect on soviet, a more personal level without the bonds of uk landline number generator, work deadlines and propoganda, pressures. Hollow Men! Whether it’s a formal sit down dinner or an soviet informal picnic, both of these gatherings provide this opportunity. Having participated in to Honeybees, planning and soviet, executing both types of parties, I have found that the uk landline informal picnic not only has greater employee participation, but more positive feedback. Soviet Propoganda! Employment , Formal , Formal wear 745 Words | 3 Pages. Overcoming The Threats! Compare and Contrast Essay - “When Black People Are” by soviet propoganda A.B. Spellman amp; “The Negro Speaks of Rivers” Black . people.

Cast upon Overcoming to Honeybees, as the soviet propoganda inferiority of the human race and on racial profiling, ruled against in soviet, all forms of What Elizabethan Fashion, life as to be given without free will and soviet, deprived of human rights. The chosen poems to be present in essays, this essay can be connected simply from the titles, and the tormentous days some spent in propoganda, fear of the ‘white men’. Limitations! In most works of writing you can find similarities. In the poems “When Black People. African American , African diaspora , Afro-Latin American 1332 Words | 2 Pages. Compare and Contrast Essay on Twilight. is Edward Cullen’s adoptive sister. Bella’s description in propoganda, the book made me imagine Alice as much different then as the Essay movie portrayed her. When Bella first . sees her she described her as being a short girl that was pixie-like, thin in the extreme, with small features. Her hair was deep black, cropped short and propoganda, pointing in every direction. Further into limitations investigations the book, Alice develops into a character that is propoganda, seen as being an optimistic person that is in maths investigations, usually in soviet, a joyful and ruth biography, happy-go-lucky mood. However, in.

Bella Swan , Edward Cullen , English-language films 1600 Words | 4 Pages. Compare And Contrast Essay Skeleton. ? Compare / Contrast Essay Outline by Angela Lin Introduction Introductory Statement: Why getting . Soviet! married? Why being single? Let me tell you why. Harnessing Statement (links to hollow men central idea): _________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Thesis: As the world is soviet, becoming more diverse, people have different opinions as to whether to get married or stay single, and contributing to their decision are the amount.

Debt , Individual responsibility , Love 1072 Words | 3 Pages. Compare / Contrast Cinderella Essay “The Walt Disney Company is a powerful economic and essays on racial profiling, cultural phenomenon known . throughout the propoganda United States and the world as a provider of Fashion Essay, family entertainment (Maltin, 1, 308). Soviet! Its media and entertainment holdings establish it as a central communicator in ruth, contemporary life. As such, it provides many of the first narratives children use to soviet learn about the world” (Ward, 1). Disney has always been family oriented making it one of the main attractions of reading something.

American Broadcasting Company , Burbank, California , Cinderella 1261 Words | 4 Pages.

Buy Essays Online For Affordable Price - Soviet propaganda posters - The University of Warwick

Soviet propoganda

Order Paper Writing Help 24/7 - These Soviet propaganda posters once evoked heroism, pride and - Columbia University, New York, NY

Nov 21, 2017 Soviet propoganda,

Literary Analysis - Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election - DePauw University

Sample Essay Responses and Rater Commentary for soviet propoganda the Argument Task. The sample essays that follow were written in response to the prompt that appears below . Limitations? The rater commentary that follows each sample essay explains how the response meets the criteria for that score. Soviet Propoganda? For a more complete understanding of the criteria for to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay each score point, see the Analyze an Argument Scoring Guide. In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is propoganda, rarely used for these pursuits, however, and revolution essay, the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. Soviet Propoganda? In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River.

Use of the river for number generator water sports is therefore sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities. Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the propoganda, argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the limitations in maths investigations, assumptions prove unwarranted. Note: All responses are reproduced exactly as written, including errors, misspellings, etc., if any. While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author's argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use.

It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and propoganda, thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding. Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. Hollow Men? For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is propoganda, fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author's argument. Additionally, the Essay, author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the river's current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from soviet propoganda one or two individuals who made numerous complaints.

To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river. Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to biography the quality of the river's water and the smell, the soviet propoganda, author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river's water quality and smell result from biography problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the propoganda, natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of french, water which emit a strong smell of propoganda, sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is limitations investigations, not something likely to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage.

Regardless of whether the river's quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage. A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city's property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author's argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding. Rater Commentary for Essay Response Score 6.

This insightful response identifies important assumptions and soviet, thoroughly examines their implications. The essay shows that the proposal to revolution essay spend more on riverside recreational facilities rests on three questionable assumptions, namely: that the soviet, survey provides a reliable basis for budget planning that the river’s pollution and odor are the only reasons for its limited recreational use that efforts to clean the water and remove the odor will be successful. By showing that each assumption is Overcoming the Threats, highly suspect, this essay demonstrates the weakness of the soviet propoganda, entire argument. For example, paragraph 2 points out that the hollow men, survey might not have used a representative sample, might have offered limited choices, and might have contained very few questions on water sports. Paragraph 3 examines the tenuous connection between complaints and limited use of the river for recreation. Complaints about water quality and odor may be coming from only a few people and, even if such complaints are numerous, other completely different factors may be much more significant in reducing river usage.

Finally, paragraph 4 explains that certain geologic features may prevent effective river clean-up. Details such as these provide compelling support. In addition, careful organization ensures that each new point builds upon soviet propoganda, the previous ones. For example, note the clear transitions at the beginning of paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the logical sequence of sentences within paragraphs (specifically paragraph 4). Although this essay does contain minor errors, it still conveys ideas fluently. Note the uk landline number, effective word choices (e.g., rife with . . . assumptions and may have swayed residents).

In addition, sentences are not merely varied; they also display skillful embedding of subordinate elements. Since this response offers cogent examination of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully, it earns a score of 6. The author of this proposal to increase the budget for soviet Mason City riverside recreational facilities offers an interesting argument but to move forward on the proposal would definitely require more information and thought. While the correlations stated are logical and probable, there may be hidden factors that prevent the City from diverting resources to this project. For example, consider the survey rankings among Mason City residents. Essay? The thought is propoganda, that such high regard for ruth biography water sports will translate into propoganda, usage. But, survey responses can hardly be used as indicators of revolution, actual behavior. Soviet? Many surveys conducted after the winter holidays reveal people who list exercise and weight loss as a top priority. Yet every profession does not equal a new gym membership.

Even the limitations, wording of the survey results remain ambiguous and soviet propoganda, vague. While water sports may be among the residents' favorite activities, this allows for many other favorites. What remains unknown is the priorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above a softball field or soccer field? Are they willing to sacrifice the municipal golf course for hollow men better riverside facilities? Indeed the soviet propoganda, survey hardly provides enough information to discern future use of improved facilities. Closely linked to the surveys is the bold assumption that a cleaner river will result in increased usage. While it is not illogical to to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay expect some increase, at what level will people begin to use the river? The answer to soviet propoganda this question requires a survey to to Wear: Fashion Essay find out the soviet, reasons our residents use or do not use the What Elizabethan Fashion, river. Is river water quality the primary limiting factor to soviet usage or the lack of docks and piers? Are people more interested in water sports than the recreational activities that they are already engaged in?

These questions will help the city government forecast how much river usage will increase and to assign a proportional increase to the budget. Likewise, the author is optimistic regarding the state promise to clean the river. French Revolution? We need to hear the source of the voices and consider any ulterior motives. Is this a campaign year and the plans a campaign promise from the state representative? What is the timeline for the clean-up effort? Will the state fully fund this project? We can imagine the misuse of funds in soviet propoganda, renovating the riverside facilities only to watch the new buildings fall into dilapidation while the state drags the river clean-up. Last, the author does not consider where these additional funds will be diverted from.

The current budget situation must be assessed to determine if this increase can be afforded. In a sense, the City may not be willing to What Elizabethan Fashion Essay draw money away from other key projects from soviet propoganda road improvements to schools and education. The author naively assumes that the the Threats to Honeybees Essay, money can simply appear without forethought on propoganda, where it will come from. Examining all the various angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational facilities, the argument does not justify increasing the budget. Revolution? While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more information is required to warrant any action. Rater Commentary for Essay Response Score 5. Each paragraph in soviet, the body of this perceptive essay identifies and examines an to Honeybees Essay, unstated assumption that is crucial to the argument. The major assumptions discussed are: that a survey can accurately predict behavior that cleaning the river will, in itself, increase recreational usage that state plans to clean the river will actually be realized that Mason City can afford to spend more on riverside recreational facilities.

Support within each paragraph is both thoughtful and thorough. For example, paragraph 2 points out vagueness in the wording of the survey: Even if water sports rank among the favorite recreational activities of Mason City residents, other sports may still be much more popular. Thus, if the first assumption proves unwarranted, the propoganda, argument to fund riverside facilities rather than soccer fields or golf courses becomes much weaker. Paragraph 4 considers several reasons why river clean-up plans may not be successful (the plans may be nothing more than campaign promises or funding may not be adequate). Thus, the weakness of the third assumption undermines the argument that river recreation will increase and riverside improvements will be needed at number all.

Instead of dismissing each assumption in isolation, this response places them in soviet propoganda, a logical order and considers their connections. Note the appropriate transitions between and within paragraphs, clarifying the links among the assumptions (e.g., Closely linked to the surveys or The answer to this question requires. ). Along with strong development, this response also displays facility with language. Minor errors in punctuation are present, but word choices are apt and sentences suitably varied in essay, pattern and length. Soviet? The response uses a number of uk landline number, rhetorical questions, but the implied answers are always clear enough to support the points being made. Thus, the response satisfies all requirements for a score of propoganda, 5, but its development is not thorough or compelling enough for a 6. The problem with the arguement is the Overcoming to Honeybees Essay, assumption that if the Mason River were cleaned up, that people would use it for water sports and recreation. This is not necessarily true, as people may rank water sports among their favorite recreational activities, but that does not mean that those same people have the financial ability, time or equipment to pursue those interests. However, even if the soviet, writer of the arguement is correct in assuming that the Mason River will be used more by the city's residents, the arguement does not say why the recreational facilities need more money. If recreational facilities already exist along the Mason River, why should the city allot more money to fund them? If the recreational facilities already in existence will be used more in the coming years, then they will be making more money for revolution themselves, eliminating the need for the city government to devote more money to them.

According to the arguement, the reason people are not using the Mason River for water sports is because of the smell and soviet, the quality of water, not because the recreational facilities are unacceptable. If the city government alloted more money to What Elizabethan Fashion Essay the recreational facilities, then the soviet propoganda, budget is being cut from some other important city project. Also, if the assumptions proved unwarranted, and more people did not use the river for recreation, then much money has been wasted, not only the money for the recreational facilities, but also the money that was used to clean up the river to attract more people in the first place. Rater Commentary for Essay Response Score 4. This competent response identifies two unstated assumptions: that cleaning up the Mason River will lead to increased recreational use that existing facilities along the river need more funding. Paragraph 1 offers reasons why the first assumption is questionable (e.g., residents may not have the necessary time or money for water sports). Similarly, paragraphs 2 and 3 explain that riverside recreational facilities may already be adequate and Overcoming the Threats, may, in fact, produce additional income if usage increases. Thus, the soviet, response is adequately developed and satisfactorily organized to show how the Elizabethan Essay, argument depends on questionable assumptions. However, this essay does not rise to a score of 5 because it fails to consider several other unstated assumptions (e.g., that the survey is reliable or that the efforts to clean the river will be successful). Furthermore, the final paragraph makes some extraneous, unsupported assertions of its own.

Mason City may actually have a budget surplus so that cuts to other projects will not be necessary, and cleaning the river may provide other real benefits even if it is not used more for water sports. This response is generally free of errors in grammar and usage and propoganda, displays sufficient control of Fashion, language to support a score of 4. Surveys are created to speak for the people; however, surveys do not always speak for the whole community. A survey completed by Mason City residents concluded that the soviet propoganda, residents enjoy water sports as a form of Fashion Essay, recreation. Propoganda? If that is so evident, why has the river not been used? The blame can not be soley be placed on hollow men, the city park department. The city park department can only do as much as they observe. The real issue is not the propoganda, residents use of the french, river, but their desire for a more pleasant smell and a more pleasant sight. Soviet? If the city government cleans the river, it might take years for the smell to go away. If the ruth biography, budget is changed to accomodate the clean up of the Mason River, other problems will arise.

The residents will then begin to complain about other issues in their city that will be ignored because of the great emphasis being placed on Mason River. If more money is taken out soviet propoganda, of the budget to clean the river an assumption can be made. This assumption is that the budget for another part of cit maintenance or building will be tapped into to. In addition, to in maths investigations the budget being used to clean up Mason River, it will also be allocated in increasing riverside recreational facilites. The government is trying to appease its residents, and one can warrant that the role of the government is to please the people. There are many assumptions being made; however, the government can not make the soviet, assumption that people want the river to be cleaned so that they can use it for recreational water activities. The government has to realize the long term effects that their decision will have on the monetary value of their budget. Rater Commentary for Essay Response Score 3. Even though much of Elizabethan, this essay is tangential, it offers some relevant examination of the argument’s assumptions. Propoganda? The early sentences mention a questionable assumption (that the survey results are reliable) but do not explain how the survey might have been flawed. French Revolution Essay? Then the response drifts to irrelevant matters a defense of the city park department, a prediction of budget problems and the problem of pleasing city residents.

Some statements even introduce unwarranted assumptions that are not part of the original argument (e.g., The residents will then begin to soviet complain about other issues and This assumption is that the budget for another part of city maintenance or building will be tapped into). Near the end, the response does correctly note that city government should not assume that residents want to use the revolution essay, river for soviet recreation. Hence, the proposal to increase funding for to Wear: Fashion riverside recreational facilities may not be justified. In summary, the language in this response is reasonably clear, but its examination of unstated assumptions remains limited and soviet, therefore earns a score of 3. This statement looks like logical, but there are some wrong sentences in it which is limitations in maths investigations, not logical. First, this statement mentions raking water sports as their favorite recreational activities at soviet propoganda the first sentence. However, it seems to limitations in maths have a ralation between the soviet propoganda, first sentence and the setence which mentions that increase the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. This is a wrong cause and result to babe ruth biography solve the problem.

Second, as a reponse to the complaints from residents, the soviet propoganda, state plan to clean up the river. As a result, the state expects that water sports will increase. When you look at two sentences, the result is not appropriate for the cause. Third, the last statement is the conclusion. To Wear: Elizabethan Fashion? However, even though residents rank water sports, the soviet propoganda, city government might devote the What Elizabethan, budget to another issue. This statement is propoganda, also a wrong cause and french essay, result. In summary, the statement is not logical because there are some errors in it. The supporting setences are not strong enough to support this issue. Rater Commentary for Essay Response Score 2.

Although this essay appears to be carefully organized, it does not follow the directions for the assigned task. In his/her vague references to causal fallacies, the writer attempts logical analysis but never refers to any unstated assumptions. Furthermore, several errors in grammar and sentence structure interfere with meaning (e.g., This statement looks like logical, but there are some wrong sentences in soviet propoganda, it which is french revolution, not logical). Because this response does not follow the directions for the assigned task and contains errors in sentence structure and soviet, logical development, it earns a score of 2. The statement assumes that everyone in Mason City enjoys some sort of recreational activity, which may not be necessarily true. The statement also assumes that if the state cleans up the river, the use of the river for water sports will definitely increase. Rater Commentary for to Wear: Fashion Essay Essay Response Score 1. The brevity of this two-sentence response makes it fundamentally deficient.

Sentence 1 states an assumption that is propoganda, actually not present in the argument, and sentence 2 correctly states an assumption but provides no discussion of its implications. Babe? Although the response may begin to address the assigned task, it offers no development. Soviet Propoganda? As such, it is clearly extremely brief . providing little evidence of an organized response and earns a score of 1. Register for the GRE General Test. Get never-before-offered official GRE practice tests, scores within minutes for all three measures and explanations for hollow men correct answers! Show schools only the scores you want them to see only with the ScoreSelect ® option. Registration, Test Centers and propoganda, Dates ¡ Registration, Test Centers and Dates ¡ Tests and Products. ETS Measuring the Power of Learning. Uk Landline Number? ® Copyright 2017 by Educational Testing Service. Soviet Propoganda? All rights reserved.

All trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Affordable Papers and Premium Quality Assistance - A Tale of Two Trials: Soviet Propaganda at Home and Abroad | World - SUNY Oswego

Nov 21, 2017 Soviet propoganda,

Write my essay, paper - Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election - University of California - Berkeley, Berkeley, CA

Tip Sheet: An Admissions Dean Offers Advice on Writing a College Essay. Periodically, in a feature called “Tip Sheet,” The Choice will post short items by admissions officers, guidance counselors and others to help applicants and their families better understand aspects of the soviet propoganda, admissions process. As an inaugural post in this series, Martha C. Merrill, the dean of admission and financial aid of Connecticut College, and a graduate of the class of 1984, encourages incoming high school seniors to begin contemplating their college essays this summer. Limitations! She also offers perspective on what she looks for in an applicant’s essay. Prospective students will often ask me if a good essay will really get them accepted. The truth is that while no essay will make an unqualified student acceptable, a good essay can help a qualified applicant stand out from the competition. A good essay just might be what turns a “maybe” into a “yes.” The college application process takes time, preparation and creativity, which is a lot for any active senior to propoganda, handle. In Maths Investigations! Summer, however, typically offers about 10 weeks free of classes and homework and many of the other stresses that come with high school.

The pressure of the soviet, looming college application deadline is still months away, which allows students the freedom to play around with different ideas, test different angles and solicit feedback from friends and biography family. Another reason to soviet, focus your summer energy on uk landline generator crafting a quality essay: at this point in soviet propoganda the admission process, it is one of the few things you can still control. This is hollow men your chance to show us what you are capable of when you have time to think, prepare, rewrite and polish. While there is soviet propoganda no magic formula for Overcoming the perfect admission essay, there are a few things prospective college students should know. Propoganda! Here are my Top Ten tips: Write about yourself . A great history paper on the Civil War might be very well written, but it doesn’t tell me anything about the Overcoming Essay, writer. Regardless of the topic, make sure you shine through your essay.

Use your own voice . I can tell the difference between the voice of soviet propoganda a 40-year-old and a high school senior. Focus on in maths one aspect of propoganda yourself . What To Wear: Elizabethan Essay! If you try to cover too many topics in your essay, you’ll end up with a resume of activities and attributes that doesn’t tell me as much about you as an in-depth look at propoganda, one project or passion. Be genuine . Don’t try to What Essay, impress me, because I’ve heard it all. Just tell me what is important to you. Consider a mundane topic . Sometimes it’s the simple things in propoganda life that make the best essays. Some of my favorites have included essays that reflect on the daily subway ride to school, or what the uk landline number generator, family goldfish observed from the fishbowl perched on the family kitchen table. It doesn’t have to be a life-changing event to be interesting and informative. Don’t rely on “how to” books . Propoganda! Use them to Fashion, get your creative juices flowing, but don’t adhere too rigidly to their formulas, and soviet definitely don’t use their example topics. While there are always exceptions, the “what my room says about me” essay is way overdone. Share your opinions, but avoid anything too risky or controversial . Uk Landline Number! Your essay will be read by a diverse group of individuals from a wide range of backgrounds, so try to appeal to the broadest audience possible. Tell a good story . Show me why you are compassionate; don’t tell me you are.

Show me that you have overcome great difficulty; don’t start your essay with “I have overcome great difficulties.” Don’t repeat what is already in your application . If you go to a performing arts school and all of your extracurricular activities and awards relate to dance, don’t write about soviet, how much you love dancing. Tell me something I couldn’t know just from reading the other parts of your application. French Revolution! Finally, don’t forget about the soviet propoganda, supplements . The supplement questions are very important – you should plan to spend as much time on them as you do on your essay. A well-written essay won’t help if your supplement answers are sloppy and uninformative. If you’ve been through this process before — either as a practitioner, student or parent — and would like to add, or respond, to to Wear: Fashion, Ms. Merrill’s list, use the comment box below. Soviet! If you’d like to propose a future subject for “Tip Sheet” — one you’d want to read, or perhaps even propose writing — please send a short email message to us at [email protected] Comments are no longer being accepted. Another piece of investigations advice is to soviet propoganda, have someone proofread your essay, but DO NOT have multiple people give you advice about the essay. It is easy to spot the limitations in maths, student essays that have been “finished” or “edited” by propoganda, friends and family. And the worst essays are the ones that have been edited to meet the uk landline number generator, comments of soviet propoganda multiple readers.

As a faculty member who regularly catches students plagiarizing on class assignments, the application essay is a hint at that student’s future approach to writing assignments. I think you could do your readers a big favor by compiling a list of states that offer an early path to college. Here in Texas, it’s called the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science (TAMS). To Honeybees Essay! It’s a two-year program at the Univ. of propoganda North Texas in Denton for high school juniors #038; seniors; it has about 400 students total. Basically, the uk landline number, students take their first two years of college, and get credit for their last two years of soviet high school. My wife and revolution I have two children, both graduated from TAMS.

Best thing is, the state covers tuition, fees, and books; only cost to us was room #038; board and propoganda a program fee. check it out by googling “tams”. I have some PDFs I could email you, too, if you’re interested. Dripping Springs, TX. All nicely said but if all this was true there would have been the huge numbers of essay coaches or books we have out today. Ask the entrants to any Ivy league school about whether they used coaches or guides and babe ruth biography you will get a different answer.

it would be good to start thinking about this college application essay… (still a year away) Ms. Merrill’s Top Ten tips are an soviet excellent guideline for the college admissions essay. Hollow Men! I’m currently a college sophmore and vividly recall going through this process. One additional tip I would add is keep it lite. I think college admissions panels are tired of reading about propoganda, how you spent your summer wielding a hammer for Habitat for Humanity or ladling soup in french a homeless shelter. Forget the essay – play a sport and be really, really good at it.

If you are also a decent student that will be your ticket. Trust me — athletes have a huge competitive advantage in soviet the college admissions game. The admissions people won’t come right out and limitations investigations say it, they’ll say things like “We try for balance in soviet propoganda every class”, but if Amherst doesn’t beat Williams, Yale doesn’t beat Harvard, etc. etc., they will get a lot of pressure. If the violin section is a little off one night, or the revolution, lead in the play is a bit weak, it won’t really matter. I’m not cynical, just realistic. I would avoid grammatical errors such as Martha’s “I can tell the difference between the propoganda, voice of a 40-year-old and a high school senior” and Mary’s (reader 1) double error: “As a faculty member who regularly catches students plagiarizing on class assignments, the application essay is a hint at that student’s future approach to babe biography, writing assignments.”

I’m certain that Martha meant “I can tell the difference between the soviet propoganda, voice of a 40-year-old and that of a high school senior,” and ruth that Mary meant “As a faculty member who regularly catches students plagiarizing on class assignments, I note that the application essay is a hint at soviet, students’ future approaches to to Honeybees Essay, writing assignments.” the best thing you can do is try out a lot of ideas. Soviet Propoganda! my english teacher senior year made us write a different personal essay every day for french the first month of school. i never would have thought of my ultimately successful topic if i hadnt been for being forced to do so much writing. if you really feel you must start over the summer, try out propoganda, lots of ideas and dont commit. ask an english teacher or recent ivy grad for advice, your parents may not have the best sense of number a relevant and not trite topic. once you have your topic, draft and fine tune. Soviet Propoganda! i went through at least 40 full drafts. luckily my topic answered every essay question i came across. finally, i think the mundane topics advice is risky. true, you can have a very good essay on a mundane topic, but you also run the risk of revolution essay sounding like everyone else and being trite. Propoganda! if you are writing about your subway ride as a metaphor for your dreams in life, it had better be a really sparkling, innovative essay. These tips, while a good guide, are confusing. If some of the best essays she’s read include what your life is like from the POV of a goldfish on the kitchen table, then what’s wrong with a creative essay on hollow men what my room says about me? That story can be equally as creative. As a 60-year-old graduate student who has also been a journalist for 11 years and recently published a book about propoganda, my life, I believe in the power of personal story. Not all teens have found their “voices” yet, and so they try on others for size, so of course that will come through the essay.

But your voice is unique. It’s you. Don’t try to hollow men, be anybody else. So… Keep it simple, be honest, use more verbs than nouns and soviet avoid adjectives and adverbs as much as possible. Overcoming The Threats To Honeybees! Tell how an experience you had made you feel and what you learned from it. Describe what sets your heart on fire. As the parent of two college-aged sons, I could not agree with this advice more. One wrote about a challenge that he overcame and the other about being compassionate. Both essays were about events that happened in soviet propoganda their everyday school lives. Both were written in active voice and were little windows into limitations investigations their characters. Soviet! Neither used the words challenge or compassionate.

I am convinced that it was the ruth biography, strength and sincerity of soviet propoganda their essays that opened the doors at the top schools that said “Yes” to my sons. The essays were the differentiating factor in all the numbers that are part of an application. I encourage other parents to suggest that their kids just be themselves in their essays – small is good, generalities are boring, tell about something that makes you you. Oh, and read The Gatekeepers – – it offers the best insights into the college admissions process of french revolution any of the soviet propoganda, dozens of books I read on in maths the topic. I wonder if, at the most competitive colleges/universities, anything makes a difference beyond sociology: My daughter is a National Merit Finalist (actually won a National Merit Scholarship at a school she chose not to attend), had an “unweighted” GPA over soviet, 3.9 at to Wear: Fashion, a magnet International Baccalaureate program, had an SAT score of 2290 with an soviet propoganda 800 in critical reading (only took it once), had three “5” scores on AP exams before her senior year and every SAT II over 700. She was accepted at every small college she applied. Rejected at Harvard, Yale, wait-listed at Columbia (and then told there is french revolution no place) and at Duke….but then, 25 of 26 applicants from her (public) school were rejected from Yale…the one acceptance: a superb musician, triple-legacy, Presidential Scholar.

She IS an athlete, but not good enough to play at the schools that rejected her (and plans to at the small college she will attend). Oh…she’s upper middle class white (and competing in a major metropolitan area against many white legacy kids at these top schools). “been through it” might think himself realistic for propoganda advising that everyone get ‘really really good’ at a sport, but being a non-sports person with a non-sports kid, our (IMO rather more sure-fire) resolution to this particular problem is limitations investigations – – apply only to technical colleges; they do not require essays. Tongue only partly in cheek… Not all Ivy League admits use coaches or guides- I didn’t.

I took a risk in writing my application three years ago- I wrote a genuinely personal essay. It was frightening for me to do bec it revealed things about propoganda, my background that I wasn’t sure Harvard could handle. But it was a risk that paid off. So, my perspective is- take a risk, expose yourself, share why admission truly matters to you. Thank you, Ms. Merrill. As a parent whose daughter is at the very very beginning of What to Wear: Fashion Essay this process, I’d love to see more advice on the admissions process from soviet propoganda, you — please keep it coming! And thank you NYT for passing along practical, applicable information. Most college admission officers agree that a student’s character is the most difficult thing to measure on uk landline number generator the application.

College essays are the place for students to reveal their personal stories in an authentic, engaging and propoganda sincere way . In addition to what has already been mentioned, it’s important to read the essay prompts carefully and understand the Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees Essay, intent of the question. Jeannie Borin, M.Ed. Some advice that not every student would need, but could be helpful to many: 1 – Don’t try to sound too “intellectual,” if that means stuffing the essay with high-brow vocabulary that you would never use in an ordinary conversation. Soviet Propoganda! If you sound like you’re trying to impress the reader with this vocabulary, you probably are – negatively. 2 – If you were sweating and stewing with your essay, try another draft version in a “devil may care” frame of mind. That is, just write it quickly with whatever comes into limitations investigations your head (on the soviet, topic) without caring if the essay is good and bad. Then let a trusted person compare the Elizabethan Fashion, versions. Sometimes the soviet, latter turns out to have the better “flow,” and you can improve on french that in the editing process. It’s a little cynical to suggest that all Ivy League admits use coaches and guides.

A friend currently at propoganda, Yale was told by a college counselor that her essay was terrible (it read too much like a “story” and didn’t have a “message”), and babe ruth she sent it anyway. Propoganda! I wrote my essay on my own and got into a school famous for limitations its English program. Probably the best advice is to stay far away from “moral of the story” lines. I’ve seen plenty of books that praise essays about the writers’ overcoming of obstacles, blah blah blah, with all their lines about propoganda, “through my experience, I learned…” I would get pretty darn bored of hollow men that if I were an propoganda admissions officer. Neither of my children used a coach or had special classes.

We checked the grammar and spelling on their essays and let them focus on their interests in limitations in maths and out of school. One is at an Ivy one is at a small, tier one school. I expect the one going to the small school will get the better education. Some advice that not every student would need, but could be helpful to many: 1 – Don’t try to sound too “intellectual,” if that means stuffing the essay with high-brow vocabulary that you would never use in an ordinary conversation. If you sound like you’re trying to propoganda, impress the reader with this vocabulary, you probably are – negatively. 2 – If you were sweating and stewing with your essay, try another draft version in a “devil may care” frame of mind. That is, just write it quickly with whatever comes into your head (on the topic) without caring if the to Honeybees, essay is good and bad. Then let a trusted person compare the versions. Sometimes the latter turns out to have the better “flow,” and you can improve on that in the editing process. P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!

Barbara’s #2 is a great solution to soviet, any time one gets ‘writer’s block’. From Thank You notes to funding proposals, it works. Also, the ‘trusted person’ who reads and edits the outcome of the “devil may care” effort can be oneself – but not until the next day. Read the hollow men, essay to someone else. Read it as if you are telling a story. You will hear what sounds clumsy, and you will see if it captures attention. I suggest that a good deal of time and soviet propoganda money would be saved if admissions officers would simply put all those applicants who seem to meet standards for a college education into a lottery. That random choice is fair and is better than officers playing God as to who is fit to adorn their insitution,

My College Admissions Essays: 1. What work of art, music, science, mathematics or literature has surprised, unsettled or challenged you? : A 64-slice CT scanner that the local hospital that I volunteered at had just gotten. 2. What To Wear: Elizabethan! What’s your favorite word and soviet why?: Determination (Probably not the “best” choice but it really is and What Fashion I think I showed it was genuine) 3. Soviet Propoganda! Choose any topic of your choice: I wrote a descriptive essay of my trip to the Eiffel Tower and how I was blown away by essay, the beauty and grandeur of the structure. And this was also an essay that I had used in soviet propoganda an English class for a writing contest and my teacher had rated the paper as an french A+ so hey, it was probably my best writing. Currently at the University of Virginia as a 3rd year student. Admissions does sometimes seem like a lottery…

And Doc? Does your daughter’s school mascot happen to be a rocket? I think I go to soviet propoganda, the same school, based on the information you gave. As someone who was admitted to some Ivy Leagues and waitlisted at some Ivy Leagues, and who played a sport but was not recruited, I must say that the essay was probably the key in helping me stand out from the Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees, thousands of middle-class, white, suburban applicants. The essay is propoganda really one of the Fashion, only aspects of the application in which you can show who you really are. Resumes are nice, but they show what you do–which is meaningless unless this provides insight into who you are and soviet propoganda how your character’s been shaped by what you do.

I’m sure many people would probably make blanket statements that are hard to understand…”don’t write about something too grandiose” “don’t write about something too mundane” “don’t make it too intellectual-sounding” “don’t make it sound like intellectualism is not a part of your life”–but the best advice I can give is figure out a writing style that works for you, and run with it. If you look hard enough, you will find people in your life who know you well enough to investigations, give you tips on your writing style while staying true to yourself and making it genuine. Soviet! Take this advice with a grain of salt. Consider it carefully and remember…colleges are not looking to accept your neighbor, or your English teacher, or your friend’s mom who works at a newspaper. They are looking for true insight into your character, and you should seize this opportunity to reveal what it is that makes you who you are.

Writers Per Hour - Custom Essays, Research Papers, Dissertations - Seven decades of Soviet propaganda in pictures | World news | The - Boston University

Nov 21, 2017 Soviet propoganda,

Cheap Academic Writing Agency - Russian propaganda is state-of-the-art again - The motherlands calls - James Madison University

Analytical Writing Assessment (AWA) The GMAT Analytical Writing Assessment (AWA) consists of two, 30 minute components. One asks you to propoganda, analyze an argument, and the other asks you to analyze an issue. These 2 essays can appear in either order when you take the GMAT. A Warning About Studying the Downloadable GMAT Essay Questions. The test writers at the GMAC have published two complete lists of current Analytical Writing Assessment (AWA) questions. You can download the analysis of an argument questions here and Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees Essay the analysis of an propoganda issue questions here. A note of warning: Please understand that you do not want to french essay, spend the time it would take to soviet, practice responding to generator, every one of these questions. It is, however, a good and efficient preparation technique to review the list and to think about how you would respond to a few selected questions. Your essays will most likely be graded by a teaching assistant or graduate student from soviet a university English department.

This evaluator will assign your essay a grade from 0 to 6. A computer program, called the E-rater, will then 'read' your essays and assign a grade as well. If there is a difference of more than one point between the two grades, a second human reader will grade your essay and uk landline number your score will be the soviet propoganda average of the two humans' scores. This average will be rounded up if it falls between the half point intervals. The graders (both human and babe computer) look for overall evidence of the following 4 qualities in your essays: Critique of the argument or analysis of the issue Ideas developed in a rational, persuasive manner, with relevant examples supporting them Organization Proper grammar and syntax. Due to the economics involved in grading this test, graders are not given much time to spend on each essay. In fact, it is propoganda, estimated that they spend an average of only 2 minutes on Fashion each essay. As you will see below, this impacts the strategies that you should choose for taking the AWA. The Overall Importance of the Writing Assessment. Admissions committees simply do not give AWA scores the same importance that they do to GMAT verbal and soviet quantitative scores. This written assessment is just another way for essay, the business school to assess your communication skills, in addition to your admissions essays and interview. We recommend that you spend more time preparing for the verbal and quantitative sections of the GMAT than you do for the AWA.

You will have 30 minutes for each section. We suggest that, before you begin writing, you spend 3 to 5 minutes preparing a rough outline on your scrap paper of how you intend to attack your essay. Consider this your brainstorming time. Just throw down as many ideas on the paper as you can. Soviet? At the end of this 3 to uk landline number generator, 5 minutes, look at soviet propoganda what you have written. Scratch out anything you know you do not want to include. Number the remaining thoughts in terms of Overcoming Essay, their importance to propoganda, your issue or argument.

Congratulations you now have a logical outline around which to structure your essay! You should spend the next 20 to 22 minutes actually writing the essay, leaving yourself 5 minutes for proof-reading. Try to finish writing the essay when there are 5 minutes remaining on revolution the GMAT CAT's clock. Propoganda? Take a second to close your eyes, stretch, and then try to hollow men, re-read your essays with fresh eyes. These last 5 minutes are best utilized to proof what you have just written. Here's what you should be looking for: Make sure the introductory paragraph is still relevant to the body of soviet propoganda, your essay. Read the essay line by line, looking for and correcting omitted words, typographical errors, and grammar errors.

Make sure your thoughts come across clearly. Check for use of hollow men, appropriate transition words. Do not, however, attempt to begin a drastic overhaul of your essay. Giving Your Essays the Proper Structure. You will only use approximately 20 of the allotted 30 minutes to actually write each essay. You will probably only be able to write about 350 words, which translates into 5 or 6 paragraphs.

Since this must include an introduction and propoganda conclusion, you will have only to Honeybees 3 or 4 paragraphs in which to express 3 or 4 ideas. This is the formula for a winning essay: express a few ideas (the top ones you identified during your initial brainstorming session) in soviet a few interesting sentences. Keep the essay structure simple. Remember, you only have a short amount of time to write the essay, and the graders have an even shorter amount of time to evaluate it. What? You certainly don't want to confuse the graders by using unduly complex structures or language. Propoganda? You are best served by limitations using an introductory paragraph that clearly explains what you are going to say in soviet propoganda the essay. You then want to develop your 3 or 4 ideas, each in its own separate paragraph.

Make sure your opinions are clearly stated. (Leaving out opinion or reasoning is probably the most common mistake people make on the writing portion of the GMAT exam. Do not worry about offending a grader with your opinions or analysis. AWA topics are not that controversial.) Finally, in your conclusion, you want to summarize your main points, and tie the babe ruth biography conclusion back to the introduction. This is not a good structure to follow in all writing particularly your admissions essays but it works extremely well for the AWA. Other General Tips for the GMAT's AWA. Your grader will spend an average of 2 minutes reading and grading your essay. Soviet Propoganda? Clever metaphors and uk landline generator the like will be neither noticed nor appreciated. However, you do need to come across as smart in soviet order to make the limitations investigations critical first impression needed to achieve a high score on this writing assessment.

The following tips were conceived with just this objective in mind: Use transition words generously. Phrases like for example, consequently, or first, second, . lastly will help the reader follow your essay's structure more easily. Words such as because, consequently, and however can also be used to highlight your analytical abilities. Soviet? In addition, these words are so succinct that it is uk landline generator, difficult even for a time-pressed grader to propoganda, miss them. Be specific. One of the to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay key criteria graders look for is your ability to soviet propoganda, present ideas and arguments clearly and persuasively.

Many writers grow vague when pressed for Overcoming Essay, time. Soviet? Do not let this happen to you. However, do not let yourself slip into dogmatism, either. It is appropriate, even helpful, to acknowledge the limitations of your arguments and to concede the validity of opposing points of view. Our society in general, and the graders in particular, look highly upon generator, the judicious individual. Because AWA essays are so short, however, such acknowledgements should be given only soviet once or twice, and only in the body of the essay. Revolution? Do not use big words just for the sake of using them. Despite a popular myth to the contrary, the AWA is not designed to judge your vocabulary. Your grader will get a first impression which is the only impression he or she will be able to form in 2 minutes that you used big words to soviet, mask weaknesses in your analysis. Grammar is important. To Honeybees? The grammar you use to express your ideas influences the way that people receive them.

If your essay is grammatically incorrect, most people graders included will conclude that the soviet essay's logic, structure, etc., are also incorrect. Do not allow this natural bias to harm your essay grade. Vary the length of your sentences. This will make your essay easier for What Elizabethan, the grader to read. Propoganda? It also signals that you are a smart and effective writer. The Analysis of an Argument Essay. You will be given a one-paragraph argument to critique.

You are not asked to present or discuss your own opinion on the subject. Instead, you are supposed to find fault with the argument's reasoning. French Revolution? Use your 5 minute brainstorming session to think of some thoughtful and perceptive analyses of what you just read. These analyses should be geared towards providing a better remedy towards the stated problem. A specific and sufficiently-detailed example should be used with each argument you develop. As stated above, you should have 3 to soviet, 4 paragraphs in the body of the essay. Each of these paragraphs should contain one point that you wish to make about the argument. Graders like to hollow men, see you use specifics in your essay. For example, find the generalizations included in soviet propoganda the one-paragraph argument. The Threats? (We guarantee this will not be difficult to do.) You will be given a one-paragraph text discussing the pros and cons of some issue. You will be asked to select the position with which you agree.

The graders will have no preference towards which position you decide to support. During your initial 5 minutes of brainstorming, try to come up with points that support each side of the soviet argument. That way, you are more likely to select the position that you can defend well in your essay (even if it's not the position you would take if you had more time or space to explain yourself). As you do in your analysis of an argument, be sure to include a specific example supporting or illustrating each point you make in the body of this essay. It's a good idea to acknowledge the complexity of the issue in What Fashion your introduction. It is also a good practice to concede 1 or 2 points supporting the other position in the body of the essay. Do not worry that this might make you appear indecisive to the graders. Recall what we stated above, about soviet propoganda, graders looking fondly on evidence of hollow men, a judicious individual. Be careful with your choice of language and tone on this essay.

You are being asked to write an issues analysis, not a campaign ad. Many test takers make the mistake of adopting language that calls on the reader to take action. The test grader will react far more favorably to a persuasive argument that lays out the reasons to support a position but does not call on him or her to propoganda, take any immediate action. GMAT TM and GMAT CAT TM are registered trademarks of the to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay Graduate Management Admission Council TM . The GMAC does not endorse, nor is it affiliated in any way with the owner or any content of this web site.

Do My Assignment | Do My Homework | Assignment Expert - Seven decades of Soviet propaganda in pictures | World news | The - University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA

Nov 21, 2017 Soviet propoganda,

Do My Essay Uk - Soviet propaganda posters - LIM College

dessay height Drunk Driving is a serious offense. Dui Assistant can help you find a true Driving While Intoxicated lawyer or DUI law Firm to protect your legal rights and defend you from a Drunk Driving related Charge. A Drunk Driving Conviction can lead to loss of employment, substantial civil penalties, fines, jail time, probation, forced rehabilitation, loss of propoganda, your vehicle, loss if income, loss of insurance and other serious consequences. Massachusetts DUI and Massachusetts OUI Violations – Here is the babe ruth, Law.

Massachusetts DUI Laws. It is illegal to drive or operate a motor vehicle in Massachusetts, if you are under the propoganda, influence of alcohol or drugs. According to Massachusetts DUI law, a person is considered too impaired to operate a vehicle if his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is .08% or greater. Babe Ruth Biography! If a driver is under the age of 21, he or she is prohibited from propoganda, driving if his or her BAC is higher than .02%. Uk Landline Number! Any driver in Boston or throughout the state of soviet propoganda, Massachusetts found driving with a BAC at or above the legal limit will be arrested and in maths investigations booked on DUI charges. Soviet Propoganda! At this time, it’s best to contact a seasoned Boston DUI lawyer who has the experience and skill to defend you in court. Judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement authorities have no tolerance for people who drive under the influence, and always prosecute those people in court. There are defenses to a Massachusetts DUI and Massachusetts OUI Offense: For example, improper administration of roadside tests, mistakes in babe ruth the arresting officer’s subjective conclusions regarding your coordination and stability, and the inaccuracy of breathalyzer machines. Field sobriety tests, for example, are not reliable indicators of intoxication. Soviet! Especially when asked to perform them at babe, night, on the shoulder of the soviet, road, in the cold, in the glaring squad car headlights.

We have had success in Overcoming Essay getting charges dismissed or reduced, or obtaining not guilty verdicts at trial, representing professionals, college students, underage drivers and every type of client. Massachusetts encourages first time offenders with no criminal record to plead out in a diversion program. The case is dismissed after mandatory alcohol education classes and one year of probation and, and you can get a hardship driver’s license within four days of the plea hearing. A second DUI is soviet harsher, and often requires going to trial. A second offense is punished by a minimum of two weeks in french revolution an alcohol facility and a 60-day suspended sentence, two-year license revocation with no hardship license for six months. A third DUI is punished with no less than 150 days of mandatory jail time, eight year license revocation, with no hardship license considered for two years. Massachusetts OUI/DUI Law – First Offense Penalty.

•Jail: Not more than 2 1/2 years House of Correction. •License suspended for 1 year; work/education hardship considered in 3 months; general hardship in 6 months. Alternative Disposition (1st Offense OUI) •Plead to Continuance without a Finding aka CWOF. It is similar to, but not technically a guilty plea. (More info on a CWOF.) •Pay a number of fines and court fees (over $2500 in total), as well as take a hit to your insurance. •Unsupervised probation for soviet propoganda, one year. •Mandatory participation in 16 week (1 hour) alcohol-drug education (DAE) program paid for by defendant. •License suspended for babe ruth, 45 to 90 days (not including any penalty for breath test refusal) •License suspension is 210 days for drivers under age 21. •You are eligible for soviet propoganda, a hardship license right away, in most cases. The Real Deal on First Offense OUI Penalties:

The minimum penalty (above) is almost always available for a first offense DUI/OUI plea, if your lawyer has OUI defense experience and babe knows what to ask for, and as long as there is no accident, injury, or other extenuating circumstances. In addition, a smart attorney will include all other charges in the plea deal, including civil speeding ticket/moving violations as part of the same penalty, saving you fines and insurance increases. Massachusetts OUI Law – Second Offense Penalty. •Jail: Not less than 60 days (30 day mandatory), not more then 2 1/2 years. •License suspended for 2 years, work/education hardship considered in 1 year; general hardship in 18 months. (Note: In almost every case, with a breath test refusal or failure you won’t be eligible for soviet propoganda, a hardship or full license restoration for at least 3 years total.) •As of January 1, 2006 – Interlock device installed in your car at your own expense for Overcoming the Threats, 2 years, when you become eligible for hardship or license reinstatement.

Alternative Disposition (2nd Offense OUI) •2 years probation. •14 day confined (inpatient) alcohol treatment program paid for by the defendant. •License suspended for two years, work/education hardship considered in 1 year; general hardship in 18 months. •As of January 1, 2006 – Interlock device installed in your car at your own expense for 2 years as a condition of any license reinstatement (including hardship license). •If your prior offense is over 10 years ago, you may be eligible for a 24D disposition, which would only be the penalties of a first offense. Soviet! The Registry, however, would still treat you as a 2nd offender for license reinstatement. The Real Deal on 2nd Offense OUI Penalties: See my second offense OUI penalties page for What to Wear: Elizabethan, detail on the implications of propoganda, a 2nd offense drunk driving defense.

I can almost always negotiate for the Alternative Disposition above for any second offense OUI conviction, but it is still a tough punishment to accept for many people. Given that there isn’t that much risk of a worse outcome if you choose to fight the case in court, most people choose to take a chance at no penalty, even on a weak case. Remember, even if the prior is in another state, or decades old, you will be forced to get an interlock device installed in your car as a condition of license reinstatement. The Registry is harsh on this point, and there is nothing any lawyer can do about it. If you are facing a 2nd offense DUI, this in itself is a good reason to uk landline number, strongly consider fighting the soviet propoganda, case. Massachusetts OUI/DWI Law – Third Offense Penalty(3rd) Penalty. •Jail: Not less than 180 days (150 day mandatory), not more than 5 years State Prison (felony status) •May be served in a prison treatment program. •License suspended for 8 years, work/education hardship considered in in maths investigations 2 years; general hardship in soviet propoganda 4 years. •Commonwealth may seize, keep, and/or sell your vehicle. The Real Deal on 3rd Offense OUI Penalties:

For any third offense OUI conviction, you are facing a mandatory 5-6 months in What Fashion jail if found guilty. For a 3rd offense charge, this is a good reason to fight the case and soviet look for a chance to win and avoid jail time. It usually only makes sense to work out a deal if jail time is off the table, which only happens if the court can’t provide sufficient proof of the prior offenses (This can happen if prior DUI convictions are are old, or out of state.) More on third offense DUI charge strategies. MASSACHUSETTS OUI LAW FOURTH OFFENSE (4th) Penalties. •Jail: Not less than 2 years (1 year minimum mandatory), not more than 5 years in State Prison (4th Offense OUI is a Felony Offense) •License suspended for 10 years, work/education hardship considered in 5 years; general hardship in 8 years. •Commonwealth may seize, keep, and/or sell your vehicle.

The Real Deal on 4th Offense OUI Penalties: Everything about a 3rd offense applies to a 4th, 5th or subsequent drunk driving charge. Even a small chance of winning the case is to Wear: Elizabethan Essay worth the risk, since it is soviet propoganda probably your only chance to avoid jail time. You need to consider fighting your case at number generator, trial in almost all cases. MASSACHUSETTS OUI/DUI LAWS – FIFTH OFFENSE (5th) Penalty. •Jail: Not less than 2 1/2 years (24 mos. minimum mandatory), not more than 5 years (felony status) •License Revoked/Suspended for life, no possibility of a hardship license. If convicted on a sixth or subsequent OUI offense, the punishment and mandatory jail time you are risking if found guilty will even longer. Call me for details.

OUI With Serious Bodily Injury – Penalties. If you are charged with an OUI where someone is injured, you are almost certain to do jail time. The cases become extremely complicated and you need the advice of a DUI OUI lawyer. You can face penalties of soviet propoganda, 6 months to 2.5 years in jail or 6 months to 10 years in babe biography State Prison depending on how your DUI or OUI violation is charged and prosecuted. Here is a copy of the Massachusetts DUI and OUI Laws. Section 24. Soviet Propoganda! (1) (a) (1) Whoever, upon any way or in any place to which the french essay, public has a right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle with a percentage, by weight, of alcohol in propoganda their blood of eight one-hundredths or greater, or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or of marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined in Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees Essay section one of chapter ninety-four C, or the soviet, vapors of glue shall be punished by revolution, a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for propoganda, not more than two and to Wear: Essay one-half years, or both such fine and imprisonment.

There shall be an soviet assessment of $250 against a person who is convicted of, is What Fashion placed on probation for, or is soviet granted a continuance without a finding for or otherwise pleads guilty to or admits to a finding of sufficient facts of operating a motor vehicle while under the essay, influence of intoxicating liquor, marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances under this section; provided, however, that but $150 of the amount collected under this assessment shall be deposited monthly by the court with the state treasurer for who shall deposit it into the Head Injury Treatment Services Trust Fund, and the remaining amount of the assessment shall be credited to the General Fund. The assessment shall not be subject to propoganda, reduction or waiver by in maths investigations, the court for any reason. There shall be an assessment of $50 against soviet propoganda, a person who is convicted, placed on probation or granted a continuance without a finding or who otherwise pleads guilty to hollow men, or admits to a finding of sufficient facts for operating a motor vehicle while under the soviet propoganda, influence of in maths investigations, intoxicating liquor or under the influence of marihuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined by section 1 of chapter 94C, pursuant to this section or section 24D or 24E or subsection (a) or (b) of section 24G or section 24L. Soviet Propoganda! The assessment shall not be subject to waiver by the court for any reason. If a person against whom a fine is assessed is sentenced to a correctional facility and the assessment has not been paid, the court shall note the assessment on the mittimus. Limitations In Maths! The monies collected pursuant to the fees established by this paragraph shall be transmitted monthly by the courts to the state treasurer who shall then deposit, invest and transfer the monies, from time to time, into soviet propoganda the Victims of Drunk Driving Trust Fund established in section 66 of Elizabethan, chapter 10. The monies shall then be administered, pursuant to said section 66 of said chapter 10, by the victim and witness assistance board for the purposes set forth in said section 66. Fees paid by an individual into the Victims of soviet propoganda, Drunk Driving Trust Fund pursuant to this section shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other fee imposed by the court pursuant to this chapter or any other chapter. The administrative office of the trial court shall file a report detailing the generator, amount of soviet, funds imposed and collected pursuant to this section to uk landline generator, the house and soviet propoganda senate committees on ways and means and to the victim and witness assistance board not later than August 15 of each calendar year. If the defendant has been previously convicted or assigned to hollow men, an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of a like violation preceding the date of the commission of the offense for which he has been convicted, the defendant shall be punished by propoganda, a fine of not less than six hundred nor more than ten thousand dollars and by imprisonment for not less than sixty days nor more than two and one-half years; provided, however, that the sentence imposed upon hollow men, such person shall not be reduced to less than thirty days, nor suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until such person has served thirty days of such sentence; provided, further, that the soviet propoganda, commissioner of correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in number generator charge of soviet, a correctional institution, or the administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to uk landline number generator, an offender committed under this subdivision a temporary release in propoganda the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the funeral of a relative; to visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution; to engage in employment pursuant to limitations investigations, a work release program; or for the purposes of an soviet propoganda aftercare program designed to support the limitations investigations, recovery of an offender who has completed an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program operated by the department of correction; and soviet provided, further, that the defendant may serve all or part of french, such thirty day sentence to the extent such resources are available in a correctional facility specifically designated by the department of correction for the incarceration and rehabilitation of drinking drivers.

If the defendant has been previously convicted or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth, or any other jurisdiction because of a like offense two times preceding the date of the commission of the offense for which he has been convicted, the defendant shall be punished by a fine of propoganda, not less than one thousand nor more than fifteen thousand dollars and by imprisonment for not less than one hundred and Overcoming eighty days nor more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than fifteen thousand dollars and by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years; provided, however, that the sentence imposed upon such person shall not be reduced to soviet, less than one hundred and fifty days, nor suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served one hundred and fifty days of such sentence; provided, further, that the babe ruth, commissioner of correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or the soviet propoganda, administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to essay, an offender committed under this subdivision a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the funeral of a relative, to visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution; to engage in soviet propoganda employment pursuant to a work release program; or for the purposes of an uk landline number aftercare program designed to support the recovery of an offender who has completed an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program operated by the department of correction; and provided, further, that the soviet, defendant may serve all or part of such one hundred and fifty days sentence to hollow men, the extent such resources are available in a correctional facility specifically designated by the department of correction for soviet, the incarceration and rehabilitation of drinking drivers. If the defendant has been previously convicted or assigned to limitations in maths investigations, an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of a like offense three times preceding the date of the soviet propoganda, commission of the offense for which he has been convicted the babe ruth, defendant shall be punished by propoganda, a fine of not less than one thousand five hundred nor more than twenty-five thousand dollars and by imprisonment for not less than two years nor more than two and one-half years, or by a fine of Elizabethan Essay, not less than one thousand five hundred nor more than twenty-five thousand dollars and by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years; provided, however, that the sentence imposed upon such person shall not be reduced to less than twelve months, nor suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until such person has served twelve months of such sentence; provided, further, that the commissioner of soviet propoganda, correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or the administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this subdivision a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the funeral of a relative; to visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution; to engage in employment pursuant to babe, a work release program; or for the purposes of an aftercare program designed to support the recovery of an offender who has completed an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program operated by propoganda, the department of hollow men, correction; and provided, further, that the defendant may serve all or part of such twelve months sentence to the extent that resources are available in a correctional facility specifically designated by the department of correction for the incarceration and rehabilitation of soviet propoganda, drinking drivers. If the defendant has been previously convicted or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of a like offense four or more times preceding the date of the commission of the offense for babe ruth, which he has been convicted, the defendant shall be punished by soviet propoganda, a fine of not less than two thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars and by number generator, imprisonment for not less than two and soviet one-half years or by a fine of not less than two thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars and by imprisonment in babe ruth biography the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years; provided, however, that the sentence imposed upon such person shall not be reduced to less than twenty-four months, nor suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served twenty-four months of such sentence; provided, further, that the soviet propoganda, commissioner of to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay, correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or the administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this subdivision a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to soviet propoganda, attend the funeral of a relative; to to Wear:, visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution; to engage in employment pursuant to propoganda, a work release program; or for the purposes of an aftercare program designed to support the recovery of an offender who has completed an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program operated by the department of correction; and provided, further, that the defendant may serve all or part of such twenty-four months sentence to babe ruth biography, the extent that resources are available in a correctional facility specifically designated by the department of correction for the incarceration and rehabilitation of drinking drivers. A prosecution commenced under the provisions of this subparagraph shall not be placed on file or continued without a finding except for dispositions under section twenty-four D. No trial shall be commenced on a complaint alleging a violation of this subparagraph, nor shall any plea be accepted on such complaint, nor shall the prosecution on such complaint be transferred to another division of the district court or to propoganda, a jury-of-six session, until the court receives a report from the commissioner of probation pertaining to the defendant’s record, if any, of prior convictions of such violations or of Overcoming the Threats, assignment to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program because of a like offense; provided, however, that the provisions of this paragraph shall not justify the soviet, postponement of generator, any such trial or of the acceptance of any such plea for soviet propoganda, more than five working days after the date of the defendant’s arraignment. The commissioner of probation shall give priority to revolution essay, requests for such records. At any time before the commencement of a trial or acceptance of soviet, a plea on a complaint alleging a violation of this subparagraph, the prosecutor may apply for the issuance of a new complaint pursuant to section thirty-five A of chapter two hundred and eighteen alleging a violation of this subparagraph and one or more prior like violations. If such application is made, upon motion of the prosecutor, the court shall stay further proceedings on the original complaint pending the determination of the generator, application for the new complaint.

If a new complaint is soviet propoganda issued, the court shall dismiss the original complaint and order that further proceedings on the new complaint be postponed until the defendant has had sufficient time to prepare a defense. If a defendant waives right to a jury trial pursuant to section twenty-six A of chapter two hundred and eighteen on a complaint under this subdivision he shall be deemed to have waived his right to a jury trial on all elements of said complaint. (2) Except as provided in subparagraph (4) the provisions of section eighty-seven of chapter two hundred and seventy-six shall not apply to any person charged with a violation of subparagraph (1) and if said person has been convicted of or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program because of a like offense by to Wear:, a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction preceding the commission of the offense with which he is charged. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section six A of soviet propoganda, chapter two hundred and seventy-nine, the court may order that a defendant convicted of number, a violation of subparagraph (1) be imprisoned only on designated weekends, evenings or holidays; provided, however, that the provisions of this subparagraph shall apply only to a defendant who has not been convicted previously of such violation or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program preceding the date of the commission of the offense for which he has been convicted. (4) Notwithstanding the soviet propoganda, provisions of subparagraphs (1) and (2), a judge, before imposing a sentence on a defendant who pleads guilty to or is found guilty of a violation of subparagraph (1) and who has not been convicted or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program by a court of the hollow men, commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of a like offense two or more times of the date of the soviet propoganda, commission of the offense for which he has been convicted, shall receive a report from the probation department of a copy of the defendant’s driving record, the criminal record of the defendant, if any, and such information as may be available as to the defendant’s use of alcohol and may, upon a written finding that appropriate and biography adequate treatment is available to the defendant and the defendant would benefit from such treatment and that the safety of the public would not be endangered, with the defendant’s consent place a defendant on soviet, probation for two years; provided, however, that a condition for such probation shall be that the defendant be confined for no less than fourteen days in number a residential alcohol treatment program and to participate in an out patient counseling program designed for soviet propoganda, such offenders as provided or sanctioned by the division of alcoholism, pursuant to regulations to be promulgated by to Honeybees, said division in consultation with the department of correction and with the approval of the propoganda, secretary of health and human services or at any other facility so sanctioned or regulated as may be established by the commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof for the purpose of alcohol or drug treatment or rehabilitation, and comply with all conditions of said residential alcohol treatment program. Such condition of probation shall specify a date before which such residential alcohol treatment program shall be attended and completed.

Failure of the defendant to comply with said conditions and Overcoming any other terms of soviet, probation as imposed under this section shall be reported forthwith to french revolution essay, the court and proceedings under the soviet, provisions of section three of chapter two hundred and seventy-nine shall be commenced. In such proceedings, such defendant shall be taken before the court and if the court finds that he has failed to attend or complete the residential alcohol treatment program before the date specified in the conditions of probation, the court shall forthwith specify a second date before which such defendant shall attend or complete such program, and unless such defendant shows extraordinary and compelling reasons for such failure, shall forthwith sentence him to imprisonment for not less than two days; provided, however, that such sentence shall not be reduced to less than two days, nor suspended, nor shall such person be eligible for furlough or receive any reduction from his sentence for good conduct until such person has served two days of such sentence; and provided, further, that the commissioner of correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of the Threats to Honeybees, a correctional institution, or of the administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to soviet propoganda, an offender committed under this subdivision a temporary release in What to Wear: Fashion Essay the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the propoganda, funeral of a relative; to number, visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at propoganda, said institution; or to engage in employment pursuant to limitations, a work release program. If such defendant fails to soviet propoganda, attend or complete the residential alcohol treatment program before the second date specified by limitations, the court, further proceedings pursuant to said section three of said chapter two hundred and seventy-nine shall be commenced, and the court shall forthwith sentence the soviet, defendant to imprisonment for ruth biography, not less than thirty days as provided in subparagraph (1) for such a defendant. The defendant shall pay for the cost of the services provided by the residential alcohol treatment program; provided, however, that no person shall be excluded from said programs for inability to pay; and provided, further, that such person files with the soviet, court, an affidavit of indigency or inability to hollow men, pay and that investigation by the probation officer confirms such indigency or establishes that payment of such fee would cause a grave and soviet propoganda serious hardship to such individual or to the Threats to Honeybees, the family of such individual, and that the court enters a written finding thereof. In lieu of waiver of the entire amount of said fee, the court may direct such individual to make partial or installment payments of the cost of said program. (b) A conviction of a violation of subparagraph (1) of paragraph (a) shall revoke the license or right to operate of the person so convicted unless such person has not been convicted of or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program because of a like offense by propoganda, a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction preceding the date of the to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion, commission of the propoganda, offense for which he has been convicted, and said person qualifies for disposition under section twenty-four D and has consented to probation as provided for in said section twenty-four D; provided, however, that no appeal, motion for new trial or exceptions shall operate to uk landline generator, stay the soviet, revocation of the license or the uk landline generator, right to operate. Such revoked license shall immediately be surrendered to the prosecuting officer who shall forward the propoganda, same to the registrar. The court shall report immediately any revocation, under this section, of french revolution essay, a license or right to propoganda, operate to uk landline, the registrar and to the police department of the municipality in propoganda which the defendant is domiciled. Notwithstanding the hollow men, provisions of section twenty-two, the revocation, reinstatement or issuance of propoganda, a license or right to operate by What to Wear: Fashion, reason of a violation of soviet, paragraph (a) shall be controlled by the provisions of this section and sections twenty-four D and twenty-four E. (c) (1) Where the in maths, license or right to operate has been revoked under section twenty-four D or twenty-four E, or revoked under paragraph (b) and such person has not been convicted of a like offense or has not been assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program because of soviet propoganda, a like offense by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction preceding the date of the commission of the offense for What to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion, which he has been convicted, the registrar shall not restore the license or reinstate the right to operate to such person unless the prosecution of such person has been terminated in propoganda favor of the defendant, until one year after the date of conviction; provided, however, that such person may, after the expiration of three months from the date of conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees Essay, requesting the propoganda, issuance of a new license for employment or educational purposes, which license shall be effective for not more than an hollow men identical twelve hour period every day on the grounds of hardship and propoganda a showing by ruth, the person that the causes of the present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control, and the registrar may, in soviet his discretion, issue such license under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and necessary; and provided, further, that such person may, after the expiration of to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay, six months from the date of conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the registrar for propoganda, the purpose of essay, requesting the issuance of a new license on a limited basis on soviet propoganda, the grounds of hardship and a showing by hollow men, the person that the propoganda, causes of the present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and the registrar may, in his discretion, issue such a license under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and necessary. (2) Where the license or the right to operate of a person has been revoked under paragraph (b) and such person has been previously convicted of or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program by a court of the What to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion, commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of a like violation preceding the date of the commission of the offense for which such person has been convicted, the registrar shall not restore the license or reinstate the right to operate of such person unless the prosecution of soviet propoganda, such person has been terminated in favor of the defendant, until two years after the date of the conviction; provided, however, that such person may, after the expiration of 1 year from the date of conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the french revolution essay, registrar for the purpose of requesting the issuance of soviet propoganda, a new license for employment or education purposes, which license shall be effective for not more than an identical twelve hour period every day on the grounds of hardship and a showing by babe, the person that the causes of the propoganda, present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and that such person shall have successfully completed the residential treatment program in subparagraph (4) of paragraph (a) of subdivision (1), or such treatment program mandated by section twenty-four D, and the registrar may, in his discretion, issue such license under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and necessary; and provided, further, that such person may, after the expiration of 18 months from the date of conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of number generator, requesting the issuance of a new license on a limited basis on soviet propoganda, the grounds of hardship and a showing by the person that the to Wear: Fashion Essay, causes of the present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and the registrar may, in his discretion, issue such a license under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and necessary. A mandatory restriction on a hardship license granted by the registrar under this subparagraph shall be that such person have an ignition interlock device installed on each vehicle owned, each vehicle leased and each vehicle operated by the licensee for the duration of the hardship license.

(3) Where the license or right to operate of any person has been revoked under paragraph (b) and such person has been previously convicted or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program because of a like offense by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction two times preceding the date of the commission of the crime for soviet propoganda, which he has been convicted or where the license or right to hollow men, operate has been revoked pursuant to section twenty-three due to a violation of said section due to a prior revocation under paragraph (b) or under section twenty-four D or twenty-four E, the registrar shall not restore the license or reinstate the right to operate to soviet, such person, unless the prosecution of such person has terminated in favor of the defendant, until eight years after the date of conviction; provided however, that such person may, after the expiration of two years from the date of the conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license for employment or education purposes, which license shall be effective for not more than an identical twelve hour period every day, on the grounds of uk landline number, hardship and a showing by soviet propoganda, the person that the causes of the hollow men, present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and the registrar may, in soviet propoganda his discretion, issue such license under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and necessary; and provided, further, that such person may, after the expiration of What to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion, four years from the date of conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the registrar for propoganda, the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license on french revolution, a limited basis on the grounds of hardship and soviet a showing by the person that the causes of the present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and the registrar may, in ruth his discretion, issue such a license under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and propoganda necessary. A mandatory restriction on revolution, a hardship license granted by the registrar under this subparagraph shall be that such person have an ignition interlock device installed on each vehicle owned, each vehicle leased and each vehicle operated by the licensee for propoganda, the duration of the investigations, hardship license. (31/2) Where the license or the right to operate of a person has been revoked under paragraph (b) and such person has been previously convicted of or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program by a court of the soviet, commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of a like violation three times preceding the Overcoming the Threats, date of the commission of the offense for which such person has been convicted, the registrar shall not restore the license or reinstate the right to soviet, operate of such person unless the prosecution of such person has been terminated in hollow men favor of the propoganda, defendant, until ten years after the date of the conviction; provided, however, that such person may, after the expiration of five years from the date of the conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the ruth, registrar for the purpose of requesting the soviet, issuance of a new license for employment or education purposes which license shall be effective for an identical twelve hour period every day on the grounds of hardship and a showing by limitations, the person that the causes of the present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and soviet propoganda the registrar may, in his discretion, issue such license under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and necessary; and provided, further, that such person may, after the expiration of eight years from the date of Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees, conviction, apply for and shall be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license on a limited basis on the grounds of hardship and propoganda a showing by the person that the causes of the present and past violations have been dealt with or brought under control and the registrar may, in his discretion, issue such a license under the ruth, terms and conditions as he deems appropriate and necessary. A mandatory restriction on soviet, a hardship license granted by the registrar under this subparagraph shall be that such person have an ignition interlock device installed on each vehicle owned, each vehicle leased and each vehicle operated by the licensee for number, the duration of the hardship license. (33/4) Where the license or the right to operate of a person has been revoked under paragraph (b) and such person has been previously convicted of propoganda, or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment or rehabilitation program by a court of the commonwealth or any other jurisdiction because of a like violation four or more times preceding the french essay, date of the commission of the offense for which such person has been convicted, such person’s license or right to operate a motor vehicle shall be revoked for propoganda, the life of such person, and the Threats such person shall not be granted a hearing before the registrar for the purpose of requesting the issuance of a new license on soviet, a limited basis on the grounds of hardship; provided, however, that such license shall be restored or such right to operate shall be reinstated if the prosecution of such person has been terminated in favor of such person. An aggrieved party may appeal, in accordance with the provisions of chapter thirty A, from limitations in maths investigations, any order of the registrar of motor vehicles under the provisions of this section. (4) In any prosecution commenced pursuant to this section, introduction into evidence of a prior conviction or a prior finding of soviet, sufficient facts by either certified attested copies of original court papers, or certified attested copies of the defendant’s biographical and informational data from records of the department of probation, any jail or house of corrections, the department of correction, or the registry, shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant before the court had been convicted previously or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program by a court of the hollow men, commonwealth or any other jurisdiction. Such documentation shall be self-authenticating and propoganda admissible, after the commonwealth has established the defendant’s guilt on the primary offense, as evidence in any court of the What to Wear: Elizabethan, commonwealth to soviet, prove the defendant’s commission of any prior convictions described therein.

The commonwealth shall not be required to introduce any additional corrobating evidence, nor live witness testimony to establish the validity of such prior convictions. (d) For the purposes of Elizabethan Essay, subdivision (1) of this section, a person shall be deemed to have been convicted if he pleaded guilty or nolo contendere or was found or adjudged guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction, whether or not he was placed on probation without sentence or under a suspended sentence or the soviet propoganda, case was placed on file, and a license may be revoked under paragraph (b) hereof notwithstanding the pendency of a prosecution upon appeal or otherwise after such a conviction. Where there has been more than one conviction in the same prosecution, the date of the first conviction shall be deemed to be the date of conviction under paragraph (c) hereof. (e) In any prosecution for to Wear: Fashion Essay, a violation of paragraph (a), evidence of the percentage, by weight, of alcohol in the defendant’s blood at the time of the alleged offense, as shown by chemical test or analysis of his blood or as indicated by a chemical test or analysis of his breath, shall be admissible and deemed relevant to the determination of the question of whether such defendant was at propoganda, such time under the influence of intoxicating liquor; provided, however, that if such test or analysis was made by or at the direction of a police officer, it was made with the consent of the defendant, the results thereof were made available to him upon his request and uk landline number the defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity, at soviet propoganda, his request and at his expense, to have another such test or analysis made by a person or physician selected by him; and provided, further, that blood shall not be withdrawn from any party for the purpose of What Elizabethan Essay, such test or analysis except by a physician, registered nurse or certified medical technician. Soviet Propoganda! Evidence that the defendant failed or refused to consent to such test or analysis shall not be admissible against him in a civil or criminal proceeding, but shall be admissible in any action by Essay, the registrar under paragraph (f) or in any proceedings provided for in section twenty-four N. If such evidence is that such percentage was five one-hundredths or less, there shall be a permissible inference that such defendant was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and he shall be released from custody forthwith, but the soviet, officer who placed him under arrest shall not be liable for babe, false arrest if such police officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the person arrested had been operating a motor vehicle upon soviet, any such way or place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; provided, however, that in limitations investigations an instance where a defendant is under the age of twenty-one and such evidence is that the percentage, by weight, of soviet, alcohol in the defendant’s blood is two one-hundredths or greater, the uk landline number, officer who placed him under arrest shall, in accordance with subparagraph (2) of soviet, paragraph (f), suspend such defendant’s license or permit and take all other actions directed therein, if such evidence is that such percentage was more than five one-hundredths but less than eight one-hundredths there shall be no permissible inference. A certificate, signed and sworn to, by a chemist of the revolution essay, department of the state police or by soviet, a chemist of a laboratory certified by the department of public health, which contains the results of an analysis made by number, such chemist of the percentage of alcohol in such blood shall be prima facie evidence of the percentage of alcohol in such blood. (f) (1) Whoever operates a motor vehicle upon any way or in any place to which the public has right to soviet, access, or upon any way or in any place to which the public has access as invitees or licensees, shall be deemed to have consented to submit to a chemical test or analysis of Overcoming the Threats, his breath or blood in the event that he is arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of propoganda, intoxicating liquor; provided, however, that no such person shall be deemed to have consented to a blood test unless such person has been brought for treatment to a medical facility licensed under the provisions of hollow men, section 51 of chapter 111; and propoganda provided, further, that no person who is afflicted with hemophilia, diabetes or any other condition requiring the use of anticoagulants shall be deemed to have consented to a withdrawal of blood. Hollow Men! Such test shall be administered at the direction of a police officer, as defined in section 1 of chapter 90C, having reasonable grounds to believe that the person arrested has been operating a motor vehicle upon soviet propoganda, such way or place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. If the person arrested refuses to Overcoming the Threats, submit to soviet propoganda, such test or analysis, after having been informed that his license or permit to operate motor vehicles or right to operate motor vehicles in generator the commonwealth shall be suspended for a period of at least 180 days and up to a lifetime loss, for such refusal, no such test or analysis shall be made and he shall have his license or right to operate suspended in accordance with this paragraph for a period of 180 days; provided, however, that any person who is under the age of 21 years or who has been previously convicted of a violation under this section, subsection (a) of section 24G, operating a motor vehicle with a percentage by weight of blood alcohol of eight one-hundredths or greater, or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of subsection (b) of said section 24G, section 24L or subsection (a) of section 8 of chapter 90B, section 8A or 8B of said chapter 90B, or section 131/2 of chapter 265 or a like violation by a court of any other jurisdiction shall have his license or right to operate suspended forthwith for a period of 3 years for such refusal; provided, further, that any person previously convicted of 2 such violations shall have his license or right to operate suspended forthwith for a period of 5 years for soviet, such refusal; and provided, further, that a person previously convicted of 3 or more such violations shall have his license or right to operate suspended forthwith for life based upon such refusal. If a person refuses to submit to Overcoming Essay, any such test or analysis after having been convicted of a violation of propoganda, section 24L, the restistrar shall suspend his license or right to ruth biography, operate for 10 years.

If a person refuses to soviet, submit to any such test or analysis after having been convicted of a violation of subsection (a) of section 24G, operating a motor vehicle with a percentage by weight of Overcoming to Honeybees Essay, blood alcohol of eight one-hundredths or greater, or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of subsection (b) of said section 24G, or section 131/2 of chapter 265, the soviet, registrar shall revoke his license or right to operate for limitations in maths investigations, life. If a person refuses to take a test under this paragraph, the police officer shall: (i) immediately, on behalf of the registrar, take custody of such person’s license or right to operate issued by propoganda, the commonwealth; (ii) provide to each person who refuses such test, on Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees, behalf of the registrar, a written notification of suspension in a format approved by the registrar; and. (iii) impound the vehicle being driven by the operator and arrange for the vehicle to be impounded for a period of 12 hours after the operator’s refusal, with the costs for the towing, storage and maintenance of the vehicle to be borne by the operator. The police officer before whom such refusal was made shall, within 24 hours, prepare a report of such refusal. Each report shall be made in soviet a format approved by the registrar and shall be made under the penalties of perjury by the police officer before whom such refusal was made. French Revolution! Each report shall set forth the grounds for the officer’s belief that the person arrested had been operating a motor vehicle on a way or place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and shall state that such person had refused to submit to a chemical test or analysis when requested by soviet propoganda, the officer to do so, such refusal having been witnessed by another person other than the defendant. Each report shall identify the uk landline, police officer who requested the chemical test or analysis and the other person witnessing the refusal. Each report shall be sent forthwith to the registrar along with a copy of the notice of intent to suspend in a form, including electronic or otherwise, that the registrar deems appropriate. A license or right to operate which has been confiscated pursuant to this subparagraph shall be forwarded to the registrar forthwith.

The report shall constitute prima facie evidence of the soviet propoganda, facts set forth therein at any administrative hearing regarding the suspension specified in this section. The suspension of a license or right to operate shall become effective immediately upon receipt of the notification of the Threats, suspension from the police officer. A suspension for soviet propoganda, a refusal of either a chemical test or analysis of breath or blood shall run consecutively and not concurrently, both as to any additional suspension periods arising from the same incident, and as to each other. No license or right to operate shall be restored under any circumstances and no restricted or hardship permits shall be issued during the suspension period imposed by essay, this paragraph; provided, however, that the soviet propoganda, defendant may immediately, upon the entry of a not guilty finding or dismissal of all charges under this section, section 24G, section 24L, or section 131/2 of chapter 265, and in the absence of any other alcohol related charges pending against said defendant, apply for and be immediately granted a hearing before the court which took final action on revolution, the charges for the purpose of requesting the restoration of said license. At said hearing, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that said license be restored, unless the propoganda, commonwealth shall establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that restoration of said license would likely endanger the public safety. In all such instances, the court shall issue written findings of fact with its decision. (2) If a person’s blood alcohol percentage is not less than eight one-hundredths or the person is babe ruth under twenty-one years of age and his blood alcohol percentage is not less than two one-hundredths, such police officer shall do the following: (i) immediately and on soviet, behalf of the registrar take custody of such person’s drivers license or permit issued by limitations investigations, the commonwealth; (ii) provide to each person who refuses the test, on behalf of the registrar, a written notification of propoganda, suspension, in a format approved by the registrar; and. (iii) immediately report action taken under this paragraph to the registrar. Fashion Essay! Each report shall be made in soviet a format approved by the registrar and shall be made under the penalties of perjury by the police officer.

Each report shall set forth the grounds for hollow men, the officer’s belief that the person arrested has been operating a motor vehicle on any way or place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and that the person’s blood alcohol percentage was not less than .08 or that the person was under 21 years of age at the time of the arrest and whose blood alcohol percentage was not less than .02. Propoganda! The report shall indicate that the person was administered a test or analysis, that the operator administering the test or analysis was trained and certified in Elizabethan the administration of the test or analysis, that the soviet propoganda, test was performed in accordance with the regulations and standards promulgated by the secretary of public safety, that the equipment used for the test was regularly serviced and maintained and that the person administering the test had every reason to believe the babe ruth biography, equipment was functioning properly at the time the test was administered. Soviet! Each report shall be sent forthwith to the registrar along with a copy of the notice of intent to suspend, in a form, including electronic or otherwise, that the registrar deems appropriate. A license or right to operate confiscated under this clause shall be forwarded to the registrar forthwith. The license suspension shall become effective immediately upon receipt by the offender of the notice of hollow men, intent to suspend from a police officer. The license to operate a motor vehicle shall remain suspended until the disposition of the offense for which the person is being prosecuted, but in soviet propoganda no event shall such suspension pursuant to this subparagraph exceed 30 days. In any instance where a defendant is under the babe ruth biography, age of twenty-one years and such evidence is soviet that the Elizabethan Fashion Essay, percentage, by weight, of alcohol in soviet propoganda the defendant’s blood is two one-hundredths or greater and upon limitations in maths, the failure of soviet, any police officer pursuant to this subparagraph, to in maths, suspend or take custody of the soviet propoganda, driver’s license or permit issued by in maths, the commonwealth, and, in the absence of a complaint alleging a violation of paragraph (a) of subdivision (1) or a violation of section twenty-four G or twenty-four L, the registrar shall administratively suspend the defendant’s license or right to operate a motor vehicle upon receipt of a report from the police officer who administered such chemical test or analysis of the defendant’s blood pursuant to subparagraph (1). Each such report shall be made on soviet propoganda, a form approved by the registrar and shall be sworn to under the penalties of perjury by such police officer. Each such report shall set forth the grounds for the officer’s belief that the number generator, person arrested had been operating a motor vehicle on propoganda, a way or place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and that such person was under twenty-one years of investigations, age at the time of the arrest and whose blood alcohol percentage was two one-hundredths or greater. Such report shall also state that the person was administered such a test or analysis, that the soviet propoganda, operator administering the babe biography, test or analysis was trained and soviet propoganda certified in the administration of such test, that the test was performed in accordance with the regulations and standards promulgated by the secretary of public safety, that the equipment used for such test was regularly serviced and maintained, and that the person administering the test had every reason to believe that the equipment was functioning properly at the time the test was administered. Each such report shall be endorsed by the police chief as defined in section one of chapter ninety C, or by the person authorized by him, and shall be sent to hollow men, the registrar along with the soviet propoganda, confiscated license or permit not later than ten days from the hollow men, date that such chemical test or analysis of the defendant’s blood was administered.

The license to operate a motor vehicle shall thereupon be suspended in accordance with section twenty-four P. (g) Any person whose license, permit or right to operate has been suspended under subparagraph (1) of paragraph (f) shall, within fifteen days of soviet, suspension, be entitled to uk landline, a hearing before the registrar which shall be limited to soviet propoganda, the following issues: (i) did the police officer have reasonable grounds to believe that such person had been operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor upon any way or in What Elizabethan Fashion Essay any place to propoganda, which members of the public have a right of access or upon any way to uk landline number, which members of the public have a right of access as invitees or licensees, (ii) was such person placed under arrest, and (iii) did such person refuse to submit to such test or analysis. If, after such hearing, the registrar finds on any one of the said issues in the negative, the registrar shall forthwith reinstate such license, permit or right to operate. The registrar shall create and preserve a record at said hearing for judicial review. Within thirty days of the issuance of the soviet, final determination by the registrar following a hearing under this paragraph, a person aggrieved by What to Wear: Elizabethan Essay, the determination shall have the right to file a petition in the district court for propoganda, the judicial district in which the offense occurred for judicial review. The filing of a petition for judicial review shall not stay the revocation or suspension. The filing of a petition for judicial review shall be had as soon as possible following the submission of said request, but not later than thirty days following the submission thereof.

Review by the court shall be on french revolution, the record established at the hearing before the registrar. If the soviet, court finds that the department exceeded its constitutional or statutory authority, made an erroneous interpretation of the limitations, law, acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or made a determination which is unsupported by the evidence in the record, the court may reverse the registrar’s determination. [ Second paragraph of paragraph (g) of subdivision (1) effective until November 4, 2010. For text effective November 4, 2010, see below.] Any person whose license or right to operate has been suspended pursuant to subparagraph (2) of paragraph (f) on the basis of chemical analysis of his breath may within ten days of such suspension request a hearing and upon such request shall be entitled to a hearing before the court in which the underlying charges are pending or if the individual is under the age of twenty-one and there are no pending charges, in propoganda the district court having jurisdiction where the arrest occurred, which hearing shall be limited to the following issue; whether a blood test administered pursuant to paragraph (e) within a reasonable period of babe, time after such chemical analysis of his breath, shows that the propoganda, percentage, by weight, of alcohol in such person’s blood was less than eight one-hundredths or, relative to in maths investigations, such person under the age of twenty-one was less than two one-hundredths. If the court finds that such a blood test shows that such percentage was less than eight one-hundredths or, relative to such person under the age of twenty-one, that such percentage was less than two one-hundredths, the court shall restore such person’s license, permit or right to operate and shall direct the prosecuting officer to forthwith notify the soviet propoganda, criminal history systems board and the registrar of such restoration. [ Second paragraph of paragraph (g) of subdivision (1) as amended by 2010, 256, Sec. 63 effective November 4, 2010. For text effective until November 4, 2010, see above.] Any person whose license or right to operate has been suspended pursuant to subparagraph (2) of paragraph (f) on the basis of chemical analysis of his breath may within ten days of such suspension request a hearing and upon such request shall be entitled to a hearing before the court in which the underlying charges are pending or if the individual is limitations in maths under the age of twenty-one and there are no pending charges, in the district court having jurisdiction where the arrest occurred, which hearing shall be limited to the following issue; whether a blood test administered pursuant to paragraph (e) within a reasonable period of time after such chemical analysis of his breath, shows that the percentage, by weight, of alcohol in such person’s blood was less than eight one-hundredths or, relative to such person under the age of twenty-one was less than two one-hundredths.

If the court finds that such a blood test shows that such percentage was less than eight one-hundredths or, relative to such person under the age of twenty-one, that such percentage was less than two one-hundredths, the soviet, court shall restore such person’s license, permit or right to operate and shall direct the prosecuting officer to the Threats to Honeybees Essay, forthwith notify the department of criminal justice information services and the registrar of such restoration. (h) Any person convicted of a violation of subparagraph (1) of paragraph (a) that involves operating a motor vehicle while under the soviet propoganda, influence of marihuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined in section one of chapter ninety-four C, or the vapors of glue, may, as part of the disposition in the case, be ordered to participate in a driver education program or a drug treatment or drug rehabilitation program, or any combination of said programs. The court shall set such financial and other terms for the participation of the defendant as it deems appropriate. [ First paragraph of paragraph (a) of subdivision (2) effective until September 30, 2010. For text effective September 30, 2010, see below.] (2) (a) Whoever upon any way or in any place to biography, which the public has a right of access, or any place to soviet, which members of the essay, public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle recklessly, or operates such a vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered, or upon a bet or wager or in a race, or whoever operates a motor vehicle for the purpose of making a record and thereby violates any provision of section seventeen or any regulation under section eighteen, or whoever without stopping and making known his name, residence and the register number of his motor vehicle goes away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any other vehicle or property, or whoever loans or knowingly permits his license or learner’s permit to operate motor vehicles to soviet, be used by Essay, any person, or whoever makes false statements in an application for such a license or learner’s permit, or whoever knowingly makes any false statement in an application for registration of a motor vehicle, shall be punished by a fine of propoganda, not less than twenty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than two weeks nor more than two years, or both; and whoever uses a motor vehicle without authority knowing that such use is unauthorized shall, for the first offense be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees Essay, not less than thirty days nor more than two years, or both, and for a second offense by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in a house of correction for not less than thirty days nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and whoever is found guilty of a third or subsequent offense of soviet propoganda, such use without authority committed within five years of the earliest of his two most recent prior offenses shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two and one half years in a house of correction or for not less than two and one half years nor more than five years in limitations in maths investigations the state prison or by soviet propoganda, both fine and imprisonment. A summons may be issued instead of a warrant for arrest upon a complaint for a violation of any provision of this paragraph if in the judgment of the court or justice receiving the complaint there is reason to believe that the generator, defendant will appear upon a summons.

[ First paragraph of paragraph (a) of subdivision (2) as amended by 2010, 155, Sec. 11 effective September 30 2010. For text effective until September 30, 2010, see above.] (2) (a) Whoever upon soviet propoganda, any way or in the Threats to Honeybees any place to which the soviet propoganda, public has a right of access, or any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle recklessly, or operates such a vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered, or upon What Essay, a bet or wager or in a race, or whoever operates a motor vehicle for the purpose of making a record and thereby violates any provision of section seventeen or any regulation under section eighteen, or whoever without stopping and making known his name, residence and the register number of his motor vehicle goes away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any other vehicle or property, or whoever loans or knowingly permits his license or learner’s permit to operate motor vehicles to be used by any person, or whoever makes false statements in an application for soviet, such a license or learner’s permit, or whoever knowingly makes any false statement in an application for registration of a motor vehicle or whoever while operating a motor vehicle in violation of section 8M, 12A or 13B, such violation proved beyond a reasonable doubt, is the proximate cause of injury to hollow men, any other person, vehicle or property by operating said motor vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered, shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for soviet propoganda, not less than two weeks nor more than two years, or both; and uk landline generator whoever uses a motor vehicle without authority knowing that such use is unauthorized shall, for the first offense be punished by propoganda, a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than thirty days nor more than two years, or both, and for the Threats to Honeybees Essay, a second offense by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in a house of correction for not less than thirty days nor more than two and soviet propoganda one half years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and whoever is found guilty of a third or subsequent offense of hollow men, such use without authority committed within five years of the earliest of his two most recent prior offenses shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or by soviet propoganda, imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two and one half years in a house of correction or for not less than two and one half years nor more than five years in the state prison or by both fine and imprisonment. A summons may be issued instead of a warrant for arrest upon babe biography, a complaint for a violation of soviet, any provision of this paragraph if in the judgment of the number, court or justice receiving the complaint there is reason to believe that the defendant will appear upon a summons. There shall be an soviet assessment of $250 against a person who, by a court of the commonwealth, is convicted of, is placed on babe ruth, probation for or is granted a continuance without a finding for or otherwise pleads guilty to or admits to propoganda, a finding of sufficient facts of operating a motor vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered under this section, but $150 of the $250 collected under this assessment shall be deposited monthly by the court with the What Essay, state treasurer, who shall deposit it in the Head Injury Treatment Services Trust Fund, and the remaining amount of the assessment shall be credited to the General Fund. Soviet! The assessment shall not be subject to reduction or waiver by the court for Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees, any reason.

(a1/2) (1) Whoever operates a motor vehicle upon any way or in any place to which the public has right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public shall have access as invitees or licensees, and propoganda without stopping and making known his name, residence and the registration number of his motor vehicle, goes away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any person not resulting in the death of any person, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years and by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars. (2) Whoever operates a motor vehicle upon any way or in any place to which the ruth, public has a right of access or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public shall have access as invitees or licensees and without stopping and making known his name, residence and the registration number of his motor vehicle, goes away to avoid prosecution or evade apprehension after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any person shall, if the injuries result in the death of soviet, a person, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than ten years and by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars or by hollow men, imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not less than one year nor more than two and one-half years and by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars. The sentence imposed upon propoganda, such person shall not be reduced to less than one year, nor suspended, nor shall any person convicted under this paragraph be eligible for number, probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from soviet, his sentence until such person has served at least one year of such sentence; provided, however, that the in maths, commissioner of correction may on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or the administrator of propoganda, a county correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this paragraph, a temporary release in the custody of an hollow men officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to propoganda, attend the funeral of a relative; to visit a critically ill relative; to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution or to Elizabethan Fashion Essay, engage in soviet propoganda employment pursuant to a work release program. (3) Prosecutions commenced under subparagraph (1) or (2) shall not be continued without a finding nor placed on file. (b) A conviction of a violation of paragraph (a) or paragraph (a1/2) of subdivision (2) of this section shall be reported forthwith by the court or magistrate to the registrar, who may in any event, and What Fashion shall unless the court or magistrate recommends otherwise, revoke immediately the license or right to operate of the person so convicted, and no appeal, motion for new trial or exceptions shall operate to stay the revocation of the soviet propoganda, license or right to operate. If it appears by the records of the registrar that the person so convicted is the owner of a motor vehicle or has exclusive control of any motor vehicle as a manufacturer or dealer or otherwise, the registrar may revoke the certificate of registration of Overcoming to Honeybees Essay, any or all motor vehicles so owned or exclusively controlled. (c) The registrar, after having revoked the license or right to soviet, operate of any person under paragraph (b), in his discretion may issue a new license or reinstate the right to operate to him, if the prosecution has terminated in favor of the defendant. In addition, the registrar may, after an investigation or upon to Wear: Elizabethan, hearing, issue a new license or reinstate the right to operate to a person convicted in soviet any court for a violation of any provision of Essay, paragraph (a) or (a1/2) of subdivision (2); provided, however, that no new license or right to soviet, operate shall be issued by the registrar to: (i) any person convicted of a violation of subparagraph (1) of paragraph (a1/2) until one year after the uk landline number, date of revocation following his conviction if for soviet, a first offense, or until two years after the date of revocation following any subsequent conviction; (ii) any person convicted of a violation of subparagraph (2) of paragraph (a1/2) until three years after the date of hollow men, revocation following his conviction if for a first offense or until ten years after the date of revocation following any subsequent conviction; (iii) any person convicted, under paragraph (a) of using a motor vehicle knowing that such use is unauthorized, until one year after the date of revocation following his conviction if for a first offense or until three years after the date of revocation following any subsequent conviction; and (iv) any person convicted of soviet, any other provision of paragraph (a) until sixty days after the date of his original conviction if for a first offense or one year after the date of revocation following any subsequent conviction within a period of three years.

Notwithstanding the forgoing, a person holding a junior operator’s license who is convicted of operating a motor vehicle recklessly or negligently under paragraph (a) shall not be eligible for uk landline number generator, license reinstatement until 180 days after the date of his original conviction for a first offense or 1 year after the date of revocation following a subsequent conviction within a period of 3 years. The registrar, after investigation, may at any time rescind the revocation of a license or right to operate revoked because of a conviction of operating a motor vehicle upon any way or in any place to propoganda, which the public has a right of Overcoming Essay, access or any place to soviet propoganda, which members of the to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion, public have access as invitees or licensees negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered. The provisions of soviet propoganda, this paragraph shall apply in the same manner to juveniles adjudicated under the provisions of section fifty-eight B of chapter one hundred and in maths investigations nineteen. (3) The prosecution of any person for the violation of any provision of this section, if a subsequent offence, shall not, unless the interests of justice require such disposition, be placed on file or otherwise disposed of except by trial, judgment and sentence according to the regular course of criminal proceedings; and such a prosecution shall be otherwise disposed of propoganda, only on motion in writing stating specifically the reasons therefor and verified by affidavits if facts are relied upon. If the hollow men, court or magistrate certifies in writing that he is satisfied that the reasons relied upon are sufficient and that the interests of justice require the allowance of the soviet propoganda, motion, the motion shall be allowed and the certificate shall be filed in the case. A copy of the motion and certificate shall be sent by generator, the court or magistrate forthwith to the registrar. (4) In any prosecution commenced pursuant to this section, introduction into evidence of a prior conviction or prior finding of sufficient facts by either original court papers or certified attested copy of original court papers, accompanied by a certified attested copy of the biographical and informational data from official probation office records, shall be prima facie evidence that a defendant has been convicted previously or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program because of a like offense by a court of the commonwealth one or more times preceding the date of commission of the offense for which said defendant is being prosecuted.

A Massachusetts DUI OUI jury returned verdicts of guilty on charges of felony motor vehicle homicide, operating under the influence, and operating to endanger. Superior Court of Massachusetts. October 16, 2003. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER MASS. Soviet! R. CRIM. P 25(b)(2) On August 1, 2003, after a two week trial, a jury returned verdicts of guilty on charges of uk landline number generator, felony motor vehicle homicide, operating under the soviet propoganda, influence, and operating to endanger.

Before me is the defendant’s motion, under Mass. R. Crim. P. Babe Biography! 25(b)(2), for (a) a required finding of not guilty, or (b) a reduction to the lesser included offense of misdemeanor vehicular homicide on ground of soviet, operating to endanger. For the reasons that follow, the defendant’s motion is DENIED. At about 1:00 p.m. on September 1, 2001 thirteen-year-old Evan Holofcener was riding his bicycle on investigations, or beside Farmers Row (Route 111), Groton, when he was struck head-on by a pickup truck traveling in propoganda the opposite direction. The truck was driven by the defendant, who was then on her way from her home in Ayer, via Route 111, to Groton center. Limitations In Maths! Evan died of his injuries later that afternoon. The defendant was subsequently charged with operating under the influence, operating to endanger, and felony motor vehicle homicide.1. It was the soviet propoganda, Commonwealth’s theory of the case that the french essay, defendant, who had been prescribed a number of medications including diazepam (Valium), lorazepam (Ativan), and oxycodone (Percocet), was under the influence of at least one, and that her truck veered out of her lane of travel and onto propoganda, the sidewalk where Evan was traveling. The jury evidently agreed, and convicted the defendant of each of the charges against her.

The verdict of felony motor vehicle homicide (G.L. c. 90, §24G) required findings by the jury both that the defendant operated her vehicle negligently or recklessly so that the lives or safety of the public might have been endangered, and that she was under the influence of an intoxicating substance (on the Commonwealth’s theory, a scheduled narcotic or depressant). See Note 1, supra. The evidence as to each of these findings is therefore reviewed in revolution turn. A. Evidence of propoganda, Operating to limitations in maths investigations, Endanger. No third party witnessed the accident. Soviet! Evidence as to french, negligent or reckless operation therefore consisted principally of the expert testimony of two accident reconstructionists, Trooper Kerry Alvino of the Massachusetts State Police, called by soviet propoganda, the Commonwealth, and Wilson G. Dobson, P.E., called by the defendant.

No lengthy review of either expert’s testimony is hollow men necessary here, except to say that Trooper Alvino opined, based on the physical evidence which she reviewed the afternoon of the crash and on methods and formulae commonly used in accident reconstruction, that the soviet, point of babe biography, impact was well onto the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the defendant’s lane of travel, and propoganda that the truck therefore must have left the hollow men, roadway and traveled on the sidewalk.2 Mr. Dobson opined that the physical evidence was insufficient to determine, with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the location of the impact. The Commonwealth’s evidence, while it may not have compelled a finding of negligence, certainly warranted it. Propoganda! The jury’s verdict on this point was adequately supported by the evidence. B. Operating Under the Influence. The “operating under” element of the OUI (G.L. c. 90, §24) and vehicular homicide (c.90, §24G) statutes require, for limitations in maths investigations, a conviction, that the defendant have been operating her motor vehicle “while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or of marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined in [G.L. c. 94C, §1], or the vapors of soviet propoganda, glue.” As noted above, the Commonwealth contended that the defendant was under the influence of one or more of three prescription medications: diazepam (sold under the limitations in maths, brand name Valium), lorazepam (Ativan), or oxycodone (Percocet) (referred to herein collectively as the “scheduled medications”).

The first two are depressants; the last, a narcotic.3. There was no direct evidence as to soviet propoganda, when the defendant had last taken any of the scheduled medications; nor was there medical evidence (e.g., blood or urine tests) as to whether any were in her system, or in what quantity. French Revolution! The circumstantial evidence as to soviet, the “operating under” element was as follows. 1. CVS Pharmacy records. CVS Pharmacy records for the period May 26, 2001 and September 27, 2001 showed that the defendant had filled prescriptions for uk landline number, the scheduled medications on the following dates: Date Dosage Quantity. Date Dosage Quantity. OXYCODONE with APAP.

Date Dosage Quantity. The CVS records also showed prescriptions for the following medications, among others: Date Dosage Quantity. 8/17/01 100 mg. 15. Date Dosage Quantity. Date Dosage Quantity. Although there was evidence (see below) that the latter three medications may affect driving ability, none is a controlled substance, or otherwise falls within the OUI and vehicular homicide statutes.

Even if the soviet, defendant were impaired by one or more of these medications, therefore, she would not have been “operating under the influence” within the meaning of these statutes, unless she was also impaired by french, one or more of the scheduled medications. 2. Testimony of Dr. Soviet! Abela. The CVS records further showed that the oxycodone prescription which the defendant filled on August 29 was written by Dr. Andrew Abela. Dr. Hollow Men! Abela, a dentist, testified that on soviet, August 24, 2001, while the defendant was a psychiatric inpatient at Emerson Hospital, she made an emergency visit to his office for tooth pain. He extracted a lower molar, and gave her the oxycodone prescription at that time.

His practice is to number, recommend to patients that if they experience pain, they should first try ice, then Motrin, then Vicodin or Percocet (both narcotic analgesics)4; that they should use the minimum narcotic needed to control pain; and that they should not drive if they have taken a narcotic because it can cause drowsiness. He further testified that patients who have had a tooth extracted sometimes experience “dry socket” three to five days after the procedure, which can cause pain to flare up at that time. Extraction of a lower tooth, and smoking following the soviet propoganda, procedure (the defendant is a smoker), both place the hollow men, patient at increased risk for dry socket. 3. Package Warnings. The CVS records included copies of the “monographs” that CVS, when filling a prescription, produces and staples to the bag containing the pill bottle. The monograph sets forth patient information in paragraphs headed “USES,” HOW TO USE,” SIDE EFFECTS,” PRECAUTIONS,” DRUG INTERACTIONS,” OVERDOSE,” NOTES,” MISSED DOSE,” and soviet propoganda “STORAGE.” Each monograph is lengthy (about half of an 8? ? 11 page of fairly small type). The following are excerpts from the monographs for french revolution, the scheduled medications: (distributed with diazepam)

SIDE EFFECTS: This medication causes drowsiness and dizziness. Avoid tasks requiring alertness. Other side effects may include: stomach upset, blurred vision, headache, confusion, depression, impaired coordination, change in soviet propoganda heart rate, trembling, weakness, memory loss, hangover effect (grogginess), dreaming or nightmares. … SIDE EFFECTS: This drug can cause drowsiness, dizziness, lack of coordination, grogginess, headache, nausea, dry mouth, blurred vision. If these effects continue or become severe, contact your doctor. Notify your doctor if you experience any of these effects while using this drug: confusion, hallucinations, depression, yellowing of the eyes or skin, slow pulse, trouble breathing, fever/chills, prolonged sore throat, unusual tiredness, unusual bleeding or bruising. If you notice other effects not listed above, contact your doctor or pharmacist. PRECAUTIONS: … Use caution when performing tasks requiring alertness. To Honeybees Essay! … SIDE EFFECTS: This medication may cause constipation, stomach upset, lightheadedness, dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, or flushing. If any of these effects persist or worsen, contact your doctor or pharmacist promptly. Tell your doctor immediately if you have any of these unlikely but serious side effects: loss of coordination, confusion, irregular heartbeat, slow/irregular breathing, anxiety, tremors. ….

PRECAUTIONS: … Use caution when performing tasks requiring alertness such as driving or using heavy machinery. 4. Evidence as to Therapeutic and soviet Side Effects. As outlined below, with the exception of oxycodone (a narcotic pain medication), the other scheduled and to Honeybees the three unscheduled medications are all prescribed in the management of various psychiatric conditions and/or insomnia. In recorded statements she gave to the police on propoganda, September 2 and 6, 2001 (both of which were played for the jury), the defendant stated that she had undergone a miscarriage on May 19 of that year; suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder; and had twice attempted suicide (most recently on August 21, which had resulted in her admission to Emerson Hospital’s psychiatric unit from then until the hollow men, 29th). She also stated that she had been having trouble sleeping, and that the night before the accident, she had gone to bed about 4:00 a.m., rising about 9:00 a.m. The Commonwealth’s medical expert (Dr.

Brower) testified concerning the indications, action, and side effects of the medications the soviet propoganda, defendant had been prescribed. Of the revolution, scheduled medications: 1. Soviet Propoganda! Oxycodone (Percocet) is a narcotic analgesic, derived from the opium plant and used for moderate to french, severe pain. Soviet Propoganda! Side effects, which can occur in therapeutic doses, include sedation (sleepiness or drowsiness); nausea, stomach upset, and vomiting; impaired attentiveness, alertness, and vigilance; difficulty coordinating eye movements; and light-headedness. • Diazepam (Valium) is an a benzodiazepine prescribed for anxiety and sometimes for insomnia. Hollow Men! It metabolizes, and affects the brain, quickly after ingestion (peak effect occurring in propoganda an hour), but because its metabolites have similar effects and accumulate with repeated dosing, chronic use can produce longer-lasting effects after each dose. Side effects, which can occur in therapeutic doses, include: impairment of cognitive and motor functions, especially fine motor coordination; confusion and problems with thinking; drowsiness and french lassitude; dizziness, lightheadedness, and poor coordination. • Lorazepam (Ativan) is another benzodiazepine with indications and effects similar to soviet propoganda, diazepam, but slower-acting and with longer-lasting effects. Side effects, which can occur in therapeutic doses, include impairment and slowing down of mental and motor functions, and drowsiness.

A single dose can affect the patient for up to 24 hours. Two milligrams is the maximum dose normally prescribed, and is a sedating dose. Of the non-scheduled drugs that the plaintiff was also prescribed: • Topomax is an ruth anti-seizure medication sometimes prescribed “off label” to control mood disorders. Side effects can include somnolence, fatigue, and blunted mental reactions. • Effexor is an antidepressant, also used in propoganda generalized anziety disorder. Side effects can include nausea, dizziness, and Overcoming the Threats insomnia or somnolence, but not impairment of psychomotor skills. • Zyprexa is used to treat severe insomnia. Soviet! Side effects can include drowsiness, tremor, stiffness and abnormal body movements. Generally speaking, the three scheduled medications produce quick relief of acute symptoms.

Both therapeutic and side effects may decrease with prolonged, regular use, but this is revolution less likely with prolonged “PRN” (as needed) use. The other three medications take longer — 2 to 4 weeks — to propoganda, be effective, and their side effects normally abate over time. Dr. Brower opined, in response to hypothetical questions which assumed the Commonwealth’s view of how the accident happened (i.e., that the truck left the roadway for babe biography, the sidewalk), that such things as difficulty keeping a vehicle on a straight course, delayed reaction time, and reacting to soviet, an emergency erratically or at the Threats to Honeybees Essay, the last minute, are consistent with the effects of the soviet propoganda, three scheduled drugs. There could be other causes as well (and patients vary in the severity of their reactions to these and other drugs), but any or all of the scheduled drugs are capable of producing these effects. Topomax, Zyprexa, and (especially) Effoxor, however, are less potent, and limitations investigations much less consistently associated with these kinds of impairments, than are the scheduled drugs. 5. Soviet! Defendant’s Statements Concerning Medications.

The plaintiff made various statements, shortly after the limitations investigations, accident, concerning the medications she was taking. In chronological order: 1. Ricardo Alcantara, who happened on the scene just after the accident and helped the plaintiff out of her truck, testified that the soviet, defendant told him she was on multiple medications; that she opened her purse and showed him “quite a few bottles”; and that he overheard her tell an EMT who responded that she was on six medications. 2. Adam Blumenthal, who appears to have been the EMT to hollow men, whom Alcantara referred, testified (with the aid of his report) that the propoganda, defendant told him she was on Effexor, Topamax, Ativan, and Zyprexa. 3. Arthur Ragusa was a nurse at the Deaconess Nashoba Hospital (now the Nashoba Valley Medical Center). French Essay! His record notes, among the defendant’s “current medications,” percocet and valium “PRN” (i.e., as needed). This was in response to propoganda, the question he asks every patient,” What medications are you currently taking?” 4. In her September 2, 2001 and September 6, 2001 recorded statements to the Groton Police, the defendant said she had taken her medications the morning of the accident. She stated that she had not driven, or been out generator of the house, for two weeks prior to the accident (excepting her stay on a locked floor at Emerson Hospital). She listed, and displayed bottles of, Topamax, Zyprexa, Effexor, Nestabs (a vitamin), and iron. She stated that she takes these as prescribed — Effexor twice a day, Zyprexa once a day, and propoganda Topomax (“I take two”) — and that “If I went without them, I’d be a fruit loop.”5 She took her Effexor shortly before leaving the house the day of the accident.

She said that the french revolution essay, packaging for soviet propoganda, Topamax, Zyprexa, and Effexor advised caution when operating heavy machinery, but that she had felt OK to drive on September 1. She never mentioned diazepam, lorazepam, or oxycodone in her statement to the police. 6. Descriptions of the Defendant’s Affect. Five witnesses testified as to the defendant’s affect, as it bore on the question of babe ruth biography, possible impairment from drugs. 1. Blumenthal testified that as far as he could tell, the defendant was not “grossly” affected by drugs or alcohol. 2. Melissa Heys, a nurse with the nearby Groton School, came on the scene very shortly after the accident, and went to see if the defendant needed help. She assessed her for head injury, and noted that she appeared alert, not drowsy, able to focus, oriented, unimpaired in propoganda speech, and able to follow the directions of the EMTs. 3. Overcoming Essay! Steven Mickle, with the Groton rescue squad and a first responder, testified that the defendant appeared alert, oriented, and able to follow instructions and to soviet propoganda, respond to Elizabethan Fashion, his questions. 4. Dr. Balser, who saw the defendant at Deaconess Nashoba, noted her to be alert and oriented “times 3? (i.e., oriented to person, place and time).

His bedside neurological exam showed no focal deficits and soviet no signs of intoxication; “There was nothing about her that made me think she was under the babe ruth, influence.” He therefore saw no indication for performing a toxicology screen (but would not have performed one even if he had; since she had already admitted to taking Ativan and Percocet, the presence of these substances in a blood or urine sample would have been uninformative).6. 5. Soviet Propoganda! On the limitations investigations, other hand, Officer Hatch, a Groton Police officer (since retired) who was among the first responders, testified that he saw the defendant at the scene; that he has known her since she was a little girl; and that in his opinion, she was under the influence of soviet propoganda, something. He smelled no alcohol and there was” nothing I could put my finger on,” but he did notice that she was unusually subdued, not “bubbly” as she normally was.7 He also testified that the defendant told him at the scene that she had swerved into the other lane (leftwards) to avoid the bicyclist. He went to the hospital where she was taken, where she said she had swerved to the right to avoid cars in the oncoming lane. Hatch asker her if she remembered telling him she had swerved to the left; she said she did not. 7. Erratic Driving. There was also the evidence of the defendant’s erratic driving the day of the accident. As mentioned above, there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the accident occurred when defendant’s vehicle left her lane of travel and swerved onto the sidewalk, into the path of the oncoming bicyclist, for no apparent reason: the pavement was dry; the weather was clear; she was heading north and uk landline number not into the sun; the road took a gradual curve to the left where the defendant drove off it to the right; and the jury could have discredited her statements both that she swerved right to avoid cars and that she swerved left to avoid the bicyclist.

There was also testimony from propoganda, two witnesses who, the jury could have found, encountered the plaintiff minutes before the accident, between a mile and two away. The defendant was coming from her home in Ayer, northbound on Route 111 (known as Groton School Road in Ayer and Farmers Row in babe ruth Groton), to Groton Center (with a brief stop to drop off a video at a friend’s house on the way). George Krusen and soviet Barry Curcio, who were driving together south on Route 111 in Ayer, encountered a truck coming toward them, driven by a woman at a high rate of speed in the opposite (northbound) lane. As they and the truck approached one another at a curve in limitations in maths investigations the road, the soviet, truck swerved into their lane and beyond, into the dirt by the (wrong) side of the road. Fashion! It did not slow down, and was in their lane for several seconds before veering back into the correct lane of travel. Krusen, who was driving, slowed down and avoided a collision by just a foot or two. In her September 6 statement to the police, the defendant stated that the only significant event on her drive from Ayer to Groton was that her sandal “fell off once” in the general area of the incident described by Krusen and Curcio; that she might have swerved slightly; but “then that was fine.” Both men generally described the truck and soviet driver,8 and both, at hollow men, the request of the Groton police, viewed the truck after the accident at the garage where it had been towed. Krusen (the driver) told the propoganda, police he did not think the truck in revolution the garage was the one he had seen on Groton School Road. Curcio, on the hand, testified that he was positive that it was the same truck.

The time, place, and descriptions of the encounter were such that the jury would have been warranted in concluding that the driver was the defendant, and that her near-miss with the Krusen-Curzio vehicle took place just before the accident with Evan Holofcener.9. A. Renewed Motion for Required Finding. The defendant moved for a directed finding at the close of the Commonwealth’s case. At that point, as required, I reviewed “whether the propoganda, evidence presented up to the time of a motion for a directed verdict [was] legally sufficient to Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees, permit the soviet propoganda, submission of the Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees, case to the … jury, to decide the propoganda, innocence or guilt of the french revolution, accused.” Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. Soviet! 671, 676 (1979). I determined that although the evidence that the defendant was under the influence of any of the scheduled medications at the time of the accident was entirely circumstantial, there was enough to Essay, warrant submitting the case to the jury. The defendant has now renewed her motion, requiring me (a) to look again at whether the Commonwealth’s case was sufficient, and (b) “to determine whether the propoganda, Commonwealth’s position as to proof had deteriorated since it had closed its case.” Commonwealth v. Limitations Investigations! Basch, 386 Mass. 620, 622 n. 2 (1982). Both determinations require that I view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Latimore, 378 Mass. at 677-78; Commonwealth v. Torres, 24 Mass. App.

Ct. 317, 323-24 (1987). “[T]he critical inquiry on soviet propoganda, review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction must be not simply to determine whether the jury was properly instructed on french, reasonable doubt, but to determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. … [The] question is soviet whether after viewing the evidence in ruth biography the light most favorable to soviet propoganda, the prosecution, any rational trier of number, fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Thus, to propoganda, sustain the denial of a directed verdict, it is not enough … to find that there was some record evidence, however slight, to support each essential element of the to Honeybees Essay, offense; [there must have been] enough evidence that could have satisfied a rational trier of fact of soviet, each such element beyond a reasonable doubt. Latimore, 378 Mass. at 677-78, quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. French Essay! 307, 318-319 (1979); see Torres and Commonwealth v. Propoganda! Doucette, 408 Mass. 454, 456 (1990) (both applying the Latimore / Jackson standard of appellate review to french essay, trial judge’s review of motion for soviet propoganda, directed finding). As noted above, in the discussion of the facts, Trooper Alvino’s testimony placed the defendant’s truck on the sidewalk, out of her lane of travel and in hollow men the path of an oncoming cyclist, with no apparent explanation to be found in road, traffic, weather, or lighting conditions. This was sufficient to convict for operating to endanger.

See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Siciliano, 420 Mass. 303, 307-08 (1995) (“evidence that the defendant drove while intoxicated, made a wide turn, crossed into the opposite propoganda, traffic lane, swerved back and forth across the roadway, and nearly struck a traffic island” was sufficient); Commonwealth v. Bergeron, 398 Mass. 338, 340 (1986) (a finding of ordinary negligence suffices for the operating to endanger element of vehicular homicide); Commonwealth v. Vartanian, 251 Mass. Number! 355, 358 (1925) (presence of people is a relevant factor when considering whether defendant operated vehicle to endanger). Eyewitness evidence as to the operation of the truck before the accident was not required. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gordon, 389 Mass. 351, 358 (1983).

The evidence concerning operating under the influence presented a closer case, but still one presentable to the jury. To succeed on this element, the Commonwealth was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of the scheduled medications, through its effect on the defendant’s “judgment, alertness, and ability to respond promptly and effectively to unexpected emergencies,” diminished her “ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.”10 Commonwealth v. Connolly, 394 Mass. 169, 174 (1985). A scheduled medication need not have been the sole or exclusive cause of the defendant’s diminished ability to drive safely, so long as is was a contributor. “It is enough if the defendant’s capacity to operate a motor vehicle is diminished because of [a substance listed in the statute], even though other, concurrent causes contribute to that diminished capacity.” Commonwealth v. Stathopoulos, 401 Mass. 453, 457 (1988). From the evidence summarized above, the jury could have concluded: 1. That the defendant had been prescribed, had purchased, and propoganda thus had access to the three controlled medications; 2. That her pattern of limitations in maths, filling the prescriptions for diazepam and (more especially) lorazepam indicated regular consumption; 3. That the soviet propoganda, recency of her filling prescriptions for revolution essay, oxycodone (August 29, 2001) and lorazepam (August 31, 2001) — particularly when combined with the indications that she may have suffered very recently from dry socket (an indication for oxycodone) and, on the night of August 31, from insomnia (an indication for lorazepam) — indicated recent enough consumption to have affected her on soviet propoganda, September 1;

4. That lorazepam, even if consumed the night before, would still have affected her the day of the accident; 5. That the in maths, steadily diminishing list of medications given by the plaintiff following the soviet, accident — and the omission of the three controlled medications in her statements to the police — indicated a consciousness of guilt, further bolstering the other circumstantial evidence of intoxication; 6. That the evidence of the defendant’s erratic and dangerous driving, on two occasions11 separate but close in time and location, and the lack of any reasonable explanation for either, was evidence of What to Wear:, impairment due to intoxication; 7. That the propoganda, fact that the defendant was under the influence of prescription medications, rather than alcohol or a common drug of abuse, made it difficult for most of the witnesses who evaluated the defendant’s affect after the accident to detect impairment; 8. That the description of the defendant’s affect by investigations, Officer Hatch, who had known her for soviet propoganda, most of her life, was consistent with the sedating effects of all three controlled medications; and. 9. That the plaintiff was adequately advised of the limitations in maths, sedating and impairing effects of he controlled medications, such that her intoxication was voluntary (see Commonwealth v. Darch, 54 Mass. App. Ct. Propoganda! 713 (2002) and Commonwealth v. Wallace, 14 Mass.

App. Ct. 358, 360 (1982)). As noted above, the number, case lacked direct evidence that the defendant had taken any of the controlled medications recently enough to be impaired by them, and soviet propoganda it lacked direct evidence of what concentrations she had of the Threats Essay, any of them. Even the direct evidence of signs of intoxication in the defendant’s affect was thin, though perhaps explicably so (see ¶7 above). From the evidence that was presented, however, the jury had enough to soviet, conclude that the defendant had access to hollow men, the drugs; that she had taken oxycodone recently and lorazepam both recently and regularly; that she appreciated the dangers of the controlled medications, both medically and (by the time she spoke to the police) legally as well; and that her erratic and dangerous driving on the day of the soviet, accident lacked any reasonable explanation other than impairment by What, one or both of these drugs.

This was enough to convict. The question of guilt cannot be left to conjecture or surmise. … However, circumstantial evidence is competent to soviet, establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An inference drawn from circumstantial evidence “need only be reasonable and possible; it need not be necessary or inescapable.” Moreover, the evidence and the permissible inferences therefrom need only uk landline be sufficient to persuade “minds of ordinary intelligence and sagacity” of the soviet, defendant’s guilt. Fact finders are not “required to divorce themselves of common sense, but rather should apply to facts which they find proven such reasonable inferences as are justified in the light of their experience as to the natural inclinations of human beings.” To the extent that conflicting inferences are possible from the evidence, it is for the fact finder to biography, resolve the conflict. Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 423 Mass. 863, 868 (1996) (citations omitted). B. Motion to Reduce Verdict.

Rule 25(b)(2) of the propoganda, Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: Motion After Discharge of Jury. If the motion [for a required finding of not guilty] is the Threats denied and the case is propoganda submitted to the jury, the motion may be renewed within five days after the jury is discharged and may include in Elizabethan Fashion the alternative a motion for a new trial. If a verdict of guilty is returned, the soviet, judge may on french, motion set aside the verdict and order a new trial, or order the entry of a finding of not guilty, or order the propoganda, entry of a finding of guilty of uk landline, any offense included in the offense charged in the indictment or complaint. The Rule incorporates the statutory authority conferred by G.L. c. 278, §11. In a recent (and celebrated) discussion of propoganda, this authority, the SJC noted, The authority of the trial judge under rule 25(b)(2) to to Honeybees, reduce the verdict or grant a new trial in criminal cases is much like our authority to review so-called capital cases — convictions of murder in the first degree — under G.L. c. Propoganda! 278, § 33E. The postconviction powers granted by the Legislature to the courts at both trial and appellate levels reflect the evolution of legislative policy promoting judicial responsibility to ensure that the result in every criminal case is consonant with justice. It is revolution essay clear that the responsibility may be exercised by the trial judge, even if the evidence warrants the jury’s verdict. “[A] new trial or verdict reduction may be proper even when the evidence can legally support the jury’s verdict.” The judge’s option to reduce a verdict offers a means to rectify a disproportionate verdict, among other reasons, short of granting a new trial. The judge’s power under rule 25(b)(2), like our power under G.L. c. 278, §33E, may be used to ameliorate injustice caused by the Commonwealth, defense counsel, the jury, the judge’s own error, or … the soviet propoganda, interaction of several causes. Commonwealth v. Woodward, 427 Mass.

659, 666-67 (1998). As the trial judge in the Threats to Honeybees Woodward put it, a judge’s exercise of the Rule’s authority to reduce a verdict is less constrained than when considering a motion to set aside a verdict as unsupported by the evidence: The test here is no longer narrowly legal. Propoganda! The judge, formerly only an umpire enforcing the rules, now must determine whether, under the special circumstances of this case, justice requires lowering the level of guilt …. The facts, as well as the law, are open to consideration. Commonwealth v. Uk Landline Number Generator! Woodward, 1997 WL 694119 (Mass .Super.; Zobel, J.) This broad authority is propoganda nonetheless subject to prudential limitations. The SJC added, to what has been quoted above from the biography, Woodward opinion, that “[b]ecause such broad postconviction authority is vested in the trial judge, we have counseled that a judge should use this power sparingly, and trial judges have in fact used their rule 25(b)(2) power infrequently.” Id. at propoganda, 667, citing Commonwealth v. Keough, 385 Mass. 314, 321 (1982) (trial judge “should not sit as a `second jury’”); see also Commonwealth v. Carter, 423 Mass. 506, 512 (1996) (judge hearing motion to reduce verdict “is not to play the role of Overcoming the Threats, thirteenth juror” or to “second guess the jury”). Propoganda! Perhaps not surprisingly, it appears that the verdict-reduction power is limitations in maths exercised most frequently — as in Woodward — to walk the “fine line[s]” between the forms of malice required for the various degrees of homicide.12 427 Mass. at 669.

The defendant offers two reasons for a reduction of the verdict in this case, from felony to misdemeanor vehicular homicide (i.e., setting aside the soviet, finding as to operating under and leaving intact the finding as to generator, operating to endanger): 1. The lack of soviet propoganda, any direct evidence, or of overwhelmingly compelling circumstantial evidence, that the defendant ingested any of the controlled medications during a relevant time period; or that she exhibited signs of intoxication on the day of the accident; or that her driving ability was actually impaired; and. 2. The lack of limitations, any evidence whatsoever that the defendant abused any of the controlled medications, or otherwise failed to take them as prescribed (which the defendant frames, in part, as an argument for “involuntary intoxication”). The evidence as to ingestion, intoxication, and impairment is summarized above and need not be repeated here. It was, as the defendant characterizes it, “slim,” at least in the sense that there was no single piece of evidence of which one could say that if accepted as true, it virtually compelled a finding of intoxication by a controlled medication. That said, there was a good deal of circumstantial evidence which, taken in its entirety, is propoganda difficult to discount. Perhaps the strongest single piece of Elizabethan Fashion Essay, evidence came, not from medicine or from soviet propoganda, pharmacology, but from the Threats, physics and accident reconstruction. If one accepts the conclusion of soviet, Trooper Alvino that the truck was on the sidewalk at the point of impact — which the jury were not required but were entitled to do — there might be a variety of essay, explanations for it, but the only one to soviet, be found anywhere in the evidence is that of hollow men, intoxication.

If one also accepts the propoganda, testimony of Krusen and Curcio (including the identification furnished by the latter) — as the jury were also entitled to do — this showed a chain of events of some duration, likewise consistent with intoxication and begging alternative explanation in the evidence. A loose sandal might explain the Krusen-Curcio incident alone — though even this is undercut by the defendant’s disclaimer of hollow men, any problem resulting from it — but it does little to explain a course of soviet propoganda, reckless driving, which endangered two lives and took a third, and which persisted or was repeated over the course of several minutes and several miles. When combined with evidence of the defendant’s access to, her apparent pattern of using, and the likely effects of the controlled medications, and with Officer Hatch’s description of her affect after the accident, the conclusion which the jury drew, beyond a reasonable doubt, was a reasoned and rational one. As noted above, the verdict-reduction power conferred by G.L. c. 278, §11 and Rule 25(b)(2) is most often exercised in babe ruth biography order to navigate the murky — and notoriously difficult, even on a jurisprudential level — world of human intent in homicide cases. These are cases in which the law, for propoganda, reasons of social utility and Elizabethan Essay fairness, requires a jury’s pronouncement upon what many would argue is inherently unknowable. Soviet! Some room for reflection and correction is necessary, in all cases but especially in these. In this case, however, the central issue — whether or not the babe ruth biography, defendant’s ability to propoganda, perform a complex task such as driving was impaired by a controlled medication — was an uk landline number ascertainable fact. Its determination on the evidence presented in this case was not a simple or an easy task, to be sure, but there is no reason to suppose that it was beyond the ability of the jury. Propoganda! That evidence, if necessarily circumstantial and incomplete, was nonetheless substantial in its quantity and its overall quality. Trial presentations for hollow men, both sides were excellent.

I do not think the propoganda, jury’s verdict represented a miscarriage of justice. The defendant’s final argument — that medications taken as prescribed cannot be the basis of an revolution OUI or a vehicular homicide conviction — misapprehends the conduct which G.L. c. 90, §§24 and 24G make criminal. Her argument to the contrary notwithstanding, neither the statutes, nor the soviet propoganda, conviction in this case, criminalizes the defendant’s mental illness, or her therapy. Fashion! The offense is operating under the influence. Soviet! What is forbidden is not taking medications as prescribed; it is getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle while impaired, whether by these or by other, enumerated substances.

The OUI and vehicular homicide statutes on their face make no distinction between drug therapy and drug abuse. They instead require proof that the defendant operated a motor vehicle; that a listed substance impaired her ability to What to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion, do so safely (for operating under), and that she thereby caused the death of another person (for vehicular homicide). Impairment by a prescription drug may be as dangerous as impairment by alcohol or a drug of abuse (which for some drugs is propoganda precisely the reason a prescription is required). The statute aims to keep the investigations, impaired driver off the road in either case. While there are undoubtedly degrees of culpability to be reckoned with, these are best addressed — and will be addressed in this case — in sentencing. For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s Motion for Relief Pursuant to Mass. Propoganda! R. Crim. P. 25(b)(2) is DENIED. Babe! The date for sentencing remains November 5, 2003 at 3:00 p.m., in Lowell. 1. Soviet Propoganda! A conviction for felony vehicular homicide requires findings both that the revolution essay, defendant was operating under the influence, and that she was operating to endanger(and that her operation caused the soviet, death of another). Misdemeanor vehicular homicide requires a finding either of revolution essay, operating under or operating to endanger, resulting in death.

Both operating under and operating to endanger are therefore lesser included offenses in relation to felony vehicular homicide. 2. The week that trial began I held an evidentiary hearing, over two mornings, concerning the propoganda, admissibility under Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 54 (1994), of Trooper Alvino’s testimony. French! It was my assessment that the scientific methods employed, and soviet propoganda their application to this case, were sufficiently reliable to warrant admission of Trooper Alvino’s testimony. 3. With respect to diazepam and lorazepam, I took judicial notice (and so advised the jury), at revolution, the Commonwealth’s request, that these are “depressants,” because they appear on the attorney general’s list of controlled substances, incorporated by soviet, reference into c. Babe Biography! 94C, §1 and thereby into soviet c. 90, §§24(a) and 24G(a). Generator! Oxycodone’s status as a narcotic was established by the testimony of the Commonwealth’s medical expert, Dr. Propoganda! Brower. 4. Dr. Abela asks his patients whether they have has a satisfactory experience with either or these medications. Usually, he prescribes Vicodin, but if the uk landline, patient says that Percocet has worked well for her, he will prescribe Percocet. 5. She also stated that her dosages had been increased while she was in the hospital, and that this at first caused her to feel “out of it” and to sleep a lot, but that “now they have no effect on soviet, me, and I’m fine.” In testimony that I excluded (after first asking if the defendant wished to waive the babe ruth biography, privilege which she had successfully asserted to exclude all prescribing information and soviet warnings given by her psychotherapists, and being advised that she did not), she added that “the doctor said that it was completely fine for me to be driving on them, because I asked him yesterday … and he said it was fine.

He said they have no effect on your driving.” 6. Dr. Balser and the police witnesses were in uk landline generator agreement that the decision whether or not to test for intoxication is a medical one, made by propoganda, the physician and not under the direction of law enforcement. 7. This description of the Overcoming the Threats Essay, defendant’s affect could be interpreted as at least generally consistent with the description, given by Dr. Brower, of the calming and soviet sedating effects of lorazepam and number generator diazepam.

The jury might also have concluded, reasonably, that the effects of these medications would be less familiar to a layperson, including a police officer, than the effects of, say, alcohol. 8. Krusen recalled a Ford Ranger pickup (he drives one too) of an indeterminate color, possible two-toned, driven by soviet propoganda, a female with brown hair. Curcio remembered a small pickup whose color was unusual, unfamiliar to him, and difficult to describe beyond a “very dark green with something mixed in”; the to Honeybees Essay, driver was a female, in her late teens or early 20s, with shoulder-length brown hair and looking “intense.” 9. The jury were instructed that the charges against the defendant all pertained to the accident with Evan Holofcener, not to the incident involving Krusen and Curcio. 10. At the soviet, defendant’s request, and over What, the Commonwealth’s energetically pressed objection, I gave the jury a “specific unanimity” instruction, requiring that they agree on which of the three scheduled medications (if any) had impaired the defendant’s ability to drive. “[W]hen the Commonwealth introduces at trial evidence of alternate incidents that could support the charge against the defendant, the jury must unanimously agree on which specific act constitutes the offense charged.” Commonwealth v. Propoganda! Kirkpatrick, 423 Mass. French Essay! 436, 442 (1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1015 (1996). Here, there was evidence of ingestion of multiple controlled medications, but a single homicide resulting from a single operation of a motor vehicle.

Massachusetts law is less than clear (to this judge at least) as to whether a specific unanimity instruction was required in a case such as this. 11. The jury could reasonably have credited Curcio’s identification of the propoganda, truck, and attributed Krusen’s failure to identify it to the fact that he had been the driver, and therefore, preoccupied. 12. The SJC noted in Woodward, “Since 1979, the Commonwealth has appealed verdict reductions in only ten cases, of which seven were affirmed.” 427 Mass. at 667. Eight of these cases (cited in limitations in maths note 12 to that opinion) were homicides; the other two were drug cases, in which trafficking convictions were reduced to possession with intent to propoganda, distribute. Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and operating a motor vehicle under a suspended license. 57 Mass. App.

Ct. 80. Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk. Argued February 7, 2002. Decided January 15, 2003. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED. Esther J. Horwich, Boston, for the defendant. Jeremy C. Bucci, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: GELINAS, CYPHER, #038; KANTROWITZ, JJ. The defendant appeals from the revocation of his probation, based on evidence that he was operating a motor vehicle under a suspended license. Probation had been imposed on November 16, 1999, in Brighton District Court, after the defendant admitted to sufficient facts to babe, warrant a finding of guilty on a charge of operating a motor vehicle under a suspended license. The judge continued the case without a finding and placed the defendant under the soviet, supervision of a probation officer on terms that, among others, required that he “obey all court orders and local, [S]tate and biography [F]ederal laws” until May 19, 2000. On January 2, 2000, the defendant was stopped by propoganda, the Mashpee police on his way home from revolution, a football game.

The stop resulted in new charges being lodged against the defendant in Falmouth District Court for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and soviet operating a motor vehicle under a suspended license. The new offense triggered the issuance of revolution essay, a written notice of propoganda, a probation violation from the Brighton District Court, stating the limitations in maths investigations, defendant was not in compliance with the terms of his probation because of the new complaint. After a hearing on March 3, 2000, the judge found that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation on the basis of his admission to propoganda, the Mashpee police during his arrest that he had driven his car earlier in the day. The judge entered a guilty finding,1 and modified the to Wear: Fashion Essay, terms of probation by extending the probationary period to one year from the soviet propoganda, date of the ruth, hearing and imposing a suspended, ten-day house of correction sentence.2. On appeal, the defendant argues that the entry of a guilty finding and the order modifying the terms of his probation should be reversed because (1) the soviet propoganda, grounds stated as the reason for essay, revoking his probation were different from those for which he had received written notification; (2) the defendant’s admission was unreliable, because the police officer who testified was unsure of the exact statement, and because it was contradicted by other information contained in the police reports; (3) the admission was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a finding that he had violated the law, because it was uncorroborated; and (4) his admission was not the product of voluntary actions, because at the time of the admission he was intoxicated, and prior to his admission he had not been given his Miranda warnings. We affirm the revocation decision. We summarize the relevant facts as presented at the revocation hearing. On January 2, 2000, Officer Jon Read of the Mashpee police department was traveling northbound on soviet propoganda, Route 130.

He was forced to steer his police cruiser to the right in order to avoid being hit by a green sport utility vehicle that had crossed the center line. Read testified at the hearing that he was unable to see who was driving or how many people were in the vehicle. He turned his cruiser around and headed southbound on Route 130 in Overcoming the Threats Essay search of the vehicle. Read found it parked at soviet, the side of the road. Read observed the defendant standing toward the limitations, back of the soviet, vehicle, on the driver’s side. Read stopped, exited, and walked toward the defendant.

As Read approached, the defendant walked to the passenger side of the vehicle, sat in the passenger seat, and began to look through the babe biography, glove box. Read asked the defendant where the driver was; the defendant did not respond.3 At about that time, another individual, Kevin Crosby, the defendant’s son-in-law, emerged from the woods by the side of the soviet, road, where he apparently had been urinating. Overcoming The Threats! Read asked both the defendant and Crosby who was driving; neither responded. Read observed food and a cooler with numerous beers in soviet it in the rear of the vehicle. French Revolution Essay! Read determined that the defendant was the owner of the vehicle.

Read determined that both the defendant and Crosby were under the influence of soviet propoganda, alcohol, and placed both in revolution protective custody. Officer Paul Coronella was called and arrived at the scene. The defendant was placed in the rear of Coronella’s police car and Crosby was placed in the rear of Read’s police car, both for propoganda, transportation to the police station. En route to the station, Crosby had a conversation with Read in which Crosby stated that the defendant was the driver. When Read arrived at the station with Crosby, he informed Coronella that Crosby had implicated the defendant as the driver. Read obtained a signed, written statement from Crosby that the revolution essay, defendant was the soviet propoganda, driver.

After conducting sobriety tests, which he said the defendant failed, Coronella placed the defendant under arrest for operating the motor vehicle on Route 130 while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. A breathalyzer test revealed the defendant to have a blood alcohol reading of .16. Officer Sean Sullivan, who had been called to inventory the contents of the defendant’s vehicle at biography, the scene, stated in his report that, at the station, he noticed that both the defendant and Crosby “exhibited extreme symptoms of intoxication.” Coronella’s report of the booking procedure stated that the defendant was read and understood his Miranda rights. Read testified that he believed he remembered that the soviet, defendant had been read his rights at that point. According to both Coronella’s and Read’s reports, after the revolution essay, booking procedure, the defendant was again asked how he had arrived at the football game that day. Both Coronella’s and Read’s reports explain that the defendant answered that he drove from his house in propoganda Brockton to Essay, his son-in-law’s, Crosby’s, home in soviet East Bridgewater. Crosby then drove the defendant’s vehicle to the game. When pressed on this point during cross-examination, Read testified that he had no memory of the defendant telling him that his sister had given him a ride to Crosby’s house, but acknowledged that it was “possible” the defendant had made such a comment.

The judge did not credit Crosby’s statement, as related by Officer Read, that the defendant had been driving the vehicle at the time it was stopped. Rather, the babe ruth, judge credited the defendant’s admission, as reported by soviet propoganda, Coronella and Read, that he had driven from his house to the Threats to Honeybees, Crosby’s house, the first leg of the trip to propoganda, the football game.4. On these facts, the defendant raises several issues implicating due process; we find no merit to his contentions and we affirm. Written Notification. Number Generator! The defendant first argues that the written notice of surrender referenced only the two charges for which he was arrested by the Mashpee police, and contained no reference to soviet, the uncharged misconduct that occurred earlier in the day, when he drove from his home to Crosby’s home under a suspended license. The issue was first raised in the defendant’s second motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the judge who had found a probation violation. We agree with the defendant that the What to Wear:, written notice was limited on its face to the two charges filed in connection with the incident that occurred on Route 130, and that the notice of violation of probation did not include mention of his operating the motor vehicle on a public way earlier in the day.5 The Commonwealth appears to propoganda, concede that, because of lack of notice, the earlier operation cannot form the basis of the essay, instant revocation. We disagree.6.

While there can be no doubt that written notice of the claimed violations are included among the “minimum requirements of due process,” Commonwealth v. Propoganda! Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 112-113, 551 N.E.2d 1193 (1990),7 due process is not an inflexible concept. Ibid. Flexibility is important both to insure the offender the opportunity inherent in What Elizabethan Fashion Essay the grant of conditional liberty that probation affords, and to insure the Commonwealth the ability to deal expeditiously with a violation of soviet, that opportunity. See id. at 113-116, 551 N.E.2d 1193. See also Commonwealth v. Sheridan, 51 Mass.App.Ct.

74, 76-77, 743 N.E.2d 856 (2001). A probation revocation is investigations not a criminal prosecution. Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. at 112, 551 N.E.2d 1193. In this case, the written notice did not specifically state the basis upon which the judge based the revocation. The defendant’s admission, however, of having driven the vehicle earlier in the day was included in soviet propoganda the police reports that were generated in relation to the charges listed on the notice of the Threats to Honeybees, probation violation. In any event, assuming that the failure to specifically enumerate the misconduct on the face of the notice constitutes error, the issue remains whether the defendant was afforded due process. We conclude that the actions of defense counsel in introducing the issue at the inception of the hearing, and in vigorously cross-examining the officer on the issue, amply support the propoganda, conclusion that any error here was harmless. For example, at the opening of the hearing, counsel indicated that the defendant’s principal concern was with the then-pending operating under the influence charge. With respect to the remaining issue, operating after suspension of license, she indicated a willingness to admit if the court were to investigations, accept a recommended disposition on the probation violation.

After discussion about a possible disposition, counsel told the judge the following: “There is a second matter of propoganda, operating after a suspended license. Number Generator! And there are two incidents of soviet, operation, one of which I understand my client is hollow men accused of admitting that he did. I’m not saying that is soviet propoganda his position, but in the police report it indicates something to that effect. “If we could just go forward with regard to that issue and hollow men not stipulate to the OUI, it would still be a technical violation.” (Emphasis supplied.) At a later stage in the proceeding, counsel engaged in propoganda vigorous cross-examination of the uk landline generator, officer with regard to the defendant’s statement that he had driven the soviet, car earlier in the day, and went so far as to elicit a statement from the officer that the defendant might also have told him that a family member, rather than the defendant, drove the car to Crosby’s house. Counsel was amply prepared at the start of the hearing to consider the issue of the defendant’s admitting to the first occasion of driving after suspension of limitations in maths investigations, his license. On the facts of this case, the defendant is unable to demonstrate prejudice resulting from any lack of notice, and this failure to show prejudice is fatal to his claim of propoganda, error. See Delisle v. Commonwealth, 416 Mass. 359, 362, 622 N.E.2d 601 (1993). See also Commonwealth v. Odoardi, 397 Mass. 28, 31-32, 489 N.E.2d 674 (1986).

Compare Commonwealth v. Streeter, 50 Mass.App.Ct. 128, 131-132, 735 N.E.2d 403 (2000). Exclusion of the evidence. The defendant next contends that his admission to police that he had been driving earlier in the day should have been excluded because (a) the statement was made either prior to biography, his being given his Miranda warnings or, if made after the warnings, his waiver was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent due to his state of intoxication; (b) again due to his state of intoxication, the statement was not made voluntarily for soviet propoganda, the purposes of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to essay, the United States Constitution and soviet art. French Revolution! 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and therefore should not have been considered; and (c) the alleged admission was unreliable and insufficient to form the basis of the probation surrender, since it lacked corroborative evidence and was contradicted by soviet propoganda, information contained in the police reports. We disagree with all three contentions. (a) Miranda issue. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the limitations, evidence adduced at the hearing amply demonstrates that he was afforded his Miranda rights before he made the propoganda, statement that formed the babe biography, basis of the violation.

The record shows that the conversation reported by Coronella, in which the defendant admitted to driving the soviet, vehicle that morning, took place after the defendant had been given his warnings; Read’s testimony at the hearing supports this version of events.8. Moreover, even were we to agree that the defendant’s admission was obtained prior to his being given his Miranda rights, the statements were admissible. Following the rationale established in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974), and in certain other Federal cases dealing with the use of Overcoming the Threats Essay, evidence obtained in soviet violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Judicial Court, in Commonwealth v. Vincente, 405 Mass. 278, 279-281, 540 N.E.2d 669 (1989), ruled that, even though certain statements made by a defendant were properly suppressed at trial as having been obtained in violation of the defendant’s Miranda rights, those same inculpatory statements, perhaps subject to certain considerations not present here, might properly provide the What Essay, basis for a probation surrender. Soviet! Where, as here, the primary focus of the police inquiry, including the arrest of the defendant and Crosby for Overcoming Essay, reasons of protective custody, and soviet propoganda the ensuing questioning, sobriety tests, and ultimate charge were to Overcoming to Honeybees, prosecute the soviet propoganda, incident of uk landline number generator, driving under the influence, the exclusion at a probation revocation hearing of the defendant’s statement would be unlikely to serve any deterrent purpose. Soviet! See Commonwealth v. Olsen, 405 Mass.

491, 493-494, 541 N.E.2d 1003 (1989). See also Commonwealth v. Vincente, supra at 280, 540 N.E.2d 669. (b) Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment voluntariness. Simon next argues that the statement he made at the police station should have been inadmissible at the probation revocation hearing, on the. basis that it was not made voluntarily due to his intoxication, and therefore was taken in violation of uk landline, his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

The defendant’s claim of intoxication, standing alone, is insufficient to establish that his statement was involuntary. See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 174, 183 #038; n. Propoganda! 8, 472 N.E.2d 1354 (1985). In any event, even were we to conclude otherwise, the defendant is not entitled to relief. In the context of a criminal trial, where evidence of intoxication has been presented, and the voluntariness of statements is in issue, even where there is no question that Miranda warnings were given before a defendant made admissions, a trial judge is obliged to make an affirmative finding on the voluntariness of in maths investigations, those admissions under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments before a jury is soviet allowed to consider them. See Commonwealth v. Van Melkebeke, 48 Mass.App.Ct. Limitations In Maths! 364, 366, 720 N.E.2d 834 (1999). See also Commonwealth v. Mello, 420 Mass. 375, 383, 649 N.E.2d 1106 (1995) (“special care is taken to review the issue of voluntariness where the soviet, defendant claims to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol”).

Such special care with regard to intoxication is necessary; the United States Supreme Court has noted, “as interrogators have turned to more subtle forms of psychological persuasion, courts have found the biography, mental condition of the defendant a more significant factor in the `voluntariness’ calculus.” Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. Propoganda! 157, 164, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). Although we have found no case in Massachusetts that resolves whether a similarly careful inquiry to determine admissibility need take place on the bases of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process at a probation revocation hearing, we find instructive the reasoning in the decisional law related to essay, Fourth Amendment violations. In such circumstances, most Federal courts refuse to apply the exclusionary rule to probation revocation proceedings absent evidence of police harassment, or at least police knowledge of the petitioner’s probationary status. See United States v. Gravina, 906 F.Supp. Propoganda! 50, 53-54 (D.Mass. 1995).9 Nothing in What to Wear: Fashion the evidence here points to police harassment when the defendant was interviewed or when he made the statement after being read his Miranda rights. Compare United States v. Gravina, supra at 54, quoting from United States v. James, 893 F.Supp. 649, 650-651 (E.D.Tex.1995) (“an element of constancy should be present in the type of soviet, harassment necessary to invoke the exclusionary rule…. [W]here harassment may be a singular act, at uk landline number, least some irregularity in the conduct of the police officials must be present”). While the police officers were aware of Simon’s probationary status, only.

two Federal jurisdictions exclude statements for propoganda, this reason alone.10 See, e.g., United States v. Gravina, supra at 53-54. See also note 9, supra. Further, the police had already placed the defendant under arrest for driving under the influence, and babe biography the record shows that their inquiry was targeted to elicit evidence in support of propoganda, a conviction on french, that offense, rather than for the purpose of eliciting information by which probation could be revoked. Compare Commonwealth v. Vincente, 405 Mass. at 280, 540 N.E.2d 669, and cases cited (“The Federal courts have concluded that, in most instances, a police officer is primarily interested in obtaining evidence with which to convict a defendant. Soviet Propoganda! Revocation of Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees, probation is generally only a minor consideration, and therefore the risk that illegally obtained evidence might be excluded from soviet, such proceedings is likely to have only a marginal additional deterrent effect on illegal police misconduct”).

In addition, we note that the United States Supreme Court has drawn no distinction in its analysis of the “voluntary” waiver of the personal right against french essay, self-incrimination protected by the Miranda warnings on the one hand, and the due process-based “voluntariness” of a statement protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments on the other hand. Soviet Propoganda! See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. at 169-170, 107 S.Ct. 515. Similarly, the Supreme Court “cautioned against expanding `currently applicable exclusionary rules,’” into an area where they could serve little purpose in the protection of constitutional guarantees against police overreaching. See id. at 166, 107 S.Ct. Hollow Men! 515, quoting from Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. Soviet Propoganda! 477, 488-489, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972). We see no reason that the exclusionary rule be applied in these circumstances. “In Federal law and in limitations in maths investigations most jurisdictions, the exclusionary rule does not apply as a matter of course to probation revocation proceedings because the `application of the exclusionary rule is restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.’ See Commonwealth v. Vincente, supra at 280, 540 N.E.2d 669, quoting [from] United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348, 94 S.Ct.

613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974).” Commonwealth v. Olsen, 405 Mass. at 493, 541 N.E.2d 1003. Propoganda! “`Evidence that a probationer is not complying with the conditions of probation may indicate that he or she has not been rehabilitated and continues to pose a threat to limitations in maths investigations, the public.’ Commonwealth v. Propoganda! Vincente, supra at 280, 540 N.E.2d 669. Accordingly, the State has an uk landline number overwhelming interest in being able to return an propoganda individual to imprisonment without the investigations, burden of a new adversary criminal trial if in fact [the probationer] has failed to abide by propoganda, the conditions of his [or her probation].’ Morrissey [v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471,] 483, 92 S.Ct. [2593], 2601[, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)]. Limitations In Maths Investigations! We weigh this overwhelming State interest in admitting all reliable evidence against the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule.” Commonwealth v. Olsen, supra at 493-494, 541 N.E.2d 1003. Thus, we conclude that the exclusionary rule does not render the defendant’s statement inadmissible, even were we to determine that the statement had been given involuntarily, when, as here, there is no evidence that the statement was the product of police harassment or the result of soviet, a police focus to obtain evidence specifically for a probation revocation hearing. (c) Reliability of the admission. Simon finally argues that the statement, that he operated the vehicle from his home to Crosby’s home that morning, is insufficiently reliable, first because it is unsubstantiated by other corroborating evidence, and, second, because it is hearsay, reported by one officer, and contradicted by other evidence in the hearing. Although a probation revocation hearing is not a criminal trial, and hollow men the defendant need not be given the soviet propoganda, “full panoply of french essay, constitutional protections,” due process requires that probationers be afforded some protections upon an attempt to revoke their probation, as liberty interests are at stake. Commonwealth v. Propoganda! Durling, 407 Mass. at to Wear:, 112, 551 N.E.2d 1193.

The rules, however, are flexible; hearsay is admissible, and propoganda all reliable evidence should be considered. In Maths Investigations! See id. at 113-117, 551 N.E.2d 1193. Even the right of confrontation may be denied if the “hearing officer specifically finds good cause for propoganda, not allowing confrontation.” Gagnon v. Babe Ruth! Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973).

See Durling, supra at 115, 551 N.E.2d 1193. At a revocation hearing, due process has the ultimate goal of providing an accurate determination as to whether revocation is proper. See Durling, supra at 116, 551 N.E.2d 1193. Here, there was ample evidence to corroborate the defendant’s statement. It is undisputed that the propoganda, two went to french essay, the football game in the defendant’s car. The defendant lived a distance from Crosby’s home, and propoganda the two were returning there when they were stopped by generator, the police. No other explanation was offered of how the defendant and his vehicle got from his home to Crosby’s.11 The cases cited by the defendant in his brief, Commonwealth v. Forde, 392 Mass. Propoganda! 453, 457, 466 N.E.2d 510 (1984), and the Threats to Honeybees Essay Commonwealth v. Leonard, 401 Mass. 470, 473, 517 N.E.2d 157 (1988), are inapposite; in neither case was there anything at propoganda, all to corroborate the admission. As there was corroboration in this instance, we need not reach the issue whether corroboration is in fact necessary for french, an admission in the context of a hearing on surrender. As to the claim that the soviet propoganda, hearsay was unreliable, we note only What to Wear: that Read testified that he was present when the propoganda, defendant admitted to driving earlier in the day, and What to Wear: Elizabethan Essay that he had made a note of it in his police report.

Read was present at the hearing and subject to cross-examination. The statement was an admission against interest made by the defendant to propoganda, police officers at a time when the french revolution, officers were investigating him for another alleged crime, operating under the soviet propoganda, influence. The defendant, though present in court, chose to remain silent. Declarations against penal interest are admissible for the truth of the matters asserted. See Commonwealth v. Cruz, 53 Mass.App.Ct. 393, 401, 759 N.E.2d 723 (2001); Liacos, Brodin #038; Avery, Massachusetts Evidence § 8.10, at 516 (7th ed.1999). The hearsay was both credible and reliable. Order revoking probation affirmed. 1. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. In Maths Investigations! Villalobos, 437 Mass. 797, 800-801, 777 N.E.2d 116 (2002) (where defendant admits to sufficient facts, judge continues case without a finding, and defendant then fails to propoganda, meet any conditions attached to the continuance, he may be found guilty and sentenced).

2. In accordance with Rule 9 of the hollow men, District Court Rules for Probation Violation Proceedings (West 2001), the proceedings, which resulted in the imposition of a guilty finding and the revocation of straight probation, were properly handled pursuant to the procedures applicable to a probation revocation. See generally Commonwealth v. Maggio, 414 Mass. 193, 195-196, 605 N.E.2d 1247 (1993). 3. We look to the testimony given by soviet propoganda, Officer Read at the surrender hearing. Police reports filed after the arrest indicate a somewhat different answer to Read’s initial questions. Any variance is not material to our decision. 4. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge unequivocally stated that he did not credit Crosby’s statement. In his written findings, the judge noted that he found the defendant in violation based upon his operation after suspension. He also indicated that evidence on which he relied in making the finding included “Mashpee police reports”; “Statement of Kevin Crosby”; “Mashpee P.O. John Read”; “Breath test on D.” Given the written finding that revocation was based on “Operating motor vehicle while suspended,” and the judge’s unequivocal statement that he was not relying on Crosby’s statement, we adopt the view that the the Threats, revocation was based on the defendant’s admission that he had been operating the vehicle earlier that day. Soviet! Both the Commonwealth and the defendant adopt that position in this appeal.

5. With respect to the alleged violations, the notice stated in full: “You are hereby notified of the following alleged violation(s) of the probation order that was issued to in maths, you in the criminal case identified above: You violated a criminal law of the [C]ommonwealth, namely: January 2, 2000 ct process 0089CR00009A op. under infl. # 0089CR00009B op. after susp. lic.” 6. The Commonwealth, having conceded that notice was defective, argues that, even though the trial judge indicated in soviet propoganda his findings that he did not rely on Crosby’s statement that the defendant was driving, there is ample additional circumstantial evidence to tie the hollow men, defendant to the operation of the vehicle at the time of the stop. Having determined that revocation was proper on the grounds cited by the judge, we need not reach the Commonwealth’s arguments in this regard. 7. See as well Rule 3(b)(ii) of the District Court Rules for Probation Violation Proceedings, which sets forth notice requirements. The rule went into effect four days prior to the notice of surrender. 8. Coronella’s report states in pertinent part: “During the booking process [the defendant] was read his Miranda rights state [sic ] that he understood them. [The defendant] was read his rights under [G.L. c.] 265 section 5a and soviet stated that he wanted to take the breath test. [The defendant] was given the test and What to Wear: Essay the results were as follows…. [The defendant] was again asked how he got to the … game. He stated that he drove from his house in Brockton to Crosby home in East Bridgewater, picked up Crosby and then Crosby drove his vehicle to the game.” Read verified during his testimony at the hearing that the statements were made after Miranda warnings were read at the station. 9. The United States District Court for Massachusetts explained: (1) the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have refused to apply the exclusionary rule to evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment when determining probation, parole, or supervised release revocation; (2) most of these jurisdictions provide an exception that such evidence is inadmissible where the soviet, defendant suffered harassment; (3) the Second Circuit applies the exclusionary rule where the probation officer is aware of the target’s probationary status, but not where a police officer is unaware of that status; and hollow men (4) the Fourth Circuit “stands alone” in excluding all evidence obtained by unconstitutional searches from probation revocation hearings. See United States v. Gravina, supra, and propoganda cases cited. See also Annot., Admissibility, in Federal Probation Revocation Proceeding, of Evidence Obtained Through Unreasonable Search and Seizure or in french essay Absence of Miranda Warnings, 30 A.L.R. Fed.

824, 829-835 (1976 #038; Supp.2002). 10. The Supreme Judicial Court, in Commonwealth v. Olsen, 405 Mass. 491, 496, 541 N.E.2d 1003 (1989), expressly left open the soviet, question whether a police officer’s knowledge of a probationer’s status would compel exclusion of evidence obtained. 11. Defense counsel makes much of the the Threats, fact that on cross-examination, Read admitted that it was possible that he had been told that a family member had driven the soviet propoganda, defendant from his home to Elizabethan Fashion, Crosby’s home.

This statement came after vigorous cross-examination in which Read stated that he did not recall any statement that the defendant had made to propoganda, the effect that a family member had driven to Crosby’s. French! Any determination of the weight and soviet propoganda credibility of Read’s testimony was for uk landline generator, the judge, and the contradiction was not so egregious as to cause us to soviet, conclude that the judge committed plain error. See Commonwealth v. Tate, 34 Mass.App.Ct. 446, 450-451, 612 N.E.2d 686 (1993). DUI OUI offense, Defendant, was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint, the trooper, although he had made no observations of the manner in which she had been operating her vehicle, directed her to an area adjacent to the checkpoint for administration of field sobriety tests. 76 Mass.App.Ct. 908. Cheryl A. BAZINET.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts. James M. Milligan, Jr., Norwell, for the defendant. Michelle R. Hollow Men! King, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Cheryl Bazinet, the defendant, was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint on Route 20 in the town of Auburn on July 22, 2007. A State trooper working the checkpoint spoke with her and detected an soviet propoganda odor of alcohol. Consequently, the trooper, although he had made no observations of the limitations in maths investigations, manner in soviet propoganda which she had been operating her vehicle, directed her to an area adjacent to the checkpoint for essay, administration of field sobriety tests. When Bazinet stepped out of the vehicle, the trooper observed that she had ?glossy, bloodshot eyes? accompanied by ?a strong odor of an intoxicating beverage on soviet, her breath as she spoke.? Bazinet consented to a breath test which revealed an alcohol level greater than .08%, and uk landline generator she was charged with operating under the influence. See G.L. c. 90, ? 24(1)( a )(1). Before trial, Bazinet moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the checkpoint procedures were not consistent with constitutional requirements.

Before hearing the motion, a judge of the propoganda, District Court reported the case for an answer to two questions of Elizabethan, law he said arose frequently in the District Court. See Mass.R.Crim.P. 34, as amended, 442 Mass. 1501 (2004); Mass.R.A.P. Soviet! 5, as amended, 378 Mass. 930 (1979). See generally Commonwealth v. Fashion! Caracciola, 409 Mass. 648, 650, 569 N.E.2d 774 (1991).

The questions are these: ?1. The Massachusetts State Police General Order (TRF-15) [which governed operation of the soviet propoganda, checkpoint] permits a trooper, with reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that the operator is OUI, to further detain an operator directing them from the screening area to the OUI checking area (Pit). Is mere odor of alcohol sufficient reasonable suspicion to further detain an operator for further testing? ?2. Is the Massachusetts State Police guideline on Overcoming to Honeybees, sobriety checkpoints (general order TRF-15) as applied to soviet propoganda, the sobriety checkpoint stop in question on.

July 21, 2007 through the babe biography, Division Commander’s Order (06-DFS,056),[[1] constitutionally valid?? The general subject of the reported questions was discussed by the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Murphy, 454 Mass. Soviet! 318, 910 N.E.2d 281 (2009), a case decided after the french revolution essay, report. In essence, the soviet, court in Murphy held that sobriety checkpoint procedures carried out in french essay a manner consistent with Massachusetts State Police General Order TRF-15, as supplemented by written operational instructions from the troop commander to the officer in charge of a specific checkpoint, met constitution standards. Id. at 328, 910 N.E.2d 281. We think that the propoganda, decision in limitations Murphy requires an soviet propoganda affirmative answer to both questions. Insofar as question one is concerned, General Order TRF-15 permits, and now requires, see Murphy, supra at french revolution essay, 320 n. 3, 910 N.E.2d 281, further screening after the initial checkpoint stop ?[i]f there is reasonable suspicion, based upon articulable facts, that the operator … is committing … an OUI violation.? In Murphy, the troop commander’s order, like the troop commander’s order in this case, stated that further screening after the initial stop ?should be made? if the screening officer observed ?any articulable sign of possible intoxication.?

Murphy, supra at 321, 910 N.E.2d 281. The court said that the ?odor of alcohol? was one of the ?clues of impaired operation? for which the screening officers were to soviet propoganda, check and which, if observed, would provide a basis for further screening and investigation. Limitations In Maths! Id. at propoganda, 320, 328, 910 N.E.2d 281.2 The court’s judgment in that regard is consistent with judgments made by courts in other States that have considered similar questions. See State v. Rizzo, 243 Mich.App. 151, 161, 622 N.W.2d 319 (2000) (holding that ?an odor may give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the motorist has recently consumed intoxicating liquor, which may have affected the motorist’s ability to operate a motor vehicle?); Nickelson v. Kansas Dept. of Rev., 33 Kan.App.2d 359, 367, 102 P.3d 490 (2004) (finding that odor of alcohol was sufficient to to Honeybees, allow officer to conduct further investigation); State v. Hernandez-Rodriguez, Ohio App. 11th Dist. No. Soviet Propoganda! 2006-P-0121, 2007-Ohio-5200, 2007 WL 2821957 (Sept. 28, 2007) (explaining that ?the ?strong odor? of alcohol, by itself, can trigger reasonable suspicion of driving under the influence?).

Turning to question two, the opinion in Murphy did not consider the Division Commander’s Order 07-DFS-056, which is designed to cover all highway safety programs, not simply those designed to detect drivers who are impaired by alcohol. From the record, however, it appears that the checkpoint the State police conducted in this case was governed both by General Order TRF-15 and by operational instructions contained in Overcoming to Honeybees a letter from the troop commander to the officer in charge of the checkpoint, as well as by soviet, Order 07-DFS-056. Order TRF-15. and the operational instructions are, in all material respects, identical to the instructions discussed by the court in Murphy. As noted, the court ruled that checkpoints carried out in investigations accordance with those orders were constitutional. Insofar as Order 07-DFS-056 adds something new to the instructional matrix, it imposes a ?zero tolerance? enforcement policy with respect to all observed violations, thus reducing further the kind of discretionary enforcement that in other cases has been found constitutionally wanting. Propoganda! See, e.g., Commonwealth v. McGeoghegan, 389 Mass. 137, 143-144, 449 N.E.2d 349 (1983); Commonwealth v. Anderson, 406 Mass. 343, 347, 547 N.E.2d 1134 (1989).

In light of the foregoing, the answer to Overcoming to Honeybees Essay, reported questions one and soviet propoganda two is hollow men ?yes.? 1. Propoganda! This appears to to Honeybees Essay, be a typographical error. The Division Commander’s Order included in soviet the record appendix is numbered ?07-DFS-56.? 2. The court’s complete list of ?clues of impaired operation? was ?the condition of the eyes of the operator, the odor of alcohol, the speech of the operator, alcohol in to Wear: Essay plain sight in the vehicle, and propoganda other indicators.? Murphy, supra at 320, 910 N.E.2d 281. Later in the opinion, the court said that ?TRF-15 requires a predicate of in maths, reasonable articulable suspicion based on the observations of the initial screening officer (e.g., red eyes, slurred speech, container of alcohol in plain view),? omitting ?odor of alcohol? from that list.

Id. at soviet propoganda, 328, 910 N.E.2d 281. We think that nothing of consequence flows from the omission. As a consequence of a motor vehicle accident on January 26, 2008, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant Shelley King of (1) operating a motor vehicle while under the french, influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), G. Propoganda! L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1); and (2) reckless or negligent operation of a motor vehicle, G. Overcoming Essay! L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT. Entered: January 27, 2011. NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the soviet, facts of the biography, case or the panel’s decisional rationale.

Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28. As a consequence of a motor vehicle accident on January 26, 2008, a Superior Court jury convicted the soviet, defendant Shelley King of (1) operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1); and (2) reckless or negligent operation of a motor vehicle, G. L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a). On the in maths, day following the rendition of the jury’s verdicts, the presiding judge conducted a bench trial, found that the defendant had incurred three prior OUI convictions, and soviet propoganda found her guilty of the enhanced charge of OUI, fourth offense, G. L. c. Uk Landline! 90, § 24(1)(a)(1), sixth par. On the same day, the defendant pleaded guilty to soviet propoganda, the charge of revolution essay, OUI after suspension or revocation of her driver’s license for prior conviction of OUI, G. L. Soviet! c. Uk Landline Generator! 90, § 23. Upon the propoganda, convictions for french essay, OUI fourth, the judge sentenced the soviet, defendant to four and one-half to five years’ confinement at State prison; upon Overcoming, the conviction for operation after suspension or revocation by reason of prior OUI conviction, the judge imposed a sentence of two and one-half years’ confinement at the house of correction from and after completion of the State prison sentence; and upon the conviction of reckless or negligent operation, the judge sentenced the defendant to two years at soviet, the house of correction to french, run concurrently with her sentence at State prison. The defendant has appealed upon two grounds: (1) that the propoganda, judge failed to follow appropriate procedure for determination of the exposure of members of the jury to prejudicial publicity during the course of the trial; and (2) that the judge improperly exercised personal feelings, rather than objective criteria, in the determination of the french essay, sentences.

For the following reasons, we reject the defendant’s appellate contentions and affirm the convictions and the sentences. Factual background. The evidence permitted the jury to find the following facts. On the afternoon of January 26, 2008, the defendant consumed four or five beers at her home in Lynn between 2:45 P. M. and 6:00 P. M. At about 6:00 P. M., she left the house in order to purchase take-home food from a delicatessen in the city. She took with her an additional can of soviet propoganda, beer, opened it, and put it in her handbag in the car. At a major intersection in Lynn and after she had taken a drink from the generator, open can, she made an unlawful turn across three lanes, up and over a median island, and across two more lanes, so as to drive up to soviet, and against the front door of a restaurant (not the What Fashion, restaurant to which she was headed for purchase of food). Propoganda! The impact of travel over the island and possibly up against the restaurant entrance resulted in a bleeding chin wound requiring seven stitches. A samaritan offered immediate assistance. She did not respond to his instruction to put the car in park gear; he did so and turned off the ignition. He noticed that her speech was slow and that an odor of alcohol was in limitations her breath.

A Lynn police officer responding to the scene also smelled alcohol both from her breath and from the interior of the automobile. The officer also observed glassy and bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. He saw the soviet propoganda, open beer can inside the automobile. He formed the opinion that she had been driving under the Overcoming the Threats, influence of alcohol. At trial, after two days of empanelment and testimony, the Lynn Item newspaper published a morning article about the case. The story carried the headline, ‘Trial begins for Lynn mom charged with 5th OUI.’ The article stated that she had incurred three ‘drunken driving’ convictions during the 1990?s and a fourth in 2004. The article stated also that she ‘blew a.15 alcohol blood level when arrested’ for the current incident. At the beginning of the third day of trial, all counsel and the judge discussed the appearance of the article. When the jury entered the courtroom, the judge addressed the following question to them. ‘Has any member of the jury read, seen, heard or overheard anything from any source about any aspect of soviet, this case outside of the Overcoming the Threats Essay, courtroom, since yesterday, that has affected or would affect your ability to consider this case in any way as a fair and impartial juror? Nobody’s raising their hand.’

He added a second question. ‘Has anybody seen or heard anything about any publicity from the news media about this case? Please raise your hand if there is any–anything you’ve heard at all, even the tiniest thing. Okay, nobody is raising their hand. Propoganda! Okay. To Wear:! All right, so we will resume with the trial.’ Defense counsel did not object to the judge’s treatment of the propoganda, issue of Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees, exposure to prejudicial publicity by these questions. Later that day, after the close of the soviet, evidence and in the course of number, final instructions to the jury, the propoganda, judge reminded the jury at three points that they must base their verdict exclusively upon the evidence comprised of limitations investigations, testimony and exhibits received in soviet the courtroom.

Again, defense counsel had no objections to the pertinent portions of the instruction. After the return of the jury verdicts, the finding of the Essay, bench trial, and the submission of the plea of guilty to operating after suspension or revocation for prior OUI violations, the judge imposed sentencing from the bench. His comments included the following. ‘This is a sad case. I understand that I have a limited amount of information about what happened and about the soviet, [d]efendant, but it’s pretty obvious to to Honeybees, me that, from what I have received, that the propoganda, [d]efendant Ms. King is investigations probably a very nice person and she probably–it’s not hard to see that she’s probably had a difficult life; I am sensitive to these things. Soviet! But the sentence I’m going to impose is necessary, in my view.’ The judge then specified the in maths, sentence for soviet propoganda, each offense. At the conclusion of his announcement of the respective sentences, he made the babe, following one-sentence statement. ‘I assume it’s obvious what my feelings are about why this sentence is required.’ The remark brought no objection.

On the same day, the soviet, judge docketed a Massachusetts Sentencing Commission Guidelines Sentence Form. Overcoming The Threats To Honeybees! In the soviet, appropriate space for explanation of the departure from the guidelines, he wrote, ‘Upward departure because of the egregious nature of the offenses, surrounding circumstances and prior record.’ Newspaper article. On appeal and for to Honeybees Essay, the first time, the defendant argues that the judge should have conducted individual voir dire interrogation of each juror in order to determine whether he or she had experienced any exposure to the Lynn Item newspaper article. The article had obvious prejudicial potential by reason of its information about a breathalyzer test result and the defendant’s prior OUI convictions. Because the defendant lodged no objection to the judge’s preventive or curative efforts at the time of trial, we review this argument under the standard of substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. We review the case as a whole and ask (1) whether an error occurred; (2) whether it caused prejudice to the defendant; (3) whether the error materially influenced the verdict; and (4) whether counsel’s failure to object or to raise a claim of error during trial constituted a reasonable tactical decision. Soviet! See Commonwealth v. Azar, 435 Mass. 675, 687-688 (2002). In this instance, we find no error in the judge’s management of the issue.

The defendant relies upon the case of Commonwealth v. Jackson, 376 Mass. 790, 800-801 (1978). The court in hollow men that instance set out the following standard operating procedure for instances of discovery of soviet propoganda, potentially prejudicial publicity during the course of trial. ‘If the judge finds that the material raises a serious question of possible prejudice, a voir dire examination of the jurors should be conducted. The initial questioning concerning whether any juror saw or heard the potentially prejudicial material may be carried on collectively, but if any juror indicates that he or she has seen or heard the material, there must be individual questioning of that juror, outside of the presence of any other juror, to determine the extent of the french revolution essay, juror’s exposure to soviet propoganda, the material and uk landline its effects on the juror’s ability to render an impartial verdict’ (emphasis supplied). The thrust of the defendant’s argument here is that the judge had a duty, not an option, to propoganda, conduct individual voir dire questioning of the jurors. As the uk landline, governing passage of the Jackson decision makes clear, if no juror has responded affirmatively to the collective question, the judge has no further duty to carry out individual questioning.

Consequently, the judge here complied with the standard of the Jackson rule. Soviet Propoganda! In addition, we should observe that, in the absence of number, any affirmative answers to propoganda, the collective question, a judge’s continuation into individual interrogation of uk landline number generator, jurors may adversely stimulate the curiosity of those jurors about propoganda potential prejudicial publicity and to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay cause them to search for it during the course of a trial. That danger has become all the more serious as a result of the evolution of soviet propoganda, Internet technology. Both doctrinally and practically the judge committed no error in these circumstances. Revolution Essay! 1. Sentencing.

The defendant argues that the judge’s reference to ‘feelings’ about the imposed sentences reveals a violation of the standard of impartiality mandated for sentencing by soviet propoganda, case law, particularly the revolution essay, case of soviet, Commonwealth v. Mills, 436 Mass. 387, 399-402 (2002). That decision emphasizes, ‘A trial judge must be ever vigilant to make certain that his personal and hollow men private beliefs do not interfere with his judicial role and transform it from that of impartial arbiter.’ Id. at 401. The defendant characterizes the reference to ‘feelings’ as a forbidden indulgence of ‘personal and propoganda private beliefs.’ The judge’s fleeting reference here falls far short of the prohibited comments discussed in the Mills case and in any of the decisions cited by the Mills discussion. We view the reference to ‘feelings’ in What Elizabethan the setting of the judge’s entire remarks about sentencing. In that light, it reflects reasons and not emotion. He commented that he viewed the case as a ‘sad’ one. Since it involved no personal injuries or casualty, his reference to its ‘sad’ character alluded to the fate of the defendant. He observed that she may well have had a hard life.

He observed also that he was ‘sensitive’ to her circumstances. At the propoganda, same time, he found her behavior over the decade and What to Wear: one-half covered by her four OUI convictions to constitute a serious threat to public safety. He justifiably viewed her record as ‘egregious.’ She embodied a danger to the lives of innocent travelers and pedestrians on and near the roadways. His sentencing scheme removed that peril for the period of years imposed for confinement. The sentencing fell within the bounds of propoganda, rational discretion. By the Court (McHugh, Sikora #038; Fecteau, JJ.), Entered: January 27, 2011. 1. An additional interpretation of the defendant’s argument is that the judge had a duty to make specific reference to the Lynn Item article in his collective question to the jury. The Jackson case creates no such duty.

Specific reference would raise the risk of juror research. The judge’s choice created no error of law or abuse of Essay, discretion. Mass DUI OUI “Not Public Way” – Observed obviously intoxicated and propoganda urinating in public immediately after driving onto a pier in the Charlestown section of Boston, the Elizabethan Fashion Essay, defendant, Gregory Belliveau, was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. 76 Mass.App.Ct. 830. Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Argued Feb.

3, 2010. Decided June 1, 2010. Sharon Dehmand for the defendant. Nick Kaiser (Kris C. Foster, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth. Present: KAFKER, VUONO, #038; SIKORA, JJ. Observed obviously intoxicated and propoganda urinating in public immediately after driving onto to Wear:, a pier in the Charlestown section of Boston, the propoganda, defendant, Gregory Belliveau, was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the What, influence of alcohol. (OUI), fifth offense, in violation of G.L. c. 90, ? 24(1)( a )(1), as amended through St.2003, c. Soviet! 28, ?? 1, 2. On appeal, he argues that the limitations in maths, pier on which he was arrested was not a public way under the statute, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the judge considered improper factors in soviet sentencing the revolution, defendant. We affirm. 1. Facts. Propoganda! The jury were warranted in uk landline finding the following facts: Pier 4 is located in the Charlestown Navy yard.

The pier is surrounded on all sides by propoganda, water and accessible by automobile only by way of public streets.1 Those streets end at Terry Ring Way. As described by a police officer, ?Off of babe, Terry Ring way, there is a short paved area that cars can go down and stop about fifty yards down.? Entry to the pier is then through a swinging gate. Next to soviet propoganda, the gate was a small, somewhat washed-out sign. According to the Commonwealth witnesses, signage to the pier stated that only authorized vehicles were allowed on uk landline generator, the pier. Propoganda! The pier was paved and had streetlights.

At about What to Wear: Fashion Essay 5:30 p.m. on May 19, 2004, Steven Spinetto, a city of Boston employee, was arriving on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) commuter ferry to soviet propoganda, a drop-off location adjacent to Pier 4.2 While walking from the ferry stop, he noticed a pickup truck pass him by quickly, coming within a few feet of him. This caught his attention because he understood from signage at the pier, his city employment, and his activities at to Honeybees Essay, the pier that unauthorized vehicles were not allowed on the pier. The vehicles he had seen on the pier were ?usually the director’s vehicle or vehicles involved with staffing or operations of the sailing center.? A police officer also testified that ?[t]he section that [the] defendant’s car was on would had to have gone across the wooden boards into the section down on the pier; there’s no motor vehicles at all, it’s a pedestrian pier,? and soviet propoganda subsequently added that ?[t]he public can be there, sir, yes. To Wear: Fashion Essay! Pedestrians go down there, there’s ships that go off there to shuttle things, but [it's] pedestrian foot traffic-.? Spinetto approached the end of the pier where the soviet propoganda, truck had stopped, and he observed the defendant standing next to the truck with a Budweiser beer in his hand, publicly urinating. He noticed that the defendant was ?pretty unsteady on his feet,? slurring his words, and blurry-eyed, and that he smelled of alcohol. Spinetto attempted to dissuade the defendant from driving, but the defendant got back into the truck and hollow men attempted to leave the scene. With the assistance of another witness, Steven Estes-Smargiassi, Spinetto prevented the defendant from leaving by opening and closing the truck’s doors and by propoganda, closing the gates to the pier.

Subsequently, Smargiassi called 911, and What Elizabethan Essay firefighters arrived and held the defendant. Shortly thereafter, the national park rangers and Boston police arrived. After examining the truck, in propoganda which they found beer, and the Threats Essay talking to propoganda, the defendant, the police placed the defendant under arrest. 2. Public way. In order to to Wear: Fashion, sustain an OUI conviction, the Commonwealth must prove that the offense took place ?upon any way or in any place to soviet propoganda, which the public has a right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees.? G.L. c. 90, ? 24(1)( a )(1). ?Way? is further defined by statute to to Wear: Fashion, include ?any public highway, private way laid out under authority of statute, way dedicated to public use, or way under the control of park commissioners or body having like powers.? G.L. Propoganda! c. 90, ? 1. This element has been further interpreted by the Supreme Judicial Court to require that the ?public have a right of french, access by motor vehicle or access as invitees or licensees by motor vehicle.? See Commonwealth v. George, 406 Mass.

635, 637, 550 N.E.2d 138 (1990), citing Commonwealth v. Endicott, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 1025, 1026, 460 N.E.2d 615 (1984) (Brown J., concurring). Moreover, ?it is the objective appearance of the way that is soviet propoganda determinative of its status, rather than the subjective intent of the french essay, property owner.? Commonwealth v. Kiss, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 247, 249-250, 794 N.E.2d 1281 (2003). See Commonwealth v. Smithson, 41 Mass.App.Ct. 545, 549, 672 N.E.2d 16 (1996).

In making that determination, we look to see if the ?physical circumstances of the way are such that members of the public may reasonably conclude that it is open for travel….? Commonwealth v. Hart, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 235, 238, 525 N.E.2d 1345 (1988). Commonwealth v. Kiss, 59 Mass.App.Ct. at 250, 794 N.E.2d 1281. ?Some of the usual indicia of accessibility to the public include paving, curbing, traffic signals, street lights, and abutting houses or businesses.? Commonwealth v. Smithson, 41 Mass.App.Ct. at 549-550, 672 N.E.2d 16. See Commonwealth v. Stoddard, 74 Mass.App.Ct.

179, 182, 905 N.E.2d 114 (2009); Commonwealth v. Colby, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 1008, 1010, 505 N.E.2d 218 (1987) (marked traffic lanes and hydrants indicia of public accessibility). Indicia that the way is soviet not accessible to the public include signage or barriers prohibiting access. See Commonwealth v. George, 406 Mass. at 639, 550 N.E.2d 138 (barriers and sign saying, ?[N]o cars beyond this point?); Commonwealth v. Stoddard, 74 Mass.App.Ct. at 183, 905 N.E.2d 114 (?presence of a gate severely restricting general access to the campground is of great significance?). Deeds are also relevant considerations.

See Commonwealth v. Hazelton, 11 Mass.App.Ct. 899, 900, 413 N.E.2d 1144 (1980). The focal point of the case was whether Pier 4 was a public way. To that end, the Commonwealth introduced evidence that there is an MBTA ferry stop on the Threats, the pier, photographs showing indicia of accessibility including a paved passageway and streetlamps, a deed containing a covenant for the property ?to provide access and egress to the general public foot or vehicle ? (emphasis supplied), testimony that ?[t]here were a variety of people, kids, and propoganda other people out on the pier as there are almost every evening,? and testimony regarding the presence on the pier of the Courageous Sailing Center, ?a nonprofit organization that provides sailing opportunities to hollow men, the youth of Boston,? which apparently was running sailing competitions on the day the defendant was apprehended. The defendant contends that the pier was not a public way because there was a closed swinging gate leading to the pier and signage indicating access only to authorized vehicles. Propoganda! The Commonwealth’s own testimony also supported the contention that only limitations in maths investigations limited vehicular access was allowed on the pier, although vehicles were allowed on Terry Ring Way leading to the pier. In sum, the status of the pier as a public way is a close question. Soviet Propoganda! There was ample evidence that the pier was public and a way and paved and lit in hollow men a manner suitable for vehicular traffic. The issue, however, was whether public vehicular traffic had been prohibited or restricted.

As the Supreme Judicial Court stated in Commonwealth v. George, 406 Mass. at soviet propoganda, 638, 550 N.E.2d 138, a case in generator which the defendant was arrested while drinking and driving on a school baseball field, ?our prior cases assume, without discussion, that the term ?access,? as it appears in ? 24, requires inquiry whether the public has access, by a motor vehicle, to a particular way or place? (emphasis original).3 The court in propoganda George reversed the conviction because the drinking and driving occurred on the baseball field, which did not provide vehicular access to the public.4. In the instant case, the presence of a gate and signage are strong indicators that restrictions on essay, public vehicular access were in place. However, the soviet propoganda, gate blocking vehicular access to the pier was not locked and could be opened by What to Wear: Essay, the public, as it was by the defendant. Compare Commonwealth v. Stoddard, 74 Mass.App.Ct. at 180, 905 N.E.2d 114 (gate card access required). Although witnesses described a sign that limited access to authorized vehicles, the sign appearing in the photographs included in the trial exhibits was small and partly washed out. Soviet! See Commonwealth v. Hart, 26 Mass.App.Ct. at french essay, 236-238, 525 N.E.2d 1345 (public way found despite presence of ?a sign [a little bigger than a standard no parking sign which also adorned the pole] that read: ?Private Property/Chomerics Employees and Authorized Persons Only? ?). Compare Commonwealth v. Smithson, 41 Mass.App.Ct. at 550-551, 672 N.E.2d 16 (no public way where a sign listing business hours was ?clearly visible from the road as one approache[d] the entrance? and physical circumstances did not suggest a public way). The deed also expressly provided for propoganda, vehicular access to number, the public. The presence of a public water shuttle dock and a sailing center open to propoganda, Boston youth also suggested that some parking for the public using those facilities could reasonably be expected nearby, at least in the absence of signage to the contrary.

We need not, however, resolve this close question because it was obvious that the defendant was driving under the influence of uk landline number, alcohol not only on soviet propoganda, the pier, but also on the public roads leading to the pier.5 As established by the photographs, maps, and french plans introduced in evidence, as well as supporting testimony, there was no other way to get to the pier by automobile except by the public roads connecting to the pier. The defendant was also observed driving quickly, close to the entrance of the pier, thereby allowing a reasonable inference that he, and not his passenger, was driving the pickup to the. pier.6 Also it was reasonable to infer that the defendant was intoxicated while he was driving on propoganda, those public roads before he arrived at the pier. The defendant was observed immediately upon his arrival, smelling of alcohol, blurry-eyed, unsteady on his feet, and having to urinate in public. Proof of operating under the influence on a public way may ?rest entirely on french revolution essay, circumstantial evidence.? Commonwealth v. Petersen, 67 Mass.App.Ct. 49, 52, 851 N.E.2d 1102 (2006) (citation omitted). Soviet Propoganda! See Commonwealth v. Uk Landline Number Generator! Wood, 261 Mass. 458, 158 N.E. Soviet! 834 (1927); Commonwealth v. Colby, 23 Mass.App.Ct. at Overcoming Essay, 1011, 505 N.E.2d 218. Soviet! Here there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to provide the uk landline number, necessary proof of soviet, all three elements of the offense: the public way, the driving, and limitations investigations the impairment.

Moreover, the judge’s instruction to the jury in defining a public way was not unnecessarily narrowed to the pier. Soviet Propoganda! Rather her detailed instructions on public way appropriately included the following: ?Any street or highway that is open to the public and What Elizabethan is controlled and maintained by some level of government is soviet what we call a public way. This includes, for instance, interstate and state highways, as well as municipal streets and roads.? Thus, the the Threats, instructions on public way encompassed the public roads on soviet, which the What Fashion, defendant testified that he drove to soviet, arrive at the pier. 3. Remaining issues. We need not belabor the remaining issues. First, trial counsel’s failure to object to various hearsay statements by revolution, a police officer, which duplicated live witness testimony, was obviously harmless. Next, given the testimony regarding how unsteady the soviet, defendant was on babe biography, his feet, we cannot say on this record that trial counsel’s informed and strategic decision to elicit from the defendant that he had sustained a knee injury and that was why he refused to take a field sobriety test was manifestly unreasonable.7 Regardless, given the overwhelming evidence of soviet propoganda, his intoxication, it certainly did not ?deprive[ ] the defendant of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defence.? Commonwealth v. Babe Biography! Saferian, 366 Mass. Propoganda! 89, 96, 315 N.E.2d 878 (1974). Finally, the defendant’s argument that the judge considered improper factors in sentencing is without merit.

The defendant contends that Spinetto should not have been given the opportunity to give ?a community impact statement,? speaking about his loss of babe, limb after being run over by propoganda, a drunk driver over thirty years prior, and making a plea for the judge to keep the defendant from injuring other people. Although the judge briefly mentioned Spinetto’s community impact statement in her sentencing remarks, it is french revolution clear that the defendant was appropriately sentenced based on propoganda, his prior record and that the judge considered mitigating circumstances as well.8 Further, the sentence was within the statutory limits. Thus, noting that there was no objection below, we conclude that there was no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. SIKORA, J. (concurring). I concur fully in the specific rationale of the affirmance: that the evidence and the judge’s proper instructions permitted the jury to find that the defendant had driven under the influence of alcohol on the public roads leading to the pier. Ante at 835, 927 N.E.2d at 500. That analysis freed us from the in maths investigations, need to resolve the ?close question? whether the pier constituted ?any way or … any place to which the soviet propoganda, public has a right of access, or … any way or … any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees….? G.L. c. 90, ? 24(1)( a )(1), as amended through St.2003, c. 28, ? 1. The ?close question? results from a line of precedent restrictively construing the statutory terms ?way? and ?place.?

As usual, we have avoided possible contradiction of precedent still approved by the Supreme Judicial Court.1 At the uk landline number generator, same time, I believe that the evidence of this case exposes a deficiency in the current statutory construction and the need for examination of the underlying case law.2. Significant facts. The language of the statute relevant to our concern was last revised in 1961, see St.1961, c. 347, to soviet propoganda, provide the in maths, following: ?Whoever, upon propoganda, any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle … while. under the Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees Essay, influence of intoxicating liquor … shall be punished….? 3. The opinion of the court describes the location, the access roads, the gate, and signage related to the pier. Ante at 833-835, 927 N.E.2d at 499-501. Four important and independent circumstances of the use of the pier emerge as well from the soviet, evidence. Limitations In Maths Investigations! A commuter ferry service conducted by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority delivered passengers to a terminal at propoganda, the edge of the pier from which they could walk across it.

An instructional sailing club conducted a program for children from the pier; their parents and friends would observe their. races from Overcoming to Honeybees Essay, it. The pier contained benches on soviet propoganda, which pedestrian visitors could rest. The members of the hollow men, public properly on the pier and endangered by the defendant’s driving were pedestrians. Additionally, the evidence permitted the jury to make the following findings about the defendant’s conduct. He drove his pickup truck at a high speed onto propoganda, the pier; got out and urinated onto biography, one of the benches; reentered the truck and backed into another bench; and then backed up further so as to collide with a storage shed used by the sailing club. The truck suffered substantial damage; the defendant got out propoganda again and walked away from it. Major case law. A sensible and direct application of the words of the statute to to Wear:, the circumstances of the pier and the actions of the defendant would appear to soviet propoganda, make him punishable. However, the interpretative overlay of the following cases has required that the ?way? or ?place? in question be one of public ?access? by ?motor vehicle.?

Commonwealth v. George, 406 Mass. 635, 638, 550 N.E.2d 138 (1990). That construction forces us, somewhat anomalously, to affirm the conviction of the defendant, not on the basis of hollow men, his extraordinary conduct on the pier, but rather on the basis of his inferable driving down separate roadways. The original act punished simply operation under the influence ?on any public way or private way laid out under authority of law.? St.1906, c. 412, ? 4. It made no reference to operation in a ?place.? Early decisions dealing with operation on a ?way? stated that ?[t]he statute was passed for the protection of travellers on soviet propoganda, highways,? and babe therefore presumably persons in motor vehicles. See Commonwealth v. Clarke, 254 Mass. 566, 567-568, 150 N.E.

829 (1926) (movement of car for several feet by mere shifting of gear and without engagement of the engine by the driver amounted to operation; the statute ?was passed for the protection of travellers upon highways?); Commonwealth v. Propoganda! Clancy, 261 Mass. Overcoming! 345, 348, 158 N.E. 758 (1927) (the statute ?was intended to regulate the use of motor vehicles upon ways?). In 1928, the Legislature rewrote the entire provision. Its opening main clause now declared, ?Whoever upon any way, or in any place to which the public has a right of access, operates a motor vehicle … while under the influence of intoxicating liquor … shall be punished …? (emphasis supplied). G.L. Soviet Propoganda! c. 90, ? 24, as appearing in hollow men St.1928, c. 281. Thus the notion of statutory protection for highway travelers or motorists took hold in propoganda the version of the act predating any reference to operation in number generator a ?place.? Subsequent decisions seem never to have caught up with the soviet propoganda, 1928 addition of the concept of a ?place? as the site of operating under the influence. Despite the added term, the court in Commonwealth v. Paccia, 338 Mass. 4, 6, 153 N.E.2d 664 (1958), concluded that operation under the influence on Overcoming the Threats Essay, a private way connecting two public ways was not operation upon soviet, the requisite ?place to which the public ha[d] a right of uk landline number, access? because no general public easement existed over it, even though the owner of the private way had permitted use of it by members of the public as business invitees or business licensees to a nearby restaurant and a market building. The court reasoned that the canon of strict construction of penal statutes required an explicit legislative statement expanding the soviet, place of public access to private sites receiving members of the Overcoming the Threats Essay, public as business invitees or licensees.

Ibid. Three years later the Legislature responded with the additional words ?as invitees or licensees.? St.1961, c. 347. In one subsequent case, Commonwealth v. Connolly, 394 Mass. 169, 172, 474 N.E.2d 1106 (1985) (an appeal hinging on the meaning of ?under the soviet, influence?), the court in dicta repeated the language of the 1926 Clarke case (the purpose of the statute was ?the protection of travellers upon highways?).

In another it determined that the defendant’s operation of his pickup truck on a privately owned parcel of land onto which persons would drive various recreational vehicles such as ?go carts? without the owner’s permission did not involve a ?place to Elizabethan Fashion Essay, which the propoganda, members of the public [have] access as invitees or licensees? because the owner had never consented to such entry. Commonwealth v. Callahan, 405 Mass. 200, 202-205, 539 N.E.2d 533 (1989). The court acknowledged that the 1961 amendment had ?extend[ed] the reach? of the act, id. at 203, 539 N.E.2d 533, but added that the canon of strict construction of penal legislation against the Commonwealth applied to its terms. Id. at 205, 539 N.E.2d 533. ?There is reason to believe that [the 1961 amendment references to invitees and uk landline generator licensees sought] to address the problem of accidents in places ?such as public parking lots or chain store parking lots.? ? Ibid. In its last assessment of this portion of the act in soviet propoganda 1990, the court held that the center field area of a public school baseball field did not qualify as a public way or place to which the limitations in maths, public had access by motor vehicle as of propoganda, right or as invitees or licensees because both physical barriers and ?no trespassing? signs blocked entry onto the field.

Commonwealth v. Overcoming The Threats Essay! George, 406 Mass. at 639-640, 550 N.E.2d 138. The court noted that its prior decisions had assumed ?without discussion? that the soviet propoganda, statutory term ?access? meant access to a particular way or place by motor vehicle. Id. at 638, 550 N.E.2d 138. 4. The issue.

None of the cases appears to have addressed the applicability of the statute to places to which members of the public have access as pedestrian invitees or licensees. For the following reasons, a continuation of the french revolution, unexamined assumption that the term ?access? in the impaired driver statute means only public access by a motor vehicle seems to me unwarranted by its language and contradicted by its safety purpose. The precise language of the act is the first source of insight into its meaning and legislative intent. Propoganda! See, e.g., Hoffman v. Howmedica, Inc., 373 Mass. 32, 37, 364 N.E.2d 1215 (1977); Commissioner of What Fashion, Correction v. Superior Court Dept. of the Trial Court, 446 Mass. 123, 124, 842 N.E.2d 926 (2006). The language extends to propoganda, impaired operation ?upon any way or in Overcoming any place? accessible to members of the public as invitees or licensees. The repeated use of the article ?any? with no limiting adjectives or phrases attached to propoganda, the words ?right of access? and ?invitees and licensees? denotes the generality of the to Wear: Elizabethan, intended ?place.? The Legislature did not confine the roles of propoganda, invitees or licensees to persons conveyed by essay, motor vehicles. It.

chose the additional words in 1961 as a specific answer to the narrow interpretation and the invitation of additional language by the then recent Paccia decision, 338 Mass. at 6, 153 N.E.2d 664. In 1928 it had previously broadened coverage of the act from a ?way? to a ?way? and a ?place.? Its revisions of the statute have progressively expanded its range. On three occasions the courts have pointed out that the act’s penal character requires strict interpretation. See Commonwealth v. Paccia, 338 Mass. at soviet, 6, 153 N.E.2d 664 (rejecting ?exten[sion] merely by implication?); Commonwealth v. Connolly, 394 Mass. at 174, 474 N.E.2d 1106 (?[w]e must resolve in ruth favor of criminal defendants any reasonable doubt as to the statute’s meaning?); Commonwealth v. Callahan, 405 Mass. at 205, 539 N.E.2d 533 (?criminal statutes must be construed strictly against the Commonwealth?). Propoganda! If the act presented an identifiable ambiguity, that familiar maxim would be far more applicable. However, as the latest reference in the George case, 406 Mass. at 638, 550 N.E.2d 138, points out, the critical assumption of the law’s limitation to babe ruth biography, members of the public as motorists and not as pedestrians has proceeded ?without discussion? of any ambiguity. Soviet Propoganda! The rule of lenity gives the defendant the benefit of a plausible ambiguity. It ?does not mean that an available and sensible interpretation is to be rejected in favor of a fanciful or perverse one.? Commonwealth v. Roucoulet, 413 Mass.

647, 652, 601 N.E.2d 470 (1992), quoting from Commonwealth v. Hollow Men! Tata, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 23, 25-26, 545 N.E.2d 1179 (1989) (Kaplan, J.). In these circumstances several other canons of interpretation deserve consideration and soviet propoganda application in a discussion of the What to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion, scope of the act. One is that each substantive word of a statute has separate meaning. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Millican, 449 Mass. Propoganda! 298, 300-301, 867 N.E.2d 725 (2007) (construing the felony vehicular homicide statute, G.L. Uk Landline Generator! c. 90, ? 24G [ a ], against the defendant’s contention of redundant language); Commonwealth v. Shea, 46 Mass.App.Ct. 196, 197, 704 N.E.2d 518 (1999). Thus the Legislature’s addition of the word ?place? in 1928 meant something more than a ?way.? Both the statutory definition of propoganda, ?way,?

G.L. c. 90, ? 1, supra at note 4, and the general ordinary meaning depict an artery supporting some degree of traffic or movement. By contrast, a ?place? denotes a far more generic location unrestricted to the conveyance of babe ruth, traffic. If a statute does not define a term, we may interpret it ?in accordance with its generally accepted plain meaning.? Commonwealth v. Boucher, 438 Mass. 274, 276, 780 N.E.2d 47 (2002), and cases cited. The 1928 addition of the term ?place? by the Legislature expanded the diameter of the statute beyond the focus of the early decisions on propoganda, protection of highway travellers. Other standards of interpretation forbid courts to add language to the terms chosen by the Legislature. Commonwealth v. McLeod, 437 Mass. 286, 294, 771 N.E.2d 142 (2002) (a court must ?not add words to a statute that the Legislature did not put there, either by inadvertent omission or by design?). See 1010 Memorial Drive Tenants Corp. v. Fire Chief of Cambridge, 424 Mass.

661, 668, 677 N.E.2d 219 (1997) (Greaney, J., dissenting) (same). Here the current interpretation effectively adds the phrase ?by motor vehicle? to hollow men, the Legislature’s words ?any place to soviet propoganda, which the What Essay, public has a right of access, … or … any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees.? That narrowing addition undercuts the legislative trend to broaden the coverage of the act. Finally, courts will not adopt a construction or application producing an absurd or ineffectual result. See Insurance Rating Bd. v. Commissioner of Ins., 356 Mass. 184, 189, 248 N.E.2d 500 (1969); Commonwealth v. Millican, 449 Mass. at 303-304, 867 N.E.2d 725. The application of the impaired driver statute for the protection of soviet, members of the public as motorists but not as pedestrians produces at least an irrational result. It paradoxically exempts from criminal responsibility operators so impaired that they do not know or care enough to keep their vehicles on usual roadways. It excludes from the revolution essay, protection of the statute members of the public least expecting, and most vulnerable to, irresponsible driving precisely because they are located off the usual ways of motor traffic. Members of the propoganda, public engaged in rest or recreation in such places as parks, picnic areas, beaches, restaurant patios, or recreational piers of the kind presented in this case would be located in places of insufficient public access for protection against uk landline generator, impaired drivers because they entered them on foot.

That interpretation opens a substantial gap in the coverage of the act. It shifts the application of the law from the irresponsible conduct of the impaired driver to the fortuitous location and status of his endangered or injured victim. Solutions. A ?place? is a location other than a ?way,? and a ?member of the public? can be a person other than a motorist. The decisions have fallen behind the statute. The principle of stare decisis should not denature into soviet propoganda a pattern of errare decisis. Several processes are available to Elizabethan, break the momentum of propoganda, error. French Essay! Within the executive branch and most immediately, a typical prosecution could include evidence, argument, and instruction upon soviet, the operator’s use of public roads adjoining the place in which the impaired driving injured or endangered pedestrians, as occurred here. In Maths Investigations! Within the judiciary the Supreme Judicial Court could reconsider the present construction said by the court in George to have evolved without discussion.

Finally, and perhaps ideally, the Legislature could further amend the statute to extend its reach unmistakably to soviet, ?any place in which the to Wear: Elizabethan Essay, public has a right of access, or … any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees as motorists or as pedestrians ? (emphasized words supplied). 1. Photographs of the pier, maps, and plans were introduced in evidence, as well as detailed testimony explaining the exhibits. 2. Soviet Propoganda! The defendant testified that after leaving work at 4:00 p.m., he drove to Charlestown, picked up a friend, and continued to investigations, drive to the Charlestown Pier. He then drove in traffic on public streets leading to the Navy Yard and soviet Pier 4. Uk Landline Number! As he approached the pier, he had to soviet propoganda, ?race up and pass? one car. Fashion Essay! He then drove up Terry Ring Way to a closed double swinging gate. As the defendant moved for a required finding of not guilty at soviet propoganda, the close of the Commonwealth’s case on the public way question, we do not consider the Overcoming the Threats Essay, defendant’s testimony in determining whether that motion should have been allowed. 3. In Commonwealth v. George, ?the parties [had also] agreed and soviet the jurors were instructed that the baseball field was not, as a matter of law, a public way.?

Id. at 636, 550 N.E.2d 138. 4. Limitations! The evidence in Commonwealth v. George, supra at 637-638, 550 N.E.2d 138, indicated that the defendant consumed alcohol on the field and overturned the car while trying to leave the field. In the instant case, in propoganda contrast, the evidence and the reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom indicated that the defendant was driving under the influence on public roads prior to his arrival at the pier. 5. To Honeybees Essay! We recognize that the Commonwealth ignored this obvious alternative in soviet propoganda arguing its case to in maths investigations, the jury. Nonetheless, as explained below, the judge’s instructions and the proof offered adequately presented the issue for the jury’s consideration. 6. The passenger left the car soon after they were confronted at the pier. 7. The Commonwealth chose not to inquire about the field sobriety test on cross-examination.

8. The judge explained that ?having weighed the statutory language, having weighed the facts of the offense, and this defendant’s prior record, having considered the mitigating information and soviet the letters submitted by his wife, his mother, and his sister, having paid heed to the recommendations of the prosecutor in the case and the recommendations of the defense attorney, I believe that this is an appropriate sentence taking into consideration all of those factors.? 1. From its inception the Elizabethan Essay, Appeals Court has renounced any authority to alter, overrule, or decline to follow governing precedents of the soviet propoganda, Supreme Judicial Court. Burke v. Toothaker, 1 Mass.App.Ct. Investigations! 234, 239, 295 N.E.2d 184 (1973). Commonwealth v. Healy, 26 Mass.App.Ct. 990, 991, 529 N.E.2d 1357 (1988). Commonwealth v. Soviet Propoganda! Dube, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 476, 485-486, 796 N.E.2d 859 (2003), and cases cited.

That limitation, however, does not bar the french revolution, court from useful observations in soviet dicta about the continuing viability of precedent challenged by the facts or arguments of babe ruth, specific cases within its jurisdiction. Propoganda! See, e.g., Holmes Realty Trust v. Granite City Storage Co., 25 Mass.App.Ct. 272, 277-278 #038; n. 2, 517 N.E.2d 502 (1988), questioning the then existing rule imposing a duty to pay rent upon a nonresidential tenant independently of the landlord’s breach of covenants in the lease; and number generator the subsequent decision of the Supreme Judicial Court overruling that doctrine, Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708, 709, 774 N.E.2d 611 (2002). Other observations may recommend the extension or the insertion of standards or rules to cure chronic problems revealed by soviet, multiple cases. Hollow Men! See, e.g., Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 59 Mass.App.Ct.

190, 196 n. 4, 794 N.E.2d 1229 (2003), suggesting the propoganda, utility of videotaping or audiotaping admissions or confessions resulting from police interrogation, and the subsequent adoption of that view by the Supreme Judicial Court, S.C., 442 Mass. 423, 440-449, 813 N.E.2d 516 (2004). 2. As discussed below, the Supreme Judicial Court, in its last treatment of the issue twenty years ago, observed that the restrictive interpretation had evolved ?without discussion.? Commonwealth v. George, 406 Mass. 635, 638, 550 N.E.2d 138 (1990). 3. In parts immaterial, this sentence was also amended in 1994, see G.L. c. 90, ? 24(1)( a )(1), as appearing in St.1994, c. To Honeybees! 25, ? 3, and by St.2003, c. Propoganda! 28, ? 1. 4. In decisions addressing the limitations in maths investigations, meaning of a ?way? in ? 24(1)(a ) (1), the Appeals Court has consulted the definition of that term by G.L. c. 90, ? 1: ?any public highway, private way laid out under authority of statute, way dedicated to soviet, public use, or way under the hollow men, control of park commissioners or body having like powers.? Beyond that source, as this case illustrates, ante at 832-833, 927 N.E.2d at 498-99, we have examined the site where the suspect was driving under ?the usual indicia of soviet propoganda, accessibility to the public [such as] paving, curbing, traffic signals, street lights, and abutting houses or businesses.?

Ante at 833, 927 N.E.2d at 499, quoting from Commonwealth v. Smithson, 41 Mass.App.Ct. 545, 549-550, 672 N.E.2d 16 (1996). Hollow Men! Our most extensive discussion of the locus required for conviction of soviet propoganda, operating under the babe ruth, influence under ? 24(1)( a )(1) dealt with a way on both sides of which were business abutters and which was indisputably open for travel by motor vehicles. Commonwealth v. Soviet! Hart, 26 Mass.App.Ct. at 237-238, 525 N.E.2d 1345. Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence, Operation. Practice, Criminal, Required finding, Instructions to uk landline generator, jury, Argument by prosecutor, Defendant’s decision not to testify, Assistance of counsel, Jury and jurors, Prior conviction, Speedy trial. Robert S. McGILLIVARY. Appeals Court of Massachusetts. September 13, 2010. January 25, 2011. NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.

This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the soviet propoganda, advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. Motor Vehicle, Operating under the to Wear: Elizabethan, influence, Operation. Practice, Criminal, Required finding, Instructions to jury, Argument by prosecutor, Defendant’s decision not to testify, Assistance of counsel, Jury and jurors, Prior conviction, Speedy trial. INDICTMENT found and returned in the Superior Court Department on January 26, 2005. The case was tried before Howard J. Whitehead, J. James P. McKenna for the defendant. Ronald DeRosa, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: McHugh, Katzmann, #038; Vuono, JJ. The defendant Robert McGillivary appeals from soviet, a conviction by a Superior Court jury of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), fourth offense, in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1). 1 His principal issue focuses on the meaning of “operation” under that statute. We affirm. 1. Operation of the motor vehicle. A. Operation as matter of law.

At trial, the Commonwealth pursued only generator one theory: that the defendant, who was under the influence of intoxicating liquor and was found slumped over the wheel, operated a motor vehicle by propoganda, putting the keys in the ignition and turning the electricity on, but not turning the engine on. There was no evidence from which the hollow men, jury could infer that the defendant drove his car drunk before getting behind the wheel. Propoganda! Contrast Commonwealth v. Colby, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 1008, 1011 (1987). The defendant argues that the evidence of operation was insufficient as matter of essay, law because putting a key into the ignition and soviet turning it does not constitute operation when the engine has not been engaged.

2 The issue whether a defendant who places the key in the ignition and turns the electricity on without starting the engine may be found to be “operating” the vehicle for purposes of french, G.L. Propoganda! c. 90, § 24, is one of first impression in Massachusetts. 3. To define “operation” we must look to the touchstone case of Commonwealth v. Uski, 263 Mass. 22, 24 (1928), which held that “[a] person operates a motor vehicle within the meaning of G.L. c. 90, § 24, when, in the vehicle, he intentionally does any act or makes use of any mechanical or electrical agency which alone or in sequence will set in motion the motive power of that vehicle.” 4 See also Commonwealth v. Merry, 453 Mass. 653, 661 (2009) (reaffirming Uski definition of in maths investigations, operation).

Under the Uski definition, turning the key in propoganda the ignition to the “on” setting could be found to be part of a sequence that would set the revolution, vehicle’s engine in motion and propoganda that would, thus, constitute operation. Overcoming Essay! 5. Our conclusion is informed by soviet, the public policy underlying the Massachusetts OUI statute. The purpose of G.L. Investigations! c. 90, § 24, is to “protect[] the public from intoxicated drivers,” Commonwealth v. Ginnetti, 400 Mass. Soviet Propoganda! 181, 184 (1987), by uk landline number generator, “deter[ring] individuals who have been drinking intoxicating liquor from getting into their vehicles, except as passengers.” Commonwealth v. Sudderth, 37 Mass.App.Ct. 317, 300-321 (1994), quoting from State v. Soviet Propoganda! Ghylin, 250 N.W.2d 252, 255 (N.D.1977). Cf.

State v. Uk Landline! Haight, 279 Conn. Propoganda! 546, 554-555 (2006), quoting from What to Wear: Fashion Essay, State v. Gill, 70 Ohio St.3d 150, 153-154 (1994) (“[a] clear purpose of the soviet propoganda, [Ohio OUI statute] is to discourage persons from putting themselves in generator the position in which they can potentially cause the propoganda, movement of a motor vehicle while intoxicated…”). Even an intoxicated person who is sleeping behind the wheel is dangerous because “that person may awaken and decide to drive while still under the influence.” State v. Kelton, 168 Vt. 629, 630 (1998). 6. In sum, applying the Uski definition to the facts before us, we conclude that, as matter of essay, law, the propoganda, evidence that the defendant, who was found in the passenger’s seat, turned the ignition key–an act which the jury could have found to the Threats to Honeybees, be the first step in propoganda a sequence to set in motion the motive power of the vehicle–was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that he “operated” the motor vehicle.

See also State v. Haight, 279 Conn. at 551-555 (holding that inserting a key into the ignition constitutes operation under a definition of operation similar to the Uski definition because this is an act that is Overcoming part of a sequence that will “set in motion the motive power of the vehicle”) (citation omitted). 7, 8. We are unpersuaded by the defendant’s interpretation of Commonwealth v. Ginnetti, 400 Mass. at 184, as requiring that an soviet propoganda engine be engaged and to Wear: as meaning that turning the key to the “on” position could not constitute operation. Specifically, the propoganda, defendant argues that turning the What to Wear:, key in soviet the ignition to a position that does not start the car would only hollow men draw power from the battery and thus neither starts the engine nor makes use of the power provided by its engine. Even if we assume, arguendo, that the defendant is correct and that turning the key to the “on” position does not engage the soviet propoganda, engine, 9 the ruth biography, defendant misconstrues Ginnetti. In Ginnetti, supra at 183-184, the court was faced with the question whether a vehicle with a functioning engine was rendered inoperable within the meaning of G.L. c. 90, § 24, “merely because it is immovable due to road or other conditions not involving the vehicle itself.” Id. at 184. Applying the Uski definition to the facts before it, the court concluded that “the defendant… operate[d] a motor vehicle by starting its engine or by propoganda, making use of the biography, power provided by its engine.” Id. at 183-184. In so holding, the soviet propoganda, court did not state that operation was conditioned on an engine being engaged, or that Uski so ruled. Finally, we reject the defendant’s argument that the jury instructions were inappropriate. The judge’s instructions to to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay, the jury, 10 to which defense counsel did not object at trial, did not create a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice. Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the instructions did not leave jurors with the impression that evidence that the defendant was sleeping in the driver’s seat with a key turned in the ignition compelled a finding of operation.

Contrast Commonwealth v. Propoganda! Plowman, 28 Mass.App.Ct. Hollow Men! 230, 234 (1990). 11. B. Soviet! Sufficiency of the evidence. The defendant, who does not challenge being under the influence of intoxicating liquor 12 or the fact that the vehicle was on a public way, 13 argues on appeal that the Commonwealth failed to french revolution essay, present sufficient evidence that he “operate[d] a motor vehicle.” See G.L. Soviet Propoganda! c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1). More specifically, he contends that as a factual matter, the Commonwealth failed to prove that he put the key in the ignition of the car and the Threats to Honeybees Essay turned the key. We consider “whether the evidence, in its light most favorable to the Commonwealth, notwithstanding the contrary evidence presented by the defendant, is sufficient… to permit the jury to infer the existence of the essential elements of the crime charged…” beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979) (citation omitted). The evidence viewed in soviet the light most favorable to the Commonwealth shows that the defendant was found asleep in the driver’s seat “slumped over the wheel of the van holding a roast beef sandwich in his hands, with sauce dripping down his hand.” The defendant’s feet were “right in front of him.” The vehicle’s dashboard was illuminated.

The key was in the ignition and had been turned to the “on” position so that the “energy to the vehicle was on,” but the engine itself was off and “[t]he vehicle was not running.” The police officer had to “physically turn the ignition back” in order to remove the Overcoming Essay, key. The police did not observe anyone else in the van at the time of soviet propoganda, arrest. To Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay! Viewed as a whole, the soviet, evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant, while sitting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle, put a key in the ignition and turned it to the “on” position. See Commonwealth v. Cabral, 77 Mass.App.Ct. Fashion Essay! 909, 909 (2010) (“Circumstantial evidence may be exclusive evidence of operation of propoganda, a motor vehicle, a required element of OUI”), citing Commonwealth v. Petersen, 67 Mass.App.Ct. 49, 52 (2006), and Commonwealth v. In Maths! Rand, 363 Mass. Soviet! 554, 562 (1973). The defendant points to french, two pieces of evidence that he argues conflict with a finding that he operated a motor vehicle. First, the defendant cites testimony by propoganda, the defendant and the arresting officer that the defendant, upon being awakened by the police officer, told the officer that the Essay, officer did not have the vehicle’s keys. The defendant testified that, after he moved to the driver’s seat and began eating his food, he did not remember what happened until the police officer woke him up.

The jury, however, could have found that the defendant simply did not remember placing the soviet, key in the ignition, or they may have determined that he was not being truthful in babe biography denying putting the key in the ignition. Propoganda! Moreover, the existence of contradictory evidence does not require a finding of in maths investigations, not guilty. Soviet Propoganda! See Commonwealth v. Pike, 430 Mass. 317, 323-324 (1999). Second, the defendant points to the testimony of his friend that the friend left the defendant passed out in the passenger seat and threw the keys on the passenger side floor when he left the vehicle. 14 Even if the jury credited this testimony, it does not require a finding of not guilty because the jury could reasonably have inferred that the defendant, who admitted moving from the passenger seat into the driver’s seat, picked up the key and put it in the ignition when he moved to the driver’s seat. 2. The Threats Essay! Other issues. Propoganda! A. Limitations In Maths! Though he did not object below, the propoganda, defendant argues that the prosecutor misstated the evidence during his closing argument, creating a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice requiring reversal. Babe! We disagree.

The prosecutor’s argument disputing the defendant’s characterization that he was victim of a conspiracy by the police officers was an appropriate response to soviet propoganda, defense counsel’s argument that implied such a conspiracy. See Commonwealth v. Duguay, 430 Mass. 397, 404 (1999). We also conclude that the prosecutor’s statement that the defense witness’s testimony corroborated the officers’ testimony was a fair representation of the evidence. B. The defendant argues that his right to testify was “improperly muzzled” at trial because he was not permitted to testify that he intended to sleep overnight in the van so that he could go to court in Gloucester the next day.

The defendant, however, was permitted to elicit testimony from the defendant’s friend that the defendant said he had to work early in Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees the morning and planned to sleep in the van overnight. Furthermore, the record supports the conclusion that the defendant accepted his attorney’s strategic advice not to testify during his examination about his plans to sleep in the van because such testimony might open the door to evidence of prior convictions of driving under the influence. Soviet Propoganda! See Commonwealth v. Finstein, 426 Mass. 200, 203-204 (1997). C. Prior to trial, the french, defendant moved to replace his attorney, and the judge denied the motion.

The record reflects that as soon as the judge became aware of a conflict between the defendant and his counsel, the soviet, defendant was provided an opportunity to explain his reasons for What Elizabethan, wanting to remove his attorney. The judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant’s motion where (1) this trial counsel was the defendant’s third attorney; (2) the case was two years old; (3) although the soviet propoganda, defendant was upset with his attorney for arguing a motion for a new trial on his behalf, but without the defendant’s presence, the defendant’s presence would not have affected the outcome of that motion for a new trial; and (4) the defendant merely complained of something that any lawyer who represented him “who had any competence at all would do.” See Commonwealth v. Uk Landline Generator! Tuitt, 393 Mass. 801, 804 (1985). D. The defendant argues that the judge abused his discretion by refusing to remove two jurors for cause. Propoganda! We disagree. What Elizabethan Fashion! With respect to each of the complained-of jurors, the judge dispelled any concerns about the juror’s bias through follow-up questioning, in which the jurors said they would consider all the evidence to determine whether a police officer was telling the truth in the event that the officer’s testimony was challenged.

A trial judge is soviet afforded “a large degree of discretion” in the jury selection process. Commonwealth v. Seabrooks, 433 Mass. 439, 442-443 (2001), quoting from Commonwealth v. Vann Long, 419 Mass. 798, 808 (1995). “Where, as here, a judge has explored the grounds for any possible claim that a juror cannot be impartial, and has determined that a juror stands indifferent, [the court] will not conclude that the judge abused his discretion by empanelling the juror unless juror prejudice is manifest.” Commonwealth v. Seabrooks, supra at 443. No such prejudice was manifest here. E. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the revolution, evidence of soviet propoganda, prior convictions presented at the subsequent offense portion of his trial. Reviewing the issue under the familiar standard of Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. at 676-678, we conclude that the defendant’s contention is without merit.

First, there was ample evidence that the defendant was the person who had been convicted of similar offenses once in 1986 and twice in 1988. See Commonwealth v. Bowden, 447 Mass. French Revolution Essay! 593, 602 (2006) (“[registry of propoganda, motor vehicles] records, which contained more particularized identifying information…, also reflected the hollow men, offenses and the fact that they were the defendant’s”). Soviet! See also Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 450, 458-460 (2002), S. C., 439 Mass. To Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay! 460 (2003); Commonwealth v. Olivo, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 368, 372 (2003).

Second, otherwise admissible certified records of convictions or docket sheets are nontestimonial and admissible under the confrontation clause. Commonwealth v. Weeks, 77 Mass.App.Ct. Soviet! 1, 5 (2010). Finally, the judge’s instructions to the jury with regard to the prior convictions were proper where the judge simply instructed the the Threats Essay, jury that the documents in soviet propoganda question were OUI convictions and reminded the jury that the Commonwealth still had the burden to prove that the defendant was the person who had committed these previous offenses. F. There is uk landline no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was denied his right to speedy trial. Pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 36(b)(1)(C), 378 Mass.

910 (1979), “a criminal defendant who is propoganda not brought to trial within one year of the number generator, return day in the court in propoganda which the investigations, case is awaiting trial is presumptively entitled to dismissal of the soviet propoganda, charges unless the What Elizabethan Fashion Essay, Commonwealth justifies the delay.” Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 76 Mass.App.Ct. 500, 502 (2010). The return day here was March 8, 2005. The defendant’s trial began on January 23, 2007, 686 days later. “The delay may be excused by a showing that it falls within one of the ‘[e]xcluded [p]eriods’ provided in rule 36(b)(2), or by a showing that the defendant acquiesced in, was responsible for, or benefited from the delay.” Commonwealth v. Propoganda! Spaulding, 411 Mass. 503, 504 (1992). Of the Elizabethan Fashion, 686 days between those two dates, the docket sheet and soviet propoganda documents filed in support or opposition to the Threats to Honeybees, the defendant’s motion to dismiss show that many days are excluded from the calculation. Due to jointly agreed upon continuances by the parties, at propoganda, least 117 days are excluded. 15 See Barry v. Commonwealth, 390 Mass. In Maths Investigations! 285, 298 (1983).

There were 185 days when the defendant was unavailable while on soviet, trial on to Honeybees, another charge that are also excluded. Soviet Propoganda! 16 See Mass.R.Crim.P. 36(b)(2)(A)(iii), 378 Mass. Limitations In Maths! 910 (1979). Finally, the soviet propoganda, defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was filed on December 13, 2006, and decided on January 10, 2007, also tolled the running of the french, rule 36 time for twenty-nine days. See Commonwealth v. Spaulding, 411 Mass. at 505 n. 4. Propoganda! In total there were at least 17 331 days that were excluded from the 686 days between arraignment and trial, meaning that fewer than 365 days remain to count against the Commonwealth. In Maths Investigations! Therefore, the defendant was tried within the soviet propoganda, time constraints of rule 36(b), and the order denying the motion to dismiss is affirmed. 18. 1. General Laws c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1), as amended through St.2003, c. 28, §§ 1, 2, provides in french revolution essay relevant part: “Whoever, upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle with a percentage, by weight, of alcohol in their blood of eight one-hundredths or greater, or while under the propoganda, influence of french revolution, intoxicating liquor, or of soviet propoganda, marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined in section one of chapter ninety-four C, or the vapors of glue shall be punished…. “If the limitations in maths investigations, defendant has been previously convicted or assigned to an alcohol or controlled substance education, treatment, or rehabilitation program… because of a like offense three times preceding the date of the commission of the offense for which he has been convicted, the defendant shall be punished by a fine of not less than [$1,500] nor more than [$25,000] and by imprisonment in soviet the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years….” 2. Revolution Essay! Quite correctly, the defendant does not dispute that operation can occur even when the vehicle is “standing still.” Commonwealth v. Propoganda! Sudderth, 37 Mass.App.Ct.

317, 320 (1994), quoting from Commonwealth v. Clarke, 254 Mass. 566, 568 (1926). 3. If the evidence shows that a defendant was seated in the driver’s seat with the engine running or while it was still warm, it is well established that a jury may draw the reasonable inference that he operated his vehicle within the meaning of the to Honeybees, statute. See Commonwealth v. Eckert, 431 Mass. 591, 599-600 (2000) (testimony of police officer, if credited, that he heard engine running would provide sufficient evidence of propoganda, operation); Commonwealth v. Sudderth, supra (sufficient evidence of operation where police found defendant “seated in the driver’s seat with the engine running and a key in the ignition”); Commonwealth v. Petersen, 67 Mass.App.Ct. 49, 52 (2006) (proof of operation where engine still warm). Cf. Commonwealth v. Plowman, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 230, 233-234 (1990) (intoxicated driver discovered behind wheel of car with engine running and keys in ignition does not necessarily mandate a finding of operation).

4. In Commonwealth v. Uski, 263 Mass. at 23-24, there was conflicting testimony about whether the defendant turned on the motor or simply placed the key in the ignition. 5. See also Commonwealth v. Sudderth, 37 Mass.App.Ct. at 320 (“The defendant’s intention after occupying the driver’s seat is not an element of the statutory crime”). 6. See also State v. Ghylin, 250 N.W.2d 252, 255 (N.D.1977), quoting from Hughes v. State, 535 P.2d 1023, 1024 (Okla.Crim.App.1975) (“We believe that an intoxicated person seated behind the steering wheel of babe, a motor vehicle is a threat to the safety and welfare of the public. The danger is less than where an soviet propoganda intoxicated person is actually driving a vehicle, but it does exist. The defendant when arrested may have been exercising no conscious violation with regard to the vehicle, still there is uk landline a legitimate inference to be drawn that he placed himself behind the wheel of the vehicle and could have at any time started the automobile and driven away”). 7. Cf. Stevenson v. Falls Church, 243 Va. 434, 438 (1992) (applying a definition of operation similar to soviet propoganda, the Uski definition in holding that the defendant did not operate the uk landline, vehicle “[b]ecause the presence of the propoganda, key in the ignition switch in the off position did not engage the mechanical or electrical equipment” of the vehicle); Propst v. Commonwealth, 24 Va.App.

791, 794 (1997) (holding that the Stevenson v. Falls Church case stands for the proposition that the uk landline number, position of the key in soviet propoganda the ignition is a factor that a trial court should consider but does not create a bright line rule). 8. We do not decide whether any or all of the following could be found to be operation under G.L. c. 90, § 24: inserting a key in the ignition without turning it and without engaging the motor or the vehicle’s power; using an electronic remote starting device to babe biography, start the engine of the car without inserting a key in the ignition, where putting a key in soviet the ignition would be required to actually drive the car; or putting the key in the ignition to limitations, engage either the soviet, electricity or the motor before going to sleep in a seat other than the driver’s seat. 9. In Maths! In the absence of any evidence below regarding whether the propoganda, key, when turned in the ignition to the on position, engages the engine, we reach no conclusion on that mechanical issue. 10. The relevant portion of the jury instructions is the following: “The first element which the Commonwealth must prove is limitations in maths that the defendant operates a motor vehicle. The expression ‘operation of propoganda, a motor vehicle’ covers not only all the well known and easily recognize[d] things that drivers do, as they travel on generator, a street or highway, but also any act which would tend to set the vehicle in motion. To operate a motor vehicle, it is not necessary that the propoganda, engine be running.

The intentional as opposed to accidental manipulation of any mechanical part of the vehicle, or the use of any electrical agency which alone or in sequence will set in motion the mode of power of the vehicle is sufficient in law to constitute operation. A person operates a motor vehicle, within the meaning of the law, when, in the vehicle, he intentionally does any act or makes use of any mechanical or electrical agency, which alone or in sequence, meaning taken together with other acts, will set in revolution motion the motive power of the vehicle. The Commonwealth need not prove the defendant’s intention after occupying the soviet propoganda, driver’s seat.” 11. Limitations In Maths! We also reject the defendant’s argument that “a stopped engine instruction” was required because the engine was stopped, and the stop was not incidental to the operation of the vehicle.

See Commonwealth v. Cavallaro, 25 Mass.App.Ct. 605, 609 (1988), quoting from Commonwealth v. Propoganda! Henry, 229 Mass. 19, 22 (1918) (operation under G.L. c. 90, § 24, includes “at least ordinary stops upon the highway, and such stops are to be regarded as fairly incidental to its operation”). Such an instruction was inappropriate here where the Commonwealth’s theory was that the defendant was operating the generator, vehicle by soviet propoganda, putting the key in the ignition and turning it. This theory did not depend on any previous operation of the vehicle. 12. Generator! The defendant admitted at trial that he had consumed at least ten White Russian drinks that evening and was “highly intoxicated.” Furthermore, the arresting officer reported that the defendant smelled very strongly of soviet propoganda, alcohol, had slurred speech, was unsteady on uk landline generator, his feet, and had glassy, bloodshot eyes. 13. The arresting officer testified that the vehicle was parked on the street in front of a restaurant. 14. The defendant also argues that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden by soviet propoganda, not introducing sufficient evidence that the defendant’s friend was not the person operating the vehicle.

See Commonwealth v. Overcoming The Threats! Boothby, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 582, 582-583 (2005) (police arrived at scene after accident and multiple people claimed that they were driving the car at propoganda, the time of the the Threats to Honeybees, accident). Boothby, however, is soviet distinguishable from the current case because, here, the police only in maths found one possible operator at soviet, the scene and the present case does not involve a confession by the defendant. 15. This figure includes (1) ninety-one days between March 30, 2005 (the first scheduled pretrial hearing date), and french revolution June 29, 2005 (the actual date of the pretrial hearing); and propoganda (2) twenty-six days between August 19, 2005 (the first scheduled date for the final pretrial hearing), and Overcoming the Threats Essay September 14, 2005 (the actual date of the propoganda, final pretrial hearing). 16. The defendant’s trial on an unrelated charge began on What Elizabethan, October 5, 2006. The excluded period extends until fourteen days after sentencing.

See Mass.R.Crim.P. 36(b)(2)(A)(iii). Due to a mutually agreed upon continuance, a change in counsel between the bifurcated portions of the trial, and propoganda another delay between the second portion of the trial and revolution sentencing, the defendant was sentenced on propoganda, March 24, 2006. Adding fourteen days to the sentencing date brings the date to April 7, 2006. Thus, the total excludable period for the unrelated charge is 185 days from Essay, October 5, 2006, to April 7, 2006. 17. Soviet! Having identified a sufficient number of excluded days to uk landline generator, confirm compliance with the requirement for a speedy trial, we do not compile a complete list of all excluded days.

18. The defendant also appeals from the denial of his pro se motion to propoganda, dismiss under G.L. The Threats To Honeybees! c. Soviet! 276, § 35. Assuming, arguendo, that the judge denied the motion–there is hollow men no record of such ruling–and that this issue is soviet propoganda properly before this court, we affirm. General Laws c. 276, § 35, applies only to mid-trial continuances and the delay complained of by the defendant is prior to the commencement of trial and, thus, does not fall within the statute. A District Court jury found the defendant guilty of motor vehicle homicide by operation under the influence of intoxicating liquor and french negligent operation (in violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24G[a]), and by negligent operation of a motor vehicle (in violation of G.L. c. Soviet! 90, § 24[2][a]). 75 Mass. App. Ct. 643.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Bristol. Argued March 6, 2009. Decided November 2, 2009. Paul C. Brennan, Dalton, for the defendant. David J. Gold, Assistant District Attorney (Garrett R. Fregault, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth. Present: GRAHAM, DREBEN, #038; SIKORA, JJ. [75 Mass.

App. Ct. 644] A District Court jury found the defendant guilty of motor vehicle homicide by operation under the influence of intoxicating liquor and negligent operation (in violation of What Essay, G.L. c. 90, § 24G[a]), and by negligent operation of a motor vehicle (in violation of G.L. Propoganda! c. 90, § 24[2][a]). Uk Landline Number! The defendant, who is soviet African-American, appeals upon claims that (1) the trial judge improperly allowed the Commonwealth’s peremptory challenge of the biography, only African-American in the venire; (2) the trial judge improperly admitted evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol content and erroneously instructed the jury on propoganda, that evidence; and (3) calculated improprieties by the prosecutor and extraneous influences upon the jury resulted in reversible error. We reverse. The trial judge did not offer a sufficiently adequate and contemporaneous explanation of her allowance of the Elizabethan Essay, peremptory challenge. In addition, the judge erroneously admitted evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol content without the requisite expert testimony and soviet gave an erroneous jury instruction in relation to investigations, that evidence.

Procedural background. On February 3, 2004, the New Bedford District Court issued a complaint charging the defendant with negligent operation of a motor vehicle in soviet propoganda violation of G.L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a). On June 1, 2004, the same court issued an additional complaint charging the defendant with motor vehicle homicide by operation under the influence and negligent operation (in violation of G.L. c. French Revolution! 90, § 24G[a]).1 On July 25, 2005, a District. Court judge allowed the Commonwealth’s motion to amend the June 1 complaint to add an alternate theory of intoxication, a 0.08 percent “per se” violation of the motor vehicle homicide statute.2 On May 15, 2006, jury empanelment commenced. [75 Mass. App. Ct.

645] in New Bedford District Court, and on May 19, 2006, the jury returned guilty verdicts on both charges. The trial judge sentenced the defendant to two and one-half years in soviet propoganda the house of correction on the motor vehicle homicide charge and a consecutive sentence of two years in the house of correction on the negligent operation charge. In December of hollow men, 2006, the defendant filed a motion for relief from an unlawful sentence. Soviet Propoganda! He claimed that the negligent operation conviction was duplicative of the number generator, motor vehicle homicide conviction. In January of 2007, the trial judge allowed the soviet, motion. The allowance of that motion is not at Overcoming, issue in soviet propoganda this appeal.3. Background.

The evidence at trial included the following. On November 27, 2003, at approximately 8:30 P.M., the to Wear: Elizabethan Essay, defendant’s jeep and soviet the victim’s vehicle collided at an intersection in New Bedford. Four people witnessed the collision, and each of them testified at trial. According to the witnesses, the defendant’s jeep went through a stop sign at a high rate of speed and struck the victim’s vehicle. Hollow Men! A New Bedford police officer arriving at the scene after the accident saw the defendant pacing back and forth in an agitated manner. The officer spoke to the defendant and did not detect the odor of alcoholic beverages. The officer did not observe any other signs of intoxication, such as a lack of balance. Propoganda! The victim died at the scene from multiple traumatic injuries. Paramedics took the What Fashion Essay, defendant to the nearest hospital for propoganda, treatment. Shortly after the collision, a New Bedford Police Department accident reconstruction expert investigated the What to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion, cause of the soviet, crash.

She analyzed the damage to the vehicles and made numerous measurements of the crash scene. Based on her investigation, the expert concluded that the defendant’s jeep had been traveling at sixty-four miles per hour when it entered the intersection.4. [75 Mass. Number! App. Ct.

646] Soon after the defendant arrived at the hospital, two New Bedford police officers interviewed him. According to the officers, the defendant was “angry [and] agitated” and his breath smelled of soviet, alcoholic beverages. He told the officers that he had consumed “a forty of french revolution essay, OE,” a forty-ounce bottle of Olde English brand beer. Both officers testified that the defendant’s demeanor changed when one of the officers notified him of the victim’s death. While at soviet, the hospital, the defendant complained of pain in french revolution essay his chest. In response to his complaint, hospital staff drew a blood sample from him and analyzed it. The doctor who had treated the soviet propoganda, defendant testified that his blood serum sample had an alcohol reading of 185 milligrams per deciliter. A laboratory supervisor from the Massachusetts State police crime laboratory testified that the reading translated to ruth, a whole blood alcohol level of .15 to .16.

Discussion. 1. Peremptory challenge. Jury selection proceeded over two days. On the first day, the judge called juror to side bar for soviet, further questions. The juror told the judge that she was diabetic.

The judge assured her that the hollow men, disease would not be a problem. The juror noted also that her son had faced criminal charges in New Bedford District Court. She stated, however, that she could be a fair and impartial juror. The judge seated her conditionally in the jury box in advance of the parties’ challenges. The next day, the Commonwealth invoked one of its peremptory challenges to propoganda, exclude juror.

The judge noted that juror nineteen was the only African-American in the jury pool from either day. She asked the Commonwealth to explain the challenge. Uk Landline! In response, the prosecutor gave two reasons: (1) the juror’s speech and soviet propoganda mannerisms indicated that she was slow and might have difficulty in What to Wear: Elizabethan Essay the deliberation of the evidence of a three- or four-day trial; and (2) the soviet, prosecutor’s discomfort caused by the juror’s fixed stare at him during empanelment.5 The judge then determined that the prosecutor’s explanation was not race-based. [75 Mass. App. Ct. 647] Defense counsel asked for the judge’s impression of juror nineteen. The judge stated that the juror had “somewhat of investigations, a halting speech pattern” and was “not incredibly articulate but … not inarticulate either.” The judge did not, however, “associate [the juror's speech] with slowness mentally.” The prosecutor explained that he believed that juror nineteen’s mental acuity was similar to soviet propoganda, that of another juror whom the judge had removed for cause. The judge did not agree that juror nineteen suffered from a similar disability, but she allowed the Commonwealth’s peremptory challenge without further reasoning at that time.6 Defense counsel objected. On the following day, before the jury had entered the court room, the judge commented further on the Commonwealth’s peremptory challenge of to Wear: Fashion Essay, juror nineteen.

She stated that, after the previous day’s discussion, she had consulted decisions on peremptory challenges of. members of protected classes,7 and that she “wanted to put some more … findings on propoganda, the record.” She recounted that she had requested an explanation for the peremptory challenge, and she repeated the prosecutor’s explanation. She noted also that the applicable case law requires “a two prong analysis. One having to do with the adequacy of the Commonwealth’s position once having been questioned about the reason for the challenge and then the genuineness of that.” Although the prosecutor had not mentioned the criminal. [75 Mass. App. Ct. 648] history of juror nineteen’s son when he had offered his explanation for the challenge, the judge referred to it in her findings.8 The judge concluded her findings with the statement that “I find … the Commonwealth’s explanation both adequate and genuine, which is ruth why I allowed the challenges to soviet propoganda, stand.” Article 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution and hollow men the equal protection clause of the soviet, Federal Constitution prohibit the use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors on the basis of race. See Commonwealth v. Harris, 409 Mass. 461, 464, 567 N.E.2d 899 (1991). “[W]e begin with the presumption that a peremptory challenge is limitations investigations proper.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 450 Mass.

395, 406, 879 N.E.2d 87, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 202, 172 L.Ed.2d 161 (2008). However, one may rebut that presumption through proof “that (1) a pattern of conduct has developed whereby several prospective jurors who have been challenged peremptorily are members of a discrete group, and propoganda (2) there is a likelihood they are being excluded from the jury solely by reason of their group membership.” Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461, 490, 387 N.E.2d 499, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 881, 100 S.Ct. 170, 62 L.Ed.2d 110 (1979). Either the party opposed to the challenge or the hollow men, trial judge, sua sponte, may raise the issue of the soviet propoganda, propriety of the challenge. See Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 439 Mass. Babe Ruth! 460, 463, 788 N.E.2d 968 (2003). When “the judge initiates a sua sponte inquiry into the justification for the challenge, this initiation almost necessarily includes an implicit finding that the prima facie case of discrimination has been made.” Id. at 463 n. 5, 788 N.E.2d 968. Once the soviet, prima facie case of discrimination has been made, the hollow men, proponent of the soviet, peremptory challenge must provide an explanation which “pertain[s] to the individual qualities of the biography, prospective juror and soviet not to that juror’s group association.” Commonwealth v. Soares, supra at 491, 387 N.E.2d 499.

If the hollow men, proponent’s. [75 Mass. Soviet Propoganda! App. Ct. 649] explanation seems superficial, the judge. should also allow rebuttal from the the Threats Essay, adverse party. Soviet Propoganda! See Commonwealth v. Calderon, 431 Mass. 21, 26, 725 N.E.2d 182 (2000). The judge must then “make an independent evaluation of the [proponent's] reasons and uk landline generator … determine specifically whether the explanation was bona fide or a pretext.” Ibid. Soviet! “In other words, the judge must decide whether the explanation is both `adequate’ and `genuine.’” Commonwealth v. Maldonado, supra at 464, 788 N.E.2d 968, quoting from Commonwealth v. French Essay! Garrey, 436 Mass. 422, 428, 765 N.E.2d 725 (2002). “[I]t is imperative that the record explicitly contain the judge’s separate findings as to both adequacy and soviet genuineness and, if necessary, an explanation of those findings.” Commonwealth v. Maldonado, supra at 466, 788 N.E.2d 968. See Commonwealth v. Benoit, 452 Mass.

212, 221, 892 N.E.2d 314 (2008). In this case, the trial judge raised the question of the propriety of the peremptory challenge. Fashion! She appropriately requested an explanation from the soviet, prosecutor (the proponent of the challenge) and ruth allowed defense counsel to respond. Soviet! See Commonwealth v. Soares, supra at 491, 387 N.E.2d 499; Commonwealth v. French Essay! Calderon, supra at 26, 725 N.E.2d 182. The prosecutor explained that he was challenging the juror because he believed her to be “slow” and soviet because she had stared at him in babe a discomforting manner. The judge received defense counsel’s opposing response. She then stated that, although the juror had “a halting speech pattern,” she did not find the juror mentally slow.

However, the judge concluded that the prosecutor had not misused the challenge and allowed it. It was not until the next day that the judge explicitly found the prosecutor’s explanation to be adequate and genuine. The judge’s own language demonstrates that she recognized generally the two-part standard of adequacy and genuineness. However, her ruling falls short of the firm and timely explanation for allowance required by the line of cases culminating in Commonwealth v. Soviet Propoganda! Benoit, supra. As in Commonwealth v. Maldonado, supra, and Commonwealth v. Benoit, we cannot conclude that the judge properly allowed the challenge because the record does not show a prompt assessment of the adequacy and genuineness of the prosecutor’s explanation of the peremptory challenge. See Commonwealth v. Maldonado, supra at 466-467, 788 N.E.2d 968 (judge should not have accepted prosecutor’s peremptory challenge where judge. [75 Mass. App. French Essay! Ct. 650] requested explanation and then allowed challenge but “did not find that the prosecutor had met her burden of establishing an adequate, race-neutral explanation that was the genuine reason for the challenge”); Commonwealth v. Soviet! Benoit, supra at 222-226, 892 N.E.2d 314 (defendant’s right to trial by limitations in maths, jury selected without discrimination not adequately protected where court could not determine whether trial judge gave meaningful consideration to soviet, adequacy and genuineness of reason for limitations, peremptory challenge).

In sum, the record contains references to soviet propoganda, three possible grounds for the Threats to Honeybees, disqualification of the juror: her staring at the prosecutor; her suspected slowness; and the recent involvement of her son as a defendant prosecuted by the same district attorney’s office.9 The judge did not address. the ground of staring.10 She rejected the suspected slowness. She introduced, a day later, the experience of the son, a potentially serious ground but one never invoked by the prosecutor in support of the suspect peremptory challenge.11 In these circumstances, we simply do not have the specific, clear findings upon adequacy and genuineness required by soviet propoganda, the cases to sustain the peremptory challenge. In particular, the judge did not find either of the prosecution’s grounds adequate, i.e., “personal to the juror and not based on the juror’s group affiliation” and Overcoming to Honeybees “related to the particular case being tried,” however genuine or bona fide the offer may have been. Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 439 Mass. at 464-465, 788 N.E.2d 968. The governing standard is soviet demanding. The precedents require reversal of the convictions. 2. Evidence of blood alcohol content.

The Commonwealth. [75 Mass. App. Ct. 651] began trial with two theories of french revolution essay, operation under the influence, the per se theory (blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or greater) and the impaired operation theory.

At the beginning of the trial, the judge gave preliminary instructions to the jury in which she explained the propoganda, nature of the charges against the defendant. She made no reference to alternate theories of hollow men, operation under the soviet, influence. During the trial, the Commonwealth introduced evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol content but offered no expert testimony to explain the relationship between blood alcohol content and impaired operation. Number! During the charge conference, the Commonwealth requested jury instruction on both theories. The judge stated that she was inclined not to propoganda, give an instruction on the per se theory, and the Commonwealth agreed with that proposal. Overcoming The Threats Essay! The judge instructed the jury, in relevant part, as follows: “The law says that if the propoganda, percentage of alcohol by weight in the defendant’s blood was .08 percent or more[,] from such evidence you may, if you wish, draw an hollow men inference that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time.” For reasons discussed below, the instruction was erroneous.

The defendant did not object to the blood test evidence, the prosecutor’s reference to it in his summation, or the judge’s erroneous instruction. In 2003, the Legislature amended both G.L. c. 90, § 24G, the motor vehicle homicide statute, and G.L. c. 90, § 24(a)(1), the operation under the influence (OUI) statute, to add the per se theory of intoxication. St.2003, c. 28, §§ 1, 21, 22. Pursuant to the amendments, the propoganda, Commonwealth may prove intoxication through evidence that the essay, defendant had “a percentage, by weight, of alcohol in propoganda [his] blood of eight one-hundredths or greater.” G.L. c. 90, § 24G(a). Prior to the amendments, the statutes allowed the permissible inference of intoxication when the defendant had a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater. Commonwealth v. Colturi, 448 Mass. Generator! 809, 811-812, 864 N.E.2d 498 (2007). The 2003 amendments eliminated. the permissible inference and replaced it with a conclusive inference.

See Commonwealth v. Hubert, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 661, 662, 885 N.E.2d 164 n. 2, S.C., 453 Mass. 1009, 902 N.E.2d 368 (2008). In Commonwealth v. Soviet Propoganda! Colturi, supra, the investigations, Supreme Judicial Court held that, if the Commonwealth relies solely on soviet propoganda, an impaired operation theory, breathalyzer readings are inadmissible in the. [75 Mass. App. Ct. 652] absence of expert testimony to explain their significance.

Id. at 817-818, 864 N.E.2d 498. The decision states: “If … the Commonwealth were to proceed only on a theory of impaired operation [instead of both a per se theory and Elizabethan Fashion Essay an impaired operation theory] and offered a breathalyzer test result of .08 or greater, without evidence of its relationship to intoxication or impairment and without the statutorily permissible inference of propoganda, intoxication eliminated by the 2003 amendments, the jury would be left to guess at its meaning.” Ibid. As for uk landline generator, trials where the Commonwealth relies on soviet propoganda, both theories, the decision states further: “[I]f the per se and impaired ability theories of criminal liability are charged in the alternative … and so tried, we see no prejudice in the admission of breathalyzer test results without expert testimony establishing the hollow men, significance of the test level to the degree of intoxication or impairment of the defendant. In such a case, the jury presumably would be instructed that if they find the defendant operated her motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .08 or greater, she is propoganda guilty of violating the the Threats to Honeybees, OUI statute, and if they do not so find, they may still consider whether she violated the soviet, statute by operating while under the influence of the Threats to Honeybees, intoxicating liquor.”

Id. at 817, 864 N.E.2d 498. Propoganda! We presume that this language applies to the results of blood tests in french essay addition to the results of breathalyzer tests. After issuance of Commonwealth v. Colturi, supra, we held, in Commonwealth v. Hubert, supra, that where the Commonwealth relied solely on an impaired operation theory, and the judge admitted breathalyzer results without expert testimony and over the defendant’s objection, admission of the propoganda, results required reversal. Id. at 664, 885 N.E.2d 164. In this case, the complaint charged both theories.

The judge admitted evidence of the What Fashion Essay, defendant’s blood alcohol content without expert testimony to explain its relationship to soviet propoganda, intoxication. The judge did not instruct the jury on the per se theory. Furthermore, the judge erroneously instructed the jury on the permissible inference of intoxication eliminated by the 2003 amendments. See. [75 Mass. App. Ct. 653] Commonwealth v. Colturi, supra at 811-812, 864 N.E.2d 498; Commonwealth v. Hubert, supra, at 662 n. 2, 885 N.E.2d 164.12 The defendant argues that the erroneous instruction and the admission of the blood test evidence without the requisite expert testimony require reversal. Since the defendant did not object to the alleged errors, we review for investigations, the substantial risk of soviet, a miscarriage of justice.

Under that standard, the question becomes whether the erroneous instruction and the blood alcohol evidence may have influenced the verdict of guilt. Commonwealth v. Number! Alphas, 430 Mass. 8, 13, 712 N.E.2d 575 (1999). See Commonwealth v. Soviet Propoganda! Azar, 435 Mass. 675, 687, 760 N.E.2d 1224 (2002);

Commonwealth v. Randolph, 438 Mass. 290, 297, 780 N.E.2d 58 (2002). Even without the blood test, the uk landline number, Commonwealth’s evidence of soviet, intoxication was strong. Limitations In Maths! The percipient witnesses testified that the defendant drove through a stop sign at a high speed and hit the victim’s vehicle. A police officer who was at the scene testified that the defendant was agitated, although he testified also that he did not notice any other signs of soviet, intoxication. The accident reconstruction expert testified that the defendant’s jeep had been traveling at french essay, sixty-four miles per hour when it entered the intersection.

The officers who interviewed the defendant at the hospital testified that he was agitated, that his breath smelled of alcoholic beverages, and that he confessed to consumption of forty ounces of beer earlier in the evening. However, the laboratory supervisor’s testimony that the defendant had a blood alcohol content between .15 and .16 percent may have been the most compelling evidence of intoxication. Without it, the Commonwealth’s evidence was “strong but not overwhelming.” Commonwealth v. Hubert, 71 Mass.App.Ct. at 663, 885 N.E.2d 164. Here, as in Hubert, police testimony about the defendant’s signs of intoxication differed. Under the impaired operation theory submitted to the jury, the error may have materially influenced the verdict and therefore created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. See Commonwealth v. Freeman, 352 Mass. 556, 564, 227 N.E.2d 3 (1967)13; Commonwealth v. Alphas, 430 Mass. at 13, 712 N.E.2d 575. [75 Mass. App. Ct. 654]

Conclusion.14,15 For the foregoing reasons we reverse the judgments and set aside the soviet propoganda, verdicts. The case is remanded to babe biography, the District Court for a new trial or other proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1. In addition to the negligent operation charge, the February 3 complaint charged the defendant with motor vehicle homicide by negligent operation in soviet violation of G.L. Essay! c. 90, § 24G(b). After issuance of the June 1 complaint, which charged the soviet, defendant with motor vehicle homicide by operation under the influence and by negligent operation (in violation of number generator, G.L. c. 90, § 24G[a]), the Commonwealth nol prossed the motor vehicle homicide charge from the propoganda, first complaint. 2. Under G.L. French! c. 90, § 24G(a), the Commonwealth may use either of two theories to prove operation under the influence: (1) operation “with a percent by weight, of alcohol in soviet propoganda [the] blood of eight one-hundredths or greater, or [2] while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” G.L. c. 90, § 24G(a), as amended through St.2003, c. 28, § 21.

See Commonwealth v. Colturi, 448 Mass. 809, 810, 864 N.E.2d 498 (2007); Commonwealth v. Hubert, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 661, 661-662, 885 N.E.2d 164 (2008), S.C., 453 Mass. 1009, 902 N.E.2d 368 (2009). Prior to the amendment of the June 1 complaint, the complaint alleged only the second theory. 3. In April of 2007, after a hearing, the trial judge allowed the Commonwealth’s motion to file a late notice of appeal from the grant of the defendant’s motion for relief from an unlawful sentence.

The Commonwealth’s appeal has not entered in this court. In its brief, the Commonwealth does not argue the propriety of the grant of the motion. Therefore, we do not address it. 4. She opined also that the defendant’s jeep had struck a vehicle parked on the side of the road prior to the collision with the victim’s vehicle. 5. French Revolution Essay! In its entirety, the prosecutor’s explanation was: “Judge, she appears slow to soviet propoganda, me at side-bar in revolution her speech and mannerisms and while we were impaneling today, I locked eyes with her a few times and it appeared to me that she was staring at me, staring me down while we were at soviet propoganda, the side-bar; and it bothered me. But I do find that she’s slow at side-bar speaking with her, in her speech; and I’m concerned that this is a three or four day trial, a lot of witnesses; and I’m concerned about her ability to try the evidence.” 6. The judge observed that the defendant had adequately preserved the issue for appeal. During the discussion of the challenge, the judge asked the prosecutor why he had used another peremptory challenge on juror fourteen. On the previous day, the judge had asked juror fourteen, a white male, some questions at side bar, and the juror had noted the presence of only one African American in the venire. The prosecutor stated that he should not have to explain his use of a peremptory challenge on juror fourteen because the juror was not a member of in maths, a protected class. However, he supplied an explanation, and the judge allowed the soviet propoganda, challenge.

7. The parties assert that the judge stated that she had read Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 439 Mass. 460, 788 N.E.2d 968 (2003). However, the transcript reflects that the judge stated that she “look[ed] over the case law, particularly Commonwealth v. Mulder (phonetic), with respect to the possibility of a peremptory challenge being used to Overcoming the Threats Essay, exclude members of a [discrete] group….” The reference (jumbled in transcription) most probably was the Maldonado decision. 8. The judge’s reference to soviet, the criminal history of juror nineteen’s son was as follows: “I would also add that it was known to all of us that [juror nineteen] had had a son who had apparently a criminal matter in this court, perhaps even before me because she seemed to uk landline number, recall me, just this past fall that was prosecuted by the district attorney’s office and apparently came up…. Soviet! [A]nd I don’t remember the case per se but she spoke about it. It apparently just happened last fall.”

The judge went on to say that she understood the generator, Commonwealth’s concern “whether she could perform in a truly objective manner” because her son had experienced the propoganda, criminal justice process and subsequent incarceration. French Essay! The record does not show any expression of that specific concern by the prosecutor. 9. As mentioned above, in the next-day review of her reasons for soviet propoganda, allowance of the peremptory challenge, the babe, judge referred to the experience of juror nineteen’s son in propoganda the New Bedford District Court. See note 8, supra. The prosecutor did not refer to the criminal history of the juror’s son as justification for Essay, his peremptory challenge.

A judge may not supply her own reasons to justify a prosecutor’s peremptory challenge. Propoganda! See Commonwealth v. Biography! Fryar, 414 Mass. 732, 739, 610 N.E.2d 903 (1993), S.C., 425 Mass. 237, 680 N.E.2d 901, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1033, 118 S.Ct.

636, 139 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997). 10. That explanation had little chance of success. Soviet! “Challenges based on subjective data such as a juror’s looks or gestures, or a party’s `gut’ feeling should rarely be accepted as adequate because such explanations can easily be used as pretexts for discrimination.” Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 439 Mass. at hollow men, 465, 788 N.E.2d 968. 11. This reasoning does not interfere with the authority of a trial judge spontaneously to identify, establish, and rule upon propoganda, a ground of disqualification independently of any challenge of french revolution, either the Commonwealth or a defendant. 12. Soviet Propoganda! The charge conference and instructions to the jury in the trial occurred in May, 2006. The Supreme Judicial Court released the Colturi decision in April 2007; and this court the Hubert decision in May 2008. Therefore the judge and trial counsel did not have the benefit of those interpretations of the 2003 amendments. 13. In Commonwealth v. Hubert, supra at 664, 885 N.E.2d 164, defense counsel made timely objections and preserved the issue so that the standard of review was the presence of prejudicial error.

Here we have reviewed the issue under the Elizabethan, less demanding standard of substantial risk and found the error again sufficiently serious to require reversal. 14. As mentioned in the introduction, supra, the defendant argues also that extraneous influences on the jury and alleged calculated impropriety by propoganda, the prosecutor require reversal. The extraneous influences were (1) a shout by the victim’s mother at the defendant as the jurors left the courtroom on the first day of trial, and (2) the uk landline generator, presence of soviet propoganda, a makeshift memorial to the victim at the accident scene during the jury’s view of the site. The claim of calculated impropriety by the prosecutor arises from testimony of essay, two police officers that they told the defendant that he had “killed” the victim. The defendant asserts that the prosecutor intended that the officers testify in this manner, in violation of the judge’s decision on a motion in propoganda limine.

No evidence supports the view that the Essay, mother’s outburst or the accident site memorial overcame the soviet, judge’s instructions for uk landline, a verdict based strictly on the evidence. The claim related to the officers’ use of the propoganda, word “killed” fails also, because the judge gave immediate curative instructions. 15. The defendant presented no issue of a denial of the right to confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by reason of the admission of the blood alcohol test result. The rule of revolution essay, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. Soviet Propoganda! ___, 129 S.Ct.

2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), has played no part in the appeal. Massachusetts OUI Case – Defendnat admitted to the officer that his driver’s license was suspended, and at trial he testified that he knew he was suspended for an operating under the influence (OUI) conviction. Gerald W. GILMAN. Supreme Judicial Court of investigations, Maine. Argued: November 9, 2009. Decided: April 13, 2010. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED. Andrew S. Robinson, Asst.

Dist. Atty. Soviet Propoganda! (orally), Franklin County DA’s Office, Farmington, ME, for the State of generator, Maine. Walter Hanstein III, Esq. Soviet! (orally), Joyce, David #038; Hanstein, P.A., Farmington, ME, for Gerald W. Gilman. Panel SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, and GORMAN, JJ. ? 1 The State of Maine appeals from a judgment of the uk landline generator, Superior Court (Franklin County, Murphy, J.) denying its motion to correct the sentence that the soviet, court imposed on Gerald W. Gilman following his conviction at a bench trial for operating after habitual offender revocation (Class C), 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2)(D)(2)(2008).1 See M.R.Crim. P. 35(a). The State contends that the court imposed an hollow men illegal sentence when it sentenced Gilman to soviet propoganda, less than the minimum mandatory two-year term of imprisonment required by the statute. The court did so after finding that the statute as applied to Gilman violated article I, section 9 of the hollow men, Maine Constitution, which requires that “all penalties and punishments shall be proportioned to the offense.” Me.

Const. art. I, ? 9. ? 2 Gilman cross-appeals, contending that, in addition to propoganda, violating article I, section 9 of the to Honeybees, Maine Constitution, the propoganda, mandatory sentencing provision also violated his equal protection and Essay due process rights.2 Additionally, he argues that the. court erred in soviet admitting a certified record from the french, Secretary of State declaring him to be a habitual offender, because doing so violated his constitutional right to soviet propoganda, confront witnesses against him as articulated in Essay Crawford v. Propoganda! Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), and its progeny. ? 3 The State’s appeal is accompanied by the written approval of the Attorney General as required by 15 M.R.S. ? 2115-A(2-B), (5) (2009) and M.R.App. P. 21(b). Because we agree with the State’s contention that the sentence imposed on Gilman was illegal, and to Wear: find no violation of Gilman’s constitutional rights, we vacate only the sentence and remand for resentencing. ? 4 The facts are not in soviet dispute. On April 11, 2007, Gerald Gilman was stopped for speeding in the Town of hollow men, New Sharon, three miles from his home. He had not been drinking.

Gilman, a member of the soviet, local Elks Club, was returning from the club’s lodge, where he had repaired a broken walk-in cooler. Gilman admitted to the officer that his driver’s license was suspended, and at trial he testified that he knew he was suspended for an operating under the biography, influence (OUI) conviction. Propoganda! In fact, Gilman’s license had been revoked as a result of Overcoming the Threats, multiple previous convictions, which included three convictions for OUI within the previous ten years. A certified record from the Secretary of State, admitted at trial over Gilman’s objection, showed that he had been given proper notice of the revocation. ? 5 Gilman was indicted for operating after revocation (Class C). The charge was enhanced because of his three OUI convictions within the previous ten years.

29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2)(D)(2). Section 2557-A, which was enacted as part of what is popularly known as “Tina’s Law,” provides that in that circumstance “the minimum fine . . . is soviet propoganda $1,000 and the minimum term of imprisonment is 2 years, neither of in maths investigations, which may be suspended by the court.” 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2)(D); P.L. 2005, ch. 606, ? A-11 (effective Aug. 23, 2006). ? 6 Gilman moved to dismiss the allegation of the aggravating factor of his prior OUI convictions as a violation of his equal protection guarantees. Dismissal of the allegation would have reduced the soviet, charge to a Class D crime. See 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2)(A) (2008).3 At a hearing, Gilman argued that because there was no allegation that he was under the in maths investigations, influence when he was stopped, it was irrational to soviet, aggravate the operating after revocation (OAR) charge with prior convictions for OUI. The Superior Court (Jabar, J.) denied the motion. ? 7 At a jury-waived trial held on February 11, 2008, Gilman objected that his rights under the Confrontation Clause would be violated by hollow men, the admission of propoganda, a certificate issued by the Secretary of State under seal declaring that (1) his right to drive was under revocation when he was stopped, (2) he had proper notice of the revocation, and (3) his driving record included three OUI convictions within the previous ten years. The court (Murphy, J.) overruled the number generator, objection, denied Gilman’s motion for soviet propoganda, a judgment of uk landline number generator, acquittal, and took the soviet propoganda, ultimate issue of whether the State had met its burden of babe, proof under advisement.

Gilman then filed a written. argument asking the court to revisit its earlier rejection of soviet, his equal protection argument, and asserting that the mandatory two-year sentence that would result if he were convicted would violate article I, section 9 of the Maine Constitution. The court heard argument and took the issues under advisement. ? 8 On September 8, the court issued a written decision finding Gilman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Babe Biography! The decision further explained the court’s reasoning on the Confrontation Clause issue and again denied Gilman’s equal protection claim.

On his claim of unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment, the court deferred a decision pending further argument by the parties. Propoganda! Before further argument could be heard, Gilman moved the court to What Elizabethan Fashion, reconsider its verdict, citing State v. Stade, 683 A.2d 164 (Me.1996), as authority for his argument that convicting him of a Class C offense constituted a due process violation because the State did not individually notify him that “Tina’s Law” increased the penalties if he were to be convicted of OAR after it took effect. ? 9 On October 27, the soviet propoganda, court heard argument on Gilman’s due process claim and denied it. It then heard testimony relevant to the disproportionate punishment issue and sentencing from four witnesses: another member of the Elks Club, a psychiatrist who treated Gilman through the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Gilman’s sister, and Gilman himself. What! At the conclusion of the hearing, the soviet, court took the disproportionate punishment issue and the sentence under advisement. ? 10 On November 17, the court issued written findings and conclusions: This Court concludes, after consideration of the hollow men, characteristics of soviet propoganda, Mr. Gilman, as well as the manner in which this sentence would be carried out, that imposition of a two-year mandatory minimum sentence would be greatly disproportionate to the offense, and also concludes that it would offend prevailing notions of decency. The Defendant has carried his burden in his claim that the mandatory two-year prison term would be unconstitutionally disproportionate, as applied to Mr. Hollow Men! Gilman.

? 11 At a final hearing on December 11, the propoganda, court conducted the statutorily required sentencing analysis on the Class C conviction and sentenced Gilman to fifteen months imprisonment, with all but ninety days suspended, two years of probation, 500 hours of community service, and a $1000 fine. See 17-A M.R.S. ? 1252-C (2009). The State orally moved the court to number, correct what it viewed as an illegal sentence pursuant to M.R.Crim. P. 35(a);4 the soviet, motion was denied orally and later in a written order. This appeal and cross-appeal followed. A. Scope of Article I, Section 9. ? 12 Article I of the Maine Constitution is What Elizabethan a declaration of rights enjoyed by Maine citizens. Section 9 sets limits on the State’s power to punish: “Sanguinary laws shall not be passed; all penalties and punishments shall be proportioned to the offense; excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted.” Me. Soviet Propoganda! Const. In Maths Investigations! art. Soviet! I, ? 9. ? 13 The statute under which Gilman was convicted unambiguously required the french revolution, Superior Court to impose an unsuspended prison sentence of at least two years.

29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2)(D). Accordingly, the court’s lesser sentence was facially illegal unless the court was correct in its two central rulings: (1) article I, section 9 requires that punishments be proportionate to the offense after considering the circumstances of the particular offender, not simply proportionate to the offense itself, and (2) because of Gilman’s individual circumstances, the mandatory sentence was disproportionate to his offense, and therefore the statute is unconstitutional in this instance.5 Gilman’s burden is significant, as “one challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears a heavy burden of proving unconstitutionality since all acts of the Legislature are presumed constitutional.” State v. Vanassche, 566 A.2d 1077, 1081 (Me.1989) (quotation marks omitted). We review de novo whether he met that burden through a showing of “strong and convincing reasons.” Town of Frye Island v. Soviet Propoganda! State, 2008 ME 27, ? 13, 940 A.2d 1065, 1069. ? 14 Whether the Maine Constitution requires that punishments be proportionate to the offender, as well as the offense, has been an open question. In discussing a closely related provision of section 9, we left it unanswered: Assuming, without deciding, that it may be possible in rare cases that a mandatory minimum sentence is cruel and unusual because of the characteristics of the individual or because of the manner in which the sentence is carried out, there was not enough information in this case for the trial court to reach that conclusion. State v. Worthley, 2003 ME 14, ? 7, 815 A.2d 375, 377 (footnote omitted).6. ? 15 This case requires us to answer the question left open in the Threats Worthley. For several reasons, we conclude that (1) section 9 requires only soviet that a punishment be proportionate to the offense for which a person is convicted, (2) the two-year mandatory sentence prescribed by statute is proportionate to the offense that Gilman committed, and (3) the sentence imposed by the trial court was therefore illegal and. must be vacated. Accordingly, to the extent that Worthley suggested that it may be possible for a mandatory sentence to Overcoming to Honeybees, be unconstitutionally disproportionate under article I, section 9 solely because of an propoganda individual defendant’s particular circumstances, we now hold that it is not possible.

? 16 The plain language of section 9 requires that “punishments shall be proportioned to the offense.” Me. Const. art. I, ? 9 (emphasis added). Revolution Essay! It says nothing about the individual offender. This is of primary importance because we have said: In interpreting our State Constitution, we look primarily to the language used.

Because the same principles employed in the construction of statutory language hold true in the construction of a constitutional provision, we apply the plain language of the constitutional provision if the language is unambiguous. Voorhees v. Sagadahoc County, 2006 ME 79, ? 6, 900 A.2d 733, 735-36 (citation omitted) (quotation marks omitted). The language of section 9 is unambiguous, and therefore we give it its plain meaning. See Joyce v. State, 2008 ME 108, ? 11, 951 A.2d 69, 72 (stating that “it is a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation that words in a statute must be given their plain and ordinary meanings” (alteration in soviet original) (quotation marks omitted)). ? 17 Our prior decisions support this construction.

In each case where a minimum mandatory punishment imposed by the Legislature has been challenged as disproportionate or cruel and unusual under section 9, we have rejected the challenge after considering the defendant’s conduct.7 Only in Worthley did we refer to the characteristics of the individual offender, and Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees Essay then only to point out propoganda that we were not required in that case to decide whether individual characteristics could ever be a factor in the proportionality analysis. Worthley, 2003 ME 14, ? 7, 815 A.2d at Overcoming to Honeybees, 377. ? 18 Furthermore, although federal authority does not control our interpretation of our State Constitution, it is instructive that in its recent Eighth Amendment jurisprudence the soviet propoganda, Supreme Court has upheld or struck down severe sentences based on consideration of a particular offense or category of offender,8 but has not. required an individualized determination that a mandatory punishment is appropriate except in death penalty cases. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 996, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (“We have drawn the hollow men, line of required individualized sentencing at capital cases, and see no basis for extending it further.”). Regarding the Federal Constitution, the First Circuit Court of Appeals noted:

There is soviet propoganda no constitutional right, in non-capital cases, to in maths investigations, individualized sentencing. Legislatures are free to provide for mandatory sentences for particular offenses.. . . The mere fact that a sentence is mandatory and severe does not make it cruel and unusual within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. United States v. Campusano, 947 F.2d 1, 3-4 (1st Cir.1991). ? 19 A plain-language construction of section 9 is further supported by our cases holding that the Legislature has the power to enact mandatory sentences. Propoganda! See State v. Lane, 649 A.2d 1112, 1115 (Me.1994) (collecting cases). Implicit in those decisions is a recognition that the hollow men, Legislature may lawfully choose to propoganda, remove a sentencing court’s discretion when it determines it is appropriate to do so, subject only to the constitutional prohibition against punishment disproportionate to french revolution essay, a given offense. The construction urged by Gilman would go far beyond what the language of section 9 requires and effectively vitiate all mandatory sentencing statutes. ? 20 A minimum mandatory sentence is the Legislature’s establishment of a basic sentence, and a legislative decision that a sentencing court may not find that mitigating factors justify a lesser maximum sentence.9 Consideration of soviet, a defendant’s individual circumstances in finding that a mandatory sentence is disproportionate as applied to that person is revolution simply reinstatement by judicial declaration of a sentencing court’s ordinary discretion to weigh mitigating factors, and then impose a maximum sentence that is propoganda lower than the to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay, basic sentence. See 17-A M.R.S. ? 1252-C(2). A court would then always have the sentencing discretion that the soviet propoganda, Legislature intended to remove, because individual mitigating circumstances could always be used as justification to impose less than the mandatory minimum sentence on the ground that the mandatory sentence is disproportionate as applied in a particular case. We do not read article I, section 9 to render the Legislature’s authority to enact mandatory sentences a nullity.10.

? 21 Because we hold that the clause, “all penalties and punishments shall be proportioned to the offense,” means what its plain language says, and does not require consideration of the individual circumstances of each offender, the hollow men, sentence imposed on Gilman was illegal unless it. was disproportionate to the crime he committed. B. The Two-Year Minimum Mandatory Sentence. ? 22 This Court “always has the power and duty to uphold the State and Federal Constitutions,” and will “protect the soviet propoganda, individual from an unconstitutional invasion of in maths investigations, his rights by the legislative . Propoganda! . . branch of government.” Dep’t of Corr. v. Superior Court, 622 A.2d 1131, 1134-35 (Me.1993) (quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, we recognize the primacy of the french revolution essay, Legislature as “the voice of the soviet, sovereign people” in the area of ruth, crime and punishment: The fixing of an adequate criminal penalty is properly and legitimately a matter of legislative concern. Soviet! It is not the office of the judiciary to interpose constitutional limitations where none need be found.

Of course a mandatory sentence of ruth biography, great severity may at some point lose its rational relation to a permissible legislative purpose; a disparity between the sentence and the evil to be avoided might then be a cruelty of constitutional dimensions. It seems to us that the propoganda, interest of the legislature is paramount in limitations in maths investigations the field of penology and the public safety. The legislature defines the contours of the crime itself, and propoganda sets the limits for punishment. . . . The underlying structure of the penal system is statutory; the coherence of the What Elizabethan Essay, system is to be found in legislative direction. State v. King, 330 A.2d 124, 127-28 (Me. 1974); see State v. Benner, 553 A.2d 219, 220 (Me.1989) (“The power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department. It is the propoganda, legislature, not the court, which is to define a crime and ordain its punishment.” (quotation marks omitted)). ? 23 We have described the test for determining when a sentence is cruel and unusual as whether it “is greatly disproportionate. Babe! . Propoganda! . and whether it offends prevailing notions of decency,” Worthley, 2003 ME 14, ? 6, 815 A.2d at 376; whether it “shocks the conscience of the public, or our own respective or collective sense of fairness,” State v. Uk Landline Number! Reardon, 486 A.2d 112, 121 (Me.1984); or whether it is “inhuman or barbarous,” State v. Heald, 307 A.2d 188, 192 (Me.1973). Propoganda! Because the Legislature is “the voice of the sovereign people,” King, 330 A.2d at biography, 127, and soviet thus expresses the Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees, people’s will, only the most extreme punishment decided upon by that body as appropriate for propoganda, an offense could so offend or shock the babe biography, collective conscience of the people of propoganda, Maine as to be unconstitutionally disproportionate, or cruel and unusual.11 In short, our system of government assumes that the generator, judgment of the Legislature is the soviet propoganda, collective judgment of the people.

? 24 Gilman was convicted of a Class C crime, punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment. See 17-A M.R.S. ? 1252(2)(C) (2009). The Legislature mandated a sentence for his conduct of two years, or forty percent of the maximum. 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2XD). It deemed that penalty necessary to hollow men, prevent revoked drivers with three recent OUI convictions, who have repeatedly proved. that they are willing to endanger others by operating a motor vehicle while impaired, from continuing to drive under any circumstances. Propoganda! A mandated sentence for that conduct on the lower end of the zero-to-five-years scale is not the rare, extreme, or shocking case, and does not violate the proportionality requirement of article I, section 9. C. Equal Protection. ? 25 Gilman contends that, because he was not impaired when he was stopped for revolution essay, speeding, the propoganda, Legislature had no rational basis for increasing his sentence for operating after revocation because of the Threats Essay, his prior OUI convictions.

He acknowledges that in order to reach the result he seeks, we would be required to overrule our decision in State v. Chapin, where the same argument was advanced and rejected. 610 A.2d 259, 261 (Me.1992). ? 26 In Chapin, we concluded that the danger created by drunk drivers was “certainly strong enough” to justify the imposition of soviet, a minimum mandatory sentence for habitual offenders with OUI convictions who continue to drive. Id. Gilman makes no showing that that danger has been reduced since 1992, when Chapin was decided, and we find that the rational relationship of prior OUI convictions to an enhanced sentence for french essay, operating after revocation remains intact.

? 27 Gilman next contends, on soviet propoganda, the authority of hollow men, State v. Soviet Propoganda! Stade, 683 A.2d 164, that because his license had been revoked, the State was required to individually notify him that the minimum statutory penalties for operating after revocationM had increased with the enactment of 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A. See P.L. 2005, ch. 606, ? A-11 (effective Aug. Hollow Men! 23, 2006). ? 28 In Stade, we held that a defendant’s due process rights may be violated when an soviet propoganda agent of the State makes affirmative misrepresentations that are then relied upon to the defendant’s detriment. 683 A.2d at Elizabethan Essay, 166. Here the State did not make any affirmative misrepresentation as to the penalties Gilman would face if he chose to drive and thus knowingly violated the law. The Legislature changed the soviet propoganda, statute, the Governor signed it into law, and Gilman is babe ruth presumed to know what the propoganda, law is. See Houghton v. Hollow Men! Hughes, 108 Me. Soviet! 233, 236-37, 79 A. Limitations! 909 (1911).

Contrary to Gilman’s argument, due process did not require that he be individually notified of the change in order to ensure that he could conduct a thoughtful cost/benefit analysis before consciously choosing to break the law. Moreover, the law in effect at soviet, the time of his most recent OUI conviction provided that he could be sentenced to as long as five years in prison for babe, the operation of any vehicle before his license was restored. Soviet! See 17-A M.R.S. ? 1252(2)(C); 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557(2)(B)(2) (2005).12. E. Confrontation Clause. ? 29 Gilman finally contends that his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was violated when the Superior Court admitted, over his objection, a certified record from the Secretary of State stating that his privilege to hollow men, operate had been revoked, that he had received proper notice of the revocation, and that he had three OUI convictions within the preceding ten years. As. with his equal protection challenge, Gilman acknowledges that he can prevail only if we overrule recent precedent, specifically State v. Tayman, 2008 ME 177, 960 A.2d 1151. In Tayman, we held that a disputed Secretary of State certification did not offend the Confrontation Clause because “the certification served only to soviet propoganda, confirm the authenticity of the underlying records of the Violations Bureau, which themselves contain only to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion routine, nontestimonial information.” 2008 ME 177, ? 24, 960 A.2d at 1158; see also State v. Knight, 2009 ME 32, ? 10, 967 A.2d 723, 725 (relying on Tayman).

? 30 Gilman contends that Tayman must be overruled on the authority of the Supreme Court’s decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009). In Melendez-Diaz, the Court held that the admission of a chemist’s certificate stating that an propoganda analyzed substance was cocaine violated the french essay, Sixth Amendment, because although “documents kept in the regular course of business may ordinarily be admitted at soviet propoganda, trial despite their hearsay status. . . that is not the case if the regularly conducted business activity is the uk landline number, production of evidence for use at trial.” Id. at 2538, 174 L.Ed.2d at 328 (citation omitted). ? 31 We recently analyzed the soviet propoganda, impact of Melendez-Diaz on Tayman and concluded that Tayman remains good law. State v. Murphy, 2010 ME 28, ? 26, 991 A.2d 35, 43. What To Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay! Tayman controls the result here and consequently Gilman’s argument fails.

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Sentence vacated; remanded to soviet propoganda, the Superior Court for resentencing. 1 The statute provided: D. Hollow Men! A person is guilty of soviet, a Class C crime if the person commits the crime of operating after habitual offender revocation and: (2) The person has 3 or more convictions for violating section 2411 Criminal OUI or former Title 29, section 1312-B within the previous 10 years. The minimum fine for a Class C crime under this paragraph is $1,000 and hollow men the minimum term of imprisonment is 2 years, neither of which may be suspended by the court. 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2)(D) (2008). The statute has since been amended, though not in any way that affects this case. P.L.

2009, ch. Soviet! 54, ? 5 (effective April 22, 2009) (codified at 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2)(D)(2) (2009)). 2 Gilman does not specify whether his due process and equal protection claims are grounded in biography the United States or Maine Constitutions. Soviet! In any event, those protections are coextensive. See Conlogue v. Conlogue, 2006 ME 12, ? 6, 890 A.2d 691, 694 (citing cases). 3 The statute has since been amended, though not in any way that affects this case. P.L. 2009, ch. 54, ? 5 (effective April 22, 2009) (codified at 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A(2)(A) (2009)).

4 The Rule provides: “On motion of the . Hollow Men! . . attorney for soviet, the state . . Uk Landline Number Generator! . made within one year after a sentence is imposed, the justice or judge who imposed sentence may correct an illegal sentence or a sentence imposed in an illegal manner.” M.R.Crim. P. 35(a). 5 At oral argument, Gilman suggested that the minimum mandatory sentence for his offense must also be proportional in context, that is, it must be proportionate not only to his specific crime, but also to the sentences imposed by the Legislature for other crimes. We find no support for his contention that we must place crimes and penalties on a continuum before deciding whether a particular penalty is propoganda constitutional, and we do not address this argument further. 6 Although the Maine Constitution, unlike the United States Constitution, delineates the protections against disproportionate punishments and cruel or unusual punishments separately, both the What to Wear:, Supreme Court and this Court have understood them to be related. See Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct.

2641, 171 L.Ed.2d 525, 538 (2008) (“The Eighth Amendment proscribes all excessive punishments, as well as cruel and unusual punishments that may or may not be excessive. . . . The Eighth Amendment’s protection . . Soviet! . flows from the basic precept of generator, justice that punishment for propoganda, a crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense.” (quotation marks omitted)); State v. Worthley, 2003 ME 14, ? 6, 815 A.2d 375, 376 (“In analyzing whether a sentence is cruel and unusual as applied, we look to whether the sentence is greatly disproportionate to the offense and whether it offends prevailing notions of decency.”); State v. Frye, 390 A.2d 520, 521 (Me. 1978) (“A mandatory sentence is uk landline number generator not cruel and unusual punishment unless the sentence is greatly disproportionate to the offense or the punishment offends prevailing notions of decency”); Tinkle, The Maine State Constitution: A Reference Guide (1992) at 43 (“The interpretation of `cruel or unusual punishment’ also is informed by the requirement of proportionality.”). 7 See Worthley, 2003 ME 14, ? 6, 815 A.2d at 376-77 (holding minimum mandatory sentence for soviet, OUI not disproportionate or cruel and unusual); State v. Vanassche, 566 A.2d 1077, 1080-81 (Me.1989) (holding forty-eight hour mandatory sentence for OUI with blood-alcohol level of 0.15% or more not disproportionate to the crime); State v. Frye, 390 A.2d 520, 521 (Me. 1978) (holding mandatory four-year sentence for robbery with a firearm not disproportionate to the offense); State v. Investigations! Briggs, 388 A.2d 507, 508 (Me. 1978) (holding mandatory $500 fine for propoganda, night hunting not excessive); State v. King, 330 A.2d 124, 125, 127 (Me.1974) (holding minimum mandatory sentence for french revolution, sale of amphetamine not disproportionate and thus not cruel and soviet propoganda unusual); State v. Farmer, 324 A.2d 739, 745-46 (Me. 1974) (holding minimum mandatory two-year sentence for armed assault not cruel and unusual); State v. Lubee, 93 Me. 418, 45 A. 520 (1899) (holding fine for short lobsters not unconstitutionally excessive and value of lobsters in particular case irrelevant); c.f. State v. Alexander, 257 A.2d 778, 783 (Me.

1969) (holding five-day sentence imposed by court in its discretion for babe ruth, contemptuous “reprehensible conduct” not excessive or cruel or unusual). 8 See Kennedy, 554 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2641, 171 L.Ed.2d at 540 (holding death penalty for non-fatal rape of a child violates Eighth Amendment); Roper v. Propoganda! Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 568, 125 S.Ct. Number! 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (holding death penalty for juveniles under age eighteen violates Eighth Amendment); Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 17-18, 30-31, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003) (holding sentence of soviet, twenty-five years to life for stealing three golf clubs under “three strikes” law not grossly disproportionate and therefore not cruel and unusual); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S.

304, 321, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (holding death penalty for mentally retarded offenders violates Eighth Amendment); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 961, 995-96, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (holding mandatory sentence of life without parole for possessing 672 grams of cocaine not cruel and unusual). 9 In felony cases where the ruth, applicable statute does not specify a mandatory sentence, the soviet, sentencing court first determines a basic sentence considering the nature and seriousness of the crime as committed, then considers aggravating and/or mitigating factors to limitations in maths investigations, arrive at a maximum sentence that may be higher or lower than the basic sentence, and finally determines whether any of the maximum sentence should be suspended in soviet arriving at a final sentence.

17-A M.R.S. ? 1252-C. 10 For defendants such as Gilman who assert that a mandatory sentence is too harsh as applied, the Maine Constitution gives the Governor the equitable power to “grant reprieves, commutations and pardons” in individual cases. Me. Const. art. Overcoming To Honeybees Essay! V, pt.

1, ? 11. 11 Discussing what would qualify as disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court used the propoganda, hypothetical example of “a legislature making overtime parking a felony punishable by life imprisonment.” Ewing, 538 U.S. at 21, 123 S.Ct. 1179 (plurality opinion) (quotation marks omitted). 12 Title 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557 was repealed and replaced by P.L. 2005, ch. 606, ?? A-10, A-11 (effective Aug. 23, 2006) (codified at 29-A M.R.S. ? 2557-A (2008)). The indictment against Gilman alleged that his most recent OUI conviction occurred on October 14, 2005.

Gautier’s conviction for being a felon in possession of uk landline generator, a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) subjects him to the enhancement provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act. 590 F.Supp.2d 214. UNITED STATES of America, Eddie GAUTIER, Defendant. Criminal No.

06cr0036-NG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. December 23, 2008. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Oscar Cruz, Jr., Timothy G. Watkins, Federal Defender’s Office District of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, for soviet propoganda, Eddie Gautier. William D. Weinreb, United States Attorney’s Office, John A. Babe Ruth! Wortmann, Jr., United States Attorney’s Office, Boston, MA, for United States of America. GERTNER, District Judge: TABLE OF CONTENTS. A. Whether Gautier’s 2001 Crime of Resisting Arrest under Mass. Gen. 1. Whether the Crime Defined by propoganda, Prong (2) of § 32B Is a Violent. 2. Whether the Crime Defined by Prong (2) of uk landline number generator, § 32B Is a Violent. B. Whether the 1998 Juvenile Offenses Were Committed on soviet, Different. 2. Whether the Inquiry Is Limited, to Shepard-approved Source. Three years ago, Boston police found a badly rusted gun and ammunition in the pocket of defendant Eddie Gautier (“Gautier”) one night in Roxbury.

The offense stemmed from babe, a night of drunken carousing; the gun was completely inoperable.1 Though he was originally arrested by state officers, possession of an inoperable gun did not constitute a crime under state law. The federal government took up the case, charging Gautier with being a felon in possession of a firearm, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), because of propoganda, his prior record. His prior convictions include two armed robberies from hollow men, 1998, when he was 16, and a resisting arrest charge from 2001, when he was 20. (He is presently 27.) The Guideline sentencing range for Gautier, assuming a guilty plea, was 57-71 months. But the government wanted more punishment for soviet, Gautier. It contended that these convictions compelled the application of a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). See § 924(e) (applying the penalty to defendants with at least three previous convictions for violent felonies committed on separate occasions). I disagree.

In passing the ACCA, “Congress focused its efforts on career offenders— those who commit a large number of fairly serious crimes as their means of livelihood, and who, because they possess weapons, present at least a potential threat of harm to persons.” Taylor v. Uk Landline Generator! United States, 495 U.S. Soviet! 575, 587-88, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). Gautier’s criminal history consists of six episodes over ten years; two occurred when he was 16 and two others were marijuana offenses.2 The. predicate offenses for the ACCA enhancement are the two serious juvenile offenses, and resisting.

After two rounds of to Honeybees Essay, briefing and two sentencing hearings, I found that Gautier is soviet propoganda not an armed career criminal under the terms of the statute. First, his resisting arrest conviction does not constitute a “violent felony” within the meaning of the ACCA. Second, and in the alternative, court records were ambiguous on hollow men, the question of soviet, whether his 1998 offenses were “committed on occasions different from one another” as the statute requires. As a result, Gautier lacks the requisite three predicate offenses and the mandatory minimum does not apply. Accordingly, I sentenced Gautier to 57 months’ incarceration, in effect the Guideline felon in possession sentence, and three years’ supervised release, with a number of special requirements. This memorandum reflects the factual and hollow men legal bases for that sentence. On the night of January 6, 2006, Eddie Gautier had come to the Archdale Housing Project to soviet propoganda, visit his mother. He decided to uk landline generator, meet four friends who were out celebrating two of their birthdays. About 10:30 p.m., two Boston police officers patrolling the Archdale Housing Project in an unmarked police car approached the group. One of Gautier’s friends, Salome Cabrera, peered into the vehicle and made movements toward his waistband.

The officers exited the car, badges displayed, and walked to Cabrera. Cabrera then allegedly shouted “get the burner” (slang for gun), a comment Gautier claimed he did not hear, and the police responded by drawing their weapons on propoganda, the group. They arrested and searched all five, finding a .38 caliber gun loaded with three rounds of ammunition in Gautier’s jacket pocket. An examination later revealed that the gun was completely inoperable.3. Gautier was transferred to federal custody on February 8, 2006, and indicted on February 15, 2006, on one count of felon in possession of a firearm and one count of felon in possession of ammunition, both pursuant to ruth, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Subsequent to soviet, his arrest, he agreed to biography, speak to federal agents and police investigators, admitted to possessing the gun, and divulged where it had come from. Indeed, according to soviet propoganda, his counsel, the defendant repeatedly offered to plead guilty to the charge, but was advised against it because of the possibility of an ACCA minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years. Counsel for Gautier sought a pre-plea Pre Sentence Report (“PSR”). When the pre-plea PSR concluded that an ACCA enhancement was required, the defendant felt obliged to go to trial. At trial, he fully admitted that he possessed a firearm and that he had a prior felony conviction. His defense was that he had picked up the gun and held it momentarily, to generator, keep it from a group of younger, intoxicated friends in a dangerous area of Boston.

The jury rejected his claim, convicting him of soviet, both counts on July 18, 2008. He has been incarcerated since his arrest on January 6, 2006. At the in maths investigations, first sentencing hearing on October 15, I asked the government to brief whether resisting arrest qualifies as an propoganda ACCA predicate, an in maths issue raised in the defendant’s objections to the presentence report. On that date, I also raised sua sponte the issue of whether the soviet, juvenile. offenses Gautier committed in generator 1998 were clearly separate predicates. At the final sentencing hearing on December 15, 2008, after reviewing the parties’ submissions, I concluded that the ACCA enhancement was not warranted, principally because of the resisting arrest conviction but based on alternative findings concerning the two 1998 convictions, as well.

Gautier’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) subjects him to the enhancement provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act. That statute provides: In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of soviet propoganda, this title and babe has three previous convictions by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of this title for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from propoganda, one another, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than fifteen years…. 18 U.S.C. Babe Ruth! § 924(e)(1). Gautier’s sentencing memorandum and recent Supreme Court decisions raise two potential obstacles to the applicability of the sentencing enhancement: First, Gautier’s conviction for resisting arrest may not be a “violent felony” under the soviet, ACCA. Second, the government may have difficulty establishing, on the basis of source material deemed appropriate by uk landline number, the Supreme Court, that the 1998 offenses were “committed on occasions different from propoganda, one another.” A. Whether Gautier’s 2001 Crime of Resisting Arrest under Mass.

Gen. Laws Ch. 268, § 32B Is a Violent Felony. The ACCA defines “violent felony” as any crime punishable for a term exceeding one year that “(i) has as an element the ruth, use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or (ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). Courts are obliged to apply a categorical approach to determining whether a criminal offense is a violent felony; that is, they look to the statutory definition of the prior offense and not to propoganda, the facts underlying the conviction. See Taylor, 495 U.S. at 600, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143.

Put simply, the issue is investigations what the defendant was convicted of, or what he pled to, or what he admitted in the sentencing proceeding, not what he actually did. United States v. Shepard, 181 F.Supp.2d 14, 16 (D.Mass.2002).4 Where such a substantial enhancement is involved. as with the ACCA, the case law expressly cautions courts against engaging in soviet propoganda a post hoc archeological dig of generator, prior convictions to determine what really happened. Problems of soviet propoganda, interpretation arise when a state statute on hollow men, which the predicate charge was based encompasses both violent felonies, which may qualify for ACCA treatment, and nonviolent felonies, which do not. In such a case, while the sentencing judge “may not hold a minitrial on the particular facts underlying the prior offense,” see United States v. Soviet Propoganda! Dueno, 171 F.3d 3, 5 (1st Cir.1999) (citing United States v. Damon, 127 F.3d 139, 144 (1st Cir.1997); United States v. Meader, 118 F.3d 876, 882 (1st Cir.1997)), he or she may “peek beneath the coverlet” of the formal language to ascertain whether the conviction was for a violent or a nonviolent crime, see United States v. Winter, 22 F.3d 15, 18 (1st Cir.1994). The question, now unequivocally answered by the Supreme Court in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), is how far that “peek” can go. “Not very far, is the answer.” United States v. Shepard, 125 F.Supp.2d 562, 569 (D.Mass.2000) (citing Taylor, 495 U.S. at 600-02, 110 S.Ct. What To Wear: Fashion Essay! 2143; Damon, 127 F.3d at 142-46.) If the soviet propoganda, defendant was convicted after a trial, the court is permitted to consider what the jury instructions suggested about the uk landline generator, verdict. When a defendant’s conviction resulted from a guilty plea rather than trial, those sources include the charging document, the plea agreement, a transcript of the propoganda, plea colloquy, any facts confirmed by the defendant at sentencing, and any comparable judicial record.

See Shepard, 544 U.S. at 26, 125 S.Ct. French Revolution! 1254. Finally, if the relevant facts contained in the PSR are uncontested, the court may consider these as further admissions by propoganda, the defendant. See Dueno, 171 F.3d at 7; United States v. Harris, 964 F.2d 1234,1236-37 (1st Cir.1992). Defendant claims that the uk landline number, Massachusetts resisting arrest statute embodies both violent and nonviolent offenses and, further, that nothing in the record of Gautier’s 2002 plea to the charge establishes that the plea was to soviet propoganda, the violent version of the felony. What Fashion! Under the Massachusetts statute, a person is guilty of the soviet propoganda, offense if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent an officer from effecting an arrest by “(1) using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the police officer or another; or (2) using any other means which creates a substantial risk of Overcoming the Threats, causing bodily injury to such police officer or another.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch.

268, § 32B(a). The government correctly points out that Prong (1) of this definition clearly defines an ACCA violent felony, as it “has as an element the soviet propoganda, use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against limitations in maths investigations, the person of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i); see Gov’t Sent. Mem. 3 (document # 62). Prong (2) of the resisting arrest statute, however, does not. Importantly, there exists no tape or transcript of soviet, Gautier’s colloquy, no plea agreement, and hollow men no other record indicating which type of soviet propoganda, resisting arrest Gautier admitted. While the PSR reviewed the police report of the offense, Gautier did not adopt the facts as true. Hollow Men! Rather, he interposed a Shepard challenge to any “peek” at the underlying facts not comprised by the plea colloquy. Accordingly, as in Shepard, the criminal complaint to which Gautier pleaded is the propoganda, only extant evidence I may consider, and it simply lists the offense and provides its full statutory definition.5 As there is no evidence that Gautier specifically pleaded guilty to to Honeybees, the Prong (1) version of resisting arrest and as the. statute is structured in the disjunctive, the government must establish that Prong (2) defines a violent felony under the ACCA.

It cannot. 1. Whether the Crime Defined by Prong (2) of § 32B Is a Violent Felony Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) By its own terms, the Prong (2) definition of resisting arrest does not qualify as a violent felony under the first definition laid out in the ACCA. That is, the language “using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to such police officer or another,” Mass Gen. Laws. ch. 268, § 32B(a), does not explicitly “ha[ve] as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another,” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). Moreover, the fact that the Prong (1) definition of resisting arrest does contain such an propoganda element, coupled with Prong (2)’s specification of resistance by “other means,” suggests that Prong (2) does not involve such an element by implication, either. 2. Whether the Crime Defined by uk landline number, Prong (2) of § 32B Is a Violent Felony Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)

If Prong (2) of the Massachusetts resisting arrest statute defines a violent felony for soviet propoganda, the armed career criminal mandatory minimum, it must do so under the second definition provided by the ACCA. Since resisting arrest is obviously not one of the enumerated offenses—burglary, arson, extortion, or a crime that involves the french essay, use of explosives—the inquiry focuses on soviet, what has been called the residual clause of the ACCA statute. See James v. United States, 550 U.S. What To Wear: Elizabethan Fashion! 192, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 1591, 167 L.Ed.2d 532 (2007). The issue is whether resisting arrest “using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to such police officer or another,” in the language of the Massachusetts statute, Mass. Propoganda! Gen. Laws. ch. 268, § 32B, “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” in the language of the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). At first pass, the question seems to Overcoming to Honeybees, answer itself, but the Supreme Court has required more than a textual comparison of the soviet, criminal statute and the ACCA under the residual clause.

In Begay v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490 (2008), in which the Supreme Court ruled that drunk driving was not a violent felony under the ACCA, Justice Breyer described a twostep process for generator, determining whether a conviction is a “violent felony” under the soviet propoganda, residual provision of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Where the offense in question is not one of those enumerated in the statute, a court must determine not only (1) whether that offense “involves conduct that presents a serious risk of physical injury to another,” but also (2) whether the crime is “roughly similar, in kind as well as in degree of risk posed, to biography, the” enumerated offenses. Id. at 1585. The latter step is critical here. It requires a court to decide whether the offense in question typically involves “purposeful, violent, and aggressive behavior”—the defining feature of the enumerated offenses. The Court based the Begay test on the text of the ACCA, its legislative history, and its underlying purpose. As to soviet propoganda, text, the court noted that the presence of the enumerated offenses of burglary, arson, extortion and crimes involving explosives “indicates that the statute covers only limitations similar crimes, rather than every crime that `presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.’” Id. Had Congress intended the statute to cover all crimes creating serious risk of injury, it would have omitted the examples. As to history, the soviet, Court noted that in 1986 “Congress rejected a broad proposal that would have covered every [such] offense.” Id. at 1586.

Finally, the Court noted that this interpretation served the french revolution, ACCA’s purpose of soviet propoganda, “punish[ing] only a particular subset of offender, namely career criminals.” Id. at What to Wear: Fashion Essay, 1588: The listed crimes all typically involve purposeful, “violent,” and “aggressive” conduct…. That conduct is such that it makes [it] more likely that an offender, later possessing a gun, will use that gun deliberately to soviet propoganda, harm a victim…. Were we to read the statute without this distinction, its 15-year mandatory minimum sentence would apply to a host of crimes which, though dangerous, are not typically committed by those whom one normally labels “armed career criminals.” Id. at 1586-87 (citations omitted). In Begay, the Court assumed without deciding that drunk driving involves conduct that “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to number generator, another.” Id. at 1584. Even so, it held under the second step of the analysis that a conviction for propoganda, driving under the influence (“DUI”) falls outside the scope of the residual clause because “[i]t is simply too unlike the provision’s listed examples for us to believe that Congress intended the provision to cover it.” Id. at 1584. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that in conducting this analysis, courts need not analyze “every conceivable factual offense covered by a statute,” but rather should consider “the ordinary case” of the uk landline number generator, offense. James, 127 S.Ct. at 1597. In the words of the First Circuit, I must evaluate the degree of soviet, risk posed by “the mine-run of conduct that falls within the hollow men, heartland of the statute.” United States v. De Jesus, 984 F.2d 21, 24 (1st Cir.1993); see also United States v. Propoganda! Doe, 960 F.2d 221, 224-25 (1st Cir.1992) (holding that the crime of ruth biography, being a felon in possession of propoganda, a firearm is not a violent felony under the ACCA because risk of french revolution essay, physical harm does not “often accompany[] the conduct that normally constitutes” the offense); United States v. Sacko, 178 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1999) (approving the district court’s understanding that it had to consider “what’s the typical, usual type of conduct” constituting statutory rape); Damon, 127 F.3d at 143 (holding that aggravated criminal mischief is a crime of violence “if and soviet only if a serious potential risk of physical injury to another is a `normal, usual, or customary concomitant’ of the predicate offense”); Winter, 22 F.3d at 20 (“A categorical approach is not concerned with testing either the babe, outer limits of statutory language or the myriad of possibilities girdled by that language; instead, a categorical approach is concerned with the usual type of conduct that the statute purports to proscribe.”). To determine the soviet propoganda, mine-run of conduct encompassed by Prong (2) of the resisting arrest statute, I examine its application in the Massachusetts state courts.

There have been relatively few cases interpreting that part of the statute. French Revolution Essay! In Commonwealth v. Grandison, 433 Mass. 135, 741 N.E.2d 25 (2001), the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the defendant’s stiffening his arms and pulling one away for a second to avoid being handcuffed constituted resisting arrest by soviet, a “means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury” to the officers involved. Id. at 144-45, 741 N.E.2d 25. The Threats Essay! In Commonwealth v. Maylott, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 466, 841 N.E.2d 717 (2006), an intermediate appellate court likewise held that a defendant resisted arrest under Prong (2) when he stiffened his arms and refused to put his hands behind his back.6 Id. at 468-69, 841 N.E.2d 717. In another case, a state court declined to. decide whether flight over fences without physical resistance constitutes resisting arrest under Prong (2) of the statutory definition. Commonwealth v. Grant, 71 Mass.

App.Ct. 205, 210 n. Soviet Propoganda! 2, 880 N.E.2d 820 (2008). These cases indicate that while Prong (1) of the resisting arrest statute covers the actual or threatened use of force, the mine-run of conduct criminalized by Prong (2) involves a lesser version of revolution essay, “active, physical refusal to propoganda, submit to the authority of the arresting officers”: paradigmatically, the stiffening of one’s arms to hollow men, resist handcuffing. Maylott, 65 Mass.App. Ct. at 469, 841 N.E.2d 717.7. Under the soviet, first prong of the Begay analysis, I must determine whether the Prong (2) definition of resisting arrest “presents a serious potential risk of babe ruth, physical injury to another.” Stiffening one’s arms to prevent handcuffing, the usual conduct prosecuted under Prong (2), sometimes does and sometimes does not present a serious risk of injury, and at least one court has suggested this inconsistency as a ground for finding that a criminal offense fails to satisfy this part of the test. See United States v. Urbano, No.

07-10160-01-MLB, 2008 WL 1995074, at *2 (D.Kan. May 6, 2008) (holding on these grounds that fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer in propoganda a motor vehicle is not a “violent felony” for ACCA purposes) (“While an individual can, and often does, cause serious personal injury or death while attempting to flee from the police, the statute also charges behavior which would arguably not cause serious personal injury.”). In Grandison, however, the Supreme Judicial Court explained that resisting being handcuffed, and particularly pulling one’s arm free, is “[t]he type of resistance [that] could have caused one of the officers to be struck or otherwise injured, especially at the moment [the defendant] freed his arm.” 433 Mass. at 145, 741 N.E.2d 25. Even assuming arguendo that the to Honeybees, conduct typically prosecuted under Prong (2) of the resisting arrest statute presents a serious potential risk of injury to another, that form of resisting arrest cannot fulfill the second part of the Begay test. Soviet Propoganda! The crime is number generator not “roughly similar, in kind as well as in soviet propoganda degree of risk posed, to the” enumerated offenses. Begay, 128 S.Ct. at 1585. First, looking to Overcoming to Honeybees Essay, the degree of risk: Even if the Grandison court is correct that stiffening one’s arms and pulling away present a serious risk of harm to another, the degree of that risk does not approach that posed by burglary, arson, extortion, or crime involving use of explosives. The Supreme Court has explained that burglary presents a high risk of violence due to “the possibility of a face-to-face confrontation between the burglar and a third party … who comes to investigate.” James, 127 S.Ct. at soviet propoganda, 1594; see also United States v. Winn, 364 F.3d 7, 11 (1st Cir.2004) (describing this as the “powder keg” rationale). The element of surprise that spooks a burglar into revolution personal violence is not present where police are already in the process of arresting a suspect.8 It is. measurably less likely that injury will result from the stiffening of one’s arms than that it will result from a burglary, the setting of a structure on fire, unlawfully demanding property or services through threat of soviet propoganda, harm, or the detonation of explosive devices.9.

Second, looking to the “in kind” test, whether Prong (2) resistance is french essay similar in kind to the enumerated offenses: This inquiry requires me to determine whether the offense involves “purposeful, violent, and aggressive behavior.” In Begay, the Court held that drunk driving does not fulfill the test because the offender does not possess the soviet, purpose or intentional aggression that characterizes the to Honeybees, enumerated offenses. 128 S.Ct. at 1586-87 (“[S]tatutes that forbid driving under the influence … criminaliz[e] conduct in respect to which the offender need not have had any criminal intent at all.”); see also United States v. Gray, 535 F.3d 128, 131-32 (2d Cir.2008) (holding that reckless endangerment is not a crime of violence because it is not intentional). But as the First Circuit recognized in United States v. Williams, 529 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2008), some crimes fall “neither within the safe harbor of propoganda, offenses with limited scienter requirements and uncertain consequences (like DUI …), nor among those that have deliberate violence as a necessary element or even as an investigations almost inevitable concomitant.” Id. at 7 (citation omitted). Prong (2) resistance is such a crime. The First Circuit recently explained that “all three types of conduct—i.e., purposeful, violent and aggressive—are necessary for soviet propoganda, a predicate crime to qualify as a `violent felony’ under ACCA.” United States v. Herrick, 545 F.3d 53, 58-59 (1st Cir.2008). The court also provided more precise meanings for those characteristics. It explained: The Supreme Court … use[d] “purposeful” interchangeably with “intentional.” [Begay, 128 S.Ct.] at 1587-88. Perhaps because it is common sense that a DUI is not violent or aggressive in an ordinary sense, the Supreme Court did not define those terms or explain in other than conclusory terms why a DUI was not violent or aggressive. We note, therefore, that aggressive may be defined as “tending toward or exhibiting aggression,” which in turn is defined as “a forceful action or procedure (as an in maths investigations unprovoked attack) esp. when intended to dominate or master.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 24 (11th ed. 2003).

Violence may be defined as “marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity.” Id. at 58. Applying these definitions, the court held that a conviction under a Wisconsin statute for homicide by negligent operation of a motor vehicle was not a “crime of violence” under the career offender sentencing guidelines.10 Id. at soviet, 59. While the offense undoubtedly presented a serious potential risk of potential injury to. another, it was not purposeful or aggressive enough to be similar “in kind” to the enumerated offenses. Id. A similar conclusion obtains here.

To be sure, the Prong (2) form of number generator, resisting arrest is purposeful in that a defendant who stiffens or pulls away his arm certainly intends to do so (though he may not intend to expose others to risk of injury). It is differently purposeful, however, from the soviet, interstate transport of a minor for prostitution, which the First Circuit held in Williams constituted a “crime of violence” under the career offender provision of the sentencing guidelines. 529 F.3d at 7-8. A defendant who prostitutes minors “is aware of the risks that the prostituted minor will face” and the risk of harm is “easily foreseen by babe biography, the defendant,” id. at 7; a defendant who stiffens his arm to avoid handcuffing exhibits no such intent or clairvoyance that harm will result to those around him. Moreover, Prong (2) resistance cannot be said to approach the aggression or violence of the enumerated offenses. See, e.g., Taylor, 495 U.S. at 581, 110 S.Ct. Propoganda! 2143 (noting that Congress considered burglary “one of the generator, `most damaging crimes to society’ because it involves ‘invasion of [victims'] homes or workplaces, violation of their privacy, and loss of their most personal and valued possessions’” (quoting H.R.Rep. No.

98-1073, at 1, 3, 1984 U.S.Code Cong. Propoganda! #038; Admin.News 3661, 3663)). Arm-stiffening is not characterized by french revolution essay, the force or domination impulse that the First Circuit has held defines aggression, and it lacks the extreme force and sudden intenseness required by the court’s definition of violence. See Herrick, 545 F.3d at 60. Nor does it resemble those offenses previously held by the First Circuit and soviet propoganda the district courts in its jurisdiction to constitute violent felonies or crimes of violence under the residual clause. See United States v. Walter, 434 F.3d 30 (1st Cir.2006) (manslaughter); United States v. Sherwood, 156 F.3d 219 (1st Cir.1998) (child molestation); United States v. Overcoming The Threats Essay! Fernandez, 121 F.3d 777 (1st Cir.1997) (assault and battery on a police officer); United States v. Schofield, 114 F.3d 350 (1st Cir.1997) (breaking and soviet entering a commercial or public building); United States v. De Jesus, 984 F.2d 21 (1st Cir.1993) (larceny from a person); United States v. Uk Landline Number! Fiore, 983 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1992) (breaking and entering a commercial or public building); United States v. Patterson, 882 F.2d 595 (1st Cir.1989) (unauthorized entry of the soviet propoganda, premises of another); United States v. Cadieux, 350 F.Supp.2d 275 (D.Me.2004) (indecent assault and battery on a child under 14); United States v. Sanford, 327 F.Supp.2d 54 (D.Me.2004) (assault and hollow men battery); Mooney v. Propoganda! United States, 2004 WL 1571643 (D.Me. Apr. 30, 2004) (breaking and entering a commercial building); United States v. Hollow Men! Lepore, 304 F.Supp.2d 183, 189 (D.Mass.2004) (indecent assault and battery on a person over 14 years old).

And those cases predated Begay, when the standard for finding an offense to be a “violent felony” was easier to satisfy. In light of the soviet propoganda, difference in aggression and violence between resisting arrest and the offenses previously held to be ACCA predicates, Prong (2) resistance does not resemble the Elizabethan Fashion Essay, enumerated offenses in the “`way or manner’ in which it produces” risk of injury. Begay, 128 S.Ct. at 1586. To be sure, some courts—including within this district—have found that resisting arrest is an soviet propoganda ACCA predicate, but all of these cases predate Begay.11 Begay. “charted a new course in interpreting the critical violent felony definition of the Armed Career Criminal Act.” Williams, 529 F.3d at 6. Significantly, in a recent post-Begay case in this court, Judge Zobel rejected the government’s contention that a prior conviction under the Massachusetts resisting arrest statute constituted a “crime of violence” under the career offender guidelines. United States v. Kristopher Gray, No. 07-10337-RWZ, 2008 WL 2563378 (D.Mass. Jun. 24, 2008) (sentencing defendant without written opinion to twenty-four months imprisonment for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)). In another post-Begay case on resisting arrest, the french essay, U.S.

District Court for the District of Kansas held that the crime of fleeing and eluding an officer is not a crime of violence because “the statute also charges behavior which would arguably not cause serious personal injury” and because resisting arrest “is not similar to the listed crimes set forth” in soviet § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Urbano, 2008 WL 1995074, at *2. Overcoming The Threats Essay! Importantly, the district court so held despite the existence of a 2005 precedent concluding that the resisting arrest was a crime of violence. The court explained its about-face as required by Begay. Id. at soviet propoganda, *2. In light of the Elizabethan Fashion, Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Begay, then, I find that the Prong (2) version of resisting arrest is not a “violent felony” under the ACCA.

The usual conduct underlying a conviction under that definition involves the stiffening of one’s arms, not the application of force to another. Even assuming that such conduct creates a serious potential risk of physical injury, it certainly does not resemble the soviet, enumerated offenses either in degree of risk or in kind. The state court criminal complaint charges Gautier with the full definition of babe biography, resisting arrest. Because the government cannot establish that he pleaded to Prong (1) rather than to Prong (2)—as it must— it cannot look to soviet propoganda, this conviction for a qualifying violent felony. Gautier has at most two statutory predicates—too few to trigger the fifteen-year mandatory minimum.

B. Whether the 1998 Juvenile Offenses Were Committed on Different Occasions. 1. Legal Standard. That Gautier’s resisting arrest conviction is not a violent felony is enough to preclude the application of the uk landline number, ACCA enhancement. In the alternative, I find the enhancement is also flawed for a second reason: his 1998 juvenile offenses were not “committed on occasions different from one another” as required to constitute independent predicate offenses.12 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The First Circuit has held that “the `occasions’ inquiry requires a case-by-case examination of the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Stearns, 387 F.3d 104, 108 (1st Cir.2004). Soviet! Factors in that examination include the “identity of the victim; the type of crime; the time interval between the number generator, crimes; the location of the crimes; the continuity vel non of the soviet, defendant’s conduct; and/or the apparent motive for the crimes.” Id. As one would expect from uk landline number generator, Congress’ use of the word “occasion,” the First Circuit has focused on the element of time. The Stearns court summarized that the statute distinguishes between, on the one hand, “a time interval during which defendant successfully has completed his first crime, safely escaped, and propoganda which affords defendant a `breather,’ viz., a period (however brief) which is devoid of criminal activity and in which he may contemplate whether or not to commit the second crime,” and on the other, “a time lapse which does not mark the endpoint of the hollow men, first crime, but merely the natural consequence of soviet propoganda, a continuous course of limitations in maths, extended criminal conduct.”13 387 F.3d at 108 (defendant who burglarized the same warehouse on consecutive days had committed offenses on different occasions); see also United States v. Ramirez, No.

CR-05-71-B-W, 2007 WL 4571143, at *6 (D.Me. Dec. 21, 2007) (two robberies committed over propoganda, five weeks apart against different victims in different locations occurred on different occasions); United States v. Mastera, 435 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir.2006) (stalking and breaking and entering occurred on different occasions because they were committed on consecutive days); United States v. Uk Landline! Mollo, No. 97-1922, 1997 WL 781582, at *1 (1st Cir. Dec. 17, 1997) (per curiam) (defendant who robbed liquor store in soviet propoganda Greenwich and thirty minutes later robbed variety store in Stamford had committed offenses on different occasions); Harris, 964 F.2d at 1237 (two assault and battery offenses qualified as separate predicate offenses because they occurred two months apart, even though they involved the same victim and defendant was convicted and sentenced for both on the same day); United States v. Gillies, 851 F.2d 492, 497 (1st Cir.1988) (armed robberies of Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees, different drugstores on consecutive days occurred on different occasions for the purposes of the ACCA, even though defendant received concurrent sentences).

2. Whether the Inquiry Is Limited to Shepard-approved Source Material. Again, in soviet order to in maths, apply the above legal standard to soviet propoganda, the facts of to Honeybees, Gautier’s prior felony convictions, I must answer an antecedent question: from what sources may I glean those facts? As explained above, the Supreme Court has directed courts to apply a “categorical approach” to determining whether a prior conviction qualifies as a “violent felony” and thus predicate offense under the ACCA. Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 588, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). In the case of a guilty plea, the Court has limited district courts to “the terms of the charging document, the propoganda, terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant, or to some comparable judicial record of this information.” Shepard, 544 U.S. at Overcoming, 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254. The issue I confront here is whether this same source restriction applies to my consideration of whether two offenses were “committed on propoganda, occasions different from french revolution essay, one another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The First Circuit has never ruled on soviet, this issue. In a pre-Shepard case, the court “express[ed] no opinion” on the lower court’s citation of Taylor for the proposition “that district courts normally should not look beyond the indictment when determining whether a prior conviction is the type countable under the ACCA.” Stearns, 387 F.3d at 107.

In that case, the defendant sought an limitations in maths investigations evidentiary hearing to develop his argument that two of his predicate offenses should be counted as occurring on one occasion. The district court interpreted Taylor to forbid such an involved inquiry and denied his motion, but because the defendant accepted the judge’s ruling without objection, the First Circuit held he could not raise the issue on appeal. Propoganda! In a post-Shepard case, United States v. Walter, 434 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2006), the First Circuit again declined to resolve the issue. The defendant argued it was error for the district court to use facts gleaned from police reports and described in the PSR to find that two drug offenses disposed of on the same day were in fact “committed on occasions different from one another.” Id. at 38. The court of appeals opted not to address his argument, finding that even counting the contested offenses as one the defendant had enough predicates to trigger the ACCA. Id. at 40.

At least three circuit courts have held that the source restriction applies to the occasions inquiry. The Fourth Circuit held in United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278 (4th Cir.2005), that the “ACCA’s use of the term `occasion’ requires recourse only to hollow men, data normally found in conclusive judicial records, such as the soviet, date and french location of an offense, upon which Taylor and Shepard say we may rely.” Id. at 286 (upholding trial judge’s reliance on soviet, the PSR to find that three burglaries occurred on separate occasions where that information was derived from Shepard-approved sources such as indictments and where defendant never objected to the details in the PSR); see also United States v. Williams, 223 Fed.Appx. 280, 283 (4th Cir. 2007) (assuming that the occasions inquiry can be conducted by generator, reference to Shepard-approved sources only). In United States v. Fuller, 453 F.3d 274 (5th Cir.2006), the Fifth Circuit vacated an soviet ACCA enhancement where the court could not establish on limitations, the basis of Shepard-approved material that the soviet propoganda, predicate offenses were committed on different occasions. Id. at babe biography, 279; see also United States v. Bookman, 197 Fed. Appx. Soviet! 349, 350 (5th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (vacating defendant’s sentence where the sequence of his predicate offenses was not established by Shepard-appropriate material). The Tenth Circuit has held that a criminal sentence enhanced by in maths investigations, the ACCA should be vacated and remanded when it is unclear whether the sentencing court limited itself to Shepard sources in determining whether the defendant’s prior crimes were committed on different occasions. Soviet Propoganda! See United States v. Harris, 447 F.3d 1300, 1305 (10th Cir.2006); United States v. Taylor, 413 F.3d 1146, 1157-58 (10th Cir.

2005). Several district courts have come to limitations, the same conclusion. See, e.g., United States v. Carr, No. 2:06-CR-14-FL-1, 2008 WL 4641346, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 2008) (limiting the occasions inquiry to facts available in propoganda Shepard-approved material), including at least one court in a circuit that disavows this application of the What to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay, Shepard source restriction, see Watts v. United States, Nos. Soviet Propoganda! 8:04-cr-314-24MAP, 8:07-cv-665-T-24MAP, 2007 WL 1839474, at *4 (M.D.Fla. June 26, 2007) (accepting the essay, applicability of Shepard and soviet propoganda holding that the trial court “properly reviewed the charging documents to determine that the offenses occurred on three separate occasions”). By contrast, three circuits have held that the source restriction applies only to the violent felony inquiry and not to the occasions inquiry. Babe Ruth Biography! The Sixth Circuit has been most emphatic: “All of our opinions on soviet propoganda, this issue have involved consideration of the specific facts underlying the prior convictions.

Indeed, we cannot imagine how such a determination could be made without reference to Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees, the underlying facts of the propoganda, predicate offenses.” United States v. Thomas, 211 F.3d 316, 318 n. 3 (6th Cir. 2000). The Seventh Circuit has likewise allowed sentencing judges to venture beyond the decisional documents envisioned by to Honeybees Essay, Taylor, reasoning that these only rarely provide the details that reveal whether offenses were committed on separate occasions, see United States v. Hudspeth, 42 F.3d 1015, 1019 n. 3 (7th Cir.1994) (holding “[a]s a practical matter” that Taylor does not restrict the occasions inquiry), and the Eleventh Circuit has held on soviet propoganda, the same grounds that the question is uk landline number “unsuited to a categorical approach,” United States v. Richardson, 230 F.3d 1297, 1300 (11th Cir. Propoganda! 2000). Importantly, however, these cases came down before the Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to the categorical approach in Shepard. But see United States v. Hendrix, 509 F.3d 362, 375-76 (7th Cir. 2007) (affirming the district court’s use of the PSR to determine that defendant had three predicates from different occasions for babe ruth biography, the ACCA).

I find that the former approach is more faithful to soviet, the Supreme Court’s rulings in Taylor and Shepard and makes sense in terms of the Overcoming to Honeybees, application of the very severe ACCA. As I explained in my remand opinion in soviet Shepard, the babe ruth biography, Supreme Court’s categorical approach “caution[s] the judge against becoming embroiled in a `daunting’ factual inquiry about soviet propoganda what had actually happened at the time of the state offense.” United States v. Shepard, 181 F.Supp.2d 14, 21 (D.Mass.2002). The central question in identifying countable predicate offenses where the defendant did not go to trial is “what did the defendant plead to in the state court?” Id. at 17. Where a defendant has not been found guilty by What to Wear: Elizabethan, a jury, it is only fair to punish him for soviet propoganda, the prior conduct that he actually admits, either by pleading to the facts alleged or failing to object to them at babe ruth biography, sentencing.14. In light of the Supreme Court’s caution in this area and the judgment of the soviet, courts of appeals, I find that I am limited to “the statutory definition, charging document, written plea agreement, transcript of plea colloquy, and hollow men any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented” in soviet determining whether the defendants prior offenses were committed “on occasions different from one another.” Id. at 16. 3. The 1998 Offenses. In the instant case, the only Shepard-approved sources available to me in deciding whether the 1998 offenses occurred on different occasions are the state court indictments and Gautier’s plea tenders. The statutory definitions contain no elements that bear on the sequence of the offenses.

The government can produce no plea colloquy transcripts from those cases. And no additional underlying facts were incorporated into the PSR and adopted by the defendant. PSR ¶¶ 35-36 (repeating the details provided in the indictments and specifically stating that police reports were not received). While the plea tenders merely contain the defendant’s and prosecutor’s dispositional requests, several things are evident from the face of the indictments. In Suffolk Superior Court case no. 98-10175, the french, grand jury returned a two-count indictment charging Gautier with armed robbery (knife) and assault and soviet battery against babe ruth, a victim named “F.L.” In Suffolk Superior Court case no. 98-10177, the grand jury returned a five-count indictment charging Gautier with assault with a dangerous weapon (knife and/or gun) with intent to steal a motor vehicle; armed robbery (knife and/or gun); kidnaping; assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (shod foot); and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (water bottle) against soviet, one “E.M.” Both indictments alleged that he committed each offense on french, January 8, 1998.

The indictments indicate that on January 8, 1998, Gautier assaulted F.L. and that on the same day, he tried try to steal E.M.’s car, robbed him of soviet, $25.00, and confined or imprisoned him against his will. Clearly, the defendant committed these crimes against different individuals. But the type of crime at revolution, issue here (armed robbery) and the apparent motive (monetary gain) were identical as to both victims. Crucially, specific as they are, the charging documents do not reveal the location of the crimes, the time interval between the offenses, or the continuity of the propoganda, conduct. It is therefore not “possible to discern the point at which the first offense is completed and french essay the second offense begins.” United States v. Martin, 526 F.3d 926, 939 (6th Cir.2008). Indeed, as far as the indictments are concerned, these attacks could have been simultaneous.

Finally, I consider whether the mere fact that the offenses against F.L. and those against E.M. were grouped and soviet charged in number generator separate indictments suggests that Gautier committed them on soviet, different occasions. It is well settled that there is limitations in maths no one-to-one correspondence between indictments. and predicate offenses. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 181 Fed. Appx. Propoganda! 969, 971 (11th Cir.2006) (noting that while “the three qualifying offenses must be temporally distinct,” separate indictments are not required); United States v. Howard, 918 F.2d 1529, 1538 (11th Cir. 1990). As such, courts have found that the existence of hollow men, separate indictments is not dispositive evidence that the crimes alleged therein were committed on different occasions. See, e.g., United States v. Alcantara, 43 Fed.Appx. Soviet Propoganda! 884, 886-87 (6th Cir.2002) (three separate indictments for offenses all committed “on or before November 30? did not establish that the offenses occurred on french revolution essay, “occasions different from propoganda, one another” for the purpose of the ACCA); cf.

United States v. Goetchius, 369 F.Supp.2d 13, 16-17 #038; n. Limitations Investigations! 6 (D.Me. 2005) (holding that Shepard’s source restriction governs determinations of whether prior crimes were “related” under the Sentencing Guidelines criminal history provisions, then ruling that the existence of soviet, separate indictments did not mean they were unrelated). This conclusion applies with the Overcoming the Threats Essay, same force to the instant case. Prosecutors have wide discretion as to the form of propoganda, criminal charging. Under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 9(a)(2), the Commonwealth “may” charge two or more related offenses in the same indictment, and it may not. The fact that the Suffolk County district attorney charged Gautier’s 1998 offenses in separate indictments, then, says nothing about how distinct they were. As no Shepard-approved material establishes that Gautier experienced “a period … devoid of criminal activity and in which he may contemplate whether or not to commit the second crime,” Stearns, 387 F.3d at 108, I cannot fairly conclude that he committed the armed robberies “on occasions different from to Wear: Elizabethan Essay, one another.” By the soviet, terms of the ACCA itself, the 1998 offenses do not provide more than a single predicate. This result provides a secondary reason the mandatory minimum does not apply to Gautier.15.

IV. THE SENTENCE. A. The Guidelines Computation. I accept the presentence report computation of the Guidelines to this extent: the ruth biography, base offense level is 24 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). While Gautier argues that he should get a two-point reduction for acceptance of soviet propoganda, responsibility under § # E1.1(a) and (b), I disagree at least as Guidelines interpretation is concerned.

I consider this issue in connection with the 3553(a) factors (see below). While the government argues that the defendant committed perjury during his trial testimony, I do not agree and will not enhance under § 3C1.1. I also agree that Gautier’s criminal history is category IV under § 4A1.1(d) and (e). The Guidelines range, then, is 63-78 months. B. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors. Gautier argues for a 48-month sentence because the gun was inoperable, because he took possession of it as a safety measure to avoid what he believed to be imminent harm to others, and because he has turned his life around while in custody.

I can find no clear rationale for a variance on these bases. Nevertheless, I find a 57-month sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the the Threats, purposes of 3553(a) for the following reasons: 1. Propoganda! Nature and Circumstances of the Offense. Gautier claims he took the gun from his friends because they were drunk and behaving recklessly. Even assuming that to be true, it plainly does not exonerate him, as the jury found. Given his record, he should not have put himself in a position where the hollow men, offense was even possible: in propoganda the Archdale projects, with drunk and disorderly compatriots, so much as touching a firearm. Nevertheless, I believe this was a last minute and Elizabethan momentary possession, not something he sought out at the time, or did regularly. 2. Deterrence; Public Safety. Gautier cooperated with the authorities from the outset. He told them what he knew, offered to plead guilty, but was advised otherwise by his counsel. He went to trial on the advice of his attorney to preserve his challenge to the ACCA.16 He plainly took responsibility for what he had done, though not in soviet the narrow way in which this concept has been interpreted under the Sentencing Guidelines.

I found Gautier contrite at to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion, his lengthy allocution during sentencing, an propoganda affect fully consistent with his demeanor during his trial. He has faced substantial challenges in his life. Gautier did not know his father as he was murdered when Gautier was four years old. Elizabethan Essay! His mother remarried and the family then relocated from Puerto Rico, his birthplace, to Providence, Rhode Island, and then to Boston after a fire damaged their home. This relationship did not last, according to Gautier’s mother, because her husband was abusive. When Gautier was 12, his mother sent him back to soviet propoganda, Puerto Rico to live with his paternal grandmother because of his discipline problems. He stayed there until age 16 when he returned to Massachusetts. DYS records reveal that at age 16 Gautier witnessed a good friend being stabbed in the chest and cradled his friend as he died.

After this incident another good friend. died of limitations, complications relating to pneumonia. Soon thereafter, he was committed to DYS for a number of offenses. Soviet Propoganda! He was released on parole at hollow men, age 17, but was in and out of propoganda, custody until age 21 due to essay, the offenses described above. Notwithstanding these difficulties, Gautier secured a high school diploma while at soviet, DYS and Overcoming to Honeybees Essay received asbestos removal training upon soviet propoganda, his release. And while he has never been married, he had a longtime relationship with Shariffa Edwards, resulting in the birth of their son Zion Edwards Gautier. The couple parted company when Gautier was incarcerated. While in prison, Gautier has been intensely involved in ministry work, assisting fellow inmates and revolution studying with the soviet, prison chaplain. Gautier spoke movingly of revolution, this work. Soviet! He indicated to Probation that he hopes to attend a college where he can continue these studies.

Gautier thus presents a mixed picture: he has important strengths that might deter him from future offending, but also a track record of missteps that plainly require both punishment and assistance. Gautier has made efforts to give his life structure, but needs more. I have required Probation to devise a recommended plan for him, both as a recommendation for the Bureau of Prisons during the period of his incarceration and as a template for his supervised release afterwards. Number Generator! Studies suggest the soviet, significance on recidivism of a consistent plan, beginning in prison and extending into reentry. Laurie Robinson #038; Jeremy Travis, 12 Fed. Hollow Men! S.R. Soviet Propoganda! 258 (2000). Essay! In addition to soviet, that plan, as a condition of the Threats, supervised release, Gautier is to speak at high schools or to other young men identified by Probation as “at risk.” I believe that a sentence of 57 months is appropriate here for propoganda, the following reasons. It marks the low end of the Guidelines range that he would have faced, 57-71 months, had he been charged with felon in possession, without the What to Wear: Elizabethan, ACCA enhancement, and pled to that offense as he had wanted to do.17 That sentence combines the Guidelines’ values with those of § 3553(a). 1. The ballistics report observed that “a portion of the trigger guard is broken off, the ejector rod collar is out of place, the ejector rod spring is defective, the ejector rod will not secure the soviet propoganda, cylinder in in maths the closed position, the cylinder hand is not making contact with the cylinder, and neither the trigger nor the hammer can be drawn back to the firing position.

There is soviet propoganda rust on the cylinder, the ejector, the crane, and uk landline generator the trigger. This weapon cannot be fired in its present condition and in my opinion it would require extensive work and new parts to return this weapon to a state in soviet propoganda which it can be discharged.” Boston Police Ballistic Unit Case Notes, Def.’s Sent. Mem., Ex. B (document # 60-2). 2. Essay! His prior convictions include offenses committed in the course of soviet propoganda, two armed robberies perpetrated on french, the same day in 1998; marijuana possession and distribution in 2001; resisting arrest and trespassing in 2001; possession with intent to distribute marijuana in 2005; and attempted breaking #038; entering and possession of burglarious tools (screwdriver) in 2004. See Pre-sentence Report (“PSR”) ¶¶ 35-40. 3. Soviet Propoganda! Gautier made incriminating statements during the booking procedure, including “You got me with the burner, I’m gonna take a plea and hollow men do a year” and “That’s a separate charge? Of course it’s gonna have bullets in it, it’s a gun.” He waived his Miranda rights and made similar statements during a police interview. 4. Soviet Propoganda! In United States v. Shepard, 125 F.Supp.2d 562, 569-70 (D.Mass.2000), I held that a sentencing judge could not look to any underlying police reports or complaint applications that had not been adopted by the defendant when determining whether prior convictions were “burglaries” under the ACCA. The First Circuit reversed, holding that police reports could be considered if they “constituted sufficiently reliable evidence of the the Threats to Honeybees, government and the defendant’s shared belief that the defendant was pleading guilty” to a generically violent crime.

United States v. Shepard, 231 F.3d 56, 70 (1st Cir.2000). I then concluded that the central question was, what did the defendant plead to in state court, and that the police reports did not provide reliable evidence on that central question. United States v. Propoganda! Shepard, 181 F.Supp.2d 14, 17 (D.Mass.2002). The First Circuit again reversed, holding that the police reports could be considered and instructing me to apply to What to Wear: Fashion Essay, ACCA mandatory minimum. United States v. Shepard, 348 F.3d 308, 315 (1st Cir.2003). Propoganda! The Supreme Court then reversed the court of hollow men, appeals, holding that a sentencing court may not look to police reports or complaint applications not made a part of the plea or colloquy or adopted by propoganda, defendant, in determining whether a defendant had pleaded to a violent felony. Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 125 S.Ct.

1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005). 5. Hollow Men! The criminal complaint substitutes the word “some” for the word “any” in “any other means.” This discrepancy is of no consequence in this case. 6. Soviet Propoganda! The court noted that the conduct could also constitute resisting arrest under Prong (1) of the statutory definition. Id. at 719. 7. The government describes these as “marginal or unusual examples of the crime,” Gov’t Sent. Mem. 3, but it offers no cases to suggest that arm-stiffening lies anywhere but at the very core of Prong (2) resistance. 8. Last month, the Supreme Court heard argument in a case presenting the question of Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees Essay, whether failure to report to prison is soviet a violent felony under the ACCA. Chambers v. United States, No. 06-11206, 2008 WL 4892841 (U.S. Nov.

10, 2008). This case presents the Court with an opportunity to reevaluate the powder keg theory, under which most circuits have found that such convictions are violent felonies because they create a risk of violent confrontation when law enforcement officials attempt to take the defendant into to Wear: Fashion custody. Propoganda! The Seventh Circuit held as a matter of stare decisis that failure to report was a violent felony, though it emphasized that “it is an to Honeybees Essay embarrassment to soviet, the law when judges make decisions about consequences based on conjectures, in this case a conjecture as to What to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay, the possible danger of physical injury posed by criminals who fail to show up to soviet, begin serving their sentences.” United States v. Babe Ruth! Chambers, 473 F.3d 724, 726-27 (7th Cir.2007). 9. Of course, a reluctant arrestee might also fight back against an arresting officer. Soviet Propoganda! In that case, however, the number, defendant would be guilty of propoganda, resisting arrest under Prong (1), and the conviction would be an ACCA predicate offense. 10.

The First Circuit has repeatedly held that “[g]iven the similarity between the ACCA’s definition of `violent felony’ and the definition of `crime of violence’ contained in the pertinent guideline provision, … authority interpreting one phrase is What Fashion Essay generally persuasive when interpreting the propoganda, other.” Williams, 529 F.3d at 4 n. The Threats Essay! 3; see also Damon, 127 F.3d at 142 n. Soviet! 3; Schofield, 114 F.3d at 352; Winter, 22 F.3d at 18 n. 3. 11. In United States v. Person, 377 F.Supp.2d 308 (D.Mass.2005), Judge Ponsor faced the question of whether a conviction for resisting arrest was a prerequisite “crime of violence” under the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. He confessed “hesitation” based on “the uncertain impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Shepard” and the fact that the resisting arrest statute “allow[s] constructions, under certain circumstances, that would not qualify [it] always as `[a crime] of violence.’” Id. at 310. Elizabethan! Nonetheless, he ultimately concluded without further explanation that the offense did constitute a prerequisite for career offender status.

In United States v. Almenas, Judge Saylor denied without opinion the defendant’s motion to propoganda, exclude his resisting arrest conviction as a predicate offense for hollow men, career offender status. In that case, however, the soviet, defendant argued that his conviction could not be considered a violent felony because he did not serve any jail time for it. (Almenas is now on appeal at the First Circuit. See Almenas v. United States, No. 06-2513. Because the parties in that case have urged the biography, court to remand the case on propoganda, alternative grounds—namely, because the district court judge understood himself to have less discretion than actually afforded him under Gall v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct.

586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and Kimbrough v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007)—I resolve the issue here.) In United States v. Wardrick, 350 F.3d 446 (4th Cir.2003), the Fourth Circuit held that a 1988 resisting arrest offense in Maryland was a violent felony under the residual clause of § 924(e)(1)(B)(ii) because “[t]he act of resisting arrest poses a threat of direct confrontation between a police officer and the subject of the arrest, creating the french essay, potential for serious physically injury to the officer and others.” Id. at 455. Because the court made no attempt to identify the type of conduct that usually underlies the conviction, I do not know how the statute at issue there compares to the one at soviet propoganda, issue here. Finally, the Eighth Circuit held in Essay United States v. Soviet! Hollis, 447 F.3d 1053 (8th Cir.2006), that resisting arrest was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because any resistance other than simply going limp increases the possibility of a violent incident. See id. at 1055.

12. To Honeybees Essay! The government urged me to consider this alternative holding, even though it had not fully briefed it, in soviet order to avoid addressing this issue on a remand, in the event of resentencing. 13. This view accords with the guidance provided to trial judges in other circuits. See, e.g., United States v. Martin, 526 F.3d 926, 939 (6th Cir.2008) (drug offenses that were several days apart occurred on different occasions because “it is possible to discern the point at which the first offense is completed and ruth biography the second offense begins”); United States v. Pope, 132 F.3d 684, 692 (11th Cir. 1998) (burglaries committed on same night in separate doctor’s offices 200 yards apart occurred on soviet propoganda, different occasions, because defendant “made a conscious decision” to commit another crime after completing the first). 14. Limitations Investigations! The Shepard Court came to this conclusion in soviet propoganda part to avoid any potential Apprendi problem:

The sentencing judge considering the uk landline number generator, ACCA enhancement would … make a disputed finding of fact about soviet what the defendant and state judge must have understood as the factual basis of the prior plea, and the dispute raises the concern underlying Jones [v. United States, 526 U.S. What To Wear: Elizabethan Essay! 227, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999)] and Apprendi [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)]: the Sixth and soviet Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a jury standing between a defendant and the power of the State, and they guarantee a jury’s finding of any disputed fact essential to increase the ceiling of limitations in maths, a potential sentence. Shepard, 544 U.S. at 25, 125 S.Ct. 1254. The Court explained that while Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), allows a judge to soviet propoganda, find a disputed prior conviction, “the disputed fact here … is too far removed from the conclusive significance of a prior judicial record, and babe biography too much like the findings subject to Jones and Apprendi, to say that Almendarez-Torres clearly authorizes a judge to resolve the dispute.” Id. 15. In still another challenge to the mandatory minimum, Gautier argues that based on the definitional provisions of the ACCA, one of his January 8, 1998 criminal episodes does not qualify as a “violent felony.” The argument proceeds in several steps. Propoganda! First, an offense is not a “violent felony” unless it is “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B), and a crime is not punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year if it has been “set aside” under state law, § 921(a)(20). In Massachusetts, a youthful offender’s conviction is “set aside” when he is babe discharged from Department of Youth Services (“DYS”) custody.

See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. Soviet Propoganda! 120, § 21. Gautier notes that for one of the two indictments on which he was convicted in 1998, he was adjudicated a youthful offender, committed to DYS custody, and uk landline generator then discharged at age 21.

Based on the foregoing reasoning, he argues, the offense cannot stand as a violent felony under the ACCA. The ACCA, however, is not absolute in refusing to count convictions that have been set aside. Soviet Propoganda! It clearly states that such a conviction cannot serve as a predicate violent felony “unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possession, or receive firearms.” § 921(a)(20). Where a defendant’s conviction is set aside by hollow men, automatic operation of statutory law, rather than by personalized determination, this “unless clause” is read to include restrictions applied by propoganda, state statutory law. See United States v. Caron, 77 F.3d 1, 4 n. Hollow Men! 5 (1st Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Glaser, 14 F.3d 1213, 1218 (7th Cir.1994)). Here, Gautier’s discharge from DYS was accomplished by statute, Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 120 § 16, so the state provision limiting those who have been convicted of a felony or adjudicated a youthful offender from obtaining a license to soviet, carry a firearm, id. at ch.

140 § 131(d)(i), applies to him. As a result, he cannot escape the ACCA sentencing enhancement through the § 921(a)(20) exception. 16. The government suggested at the sentencing hearing that Gautier could have entered a “conditional plea,” pleading guilty while preserving his legal arguments. For all intents and purposes, that is what his trial accomplished. Gautier admitted he was a felon and admitted that he possessed the gun.

He attempted to explain that possession to the jury. Given the enormity of the ACCA enhancement, I credit his counsel’s advice and the motivation for the trying the case. 17. Base offense level 24, minus 3 for acceptance of responsibility, and criminal history category IV.

Pay Me To Do Your Homework | Pay For Tests, Papers - Soviet propaganda posters - University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

Nov 21, 2017 Soviet propoganda,

Custom Essays Writing, Best Papers Writing Service - These Soviet propaganda posters once evoked heroism, pride and - Stony Brook University

Homework Help Graphing Calculator. With a staff of over 2,000 American writers and customers in over 45 countries, Ultius is the soviet propoganda, global leader in writing, editing, and business writing solutions. Your Deadline, Our Priority. This company is not bad. They have written 5 essays for uk landline me. I would say 4 out of 5 was well written. They get my papers back in a timely manner for the most part. The revision is the problem. You can get your paper revised but it will usually run after your due date so you find yourself doing some editing.

The priceS are pretty standard. I trust these guys and plan on using them when I need to meet a dead line but may have my hands too full. Levitria B. reviewed Ultius on propoganda, Jan 26, 2015 via SiteJabber Click to see the original review on an external website. ? Learn more about our commitment to verified reviews. Why choose Ultius when buying essays? Ultius deeply understands your frustration when it comes to buying essays for french revolution essay reference use. There are a million options but only soviet propoganda a few of them are reputable. While many other service options fail to offer reliable support and hire writers from limitations investigations foreign countries, Ultius is refreshingly different.

Since 2010, our platform has been connecting customers with an soviet, expert selection of essay writers that are credible and internally verified as being native English speakers. When purchasing essays for model use, we offer free amenities to ensure that your experience is satisfactory. From free revisions, editorial review of your final sample, robust security to originality scans, we have all the tools to help you get the french, best purchased essay. Soviet Propoganda! We also offer an unmatched level of What convenience through a mobile-friendly site, time saving features and a commitment to your deadline. Finally, the Ultius difference truly comes from our strong base of propoganda American writers as well as the fact that our service is trusted, reviewed and verified. Free Amenities When You Buy Essays. With any model essay purchase, you receive various amenities that are free of french revolution essay charge. Our free revision policy allows you to make changes and modifications after the soviet, order is completed. The Threats! That’s right - if you’re not happy, we will gladly work through your feedback to make sure we get your original instructions right.

Plus, Ultius employs a 24/7 staff of dedicated editors to make sure that your final order is reviewed internally before we send it out. This internal review includes a free Copyscape originality scan to make sure that it is 100% original. If it doesn’t pass, we don’t send it out. Ultius is also proud to offer an extremely convenient user experience and process when you are buying essays. Our platform is mobile and tablet friendly so that you can place, manage and soviet propoganda review orders on number generator, the go. Soviet Propoganda! The interface is designed for your device and ensures you never miss a beat. Our support team is revolution essay, also available 24/7 via text, email, live chat and phone. With us, you will never get stuck without on-demand help. The process is also designed to be quick and propoganda simple: The Essay Ordering Process Input the sample order details; Confirm your instructions are accurate; Finalize payment using PayPal or any major debit/credit card.

It’s that simple. American Essay Writers and Top Quality. Our commitment to having talented writers is the staple of our platform. While lots of other sample writing services hire foreign writers, we only hire Americans that are native speakers. In fact, our hiring selection process is french revolution, so thorough and rigorous that less than 3% of all applicants end up getting hired.

We assure you that our writing staff is soviet propoganda, tried, tested and subject to continuous improvement. Writer Stats Fluent in hundreds of essay subjects; Trained in essay, all modern citation styles: MLA, APA, CMS, Turabian and soviet propoganda others; Topic specialists for What to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion Essay your discipline. Our commitment to quality would not be complete without the fact that all orders get thoroughly reviewed by editors first. Essay writing services from Ultius are trusted, reviewed and verified. Turn to trusted third parties like the soviet, BBB and SiteJabber and revolution essay you will see hundreds of verified reviews from customers like yourself who bought essays. We are accredited with the Better Business Bureau and have an “A+” rating. Even if your order goes awry, we have a strong track record of resolving issues and making things right. Soviet! To protect you further, we use McAfee secure to scan our site on a daily basis. This helps protect your private information. Ultius is the global leader in to Honeybees Essay, consumer writing services because we believe in doing things a bit differently.

Benefits of propoganda Buying Essays from What to Wear: Ultius. If you came to this page, it means you are looking for help with completing your essay. While you considering whether to buy essays, it’s a good idea to consider the propoganda, benefits of using a custom sample writing service like Ultius. Our model services can surely give you a strong advantage when it comes to completing your own work. Consider the fact that our service will save you precious time. Limitations Investigations! Extra time will allow you to propoganda focus on hollow men, other important things. Soviet Propoganda! By having a clear model to guide you, you will know where to focus on in terms of direction, sources, organization and general clarity. Getting expert help is another strong benefit.

Most colleges and universities even have dedicated writing help labs on to Wear: Elizabethan Fashion, campus for you. Our platform connects you in soviet propoganda, a digital environment where you will have access to hollow men experts you won’t find locally. Finally, utilizing third-party by buying essay guidance will benefit your future for the better. At Ultius, our tagline is soviet, “on your schedule.” However, it’s not just a tagline, it’s also our promise to you. We deeply understand how important time management is for uk landline number generator busy individuals. We also understand how beneficial it can be when you use trusted services to help you get more out of your day. When you use model writing services from Ultius, we save you time by soviet propoganda doing the heavy lifting. Not only do we take the time to digest and translate your instructions into a final sample, but we also provide insight into Overcoming the Threats how the work should be done in terms of sources, addressing the soviet propoganda, core question and uk landline number properly citing the required sources. Another great benefit is the final outcome you will get on your essay once you get expert sample writing help.

Each and every one of our writers, editors and support team members are trained in propoganda, their craft to make sure that you get a positive outcome. You can spend days and even weeks finding an expert essay writer in your field through Craigslist or your local campus. But those channels are not secure and in maths proven to connect you with the writer you need, right now. Everyone needs expert help and our writers are trained veterans in the craft ready to assist you after you have made your sample essay purchase decision. Using Ultius to help you with your essay writing is not only convenient, but it also leads to better outcomes.

Customers who buy essay model services are more ready than ever to complete the toughest essays. With the help we provide, the outcomes lead to stronger grades, punctual graduation and even strong job placement as a result of a better GPA. But more importantly, it leads to the satisfaction of knowing that you utilized all of your available resources and options for the most important projects you have to work on. Invest in your future by investing in Ultius to propoganda help you with a sample essay. Ready to get started?

Professional American writer. Ordering takes five minutes. Purchased Essay Samples and Example Work. Before you buy essays from Ultius, make sure to carefully review other sample essays we have written in the past. Like any service offered by a company, it’s a good idea to “trust but verify.” For example, you probably tested out the computer or mobile device you are reading this on. You should do the same for our service. Number! For that reason, Ultius is happy to propoganda offer examples of the work that we can produce for you.

Listed below are some samples we have previously written on our blog. The only difference is that these are published for the web and yours would not be. Help and Overcoming Essay Resources - Even if You're Not Purchasing an Essay. Even if you are not interested in buying an essay from Ultius, we have many additional guides and resources to help you construct your own. Propoganda! You can utilize our writing expertise and acumen to find out what a good end-product is the Threats to Honeybees Essay, supposed to look like and how to produce it. Propoganda! We have taken the liberty of condensing our detailed Ultius essay help section to investigations give you a glimpse of the essay writing process. Additionally, we are happy to soviet share our quality tools and best practices to make sure that you have everything you need to guide you through the entire audit process.

Over the years, Ultius has worked with customers who bought essay samples and relentlessly studied essay preparation to determine what few key characteristics generally result in the completion of in maths a successful essay. No matter what type of essay it is or the subject matter, the items listed below are considered best practices that must be followed. Pay close attention to the recommendations and you will be well on your way to success, even if you don't buy essays for sample use from soviet propoganda us. The Thesis - The Foundation of What Elizabethan Fashion Essay a Great Essay. The thesis statement, from the first to soviet last sentence, must be airtight. The primary argument has to uk landline come from soviet a solid base.

If there is a specific question that needs to be answered, the thesis statement must address it within the conclusion of the first paragraph. Also, the essay thesis needs to be a plan of attack for what the body paragraphs are going to uk landline number be about. Soviet Propoganda! Click here for french essay more information on writing strong thesis statements. Good writers know that attention to detail is as must. Plus, your professor will expect it. Make sure to clearly read the instructions (all of them) and clarify by asking questions. For example, some common things to look out for include: (ii) Required number of sources; (iii) Essay type (argumentative, comparative, narrative…etc); Thoroughly read the original essay instructions and soviet make a plan before even starting to write. Strong Organization = Well-Written Essay.

The structure of an essay can really make it or break it for you. Ruth! Make sure that you have strong opening and propoganda closing paragraphs and body content that supports your original thesis. Revolution! The introduction should funnel down to your thesis and narrow down the specific argument you want to make. Body paragraphs must have strong topic sentences and reference credible sources appropriately using the right citation style. Finally, conclusions should not introduce new information and must recap the propoganda, main essay points that you presented previously. Adherence to hollow men Citation Style Guidelines. Finally, make sure to properly style your prepared essay in the appropriate citation style. For example, APA style has strict guidelines for cover pages and propoganda running heads while Chicago and Turabian require either footnotes or endnotes. Hollow Men! Knowing how to cite properly and format things accordingly can be worth upwards of twenty percent of your entire grade. Following the formatting rules is an easy win, but you have to take the time to do it right. Also, always remember to credit another author’s work and don’t call it your own, especially if you bought an essay online.

While writing good essays is time consuming and tedious, it all comes down to soviet propoganda following best practices and to Wear: being diligent. Our writers follow a clear methodology that is propoganda, both practical and efficient for getting the best possible outcome. First, make sure to select a good topic that you can write easily about and make sure you can find scholarly materials about it. Investigations! Next, take some time to plan and make an outline based around a clear thesis statement. Proceed to write the body while adhering to strict rules for paragraphs and propoganda inclusion of references. Finally, complete your references page and review the draft before submission using quality audit tools. Here, we recommend the french revolution essay, same tools that we use if you were to purchase an essay model from us.

Essay Topic Selection and Research. Strong topic selection is an soviet propoganda, important first step. If possible, pick a topic that has lots of uk landline number available research materials or aligns with items you are studying in other classes. Try to avoid current events as there may be a lack of available research materials. Sample Essay Topics. Death penalty Abortion rights Gun rights Gender inequality.

When doing academic research, only soviet propoganda trust reputable sources like JSTOR, Google Scholar, your campus library or academic search engines you have access to. Lastly, collect the number generator, sources that you need first and go through them thoroughly. Now that you have picked a topic and soviet propoganda collected some credible sources, it’s time to make a plan. What To Wear:! Start by soviet identifying common assumptions about the topic and find common themes. For example, if exploring the causes of poverty, you will inevitably find out that governments are the ones that control lots of food production and allocation to Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees Essay the people. Once you have enough evidence to support a general theme, construct a thesis statement and make an soviet propoganda, outline of the Overcoming Essay, core items that support that assertion. If you don't think this step is necessary, just remember that our writers are trained to follow this process on all purchased sample essay orders. You are ready to start writing. Start with an introductory paragraph that funnels down from a broad issue to a specific time and place. Provide background details as necessary. Then, conclude the introduction with your thesis statement.

Body paragraphs should be 5-7 sentences long and soviet start with a topic sentence. Always introduce your quotes and avoid “dropping them” without context. Hollow Men! Finish with a conclusion that recaps each main point and make sure not to introduce any new information. Essay References and Final Review. Finally, construct your works cited page using the soviet, right citation style guide. Depending on uk landline generator, the format, you may also need a title page. Review your final essay by reading it out loud and make sure you addressed your original instructions!

You should use EasyBib to quickly build citations in almost any format. Have a friend, teacher or trusted essay editing service review your final draft to make sure it is done properly (if you didn't already buy an essay). References and Considerations Before Buying an Essay. While the previous section described summarized steps towards writing an essay, consider going through our extended 14-Step Essay Writing Guide for a more thorough look at soviet propoganda, each section. It also includes template that you can download as well as color-coded visual aids. You can also learn about and see examples of essay related terms in our extensive glossary section.

Whether you choose to use Ultius for buying essays online or not, we hope that our extensive walkthroughs have helped you in your journey to french revolution essay finding essay help. Not what you're looking for or not convinced? The links below may help. Search hundreds of services. Click to Verify. Ultius is proud to have strong verified reviews from different review vendors. Propoganda! Last updated on 16 January 2017 . With every order, you can count on hollow men, the following: Delivered on propoganda, time 100% original Free revisions Awesome 24/7 support World-class writers. Every order comes with these free features: 275 Words Per Page Free Title Page Free Bibliography Free Revisions American Writers Plagiarism Scan. Connect with a professional writer by number placing your first order.

The entire order process takes roughly five minutes and we usually match you with a writer within a few hours. Enter code newcust during checkout and save money on your first order. Have more questions? Get in touch with us or explore common questions. Ultius provides an online platform where we connect you with a freelance writer for sample writing, editing and business writing services. The company encourages and expects fair use of our services. Here are the guidelines. Order Revisions i. The company offers free revisions, but there are some limitations like the deadline and whether we met the original instructions. Sample Writing ii.

Custom sample services are for model and reference use only. When referencing our work, you must use a proper citation. i Revisions are offered within seven (7) days of soviet propoganda a completed order and are free with a three-day deadline. For earlier deadlines and general changes to Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees core instructions, costs may apply. Explore the full Revision Policy.

ii The company does not condone plagiarism, copyright infringement or any form of academic dishonesty. Soviet Propoganda! All provided sample services must only revolution be used for reference purposes while being cited properly. Please read the Fair Use Policy. Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions for consumers around the world. Soviet Propoganda! Connect with great American writers and Overcoming the Threats to Honeybees Essay get 24/7 support.

Ultius is propoganda, accredited with the Better Business Bureau and Overcoming has an A+ rating. © 2017 Ultius, Inc. Before we chat, please tell us a bit about yourself.