text:
816 F. 2d 1132 - Boles v. Foltz
816 F2d 1132 Boles v. Foltz
Robert Lee BOLES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
Dale FOLTZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Sixth Circuit.
Decided April 24, 1987.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 23, 1987.
David M. Lawson (argued), Lizza and Mulcahy, P.C., Detroit, Mich., for petitioner-appellant.
Thomas A. Kulick (argued), Dept. of Atty. Gen., Corrections Div., Lansing, Mich., for respondent-appellee.
Before KENNEDY, Circuit Judge; CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge; and GIBSON*, District Judge.
CORNELIA G. KENNEDY, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner-appellant Robert Lee Boles, Jr. ("petitioner") appeals the District Court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner claims on appeal that: 1) his statements at a July 24, 1978 arraignment on an unrelated larceny charge constituted a request for counsel and his confession to murder at a subsequent interrogation was therefore inadmissible; 2) the admission of a second confession and its derivative evidence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; 3) neither confession was voluntary; and 4) the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges systematically excluded blacks from the jury and violated petitioner's right to a fair and impartial jury. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the District Court's decision denying petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder under Mich.Comp.Laws Sec. 750.316 in a case involving a shooting in Saginaw, Michigan, on July 22, 1978. On that afternoon, the victim, Clyde Letson, was washing his truck at a self-service car wash. His daughter Holly was with him. A man approached Letson and began talking to him. The man shot Letson twice, bent over him, took something from his pocket, and ran away. Letson died shortly thereafter. Thirty to forty people were at the scene at the time of the shooting.
Petitioner was arrested the day following the shooting for an unrelated offense. He was apparently also a suspect in the shooting. On the next day, July 24, petitioner was arraigned on the unrelated offense of larceny. At the larceny arraignment, the following exchange took place:
The Court: Mr. Boles I assume you desire to have a Preliminary Hearing on this matter, is that correct?
Mr. Boles: Yes I do Your Honor.
The Court: Okay.
Mr. Boles: My, my ah, attorney appear here right now.
The Court: What's that?
Mr. Boles: I wanted to ah, want a little advise to--I want to hear the Preliminary ...
The Court: Oh please don't put anything on the record at this time. Don't talk at this time. Wait until after you talk to your lawyer, do you understand?
Mr. Boles: All right.
The Court: I'm going to set your hearing for the 4th day of August.
The Court: Now how about a lawyer, can you afford to hire your own lawyer ah, Mr. Boles?
Mr. Boles: Yes I got one.
The Court: You have one, okay.
Joint Appendix at 140-41.
On July 25, petitioner appeared in a lineup related to the murder and a third offense, felonious assault and unarmed robbery. The same day police officers, acting on a search warrant, found a tool check in petitioner's car which corresponded to tool checks belonging to the victim. On July 27, petitioner was booked on an open murder charge. On July 28, at noon, he was advised of his Miranda rights, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and waived them in writing. He was then interrogated and confessed to the murder of Letson. At 2:15 that same afternoon, petitioner was arraigned on the felonious assault charges. He requested that the court appoint an attorney for him. A short time later, the police returned and took petitioner to the locations at which he claimed to have disposed of the murder weapon and the victim's wallet. On the way to these locations, the officers advised petitioner of his rights and reinterrogated him on tape. He again confessed to murder. The wallet was found in a trash can, but the gun, which petitioner claimed to have thrown in a river, was never found. On July 31, petitioner was arraigned on an open murder warrant.
At a pretrial Walker hearing, People v. Walker, 374 Mich. 331, 132 N.W.2d 87 (1965), petitioner moved to suppress both confessions. He claimed that his statements were obtained involuntarily and in violation of his right to have counsel present during interrogation. The state trial court concluded that both confessions were knowingly and voluntarily made and they were admitted into evidence. The victim's wallet was also admitted into evidence. Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed by the state appellate court and petitioner's application for leave to appeal to the state supreme court was denied.
Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 9, 1982, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The District Court initially conditionally dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust available state remedies. Boles v. Foltz, 559 F.Supp. 1302 (E.D.Mich.1983). Petitioner amended his complaint and argued that his confessions were involuntary, the result of a delayed arraignment and taken in violation of his right to counsel. In addition, he challenged the search of his car and the jury selection process. The District Court denied relief on the last two claims. Regarding the confessions, it held that petitioner's statements at the first arraignment did not constitute a fifth amendment request for counsel and thus the first confession was properly admitted at trial. The Court found that the second confession was not properly admitted because petitioner had requested counsel at the second arraignment, but that admission of the second confession was harmless error. Finally, the Court held that both confessions were voluntary. Petitioner appeals the District Court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.I.
Petitioner claims on appeal that his statements at the larceny arraignment constituted a request for counsel and that the subsequent interrogation was in violation of his fifth amendment rights. The District Court found that "a fair reading of the transcript at the first arraignment shows that Petitioner did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present during interrogation." District Court Opinion at 15-16. We agree.
The Supreme Court has held that "when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, ... [the accused] is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available." Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1884-85, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). In this case, however, petitioner did not invoke his fifth amendment right at the larceny arraignment. Petitioner stated that he had an attorney and that he wanted that attorney present at the preliminary hearing. His statements did not express "his desire to deal with the police only through counsel." Id. at 484, 101 S.Ct. at 1884. Although the law does not require a defendant to indicate whether a request for counsel is based on the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination or the sixth amendment right to be represented by counsel during judicial proceedings, Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 106 S.Ct. 1404, 1409 n. 7, 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986), where it is clear that the defendant's request is for something other than the presence of an attorney during interrogation, the request should be so construed. The Supreme Court applied this reasoning in a recent case in which a defendant stated that he was willing to give an oral statement to police but that he would not give a written statement unless his attorney was present. Connecticut v. Barrett, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 828, 93 L.Ed.2d 920 (1987). The Court held that "[t]o conclude that respondent invoked his right to counsel for all purposes requires not a broad interpretation of an ambiguous statement, but a disregard of the ordinary meaning of respondent's statement." Id. 107 S.Ct. at 832. In the case before us the ordinary meaning of petitioner's statements is that he wished to have his attorney present at the preliminary hearing. We find that petitioner did not invoke his right to have counsel present during interrogation and thus his first confession was properly admitted into evidence.
Petitioner also challenges the admission into evidence of his second confession and its derivative evidence. He argues that his request at the second arraignment that counsel be appointed invoked his right to have counsel present at the second interrogation. He asserts that the admission of the taped second confession, and the wallet and tool check found as a result of that confession, was improper. The District Court held that petitioner had invoked his right to have counsel present during interrogation and that admission of the second confession and its derivative evidence was improper. It also held, however, that admission of that evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The District Court found that petitioner had invoked his rights under Edwards, stating that "[u]nless a defendant has clearly indicated that he desires counsel for something other than help during police interrogation, the Court should assume that his request for counsel at arraignment invokes his Fifth Amendment right." District Court Opinion at 10. Because the police proceeded with the second interrogation outside of the presence of counsel, the District Court held that petitioner's rights had indeed been violated and the second confession improperly admitted into evidence.
The District Court also found, and we agree, that admission of the confession and its derivative evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The Court found first that "[p]etitioner's taped confession was merely a reiteration of his first confession and therefore cumulative." District Court Opinion at 16. It also stated that because in his testimony petitioner had admitted having had the wallet, its admission at trial was not material. The Court noted the incriminating testimony of three witnesses at trial, and held that "[c]ontrasting the amount of prejudice against the quantum of evidence, this Court is constrained to find the errors harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 17-18 (citing Bailey v. Hamby, 744 F.2d 24 (6th Cir.1984)). The Court separately addressed the admission of the tool check into evidence and held that, although the question was a close one, its admission was also harmless. We find the analysis of the District Court to be correct and affirm its decision regarding petitioner's second claim.
Petitioner next asserts that his confessions were involuntary. He cites the fact that at the time he was twenty-two years old, had a ninth grade education, and was barely able to read or write. He testified at trial that he was never advised of his rights in accordance with Miranda and was told by police officers that he would certainly receive a life sentence if he did not confess. He also asserts that he asked the interrogating officer when he would receive an attorney. Contrary to petitioner's testimony, the interrogating officer, Officer Bradley, testified that petitioner had been advised of his rights, had not been promised anything or threatened, and had not requested to see an attorney. The state trial court found that petitioner had been advised of his rights and that the confession was admissible. The state court of appeals affirmed these findings.
We affirm the District Court's finding that petitioner did not meet his burden of proving that the confession was involuntary. In a federal habeas action, the burden of proving that the confession was involuntary rests with the petitioner. Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929, 937 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001, 101 S.Ct. 1709, 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981). Furthermore, voluntariness need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972). In this case, the trial court and the state appellate court disbelieved petitioner's claims that he had never been advised of his rights, that he had been threatened, and that he asked for an attorney. The state court's findings of fact are conclusive if fairly supported by the record. See Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 106 S.Ct. 445, 453, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985). The District Court found, and we agree, that the state court's findings were supported by the record and it held that petitioner's confessions were not involuntary.
Petitioner finally challenges the jury selection process. He claims that his constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury was violated because the prosecutor used her peremptory challenges to systematically exclude blacks from the jury. The District Court dismissed this claim on the basis of Swain v. Alabama, in which the Supreme Court held that a defendant could not establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause solely on proof of the prosecutor's action at defendant's trial. Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965). The Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), announced a new standard for proving unconstitutional abuse of peremptory challenges. We affirm the District Court's dismissal of petitioner's claim, however, because the Supreme Court recently held that Batson should not be applied retroactively on collateral review of convictions that became final before Batson was announced. Allen v. Hardy, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2878, 92 L.Ed.2d 199 (1986). Because petitioner's conviction was final prior to the announcement of the new standard, the standard in Swain would control in petitioner's case. We affirm the District Court's dismissal of petitioner's challenge on the basis of Swain.
We affirm the District Court's denial of petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus.
BENJAMIN F. GIBSON, District Judge, dissenting.
For the reasons stated in the following opinion, I dissent.
Petitioner argues that he invoked his right to counsel at the larceny arraignment and that therefore the first interrogation abridged his Fifth Amendment right to counsel pursuant to Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).1 In Edwards, the Supreme Court found a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogation where, subsequent to defendant's request for counsel, a confession was obtained by police-initiated questioning. In finding the constitutional violation, the Court ruled:
[W]e now hold that when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights. [Moreover,] an accused, ... having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.
Id. at 484, 101 S.Ct. at 1884-85, 68 L.Ed.2d at 386. Recently, Edwards has been applied by analogy, on the basis of the Sixth Amendment, to cases involving requests for counsel during arraignment. Michigan v. Jackson/Bladel, 475 U.S. 625, 106 S.Ct. 1404, 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986). The question before us is whether petitioner's statements at the larceny arraignment implicated his Fifth Amendment right to counsel and if so, whether the holding of Edwards barred subsequent police-initiated interrogation on an unrelated offense.2
Petitioner challenges the propriety of the district court's conclusions regarding petitioner's statements at the larceny arraignment. The district court found that petitioner requested counsel for purposes of a preliminary hearing, however, it concluded that the request did not invoke petitioner's Fifth Amendment rights.3 The question of whether petitioner made a request for counsel is a mixed question of law and fact and is therefore subject to independent review by this court. Bailey v. Hamby, 744 F.2d 24, 26 (6th Cir.1984). Upon review of the record, I am of the opinion that the district court erred in concluding that petitioner did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel at the arraignment.
In Maglio v. Jago, 580 F.2d 202 (6th Cir.1978), and cases thereafter, see Bailey v. Hamby, 744 F.2d at 26, this court has consistently given a broad rather than narrow interpretation to a defendant's request for counsel. This approach has been embraced by the Supreme Court in Jackson/Bladel. In discussing the issue of waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the Court noted that "doubts must be resolved in favor of the constitutional claim" and it concluded that "this settled approach to questions of waiver requires us to give broad, rather than a narrow, interpretation to a defendant's request for counsel." 106 S.Ct. at 1409. The recent case of Connecticut v. Barrett, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 828, 93 L.Ed.2d 920 (1987), further supports the proposition that requests for counsel should be broadly interpreted. In Barrett, the Supreme Court held that requests for counsel must be given broad all-inclusive effect "where the defendant's words, understood as ordinary people would understand them, are ambiguous." Id., 107 S.Ct. at 832. The defendant's request for counsel in Barrett was found to be unambiguous, and therefore not subject to broad interpretation, because "his limited requests for counsel [for purposes of a written statement] ... were accompanied by affirmative announcements of his willingness to speak with the authorities." Id. Thus any doubts about the defendant's precise wishes regarding representation or about his understanding of the nature of the right to counsel was clarified by an explicit waiver of the right to silence. See Id., 107 S.Ct. at 833. (Brennan, J., concurring). However, a partial invocation of the right to counsel without such clarification may be appropriately considered ambiguous.4
In the instant case, contrary to the majority opinion, I find that it is not clear that petitioner merely requested counsel for purposes of a preliminary examination. The record reflects that petitioner never made any concise statements regarding the nature of his request for counsel and that he was restricted by the judge before he had an opportunity to do so. Petitioner's fragmented statements regarding counsel are undeniably equivocal and their meaning should not have been limited. However, even if the petitioner's statements could be construed as a limited invocation of the right to counsel, they were not accompanied by any affirmative statements, as in Barrett, which clarify the petitioner's precise wishes regarding representation and indicate his intention to waive rights not specifically invoked. Petitioner's statements, as understood by ordinary people, are therefore ambiguous and entitled to broad interpretation.
Broadly analyzing petitioner's statements with indulgence for the constitutional claim, I am convinced that the statements provide adequate notice that petitioner desired to speak with an attorney prior to further dealing with the authorities. I would therefore conclude that petitioner invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel during interrogation, notwithstanding the fact that the request was made at a prior arraignment.5 In reaching this conclusion, I decline to adopt the view of some courts, which distinguish a Fifth Amendment request for counsel solely on the wording of the request and to whom it is made.6
The determination as to whether an accused has invoked his or her Fifth Amendment right to counsel should not rest upon whether or not, or how clearly, he or she has articulated the reasons for which counsel is desired. The average person is unaware that there exists both a Fifth Amendment right to counsel at custodial interrogation, as created by Miranda, see supra note 4, and a Sixth Amendment guarantee of the assistance of counsel during adversary proceedings. United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 104 S.Ct. 2292, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984). An accused may not know or contemplate that different rights might be invoked based on the wording of the request, or based on the fact that the request is made to a judge as opposed to the police. A request for counsel is an assertion by an accused that he or she needs help in any further dealings with the authorities, including custodial interrogation. Any such request, whether before a judge or the police, should be considered as a per se invocation of Fifth Amendment rights. To hold otherwise, based on factors which an accused cannot reasonably contemplate, would deprive the accused of the fullest extent of constitutional protection. As Justice Marshall commented regarding the applicability of Edwards and the Fifth Amendment implications of a request for counsel at arraignment:
[A]n accused is under no obligation to state precisely why he wants a lawyer. If we were to distinguish cases based on the wording of an accused's request, the value of the right to counsel would be substantially diminished. As we stated in Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 719, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2568, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979), "an accused's request for an attorney is per se an invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights, requiring that all interrogation cease." ... [Furthermore], it is no more safe to assume that a waiver is valid when an accused has made a prior request to the judge at his arraignment than when he has made the request to police. In both cases, the accused informs an individual in authority that he would like an attorney--and yet shortly thereafter, state officials, apparently disregarding his request, ask him to waive his rights.
Johnson v. Virginia, 454 U.S. 920, 922-23, 102 S.Ct. 422, 424, 70 L.Ed.2d 231, 232 (1981) (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari ). I also concur with the recent reasoning of the Michigan Supreme Court, as adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Jackson/Bladel:
Although judges and lawyers may understand and appreciate the subtle distinctions between the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, the average person does not. When an accused requests an attorney, either before a police officer or a magistrate, he does not know which constitutional right he is invoking; he therefore should not be expected to articulate exactly why or for what purposes he is seeking counsel. It makes little sense to afford relief from further interrogation to a defendant who asks a police officer for an attorney, but permit further interrogation to a defendant who makes an identical request to a judge. The simple fact that defendant has requested an attorney indicates that he does not believe that he is sufficiently capable of dealing with his adversaries singlehandedly. 421 Mich. , at 63-64, 365 N.W.2d , at 67 [1984].
106 S.Ct. at 1409 n. 7. My conclusion herein is consistent with our opinion in United States v. Campbell, 721 F.2d 578 (6th Cir.1983), wherein we held that statements obtained at the initiative of secret service agents, after a request for counsel at arraignment, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel as well as his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination pursuant to Edwards. Campbell stands for the proposition that a request for counsel at arraignment invokes Fifth Amendment rights which are subject to prophylactic rule of Edwards.
Having determined that petitioner invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel at arraignment, the issue of whether Edwards extends to preclude subsequent police-initiated questioning regarding a different offense than that for which counsel was requested must be considered. There is a split of authority among courts which have reached the issue,7 and those which have declined to extend Edwards have done so based on factual distinctions or by analogizing the decisions of Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975). In Mosley, the Supreme Court considered the propriety of questioning a suspect about an unrelated crime, after the suspect had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. As I find historical distinctions between the right to silence and the right to counsel, I consider Mosley inapposite to the present case.
In Miranda, the Supreme Court distinguished between the procedural safeguards triggered by a request to remain silent and a request for an attorney. With respect to the right to silence, the court stated that "[o]nce warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicated in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease." 384 U.S. at 473, 86 S.Ct. at 1627. The assertion of the right to counsel was considered as a separate and significant event which mandated a separate procedure: "If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present ... If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent." Id. at 474, 86 S.Ct. at 1628. In Mosley, the Supreme Court made specific reference to Miranda's distinction between the levels of procedural safeguards triggered by a request to remain silent and a request for an attorney. 423 U.S. at 105 n. 10, 96 S.Ct. at 326 n. 10; see also Id. at 109-11, 96 S.Ct. at 329-30 (White, J., concurring). The Court recognized that a request for counsel, pursuant to Miranda, bars further interrogation until counsel is present. Id. at 104 n. 10, 96 S.Ct. at 326 n. 10. However, it found that no such per se proscription of further questioning, by officers on any subject, exists when a person in custody has indicated a desire to remain silent. Id. at 103-04, 96 S.Ct. at 326. The Court therefore held that reinterrogation is not a violation of the right to silence where that right was "scrupulously honored." Id. It further found that reinterrogation about an unrelated offense was not inconsistent with a prior assertion of the right to silence. Id. at 105-06, 96 S.Ct. at 327. The Court clearly indicated, however, that its decision is prefaced only on an analysis of the procedures involved with an assertion of the right to silence. See Id. at 102 n. 7, 96 S.Ct. at 325 n. 7. In contrast, Edwards sets forth the procedures involved when the right to counsel is invoked. In Edwards, the Supreme Court reconfirmed the historical distinction as set forth in Miranda and Mosley, and gave it substantive effect by creating the per se rule against police-initiated questioning once the right to counsel has been invoked.8 451 U.S. at 485-86, 101 S.Ct. at 1885. While Mosley involves questioning on an unrelated offense, it is not applicable by analogy, as its analysis concededly rests on the lesser standard of waiver applicable to the right to silence.
The per se language of Edwards is unequivocal. It precludes "further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available." 451 U.S. at 485-86, 101 S.Ct. at 1885. A narrow interpretation of this language, permitting questioning on unrelated matters, renders the per se aspect of the opinion meaningless and allows the police to create an atmosphere of tension thereby intimidating suspects into waiving their Fifth Amendment rights. An assertion of the right to counsel is an expression by the accused that he is not competent to deal with the authorities without legal advice, thus "a later decision at the authorities' insistence to make a statement without counsel's presence may properly be viewed with skepticism." Mosley, 423 U.S. at 111 n. 2, 96 S.Ct. at 329 n. 2 (White, J., concurring). See also Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484, 101 S.Ct. at 1884-85. This reasoning is equally presuasive in the context of questioning on unrelated offenses. An accused who has invoked the right to counsel should not be subject to the greater, but more indirect, coercive pressures involved in questioning on numerous unrelated offenses. I would therefore conclude that once the right to counsel is asserted, Edwards applies to preclude police-initiated interrogation regarding unrelated offenses.
Although the police in this case, unlike Edwards, were unaware of the petitioner's prior request for counsel, I do not consider that fact to be significant. Once a defendant invokes his right to counsel, that knowledge is imputed to all law enforcement officials. Therefore, the fact that subsequent interrogating officers are unaware of such invocation is irrelevant to the question of whether a constitutional right has been violated. Johnson v. Virginia, 454 U.S. at 924, 102 S.Ct. at 424 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (knowledge of petitioner's request for counsel at arraignment imputed to police); United States v. Scalf, 708 F.2d 1540 (10th Cir.1983); White III, 687 F.2d at 887-88 n. 9; United States ex rel. Karr v. Wolff, 556 F.Supp. at 765; United States v. Renda, 567 F.Supp. at 487; See also United States ex rel. Kimes v. Greer, 527 F.Supp. at 310 (good faith of officer who questioned suspect after request for counsel is irrelevant).
The application of Edwards in this instance leads to the conclusion that the state did not establish a valid waiver of petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to counsel. The inquiry, under Edwards, is whether the accused initiated conversation with the police after invoking his right to counsel. The record clearly indicates that petitioner's statement was elicited by police, after his request for counsel at arraignment. A valid waiver was not established by petitioner's subsequent signing of Miranda waiver forms. As the police conduct clearly violated the prophylactic rule of Edwards, the first confession was improperly obtained and should not have been admitted at trial. As a result of this disposition, it is unnecessary to reach the other issues addressed by the majority.
I would therefore reverse the order of the district court and remand this case with directions to issue petitioner's writ of habeas corpus.
The Honorable Benjamin F. Gibson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation
I note that the Fifth Amendment does not specifically provide a "right to counsel," See Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, ---- n. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 1142 n. 1, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). However, in Miranda, the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination incorporates a right to counsel during custodial interrogation. 384 U.S. at 469, 86 S.Ct. at 1625. See also Edwards, 451 U.S. at 485-86, 101 S.Ct. at 1885. This right is distinct from that guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment
The issue of whether a request for counsel at arraignment implicates Fifth Amendment rights was recognized but not addressed by the Court in Jackson/Bladel, 106 S.Ct. at 1408 n. 4
Specifically, the district court reached the following conclusion:
"A fair reading of the transcript at the first arraignment shows that petitioner did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present during interrogation. Instead, he merely wished to talk to his attorney to ask him his advice about whether to have a preliminary examination or not."
"[A] partial invocation of the right to counsel, without more, invariably will be ambiguous. It gives rise to doubts about the defendant's precise wishes regarding representation and about his or her understanding of the nature and scope of the right to counsel. Thus, the police may not infer from a partial invocation of the right to counsel alone that the defendant has waived any of his or her rights not specifically invoked." Barrett, 107 S.Ct. at 835 (Brennan, J., concurring)
In Silva v. Estelle, 672 F.2d 457 (5th Cir.1982), the court held that a request to telephone counsel, made at arraignment, constituted an exercise of the right to counsel. See also United States ex rel. Karr v. Wolff, 556 F.Supp. 760 (N.D.Ill.1983), vacated on other grounds, 732 F.2d 615 (7th Cir.1984)
Collins v. Francis, 728 F.2d 1322, 1333 (11th Cir.1984) (Defendant's request for counsel during arraignment did not indicate a desire to invoke Fifth Amendment rights but only indicated that he desired counsel in the Sixth Amendment sense, to handle his case). See also Jordan v. Watkins, 681 F.2d 1067 (5th Cir.1982). But see Silva v. Estelle, 672 F.2d at 457
The following cases have extended the Edwards rule to unrelated offenses: White v. Finkbeiner, 687 F.2d 885 (7th Cir.1982) (White III), vacated sub nom. Fairman v. White, 465 U.S. 1075, 104 S.Ct. 1433, 79 L.Ed.2d 756 (1984), on remand, 753 F.2d 540 (7th Cir.1985) (Court rejected an analogy to Mosley and held that the right to counsel with respect to one charge bars further interrogation even as to unrelated offenses); United States ex rel. Karr v. Wolff, 556 F.Supp. at 765 (Court rejected Mosley analogy and held that defendant who has asserted right to counsel in one jurisdiction may not be questioned by officers from another jurisdiction on unrelated offense); State v. Routhier, 137 Ariz. 90, 669 P.2d 68 (1983); Radovsky v. Maryland, 296 Md. 386, 464 A.2d 239 (1983); See also United States v. Renda, 567 F.Supp. 487 (E.D.Va.1983); United States ex rel. Kimes v. Greer, 527 F.Supp. 307 (N.D.Ill.1981); People v. Hammock, 121 Ill.App.3d 874, 77 Ill.Dec. 322, 460 N.E.2d 378 (1984)
The following have declined to extend Edwards to unrelated offenses: State v. Willie, 410 So.2d 1019 (La.1982) (Edwards rule against police-initiated questioning after request for counsel inapposite where different officers interrogated defendant about unrelated offenses); State v. Harriman, 434 So.2d 551 (La.App.1983) (Defendant who has invoked his right to counsel on one offense may be questioned by officers of another agency on unrelated matter when those officers are unaware of previous invocation of counsel); McFadden v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 103, 300 S.E.2d 924 (1983); State v. Cornethan, 38 Wash.App. 231, 684 P.2d 1355 (1984). See also State v. Bauguss, 310 N.C. 259, 311 S.E.2d 248 (1984); State v. Newton, 682 P.2d 295 (Utah 1984).
The distinction between the standards of waiver applied in Edwards and Mosley has been widely recognized. United States v. Udey, 748 F.2d 1231, 1241 (8th Cir.1984); United States v. Terry, 702 F.2d 299, 318 (2nd Cir.1983); United States ex rel. Riley v. Franzen, 653 F.2d 1153, 1158 (7th Cir.1981); Christopher v. Florida, 582 F.Supp. 633, 644 (S.D.Fla.1984)


text:
You are here: Home / Browse PRRAC Content / Publications / A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda (Edited by Rachel Bratt, Michael Stone, & Chester Hartman, February 2006)
A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda (Edited by Rachel Bratt, Michael Stone, & Chester Hartman, February 2006)
Temple University Press (February 2006). Edited by Rachel Bratt, Michael Stone, & Chester Hartman.
Excerpt: "In the 1949 Housing Act, Congress declared "a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family" our national housing goal. Today, little more than half a century later, upwards of 100 million people in the United States live in housing that is physically inadequate, unsafe, overcrowded, or unaffordable. The contributors to A Right to Housing consider the key issues related to America's housing crisis, including income inequality and insecurity, segregation and discrimination, the rights of the elderly, as well as legislative and judicial responses to homelessness. The book offers a detailed examination of how access to adequate housing is directly related to economic security. With essays by leading activists and scholars, this book presents a powerful and compelling analysis of the persistent inability of the U.S. to meet many of its citizens' housing needs, and a comprehensive proposal for progressive change."
Filed Under: Publications, Social Housing Publications
What Can HUD Do to Expand Public and Community Ownership of Rental Housing? (PRRAC, April 2021)
How States Can Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: Key Leverage Points and Best Practices (PRRAC, January 2022)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
public policy • reform
Israeli governments are notorious in their inability to decide or to execute decisions (over seventy percent of government decisions never get implemented). Wits say this is good, since in those decisions that the government implements it does so much harm that it is quite enough.
Not always. Remember the brave decisions to cut bloated government expenditures (a steady state since the nature of government is to inflate expenditures), as well as the reforms in financial markets made by then Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Those decisions, however imperfectly executed, have saved the Israeli economy in 2005 from a Argentina-like collapse.
But famous media pundits argue that the financial reforms, known as the Bachar reforms were actually a catastrophe. The facts speak for themselves. Not only have the reforms saved Israel and its banks from near economic collapse. They put the Israeli economy, after two decade of slow or no growth, of frequent recessions, on an amazing growth path of an average 5% annually. But even the dramatic growth in the size of assets held by the Israeli public, of 60%, from 1.2 trillion shekels before the reform to 2.2 trillion at present, despite a terrible world financial crisis, does not deter our famous commentators from calling the reforms "a catastrophe".
Once again Netanyahu is facing an historic opportunity to reform the Israeli economy by breaking the inordinate concentration of economic – and political – power in the hands of less than twenty families. They control the huge pyramid style corporations that dominate the Israeli economy, representing about half the value of Israel's traded assets!
Such a great concentration enables these corporations to wield monopoly power, and monopolies choke competition and the efficiency generated by it. Low efficiency is a major factor in the low productivity of the Israeli worker, about half that of the American, and of his low earning.
Monopolies inflate prices and exact a heavy "monopoly rent" on everything we consume, estimated at about a third of what the average Israeli earns. The low earning strata that devote most of their income to consumption suffer most. It is a major reason why so many working Israelis are poor.
Excessive concentration also endangers the total economy. Excessive concentration is at the heart of the serious problem Israel has: the problematic close relationships between big business, politicians, bureaucrats and the media, which is mostly controlled by our oligarchs. It corrupts both politics and the economy.
The Bank of Israel included in its annual 2009 report on the economy (published April 2010) a pioneering study that established the fact that Israel indeed suffers from excessive concentration and warned about its grave dangers. The study provoked a storm of protests and counter-arguments by the servants of our oligarchy. There were several biased efforts to discredit it.
Prime Minister Netanyahu picked up the issue and expressed several times, in public, his determination to address this severe problem. That he did this at a time when he is besieged by existential problems, such as the threat from Iran and by unusual coalition woes is evidence that he understands the great importance of this challenge. He did not flinch even after some economic pundits who habitually serve the interests of the oligarchs attacked him ferociously, charging that he had more important issues to address, like poverty and the miserable economic lot of the Orthodox and of Arabs, as if they do not realize that poverty is in large part as result of the monopolies exploitation. They even tried to deflect attention to the secondary issue of inflated executive pay common in publicly held companies, again hiding the fact that such salaries are also a function of excessive concentration and of the fact that it pays the oligarchs to pay their executives, mostly former government employee huge sums because the are not just executive but mostly "machers" (operators) who know how to milk billions from the government, so that they earn every shekels of their inflated cost.
The prime minister's office has been preparing to appoint a commission charged with framing the terms of implementation of this reform. It will include representative of the Treasury and of The bank of Israel.
But months have elapsed and the commission is not formed yet. It is said that as usual turf and political prestige infighting is holding this historic reform back.
Some even claim that these struggles are fomented by powerful lobbyists and their partners in the bureaucracy who are looking for every way to kill the reform, postpone it or vitiate its powers.
It is hard to believe that a reform launched by the two highest office holders in Israel in the sphere of economics, the Prime Minister and The Governor of The bank of Israel, a reform explicitly supported by Prof. Yuval Steinitz, who has mastered economic knowledge in an amazingly short time, will be undermined by the oligarchs and their henchmen. But this has happened before, and we better worry. The reformers must know the immense importance of its success both for Israel and for their careers, and what damage they will incur if it fails. Reason demands that they do all they can to get it going soon. But reason does not always dictate developments in Israeli politics. Let us hope this time it does.


text:
Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DWI - Driving While Intoxicated)
Misdemeanor Theft and Felony Theft Offenses (Including Shoplifting)
Drug Offenses (Including VUCSA, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Possession and Delivery)
Traffic Tickets and Traffic Violations
Driving Offenses (Including Reckless Driving, Negligent Driving and Hit and Run)
Misdemeanor Assaults and Felony Assaults
The Law Office of Andrew Charles Huff
1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2100, Seattle, Washington 98101
andrewhuff@ahufflaw.com
The Best in Traffic, DUI and Criminal Defense
Available 24/7 For a FREE Consultation (206) 729-3477
When is a "turn signal" actually required?
Posted Thursday, January 2, 2020 by Andrew Charles Huff
Must a driver always use a turn signal when making a turn or changing lanes when the applicable statute says "when required?" This was the issue before the State Supreme Court regarding a statute governing when a driver must use a turn signal, specifically RCW 46.61.305, which contains the phrase "when required" regarding the use of a turn signal.
The plain language of RCW 46.61.305 requires a turn signal to be used "when required" when making a turn or lane change. But does this mean a driver must always use a turn signal?
In this case, the appellant David Brown did not signal continuously while his vehicle turned left through an intersection and was stopped for violating the turn statute RCW 46.61.305. Although Mr. Brown did initially use his turn signal to enter a designated turn lane, he failed to use his signal when actually making the turn. He was then stopped by a police officer for allegedly violating this statute.
On appeal, the State Supreme Court ultimately found that RCW 46.61.305 does in fact require a driver to signal his or her intent to turn or change lanes on a roadway. The phrase "when required" relates to the manner in which that signal is made and because Mr. Brown did not continuously signal his intent to turn left, he violated RVW 46.61.305 and the stop was valid.
State of Washington v. David J. Brown, No. 96884-5
1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2100
5/4/2022 – For Motorcyclists, Be Safe and Be Legal read more…
See Andrew Charles Huff at myDUIattorney.org
Analogue Web Design, Seattle


Time has held for a long time for an extended a period. The development of clock has spearheaded more rapid management of activity across all the difference. Every aspect of the industry is controlled by the time. Nowadays business has transformed everything and to achieve the maximum out of it then proper time management has to be put in place. The aspect of checking on how time is managed has been used across many fields especially management by the managers. One of the paramount aspect to check on when running your business is time. The piece at this moment demonstrates the best ways considered when purchasing a watch.
If you are a fan of wrestling, then you would definitely enjoy collecting those stuff that are associated with that favorite sport or superstar of yours. Everything from those t-shirts and books to those trading cards that you can find but probably the very popular is that of those wrestling action figures. Well, the reason for such is because the small collectibles would bear the resemblance of that wrestling superstar and take up a really little space in such display case. Aside from this, when they would be first released, such wrestling action figures would be very affordable.
Dental problems are one of the issues that individuals go through in their lifetime. Thus, they end up feeling severe pain in the tooth, jaw, and dental pain in which it is not possible to wait for the right time to visit a dental care provider. As a result, you need to make sure that you look for an emergency dental care practitioner in your area. However, as a result of the vast array of dental care practitioners in this modern world, it is not simple to recognize the one that will meet your desires. Below are some of the factors that you should contemplate while looking for the best emergency dental care service in your area.
Having a tax lawyer comes with numerous benefits, however, most people do not know the importance of the attorneys in their lives. However, if you are sailing in the same boat, worry not since we will take you through the importance of having a tax attorney.
It is common to see celebrities with grillz on their teeth, not only do they make you look good when you smile, they also look fancy. When walking in the street you will find that its not only celebrities who are wearing the grillz, other people have also adopted this culture. To cater for the demand many shops have been opened both physical stores and online. However, most people are having a difficult time in trying to choose a grillz store to buy them from, considering how they are so many.
Choosing the top-ranked company help on avoiding accidents that are a result of construction negligence. It would be very tedious to get a company that offers the best services. It would be time-consuming for the procedure. Looking at some points makes the process of choosing a road construction company be hassle-free.
You need to understand that there is a see of investment options around the world that you can have as an option, you just have to be smart about it. You need to know that one of the best and most popular investment option today is real estate. This sort of option is actually pretty rewarding to be frank. If you want to make money in real estate, investing your money in it is going to be a good plan because the returns are marvelous. You have to know that real estate investing is going to give better figures compared to other options.
There are various reasons that may lead to an individual taking man enhancement pills. Given that there are many man enhancement pills in the market, it might be a little bit difficult for an individual to settle for what is the most suitable. So that one is guaranteed of purchasing the best man enhancement pills, then there is the need to factor in the tips below.


text:
require 'pathname'

Puppet::Type.newtype(:dsc_sptrustedidentitytokenissuer) do
  require Pathname.new(__FILE__).dirname + '../../' + 'puppet/type/base_dsc'
  require Pathname.new(__FILE__).dirname + '../../puppet_x/puppetlabs/dsc_type_helpers'

    class PuppetX::Dsc::TypeHelpers
      def self.validate_MSFT_SPClaimTypeMapping(mof_type_map, name, value)
        required = ['incomingclaimtype']
        allowed = ['name','localclaimtype']
        lowkey_hash = Hash[value.map { |k, v| [k.to_s.downcase, v] }]

        missing = required - lowkey_hash.keys
        unless missing.empty?
          fail "#{name} is missing the following required keys: #{missing.join(',')}"
        end

        extraneous = lowkey_hash.keys - required - allowed
        unless extraneous.empty?
          fail "#{name} includes invalid keys: #{extraneous.join(',')}"
        end

        lowkey_hash.keys.each do |key|
          if lowkey_hash[key]
            validate_mof_type(mof_type_map[key], 'MSFT_SPClaimTypeMapping', key, lowkey_hash[key])
          end
        end
      end
    end

  @doc = %q{
    The DSC SPTrustedIdentityTokenIssuer resource type.
    Automatically generated from
    'SharePointDsc/DSCResources/MSFT_SPTrustedIdentityTokenIssuer/MSFT_SPTrustedIdentityTokenIssuer.schema.mof'

    To learn more about PowerShell Desired State Configuration, please
    visit https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn249912.aspx.

    For more information about built-in DSC Resources, please visit
    https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn249921.aspx.

    For more information about xDsc Resources, please visit
    https://github.com/PowerShell/DscResources.
  }

  validate do
      fail('dsc_name is a required attribute') if self[:dsc_name].nil?
    end

  def dscmeta_resource_friendly_name; 'SPTrustedIdentityTokenIssuer' end
  def dscmeta_resource_name; 'MSFT_SPTrustedIdentityTokenIssuer' end
  def dscmeta_module_name; 'SharePointDsc' end
  def dscmeta_module_version; '2.2.0.0' end

  newparam(:name, :namevar => true ) do
  end

  ensurable do
    newvalue(:exists?) { provider.exists? }
    newvalue(:present) { provider.create }
    newvalue(:absent)  { provider.destroy }
    defaultto { :present }
  end

  # Name:         PsDscRunAsCredential
  # Type:         MSFT_Credential
  # IsMandatory:  False
  # Values:       None
  newparam(:dsc_psdscrunascredential) do
    def mof_type; 'MSFT_Credential' end
    def mof_is_embedded?; true end
    desc "PsDscRunAsCredential"
    validate do |value|
      unless value.kind_of?(Hash)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Should be a hash")
      end
      PuppetX::Dsc::TypeHelpers.validate_MSFT_Credential("Credential", value)
    end
    munge do |value|
      PuppetX::Dsc::TypeHelpers.munge_sensitive_hash!(value)
    end
  end

  # Name:         Name
  # Type:         string
  # IsMandatory:  True
  # Values:       None
  newparam(:dsc_name) do
    def mof_type; 'string' end
    def mof_is_embedded?; false end
    desc "Name - Name of the SPTrustedIdentityTokenIssuer"
    isrequired
    validate do |value|
      unless value.kind_of?(String)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Should be a string")
      end
    end
  end

  # Name:         Description
  # Type:         string
  # IsMandatory:  False
  # Values:       None
  newparam(:dsc_description) do
    def mof_type; 'string' end
    def mof_is_embedded?; false end
    desc "Description - Description of the SPTrustedIdentityTokenIssuer"
    validate do |value|
      unless value.kind_of?(String)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Should be a string")
      end
    end
  end

  # Name:         Realm
  # Type:         string
  # IsMandatory:  False
  # Values:       None
  newparam(:dsc_realm) do
    def mof_type; 'string' end
    def mof_is_embedded?; false end
    desc "Realm - Default Realm that is passed to identity provider"
    validate do |value|
      unless value.kind_of?(String)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Should be a string")
      end
    end
  end

  # Name:         SignInUrl
  # Type:         string
  # IsMandatory:  False
  # Values:       None
  newparam(:dsc_signinurl) do
    def mof_type; 'string' end
    def mof_is_embedded?; false end
    desc "SignInUrl - URL of the identity provider where user is redirected to for authentication"
    validate do |value|
      unless value.kind_of?(String)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Should be a string")
      end
    end
  end

  # Name:         IdentifierClaim
  # Type:         string
  # IsMandatory:  False
  # Values:       None
  newparam(:dsc_identifierclaim) do
    def mof_type; 'string' end
    def mof_is_embedded?; false end
    desc "IdentifierClaim - Identity claim type that uniquely identifies the user"
    validate do |value|
      unless value.kind_of?(String)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Should be a string")
      end
    end
  end

  # Name:         ClaimsMappings
  # Type:         MSFT_SPClaimTypeMapping[]
  # IsMandatory:  False
  # Values:       None
  newparam(:dsc_claimsmappings, :array_matching => :all) do
    def mof_type; 'MSFT_SPClaimTypeMapping[]' end
    def mof_is_embedded?; true end
    def mof_type_map
      {"name"=>{:type=>"string"}, "incomingclaimtype"=>{:type=>"string"}, "localclaimtype"=>{:type=>"string"}}
    end
    desc "ClaimsMappings - Array of MSFT_SPClaimTypeMapping to use with cmdlet New-SPClaimTypeMapping"
    validate do |value|
      unless value.kind_of?(Array) || value.kind_of?(Hash)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Should be an array of hashes or a hash")
      end
      (value.kind_of?(Hash) ? [value] : value).each_with_index do |v, i|
        fail "ClaimsMappings value at index #{i} should be a Hash" unless v.is_a? Hash

        PuppetX::Dsc::TypeHelpers.validate_MSFT_SPClaimTypeMapping(mof_type_map, "ClaimsMappings", v)
      end
    end
    munge do |value|
      value.kind_of?(Hash) ?
        [PuppetX::Dsc::TypeHelpers.munge_embeddedinstance(mof_type_map, value)] :
        value.map { |v| PuppetX::Dsc::TypeHelpers.munge_embeddedinstance(mof_type_map, v) }
    end
  end

  # Name:         SigningCertificateThumbprint
  # Type:         string
  # IsMandatory:  False
  # Values:       None
  newparam(:dsc_signingcertificatethumbprint) do
    def mof_type; 'string' end
    def mof_is_embedded?; false end
    desc "SigningCertificateThumbprint - Specify the thumbprint of the signing certificate, which must be located in certificate store LocalMachine\\My"
    validate do |value|
      unless value.kind_of?(String)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Should be a string")
      end
    end
  end

  # Name:         SigningCertificateFilePath
  # Type:         string
  # IsMandatory:  False
  # Values:       None
  newparam(:dsc_signingcertificatefilepath) do
    def mof_type; 'string' end
    def mof_is_embedded?; false end
    desc "SigningCertificateFilePath - Specify the file path to the signing certificate if it is not stored in the local certificate store already"
    validate do |value|
      unless value.kind_of?(String)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Should be a string")
      end
    end
  end

  # Name:         ClaimProviderName
  # Type:         string
  # IsMandatory:  False
  # Values:       None
  newparam(:dsc_claimprovidername) do
    def mof_type; 'string' end
    def mof_is_embedded?; false end
    desc "ClaimProviderName - Name of a claims provider to set with this SPTrustedIdentityTokenIssuer"
    validate do |value|
      unless value.kind_of?(String)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Should be a string")
      end
    end
  end

  # Name:         ProviderSignOutUri
  # Type:         string
  # IsMandatory:  False
  # Values:       None
  newparam(:dsc_providersignouturi) do
    def mof_type; 'string' end
    def mof_is_embedded?; false end
    desc "ProviderSignOutUri - Sign-out URL"
    validate do |value|
      unless value.kind_of?(String)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Should be a string")
      end
    end
  end

  # Name:         Ensure
  # Type:         string
  # IsMandatory:  False
  # Values:       ["Present", "Absent"]
  newparam(:dsc_ensure) do
    def mof_type; 'string' end
    def mof_is_embedded?; false end
    desc "Ensure - Present if the SPTrustedIdentityTokenIssuer should be created, or Absent if it should be removed Valid values are Present, Absent."
    validate do |value|
      resource[:ensure] = value.downcase
      unless value.kind_of?(String)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Should be a string")
      end
      unless ['Present', 'present', 'Absent', 'absent'].include?(value)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Valid values are Present, Absent")
      end
    end
  end

  # Name:         InstallAccount
  # Type:         MSFT_Credential
  # IsMandatory:  False
  # Values:       None
  newparam(:dsc_installaccount) do
    def mof_type; 'MSFT_Credential' end
    def mof_is_embedded?; true end
    desc "InstallAccount - POWERSHELL 4 ONLY: The account to run this resource as, use PsDscRunAsCredential if using PowerShell 5"
    validate do |value|
      unless value.kind_of?(Hash)
        fail("Invalid value '#{value}'. Should be a hash")
      end
      PuppetX::Dsc::TypeHelpers.validate_MSFT_Credential("InstallAccount", value)
    end
    munge do |value|
      PuppetX::Dsc::TypeHelpers.munge_sensitive_hash!(value)
    end
  end

  def builddepends
    pending_relations = super()
    PuppetX::Dsc::TypeHelpers.ensure_reboot_relationship(self, pending_relations)
  end
end

Puppet::Type.type(:dsc_sptrustedidentitytokenissuer).provide :powershell, :parent => Puppet::Type.type(:base_dsc).provider(:powershell) do
  confine :true => (Gem::Version.new(Facter.value(:powershell_version)) >= Gem::Version.new('5.0.10586.117'))
  defaultfor :operatingsystem => :windows

  mk_resource_methods
end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Our stunning shrub like plant, the White Angel Trumpet is very unique and beautiful. These amazing Angle Trumpet plants produce white flowers. They also make a great table top and patio plant. This plant is suitable for growing indoors but better kept outside. This breathtaking plant can have dozens, even hundreds, of blossoms at once. This plant makes for great gifts for any occasion; whether it be a birthday, mothers day or just because. The Pink Angel Trumpet Plant is easy to take care of and will make your home or garden, not only beautiful, but filled with color.


Sofia Coppola is the writer and director of the critically acclaimed movies The Virgin Suicides (1999, starring Kirsten Dunst) and Lost in Translation (2003, starring Bill Murray). The daughter of legendary filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola, Sofia Coppola got her start in the movies as an infant in The Godfather (1972). In her younger years she appeared as an actor in a number of her dad's movies, including The Outsiders and Rumble Fish (both 1983), The Cotton Club (1984, with Richard Gere) and Peggy Sue Got Married (1986, co-starring her cousin, Nicolas Cage). Her first movie as a writer/director, the somber The Virgin Suicides, proved that she was an able and mature filmmaker, and the sophistication of Lost in Translation (which earned her an Oscar for best original screenplay) made it clear she was an up-and-coming force in the movies. (Lost in Translation also made a star of Scarlett Johansson, who played a young American who shares a sleep-deprived week in Tokyo with a dissatisfied movie star played by Bill Murray.) Sofia Coppola's next film, Marie Antoinette, debuted at Cannes in 2006 and starred Kirsten Dunst as the French queen. Somewhere, a Hollywood story directed by Coppola and starring Stephen Dorff as a ennui-ridden movie star and Elle Fanning as his daughter, was released in 2010. Her 2013 film The Bling Ring starred Katie Chang and Emma Watson as ennui-ridden LA teens who break into celebrity homes for the thrill of it, and her 2017 film, The Beguiled, was a re-make of the 1971 Clint Eastwood film.
Sofia Coppola married filmmaker Spike Jonze (director of Being John Malkovich) in 1999; they were divorced in 2003. She married Thomas Mars, front man of the French rock group Phoenix, in 2011. They have two daughters together: Romy (born 2006) and Cosima (born 2010).


우리는 중국에서 상용 보안 메쉬 제조 업체 및 공급 업체 / 공장 전문화되어 있습니다. 상용 보안 메쉬 중 하나 인 Anping Tuofang Metal Product Co.,Ltd. 중국 유명 브랜드 중 하나 인 저렴한 가격 / 저렴한 가격으로 고품질의 상용 보안 메쉬 도매업.
Wholesale 상용 보안 메쉬 from China, Need to find cheap 상용 보안 메쉬 as low price but leading manufacturers. Just find high-quality brands on 상용 보안 메쉬 produce factory, You can also feedback about what you want, start saving and explore our 상용 보안 메쉬, We'll reply you in fastest.


text:
Christine Smith-Collins (born September 9, 1969 in Darien, Connecticut) is an American rower. Prior to her rowing for team USA, Collins rowed for the Trinity College women's crew team.

References

Bibliography

External links

1969 births
Living people
Rowers at the 2000 Summer Olympics
Olympic bronze medalists for the United States in rowing
American female rowers
World Rowing Championships medalists for the United States
Medalists at the 2000 Summer Olympics
21st-century American women
Pan American Games medalists in rowing
Pan American Games gold medalists for the United States
Medalists at the 1995 Pan American Games
Rowers at the 1995 Pan American Games

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
The Great Outdoors Meta
The Great Outdoors Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who love being outdoors enjoying nature and wilderness, and learning about the required skills and equipment. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Why are these turkeys circling a dead cat?
I recently came across a gif file showing a gang of turkeys circling what appears to be a dead cat. It appears to be a structured formation as the turkeys are trotting at the same pace and spacing between each bird.
Is this behavior common in turkeys? Is there any explanation for the behavior?
animal-behaviour turkeys
Charlie Brumbaugh
SkoobaSkooba
Relevant XKCD xkcd.com/537
– Charlie Brumbaugh
The cat is not dead. It is just waiting for one of those birds to get close enough.
– A. I. Breveleri
After they sacrifice the cat to the gods, they circle the altar to receive the resulting blessing.
– Tyler Durden
It looks like a combination of checking out a potential predator and following a leader.
Turkeys, he says, are naturally fearful of cats, which can be a threat to younger, smaller birds. So it's likely that, when they came across a dead one in the road, they were very curious to see what was going on, and whether it was alive.
At the same time, turkeys tend to follow a leader or two as they roam through suburban yards in search of food (they have a diet mostly of nuts, grains, and berries—no cats). So if one leader took it upon itself to march around the corpse and inspect it, it makes sense that the others would follow its lead, while keeping a safe distance from the fallen feline. Hence, a near perfect circle.
However, it is not considered normal behavior for turkeys.
That said, Scarpitti says he has never seen footage like this in his more than 15 years as a wildlife biologist. He showed it to some of his colleagues at the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, he says, and they've never seen anything like it either.
Charlie BrumbaughCharlie Brumbaugh
In addition, perhaps they recognize it as a cat in general, that is, perhaps a bobcat or cougar, both of which do prey on turkeys, and they need to make sure it's dead. Still, I've never seen this, either. Very cool.
– Don Branson
Why exactly are these turkeys circling a dead cat?
This is not normal behavior for turkeys to say the least, but it does give one the idea that there is strength in numbers. I once recall seeing chickens circling a large snake and the snake decided to leave the area.
They might be performing what's called a "predator inspection," says Alan Krakauer, a biologist at the University of California, Davis, who studies the behavioral ecology of birds, in an email to The Verge. Sometimes, animals lower down in the food chain approach predators — a behavior that can be seen as risky, but can actually help the prey. Making the predator aware that the prey know it's there can sometimes scare the predator away. The "inspection" also allows the prey to check how determined the predator is to attack, and can alert other animals to the danger.
Krakauer says he's seen turkeys act in a similar way with a coyote once. Richard Buchholz, a professor of biology at the University of Mississippi, agrees: he's also seen this kind of circling behavior in the turkey bird family, which includes chickens, pheasants, and quail. Following the tail in front of them is a way they stick together as a flock, he says. -
What's weird is that in the video the turkeys are circling a dead cat — definitely not a dangerous predator. And turkeys don't usually eat dead animals, including dead cats, so it's not like they're doing some weird ritual dance before tasting their meal. What could be happening is that the turkeys are stuck in some kind of never-ending circle, with each bird following the tail in front of it. "It's not unusual for them to get into those dances where they chase each other around," Scott Gardner, a turkey expert with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, tells The Verge. Why exactly are these turkeys circling a dead cat?
Ken GrahamKen Graham
The part about grouping to deter a cat matches my experience with cats - they like to hunt, but don't much like being hunted, and it often throws them off their attack behavior. See for example this video ( youtu.be/_6dBs86SnWA ) where a cat attacks individual turkeys but then backs down when they approach the cat as a group.
– Dronz
Thanks for contributing an answer to The Great Outdoors Stack Exchange!
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged animal-behaviour turkeys or ask your own question.
Dozens of dead little spiders in the snow
How can I tell if a opossum is truly dead?
Will an opossum wake up from pain stimulus if playing dead?
What is this squirrel doing and why?
Do squirrels have front and full peripheral vision?
Why did they try so hard to bring the turkey to Europe?
Why would a raccoon climb a building?
Why are there so many wasps attached to this air conditioner?
Why do squirrels chew on metal planter?
The Great Outdoors Stack Exchange works best with JavaScript enabled


***OPEN HOUSE SATURDAY 2:00PM - 4:00PM*** 390 Assiniboine the most impressive new address in the city centre. Discover upscale living in Winnipeg's vibrant downtown, just steps away from the Assiniboine River Walk, Bell MTS Place and so much more. Enjoy views of the sunset, river and Legislative Building from the balcony, and the sophistication of hardwood floors, ceramic tile and smooth walls/ceilings. Connoisseurs will love the quartz countertops, modern cabinets, under-mount sinks and integrated Jenn-Air/Fisher Paykel appliances. Just 1 floor below are the building's spectacular shared amenities – including a 2,364 sqft landscaped terrace with beautiful river views, contemporary dining/lounge area with fireplace and pool table, and fitness studio with premium equipment. This distinctive new building also features a 2-storey lobby, unique above-grade parkade and guest suite. A private path lights your way to Winnipeg's favourite river walk. Pets welcomed! MEASUREMENTS ARE +/- JOGS.


If you are moving to Enfield Lock, EN3 and you're looking for a team of dedicated experts to help get you there, look no further than Moving Service. Our house moving specialists will be able to take care of even the trickiest of tasks involved in the process: the transportation aspect of the move. Our movers are on hand to offer you the most comprehensive service, taking care of absolutely everything on this stressful day. Hire us when moving to Enfield Lock and you'll be able to do so in relative ease and comfort. Contact us today on 020 8746 4402 for more information.
Certified Moving Teams in Enfield Lock with Proven Skills and Experience!
With an array of different removal services, Moving Service are the only team you need to call upon when planning for removals to Enfield Lock. With our relocation services, we're able to provide a number of different solutions, helping you in any way you need on moving day. We offer transportation services, getting you to where you need to be in EN3; we can assist you with the packing side of things leading up to the big day, and can even help with international removals, if you're relocating to a destination abroad. Regardless of what you need, the size, time, and distance of your move, we'll have your needs covered. Call us today on 020 8746 4402 to get a free quote!
Why Is Our Moving Team So Highly Sought-after in the EN3 Area?
When people are planning a relocation to Enfield Lock, EN3 they tend to seek the services of our professional moving company. With plenty of years of experience, our movers know what to do to and focus solely on the needs of our customers. From the moment you call us, our team will work tirelessly to achieve 100% customer satisfaction. Because after all, this is what makes your move progress as smoothly as possible. We're a customer-orientated company, and it certainly shows because we're often inundated with calls from new customers and those after some repeat business. We're always happy to help regardless of your circumstances. Speak to us today on 020 8746 4402 and see for yourself.
What Does Enfield Lock Have to Offer?
Part of the London Borough of Enfield, Enfield Lock is located on the northern outskirts of Greater London and is a far cry from the hustle and bustle of the centre of the city. It's got good transport links – is in close vicinity to the A1010 Hertford Road – and close to Enfield Island Village. The area is named after the iconic lock on the River Lee Navigation – the canalised river incorporating the River Lea – recently rebuilt and forming part of the lush green Lee Valley Regional Park and the Enfield Lock Conservation area. Another local attraction is the area of marshland, formally used as a testing site by gun manufacturers.
We're a removal company that works with the needs of our customers in mind, so whatever you're after, it's highly likely that we'll be able to accommodate your needs. We've designed our services with the aim of making them accessible to all who need them, which is why our removal services are priced very reasonably in comparison to our competitors in the UK and other removal companies operating in EN3. Our rates reflect this, as do our special deals which we regularly hold on different occasions throughout the year. To get the best moving experience, utilise our relocation services and you won't be disappointed. Book now!


text:
Divine Health Tips
Stay fit with nature
Natural Hair Growth Home Remedies
Quick Weight Loss Formula
Best treatment to stop hair loss
Revive Sex Drive
Tips to increase Penis size
Herbs #1
In general use, Herbs are any plants used for food, flavoring, medicine, or fragrances for their savory or aromatic properties. Culinary use typically distinguishes herbs from spices. Herbs refers to the leafy green or flowering parts of a plant (either fresh or dried).
Herbs have a variety of uses including culinary, medicinal, and in some cases, spiritual. General usage of the term "herb" differs between culinary herbs and medicinal herbs. In medicinal or spiritual use any of the parts of the plant might be considered "herbs", including leaves, roots, flowers, seeds, root bark, inner bark (and cambium), resin and pericarp.
Spices #2
A spice is a seed, fruit, root, bark, or other plant substance primarily use for flavoring, coloring or preserving food. Spices are distinguished from herbs, which are the leaves, flowers, or stems from plants used for flavoring or as a garnish. Sometimes, spices may be ground into a powder for convenience. Many spices have antimicrobial properties. This may explain why spices are more commonly used in warmer climates, which have more infectious diseases, and why the use of spices is prominent in meat, which is particularly susceptible to spoiling. Spices are sometimes used in medicine, religious-rituals, cosmetics or perfume production, or as a vegetable.
Herbs & Spices as Medicines
Traditionally herbs and spices were used as fragrant, flavor, delicious, aromatic and medicinal plants. Everyone can smell, eat, bath in, and heal with them. One of the most important uses of herbs and spices is cancer fighting.
To improve the overall health of the body, herbs and spices have been playing a major role for decades. They help in faster wound healing, make up for nutritional supplements and also deliver a host of benefits. Herbs strengthen the immune system, lower blood sugar and cholesterol levels, have anti-inflammatory properties, prevent Alzheimer's diseases, and various types of cancer.
Herbs eliminate the nutritional deficiencies and thus restore the correct functioning of the body. Herbs rectify various problems rather than suppress them. It is also said that herbs nourish every part of the body with their vitamin and mineral content. In short, our body needs certain essential dietary nutrients to meet the everyday demands of life because herbs provide us with most of the necessary components for a healthy life.
Herbs are normally used as flavoring additives to culinary dishes. Along with that, herbs are now an integral part of various medicinal practices in most countries.
Many herbal extracts like those derived from mint, licorice, fenugreek, ginkgo, and aloe vera are used in medicines. The health benefits of herbs vary with their type. For example, 'Artichoke' cures different kinds of digestive problems, whereas 'American Ginseng' works as a health tonic and 'Rosemary' promotes healthy brain function. Almost all herbs have some health benefits and you can consume them after the recommendation of a medical practitioner.
The US. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) define a spice as an "aromatic vegetable substance whose significant function in food is "seasoning rather than nutrition" and from which "no portion of any volatile oil or other flavoring principle has been removed. But herbs are defined as leafy and green part in non-woody plants of temperate climate zone. When fresh, herbs are more fragrant, but spices are mostly stronger as dried powders. In some cases both herb and spice may come from the same plant. Dill is an example; the seeds from the dill plant are spices, while the stalk of the plant is herb this is because herbs have always been recognized as the green, leafy products.
Frequently these plants are simply referred to as medicinal plants, disregarding their specific features, due to the complexity and overlapping uses of active ingredients and the great number of plant species involved in classification for herbs and spices.
"Medicinal and Aromatic Plants" (MAPs) term is more recently used, in a slightly broader sense, distinguishing the fragrant constituents-containing group of medicinal plants.
All in all enjoy your life with aromatic medicinal spices and herbs.
Got Tips
Total Visit : 1023932
Copyright © 2000 Divine Health Tips


On demand. Wherever you are.
Not all beauty solutions can be found in a can, a bottle, or a strip-mall. Sometimes we need professional help to come to us.
On demand beauty services in the palm of your hand. Bloom'd offers hair, makeup, men's grooming and manicures right from our app.
Sometimes we are busy, don't feel like leaving our home, can't leave the office, or get squeezed in for an appointment.


text:
Labour Deputy Leader Tom Watson faces second attempt to oust him as party conference kicks off
Labour Party Conference is set to for clashes on the party's Brexit stance too.
by Ben Gelblum
Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson faces being ousted as the party's annual conference was overshadowed by another round of vicious infighting.
The party's ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) is to vote on whether to abolish the position of deputy leader on Saturday as Labour's conference begins in Brighton.
Mr Watson has publicly clashed with Jeremy Corbyn on a number of occasions and has been pushing for Labour to back staying in the European Union in any future referendum.
The move to abolish the deputy leader post without warning or debate is undemocratic, wrong and should not happen. Those who came up with the idea for the eve of Labour Conference have taken leave of their senses.
— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) September 20, 2019
He recently called for a new Brexit referendum to be held before a general election.
The moves to oust him were labelled "mad" and "f***ing insane" by Labour MPs.
Labour hold four-point lead over Tories – joint highest lead since 2019 election
This thread from a business owner sets out grim reality of post-Brexit trade problems
'Previously booming businesses have been left to rot' due to 'poor Brexit deal'
'Brexit reality' trends as industry group warns stockpiling has masked reality of border chaos
Former leader Ed Miliband said those responsible had "taken leave of their senses".
Momentum failed to remove Tom Watson on Friday
A surprise attempt to get rid of the deputy post on Friday failed at an NEC meeting – from which Mr Watson was absent – because it was ruled out of order.
Despite a 17-10 vote in favour of debating the motion – which was pushed by Jon Lansman of the Corbyn-supporting Momentum group – the necessary two-thirds majority to overturn a ruling of the chair was not met.
The attempt to remove Mr Watson provoked a furious response from Labour MPs at a time when the conference is meant to put Mr Corbyn's team firmly on an election footing.
Former Labour leader Mr Miliband said: "The move to abolish the deputy leader post without warning or debate is undemocratic, wrong and should not happen.
"Those who came up with the idea for the eve of Labour conference have taken leave of their senses."
Tribal infighting in the middle of a Boris Johnshon-inspired national emergency makes me want to weep. My constituents and millions of others across the country desperately need the Labour party united right now. The Tories, not Tom Watson, are our opponents. Let's fight them.
— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) September 20, 2019
Ex-minister Yvette Cooper tweeted: "This is completely mad and incredibly destructive. Country faces serious challenges & General Election could be imminent. @UKLabour conference shd be about country & about pulling together. Instead we get this."
Former Cabinet minister Ben Bradshaw said the attempt to "purge" Mr Watson was "totally f***ing insane".
Tottenham MP David Lammy said: "Tribal infighting in the middle of a Boris Johnson-inspired national emergency makes me want to weep.
"My constituents and millions of others across the country desperately need the Labour party united right now. The Tories, not Tom Watson, are our opponents. Let's fight them."
"Completely outrageous"
A source close to Mr Watson told the Press Association that the situation was "completely outrageous".
Labour was already facing a battle over Brexit policy at the conference.
Activists have mounted a campaign to push the party to throw its weight behind the remain cause in any second referendum despite Mr Corbyn's hints he could stay neutral in a public vote.
Mr Corbyn has said that a Labour government would secure a "sensible" Brexit deal and put that to a referendum, with the other option being to stay in the European Union.
Mr Corbyn rejected claims that his policy was a "muddle" and that he was failing to offer leadership on an issue of crucial national importance.
"I am not sitting on the fence," he told ITV Yorkshire.
"I think leadership comes from listening. I think leadership comes from asking people to look at the realities of the situation.
"It is not a muddled position. It is a position that takes the issue seriously."
Labour Party Conference set to focus on Brexit stance
But scores of motions submitted by constituency parties at the conference in Brighton have called for the party to back staying in the European Union – which could mean campaigning against a deal secured by Labour negotiators.
Michael Chessum, from the left-wing Another Europe Is Possible group insisted: "This isn't about forcing Jeremy Corbyn to back remain personally, it's about the party machine – its vital data and infrastructure."
Scottish and Welsh Labour are both committed to the remain cause and members in Northern Ireland have submitted a motion to conference warning that "any form of Brexit threatens jobs, workers' rights, migrants, the NHS, public services and the environment".
Brighton Kemptown MP Lloyd Russell Moyle said: "As an English Labour MP, I worry about the message it sends to voters in the rest of the UK to have UK Labour contradicting the position they hear from their own Labour parties."
More than 90 motions are thought to have been submitted on Brexit, the majority supporting a remain stance.
Efforts to find an agreed form of words for a conference motion will take place at a behind-closed-doors meeting, with a vote on the party's position expected on Monday.
Meanwhile, Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson will promise to revive their bid to force a referendum on any Brexit deal that Boris Johnson brings to the Commons.
They will be at a rally on Saturday organised by the People's Vote campaign, which is calling for a referendum.
Mr Kyle said: "No one can trust Boris Johnson to solve this Brexit crisis either with no deal or a deal."
Meanwhile, Mr Corbyn is expected to address a rally at The World Transformed festival which runs alongside the Labour event on Saturday night, while his keynote speech will bring the conference to a close on Wednesday.
More than 13,000 people are expected to attend the five-day conference in some capacity, including 1,200 voting delegates.
Labour general secretary Jennie Formby said: "This year's conference in Brighton will see delegates take crucial votes to decide the direction of our movement, and how we deal with the tough issues that matter to us."
READ MORE: Tom Watson defies Jeremy Corbyn to call for referendum before a general election
Diane Abbott steps up pressure on Labour Deputy Tom Watson amid row following BBC Panorama
George Galloway bids to unseat Tom Watson at next election
Tom Watson accused of 'traducing' Labour general secretary publicly as she undergoes cancer treatment
Watson calls for People's vote while Thornberry labels PM "out of control"
Since you are here
Since you are here, we wanted to ask for your help.
Journalism in Britain is under threat. The government is becoming increasingly authoritarian and our media is run by a handful of billionaires, most of whom reside overseas and all of them have strong political allegiances and financial motivations.
Our mission is to hold the powerful to account. It is vital that free media is allowed to exist to expose hypocrisy, corruption, wrongdoing and abuse of power. But we can't do it without you.
If you can afford to contribute a small donation to the site it will help us to continue our work in the best interests of the public. We only ask you to donate what you can afford, with an option to cancel your subscription at any point.
To donate or subscribe to The London Economic, click here.
The TLE shop is also now open, with all profits going to supporting our work.
The shop can be found here.
You can also SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER .
Tags: headline
Parler: Names revealed of Tory MPs and commentators who joined app before it was banned
Safeguard controversial statues to save them from 'woke worthies' says Tory Minister


text:
svu.edu
Inter-Library Loans
Mon. - Thurs. 7:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Saturday 10 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Email librarian@svu.edu
Address One University Hill Drive
Buena Vista, VA 24416
©2023 • Southern Virginia University • Privacy Policy
Von Canon Library has a reciprocal borrowing agreement with Washington and Lee University and Virginia Military Institute. This means that students, faculty, and staff can check out materials from these institutions. Simply go to the library's circulation desk with your SVU id card, and tell them you are a Southern Virginia student and want to check out materials. They will help you with appropriate forms.
Please remember to return materials in a timely manner in order to keep our relationship strong with these institutions.
Washington and Lee Catalog
VMI Preston Library
Rockbridge Public Library (includes Buena Vista branch)


text:
Q: What the heck is going on? Chrome is giving "Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token ," In chrome the following code is giving me an error on some pages, but not others...
$.ajax({
    url : '/package-assignments/add.json',
    method : 'POST',
    data : {
        event_id : ,
        package_id : $(this).data('package').id,
        price : $(this).data('package').price,
        deposit : $(this).data('package').deposit
    }
});

For the life of me I can't figure out what is going on. the area red underlined in chrome editor tools is "e-assignments/add.json'," which makes even less sense, it starts mid string on an arbitrary letter 'e' and continues to end of the string...
When I remove the string after url and replace it with null the error stays the same but shows to be after "$.ajax({" which also... makes no freaking sense...

A: The problem is with: event_id : , You aren't providing a value for event_id and the comma is encountered when it isn't expecting one.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: My service randomlly close I made a service and when I sign in my app the services start by the following code
Intent i= new Intent(MenuPrincipalUsuarios.this, UsuarioService.class);
        i.putExtra("idUsuario",idUsuario);
        i.putExtra("nombreUsuario",nombreUsuario);
        i.putExtra("apellidoUsuario",apellidoUsuario);
        i.putExtra("emailUsuario", emailUsuario);
        i.putExtra("telefonoUsuario",telefonoUsuario);
        startService(i);
Everything is OK, but eventually the service die (close), I don't know why. Sometimes it's happen after 10 hours when I sign in, sometimes the service close after 15 minutes.
Why is so important to me that this service never close? Because I have a handler inside of this service that it's listening every 10 seconds if some new data appear in a table of my server.
The Service class is:
public class UsuarioService extends Service {

final Handler handler = new Handler();
JSONArray datosNotificacion = null;
String idCancha, anio, mes, dia, idNotificacion;
String mensaje;
String titulo;
String idOrigen;
String idUsuario;
String nombreUsuario;
String apellidoUsuario;
int diaHoy, mesHoy, anioHoy;
String emailUsuario;
String telefonoUsuario;

private static String url_fecha_actual= "http://hosting/get_dia_mes_anio_actual.php";

private static final String TAG_SUCCESSFECHA = "success";
private static final String TAG_FECHA = "fecha";
private static final String TAG_DIAHOY= "dia";
private static final String TAG_MESHOY= "mes";
private static final String TAG_ANIOHOY= "anio";
private static final String TAG_HORAREDONDEADA= "horaRedondeada";
String horaRedondeada;
private ProgressDialog pDialog;
JSONArray fecha = null;

String nombreOrigen;
//url para recibir notificacion
private static String url_notificacion = "http://hosting/get_notificacion?idUsuarioActivo=";
private static String url_delete_notificacion = "http://hosting/delete_notificacion.php?idNotificacion=";
private static final String TAG_SUCCESS = "success";
private static final String TAG_DATOSNOTIFICACION = "datosNotificacion";
private static final String TAG_IDNOTIFICACION = "idNotificacion";
private static final String TAG_IDORIGEN = "idOrigen";
private static final String TAG_NOMBREORIGEN = "nombreOrigen";
private static final String TAG_TITULO = "titulo";
private static final String TAG_MENSAJE= "mensaje";
private static final String TAG_DIA = "dia";
private static final String TAG_MES = "mes";
private static final String TAG_ANIO = "anio";
private static final String TAG_IDCANCHA = "idCancha";

@Override
public int onStartCommand(Intent intent, int flags, int startId) {
    //TODO do something useful
    idUsuario = intent.getStringExtra("idUsuario");
    nombreUsuario = intent.getStringExtra("nombreUsuario");
    apellidoUsuario = intent.getStringExtra("apellidoUsuario");
    emailUsuario = intent.getStringExtra("emailUsuario");
    telefonoUsuario = intent.getStringExtra("telefonoUsuario");
    runnable.run();
    return Service.START_NOT_STICKY;

}

@Override
public IBinder onBind(Intent intent) {

    //TODO for communication return IBinder implementation
    return null;
}

//Runnable para generar la accion de buscar notificacion cada X minutos
Runnable runnable = new Runnable() {
    public void run() {
        if(isConnectingToInternet(getApplicationContext())){
            new BuscarNotificaciones().execute();
        }
        handler.postDelayed(runnable, 10000);
    }
};

private boolean isConnectingToInternet(Context applicationContext){
    ConnectivityManager cm = (ConnectivityManager) getSystemService(Context.CONNECTIVITY_SERVICE);
    NetworkInfo ni = cm.getActiveNetworkInfo();
    if (ni == null) {
        // There are no active network
        return false;
    } else
        return true;
}

class BuscarNotificaciones extends AsyncTask<String, String, String> {
    @Override
    protected void onPreExecute() {
        super.onPreExecute();
    }
    protected String doInBackground(String... args) {
        // Obtenemos el string del JSON desde la URL
        JSONObject json2 = null;
        try {

            json2 = JSONParser.readJsonFromUrl(url_notificacion.concat(idUsuario));
        } catch (IOException | JSONException e) {
            e.printStackTrace();
        }
        try {
            // Verifica que se cargaron datos
            //assert json2 != null;
            int success;// = json2.getInt(TAG_SUCCESS);
            if(json2 == null){
                success = 0;
            }
            else {
                success = json2.getInt(TAG_SUCCESS);
            }
            if (success == 1) {
                Random random = new Random();
                int m = random.nextInt(9999 - 1000) + 1000;

                datosNotificacion= json2.getJSONArray(TAG_DATOSNOTIFICACION);

                JSONObject c2 = datosNotificacion.getJSONObject(0);
                idNotificacion = c2.getString(TAG_IDNOTIFICACION);
                idOrigen = c2.getString(TAG_IDORIGEN);
                nombreOrigen = c2.getString(TAG_NOMBREORIGEN);
                titulo = c2.getString(TAG_TITULO);
                mensaje= c2.getString(TAG_MENSAJE);
                dia= c2.getString(TAG_DIA);
                mes= c2.getString(TAG_MES);
                anio= c2.getString(TAG_ANIO);
                idCancha= c2.getString(TAG_IDCANCHA);
                //uri donde esta el sonido por defecto de la notificacion
                Uri uri= RingtoneManager.getDefaultUri(RingtoneManager.TYPE_NOTIFICATION);
                Bitmap bm = BitmapFactory.decodeResource(getResources(), R.drawable.notification_icon_large);

                Intent intent = new Intent(UsuarioService.this, CalcularHorariosDisponibles.class);
                intent.putExtra("idComplejo",idOrigen);
                intent.putExtra("idUsuario", idUsuario);
                intent.putExtra("idCancha",idCancha);
                intent.putExtra("dia",dia);
                intent.putExtra("mes",mes);
                intent.putExtra("anio",anio);
                intent.putExtra("nombreUsuario", nombreUsuario);
                intent.putExtra("apellidoUsuario", apellidoUsuario);
                intent.putExtra("diaHoy", String.valueOf(diaHoy));
                intent.putExtra("horaRedondeada", horaRedondeada);

                PendingIntent resultPendingIntent =
                        PendingIntent.getActivity(
                                UsuarioService.this,
                                m,
                                intent,
                                PendingIntent.FLAG_UPDATE_CURRENT
                        );//creamos la notificacion
                NotificationCompat.Builder n  = new NotificationCompat.Builder(UsuarioService.this)
                        .setContentTitle(titulo)
                        .setSound(uri)
                        .setSmallIcon(R.drawable.notification_icon)
                        .setLargeIcon(bm)
                        .setContentIntent(resultPendingIntent)
                        .setStyle(new NotificationCompat.BigTextStyle().bigText("El complejo " + nombreOrigen + " " + mensaje))
                        .setAutoCancel(true);
                NotificationManager notificationManager =
                        (NotificationManager) getSystemService(NOTIFICATION_SERVICE);
                notificationManager.notify(m, n.build());
                //eliminamos la notificacion para que no se sigan generando las notificaciones
                JSONObject json3 = null;
                try {
                    json3 = JSONParser.readJsonFromUrl(url_delete_notificacion.concat(idNotificacion));
                } catch (IOException | JSONException e) {
                    e.printStackTrace();
                }
            }
        } catch (JSONException e) {
            e.printStackTrace();
        }
        return null;
    }
    protected void onPostExecute(String file_url) {}
}

@Override
public void onDestroy() {
    handler.removeCallbacks(runnable);
    super.onDestroy();
}
}

If the service close, user dont receive the notification and it cant happen.
My AndroidManifest.xml:
<activity
        android:name=".MenuPrincipalUsuarios"
        android:label="¡Bienvenido!"
        android:screenOrientation="portrait"
        android:launchMode="singleTask"
        android:theme="@style/AppTheme.Dark" />

<service
        android:name="com.sourcey.modeloUsuarios.UsuarioService"
        android:icon="@drawable/notification_icon"
        android:label="Servicio"
        >
</service>

Also, users told me that the app sign out randomlly. It is happen in some phones. I don't know if this is related with the first problem. But if the app sign out alone they never gonna get the notification. And that's is a problem too.
Thanks for everything!
Thanks!


British impresario Eric Morley, who created the Miss World competition, has died at the age of 82.
Morley, who devised the competition in 1951, died on Thursday at the Princess Grace Hospital in west London after a heart attack.
The previous day he had missed the launch of the Miss World 2000 contest with what had been described as a "bad back".
The announcementof his death was made by Channel 5, which is televising this year's event at the Millennium Dome in London on 30 November.
His career in the entertainment industry started in 1946 when he joined the Mecca organisation. It grew into one of the UK's largest leisure groups with Morley as its chairman.
Miss World began as a promotional vehicle for Mecca, and profits from the pageant were donated to charities.
It was launched in 1951, timed to tie in with the Festival of Britain.
Morley's wife Julia took over day-to-day control of the contest in 1968 and in 1970 started to aim it at audiences around the globe.
The event grew in popularity around the world, and presently claims a television audience of two billion people.
In the UK, more than 18 million people watched it at its peak in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
However, in the late 1980s it became increasingly unfashionable in its home country. It disappeared from British screens when it was dropped by ITV.
It returned to mainstream TV in 1998 with the newly-launched Channel 5.
Morley is also credited with setting up the BBC's Come Dancing programme, which celebrated its 50th season in 1998.
As Mecca chairman he helped to popularise bingo, introducing the game to the company's venues across the UK.
He left Mecca in 1978 after falling out with its parent company, Grand Metropolitan.
Morley was a loyal supporter of the UK entertainers' charity, The Variety Club of Great Britain.
The organisation's chief barker Tony Hatch said: "Eric Morley was a giant man in every sense of the word, one of the great humanitarians of the 20th century.
"He will be sadly missed by all his friends throughout the world."
A spokeswoman for Channel 5 said Julia Morley was "in shock" and had asked for privacy.


text:
HSV puede refererse a:

 HSV (siglas del inglés Hue, Saturation, Value —'tonalidad, saturación, valor'—), también llamado HSB (siglas del inglés Hue, Saturation, Brightness —'tonalidad, saturación, brillo'—), modelo de color que se define en términos de sus componentes constituyentes en coordenadas cilíndricas.
 HSV, siglas del inglés Herpes simplex virus, referido al 'virus del herpes simple', también llamado virus Herpes hominis, que se usa para denominar a varias cepas de virus de la familia Herpesviridae que pueden causar varias infecciones en seres humanos.
 HSV (siglas del alemán Hamburger Sport-Verein, traducido al español como 'Asociación Deportiva de Hamburgo'), club de fútbol de Alemania.